CVF Construction

Member for

11 years

Posts: 240

I thought i would add in some interesting pictures of JSF i found on Richard beddall Navy matters site. This site is wonderful for Navy stuff. http://frn.beedall.com/ What we could of ended up with, BAE and Mcdonnell Douglas Variant. ( not many pictures of this floating around) Personally i like it. http://frn.beedall.com/images/jast-md-ng-bae.jpg Will we see this one day soon? The F-35 operating from the Invincible class carriers deck. i'm guessing we will see this for trials now the 3 aircraft are on order. http://frn.beedall.com/images/f35b-uk-2006.jpg It seems like for the harrier upgrade there was 2 seperate projects i think. I haven't seen much about what these aircraft was going to be like or have on them. Quite an interesting development i think. There is the Harrier 3 here from around the 1990's. http://frn.beedall.com/images/harrier3.jpg And the Super harrier that seems to have been thought of sometime in the 80's. Probably as the success the harrier had in Falklands some people thought lets go crazy. http://frn.beedall.com/images/superharrier.jpg Has anyone got any pic's of the CVF development. How's the super block building getting along. I've not been down to roysth recently but i'm not sure there is any activity going on there anyway with CVF. Maybe some ships in Refit to look at.
Check out Professional Engineers Magazine for construction of bulbous bow, this months desider for construction of super blocks and Novembers for delivery of fin stabilizers. Swiftsures had a 15 degreeish downward pointing mid tube to clear the new chin sonar they used, rate of fire was restored by using a new fast reloading system(!)
Profile picture for user Stan hyd

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 604

I know this is going to sound really stupid, but what the hell. I was reading this article over the weekend in the times. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article6982328.ece And I wondered if 10 years in the future the Gov goes, crap its costing a hell of a lot to keep these things at sea when oil is at £200 a barrel. Could they remove the turbines and just drop something along the lines of this in its place. Given its claimed simplicity?
Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 13,435

What's the energy density? How does it scale? The TRIGA small reactor design Freeman Dyson was involved in many years ago was relatively cheap, simple, reliable & very safe, but not suitable for powering ships, for several reasons. One was that it didn't produce enough power in relation to its size & weight. IIRC it didn't scale up very well, either. Successful in its niche (dozens built), but that niche was limited.

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 1,142

What's the energy density? How does it scale? The TRIGA small reactor design Freeman Dyson was involved in many years ago was relatively cheap, simple, reliable & very safe, but not suitable for powering ships, for several reasons. One was that it didn't produce enough power in relation to its size & weight. IIRC it didn't scale up very well, either. Successful in its niche (dozens built), but that niche was limited.
It is unclear what size would produce the sufficient power for CVF, whilst still being small enough. My main concern here is where they say they are competing with diesel generators not industrial plants, so they run at a lower efficiency. That low efficiency might make a plant of necessary output too big. It might be possible though to take the concept and try and do something similar with a PWR2, so it can be slotted into the CVFs more easily.
Profile picture for user Stan hyd

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 604

a container size power plant for the CVf would be attractive thoguh would it not especially it its sealed and requires no input. Im just thinking of 10-20 years time when we think can we change this about a bit?

Member for

13 years 11 months

Posts: 1,039

Given the French experience with trying an unconventional nuclear approach to powering their carrier I doubt the RN would be able to sensibly de-risk any other option apart from conventional turbines.

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 1,142

a container size power plant for the CVf would be attractive thoguh would it not especially it its sealed and requires no input. Im just thinking of 10-20 years time when we think can we change this about a bit?
Oh definitely, as long as costs could be kept down. It'd require a few crew members specifically trained though (probably to the same standards as the sub crews using PWR's), more than a commercial reactor would need, in case of battle damage etc and the lack of technicians who can simply arrive when needed.
Given the French experience with trying an unconventional nuclear approach to powering their carrier I doubt the RN would be able to sensibly de-risk any other option apart from conventional turbines.
I think the main point was to use a slightly modified civilian reactor, once the technology matures a bit and oil becomes v. expensive again. It'd basically be a COTS type thing.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 1,025

Given the French experience with trying an unconventional nuclear approach to powering their carrier I doubt the RN would be able to sensibly de-risk any other option apart from conventional turbines.
Using the Generators to produce electricity to power electric engines is a completely different propulsion system to the old style steam driven propulsion of the CdG.

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 420

I'm no expert on Nuclear Power in warships so i'm not sure what size we are talking about here. Given the size and space that the current turbine's Engine room would take up on the CVF that would surely be big enough to fit a couple of reactor's in. Looking at the size of a submarine i don't imagine the reactor's are that big. In the film K-19 the reactor room seemed quite small. Mind you I wouldn't want any of those types on my ship! The MOD must of looked at costings for oil versus nuclear and found that it was cheaper to run on oil throughout the service life versus nuclear? Mind you then again:rolleyes: I know CVF is meant to be flexible and future proof but i'm not sure if the engines were as flexible as installing catapults for example. With the UK maybe going to buy commercial reactor's for UK power stations possibly from Westinghouse or another US company a deal could probably be done if the same company made reactor's for the US carriers. The UK has probably done in depth studies into reactor powered ships and carriers and the differences they would have from submarine reactors like PW1 and 2 for example so the same mistakes as France shouldn't happen. I doubt we will ever see Nuclear power in CVF. Maybe in some future fantasy world where the UK had to have lots more carriers than 2 in service but not in the real world. Lets just hope we get 2 CVF's in service and not a couple of incomplete hulks dockside. Would be a nice view when driving over the forth road bridge though. Anyone been down that way or know of a good vantage point to see Rosyth for any progress recently. My grandad used to take my dad to see the Forth Road bridge during construction so hopefully there is somewhere to see CVF's being built from. Any idea's let me know.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 1,025

I'm no expert on Nuclear Power in warships so i'm not sure what size we are talking about here. Given the size and space that the current turbine's Engine room would take up on the CVF that would surely be big enough to fit a couple of reactor's in. Looking at the size of a submarine i don't imagine the reactor's are that big. In the film K-19 the reactor room seemed quite small. Mind you I wouldn't want any of those types on my ship! The MOD must of looked at costings for oil versus nuclear and found that it was cheaper to run on oil throughout the service life versus nuclear? Mind you then again:rolleyes: I know CVF is meant to be flexible and future proof but i'm not sure if the engines were as flexible as installing catapults for example. With the UK maybe going to buy commercial reactor's for UK power stations possibly from Westinghouse or another US company a deal could probably be done if the same company made reactor's for the US carriers. The UK has probably done in depth studies into reactor powered ships and carriers and the differences they would have from submarine reactors like PW1 and 2 for example so the same mistakes as France shouldn't happen. I doubt we will ever see Nuclear power in CVF. Maybe in some future fantasy world where the UK had to have lots more carriers than 2 in service but not in the real world. Lets just hope we get 2 CVF's in service and not a couple of incomplete hulks dockside. Would be a nice view when driving over the forth road bridge though. Anyone been down that way or know of a good vantage point to see Rosyth for any progress recently. My grandad used to take my dad to see the Forth Road bridge during construction so hopefully there is somewhere to see CVF's being built from. Any idea's let me know.
There have been a few small "nuclear battery" concepts that have come up in the media since the design for CVF was finalised. One of the ones I was reading about was 30MW, which is just under the power produced by one of CVF's GT's. This particular reactor was a sealed unit, which once built is never opened again.

Member for

11 years

Posts: 63

As far as I am aware the GT generators are in the sponsons under the Islands, so if replaced by reactors and all tehplumbing and shielding the ship might develop a quite remarkable list! I believe when the il press went balistin in the 70s the RN designers did a comparison study for a coal powered Type 45. The outcome was that it was a lot more practical to build a palnt on shore to turn the coal into oil then use that in the ships. The same is almost certainly true for CVF. Better by far for the MOD to buy some farm land and grow enough crops for sufficient biodiesel too keep one carrier iperational at a time, as planned, than to embark in expesnive high tech and risky alterations to a then older ship.

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 3,614

Since CVF(UK) is powered by gas turbines (similar to, but much larger than, the shaft turbines that power helicopters & prop-driven transport aircraft like C-130 & A400M) driving electric generators, which then power electric motors driving the propellers, what is the future of fuel for that type of engine? The USAF is working on that... http://www.rentechinc.com/pdfs/Tennesse%20Air%20Guard%20-%20First%20Test%20Flights%20of%20Coal-Derived%20Fuel.pdf
Synfuel skies: Tennessee Air Guard Wing Helps in First Test Flights of Coal-Derived Fuel By Wayne Risher, Memphis Commercial Appeal Thursday, January 15, 2009 The Air Force's first coal-powered jet tested the skies over Greater Memphis this week. A C-5 Galaxy, fueled by a 50-50 blend of traditional jet fuel and a synthetic fuel made from coal, took off and landed at Memphis International Airport and performed touch-and-go landings at Millington Regional Jetport. The field testing, based at the Tennessee Air National Guard facility on Swinnea, was part of an Air Force effort to develop alternative fuels that lessen reliance on foreign oil. "What I was told is, America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have an abundance of it," said Master Sgt. Fred Carver, a test director from the Air Mobility Command's Test and Evaluation Squadron at McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. "This is the first time an Air Force aircraft has been tested with this coal-derived fuel," Carver said. Carver led a team from three Air Force bases that converged on the 164th Airlift Wing last week to perform the tests. The C-5 is a supersized military transport, capable of tipping the scales at nearly 1 million pounds when it is loaded with tanks and other cargo. Nine are stationed at the wing's new base at the northwest corner of Swinnea and Shelby Drive. Col. Harry Montgomery, wing commander, said the 164th was honored to help with the tests. "The offer came down and we had the availability to do it, so we volunteered to be the test site for the C-5," he said. "If it reduces our dependence on foreign oil to provide the fuel the Air Force needs, I see it as a great thing." While coal-based fuel is an alternative to petroleum products, it's still a fossil fuel and thus subject to environmental debate. The country's commitment to developing clean coal technology was an issue in the 2008 presidential election. The Air Force Research Lab certified a blend of up to 50 percent coal-based synthetic for testing purposes. It has been used by the British military and commercial aircraft in South Africa since at least the 1990s, with no known problems, Carver said. The C-5 and and other Air Force jets historically have burned kerosene-based jet propellant. Carver said the Air Force also has tested a synthetic fuel derived from natural gas in B-52s, C-17s, KC-135s and F-22 fighters. A flight crew from the 164th flew a Galaxy in a preliminary test Tuesday with one of four engines fueled with the coal-based blend. With all four engines burning the blend, the plane flew a four-hour training mission Wednesday that included the stop at Millington and attainment of altitudes up to 28,000 feet, wing spokeswoman Maj. Kris Jones said. After the second flight, Carver said early data looked good. Carver said the Air Force would use the results from the Memphis tests to determine whether there should be more extensive evaluation. "This is what we call an operational assessment; it's a quick look to see if further tests are warranted." -- Wayne Risher: 529-2874
How much coal is left in Wales? :diablo:
Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 13,435

Since CVF(UK) is powered by gas turbines (similar to, but much larger than, the shaft turbines that power helicopters & prop-driven transport aircraft like C-130 & A400M) driving electric generators, which then power electric motors driving the propellers, what is the future of fuel for that type of engine? The USAF is working on that... http://www.rentechinc.com/pdfs/Tennesse%20Air%20Guard%20-%20First%20Test%20Flights%20of%20Coal-Derived%20Fuel.pdf How much coal is left in Wales? :diablo:
Coal derived oil has been around for a long time. It's useful for emergency use, when your other supplies of oil are vulnerable to interruption. It's horribly expensive compared to fuel refined from crude oil, & consumes a great deal of energy to make. It's far cheaper & more efficient to use coal directly, where practical. It'd probably be cheaper to switch from using oil anywhere it can easily be replaced (e.g. electricity generation, large-scale heating plants), to make more available for the military, & build up stockpiles. I wonder how much oil the US military uses in applications where coal, or other fuel, could be used directly, without expensive conversion? Is any money being spent on reducing oil dependence in those areas?

Member for

12 years

Posts: 594

Another £300m worth of contracts announced Fire Fighting HVAAC Scafolding and Painting equipment The contract to float the various parts to Rosyth BBC News
Profile picture for user Doug97

Member for

13 years 9 months

Posts: 417

Aircraft carrier contracts named Aircraft carrier contracts named
Contracts to supply the Royal Navy's next generation of aircraft carriers, worth a third of a billion pounds, have been announced. Five new suppliers are to benefit from the programme to build the Queen Elizabeth Class flagships. The companies will provide fire-fighting equipment, air conditioning, paintwork and scaffolding Some of the contracts have been secured by companies based in Glasgow, Yorkshire and Manchester. Supporting jobs One of the most challenging contracts is an £85m contract to float the various blocks of the two super-carriers to their assembly point in Rosyth, Fife. That has been awarded to Henry Abrams of Glasgow. Other contracts to provide heating, ventilation and air-conditioning, worth £120m, have been awarded to Imtech, a Dutch company with UK headquarters in Billingham on Teesside. Paint and access, including all the scaffolding required during the build process will cost £105m, and has been awarded to Pyeroy of Gateshead, and Cape of Wakefield, which will form a joint venture based at Rosyth. The ships' fire-fighting systems, including sprinklers, are to be provided by Tyco of Manchester, at a cost of £15m. The 65,000 tonne ships are to have 2,500 kilometres of cabling, being installed for £8m by AEI Cables of Birtley in County Durham. With much of the steel already ordered, the total of sub-contracted orders for the super-carriers is expected to reach about £1.5bn. "Once in service, these ships will provide the UK Armed Forces with a vital and extensive naval capability," said Geoff Searle, director of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, which includes the three lead contractors and the Ministry of Defence. "Most of these contracts, placed for the Aircraft Carrier Alliance will support local economies and jobs throughout the UK regions," he continued. Challenging task In the past 12 months, the first steel of the ships' hulls has been cut at Govan in Glasgow. Work has also started on HMS Queen Elizabeth at three other yards, as well as the dock in Rosyth where the ships are to be assembled. "This news should reassure those who doubt this government's commitment to the programme," said Quentin Davies, the UK defence equipment minister. "These sub-contracts will contribute thousands of jobs throughout the supply chain in addition to the thousands of jobs at the main shipyards which are building the ships. The build phase of the Carrier programme is now well under way". Michael Abram from Henry Abrams said being awarded the transport contract added to the company's long-seafaring history, and would be challenging. "We now plan to employ naval architects, structural engineers, design engineers, graduates, and administration staff to work alongside our existing staff and consortium partners to ensure safe and successful delivery of all cargoes to Rosyth," he said. The super-carriers are to be three times the displacement of the Royal Navy's current Invincible class of carrier, and the first of them is due to enter service in 2016.
That'll teach me to waste time cutting-and-pasting ...
Profile picture for user Doug97

Member for

13 years 9 months

Posts: 417

... Rolls-Royce, developer and manufacturer of the shaft-driven lift fan and other propulsion components for the F-35B STOVL variant ...
No mention of the F136 I see ...
Profile picture for user Stonewall

Member for

13 years 10 months

Posts: 452

MoD to Slash Jet Fighter Orders as it Struggles to Save Aircraft Programme (excerpt) (Source: The Guardian; issued January 12, 2010) Defence chiefs are preparing drastic cuts to the number of American [F-35 JSF] stealth aircraft planned for the RAF and the Royal Navy's proposed new carriers, the Guardian has learned. They will be among the first casualties, with existing squadrons of Harrier and Tornado jets, of a huge shift in military spending being considered by ministers, officials and military advisers. As they head towards their biggest and most painful shakeup since the Second World War, a consensus has emerged among the top brass that they cannot afford the 140 American Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) they have been seeking. The JSF, or F35 as it is now called, has been subject to costly delays and the estimated price has soared from £37m each four years ago to more than £62m today. One compromise would be for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to halve its order from 140 planes to 70. There is also a growing view that Britain will not be able to afford to build the two large aircraft carriers, already delayed, let alone the planes due to fly from them. "The carriers are under real threat. There will certainly be a big reduction in JSF numbers," a well-placed military source told the Guardian. "The carriers are about more fast jets. They are very hard to justify," added a defence official, referring to a growing consensus that the RAF already has too many fast jets. If the order was halved, it would probably be split so that there was a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) version for the carriers, and a conventional version based at RAF ground stations. Among other options being considered are: downsizing the second carrier to a much cheaper platform for helicopters, marine commandos, and unmanned drones; building both carriers but selling one, perhaps to India; and equipping them with cheaper catapult-launched aircraft. No decisions will be made until after the general election. However, there is a consensus developing in the MoD that Britain simply cannot afford existing plans to build two large carriers in a project which, if the JSF planes are included, would cost an estimated £25bn. (end of excerpt) Click here for the full article, on the Guardian website. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/12/defence-aircraft-jet-fighters-budget
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/111290/uk-seen-slashing-jsf-orders-to-weather-coming-defense-cuts.html
Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 13,435

That's at least the third time that story has been posted here. Can we stop now?
Profile picture for user Stonewall

Member for

13 years 10 months

Posts: 452

That's at least the third time that story has been posted here. Can we stop now?
I'm sorry, this story is dated from 12th January...and I'm just the messenger

Member for

11 years

Posts: 63

Building one CVF and designing a new smaller carrier would cost a hell of a lot more than two CVFs. The carriers are really relatively cheap, and most of the cost has either been spent or would be lost in compensation for the breaking of contracts, the savngs that are to be had are in getting the aircraft selection right. I seem to remember that this is an army man, who clearly has little knowlege of wider defence issues.