CVF Construction

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 13,434

Is there an alternative to the RR lift fan easily available, or will the US still purchase them?
1) No. 2) Yes. If the UK didn't buy a single F-35 of any kind, the lift fan & other VL components (there's more to it that just the fan) would still be made by Rolls-Royce. There is no other supplier. BTW, people here really ought to listen to the Radio 4 Today programme, yesterday morning. It's on BBC iPlayer. Between the end of the news bulletin at 08:09 & the end of the programme at 09:00. Quentin Davies was completely straightforward. No prevarication, no ifs & buts - and remember, this is a politician! The story is rubbish. Nothing has changed. Policy is exactly the same. The carriers are - as was always planned - being built for STOVL, with the option of changing to CTOL. No final decision has been taken whether to buy F-35B, F-35C, or, indeed, anything else. But F-35B is the preferred option, & planning is being done on the basis of buying it - as has always been the case.

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 1,142

1) No. 2) Yes. If the UK didn't buy a single F-35 of any kind, the lift fan & other VL components (there's more to it that just the fan) would still be made by Rolls-Royce. There is no other supplier. BTW, people here really ought to listen to the Radio 4 Today programme, yesterday morning. It's on BBC iPlayer. Between the end of the news bulletin at 08:09 & the end of the programme at 09:00. Quentin Davies was completely straightforward. No prevarication, no ifs & buts - and remember, this is a politician! The story is rubbish. Nothing has changed. Policy is exactly the same. The carriers are - as was always planned - being built for STOVL, with the option of changing to CTOL. No final decision has been taken whether to buy F-35B, F-35C, or, indeed, anything else. But F-35B is the preferred option, & planning is being done on the basis of buying it - as has always been the case.
The reason I asked was because I heard someone mention that the lift fan was actually being built under license from Honeywell, which confused me somewhat. I will give the radio program a listen at some point, but it is odd the way certain comments quoted online have put a new emphasis in the C variant at this late stage. The govt had never really mentioned it as an alternative. When they used to talk about alternatives it was in case the F35 program collapsed and the Typhoon needed to be adapted or some outlandish idea like that. Any reason for this?

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 3,614

Politics. If people knew the main fall-back was simply another variant of the same aircraft, they would really feel locked into a "foreign buy". Also, for simplicity's sake, the PR hacks assumed that if one version failed, the whole program would be gone. They may have actually believed this, I don't know. The -B was the first choice for 2 reasons: 1. cost. installing & operating the catapults & arresting gear would cost quite a bit, while the ski-jump costs little beyond the steel. 2. commonality. The RAF had ordered -Bs as a specific Harrier replacement, to make use of partially damaged runways, parking lots, paved roads, etc. This meant that if the RN got -Bs they could both operate side-by-side everywhere. This also goes back to cost. There are advantages to STOVL combat aircraft operating from carriers as well... mainly in cycle rate & a greater range of operating sea-states/weather conditions. The advantages in cat&trap come in the AEW, A-A refueling, and cargo aircraft that can be carried that are more effective than STOVL/rotorcraft tasked with the same mission. That is why the "easy convertibility" feature was designed into CVF from the start... so that the RN wouldn't be locked into one or the other over the ~50 years CVF was expected to be in service.

Member for

13 years 10 months

Posts: 1,039

So we can say that this was just a misunderstanding and move on............ Has anyone come across any piccies yet of any of the parts of CVF being assembled no matter how minor ?

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 1,142

So we can say that this was just a misunderstanding and move on............ Has anyone come across any piccies yet of any of the parts of CVF being assembled no matter how minor ?
Every little helps: http://www.defpro.com/news/details/9341/

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 1,620

I have not really followed the design process up 'till now. What is the reason they have gone for 2 islands?

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 1,142

I have not really followed the design process up 'till now. What is the reason they have gone for 2 islands?
The placement of a single island has to be optimised either for air operations (best stationed aft) or ships operation (best stationed forward). The Americans go for air ops, the French go for ship ops, Britain has chosen to do both. It means that air ops can be optimally controlled as can ship ops. It probably build some redundancy into the ship as well, the island always looked like a bit of a juicy target for a SSGW to me.

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 1,025

The placement of a single island has to be optimised either for air operations (best stationed aft) or ships operation (best stationed forward). The Americans go for air ops, the French go for ship ops, Britain has chosen to do both. It means that air ops can be optimally controlled as can ship ops. It probably build some redundancy into the ship as well, the island always looked like a bit of a juicy target for a SSGW to me.
I'm fairly sure there is a gas turbine or two under each Island in sponsoons as well.

Member for

10 years 4 months

Posts: 420

Roll up Roll up read all about it 1st parts going to Rosyth http://www.modoracle.com/news/52m-Equipment-Contracts-Placed_18799.html?category=all Wow i didn't know they were this far ahead in the CVF construction i didn't think we would see anything happening at Rosyth for at a least a year. £52m Equipment Contracts Placed As the first sections of the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers arrive at the Rosyth dockyard where they will be assembled, work is continuing apace to deliver the machinery, fixtures and fittings that will equip the ships. The Ministry of Defence has announced that sub-contracts for the new Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers worth over £52m for a wide range of equipment have been placed, helping to secure jobs and sustain work for industry across the UK. Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, Quentin Davies, said: "As well as the everyday essentials such as washing machines and TVs that will make the ship’s company comfortable onboard, the contracts announced today provide for some of the highly sophisticated equipment that will make these ships fit for the Royal Navy of the 21st century. "With construction well underway and the first units of the pre-fabricated units having arrived at the dockyard in Rosyth where they will be assembled, the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers are beginning to take shape." The UK is procuring two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy - HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The carriers will be the biggest and most powerful surface warships ever constructed for the Royal Navy and will deliver an increased strategic effect and influence around the world. The ships will be delivered by the Aircraft Carrier Alliance - an innovative alliance comprising industry participants and MOD in which MOD acts as both client and participant. For the manufacture phase the industrial participants will be the BAES/VT planned Joint Venture, Thales, Babcock and BAES (Surface Ships & Insyte). Tony Graham, Head of Capital Ships within MOD's Defence Equipment & Support, said: "The vast majority of Queen Elizabeth Class supply contracts have now been placed. These latest orders begin to close out the few remaining supply agreements needed to finish HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. "Our supply chain stretches the length and breadth of the UK and as such we recognise that the build of these two important warships is a national endeavour of great consequence for jobs, skills and local pride." The sub-contracts include: £16m for 12,000 valves by Score Marine Ltd, based in Peterhead, who employ 675 people at the site; £15m for an integrated waste management system managed by Babcock Strachan and Henshaw in Bristol, helping to sustain employment for their suppliers for the next six to eight years; and £3m for ship lighting and lighting distribution panels by McGeoch Technology Ltd, based in Birmingham, as well as several other smaller contracts. The Queen Elizabeth Class carriers together with the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and the brand new Type 45 destroyers will form the cornerstone of Britain's future ability to jointly project airpower world-wide from land or sea at a time and place of the UK's choosing. For more information click on or go to http://www.mod.uk

Member for

10 years 4 months

Posts: 420

Just i thought about how the UKIP party had a defence review that called for a 3rd CVF. Not that they will ever get into power but i just thought that France will still need a 2nd carrier so just maybe we could do a deal in the future of ordering another 2 CVF's. 1 for France and 1 for the UK. They should be able to be built cheaper as lessons will have been learned during construction. Also the MOD might discover that it is really hard trying to operate 2 CVF's and that to have 1 on station we need a third one. Or maybe in 10 years time we will see France ordering 2 CVF's to be built in their yards. Wonder how much the UK could get a third for if they added it to the order for the 2 French ones. Could we get a CVF for £1.2 Billion or less? We would be looking at at least 2016-2024 for construction. In my eyes to build a CVF 10 years after the previous 2 will help as the CVF out of service dates won't all come at once. Also should help make sure we can run them for 50 years if the load is spread over 3 instead of 2 ships.

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 33

Just i thought about how the UKIP party had a defence review that called for a 3rd CVF. Not that they will ever get into power but i just thought that France will still need a 2nd carrier so just maybe we could do a deal in the future of ordering another 2 CVF's. 1 for France and 1 for the UK. They should be able to be built cheaper as lessons will have been learned during construction. Also the MOD might discover that it is really hard trying to operate 2 CVF's and that to have 1 on station we need a third one. Or maybe in 10 years time we will see France ordering 2 CVF's to be built in their yards. Wonder how much the UK could get a third for if they added it to the order for the 2 French ones. Could we get a CVF for £1.2 Billion or less? We would be looking at at least 2016-2024 for construction. In my eyes to build a CVF 10 years after the previous 2 will help as the CVF out of service dates won't all come at once. Also should help make sure we can run them for 50 years if the load is spread over 3 instead of 2 ships.
- 1,2 billion £ for the 3rd carrier:D:D:D very too optimistic - After the amount of problem, of delay, and the sacrifice that the royal navy would be taken (reduced this fleet drastically) for receive there 2 carrier...... a 3rd were a pure dream....really !

Member for

10 years 4 months

Posts: 420

Yeah i doubt a 3rd CVF would happen but who know's what situation we will be in in 10-15 years and if the French want 1 who knows. But i agree highly unlikely. One question about a Cat and trap CVF is people on here are always saying how much the waist catapult impacts on flight operations. What is the advantages/disadvantages of having 2 catapults running off the front? Maybe keep the waist one there for emergency's or just have the 2 off the front.
Profile picture for user kev 99

Member for

11 years 2 months

Posts: 1,533

Even if it was possible there are far more pressing concerns for RN, aircraft, frigates, Destroyers, SSNs, RFA replacements.................
Profile picture for user Fedaykin

Member for

13 years 11 months

Posts: 5,267

http://www.modoracle.com/news/52m-Equipment-Contracts-Placed_18799.html?category=all Wow i didn't know they were this far ahead in the CVF construction i didn't think we would see anything happening at Rosyth for at a least a year. £52m Equipment Contracts Placed As the first sections of the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers arrive at the Rosyth dockyard where they will be assembled, work is continuing apace to deliver the machinery, fixtures and fittings that will equip the ships. The Ministry of Defence has announced that sub-contracts for the new Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers worth over £52m for a wide range of equipment have been placed, helping to secure jobs and sustain work for industry across the UK. Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, Quentin Davies, said: "As well as the everyday essentials such as washing machines and TVs that will make the ship’s company comfortable onboard, the contracts announced today provide for some of the highly sophisticated equipment that will make these ships fit for the Royal Navy of the 21st century. "With construction well underway and the first units of the pre-fabricated units having arrived at the dockyard in Rosyth where they will be assembled, the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers are beginning to take shape." The UK is procuring two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy - HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The carriers will be the biggest and most powerful surface warships ever constructed for the Royal Navy and will deliver an increased strategic effect and influence around the world. The ships will be delivered by the Aircraft Carrier Alliance - an innovative alliance comprising industry participants and MOD in which MOD acts as both client and participant. For the manufacture phase the industrial participants will be the BAES/VT planned Joint Venture, Thales, Babcock and BAES (Surface Ships & Insyte). Tony Graham, Head of Capital Ships within MOD's Defence Equipment & Support, said: "The vast majority of Queen Elizabeth Class supply contracts have now been placed. These latest orders begin to close out the few remaining supply agreements needed to finish HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. "Our supply chain stretches the length and breadth of the UK and as such we recognise that the build of these two important warships is a national endeavour of great consequence for jobs, skills and local pride." The sub-contracts include: £16m for 12,000 valves by Score Marine Ltd, based in Peterhead, who employ 675 people at the site; £15m for an integrated waste management system managed by Babcock Strachan and Henshaw in Bristol, helping to sustain employment for their suppliers for the next six to eight years; and £3m for ship lighting and lighting distribution panels by McGeoch Technology Ltd, based in Birmingham, as well as several other smaller contracts. The Queen Elizabeth Class carriers together with the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and the brand new Type 45 destroyers will form the cornerstone of Britain's future ability to jointly project airpower world-wide from land or sea at a time and place of the UK's choosing. For more information click on or go to http://www.mod.uk
Indeed this is good news! Something like £700 million has been contracted out now! Hopefully with each section delivered and each multi million contract placed it will weaken the position of the naive "Lets cancel the carrier brigade"! It never fails to amaze me how pundits in this country will argue the cancellation of projects when the money is SPENT! For example Nimrod MRA4 still gets calls for cancellation despite the fact that the money has been spent and its nearly ready to enter service! Also I wish the term "Cold war relic" would be banished from the press as it paints a false picture to the public. Its only used by fans and pundits of each service to bash procurement projects of the other services. I think the term "Cold war relic" should be replaced with "Retaining the ability to fight a hot war against a moderate enemy"!
Profile picture for user Obi Wan Russell

Member for

13 years

Posts: 519

Indeed this is good news! Something like £700 million has been contracted out now! Hopefully with each section delivered and each multi million contract placed it will weaken the position of the naive "Lets cancel the carrier brigade"! It never fails to amaze me how pundits in this country will argue the cancellation of projects when the money is SPENT! For example Nimrod MRA4 still gets calls for cancellation despite the fact that the money has been spent and its nearly ready to enter service! Also I wish the term "Cold war relic" would be banished from the press as it paints a false picture to the public. Its only used by fans and pundits of each service to bash procurement projects of the other services. I think the term "Cold war relic" should be replaced with "Retaining the ability to fight a hot war against a moderate enemy"!
Well said that man! I second the motion! Also I wish nay sayers would get their facts straight when suggesting the CVFs are the most expensive defence program around and thus cancellation would cure all the ills of defence funding. The cost of the CVFs doesn't even come close to some of the RAF's programs (the aforementioned MRA4 for example, Typhoon Tranche 3 etc), so the really big savings would have to come from elsewhere anyway. Right now, I believe cancelling the CVFs would mean ZERO savings when penalty clauses are factored in. Also the small matter of the decimation of the Shipbuilding industry, as there is nothing else on the horizon to fill the order books. FSC is still years away from being ready to order. I think the current buch of reprobates in government have begun to realise that there are votes in defence after all. Certainly there are no votes to be gained by defence cuts. The public, because of the government's disasterous handling of the wars in Iraq and the 'Stan now equate defence spending, or rather the lack of it, with dead soldiers and job losses. Cuts will not go down well with the electorate, and I'm sure behind the scenes somebody will have told them that there is nothing left to cut realistically. The fat went in the 80s, muscle in the 90s and we have been cutting into bone for the last decade. Time for some body building instead, good for jobs, the economy and whoever is in power when it happens!
Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 13,434

...Also I wish nay sayers would get their facts straight when suggesting the CVFs are the most expensive defence program around ...
Not even the most expensive RN programme around. Type 45 is more.
Profile picture for user kev 99

Member for

11 years 2 months

Posts: 1,533

Not even the most expensive RN programme around. Type 45 is more.
Ironic that a number of those naysayers advocate that we bin CVF and buy more T45s instead, and never mind the question "what are you buying those destroyers to protect then?"

Member for

13 years 9 months

Posts: 366

Not even the most expensive RN programme around. Type 45 is more.
Isn't Astute program more as well (not including the ancillary cost of the CVF Air wing AEW ect)

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 1,142

Isn't Astute program more as well (not including the ancillary cost of the CVF Air wing AEW ect)
I think it is yes. But then SSNs are useful with or without carriers, unlike T45. How did it get to the point where the navy had to give up the escorts to get the carriers, thus making it unsafe to send the carriers anywhere? Stupid country.

Member for

10 years 10 months

Posts: 72

I think it is yes. But then SSNs are useful with or without carriers, unlike T45. How did it get to the point where the navy had to give up the escorts to get the carriers, thus making it unsafe to send the carriers anywhere? Stupid country.
Welcome to New Labour & the 21st century.