Massive cost over run on CVF

The deck markings, specifically the angled deck centre line to which you refer,etc…..

Cheers, obvious really.

slightly off topic to a degree, but related. Carrier deck markings.

What is the philosophy, thinking, need etc behind how you paint up your carrier deck. Why did the old ark go with red centre markings, why did this vanish with the CVS? Saw in the film CVF is keeping up the CVS style markings, which must be a first for an RN carrier to keep the deck markings of the previous class… just curious.

The deck markings, specifically the angled deck centre line to which you refer, began in the as a white unbroken line prewar, went to a broken white line during the war, and after the introduction of the angled deck in the 50s became a thick unbroken white line, which then in the early 60s evolved through yellow, then yellow (broken), then orange dayglow (broken) the red dayglow (broken) then red dayglow with white edges (broken) around 64-65. Ark was the last carrier to use this, and it should be remembered the purpose of the bright colours is so that pilots can see it from a couple of miles out whilst on approach even in bad weather. When the switch was made to STOVL operations in 1980, there was no need for a high visibility runway centre line, as the purpose was now to lead pilots up to the ski jump for launch, not lead them down to the deck from some distance away. As the pilot of a Harrier is only a few feet above the deck bright colours are unecessary, hence black with a thin white edging. This scheme was also adopted by the Indians when they bought Hermes, and may appear on the new carriers for their launching runway (the run up to the ski jump), although the angled deck runways will probably still need a high visibility centreline. RAF Argus and HMS Ocean also have the black ‘Harrier’ centre line even though they are not supposed to operate them for anything other than ferry duties, but this is ease training procedures for the helicopter pilots, who have to use the same decks as the Harriers.

slightly off topic to a degree, but related. Carrier deck markings.

What is the philosophy, thinking, need etc behind how you paint up your carrier deck. Why did the old ark go with red centre markings, why did this vanish with the CVS? Saw in the film CVF is keeping up the CVS style markings, which must be a first for an RN carrier to keep the deck markings of the previous class… just curious.

Thats fine and everything, I still believe they should be fitted with EMALS when they are launched and wires.

I think we should continue to look at ways to make the CVF more effective and without doubt the inclusion of these things would help. We could operate Hawkeyes, we could look to purchase a limited number of Growlers e.t.c

I know its fairy tale stuff but I would much rather they were fitted with than for.

Problem is though Stan the inclusion of arresting gear and cats means crew to operate them. Using the US CVN’s as a rough scale we’d probably be looking at another 100-150 personnel embarked. Then there is the logistics to support the equipment and lastly the acquistion costs. EMALS is still going to be relatively immature by the time CVF is launched so including it would be far from risk-free.

For the advantages of just operating a det of E-2’s, that we also have no budget for, or a det of Growlers that we’d have to acquire, support as a seperate type aboard ship and maintain an exclusive pool of deck-qual’d pilots for, its just not worth the cost at this point.

Come CVF’s first major refit things may be different. We may see an emerging or re-emerging blue water naval threat by then and EMALS may be nice and mature so, at that time, there may be justification for those systems and for CVF to switch role to that of a ‘proper’ Fleet carrier. At the moment the justification just isnt there.

Simply because those two factors would drive up the running costs year-on-year, which far outweigh initial acquisition costs, for no useable advantage.

CVF with STOVL is the best solution possible for UK Carrier Strike. Its not the best solution to make CVF a Fleet Carrier but thats not the RN requirement right now!.

Thats fine and everything, I still believe they should be fitted with EMALS when they are launched and wires.

I think we should continue to look at ways to make the CVF more effective and without doubt the inclusion of these things would help. We could operate Hawkeyes, we could look to purchase a limited number of Growlers e.t.c

I know its fairy tale stuff but I would much rather they were fitted with than for.

Since the cost is going up anyway, why not add nuclear propulsion and catapults?:confused:
Which is what they should have done to begin with

Simply because those two factors would drive up the running costs year-on-year, which far outweigh initial acquisition costs, for no useable advantage.

CVF with STOVL is the best solution possible for UK Carrier Strike. Its not the best solution to make CVF a Fleet Carrier but thats not the RN requirement right now!.

Since the cost is going up anyway, why not add nuclear propulsion and catapults?:confused:
Which is what they should have done to begin with

Errr – because it will increase the cost a hell of a lot more, & delay construction by years?

The design has been done. The engines have already been ordered. Re-design for nuclear power would mean:-
– paying penalties for cancellation of engines & other equipment
– huge building delay, at immense cost, while major redesign is done
– considerable additional cost for the nuclear propulsion system
– probably a further delay while nuclear powerplants are built

A few billion quid and several extra years later, we’ll get two new carriers. In the meantime, what do we do? Run on the already old Invincible class, with their rapidly wearing out Harrier GR9s? Try to operate F-35B off them? That would mean buying F-35B until the new catapult-equipped nuclear carriers with their F-35C or whatever (not F-35B, or why fit the catapults?) enter service. More extra cost! Or do we just go without fighters at sea for a while?

😉

One thing I have noted in recent pictures and now this video of the new carriers is I don’t see any jet blast deflectors anymore.

Considering the power of the engines fitted to the F35 I would of thought they would be a rather essential feature if they didn’t want to melt the nose off the fighter waiting behind to take off plus the general hazard for the crewman operating on deck. Maybe a holdback system like that fitted to the Admiral Kuznetsov would be a good idea as well.

Latest video, it’s the one where all of those cool pics were taken from:

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-events/rn-live/all-news/queen-elizabeth-class/*/changeNav/6568

Did anyone else notice in the end credits reference to a narrator but during the presentation all I noticed was music. Did anyone else here narration? Oh and by the way, the ships were rather cool, just a pity they weren’t being called Eagle and Ark Royal. Who do we write to about trying to get their names changed or could we start an online petition?

Hunts around for the sarcasm button….ah! set too low….. 🙂

Well yes I suppose! But I meant the shot showed a CVF with two darings, an astute and a Wave AOR. It was a being built/just built by BAE only task force!

They probably don’t have CGI models of the other ship classes, not worth it to make them for one video when they can get away with what they already have.

BAe has absorbed the VT shipbuilding division (VT exercised its rights to sell its share of BVT to BAe), this leaves BAe as the only company to operate warships construction yards in the UK.

Well yes I suppose! But I meant the shot showed a CVF with two darings, an astute and a Wave AOR. It was a being built/just built by BAE only task force!

Or is BAE systems hoping the RN will operate only its products?

BAe has absorbed the VT shipbuilding division (VT exercised its rights to sell its share of BVT to BAe), this leaves BAe as the only company to operate warships construction yards in the UK.

Latest video, it’s the one where all of those cool pics were taken from:

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-events/rn-live/all-news/queen-elizabeth-class/*/changeNav/6568

Well I’m sold. I’ll have five please! 😀

Not sure about the size of that task force near the end. Looks a bit sparse…. sign of the times? Or is BAE systems hoping the RN will operate only its products?

Latest video, it’s the one where all of those cool pics were taken from:

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-events/rn-live/all-news/queen-elizabeth-class/*/changeNav/6568

No, Ark Royal. She was modified in refit to make her perform better in the LPH role. Illustrious & Invincible haven’t had those changes, AFAIK. Also, the Ark is the newest, & could carry on as an LPH for a while after the QEs enter service.

Ah well. Missed opportunities, eh?

not quite ark still can be re-roled again possibly when the first CVF enters servise. the main problem i have with Ark an LPH sister to Ocean is how much more man power Ark requires compared with Ocean. You couldn’t run it with less 750 ships crew compared with 285 of Ocean. If you slim down the company of Ark as an LPH it would make an excellent sister

For what its worth (nothing), in my opinion they should have reroled Invincible as an LPH …

No, Ark Royal. She was modified in refit to make her perform better in the LPH role. Illustrious & Invincible haven’t had those changes, AFAIK. Also, the Ark is the newest, & could carry on as an LPH for a while after the QEs enter service.

Ah well. Missed opportunities, eh?

Even if the first of the two ships were nearly began to build (first steel cutting ceremony a week or two back)…With the budget cuts, it is possible to cancel the second ship ? :rolleyes:

No. One contract for two ships, not two contracts. Almost all the subcontracts have been placed, and all are for two ships (eg four aircraft lifts, two sets of radars, two sets of weapon handling systems, 80,000 tonnes of steel). The project is to provide the RN with a capability. that capability cannot be achieved with just one hull, and indeed is marginal with two. Three ships are needed to keep one forward deployed on station (ship1 deployed, ship two at home in refit/ crew on leave and ship 3 working up post refit and pre deployment). With two ships what will be achieved is one always available for deployment, with a second capable of deploying if needed at short notice (weeks or months depending on circumstances). Nothing is gained by asking for only one ship at this point, zero savings, capability decimated by 50% at least. Workload at shipyards halved, major redundancies, loss of skills needed to maintain warship building in the UK. A major part of the CVF costs are to cover the reorganisation of the UK shipbuilding industry, such that a hypothetical third CVF would not cost anywhere near 50% of the price of the first two. I’d estimate the real price of a CVF minus the industry reorganisation costs that have been lumped in with them as closer to £1.5Billion, which illustrates just how large the other costs are. Even with this knowledge, cutting one of the two CVFs will not save that sum, as the penalty clauses will mean no net savings. Cheapest option right now is to go ahead and build both of them!

We have started building. 1SL and the Princess Royal attended the official first steel cutting ceremony a week or two back. The extra £1Billion cost is almost entirely due to the Government ordered extension of the building period. If they had kept to the original schedule we would only be hearing about a cost increase of £100-£200million by now, hardly worth reporting. Think about it, they are going to have to keep the yards and tens of thousands of skilled workers on this project for another two or three years over what they had budgeted for. Annual payments go down, but the overall cost goes up. Try the same thing with your mortgage and see what happens.:eek:

Even if the first of the two ships were nearly began to build (first steel cutting ceremony a week or two back)…With the budget cuts, it is possible to cancel the second ship ? :rolleyes: