User avatar
N328KF
Topic Author
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:53 am

Brief fair use excerpt from the BBC:

Quote:
Orders for two new Royal Navy aircraft carriers have been confirmed by Defence Secretary Des Browne.
He said the £3.8bn contract would lead to the construction of the largest vessels ever sailed by the Royal Navy.

The new 65,000-tonne carriers - HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - will enter service in 2014 and 2016.

[...]

Original article: MoD confirms £3.8bn carrier order



EDIT: Altered topic text as "launched" has a different meaning in a nautical sense.

[Edited 2007-07-25 18:54:30]
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:04 am

This is great news for the RN.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Topic Author
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:10 am

Indeed. I don't believe the third unit (for the French) has been authorized yet, has it? Though presumably this would make it far more likely.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
HanginOut
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 3:24 am

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:19 am

You should check out the neat little computer generated video that they have for the carriers on the BBC (top right corner on the site - I've added the link below).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/new...16253.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1
Dreaming of the day I can work for an airline
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5257
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:26 am

The F-35B's seabourne roost is now more or less "assured". A goodly part of the JSF investment would have been wasted if the CVF didn't push through.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tristan van der Vlugt


Not the F-35B, of course.  Wink
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:05 am

It's taken a long time, but very detailed design had to be done, and the stumbling block of recent times, getting the consolidation of those to build it.
But the 1960's CVA project was, even without the economic and defence policy changes, doomed by being a lemon, an attempt to design too much into a too small displacement.
Unlike the 1960's, there is much more across the board inter-service support for this carrier.

Now, we are into long lead items ordering, final detailed design work.
It's going ahead.

Information released so far, indicates all of the superblocks of each CVF, will be spread around UK yards, there have been some reports that France would build all 3 bow sections, since after the bow block, the UK and mooted French designs differ, but this so far, not appears to be the case.

Animations show CVF mounting a large 'Sampson' radar, as used on the Type-45's that will escort her (the first, HMS Daring, is now on sea trials), also potentially, like Charles DeGaulle, VLS Aster-15's could be mounted, in addition to Phanlax and/or RAM CIWS.
On the other hand, if costs escalate too much, Sampson/Aster-15 could be dropped without affecting being an aircraft carrier.

CVF will mean a smaller RN, but one where it can mount fully independent, first day of the war, air-power, within or wthout coalitions.
Much of the surface fleet, will be to escort these and the Amphibious Ready Group (where the RN has grown in recent times)-which CVF will make more credible too.

So maybe wise to invest in some relatively cheap ocean going Corvette type vessels, a 76mm, some 30mm guns, provision for RAM, an embarked Future Lynx helicopter and space for decent numbers of Royal Marines, you won't need a Type 45 for the West Indies Guard ship (a lot of anti drug ops), or deterring pirates in the Southern Hemisphere as examples.

From the MoD, check out the related links for more details and an animation of CVF;
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...nfirmedInDefenceBudgetIncrease.htm

[Edited 2007-07-25 21:08:29]
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:13 am

This is a banner day for the RN, but I hope this doesn't mean that the RN will be unable to provide escorts for the carrier capable of defending the fleet.

I agree that less expensive ships could provide some of the littoral and policing vessels needed for jobs that today are being carried out by ships that could be used elsewhere. Perhaps a coast guard type patrol vessel with helo capability as described in the previous post will allow sufficient numbers of Type 45s to be equipped with the ADA systems needed.

I really hope this doesn't come at the cost of the submarine fleet. It's bare bones as it is, and this is the real power projection capability of a modern navy. The ability to interdict trade routes at will, and sink enemy surface vessels with the original stealth vessel.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
desertjets
Posts: 7575
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 3:12 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:36 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
So maybe wise to invest in some relatively cheap ocean going Corvette type vessels, a 76mm, some 30mm guns, provision for RAM, an embarked Future Lynx helicopter and space for decent numbers of Royal Marines, you won't need a Type 45 for the West Indies Guard ship (a lot of anti drug ops), or deterring pirates in the Southern Hemisphere as examples.

Why not build more Type 23s. It seems like a decent smaller sized multi-purpose vessel that can operate independently or with the fleet. This would keep the Type 45s tasked with the CBGs and ABGs, like they were designed to be.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 6):
I really hope this doesn't come at the cost of the submarine fleet. It's bare bones as it is, and this is the real power projection capability of a modern navy.

The number of subs and blue water ships in the Royal Navy is getting rather small. Granted w/ only 2 carriers, and a handful of amphib assault ships you don't need too many ships to escort. But at the end of the day your capabilities might be constrained. The SSNs proved themselves to be extremely valuable in the Falklands. They provide a lot of capability, both in support of the fleet, special ops, and out by themselves. Certainly not something that the RN would want to lose.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:36 am

Well, the first Astute class sub is in the water, 5 are now on order, 3 more are mooted in the longer term, meaning eventually an 8 ship SSN fleet, plus the 4 SSBN's.
But they potentially will not require reactor refuelling over their lives.
However, Astute promises to be a hugely capable sub, carrying 38 Tomahawks as well as torpedo's, a real step change in capability in sensors and generally.

Without the Soviet threat, a smaller SSN fleet is OK, since their job will also be in support of out of area ops, as well as screening the SSBN's ingress and egress into port, if the need arose. (The latter was the whole reason France originally built their later and smaller SSN's).

Each CVF will be screened for AD by two T-45's, plus two more for the Amphibious Group, it does seem, as things stand now, only 6 T-45's, but it's hard to ever see three entirely separate CVF and ARG groups, I agree that two more T-45's would be desirable.

DesertJets, the last T-23, was completed over 5 years ago, a good ASW and general purpose ship, but now not a new design.
So I'd also use already proposed T-45 versions for replacing Frigates, a Frigate sized T-45 version for ASW/general escort, plus a T-45 without Sampson and Aster 30, but with more Aster-15's and the VL launched version of the Storm Shadow cruise missile in RAF service, being developed for the French Navy, more space for embarked Marines and small UAV's like Firescout to supplement the Merlin.

CVF and the new warships generally, will enable the RN to much better perform the roles they are now certain to have, rather than the improvised, smaller version of the Cold War navy, which the Invincibles were designed for.
Since 1985, RAF Mount Pleasant airfield alone has provided protection for the Falklands, with the ability, much practised, to very rapidly re-inforce the locally based air and ground assets, though still a RN Frigate/Destroyer guard-ship, as well as an ocean going patrol craft (which the brand new HMS Clyde will modernise).

I don't see any change there, (that deployment is valuable for training, all that empty airspace for one).
So the situation there is completely transformed from April 1982, with it's virtually unarmed HMS Endurance, 69 lightly armed Royal Marines, and no way of quickly re-inforcing the Islands.

[Edited 2007-07-25 21:49:19]

[Edited 2007-07-25 21:50:12]
 
FlagshipAZ
Posts: 3192
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 12:40 am

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:19 am

Agreed that the RN is getting some new heavy-duty firepower on water. Don't agree with the ships' names tho. Something better could & can be thought of.
Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
 
User avatar
N328KF
Topic Author
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:29 am

Quoting FlagshipAZ (Reply 9):
Agreed that the RN is getting some new heavy-duty firepower on water. Don't agree with the ships' names tho. Something better could & can be thought of.

What's wrong with Prince of Wales, other than the name being rather infamous?
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:58 am

Both of those vessels are to be given honorable and well respected names. Prince of Wales has been the name of several ships in RN history, and the Queen Elizabeth will (since it doesn't say QEII) named after the queen that launched Drake against the Spanish Armada and sank the supposed greatest naval fleet the world had yet seen. Not bad for heritage there.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:26 am

I think the RN is making a big mistake not having the ships be capable of operating what looks to be a far more capable F-35C rather than the F-35B. Frankly for the sake of the RN I hope the ditch the silly ski ramp and add catapults to the thing.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:33 am

I don't see the advantage of operating STOVL F-35B's off a carrier otherwise fully capable of using F-35C's? The F-35B's will suffer enormous penalites in payload, range, loiter time, bringback weight, and overall maintenance costs compared to the F-35C so what the hey, eh? Just like the USMC, they need to buy less F-35B's and more F-35C's.
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:44 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 13):
Just like the USMC, they need to buy less F-35B's and more F-35C's.

Agreed, opting for VSTOL and not having the cats will limit your options when it comes to a AWACS platform and puts a limit on future growth.

Otherwise the ships look great. Just ditch the ski jump.
 
FlagshipAZ
Posts: 3192
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 12:40 am

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:19 am

I prefer HMS United Kingdom and HMS Great Britain. The Prince of Wales is a good proud name, but when coupled with Queen Elizabeth...one will know the ships are named after a "mum & her boy". At least that was my first thought when I read the ships' names. Just my opinion.
Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
 
HanginOut
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 3:24 am

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:39 am

Another reason the RN is acquiring F-35Bs is for commonality with the RAF. While I agree that they would be better off buying the F-35C and putting catapults on their carriers, its not the worst decision in the world. They will have a lot of versatility on where they want this thing to land and take off of from. I personally think it is a great idea to have a fighter aircraft in the inventory that doesn't have to rely on airfields.

Moreover, I can see them equipping the carriers with catapults when they go in for their first refit. They should have put them in from the start, even if they are buying the F-35B, that way they could have operated E2-Cs and this would also have allowed them to operate aircraft from the USN and the French Navy (increasing interoperability amongst the NATO allies).

As for the debate on the names of the carriers, both have a long and storied history with the RN and there is nothing unusual with the RN using them. If anything the argument could be made that it is strange that the USN names its carriers after politicians (what next, is the USN going to start naming ships after lawyers and other bottom feeders).  Wink
Dreaming of the day I can work for an airline
 
britjap
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:47 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:49 am

This is absolutely brilliant news!!! Thanks for posting!!

I am not a navy guy so I cant offer any constructive posts but I very pleased with the decision to go ahead.
I already e-mailed a 'navy nut' friend of mine with whom I have often discussed these projects. I am sure he will be very pleased too.

Indeed a great day for the RN it would seem.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 12):
I think the RN is making a big mistake not having the ships be capable of operating what looks to be a far more capable F-35C rather than the F-35B.

Cant help but agree with this though.
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:39 am

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 16):
Another reason the RN is acquiring F-35Bs is for commonality with the RAF. While I agree that they would be better off buying the F-35C and putting catapults on their carriers, its not the worst decision in the world. They will have a lot of versatility on where they want this thing to land and take off of from. I personally think it is a great idea to have a fighter aircraft in the inventory that doesn't have to rely on airfields.

Well, I sort of agree but really if all your airfields are gone what good are a few VSTOL fighters going to do? I would buy the F-35C for the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. It should be the most capable variant.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:18 am

What's the motivation for the split island? It seems like it would just make turbulence worse and waste deck space. Surely it wouldn't be that hard to put both functions in a single island, even if you had to make it two decks.

And only two elevators on the same side 30m apart? Kinda risky - one missile hit anywhere near the starboard beam will have a good chance at taking out both.

But still, it's darn good to see the Brits getting a real carrier again, even if they are sticking to STOVL for the first 20 years...
 
desertjets
Posts: 7575
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 3:12 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:25 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 8):
DesertJets, the last T-23, was completed over 5 years ago, a good ASW and general purpose ship, but now not a new design.
So I'd also use already proposed T-45 versions for replacing Frigates, a Frigate sized T-45 version for ASW/general escort, plus a T-45 without Sampson and Aster 30, but with more Aster-15's and the VL launched version of the Storm Shadow cruise missile in RAF service, being developed for the French Navy, more space for embarked Marines and small UAV's like Firescout to supplement the Merlin.

GDB, as usual your knowledge and perspective is greatly appreciated. I guess on 2nd thought it does make sense that add'l T-23s are not a solution, as the oldest in the fleet will be 25 years old once the QE enters service. This potential Type 25 (my designation) sounds like a decent idea. Though with all the new technology steathly frigates being developed by the various navies of the world, you would think that there could be more collaboration between nations on the design. The ships could still be built locally, but as it stands a lot of the basic systems on an FFG seem to be pretty common across the major western navies.

Quoting FlagshipAZ (Reply 15):
I prefer HMS United Kingdom and HMS Great Britain. The Prince of Wales is a good proud name, but when coupled with Queen Elizabeth

I don't have a problem with either name... both names have history in the RN and they don't strike me as names chosen by the navy to curry favor with politicians (re: most of the Nimitz class CVNs). Though there are some other more notable names that would be suitable to the flagship of the Royal Navy that I would have preferred. Or they could have stuck w/ the traditional carrier names.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:38 am

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 19):
What's the motivation for the split island? It seems like it would just make turbulence worse and waste deck space. Surely it wouldn't be that hard to put both functions in a single island, even if you had to make it two decks.

It manages the gas turbine exhaust most efficiently. Otherwise the bridge would be the whole length from the front of the first too the back of the second with lots of wasted space in the middle.
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3090
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:47 pm

I will admit to knowing little (or nothing) about naval aviation; but as with many who have already posted; tend to think that
these ships are not the best design in the world. The ski jump results in having to use helicopter AEW instead of Hawkeyes; not having catapults or arrester wires means that crossdecking with US or French ships isn't possible either. The twin islands not only take up more space than a single one, but are set back from the deck edge resulting in more wasted space. And having only two lifts (both on the same side) makes hanger manouvering more difficult.

We are the nation that invented most of the features of a convential carrier (angled deck, steam catapult etc) why do we feel the need to go against these well proven systems ?
 
User avatar
N328KF
Topic Author
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:43 am

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 22):
We are the nation that invented most of the features of a convential carrier (angled deck, steam catapult etc) why do we feel the need to go against these well proven systems ?

It does have an angled deck. Many of the other features you mentioned can be retrofitted, and space is provided for such things. And IMHO there is some merit to waiting until EMALS is easier to fit into the deck rather than doing a steam system.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3090
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:54 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 23):
Many of the other features you mentioned can be retrofitted, and space is provided for such things. And IMHO there is some merit to waiting until EMALS is easier to fit into the deck rather than doing a steam system.

Surely its better to build the right ship to start with, than finding out in 5 years time that an expensive refit is required
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:35 am

You have to remember that the last RN conventional carrier retired in 1978, but the RN has massive experience in STOVL ops, the first in very heavy combat too.
The RAF were, at least a few years back, only interested in F-35B as a Harrier replacement, but this was always to be a 'joint combat aircraft'.
One advantage, RAF F-35B's will be able to re-inforce the carriers, (just as No.1 Sqn on Harrier GR.3's, despite zero carrier experience then, did in 1982).
Recently a Harrier test aircraft has been trying out rolling approach/landings on to carriers.
The post war enhancements to carriers, for the jet age, were largely British inventions, but so too was the ski jump.

The RN would cite STOVL advantages, such as a much easier operating environment, (or as Falklands veteran 'Sharky' Ward-previously on Sea Vixens and F-4Ks, put it, 'a lot less grey hairs and brown trousers').
Higher sortie rates, nothing mechanical outside the aircraft itself to go wrong, and they are very aware that while the General Belgrano was to the South of the Task Force in 1982, the upper part of that pincer attack, the Argentine carrier, tried to launch A-4's too, but with nil wind over deck, they could not.

Going back to conventional carrier ops, would mean more risk-in an already risky project, more cost, lack of similarity with the RAF-bound to get those Treasury knifes sharpening by itself.
However, as stated, the CVF will have provision for a future EMALS system, over their 50 year life.
The RN did not want to get into fitting steam plants for existing catapult systems on to CVF.

Clearly a E-2C is a superior AEW system, but don't rule out the current 'Cerebus' system going on to some V-22 versions, for CVF, though a future Merlin mod is more likely.
But 'Cerebus' is not the hastily modified Searchwater from Nimrod MR.2's, as quickly developed in 1982.
In 2003, 'Cerebus' equipped Sea Kings were able to track small enemy troop formations overland, as well as having a drastically better traditional AEW capability than before.
This system is ripe for further development.

Also as stated, the names have long and proud RN histories, (though I would still have liked previous carrier names, HMS Furious and HMS Formidable).
Unfinished business too, the first two CVA carriers were to also be called QE and PoW .
No concessions to modernity, anyway, HMS 'Come And Have A Go If You Think You're Hard Enough' and 'C'mon then, let's have it', are both a bit of a mouthful.
And no naming after politicos thankfully either.

I'm a firm believer in the idea that the biggest threat to assets, outside of an enemy, is excessive 'Gold Plating'.
CVA had too much of that, apart from everything else.

I also like, what I'll call the 'Ice Cold In Alex' rule.
(that classic 1950's British war film, about the arduous trek through the Western Desert, of a small group of servicemen and women, to safety in Alexandria in Egypt, to a bar serving the best, coldest beer.
The ending, with actor John Mills, hot, parched, tired and dirty, chugging down a whole pint of it (later adapted for a beer advert), then he purred 'worth waiting for'.

T45 - Worth waiting for. (better than trying to squeeze PAMMS/Aster in a longer T-23).
Astute Class sub - worth waiting for. (better than adapting the now elderly Trafalgar class, itself developed from the Swiftsure class).
CVF/F-35B - Worth waiting for. (better than trying to update and lengthen the Invincibles-maybe even then not being to operate a decent number of F-35s, so another Harrier upgrade then. Or trying a smaller jack of all trades LPH on steriods).
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:14 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 25):
HMS 'Come And Have A Go If You Think You're Hard Enough'

Am I alone in rather liking that name? Big grin

So with this news, the question is also going to turn to what happens when the Invincibles are pensioned off. Hopefully, the class leader will be retained as a museum ship. She was fairly revolutionary at the time she was launched, and of course is one of the relatively few modern warships to have genuinely seen a fair bit of action.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:15 am

Glad to see the RN is going to stay a Blue water navy, instead of a coastal frigate force.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:18 am

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 27):

Glad to see the RN is going to stay a Blue water navy, instead of a coastal frigate force.

>
I don't know about "stay" a blue water navy; if anything this is a return to a blue water navy, given the somewhat limited capabilities of the Invincible class carriers.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:53 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 25):
And no naming after politicos thankfully either.

Amen....

how I wish we'd escape the political one-upsmanship over here that accompanies ship naming.

We need to name our next class of carriers after dead heroes or the earlier vessels. Naming a supercarrier after Gerald Ford is an unbelievable reach. I say that as a man who generally votes Republican. George H.W. Bush is only acceptable as a vessel name because he served as a naval aviator...but not enough for a supercarrier. Nimitz, Ike, Teddy R (all serious military heroes and leaders....our first president, the saviour of the Union....ok...I can see that, but kissing the asses of politicos goes too far. I know how much Carl Vinson and John Stennis meant to the Navy....name a base after them...perhaps a supply ship.....a training center....carriers are meant for showing the flag. Not currying favor. You please one side you earn emnity on the other....it's never win-win unless it's truly historic in value. The only president right now who deserves a carrier named after him who doesn't have one is FDR. Other than that go back to battlefields.

We should always have a Saratoga, a Lexington, a Yorktown, an Enterprise , a Midway, a Ranger, an Oriskany and an America as aircraft carriers. These earlier vessels deserve remembrance (vessels and crews) and recognition and their valorous heritage should be passed on for morale's sake.

A man will fight harder for an ideal and standard that can be taught than a person who's history they may or may not know.


I think I ranted.....sorry.

No, I'm not. I apologize for going off topic...

Now...back to our previously scheduled topic.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:29 pm

Quoting DL021 (Reply 29):
We should always have a Saratoga, a Lexington, a Yorktown, an Enterprise , a Midway, a Ranger, an Oriskany and an America as aircraft carriers

OK, it's a touch off-topic, but related nevertheless:

I've always thought it a bit of a target if you call a ship "America" - imagine if it got sunk? Though I suppose no more so that calling one "Invincible" - mind you, we did steal that off the French, literally, the first one being Invincibile.

But the US does go in for naming ships after people much more than the RN ever did, and it's noticeable how the USN tends gives them the full name, initials as well, so you get a USS FDR, whilst in the RN it's just the surname, i.e. Hood, Nelson, Rodney, Barham etc etc, and almost always notable admirals rather than politicos.

And the USN must surely have a vast enough supply of historic ship names to choose from, just as the RN does, without going down the ex-President route?
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13988
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:05 pm

Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
He said the £3.8bn contract would lead to the construction of the largest vessels ever sailed by the Royal Navy.

Wow - it's going to have sails?  Smile
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
Corsair1107
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:29 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:27 pm

Wow, those concepts look sharp. I can't help but notice that the overhead graphic shows an angled flight deck and the 3d rendering shows a straight deck. Which is it going to be?
Flown on: DHC-6/8, F100, B1900C, 717, 727, 737, 757, 767, 777, 319, 320, C152/172, E135/145, DC-9, MD-83/88 CL600
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:10 am

Quoting Banco (Reply 30):
d it's noticeable how the USN tends gives them the full name, initials as well, so you get a USS FDR,

That's because of the similar names such as Theodore or Franklin, and the style of things...in the UK it was more acceptable to refer to someone famous by simply their last name....Nelson...everyone knows instantly of whom you speak when you say that....Kitchener, Bobs, Montgomery.....it's been similar with some here....Ike, Nimitz, Truman, Schwarzennager (he'll get something...you watch....after he's Senator from Cali for three terms).

Quoting Banco (Reply 30):
But the US does go in for naming ships after people much more than the RN ever did

You said it yourself, though...... the Hood, Rodney, QE, PoW, are all people....just alot older.....but yeah...we do tend to name ships more for people than the RN. For instance....the USS Winston Churchill....  Wink
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:25 am

There was a post some time ago that commented about the Royal Navy getting Rafale Ms. Is it possible the new carriers have been designed with those aircraft in mind? They're certainly big enough vessels and could accomodate Rafale. And are we certain there won't be catapults on the carriers. With a 2014 to 2016 in service date, plans could change significantly.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:31 am

No, it's F-35B or bust.
Had the UK not been happy with local support, ability to upgrade in house, then F-35, of any version, would be out.
But then, almost certainly would CVF too.

Despite it's smaller size, the RN has remained a blue water navy all the while, that is, capable of deploying significant task groups anywhere for extended periods, for that, we must thank theoften unsung Royal Fleet Auxiliaries.
Has always tried to retain across the board capabilities, despite the limitations of Invincibles/Harriers, it is still naval jet aviation, add in nuclear subs, that stuff that very few navies have, including ones with nominally bigger fleets.

Also, the death of the blue water RN has long been wrongly predicted, massive cuts, beyond post war decommissions, in the late 40's, the seeming loss of fixed wing aviation, after CVA cancellation-but some clever thinking and plain guile managed to retain this capability.
Had the 1981 cuts been realised, then the RN would have been, within a decade, less capable a surface force than it is now.
The Argentine Junta prevented that, but even those planned cuts in surface vessels, was to fund a greatly expanded sub force, for the Cold War. Though that ending blunted the move towards 20 nuke vessels and up to 15 of a new conventional class, (only 4 completed of those, now sold to Canada).

Considering that the blue water RN was really developed on the back of Empire, it did well to remain the force it was, as Empire dissolved quickly after WW2.

Apparently, the twin islands of CVF, are part of a RCS reduction, to minimise turbulence over deck, the forward island is mostly optimised for ship command and control, the aft one for flying operations, but one can carry out much of tasks of the other, if need be.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:23 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 35):
Considering that the blue water RN was really developed on the back of Empire,

Cart before the horse, there, GDB. Empire was on the back of a blue-water RN, because it was founded on a desire for trade, not territory. We forget quite how vast the RN was long before the 20th century castles of steel. At the end of the Napoleonic Wars (and before the massive imperial expansion of the nineteenth century) the Royal Navy comprised more than half of the entire world's warships - the one and only time this has happened in history.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 33):
the USS Winston Churchill....

But even there lies a difference. Yours is the USS Winston S Churchill, ours was HMS Churchill.  Wink
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:49 am

Yes, HMS Churchill, a first generation nuclear sub, was probably named as a result of the then recent death of Winnie.
He got a full state funeral, virtually unknown for a political leader, rather than the usual head of state.
So HMS Churchill was a bit of a one off (like the man), the rest of the classes of the 1960's RN nuclear subs, both SSN and Polaris, were old Capital ship names, fitting as they were too.

But after Churchill, the RN reverted to type and had others starting with the same letter, so HMS Conqueror, HMS Courageous.

Previous to this, the prototype was HMS Dreadnought, like it's 1906 predecessor, a revolutionary warship. The follow on's also had Battleship names, HMS Valiant, HMS Warspite.

The ultra capital ships, the Polaris boats, HMS Resolution, HMS Revenge, HMS Repulse, HMS Renown. (A planned 5th boat, HMS Ramillies, was cancelled in 1965), had full on Capital ships names too.

Today, the Trident boats follow suit, HMS Vanguard, HMS Vigilant, HMS Victorious, HMS Vengence.

[Edited 2007-07-27 20:50:48]
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:27 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 37):
Today, the Trident boats follow suit, HMS Vanguard, HMS Vigilant, HMS Victorious, HMS Vengence.

Hmmm, well, not entirely. Victorious and Vengeance were both carriers in recent memory, and thus can be more or less classed as capital ships, even if they weren;'t thought of in that way at the time; Vengeance was a pre-dreadnought battleship, but prior to that it was a series of frigates and second and third rates, which is pushing it a bit to describe it as a true line-of-battle-ship. The Vigilant name has a pretty unremarkable history all told, and the previous incarnation was a simple destroyer.

Only Vanguard of those has a strong heritage as a capital ship, as the last British battleship, as well as several prior to that.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:08 am

Vigilant in fact, was originally to be Venerable , perhaps after for whatever reason it was dropped, they were somewhat casting around for another 'V'?

Reading around more informed sources, it seems that T45's 7 & 8 are certainly not ruled out after all, Des Browne indicated to a question, that once nos.4-6 are in the water, they'll re-visit tendering for them.
Translation; By then production experience should have reduced costs, so BAE cannot come it again with in the MoD's view, an inflated price.

12 T45's were originally slated, but that always seemed a high number, to escort at most, 3 major assets, 2 x CVF, 1 X Amphibious group, with 2 spare for re-fits, preparing for service etc.
However, the dozen came from 10 years ago, when it was far from certain that any new carriers would be approved, let alone something like CVF, so was in truth, likely a maxing out on Air Defence with maybe no carriers.

Even so, maybe we could yet see 10-12 T45 type ships, the last 2 or 4 to replace some Frigates, after 2013-15.
By dropping Sampson and Aster-30, instead 48 x Aster-15, all T45's have space for 16 more Vertical launch tubes, between the main launcher group and the bridge, so stick the now developing Naval Scalp cruise missile in them, a Storm Shadow variant, which the French Navy are paying for, (they've as yet, no counterpart to Tomahawk).
Also replace the 4.5 gun for BAE's planned 6 inch version of the land-based AS-90 SP gun. T45 already has provision for this too.
(Tomahawk would need the US Mk.41 VLS tube, not planned for RN service, the Slyver for the Aster SAM's, of course soon will be and Scalp will use them).

Since the Defence Industrial Strategy paper was published in December 2005, the MoD has started getting smarter in procurement, recently they picked up two ex South African AF Puma choppers, for 75K, with each having only 2000 hrs on the clock. They will, along with 6 others from the same source, be zero lifed, modded for RAF use.
Then the whole 40 odd Puma fleet, will go through a major upgrading and re-enging, to improve performance.
The RAF have found in recent operations, that the venerable Puma's size is still a good complement to the Chinook and Merlins.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:01 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 39):
Vigilant in fact, was originally to be Venerable , perhaps after for whatever reason it was dropped, they were somewhat casting around for another 'V'?

Trouble was, they'd already used Valiant a generation earlier, when that name had a really strong heritage as a capital ship name, as one of the Queen Elizabeth class battleships alongside Warspite, for example. Could have used it again though - after all, Ark Royal was used with similar regularity - and of course Sheffield was replaced almost immediately.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:28 pm

Yes, and while by then Valiant was de-comissioned, it was not scrapped, the old nukes will have to wait a long time for that to happen.
Whereas once the 4th Ark Royal went to the breakers in 1980, the recently laid down 3rd CVS, HMS Indomitable , was re-named Ark Royal, before it's launch the following year.
(Of course, I'd have preferred HMS Indomitable, then ordering a 4th CVS, with an 80 foot longer bow extension and Sea Wolf instead of Sea Dart (more hangar and stores space), better provision as a stand in LPH, to become the 5th Ark Royal , to replace a longer run on Hermes in about 1988/9!)

Had that happened (there was some hopes after the Falklands of another, enhanced CVS for a time), we'd have a vessel that could run on and serve alongside CVF's for a time, to complement HMS Ocean .
Though the real Ark Royal might still do that, before a new LPH or two, to replace Ocean (and possibly the 'Ark') from around 2020 onwards.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:53 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 41):
Though the real Ark Royal might still do that, before a new LPH or two, to replace Ocean (and possibly the 'Ark') from around 2020 onwards.

Is that a realistic option? Or a navy pipedream? Ocean's a lot younger than the Ark, and a slightly different design - albeit to all intents and purposes of the same class. Keeping the two of them would mean that to all intents and purposes the navy would retain four carriers, albeit two of them much smaller and geared towards helicopter operations.

But it would certainly allow the RN's capability to remain at a very high level - much higher than currently.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
britjap
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:47 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:33 pm

I thought I would let you know.

I think Jwenting also wanted to contribute to this discussion but somehow he has made his post in a totally different thread!!  eyebrow 

You can see his post here. Reply 1 biggrin 
Boeing Flies Blended Wing Body Research Aircraft (by TG346 Jul 28 2007 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:54 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 37):
Yes, HMS Churchill, a first generation nuclear sub, was probably named as a result of the then recent death of Winnie.
He got a full state funeral, virtually unknown for a political leader, rather than the usual head of state.
So HMS Churchill was a bit of a one off (like the man), the rest of the classes of the 1960's RN nuclear subs, both SSN and Polaris, were old Capital ship names, fitting as they were too.

But after Churchill, the RN reverted to type and had others starting with the same letter, so HMS Conqueror, HMS Courageous.

Previous to this, the prototype was HMS Dreadnought, like it's 1906 predecessor, a revolutionary warship. The follow on's also had Battleship names, HMS Valiant, HMS Warspite.

The ultra capital ships, the Polaris boats, HMS Resolution, HMS Revenge, HMS Repulse, HMS Renown. (A planned 5th boat, HMS Ramillies, was cancelled in 1965), had full on Capital ships names too.

Today, the Trident boats follow suit, HMS Vanguard, HMS Vigilant, HMS Victorious, HMS Vengence.

I admire the Royal Navy for many reasons, and how they name their ships is on that long list.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Ant72LBA
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:42 am

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:25 pm

I'm a little disappointed the names of the ships; seems a bit churlish but the RN does have a fantastic stock of names.

Think I'd have preferred Royal Sovereign to Queen Elizabeth; Prince of Wales is ok though I'd have preferred something else from this group:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../commons/8/85/Trafalgar_1200hr.gif

Alternatively as someone suggested above Furious would have been a fantastic name.

Couple of points to some suggestions above:

Prince of Wales is not a person but a title generally conferred upon the heir to the throne.

Bit difficult to explain this but Great Britain is part of the United Kingdom so not sure you'd want both names used at the same time. Has either name ever been used by the RN? Albion and Britannia are/have been used but not GB or UK so far as I can recall.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5257
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:57 pm

Quoting BritJap (Reply 43):

I think Jwenting also wanted to contribute to this discussion but somehow he has made his post in a totally different thread!!

Which duplicates another ongoing thread in CivAv.....
Boeing Flies Blended Wing Body Research Aircraft (by Bbobbo Jul 26 2007 in Civil Aviation)
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:58 am

Well Banco, Ark Royal has been more extensively refitted than the others, it spent the late 1990's to 2001 being upgraded, (one of the last public events of the late Queen Mother was her taking a Merlin on to the Ark's deck, to re-dedicate the ship she launched in 1981, or as she herself put it, 'to splice the mainbrace!').

Since then, further substantial upgrades, in 2015 she'll be 30 years old, even if only in 'Extended Readiness' she could be around for 5 or so years after that.
I'm thinking really of her role in Iraq, in 2003, supporting HMS Ocean with the air/sea Marine assualt on the Al Faw peninsular. Carrying stuff like Sea King AEW's, HC.4's, Merlins, Lynx's.
(What came out of that, was the major command & control ability of the Merlins, there was no sub or real surface threat for them to detect, as designed, but they were extremely useful, should be with how much each one costs though!)

But Ark Royal could never operate F-35's, or at least a reasonable number of, with not too many limitations, she's too small.

Considering that they were really designed only to carry ASW helicopters, acting as essentially a 'Command Cruiser', the Invincible class have been a triumph.
The added very small number of Sea Harriers, with the ski jump (displacing the planned fitment of 4 x MM-38 Exocets), for really warding off long range Soviet maritime aircraft which would provide over the horizon targetting of Soviet ship and sub launched missiles, slowly turned this 'Through Deck Crusier', into a carrier, but if the RN had then called them 'carriers' the Treasury axe would have fallen.

That unexpected war in 1982, transformed general perception of what the many in the RN quietly already knew, that VSTOL from small sized carriers was viable.
However, the original design requirements, for ASW choppers, meant they were short on magazine capacity for air delivered weapons, no longer just torpedo's and depth charges, but more AIM-9's, bombs, rockets too.
Eventually taking out the bulky Sea Dart, helped some, but these limitations were a factor in 'standardising' on one Harrier version, the non RN one.
Since the 1990's addition of very different RAF AV-8B derived machines on deck, meant two distinct versions on board, with the spares storage needed doubled, the RAF ones delivered a lot more air to ground ordnance too.

If the total air group planned for CVF, (and the usual peacetime one will be smaller, probably 18-24 F-35's, from a potential 30-36), seems still rather modest compared to the ships size, they are the same sort of airgroup numbers as the CDG, a rather smaller ship, it's because the issues of magazine and general storage, have been learned from the Invincibles.

But the Invincibles must rank as one of the most revolutionary departures in carrier aviation ever, one very soon proved in action, that it arrived at this partly through accident, partly through sheer guile, makes them all the more remarkable.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:59 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 35):
Considering that the blue water RN was really developed on the back of Empire, it did well to remain the force it was, as Empire dissolved quickly after WW2.

It's still one of the most professional and capable naval forces in the world...possibly second only to the USN in total capacity. Certainly superior to the French or Russian navies....in spite of numbers and nuclear powered carriers...once the CVF comes on line and the nuclear subs are maintained in number and deployment.

Quoting Banco (Reply 36):
But even there lies a difference. Yours is the USS Winston S Churchill, ours was HMS Churchill.

Yeah...we didn't want our horse racers to get confused....

Quoting GDB (Reply 39):
Also replace the 4.5 gun for BAE's planned 6 inch version of the land-based AS-90 SP gun. T45 already has provision for this too.

All NATO navies should be looking at conversion to the 155mm/6in gun systems. They owe it to their marine corps' and ground forces.

Quoting GDB (Reply 39):
The RAF have found in recent operations, that the venerable Puma's size is still a good complement to the Chinook and Merlins.

Excellent aircraft, and newer ones are merely better equipped with electronics. The load capacity and strength are well known.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed

Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:46 am

A Mr Richard Beedall, has an unofficial, but truly greatly detailed, well sourced site on the RN for some years, he's covered the trials and tribulations of CVF (and all other RN projects), his CVF page is a mammoth, very well illustrated read, but the news section is up to date, (when you finally get there!);
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvfmain.htm

For comparison, the final part has a section on the abortive CVA of the 60's, at the time of writing it, CVF was deadlocked, but the comparisons (until now) ended there.
Now, the economic situation is so much better, there is no tug of war between the East Of Suez and increasing NATO commitments, much less warring between the services too.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests