Geoff_BOn the ACA website http://http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/delivering-the-nations-flagships/designing-the-qe-class.aspx there is a picture showing the blocks and who manufactures them. LB04 has a note that it excludes T&U. I might be being dumb, but what is T&U?
No idea what the T & U exactly stands for, but i think they mean the drive train which is a seperate sub alliance. Thus BAE are responsible for building the hull block but the Power & Propulsion alliance provide and supervise the fit of the kit into the block
Geoff_BOn a side note regarding the F-35B i just picked up the new P1216 ASTOVL book by Mike Pryce. This was a BAe program for a supersoonic VTOL aircraft to replace the Harrier dating back to the 80’s.
It does make you think what we could have produced and got into service rather than the JSF F-35B :(. Can’t help thinking we should have pressed ahead with that as a basis for the ASTOVL which would have allowed the F-35 to settle on a USAF/USN common strike fighter.
Geoff_BInteresting news from Australia on the F-35 program as it appears they will review the program next year to decide what future it will have within the RAAF !
Geoff_BNewsflash
The CVF’s are named HMS Queen Elizabeth & HMS Prince of Wales and neither are likley to change name anytime soon!. HMS Queen Elizabeth should be formally laid down when LB03 is placed in the assembly dock this Autumn AFAIK although i don’t think the name is formally assigned till the ship is officially launched (floated out as complete hull ?)
Anyway is LB03 ready to set sail yet or do we need a break in the weather from these Atlantic fronts that are currently lashing the West coast with rain ?
Geoff_BErm isn’t this thread supposed to be about the Carriers sea trials, most of this discussion should really be in the PLAN thread so this can focus on what little info & images that resulted from the first sea trials !
Geoff_BHmmn funny Tim doesn’t pick out the other over expensive projects such as the A330 Tanker program, the A400M, the C-17 or the 16 Billion Typhoon program when using his reasioning we will only need 20 for UK air defence as there is no valid reason for British forces to be deployed overseas.
Geoff_BWell going on the reports and confirmation by Admiral Hussain that the RN are looking at a tanking capability for the F35C (ignoring that PFI nonsense with the RAF a330MRTT) I have been pondering how that would work out.
First of I presume that the buddy store would be a variant of the Cobham 750 series already used by the USN:
http://www.cobham.com/media/33361/cob_m04_754_datasheet_uk_fa.pdf
Looking at F35C configuration there is no suitable center line station and only the inboard wing pylons are wet so they would have to hang the pod off a wing pylon. On the other side they would need to fit a wing tank, not entirely sure what sizes those come in but I do wonder what the landing characteristics would be with an empty tank on one side. Then again considering the huge range of the F35C could the wing tank be used as more of a counterbalance and the jet hands off internal fuel instead to any jet requiring a top up, considering an F35C in tanker configuration would be close to the carrier this might work.
Anyway just pondering.
Of course hang all that we could just get Super Hornet or Rafale M and problem solved.
Doesnt the C have a centre line pylon for the external Gun pod although i doubt its plumbed.
The problem is not so much the aircraft structure for plumbing to act as a tanker but the programming changes to the flight control system and fuel management system. I suspect thats where the greatest cost will be and may well be prohibitive if not an existing feature of the design.
It may well prove easier to lease a token amount of Hornets for the tanker role from the USN or Boeing as and when they are needed.
Either way i suspect the Tanker solution like the AEW solution won’t be decided till after 2015 at the earliest, we’ll just has a series of design studies exercises to identify the pros & cons together with costs till then.
Geoff_BA hearty welcome to HMAS Claude Choules L100
http://www.navy.gov.au/Naming_of_Ex_RFA_Largs_Bay_-_HMAS_Choules
Interesting choice of name, but a very fitting tribute 🙂
Geoff_BI have looked at the other option and that is reducing our nation to the national standing of Belgium.
The Royal Navy think they need a carrier like QE class, all the studies have pointed to more steel is better. Ocean is good at what it does for the money but doesn’t offer the capability that QE class does.
What dwindling role? All I see is our carriers being needed over and over again to bail us out of different problems. The number of carriers we operated during WW2 was totally artificial, we need a small number of decent carriers that give us a capability to project power globally has been shown repeatedly. That is my opinion, I suppose I am being blinkered about it but at least I see the value rather then dismiss them.
Its also been the opinion of the British Governents since 1982 so i dont think your being blinkered, its some light blue biased Trolls trying to stir up an utterly pointless argument. The ships are well in build now, the carriers are a key aspect of the Fleet layout and the primary focus of our post 2020 strategy, thats not going to change now.
Geoff_BThe Two Island design goes back to the Malta with an aft island for radar mast and radar guided gun sights, Technically the US CVN are twin Island designs as they carry a similar radar tower aft of the Island. Some of the CV-52 designs actually had split island with seperate funnels to ease the pressure of trunking into one island structure.
The BMT/Thales design (yes it was designed by the traditional designers in Bath) actually had the long Island in line with Invincible, they evolved the Twin Island structure along with the broad deep sponsons as the optimum design for the gas turbine powered CVF to ensure efficieint flight operations, the hanger is uncluttered by trunking, the deck edge lifts service the fore and aft areas of the hanger and each are potected by an island stucture and sponson when in use. The Flyco postion is located for maximum view of the flight operations and the Navigational island has a decent view for ship operations.
Of course we wont see how effective it will be till the next decade when flight operations go into full swing, but it will be interesting to see how they compare.
Surprised Kilo isnt having kittens about CVN-78 as they have moved the island even further aft and changed its shape to an angular wedge
Geoff_BThat was discussed last month in the CVF thread, the beeb must be looking for something not Riot related to comment upon.
The 2020 quote should really be taken in context, an MP asked what carrier capability we would have in 2020, now is that 1/1/2020 or 31/12/2020 ! it wasn’t specified. The Admiral replied that one carrier would be operational as per the plans and out of the 18 F-35C delivered to the UK by that point 6 of those would be assigned to the Carrier. Its the F-35 program thats settings schedule the operational aircraft wont be ready till late 2017 at the earliest and with deliveries we will only have 18 out of our first batch by 2020, we would have been no better off with the B once it got shoved to the back of the queue by Gates at the start of the year.
The funny part in that interview was the MP reading the NAO report and not having a clue what he was reading, he flagged up RN carriers only having the 2 rail EMALS as opposed to the USN 4 rails EMALS and was thus inferior. Nobody told him that actually meant 2 catapults as opposed to 4 on the larger USN carriers and the Catapult systems will be identical !!!. The NAO actually meant that the USN had greater redundency in that if one cat goes US its only a 25% loss in capability as opposed to 50% for the RN. But the NAO report was rush job and certainly didnt explain this in the text, but he really should have got this clarified before trying to ask about it.
Interestingly since this select committee interview Fox has secured funding for the actual conversion work and F-35s now and has promised that both carriers will be duely converted
Geoff_BReferring to Italy & Spain, considering their economies are both curently being shored up by the rest of Europe i suspect expensive F-35 aircraft won’t be high on their priorities.
Whilst they do both have new Aviation ships these are primarily landing ships in the LHA/LHD roles with only a secondary stop gap Carrier role, should the F-35B get cancelled the Ski Jumps would likelly be removed when the harriers retire to increase landing spots for helicopters. Neither Navy currently have any active programs to replace thier current STOVL CV’s when they reach the end of their operational lives.
Back on subject the next few months could prove to be the killer for the F-35 program, with cuts on the table, both expensive stealth fighters grounded stalling the progress the F-35 program has made since its last review, its going to take some fast talking to convince those in Washington thats worth the expenditure. Even the USMC Generals might find it hard to push the F-35B case if its ARG’s themselves now come into the firing line. I suspect the F-35A will be safe but the other two specialised variants are bound to be questioned at some point.
Geoff_BIf I were in the market (whether a FMS customer or Partner) buying this jet, I’d wait for a mature block IV follow-on block – the block which was originally intended to be the procured baseline variant
Ah but thats where the problem lies it was targeted at customers who needed to replace their legacy combat aircraft this decade, that version won’t be available in the numbers required till the next decade leaving customers struggling to fill the capability gap with aircraft reaching their expiry dates long before the F-35 block IV will be ready. The other aspect with the delayed timeline is that with its cost so high when money is tight there is not much funding for stop gap replacements or service life extention programs to keep those legacy aircraft operational till they can be replaced !.
Geoff_BThe first take off and landing of many! (I don’t think it’s a PS…?)
I do, helicopters approach parrallel to the ship to align with their landing spot then side slip over and land. They don’t fly up and down the flight deck, and we would have seen more shots of the action if it was real
Geoff_BThe latest MOD Desider in-house magazine has a bit of a carrier update, but nothing new from what we already know as far as i can see.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/MicroSite/DES/OurPublications/desider/DesiderIssue39August2011.htm
Sign In
