By: Jonesy
- 18th November 2006 at 22:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thats what I heard too...reduction of turbulence.
Also the reduction of the whole 'dark side' issue from the current CVS's. Apparently the biggest nightmare for night ops off a CVS is when they end up in a hover off the starboard beam of the ship - on the wrong side of the island. Its known as flying into the dark side and is meant to be very unsettling going from the deck illumination to nothing very quickly.
Edit: It has to be said that Nimrods version of confining all the crabs to the second island so that can have happy chats amongst themselves is an obvious winner that I didnt consider!. I can see the 'Braveheart-esque' claims of 'its my island' becoming a common shout aboard the CVF's :dev2:
New
By: Anonymous
- 19th November 2006 at 01:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My guess is a island forward would be better for ship handling. While one at rear would be better for flight operations. So, two island would provide the best of both worlds.............just my 2 cents.
By: FAR
- 19th November 2006 at 10:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is there any more news on this only no other website seems to be carrying this story and the meeting was to have been held on the 9th? Its now 17th.
I haven't seen anything and as no one else has posted news it seems like there has been no other news. This could be for several reasons:
1. CVF hasn't gone before the IAB.
2. It has but has not been reported.
3. UK governement has got cold feet and are pulling out!
Hopefully it's one of the first 2! These deals always go backwards and forwards in the last stages so I wouln't assume that no news is bad news.
New
Posts: 101
By: Emgy
- 20th November 2006 at 16:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's what I thought as well, especially considering Kitty Hawk displaces 72k metric tons full load according to fas.org. Take a look at this page though
You can't just randomly choose metric or english units as it distorts things. CVF is not going to be a Kitty Hawk sized carrier.
Wasn't suggesting that at all, take a look at the link I put in after the "take a look at this page" and it'll show CVF proposal dimensions quite smaller than the Kitty Hawk, as well as deck plan and hangar drawings packed with JSF. http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-02.htm
The weight thing was just an unimportant comment from surfing on FAS, was not meant to suggest something as the link spells out the hard facts on dimensions.
By: TinWing
- 20th November 2006 at 17:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
which will make it the biggest carrier after the us super carriers.
Did you forget about Kuznetsov and ex-Varyag?
These Soviet-era 65,000 ton carriers are a great deal longer than CV-F, although the overload French variant is expected to have a significantly larger displacement.
New
By: Anonymous
- 20th November 2006 at 17:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Did you forget about Kuznetsov and ex-Varyag?
No, he didn't. Both the UK and French types are going to be about 75,000 tonnes.
By: harryRIEDL
- 21st November 2006 at 18:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yep as they are simalar desine to gorskov
New
By: Anonymous
- 21st November 2006 at 22:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yep as they are simalar desine to gorskov
Indeed, Kuznetsov is a hybrid, as it carries some quite potent weaponary (and has a very modest airgroup). However if Varyag became operational I doubt it would be fitted out in such a fashion. It would primarily be for deploying aircraft, though it will probably be just a trainer.
By: FAR
- 24th November 2006 at 12:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ROYAL NAVY'S WEAPONS PROJECTS AFFECTED BY DELAYS AND COST TROUBLES
By James Boxell
Published: November 24 2006 02:00 | Last updated: November 24 2006 02:00
The Royal Navy's two most important weapons projects have been hit by fresh cost overruns and delays, leading to renewed calls from the government for an urgent restructuring of the British naval industry, writes James Boxell.
According to a report from the National Audit Office, published today, the Astute submarine programme, dogged by cost overruns in the past, has slipped another £164m over budget, though it is due to be delivered ahead of schedule.
The Astute is one of the cost overruns, is CVF the other? The FT website contains only part of the story and stops short of naming the second project.
By: sealordlawrence
- 24th November 2006 at 12:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ROYAL NAVY'S WEAPONS PROJECTS AFFECTED BY DELAYS AND COST TROUBLES
By James Boxell
Published: November 24 2006 02:00 | Last updated: November 24 2006 02:00
The Royal Navy's two most important weapons projects have been hit by fresh cost overruns and delays, leading to renewed calls from the government for an urgent restructuring of the British naval industry, writes James Boxell.
According to a report from the National Audit Office, published today, the Astute submarine programme, dogged by cost overruns in the past, has slipped another £164m over budget, though it is due to be delivered ahead of schedule.
The Astute is one of the cost overruns, is CVF the other? The FT website contains only part of the story and stops short of naming the second project.
The Astute problems I can understand to an extent after having been told about the capability/skill/personel loss that occured in the manufacturing phase in the period between the trafalgar class and the Astutes, but if the CVF is the other in this case the MoD only has itself to blame simply for taking so much time, and lets face we have seen an aweful lot of change in the design.
By: FAR
- 24th November 2006 at 12:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Defence deals 'to be years late'
The MoD said it was negotiating harder with manufacturers
The Ministry of Defence's biggest equipment purchases will be delivered almost three years late on average, a report suggests.
The National Audit Office also found the 19 deals it monitored would cost £27bn - 11% over the original budget.
But its report said yearly increases to delays had "slowed" and that the MoD had recognised the "need to tighten its control of costs".
The Tories said there was a "growing crisis" in the military.
Less increase in delays
The NAO looked at orders for equipment such as air-to-air missiles, armoured vehicles, radios and submarines.
The average delay in delivery would be 33 months, it found.
Orders fell further behind by an average of 1.7 months last year - compared with 2.4 months the year before.
We are going to turn this charity into a business
Sir Peter Spencer, MoD
RAF fleet 'out of date'
Five of the 19 deals looked at dropped further behind schedule, with 12 staying the same and two being realised earlier than anticipated.
Forecast costs for the next generation of nuclear submarines - known as the Astute Class - increased by £164m last year because of "technical factors".
Those for the new Type 45 destroyers went up £157m.
'Could leave gaps'
The NAO revealed that the MoD had made savings of £333m over the year, but noted that some of this money had been found by reducing orders.
It warned that this could leave gaps in future fighting capability.
But Procurement Minister Lord Drayson said of the latest report: "I am pleased that the NAO has recognised the work that we have done to tighten our control of costs and live better within our means while continuing to deliver top class equipment to our troops.
"We must trade performance, cost and time to live within our means. We will benefit in the longer term from the tough decisions we have taken now".
Chief of Defence Procurement Sir Peter Spencer said the MoD was refusing to pay "inflated" prices demanded by manufacturers to use Typhoon planes to test the new Meteor missiles.
The missiles are considered vital weaponry for the new European fighter aircraft.
Sir Peter said: "We are going to turn this charity into a business, and a cost-effective business.
"We are not prepared to pay inflated prices for risks we believe should be under the control of industry.
"We have found a less risky way through...until we get a more sensible proposal."
But Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, said: "You don't get something for nothing - so it leaves me wondering what cuts have been made in other parts of the military to accommodate this financial reshuffle."
Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said: "The MoD is resorting to reducing the quantities of equipment on order as a way of saving money for the Treasury.
"With our commitments increasing, this seriously risks hindering the government's ability to provide our forces with the equipment they need to conduct future operations."
The armed forces were 6,330 below their required strength at the beginning of October - with the deficit up from 5,170 in July, MoD figures show.
By: Turbinia
- 24th November 2006 at 15:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BAE are there own worst enemies, let's face it their record on contract delivery isn't great. The Nimrod MR4 is a prime example, price has rocketed and now the RAF will get what,12, aircraft? And plenty of engineers at the time stated that BAe's proposals were not viable at their cost estimates.
New
By: Anonymous
- 24th November 2006 at 17:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Really, this is a great example of Goverment waste and just re-inventing the wheel! With so many ex-airliners as platforms why try to rebuild a 50 year old design??? :(
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 24th November 2006 at 17:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Really, this is a great example of Goverment waste and just re-inventing the wheel! With so many ex-airliners as platforms why try to rebuild a 50 year old design??? :(
I have often wondered why this wasnt intergrated with the Tanker programme and the Nimrod R1's and then have a future large aicraft programme. :confused:
New
By: Anonymous
- 24th November 2006 at 18:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have often wondered why this wasnt intergrated with the Tanker programme and the Nimrod R1's and then have a future large aicraft programme. :confused:
True.............in either case the UK could have based it on several Airbus Platforms or maybe even the A-400 and at least you could export it to other partners. Personally, I just don't get it.......... :(
By: Tango III
- 26th November 2006 at 09:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MP wants answer on warships
SCOTS MP has demanded information on the part Rosyth dockyard will play in building the Royal Navy's two super aircraft carriers.
Dunfermline and Fife West MP Willie Rennie tackled Defence Secretary Des Browne on the issue as MPs debated the Government's legislative programme for the coming year.
The Lib Dem MP raised the question of the two giant warships during the discussion of Britain's defence priorities for the future.
He told Mr Browne: "In the coming months, Rosyth is expecting a decision to proceed with the construction of two future aircraft carriers." Mr Rennie asked when a decision was expected.
He also requested more details on what role Rosyth would have in the project.
Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram responded by telling Mr Rennie that the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the House of Lords wanted the carriers to be built in the United States.
By: Anonymous
- 26th November 2006 at 14:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SCOTS MP has demanded information on the part Rosyth dockyard will play in building the Royal Navy's two super aircraft carriers.
Dunfermline and Fife West MP Willie Rennie tackled Defence Secretary Des Browne on the issue as MPs debated the Government's legislative programme for the coming year.
The Lib Dem MP raised the question of the two giant warships during the discussion of Britain's defence priorities for the future.
He told Mr Browne: "In the coming months, Rosyth is expecting a decision to proceed with the construction of two future aircraft carriers." Mr Rennie asked when a decision was expected.
He also requested more details on what role Rosyth would have in the project.
Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram responded by telling Mr Rennie that the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the House of Lords wanted the carriers to be built in the United States.
Well, the US would be happy to build the CVF's or any Carrier in the US for UK. Yet, I don't see any practical reason for such a move? Further, look at the thousands of jobs that would be lost!
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 18th November 2006 at 22:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thats what I heard too...reduction of turbulence.
Also the reduction of the whole 'dark side' issue from the current CVS's. Apparently the biggest nightmare for night ops off a CVS is when they end up in a hover off the starboard beam of the ship - on the wrong side of the island. Its known as flying into the dark side and is meant to be very unsettling going from the deck illumination to nothing very quickly.
Edit: It has to be said that Nimrods version of confining all the crabs to the second island so that can have happy chats amongst themselves is an obvious winner that I didnt consider!. I can see the 'Braveheart-esque' claims of 'its my island' becoming a common shout aboard the CVF's :dev2:
By: Anonymous - 19th November 2006 at 01:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My guess is a island forward would be better for ship handling. While one at rear would be better for flight operations. So, two island would provide the best of both worlds.............just my 2 cents.
Posts: 210
By: FAR - 19th November 2006 at 10:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I haven't seen anything and as no one else has posted news it seems like there has been no other news. This could be for several reasons:
1. CVF hasn't gone before the IAB.
2. It has but has not been reported.
3. UK governement has got cold feet and are pulling out!
Hopefully it's one of the first 2! These deals always go backwards and forwards in the last stages so I wouln't assume that no news is bad news.
Posts: 101
By: Emgy - 20th November 2006 at 16:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wasn't suggesting that at all, take a look at the link I put in after the "take a look at this page" and it'll show CVF proposal dimensions quite smaller than the Kitty Hawk, as well as deck plan and hangar drawings packed with JSF. http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-02.htm
The weight thing was just an unimportant comment from surfing on FAS, was not meant to suggest something as the link spells out the hard facts on dimensions.
Posts: 932
By: TinWing - 20th November 2006 at 17:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Did you forget about Kuznetsov and ex-Varyag?
These Soviet-era 65,000 ton carriers are a great deal longer than CV-F, although the overload French variant is expected to have a significantly larger displacement.
By: Anonymous - 20th November 2006 at 17:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, he didn't. Both the UK and French types are going to be about 75,000 tonnes.
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 20th November 2006 at 18:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
and they arn't pure carriers their hybrids
By: Anonymous - 21st November 2006 at 17:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you talking about the Kuznetsov and Varyag?
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 21st November 2006 at 18:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yep as they are simalar desine to gorskov
By: Anonymous - 21st November 2006 at 22:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indeed, Kuznetsov is a hybrid, as it carries some quite potent weaponary (and has a very modest airgroup). However if Varyag became operational I doubt it would be fitted out in such a fashion. It would primarily be for deploying aircraft, though it will probably be just a trainer.
Posts: 210
By: FAR - 24th November 2006 at 12:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ROYAL NAVY'S WEAPONS PROJECTS AFFECTED BY DELAYS AND COST TROUBLES
By James Boxell
Published: November 24 2006 02:00 | Last updated: November 24 2006 02:00
The Royal Navy's two most important weapons projects have been hit by fresh cost overruns and delays, leading to renewed calls from the government for an urgent restructuring of the British naval industry, writes James Boxell.
According to a report from the National Audit Office, published today, the Astute submarine programme, dogged by cost overruns in the past, has slipped another £164m over budget, though it is due to be delivered ahead of schedule.
The Astute is one of the cost overruns, is CVF the other? The FT website contains only part of the story and stops short of naming the second project.
https://registration.ft.com/registration/barrier?referer=http://search.ft.com/searchResults?queryText=royal+navy&javascriptEnabled=true&location=http%3A//www.ft.com/cms/s/1d3f2204-7b61-11db-bf9b-0000779e2340.html
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 24th November 2006 at 12:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Astute problems I can understand to an extent after having been told about the capability/skill/personel loss that occured in the manufacturing phase in the period between the trafalgar class and the Astutes, but if the CVF is the other in this case the MoD only has itself to blame simply for taking so much time, and lets face we have seen an aweful lot of change in the design.
Posts: 210
By: FAR - 24th November 2006 at 12:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Defence deals 'to be years late'
The MoD said it was negotiating harder with manufacturers
The Ministry of Defence's biggest equipment purchases will be delivered almost three years late on average, a report suggests.
The National Audit Office also found the 19 deals it monitored would cost £27bn - 11% over the original budget.
But its report said yearly increases to delays had "slowed" and that the MoD had recognised the "need to tighten its control of costs".
The Tories said there was a "growing crisis" in the military.
Less increase in delays
The NAO looked at orders for equipment such as air-to-air missiles, armoured vehicles, radios and submarines.
The average delay in delivery would be 33 months, it found.
Orders fell further behind by an average of 1.7 months last year - compared with 2.4 months the year before.
We are going to turn this charity into a business
Sir Peter Spencer, MoD
RAF fleet 'out of date'
Five of the 19 deals looked at dropped further behind schedule, with 12 staying the same and two being realised earlier than anticipated.
Forecast costs for the next generation of nuclear submarines - known as the Astute Class - increased by £164m last year because of "technical factors".
Those for the new Type 45 destroyers went up £157m.
'Could leave gaps'
The NAO revealed that the MoD had made savings of £333m over the year, but noted that some of this money had been found by reducing orders.
It warned that this could leave gaps in future fighting capability.
But Procurement Minister Lord Drayson said of the latest report: "I am pleased that the NAO has recognised the work that we have done to tighten our control of costs and live better within our means while continuing to deliver top class equipment to our troops.
"We must trade performance, cost and time to live within our means. We will benefit in the longer term from the tough decisions we have taken now".
Chief of Defence Procurement Sir Peter Spencer said the MoD was refusing to pay "inflated" prices demanded by manufacturers to use Typhoon planes to test the new Meteor missiles.
The missiles are considered vital weaponry for the new European fighter aircraft.
Sir Peter said: "We are going to turn this charity into a business, and a cost-effective business.
"We are not prepared to pay inflated prices for risks we believe should be under the control of industry.
"We have found a less risky way through...until we get a more sensible proposal."
But Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, said: "You don't get something for nothing - so it leaves me wondering what cuts have been made in other parts of the military to accommodate this financial reshuffle."
Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said: "The MoD is resorting to reducing the quantities of equipment on order as a way of saving money for the Treasury.
"With our commitments increasing, this seriously risks hindering the government's ability to provide our forces with the equipment they need to conduct future operations."
The armed forces were 6,330 below their required strength at the beginning of October - with the deficit up from 5,170 in July, MoD figures show.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6177812.stm
It seesm like the other system in the FT report is T45 not CVF.
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 24th November 2006 at 12:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does everybody remember when the head of BAe said that the only way to get any deal done with the MoD was to lie about the price?
Posts: 847
By: Turbinia - 24th November 2006 at 15:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BAE are there own worst enemies, let's face it their record on contract delivery isn't great. The Nimrod MR4 is a prime example, price has rocketed and now the RAF will get what,12, aircraft? And plenty of engineers at the time stated that BAe's proposals were not viable at their cost estimates.
By: Anonymous - 24th November 2006 at 17:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Really, this is a great example of Goverment waste and just re-inventing the wheel! With so many ex-airliners as platforms why try to rebuild a 50 year old design??? :(
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 24th November 2006 at 17:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have often wondered why this wasnt intergrated with the Tanker programme and the Nimrod R1's and then have a future large aicraft programme. :confused:
By: Anonymous - 24th November 2006 at 18:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True.............in either case the UK could have based it on several Airbus Platforms or maybe even the A-400 and at least you could export it to other partners. Personally, I just don't get it.......... :(
Posts: 25,376
By: Tango III - 26th November 2006 at 09:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MP wants answer on warships
SCOTS MP has demanded information on the part Rosyth dockyard will play in building the Royal Navy's two super aircraft carriers.
Dunfermline and Fife West MP Willie Rennie tackled Defence Secretary Des Browne on the issue as MPs debated the Government's legislative programme for the coming year.
The Lib Dem MP raised the question of the two giant warships during the discussion of Britain's defence priorities for the future.
He told Mr Browne: "In the coming months, Rosyth is expecting a decision to proceed with the construction of two future aircraft carriers." Mr Rennie asked when a decision was expected.
He also requested more details on what role Rosyth would have in the project.
Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram responded by telling Mr Rennie that the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the House of Lords wanted the carriers to be built in the United States.
This article: http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1750222006
By: Anonymous - 26th November 2006 at 14:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, the US would be happy to build the CVF's or any Carrier in the US for UK. Yet, I don't see any practical reason for such a move? Further, look at the thousands of jobs that would be lost!