PromThe Americans were not “forcing” a US eyes only room on us
BAES did not willingly turn down hundred of millions of work integrating EMALS because they thought they would get less work-share on F35. Their work-share would have been almost unchanged – with the number of aircraft we are buying it would be a drop in the ocean compared to USN/USMC/USAF purchases, and BAES had a workshare for all 3 variants (it is Rolls who would suffer most from fewer F35Bs)
US were not funding EMALS; they were underwriting the remaining development risk, that is all
PromIts been bugging me too, but I didn’t like to say
PromNot as absurd as Falkland; in fact, not even close.
Why, have people who wish to remain Chinese been permanently settled on some of these rocks for over a century and thus provide a legal claim on the area under article 1 of the United Nations?
Or is the comparison with the Falklands actually complete bunkum?
PromHold your horses Pong,
If we really go to SRVL (and I didn’t think that had been decided yet) then should we actually have an angled deck!
PromI have heard that the Selex PAR wasn’t good enough but not for the reasons stated. Not many others to choose from, but I think it has to be all re-bid technically
PromAll numbers from BAE are mad,I wouldnt give them the benefit of the doubt !
The ACA is an alliance, that has Thales and Babcock working alongside BAES and a large number of (sub-)contractors. And crucially it also has RN personnel sitting at desks in the same office, on the same IT
The cost estimate is not a wet finger in the air job, it is the sum of hundreds of change requests, each costed and reviewed by number of people from those different organisations – including the RN.
Many of those people passionately wanted CATOBAR, both because they thought it would be better, and in some cases they had added incentive because their job depended on the conversion going ahead.
Yet people on the internet who have never seen a single drawing, specification or design document of this ship know better.
Promthe carrier is way too ‘Rolls Royce’…
Such as?
it is disastrous to only have one company in control of our ‘defence’.
We don’t- take 2011 figures
300,000 – Number of people employed by the defence industry overall in the UK
40,000 – Number of employees BAE Systems has in the UK
9,000 – Number of defence companies in the UK, including small businesses.
I’m one of those other 260,000, and whilst BAES are not perfect, they are no worse than any of the big defence companies (US, French or Italian) and the accusations often made about them are mostly complete conspiracy ********
For every decision the Mod or UK defence industry makes (including several of my own) there usually at least a few people on the internet who are absolutely convinced that they know better. Usually on the basis of one conversation, a sales blurb or the fact that one product ‘looks better’. I sometimes wonder why I bother reading the thousands of pages of analysis when it is apparently so easy
PromI will be quite happy to stand up the first round! Is the launch date finalised yet…I’ve lost track of the build schedule to be honest!.
Personally I will be looking for the first time she comes into Portsmouth. More impressive I think.
As to dates, well the ACA now have to re-plan putting all the bits they had taken off QEC back on so that will probably slip things.
In the meantime another block (LB02) goes on the barge next week
PromI disagree with Jonesy about the preferred option as I would have rather had CATOBAR with the reduced through life cost, greater flexibility for UAVs and a future AEW.
However, he is right that this is not the end of the world. It would appear that we will get 2 carriers but with crew to only support 1 at a time (though you can bet that would change quickly in a FI 2 type situation) that will provide a very effective base for a very effective air strike capability.
Any comparison with CVS and harrier is so one sided as to be meaningless. If a QEC were re-inforced in time of need to close to a full complement (which can happen quickly) then a UK strike froce consisting of SSNs, T45s, frigates and 1 QEC would be more than a match for all bar a very few countries.
Prom[QUOTE=Jonesy;1888684]Not really….look at the list Prom generated….nothing on it is especially difficult. QUOTE]
I don’t think that is true – see DuffGun’s response for example
Promwasn’t the cvf designed to be modular to allow easy swapping of cats and ski jump configs? so where’s the problem coming from?
The MOD wanted the ability to swap, but didn’t know which (if any) catapult system they would choose (as neither were at that time mature).
They didn’t want to fund any investigation unless they were going to swap.
So some space and weight budget were left.
Now we come to convert (or not) and QEC super-blocks are mostly complete. And regrettably, whereas 99% of people look at the hull development and think that is all there is more or less; the reality os more like an iceberg
The ACA need to:
Fit the final design for the equipments into the holes, replacing all the superstructure; ramp, storage etc
Change the deck layout including lighting
Change the aircraft landing system; planning system, workshops and various others
Figure out all the different leads needed for power (various voltages and types); cooling (chilled water and/or air); control cabling (copper and FO) through hundreds of compartments, most of which are already built without impeding, obstructing or impacting any of the thousands of existing such connections or equipments (including EMC effects; heating considerations etc)
Re-work the safety case;
Re-work the manuals;
Update the reliability & availability analysis;
Update the training material
Plus all the stuff I have forgotten
Will next week be OK or are you in a hurry?
PromCVF started out as a 40,000 ton pure STOVL design looking a lot like an America-class LPD. As things evolved, it got bigger, and concept designs were submitted by BAE and Thales, one each in STOVL and CATOBAR. .
I wasn’t referring to concept designs, I was referring to the designs produced by industry to meet the requirements that were funded through initial gate. All sorts of concepts were produced before then, but both industrial teams said that you needed a bigger size for the funded reqt, and as per instructions, both produced a STOVL and CATOBAR design.
Jonesy, I thought by
the choice of the ship and operating technique was an obvious one
you meant that STOVL was the obvious choice. Which is not true (except to you), and that is my point. From IG onwards there has never been a time when the design has ever been STOVL only.
I agree that the reqt is for a strike carrier, I didn’t mean to disagree with that, although both teams were instructed to talk to MASC (for AEW) and the reqts did lead to both designs being armoured (later removed for cost saving) so in fact the difference between the reqts and an all-purpose carrier is paper thin
PromYou do have to accept that the ship was designed to the requirement that drove the acquisition of the ship in the first place.
Seeing that requirement was ‘Carrier Strike’, nothing more ambitious, and it was conceived to be a mostly RAF run operation on the air side the choice of the ship and operating technique was an obvious one. The design was adaptable for reasons of future proofing and STOVL failure insurance. A decade later STOVL still hasn’t failed despite continual predictions of precisely that.
Quite apart from a lack of clear direction the issue is that the excellent work that set out the, clear and appropriate, original requirement has been lost sight of and the result, following the CATOBAR shift, is a god awful mess with a carrier and airgroup that do not match.
That is not an accurate representation of the original requirement for the design of the carrier, nor of the reasons for it.
When BAES and Thales were competing they were asked to produce a design for CATOBAR and a design for STOVL. When the time came that the MoD promised to make a decision they delayed it. When the new time came they asked for a STOVL design that could be converted at any time before, during or after the build to an EM based CATOBAR. However as there was no design for EMALS at that point (or even a selection of which EM catapult) the industrial designers could not really do any more than leave space (an amount guessed at).
There has never been a time when the requirement was solely for a purely STOVL design. The option for conversion was not for future proofing. CATOBAR was always preferred, but steam cats were too expensive and EM catapults were not mature enough. Hence the ‘fudge’ to allow us to convert when they matured – a decision which the MoD/govt made at the appropriate time before working out the cost
PromWell according to AIS the next blocks have arrived in the firth of forth and are now stopped, presumably waiting for the tide, before she goes under the bridge.
Unfortunately the local webcams are blocked by IT here. Anyone fancy taking a snapshot as she goes under the bridge (or is near)?
I think a webcam can be found at
PromI agree with Kev, those numbers don’t look good
Frankly the laws of physics dictate that any VTOL design will always have limitations
As to doing AEW differently with a swarm of small affordable sensor platforms all providing data which is all communicated to the ship and fused. Wonderful solution, I assume that the TRL is 6 or above, and you can fit within current bandwidth, when can you deliver?
And until you can meet those conditions (and preferably AAR as well), please forgive me if I would prefer to have the flexibility of CATOBAR.
Sign In
