Something like 50% of the money has already been spent now anyway. And since the contract for CVF was signed after the tranche three typhoon issues, i’m fairly sure that like typhoon, the carriers would cost as much to the government whether they are built or not at this stage.

Not to mention the fact that without CVF and with FSC still years from construction, every remaining military shipyard in Britain (minus Barrow sub works) will need state support to remain open with nothing in their order books, having kept them clear for CVF.

The shipbuilding pattern has fallen into the same state as the sub building program, one ship at a time and each program starting when the one before finishes. Any break in the work and yards close, skills are lost. It means that anything finalised and planned/started construction like CVF can’t be cancelled without major problems for the shipyards arising.

We already have rumours of 2 yards set to close once CVF is done because FSC won’t be able to sustain them all.

Those are great images. Some of the shots even looked real, a pity they couldn’t work up a few of CVA-01, I’d love to see what that would have looked like in the flesh so to speak. I do have a question though, what are those displays on the islands? They look like the electronic timetables you get in railway and some bus stations?

I’d guess they’re for giving info to flight crews or for signalling pilots as they prepare to launch.

I thought that the F35 was being used to replace the F18? Or is that just earlier models?

I don’t like the colour tinge on the photo, looks like it was left in the sun for years.

First off, Edlaw made some good points. As a side note: What is wrong with the new VLS/radar that means the Zumwalt’s can’t use certain SM missiles? I never understood that. And if that could be solved then I can’t see what would be massively wrong with using the Zumwalt as a base for the new CGX if costs could be reduced somewhat.

Now onto Maximus, first i’d like to apologise for my remarks, i’ll leave any detailed explantations of why the ships is not a great choice for the RN for some other time if you wish to hear it in depth. I’ll try to focus on constructive critiscm of the design itself.

Assuming that your most recent design is this one:

http://s248.photobucket.com/albums/gg167/maximusslade/Constitution/?action=view&current=CBGN7-1.png

First, your Goalkeepers and RAM’s seem excessive, at the back you have a Goalkeeper and then right behind and above, a RAM. They both have the same field of fire and are supposed to do the same job. If that is not the case, then why only RAM’s at the port and starboard positions and only a Goalkeeper in front of the bridge?

Second, the distance between the flight deck and hangars is too far. It would be a massive hassle to transfer aircraft from to another and 2 seperate hangars creates duplication issues with aviation equipment that is unnecessary. When the rear weapons systems are in use it would also pretty much stop any aviation movement too, since the helo’s would at some point have to move through their field of fire from hangar to flight deck.

Third, for a ship of that size i’d expect more than 2 RHIB’s aboard.

Fourth, I’m struggling to see the necessity of the second (rear mast) with radar facing the same directions as those on the front mast, essentially duplicating capability again. Wouldn’t it be better to delete that mast and place another radar face or 2 on the front mast facing back?

As another side note, on the drawing above, the forward Goalkeeper is in 2 different positions in the different views, on the bird’s eye, it appears to be on top of the bridge.

On another note, the drawing you posted giving ships uses (colour coded), I couldn’t see which colour you intended for use as ammunition storage? Was it included with the main weapons? Where would the armoury/weapons locker be for example?

Finally, the 8 cannons present in 4 mounts. This does just seem more about recreating a battleship rather than a NGS capability. Now 4 guns could do the job pretty well, is it really necessary for 8? Especially with a large VLS at your disposal? Remember this ship wouldn’t be able to travel unescorted, an SSN would eat it alive, so it’s escorts will have guns too. This ship on it’s own would never be needed to single handedly flatten a country so it does come across as excessive. If all that firepower is needed, a CAG would have been a better choice.

Last note, is the double level bridge necessary? The situational awareness doesn’t appear great from there anyway, and most ships functions would happen elsewhere.

I might be able to say more if you give me the most up to date drawings and plans (like the colour coded things) so I can look in more depth.

Fortunately with the way government contracts have gone this decade, the carrier documents will have penalty clauses that be got out of. That means if anyone is tempted to cancel Prince of Wales the lawyers will have to be called in, who will say after a settlement or court order and costs there will be f-all savings (if there are any at all).

And yet the treasury would rather waste their money that way than pay for the carriers if their attitude to Typhoon is any indication.

That’s good news. It’s about time they started getting the full air to ground configurations operational for use. Right now they’re more useful than the A2A roles.

Quite right and indeed if memory serves, many of the 15 carriers designed during the latter half of the War – 8 Hermes, 3(or 4) Audacious and 3(or 4) Malta had begun to be built before the axe was wielded on all but 6 of them. By the way there will according to the BBC website be a ceremony today in Glasgow Govan to mark the beginning of construction. Perhaps people who live near here and who frequent these boards could pop down to the yard and takes pics every now and then (security and access permitting of course) to show the progress.

That would be interesting to see, but it won’t show the whole ship, it’s being built in blocks remember.

I don’t know the truth of it but I suspect many people would point the finger of blame at Gordon Brown over under funding of UK armed forces.

I find my finger pointing in that direction fairly often too. Being puppet master to the treasury through the Blair years makes it obvious as it is now. The only reason any controversial/cuttable expensive projects have got funding in the last couple of years is when Gordon has a vested interest (CVF has so many jobs in his constituency it isn’t even funny.)

I really do hope the CVF’s are built. Even if they don’t get all the equipment/planes they need. If it comes down to it, and Britain really does need them in the future and the govt. aren’t total fools, F35’s can be procured much quicker than a CVF.