CVF Construction

By: harryRIEDL - 15th September 2009 at 22:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

We've already paid about 25% of the bill, for development & setting up production. Do the penalty clauses mean we get it all back if we cancel?

Clobbers the British firms building large parts of it, as well, if we cancel & buy American. Neither C-17 nor C-130J have significant UK content, unlike A400M.

engines in the C-130 are British owned these days (Allison part of RR) agreeded neither are UK built.

On another note a little of OT according to an old Hansard the UK gov planed to re-engine the C-130K's with the RR Tyne apart from a few mentions in Hansard I have no specifics of what the changes would have done as the Tyne is a more powerful engine I assume the C-130 would have to be altered to deal with the power

By: swerve - 15th September 2009 at 23:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The Belfast had four Tynes, & had 50% more take-off weight than a contemporary C-130. A Transall carries 80% of the cargo of a C-130 (admittedly, over a shorter range) on just two Tynes. Why not just buy more Belfasts, if a more powerful, heavier-lift transport was wanted?

By: harryRIEDL - 16th September 2009 at 11:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The Belfast had four Tynes, & had 50% more take-off weight than a contemporary C-130. A Transall carries 80% of the cargo of a C-130 (admittedly, over a shorter range) on just two Tynes. Why not just buy more Belfasts, if a more powerful, heavier-lift transport was wanted?

Well its only something that i came across just browsing and was suprised but here it is

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey)

I will, with permission, answer Questions Nos. 49 and 57 together.

No orders or formal contracts have yet been placed for the supply of C130 and F4 aircraft for the Royal Air Force. As I said in a Written Answer on 11th February, arrangements have been made with the Government of the United States which will enable us to make a small initial order of both types of aircraft with options to buy more when the Government have decided the number of aircraft required in the light of the present defence review.

This arrangement became effective on the afternoon of 9th February, 1965, after signature by the United States Secretary for Defence—following my own signature on 8th February.

Detailed discussions are now in hand with the United States Government about the initial aircraft orders. They will cover such matters as the procurement of British equipment, including the Spey engine for the F4 and the possible installation of the Tyne engine in the C130. The final cost of these aircraft will depend on the arrangements made for the incorporation of British equipment.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1965/feb/15/ministry-of-defence-united-states#S5CV0706P0_19650215_HOC_206

By: StevoJH - 16th September 2009 at 11:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The Belfast had four Tynes, & had 50% more take-off weight than a contemporary C-130. A Transall carries 80% of the cargo of a C-130 (admittedly, over a shorter range) on just two Tynes. Why not just buy more Belfasts, if a more powerful, heavier-lift transport was wanted?

I asked a similar question on the Nav Weps board a couple of months back.

By: pjhydro - 18th September 2009 at 14:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Wow this has drifted off topic.... to join in, there was a proposal for a Belfast fuselage to be married to a Starlifter wing/engine set. Would have been a great airlifter.

By: F35b - 18th September 2009 at 15:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I suppose the question with the C-130 is what happens first. Does it run out of space to put things or does it get to heavy? I'm guessing it's space or i think seeing as we were the launch customer for the C-130J we could of got Lockheed to put much more powerful engines on it if they were needed.

By: Sintra - 18th September 2009 at 18:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I suppose the question with the C-130 is what happens first. Does it run out of space to put things or does it get to heavy? I'm guessing it's space or i think seeing as we were the launch customer for the C-130J we could of got Lockheed to put much more powerful engines on it if they were needed.

It runs out of space.

Cheers

By: pjhydro - 18th September 2009 at 18:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

It runs out of space.

Cheers

Unless you pack lead...he says fasiciously.

By: Sintra - 18th September 2009 at 22:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Unless you pack lead...he says fasiciously.

:D

By: crgritchie - 2nd October 2009 at 12:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

thank god for penalty clauses.

The only way it seems to keep a british government doing what they said they would do!.

Im all for the A400M cancellation. Buy more C-130's and C-17s

Leave the euro fighter and carriers alone.

I know though knowing our policitians they will scrap the JSF deal and say we can make do with Harriers. Or only buy 30.

IMHO, this is exactly what we should do to trim the budget. Just buy an initial small batch of around 15 JSFs to provide an air defense squadron for the operational carrier, and have the Harriers soldier on for several more years as mud movers, much as the French Navy did initially with the Rafale/Modified Super Etendard combo. So HMS Queen Elizabeth may have 7 F35B, 12-14 GR.9s, 4 SeaKing AEW and 6-8 Merlins for ASW to start with.

In the 1960s the Navy tried to order carriers (CVA-01 programme), escorting destroyers (Type 82 class) and fighter aircraft for them (Phantom FG.1) and the most important component, the carriers, was cancelled. They should learn from their mistakes - yet have Type 45, CVF and JSF programmes running concurrently again!. Can't do anything more about the 45s (and 1/2 were cancelled anyways) but we need to ensure the carriers get built, so what if they have a small and/or outmoded strike wing initially? We could also encourage european allies who are taking the JSF to get a few F35Bs to operate off our decks, the Italian and Spanish Navies and the USMC may provide airframes from time to time aswell.

BTW, agree A400M represents poor value, but think we should instead look to make a smaller purchase, just big enough to protect jobs here in UK, and make up the rest with extra C130J purchases.

By: crgritchie - 2nd October 2009 at 12:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Agreed for the most part, though on the last point, keeping the Harriers running isn't a viable option, after 2018 they will start running out of fatigue life, which has already been extended as far as practically possible. The F-35s don't have to be ordered all in one go though, and this is a program that will be spread over many years. An initial purchase of up to 60 aircraft will give an initial operational capability (30 is too few to be of practical value, not enough for one carrier air group let alone an OCU or attrtion reserve) and then more batches can be ordered later, as the production lines will be open well into the 2020s. During the transition period from Harrier to F-35, they will be operated side by side for s few years, with the FAA scheduled to recieve them first. This should free up a large number of Harrier airframes for the RAF, so they can pick and choose the best airframes from a larger pool to eke out the fatigue life of the remaining aircraft.

Both the Italian and Spanish navies operate fleets of around 15 AV-8Bs and this is sufficient for them to operate a small squadron of around 8 aircraft off their carriers' decks - so this is a feasible number for an IOC for the Navy. We could draw heavily on the US for training aswell. I'd suggest retiring a squadron of RAF/RN Harriers ASAP, in order to rotate the airframes and keep that type in service for as long as possible, eventually to be replaced in a follow-on F35B order.

By: StevoJH - 2nd October 2009 at 13:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I'd suggest retiring a squadron of RAF/RN Harriers ASAP, in order to rotate the airframes and keep that type in service for as long as possible, eventually to be replaced in a follow-on F35B order.

Actually, now that the Afghan commitment of the Harriers has come to an end and the GR.9 upgrade is complete or near completion, the RN is actually standing its second harrier squadron back up. RN Harriers to be day and night carrier qualified and the RAF harriers to be day qualified.

By: Obi Wan Russell - 2nd October 2009 at 13:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Both the Italian and Spanish navies operate fleets of around 15 AV-8Bs and this is sufficient for them to operate a small squadron of around 8 aircraft off their carriers' decks - so this is a feasible number for an IOC for the Navy. We could draw heavily on the US for training aswell. I'd suggest retiring a squadron of RAF/RN Harriers ASAP, in order to rotate the airframes and keep that type in service for as long as possible, eventually to be replaced in a follow-on F35B order.

Actually, the plan is the opposite. 801NAS is due to stand up next year and future deployments aboard the carriers are scheduled to be with 10+ aircraft. 8 aircraft is fine for carriers like Principe de Asturias or Garibaldi, perhaps even Cavour, but the CVFs will look empty with just eight aircraft on deck. The Spanish and Italian Navies have for a long time only operated a single carrier each as well, but this is changing. Italy now has two carriers, which alternate but share a single air group. That is goint to put a strain on the pilots and ground crew, ideally it should be one air group per carrier so that when the carrier is in refit, the air group can recuperate, rest, train and prepare. Spain will soon have two flat tops in service as well, but only one sqn of Harriers. Careful planning will be needed to avoid straining the aircrew.

By: swerve - 2nd October 2009 at 14:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

BTW, agree A400M represents poor value, but think we should instead look to make a smaller purchase, just big enough to protect jobs here in UK, and make up the rest with extra C130J purchases.

If we remain in the programme, it makes sense to buy as many as possible. Cancelling aircraft with a large British component in favour of an entirely imported aircraft would not protect jobs here in the UK.

By: crgritchie - 5th October 2009 at 14:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Actually, the plan is the opposite. 801NAS is due to stand up next year and future deployments aboard the carriers are scheduled to be with 10+ aircraft. 8 aircraft is fine for carriers like Principe de Asturias or Garibaldi, perhaps even Cavour, but the CVFs will look empty with just eight aircraft on deck. The Spanish and Italian Navies have for a long time only operated a single carrier each as well, but this is changing. Italy now has two carriers, which alternate but share a single air group. That is goint to put a strain on the pilots and ground crew, ideally it should be one air group per carrier so that when the carrier is in refit, the air group can recuperate, rest, train and prepare. Spain will soon have two flat tops in service as well, but only one sqn of Harriers. Careful planning will be needed to avoid straining the aircrew.

It's great news the Navy is reinstating its other Harrier squadron, but my comment wasn't about what is happening or going to happen, but rather what I believe the MoD should do as the 'least worst' scenario. Yes, CVFs will look empty with only 8 JSFs (don't forget I was suggesting that the airgroup would also have 12-16 Harriers and 10-12 Helos aswell, so it wouldn't look THAT empty) but better a CVF force with an empty-looking deck than having 1 or both CVFs cancelled in the forthcoming cuts.
Incidentally, for a ship of it's size the CVF would look rather empty anyway, the old USS Midway and USS Coral Sea were comparable size and fielded 76 aircraft, inc 48 F/A-18s.

By: crgritchie - 5th October 2009 at 14:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

If we remain in the programme, it makes sense to buy as many as possible. Cancelling aircraft with a large British component in favour of an entirely imported aircraft would not protect jobs here in the UK.

The reasons for leaving the A400M programme are:
1) late
2) overweight
3) underpowered
4) cost
Reasons for staying in:
1) Protected skilled UK jobs on the A400M programme
2) Possible export prospects
3) Retaining Airbus wing manufacturing in the UK for the future.
My suggestion was to buy the minimum to achieve the aims for staying in, whilst shifting the remaining units to C130J to achieve those aims aswell. Say, for example 6 C130Js were ordered, this'd provide short-term relief to the stretched and ageing RAF fleet whilst the A400Ms were being built and their problems resolved, it would also hedge against the failure of that type, and save a few quid with a bit of luck.

By: Fedaykin - 5th October 2009 at 17:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

1) late - It is late but in comparison to other programs like C130J thats not unusual
2) overweight - It is but weight savings have been identified to bring it within acceptable program margins
3) underpowered - Not really, its slightly bellow the expected max power but well within the specificated margins and the development team are delighted with its power output
4) cost - Can't argue that

By: F35b - 6th October 2009 at 17:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Has anyone seen any pictures of progress been made on CVF since the first cutting pictures?
Does anyone with ship building knowledge know what the progress will look like. I imagine they are just cutting lots of sheets just now and then will start putting them together like a big jigsaw. The assemble these jigsaws into a bigger jigsaw and then put them together to start making the blocks?

My friends dad works at McTaggarts in loanhead. Next time i see him i will ask how the progress on the aircraft lifts is going. Maybe he can take a few pictures for me.

By: XM692. - 6th October 2009 at 17:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Has anyone seen any pictures of progress been made on CVF since the first cutting pictures?
Does anyone with ship building knowledge know what the progress will look like. I imagine they are just cutting lots of sheets just now and then will start putting them together like a big jigsaw. The assemble these jigsaws into a bigger jigsaw and then put them together to start making the blocks?

Some very large pieces of carrier have been finished at DML's Appledore yard and left recently to kick start the hull/s.....

Link

.

By: F-18RN - 6th October 2009 at 18:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Anyone else think it ironic that it was a Russian ship that transported the parts.