GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5933 times:
Finally, after a very hard fought competition, BAE Systems has the lead role in the design, construction and support (over up to 50 years) of the 950 foot CVF aircraft carriers.
The largest warships ever built for the Royal Navy, they will have an airgroup of up to 48 F-35B aircraft, the STOVL JSF.
As well as Merlin helicopters for ASW, SAR and probably AEW.
Should the F-35B get cancelled, the ships are designed to be easily converted to conventional carrier operations, which would mean the F-35C.
Though the official reason was to future proof the design in case future aircraft do not offer STOVL.
BAE and Thales competed for the contract, but Thales did not lose, their design is forming the basis of the CVF, this involves politics, for although Thales has substantial assets in the UK, and would have to build the ships here, it has a large stake owned by the French government, inconceivable France would order such a large, high profile project, to a foreign firm.
But BAE have had a poor relationship with the Ministry Of Defence recently, due to a number a projects being late, and over cost. BAE not winning totally, is their revenge, and a warning.
Although a bit of a fudge, it is probably the best all-round solution, Europe talks the talk about increasing defence co-operation, to avoid wasteful duplication, this contract is walking the walk.
But, good news for the Navy, (the previous big carrier project, CVA-01 cancelled in 1966, did not get this far).
Now, names!
A traditional capital ship name, better yet, an old carrier name too, suitably imposing for these 65,000 ton vessels, with the frequent RN tradition of ship classes named alphabetically .
How about HMS Furious and HMS Formidable?
(With the involvement of Thales, we could hardly call them HMS Nelson and HMS Wellington could we?)
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5830 times:
Ark Royal is to stay in service until 2015, when the second CVF is commissioned, you cannot have 2 ships in the same navy, with the same name, at the same time.
I would not rule out Ark Royal being converted to a dedicated Commando Carrier, once the first CVF arrives in 2012, this would take it to about 2020.
The current 'pure' Commando Carrier, HMS Ocean, will be replaced in 2018, two new Commando Carriers could replace them both.
Both Ark Royal and Ocean are en-route to the Gulf right now with Commandos and helicopters.
FACT From South Africa, joined Jul 2002, 200 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5784 times:
Names? How about HMS Valiant and HMS Warspite? The subs of those names should be long-gone by the time these two take to the water (they are already, of course, no longer in commision, but the hulls still exist AFAIK).
Does the Royal Navy really have any "traditional" aircraft carrier names besides HMS Ark Royal (3 ships)? Only other names to have been assigned to more than one carrier as far as I remember are HMS Eagle, HMS Hermes, and HMS Illustrious (HMS Indomitable would have been another, as it was the name originally intended for the current HMS Ark Royal).
Maybe HMS Eagle and HMS Hermes will get the nod ... certainly the latter might have been a shoo-in in years gone by, especially with the Falklands association still in many people's minds, although there seems to have been a move away from Greek/Roman mythology names of late. So maybe the RN will end up with another Eagle/Ark Royal combo ... déja vu
Ark Royal's name could easily be freed-up by selling the carrier to another navy, such as India. The youngest in a class doesn't always last the longest, just look at the Fearless and Intrepid as an example.
Interesting that final assembly of the carriers is to take place at Rosyth - I don't remember anything except submarines coming out of there before, or did they build some of the Rothesay/Leander-class frigates back in the 60's as well? I suppose construction will take place in a drydock at Rosyth, so there'll be no traditional slide down the builder's slipway
/ Andrew D
[Edited 2003-01-30 21:55:11]
there are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't
2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5752 times:
Why not HMS Nelson? It is a whole new class of vessel, one that brings the RN into the future of naval aviation/power projection, much as Nelson himself did. Especially if the hull was to be laid down in 2005, the 200th anniversery of Nelson's victory at Trafalger.
(Did you ever notice that at Napoleon's tomb in Paris they have the names of all his great battles inlaid on the floor? But for some reason it does not include Waterloo....Hmmmm... )
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5739 times:
Ark Royal is the most capable of the current carriers, as well as the newest so the RN won't want to lose it before it's time, but CVF 01 will likely replace Both Invincible and Illustrious in 2012.
Bsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5674 times:
I base these comments on little more than my own personal experience and what one reads in the media (which, as we all know, is entirely factual and accurate 100% of the time..), but...
In the words of an armed robber, "Everybody stand up and hold hands, this is a f*ck up!"
In my experience, Thales has the better management and BAES has the better engineers. To organise the programme the other way round, for predominantly political reasons, is asking for trouble. Entry into service in 2012? Hmm. All pigs fed and ready to fly, sir! But what do I know? I only performed a small part of the research and conceptual studies for a small part of the system.
BAES (which we are sure changed it's acronym so that "British Ars*h*le" no longer fitted) has a history of incompetent management and leadership. That's part of the reason why the 'informed' media have commented on the statements from insiders that the Thales design philosophy must be used, as much as a punitive measure because of the other BAES programme overruns as anything else.
As soon as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrup Grumman or another genuinely effective world leader in defence programmes buys/merges with BAES and sorts out its management structure, some of us may have a little more faith in them. Until then, I'd prefer to buy second hand carriers from India instead of the other way around...
The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
FlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 15 Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5662 times:
For names, my votes are for...HMS Hood & HMS Vanguard. Two fine battlecruisers of their time. Seems fitting to put them to carriers as carriers nowadays are the first line of offense. And no more battlecruisers nor battleships will ever be built again. Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5649 times:
Bsergonomics is probably right, however I view the decision as a severe warning to BAE, until December they thought they had the whole contract in the bag.
The CVF, as well the the MoD refusing to help them out financially over contract problems on the Nimrod upgrade and Asute class subs, has put a rocket up their backsides.
From our own experience with BAE, they probably laid off a load of people which was a factor in the problems with other contracts.
Other potential CVF names;
Resolution and Renown, or Repulse.
FACT From South Africa, joined Jul 2002, 200 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5640 times:
HMS Vanguard isn't available at the moment, it's the name of first of the 4 Trident ICBN carrying submarines, and they're supposed to remain in service until 2025 or later. If I'm not mistaken, HMS Nelson is currently assigned to a shore establishment (a "stone frigate").
The name intended for the lead ship of the cancelled CVA01 project of the 60's, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is another possibility.
there are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5628 times:
That's right FACT, I also understand that Prince Of Wales for the proposed name for the second CVA, if the RN are still even today smarting from that project's demise, they may well be tempted to revive the names.
But CVA would have been too heavy on manpower, relied on cuts elsewhere in other services (the RAF were dead against it for a start), and the design had problems, too heavy (though deleting the inappropriate Sea Dart area-defence SAM would have helped).
Plus the RN were already getting capital ships in the shape of the Valiant class nuclear powered attack subs, as well as the Resolution class Polaris subs, at the same time as the CVA programme.
These lessons have been learnt, through CVF the RAF are getting steathly, highly advanced aircraft in the shape of the F-35B, RAF aircraft will provide some of CVF's airgroup, modern technology helps greatly with manning levels and CVF seems appropriate for UK defence requirements today, in 1966 the UK was withdrawing from extra-NATO commitments, the main role of the RN was anti-sub warfare against the USSR. Plus the UK economy was up shit creek then.
It looks like R/R will provide the propulsion for CVF, hopefully lessons and systems from the Type 45 Destroyer programme can be carried over to CVF.
G-KIRAN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2000, 736 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5560 times:
I read in Warships international that the most likely name for the carriers would be HMS Hermes and HMS Eagle.I am fine with Eagle,but I would prefer Hermes to be replaced by Invincible.I hope that once we have these carriers that the MOD wont do a Healy or a Nott and scrap after 10 years,as I am thinking about apllying for the Fleet Air Arm instead of the RAF.
N949WP From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5487 times:
I'm surprised that the names "Hood" and "Prince of Wales" were being floated around. Those two ships represents some of the most tragic moments of the Royal Navy in modern history.
Given the significance of this new class of vessels to the RN, perhaps the illustrious name from another revolutionary vessel from a century ago should be resurrected -- HMS Dreadnaught.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5454 times:
Why would it be bad karma? There have been other ships with the names of previously sunken vessels. Such as the USS Yorktown, USS Hornet, USS Wasp, HMS Sheffield etc, etc.
Bsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5439 times:
I'm surprised that, in the modernist world of the current British government, modern names haven't been suggested, such as
New Illustrious
New Ark Royal
HMS Beckham
or, along the lines of portraying might,
HMS Come On Then If You Think You're Hard Enough (well, it should be long enough to paint that on the side!)
The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
Buckfifty From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1314 posts, RR: 21 Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5427 times:
Why would it be bad karma? There have been other ships with the names of previously sunken vessels. Such as the USS Yorktown, USS Hornet, USS Wasp, HMS Sheffield etc, etc.
HMS Hood was lost, with only 3 survivors out of 1400, from one 18" shell that destroyed it's forward magazine. 3 survivors...any sailor would think twice boarding a ship with it's namesake suffering a fate like that. It's just bad karma.
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5376 times:
I must admit, I've always been surprised that the name Hood has never been used since the ill-fated battlecruiser. Despite its end, the Hood was the biggest and most famous ship in the world between the wars, the de facto flagship of the Royal Navy. The name Ark Royal has hardly had an unchequered history, and anyway Invincible (which is a damn silly name for a ship anyway in my opinion) was the name of the battlecruiser (mmm, that design flaw never was ironed out, was it?) that blew up at Jutland with huge loss of life. It didn't stop them naming one of the current aircraft carriers after it, did it?
My personal favourite for at least one of them has to be Warspite though. Now that was a name to conjure with, and Warspite always was a capital ship anyway, why one earth they gave it to a submarine I'll never understand.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5370 times:
Because the RN's Nuclear subs, both attack and SLBM carriers, ARE capital ships!
They kept the Argentine Navy out of the Falklands war all by themselves.
When the conventional carriers were retired, they became the RN's main anti-ship weapon, in addition to their main anti-sub role.
Plus, very few nations operate them, like the Battleships of the 20th century.
HMS Invincible was originally designed as a helicopter/command cruiser, hence the original Sea Dart medium-range SAM armament, when the Sea Harrier was approved, the ski-jump added for their operation replaced the Exocet SSMs that were also due to be fitted.
So naming the first of this class after a cruiser was thought appropriate, Illustrious and Ark Royal merely reflected the emergence of the Harrier as part of the airgroup, so it was OK to name them after aircraft carriers by then. (Sea Harrier was ordered in 1975, Invincible was ordered
in 1973, the other two in 1976 and 1978 respectively).
Buckfifty From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1314 posts, RR: 21 Reply 23, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5359 times:
The name Ark Royal has hardly had an unchequered history, and anyway Invincible (which is a damn silly name for a ship anyway in my opinion) was the name of the battlecruiser (mmm, that design flaw never was ironed out, was it?) that blew up at Jutland with huge loss of life. It didn't stop them naming one of the current aircraft carriers after it, did it?
Though the Invincible did meet quite a similar fate to the Hood, it is considered by popular opinion that the Hood was, and still is, considered one of the major disasters in naval warfare history. So much so, that many people who have no real knowledge of any war history knows what happened to the Hood.
On the other hand, at least the Invincible proved somewhat effective in battle before her untimely demise (and yes, that design flaw was never ironed out, unfortunately.)
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 24, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5345 times:
GDB - submarines are capital ships? Since when? I know how important they are, but I've never heard of them being called capital ships before.
Buckfifty, I do see your point. Can I ask if Australia ever used the name Sydney again? After all, although perhaps not as famous worldwide as the Hood, the loss of HMAS Sydney was certainly Australia's most famous naval disaster.
Just as a side issue, Hood was several times intended to go into dock for a refit to strengthen the deck plates, but for a variety of reasons never did. The Hood's loss was both forseeable, and preventable (at least in the form that it took), particularly since the crew of the Prinz Eugen insist that it was their shell that caused the explosion. If Hood truly was destroyed by a cruiser, then that exposes the Admiralty's folly only too clearly.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
25 FACT: Yes, the RAN has "re-issued" the HMAS Sydney name twice already. The first post-war ship of that name was a former RN "Majestic class" light fleet car
26 Banco: FACT, was there not a similar concern about the re-use of the name Sydney? After all, not only were all the crew lost, the never found out what happen
27 GDB: By their very role, the Resolution and the replacement Vanguard ballistic missile subs are capital ships. Battleships were the 'nuclear deterrent' of
28 2912n: I think that the Arrizona is still considered an "active" ship in the US Navy. Obviously only as a memorial, but since she is still carried on the rol
29 GDB: Back to the CVF, while many were surprised to see BAE win, with a substantial slice of work going to Thales, they are certainly not having it their ow
30 FACT: Banco, I presume by "they don't know what happened to her" you mean that they don't know exactly where HMAS Sydney sank? Because we do know what happe
31 Toner: How about HMS Prince of Wales, and Repulse? The Japanese got them in SE Asia. One night, a group of our Banshee's mistook HMS Shefield (a heavy cruise
32 GDB: Rumour has it that HMS Courageous and HMS Glorious are favorites, both old carrier names. I reckon CVF 1 will replace HMS Invincible and Illustrious,
33 GDB: All you could ever want to know about the story of CVF, so far; http://richardb.coolfreepage.com/sectcvf.htm
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Jul 2002, 200 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, 
)
From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1314 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
