We shouldn’t fall into the trap of confusing size with cost; a mistake made in previous ship orders such as the type 42s and type 22s. Taking a leaf out of the US Spruance class, I think we should be looking at ordering ships comparable in size to the T45s (with as much commonality as possible in terms of hull design and equipment eg propulsion) whilst tailoring the weapon and sensor fit to suit the mission. Keep the sylver silos and the main gun and adapt the silos to launch whatever is required for the mission. Again, commonality of systems will help keep costs down.

There’s no way C2 and C3 are going to have the same capabilities is there? There’d be no point in splitting them into C2 and C3 and giving them different roles and target hull sizes then would there?

Personally i’m not a fan of that particular design. C3 doesn’t need Aster, VLS, what appears to be quad packed Harpoon or a Phalanx in a pretty useless position unless you just want to shoot your own helos down on approach.

The other design a few posts back is much better I think.

Thank you. My overriding priority in coming up with that ‘stretched River’ design was that the RN is desperately in need of numbers, and on a diminished budget designs which are ‘starting from scratch’, with all’ bells and whistles’ no matter how desirable are in reality just pipe dreams. The River design is already proven, has been stretched once and has room for further growth. So distilling what is actually required for the global patrol tasking I arrived at this ship as a ‘baseline’ vessel which could be produced in large numbers for a reasonable price. I favour the OTO 3 inch over the Bofors 57mm as main gun for reasons of hitting power. The 57mm is IMHO too big for the CIWS role and too small for anti shipping and NGFS. Harpoon gives a very disproportionate anti ship capability for relatively little topweight penalty. The Phalanx is the minimum CIWS, and could be easily substituted with RAM/ Sea RAM if necessary. The Hangar can house a Lynx/Wildcat whilst the flight deck can be made large enough for a Merlin to land and refuel.

As things are, with so few hulls in service or likely to enter service under current plans, ships like the Type 45 are likely to be give inappropriate taskings in peacetime such as guardship of the Caribbean theatre for which they are most definately too much. These types of ship can free up the major units for more suitable taskings, but only if they are bought in sufficient numbers.

I think the USN in the current climate will be quite happy to see China develop a carrier force. In reality there is no way the PLAN could come close to matching the USN for at least fifty years, but in the meantime an emerging carrier force will provide the USN with justification for the retention of it’s own carrier force in the face of budget cuts caused by the current recession. Whilst the US may make noises disagreeing with the China – Brazil deal, quietly they are probably quite pleased about it if it kick starts the PLAN CV program. The USN has suffered for some time now with overwhelming superiority, making it vulnerable to cuts from it’s own government, which as thing stand is the only serious adversary the USN has to face. A potential threat such as the PLAN on paper at least is just what they need right now. Also the Russian Navy carrier program as reported is likely to add to this argument, and once they start cutting steel the the USN will likely have a warm feeling inside for the first time since the fall of the USSR.

I’m not sure I understand this comment clearly?. For all vessels there are routine maintenance jobs that require the hull to be out of water to complete. Someone commented that this ship had been in Chinese yards for 7yrs. In 7yrs I dont recall the last time she was drydocked.

If its been that length of time, including the delivery transit, that she’s not had her hull coating or the stern seals/seacocks etc inspected and serviced then it is to be expected that drydock time would be scheduled. That would be just to preserve the ships watertight integrity.

The issue will be how long she stays in dock for. It is by no means straight-forward that this period is definitely either a Chinese maskirovka or clear evidence of the vessels progress to PLAN service entry. Clearly there is some purpose intended for the vessel going forwards and, regardless of whether that is to be a fleet unit or merely just one more floating casino, the under-hull maintenance would be necessary.

Just to correct you, Varyag HAS been in drydock since she arrived in China; a few years ago now but she was drydocked to be sandblasted and painted. After this initial drydoking she emerged with her hull in PLAN grey and her island in red primer. I’ve always assumed her island was left in primer to preserve it until work stated on fitting it out. In this respect Varyag is in similar condition to Vikramaditya in Russia, as her island is currently also a hollow shell according to photos in circulation.

As to the whole propulsion issue, a ship is built from the keel up and boilers and turbines are installed at an early stage, before the upper decks are built over the top. When Varyag was towed from the Ukraine the statements were that she was without her own propulsion, well obvioulsy as she was an unfinished hulk. That seems to have been interpreted over the years to mean her boilers and engines wereeither removed or never installed. The latter is highly unlikely as removal would mean cutting large holes in the hull and flight deck to reach them (or taking them out sideways, in drydock). No evidence has emerged for this, and I think it more likely that her Boilers and turbines were left in situ, but in an unfinished state, with much pipework and wiring including control systems left undone.

I don’t know my friend!
I think the Tomcats size, weight and complexity would have excluded it from RN service, as much as they would have wanted it.
Do we know the size/dimensions of the CAV-01’s aircraft lift?
The spotting factor of the F-14 Tomcat would have swallowed up a lot of space on both the flight deck and hanger.
I believe that the British and McDonnell Douglas were working on a ‘big wing’ variant of the F-4 Phantom II (with Sky Flash and modern radar!), maybe this would have got the RN by, until the likes of the F/A-18 Hornet came about.
I guess unfortunately we will never know!
On a brighter note we may have seen a more advanced variant (of which there was proposals and studies!!) of the Buccaneer come about!

Regards
Pioneer

The BS6 catapults had a stroke of 250 ft and could launch aircraft of the Tomcats size and weight comfortably. The only restriction on the RNs use of F-14s would have been political and financial during the 70s and 80s, as the F4Ks in service would have been considered too new to replace until the early 90s. The air group for CVA-01 class carriers was officially stated as 18 F-4Ks, 18 Buccaneer S-2s, 4 AEW aircraftand 6 Sea Kings for ASW/SAR.

Watching on the wing with interest. Read somewhere Eagle was to be refitted same as Vicky but due to cost this wasn’t done. Also note Harries flew of Eagle in early 1970.

Eagle was refitted to same standard (and beyond) as Victorious between 1959-64. Harrier trials took place aboard Eagle in 1970 to gain a service clearance for the operation of GR1 Harriers at sea. Trials were repeated every year throughout the seventies, Ark Royal in 71, and Bulwark and Hermes later on. P1127 trials and Kestrel trials had taken place during the sixties aboard Ark and Bulwark. Eagle post 64 was the most advanced carrier in RN possesion until she paid off, best radar fit, heaviest missile and gun battery of any class of ship in the RN at the time. Ark Royal’s Phantomisation was to make her Eagle’s running mate through the seventies. Eagle’s Phantomisation (six months work/£5million) was cancelled in 1968 and her Phantoms were handed over to the RAF. Had the RN known the Labour Government would only let them keep one carrier in the seventies they would have chosen Eagle over Ark Royal.

As Obi Wan suggest, possible fleet attack carriers Eagle & Ark Royal keep Sea Vixens & Buccaneers for power projection alternating commissions, keep the two smaller Vicky & Hermes for ASW and rapid back up as both could operate the attack aircraft & employ harriers in their standard CAG. Would keep fixed wing capable into early ’80s.

Sea Vixens with AWG10/11 radars and Sparrow missiles could ‘hold the line’ until the early eighties, and the Buccaneer was probably the best low level strike aircraft of the period. Tornado derived avionics could give the Buccaneer the necessary edge to remain in front line service until relieved by Hornets(?) in mid 80s to 90s.

The Royal Navy didnt pay a dime for the F-4M´s fleet, that was the RAF version, bought and payed by the “crabs”.
The Navy Phantom was the “K”, only 29 of them were built, so, no new carrier here…

And you are not going to build two conventional carriers for the price of the three “Vinnies”, the entire program was “sold” on the premise of “three ship´s for the cost of one” (CVA-1).
Now what was the complement of the CVA-1?
In the 80´s there isnt the “hardware/software whizbang machines” that permited the massive reduction in “human power” for the new “QE2” class, so we are stuck with a “CVA-1 class” complement. That´s 3250 plus the air group.

The only “workable” trade his the Shar/hornet, the rest, well…

Cheers 🙂

48 Production F-4Ks were built, plus a couple of prototypes. this was to provide enough for two frontline sqns (for Eagle and Ark Royal) plus a training sqn (767NAS) and some attrition spares. In 1968 20 of these were diverted to the RAF to equip 43sqn when Eagle’s upgrade was cancelled, but six were loaned back to the Navy (in RAF camo still) for 767NAS which was to trian the crews for both 43sqn and 892NAS. This is still a significant outlay for the Navy, as it is widely accepted the cost of anglcising the Phantoms with RR Speys and other changes meant two F-4Ks cost the same as three F-4Js ‘off the shelf’. Indeed had the total RN/RAF buy of F-4Ks/F-4Ms had been F-4Js, the cost saving alone would have paid for CVA-01, which could operate the J model without difficulty due to longer and more powerful catapults (250ft stroke BS6s, Ark and Eagle had BS5s, the waist cat was 199ft and the bow cat was 151ft). The carrier often costs a lot less than the air group. Certainly today the cost of two CVFs is a small fraction of the cost of the F-35Bs which will equip them.

So if we drop the Phantom altogether and keep the Sea Vixen until around 1980 we save enough money to replace the existing carrier fleet with at least three conventional flat tops. The Invincibles can be aquired as historical, and significant savings on their cost can be made if the Sea Dart system is dropped from the design (SAM systems make up a large chunk of a modern warships cost, in the case of a T45 PAAMS constitutes 48% of the price). Dropping Sea Dart from CVA-01 could reduce the price by up to 20%…

CVA-01 was quoted as being about £100milion per unit in 1960s prices, Invincible was quoted in the early 70s (prior to the oil crisis and the following massive inflation) as about £60Million. In 1980 Invincible was delivered for about £175million and the third unit Ark Royal was delivered for about £220million. In 1998 the cost of CVF was estimated at about £750million, before the cost of restructuring the British shipbuilding industry was added to the overall price.

I’ve long felt the carrier crisis of the 60s could have been avoided if the RN had simply delayed the replacement programme until the mid 70s; the RAF had big ticket programmes competing for scarce resources at the time and if the Chiefs of the all the services had put their heads together, recognised the Treasury was the real enemy and not each other, then a bit of horse trading could have gone on: 1SL:”We’ll not oppose TSR2 and other programmes in the works if you (CAS) throw your support behind retention of carrier aviation and back CVA programme starting in the early 70s.” The existing carrier force could be kept serviceable for another decade without much difficulty (Eagle SLEP refit 59-64, viable until 1984 without major refit, Victorious SLEP refit 1950-58, viable until 1978-80, Hermes NEW in 1959, STILL in service with India, Centaur new in 1954, refitted 56-58, only ten years sea time when paid off, Ark Royal SLEP 67-70, if extended to 72 then engines could be expected to last into the 80s. Bulwark lasted into the eighties and could have lasted longer if properly refitted, and Albion was the same vintage so could have been retained just as long).

If the Sea Vixen is upgraded further with superior radar, perhaps the same as fitted to the Phantom so that it can fire Sparrow/Skyflash then it can remain viable for fleet defence through the 70s at least (most Sea Vixens had at least 10 years airframe life left to them when withdrawn), so whichever aircraft is chosen to replace the Vixen doesn’t have to enter service until about 1980, on the same timescale as the SHAR historically…