CVF-PA2 News. Uk-France new common aircraft carriers

Swerve, Re the Rosyth Dock. Here is one of the current carriers going into dry dock and I think it will answer your question. Yes, work will be needed to be done to make it fit 😮

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/invincible/invincible13.html

I mentioned Google earth earlier, and I had a look. The current satellite image for the dockyard shows one of the carriers in there having a major refit (with the flight deck tented over) and it is a very tight fit as the photo above suggests, even the dock immediately to the right of that one while being longer will not be wide enough. I haven’t been able to post a link to the satellite piccy as I wasn’t able to work out how to do it.

The looks like a tight fit indeed………….how many years to enlarge it to fit the CVF’s?

Swerve, Re the Rosyth Dock. Here is one of the current carriers going into dry dock and I think it will answer your question. Yes, work will be needed to be done to make it fit 😮

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/invincible/invincible13.html

I mentioned Google earth earlier, and I had a look. The current satellite image for the dockyard shows one of the carriers in there having a major refit (with the flight deck tented over) and it is a very tight fit as the photo above suggests, even the dock immediately to the right of that one while being longer will not be wide enough. I haven’t been able to post a link to the satellite piccy as I wasn’t able to work out how to do it.

Swerve, I reckon they have thought of the headroom issue, or shall we say they better have :diablo:
…

I’m sure they have, but I can imagine a situation where anything sticking up has to be taken down & they have to wait for low tide (the channel is very deep – no restriction there). Not acceptable for a home port, but tolerable if you only dock there for major repairs or refits.

Swerve, I reckon they have thought of the headroom issue, or shall we say they better have :diablo:

Google earth might answer the dry dock question, particularly if there is something of know length in the photo such as a car

What’s the latest cost per ship between the French and UK CVF’s? As I am curious on how much more a CTOL Carrier is vs a STOVL Carrier????:confused: :confused: :confused:

The suggestion I heard was that they were holding off on aiming for CATOBAR in its current form, not totally. This was basically because they are aiming for the EMALS, i.e. electromagnetic catapult – which will not need things like a steam generator. If it comes to nothing, they keep the carriers STOVL, but if it is available, they switch to EMALS. This is arguably quite sensible, rather than modifying the design to use a steam catapult, then have to rip it out to install the EMALS system.

Overall, it is excellent news though, and all we can hope now is that they increase the number of surface combattants. The first step in this line would be to built the final pair of Type 45s (7&8), and keep the four T-22s, and at least twelve of the T-23s. ….

AFAIK, the CVFs are supposed to be built “for but not with” catapults, leaving the option to install them during a normal refit with (relatively) minor rebuilding.

As for EMALS, the UK has been doing some of its own studies in that area, though I doubt if the govt. will pony up enough to pay for full-scale development.

On a slightly different tack, it seems pretty definite that final assembly will be at Rosyth, necessitating the widening of no. 1 dock – or at least, the entrance to it. Does anyone know the internal width, once past the gate? I think it should be enough, but I’m not sure. Plenty long enough. This would also guarantee that a large enough dock would be available for repairs, without having to schedule dry dock visits between tankers & the like at Harland & Wolff, or fit out the Nigg Bay graving dock to do it, or some other desperate measure. Only drawback I can think of is the headroom under the Forth bridges.

I think this debate just reinforces my point on why the CVF’s need to have arresting gear……..With it she could operate types like the E-2D Hawkeye and cross deck with Allied (American, French, and Indian) Aircraft Carriers. So, in short many options with Arresting Gear and few (very few) without. Really, it would more than likely cost more to develope and build a hand full of AEW Osprey than to just equip the CVF’s with Arresting Gear from the start…….

The suggestion I heard was that they were holding off on aiming for CATOBAR in its current form, not totally. This was basically because they are aiming for the EMALS, i.e. electromagnetic catapult – which will not need things like a steam generator. If it comes to nothing, they keep the carriers STOVL, but if it is available, they switch to EMALS. This is arguably quite sensible, rather than modifying the design to use a steam catapult, then have to rip it out to install the EMALS system.

Overall, it is excellent news though, and all we can hope now is that they increase the number of surface combattants. The first step in this line would be to built the final pair of Type 45s (7&8), and keep the four T-22s, and at least twelve of the T-23s. The other thing would be to replace or supplement the mine warfare fleet with a GD LCS type vessel, which would hopefully be able to take some of the strain off the current frigate fleet. This is particularly important in terms of duties like HMS Cornwall was performing in the Gulf, where the water depth restricted its operations.

I re-read an article on Richard Beedall’s site, and although he said Hawkeye can be launched via ski-jump, there was also mention of the problems of modifying it to be used properly for STOBAR – must have not read his MASC page for a while.

There is also the UAV option, even if it is just as a supplement to a manned platform.

Personally I think Osprey is still a possibility, even if it is not as likely as a new helicopter.

The Osprey is a vague possibility but frankly it is a project for which I hold out very little hope. Whilst it is being supported by the Navy the Marines seem uninterested and with the USN currently ordering the E-2D they can live without the AEW Osprey. Its only role in the USN would be to increase the capability and broaden the role of the F-35 carrying amphibious ships.

I am currently not aware of any serious AEW UAV projects if there are any I would be intrigued to hear about them. A large UAV with conformal arrays might be a usable solution (possibly based on the new large BAe UCAV?), but if it ever happens it would be a very long way away.

Seeing that as yet the Osprey design is going nowhere and the Hawkeye needs a catapult it looks like its going to be a helo.

I re-read an article on Richard Beedall’s site, and although he said Hawkeye can be launched via ski-jump, there was also mention of the problems of modifying it to be used properly for STOBAR – must have not read his MASC page for a while.

There is also the UAV option, even if it is just as a supplement to a manned platform.

Personally I think Osprey is still a possibility, even if it is not as likely as a new helicopter.

I would say the fact we’ve been investing in the F-35 project and are placing/have placed an order for 2 F-35Bs for next year is a better indication we will be using the JSF, rather than a video. 😎

No it wouldn’t, because currently there has been no decision on what would be used. Sea Kings may be kept for a few years after 2014, but they are not a permanent solution – MASC is going to replace them with a new frame whether it’s another helicopter, Osprey or Hawkeye.

Seeing that as yet the Osprey design is going nowhere and the Hawkeye needs a catapult it looks like its going to be a helo.

That does not mean that the video is not an indication as well.;)

So now the video is indicative of nothing is it, so the carriers wont be flying F-35’s after all?

I would say the fact we’ve been investing in the F-35 project and are placing/have placed an order for 2 F-35Bs for next year is a better indication we will be using the JSF, rather than a video. 😎

If there was another realistic option on the cards at the time it would have made it into that little public relations video.

No it wouldn’t, because currently there has been no decision on what would be used. Sea Kings may be kept for a few years after 2014, but they are not a permanent solution – MASC is going to replace them with a new frame whether it’s another helicopter, Osprey or Hawkeye.

Then why suggest the video was indicative of anything? Whether you meant to or not, you suggested it meant something.

Given the earliest date of commissioning of HMS Queen Elizabeth is 2014, that should give enough time to find a good MASC solution. I’m not surprised a helo appeared in a promotional video from last year given there was no idea whether funding for the carriers would be approved, how much, etc.

The Osprey news was from Flight Global. The catapult rumour was from RumRation, but I don’t have a link to the comments.

It would probably be a good idea to wait until formal statements on the carriers’ design, etc are made towards the end of the year/next year before complaining about V/STOL, etc.

So now the video is indicative of nothing is it, so the carriers wont be flying F-35’s after all?:rolleyes: If there was another realistic option on the cards at the time it would have made it into that little public relations video. Every indication is that the ships will be V/STOL, other than vague unsubstantiated rumors to the contrary. I read the osprey news, thats why I know that also mentioned that the project is as yet completely unfunded and not part of the V-22 program.

Fact is that there is nothing on the cards for the MASC at the moment.

Then why suggest the video was indicative of anything? Whether you meant to or not, you suggested it meant something.

Given the earliest date of commissioning of HMS Queen Elizabeth is 2014, that should give enough time to find a good MASC solution. I’m not surprised a helo appeared in a promotional video from last year given there was no idea whether funding for the carriers would be approved, how much, etc.

Do you have a source for you suggestions?

The Osprey news was from Flight Global. The catapult rumour was from RumRation, but I don’t have a link to the comments.

It would probably be a good idea to wait until formal statements on the carriers’ design, etc are made towards the end of the year/next year before complaining about V/STOL, etc.

That’s a video that’s been around since the start of 2006 – it’s hardly an indication of their current plans for MASC. :rolleyes:

Let’s see how the USN’s plan to use the Thales Cerberus maritime surveillance radar on the V-22 Osprey goes. That would be a very competitive solution for MASC. There have also been suggestions that HMS Prince of Wales will receive a catapult, HMS Queen Elizabeth receiving one during her first refit.

Things move that quickly in the MoD these days do they?:rolleyes: Fact is that there is nothing on the cards for the MASC at the moment.

Do you have a source for you suggestions?

BTW, unless the situation has changed recently the V-22/Cerberus combination currently has no funding and does not form any part of the V-22 program, so it does not look like its going anywhere.:confused:

Just to add, it seems to me that the use of a AEW Sea King in the video simulation is a demonstration of the fact that having gone down the V/STOL the MoD has absolutely no idea how it is going to provide a viable AEW capability for its shiny new show pieces.:mad:

That’s a video that’s been around since the start of 2006 – it’s hardly an indication of their current plans for MASC. :rolleyes:

Let’s see how the USN’s plan to use the Thales Cerberus maritime surveillance radar on the V-22 Osprey goes. That would be a very competitive solution for MASC. There have also been suggestions that HMS Prince of Wales will receive a catapult, HMS Queen Elizabeth receiving one during her first refit.

I have no idea, but if you are going to go STOBAR then you might as well go the whole hog and have a CATOBAR but I think we have beaten this subject to death here several times over.;)

Agreed……….Hopefully, both Ships of the Class will be upgraded at some point. 😮

Good News Regardless:D

CHEERS;)

While, I have never been happy with a V/STOL CVF. Why not at lease have Arresting Gear???? (i.e. STOBAR)

I have no idea, but if you are going to go STOBAR then you might as well go the whole hog and have a CATOBAR but I think we have beaten this subject to death here several times over.;)

Just to add, it seems to me that the use of a AEW Sea King in the video simulation is a demonstration of the fact that having gone down the V/STOL the MoD has absolutely no idea how it is going to provide a viable AEW capability for its shiny new show pieces.:mad:

The ski jump looks bigger on the Ark becouse it is the same Jump installed on a vessel about a third of the displacement of the CVF.

By the way the number of escorts has already fallen, with T-23s having been sold to chile and the DDG fleet will be cut to six by the time the last T-45 is delivered. That will reduce the surface combatant fleet to 23 unless a miracle happens and T-45s 7 and 8 are ordered. What used to be the FSC program appears to be in a perpetual state of purgatory, leaving the Frigate fleet to soldier on for an as yet to be determined period of time, whilst being under threat of further cut backs to fund upcoming programs such as MARS and LPH(R). If you want to make sarcastic comments about ‘doom and gloom merchants’, its up to you but frankly your post read more like a labour party/government propaganda statement than a sensible comment from somebody living in the real world.

Obviously it is good news that the ships have been ordered however it seems that the government has decided to stick with the ridiculous V/STOL set up instead of going CTOL, but at least they have been ordered its a relief all round.

While, I have never been happy with a V/STOL CVF. Why not at lease have Arresting Gear???? (i.e. STOBAR)

Interesting to note that the .wmv on the MoD website shows AEW via Seaking.

Also notice how small the ski jump looks in comparison to the one on the Ark.

The ski jump looks bigger on the Ark becouse it is the same Jump installed on a vessel about a third of the displacement of the CVF.

By the way the number of escorts has already fallen, with T-23s having been sold to chile and the DDG fleet will be cut to six by the time the last T-45 is delivered. That will reduce the surface combatant fleet to 23 unless a miracle happens and T-45s 7 and 8 are ordered. What used to be the FSC program appears to be in a perpetual state of purgatory, leaving the Frigate fleet to soldier on for an as yet to be determined period of time, whilst being under threat of further cut backs to fund upcoming programs such as MARS and LPH(R). If you want to make sarcastic comments about ‘doom and gloom merchants’, its up to you but frankly your post read more like a labour party/government propaganda statement than a sensible comment from somebody living in the real world.

Obviously it is good news that the ships have been ordered however it seems that the government has decided to stick with the ridiculous V/STOL set up instead of going CTOL, but at least they have been ordered its a relief all round.