Did you mean Astute and not Resolute:confused:

RN Trafalgar Class has pump jet propulsion (except Trafalgar).

I thought the Vanguard class also had pump jet as well

Very good job, planeman 6000.

I really hope you will do something similar with VTOL carriers and, if i can suggest, you should include only true carriers and not LHD and / or multipurpose vessels.
So you can put:
– Garibaldi (8 Harriers)
– Cavour (with 12 – 16 F-35 and EH-101 HEW)
– Principe de Asturias
– Chakri Naruebet
– INS Viraat

Here you can get a lot of info about Cavour: http://digilander.libero.it/en_mezzi_militari/html/en_cavour.html

why are you ruling out the Invinsables as they are basis of the small carriers and are as pure carrier as Viraat (it still kept it commando carrier ability from when it was in RN services) like wise Cavour muilit perpous his list seems fine despite the questionable ability of Dodoko and Hygua to operate fixed wing

my congratulations to you Planeman for a fantastic guide

The limited number of aircraft being carried is exactly why a high sortie rate is needed. But the Vik will suffer the double whammy of constrained sortie rates and limited number of aircraft. One way of avoiding the elevator bottle neck is to not take aircraft into the hangar unless necessary. That might help in increasing the sortie rate.

and its placement of of its lifts are an also an issue as both of them are directly in the flight line for STOBAR ops they are both in the way for landing’s and take off. the sortiy rate will be rubbish complecated by the lack of beam to move planes.

Yes, it does appear as if the Russians have taken a very different approach to an aircraft carrier rebuild. Ideally, they would have removed a lot of superfluous structure, namely the terribly oversized island.

I really do have to wonder how sound some of these unprecedented shipbuilding practices really are? As we all know, the shipyard involved didn’t build this carrier, or any other carrier, to begin with. You might even question whether the original builder’s documentation is entirely intact, or available, or whether there was even a materials list to begin with?

It’s fair to say that it all looks like a poorly run and executed project at this point.

they have stressed tested the design haven’t they:eek: tested on models the effect of having a massive ski jump on a design which never had anything like that before. sea trials will be interesting.

It comes from the fact that the present FAA fast jet fleet comprises something like nine Harriers owned and partially manned by the RAF… And his Majesty MOD has already declared (several years ago) that the entire JSF fleet will be owned by the RAF.
And it´s not exactly news that the RN his incapable of deploying carriers for part of the year NOW.

sorry but ark and Lusty have both been on ops now the most recent was a joint ops with the amphibious of France in Scotland and Lusty i think is on FOST

May be a touch optimistic there lads. AFAIK the squadron size will not be increasing when Joint Force JSF takes over from the GR9’s. At least initially then you could have, under routine peacetime conditions, just 2 sqdns with 9 aircraft each embarked.

Sounds absurd having a 60k ton carrier that embarks just 18 fast-jets at first view. By conventional wisdom you could say that a 30k ton CV could manage that as I’m sure will be observed loudly and with much wringing of hands when it comes to light that this will be happening. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what CVF is all about though.

CVF is the answer to our Carrier Strike requirement. It is NOT a fleet CV like a Nimitz in the same way that the Kuznetsov is an Air Defence platform and not a multirole fleet CV like a Nimitz. In routine operations CVF will base two of the ‘JFH’ sqdns, RN MASC assets, RN ASW Merlins, force protection Lynx HMA’s, units from the Joint Helicopter outfit in support of deployed ground forces like Chinnies, Merlins and Apache. Plus, probably, UAV’s as they arrive in service all on an as necessary, flexible, basis.

A ‘normal’ airgroup for a deployed CVF in counter-insurgency support ops could be 18 F-35B, 4 ASAC7/MASC, 6 Chinook HC2, 6 Apache, 8 Reaper/Mantis class UAVs. They call it a ‘golf-bag’ approach giving all forward deployed UK forces a fully secure forward base capable of supporting all UK air assets with fully stocked and comprehensively fitted out workshops and an organic logistics infrastructure.

Should the role change to one of maximum effort warfighting, the rotary elements are replaced as the other F-35 squadrons deploy to the active carrier for a full capability of 36 aircraft with the second CVF, as the situation dictates, joining up with F-35B’s drawn from the OCU up to another 36 aircraft.

The concept is to have the ability to deploy very considerable combat power when necessary and flexible forward basing and support to deployed joint forces when 36 or more front line strike aircraft might just be a bit of overkill.

but with the figure of 138+ F35B [baring unexpected cuts]there is the possibility of large air groups as the RN seems to believe that they will have more the F35B as the the RAF as the Typhoon so the feeling from what i gathered in an old converstaion is the F35B will have the dark blue bias.

That’s just mean! 🙂

A POS if I ever saw one:

is that meant to be the primary carrier till the IAC arrives:eek: I’d prefer Hermes please