Carrier Race?

ha, we can only hope. it can’t get much worse and if it does the repercussions will be huge, BAE have already threatened to leave the UK if the government doesn’t provide them with enough contracts.

Well, the RN can always rent one of the CVF’s to France!:eek:

You know considering the CVF’s will operate STOVL F-35B’s. She could have a European Union or even NATO Based AirWing……….:o Hey, the USN let the French base a few Rafale on one of its Carriers this past summer. So, anything is possible.:rolleyes:

Get the hulls now and hope the situation vis a vis procurement improves in the future.

ha, we can only hope. it can’t get much worse and if it does the repercussions will be huge, BAE have already threatened to leave the UK if the government doesn’t provide them with enough contracts.

And I think “The Future” is very much the krux of the matter for the Royal Navy. They are looking at 50 years of service for these carriers which is far longer then the life of the jets and helicopters that will operate of it and any government.

Get the hulls now and hope the situation vis a vis procurement improves in the future.

USN Carriers go through several generation of aircraft over there lifetimes…..:diablo:

It will be interesting to see what happens with Carrier Design as the F-35B enters widespread service………Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Sea Control Carrier Concept take off!:D

Something larger than the “Principe de Asturias” but smaller than the “Cavour”.:D

And I think “The Future” is very much the krux of the matter for the Royal Navy. They are looking at 50 years of service for these carriers which is far longer then the life of the jets and helicopters that will operate of it and any government.

Get the hulls now and hope the situation vis a vis procurement improves in the future.

Could be in the future that they do something like J-UCAS and can cram a few more onto the deck.

I’m not too sure that the Airwing on a CVF is that small, there is almost definitly room to increase it in the future.

max capacity is 36x Lightnings(FGR.1?), 4x ASaC(Merlin ASaC.4?) 6x Merlin HM.1(with 30 or less Lightnings embarked)

airwing of 40 on a carrier displacing 65,000T isn’t great but IIRC STOVL Lightnings have a greater logistics footprint’s than the CATOBAR variant owing to the lack of a folding wing

and it has already been covered that there may be some problems with Japan actually owning a proper carrier, i know there was some discrepencies around the Italian navy’s Harrier carrier in the 80’s, so we can assume that Germany and Japan are subject to the same, although after 60 years i’m sure it would be waivered

A lot of navies would definitely benefit from a moderately sized CTOL carrier (in the 800ft 40000T region?[possible airwing of 24 fixed wing fighters, and 4? rotary wings and 3 E-2’s?]) if they could procure and operate one at a reasonable price which is where the idea falls down

And I think “The Future” is very much the krux of the matter for the Royal Navy. They are looking at 50 years of service for these carriers which is far longer then the life of the jets and helicopters that will operate of it and any government.

Get the hulls now and hope the situation vis a vis procurement improves in the future.

A lot of navies would definitely benefit from a moderately sized CTOL carrier (in the 800ft 40000T region?[possible airwing of 24 fixed wing fighters, and 4? rotary wings and 3 E-2’s?]) if they could procure and operate one at a reasonable price which is where the idea falls down

It becomes even worse when figuring in Swerve’s point that if you want a carrier capability you really need two.

I’m not too sure that the Airwing on a CVF is that small, there is almost definitly room to increase it in the future.

max capacity is 36x Lightnings(FGR.1?), 4x ASaC(Merlin ASaC.4?) 6x Merlin HM.1(with 30 or less Lightnings embarked)

airwing of 40 on a carrier displacing 65,000T isn’t great but IIRC STOVL Lightnings have a greater logistics footprint’s than the CATOBAR variant owing to the lack of a folding wing

and it has already been covered that there may be some problems with Japan actually owning a proper carrier, i know there was some discrepencies around the Italian navy’s Harrier carrier in the 80’s, so we can assume that Germany and Japan are subject to the same, although after 60 years i’m sure it would be waivered

A lot of navies would definitely benefit from a moderately sized CTOL carrier (in the 800ft 40000T region?[possible airwing of 24 fixed wing fighters, and 4? rotary wings and 3 E-2’s?]) if they could procure and operate one at a reasonable price which is where the idea falls down

My point exactly as the American Carriers carry vastly larger AirWings?

In Dimensions the Queen Elizabeth’s are very similar in size to the midway class, though they have a much higher displacement which makes sense as the midways had so many modifications done to them that it was not funny. They also have a similar sized Airwing to the Midway (~50).

The Queen Elizabeth’s have the same beam as the Forrestal class, however they are abouth 30-40 metres shorter in length, though i’m honestly not sure about the difference in internal volume between the two. The QE’s are also *currently* around 15,000t lighter then the Forrestal class though they will displace around the same as them once they are converted to CTOL at some stage.

Compare them (it) to the Forrestals or even Midways.

My point exactly as the American Carriers carry vastly larger AirWings?

As far as cost goes, three 25,00 ton carriers are much more expensive to build and operate than one 75,000 ton carrier.

Indisputable, but if you only have the money for one 75000 ton carrier, you’d probably be better off with a couple of smaller carriers. One carrier can only be in one place, & sometimes, that’ll be in a dock.

I wonder why the two Russian Carriers operate such small AirWings??? Even the CVF’s seem small for there size…………usually one aircraft per ton has been the rule.

Compare them (it) to the Forrestals or even Midways.

Well, you lost me on the last part. A 25,000 ton Carrier with a smaller crew and one that using less fuel for example. Is more expensive than a much larger Carrier????????? Sorry, I don’t think you are going to sell that bridge.
Regardless, small Carriers can have advantages if equipped with the right aircraft.

As its stands right now I believe the 30,000 ton Italian Carrier Cavour. Has a Airwing very similar in size to the much larger Russian Kuznetsov and the ex-Gorshkov. Personally, I would take the Cavour equipped with F-35B’s over any current or proposed Russian or Chinese Carrier equipped with Mig-29K’s or Su-33’s.

CVF requires less then a hundred more crew then an Invincible class to operate. With a much larger aircraft capacity and three times the displacement.

Never said it wouldn’t … the point I was making is that STOVL does not automatically mean you can use a smaller carrier. If you want to operate beyond a certain number of aircraft and have beyond a certain level of endurance, the fact that an aircraft is STOVL or not is no longer going to make a difference. A 30,000 ton ship is not going to operate as many aircraft as a 70,000 ton one is, be they STOVL or not (a 30,000 ton one can operate CTOLs quite nicely as well). However, if you are limiting yourself to a certain ship size, you may be forced into STOVL.

STOVL does, on the other hand, offer a number of advantages over CTOL, including operational flexibility, regardless of deck size.

I wonder why the two Russian Carriers operate such small AirWings??? Even the CVF’s seem small for there size…………usually one aircraft per ton has been the rule.

I understand your point………Which, is the case for the CVF’s. Of course that doesn’t mean a Carrier like Italy’s Cavour don’t have a place! One I believe would also work well for Japan and South Korea. IMO

Never said it wouldn’t … the point I was making is that STOVL does not automatically mean you can use a smaller carrier. If you want to operate beyond a certain number of aircraft and have beyond a certain level of endurance, the fact that an aircraft is STOVL or not is no longer going to make a difference. A 30,000 ton ship is not going to operate as many aircraft as a 70,000 ton one is, be they STOVL or not (a 30,000 ton one can operate CTOLs quite nicely as well). However, if you are limiting yourself to a certain ship size, you may be forced into STOVL.

STOVL does, on the other hand, offer a number of advantages over CTOL, including operational flexibility, regardless of deck size.

One smaller carrier is cheaper than one larger carrier, although not as much as you’d think. For example, the crew for the engine plant is not that much smaller. On the other hand, to deliver the same striking power you’d need at least three small carriers, with three hulls, three crews, three electronic suites (none of which would be as powerful as what’s in the large carrier that has more power to spare, thee times as many ships in reserve (undergoing repair, in training, etc.), a larger defensive fleet requirement, etc. That’s a lot more expensive.

I understand your point………Which, is the case for the CVF’s. Of course that doesn’t mean a Carrier like Italy’s Cavour don’t have a place! One I believe would also work well for Japan and South Korea. IMO

Well, you lost me on the last part. A 25,000 ton Carrier with a smaller crew and one that using less fuel for example. Is more expensive than a much larger Carrier????????? Sorry, I don’t think you are going to sell that bridge.
Regardless, small Carriers can have advantages if equipped with the right aircraft.

As its stands right now I believe the 30,000 ton Italian Carrier Cavour. Has a Airwing very similar in size to the much larger Russian Kuznetsov and the ex-Gorshkov. Personally, I would take the Cavour equipped with F-35B’s over any current or proposed Russian or Chinese Carrier equipped with Mig-29K’s or Su-33’s.

One smaller carrier is cheaper than one larger carrier, although not as much as you’d think. For example, the crew for the engine plant is not that much smaller. On the other hand, to deliver the same striking power you’d need at least three small carriers, with three hulls, three crews, three electronic suites (none of which would be as powerful as what’s in the large carrier that has more power to spare, thee times as many ships in reserve (undergoing repair, in training, etc.), a larger defensive fleet requirement, etc. That’s a lot more expensive.

If someone were to blow the dust off the old Sea Control Ship concept they’d be able to see all the research and studies have been done before. 🙂 Just sub the Convair 200A for the F-35 (screw that Rockwell POS) and you’d have virtually the same discussion that’s being had here today.

Oh, after the F-35B enter service. I think you will see a flood of Sea Control Type Carriers. Especially, when many countries will already operate CTOL F-35A’s. So, why not purchase a few “B” and now your in the Carrier Business.

Surpisingly, whether an aircraft is STOVL or not does not have that much bearing on the size of your carrier. A STOVL needs about as much deck run as a CTOL on a catapult, but somewhat less landing area. What STOVL will get you is the ability to operate a much smaller number of aircraft from a smaller ship, but then you need more ships.

The determinants of a carrier’s size are how many a/c you want to operate, how much endurance you want the ship to have, how much fuel and ordnance you want to carry for your aircraft, and the laws of hydrodynamics .

As far as cost goes, three 25,00 ton carriers are much more expensive to build and operate than one 75,000 ton carrier.

Well, you lost me on the last part. A 25,000 ton Carrier with a smaller crew and one that using less fuel for example. Is more expensive than a much larger Carrier????????? Sorry, I don’t think you are going to sell that bridge.
Regardless, small Carriers can have advantages if equipped with the right aircraft.

As its stands right now I believe the 30,000 ton Italian Carrier Cavour. Has a Airwing very similar in size to the much larger Russian Kuznetsov and the ex-Gorshkov. Personally, I would take the Cavour equipped with F-35B’s over any current or proposed Russian or Chinese Carrier equipped with Mig-29K’s or Su-33’s.

Surpisingly, whether an aircraft is STOVL or not does not have that much bearing on the size of your carrier. A STOVL needs about as much deck run as a CTOL on a catapult, but somewhat less landing area. What STOVL will get you is the ability to operate a much smaller number of aircraft from a smaller ship, but then you need more ships.

The determinants of a carrier’s size are how many a/c you want to operate, how much endurance you want the ship to have, how much fuel and ordnance you want to carry for your aircraft, and the laws of hydrodynamics .

As far as cost goes, three 25,00 ton carriers are much more expensive to build and operate than one 75,000 ton carrier.

If someone were to blow the dust off the old Sea Control Ship concept they’d be able to see all the research and studies have been done before. 🙂 Just sub the Convair 200A for the F-35 (screw that Rockwell POS) and you’d have virtually the same discussion that’s being had here today.