TinWingIndeed. If people would stop thinking about CVF as a scaled-down US-style CVN & instead start thinking of it as a on steroids, they should have a better understanding.
The problem with that line of thinking is that the CVFs lack the vehicle decks, accommodation facilities and docking well of a LHD/LHA. No doubt, they do have a great deal of unused internal volume, given the very small prospective combat air group. However, they are no more amphibious ships than the converted Centaur class “commando carriers.”
The dirty secret is that a true LHD/LHA would have been a vastly cheaper ship, both to procure and to operate. A purpose built LHD/LHA would also have accommodate the likely, very minimal combat airgroup as well as an aircraft carrier function.
TinWingThis announcement truly changes nothing, except decreasing the F-35B buy solely to the detriment of the RAF.
The reality is that a LPH order was not going to the be forthcoming in the short term and that CVFs were never going to have a full combat air group in actual practice. It also seemed unlikely that both would ever be in service simultaneously, or embark more than 9 F-35Bs under normal circumstances..
It remains to be seen if the second carrier is actually “downgraded” in any way, as there is precious little left to downgrade. In any case, with the huge, largely empty hangars, these ships would have very little credibility as aircraft carriers, so the LPH role seems like a reasonable justification.
Perhaps both carriers will be reclassified as LPHs. Looking at the current economic situation, it seems just as likely that the second carrier might assume the current role of the Invincible as a source of spare parts. After all, such a move would substantially reduce long term support costs.
There is an additional, less optimistic interpretation of current events. Removing the requirement for a second carrier would remove any justification for keeping Illustrious in service. As the Invincible has most likely been depleted as a parts source, retiring a second carrier to support Ark Royal makes sense. With just Ark Royal and Ocean remaining, there would still be a two flat top fleet, serving as justification for the completion of a single CVF “carrier” and a single CVF “LPH,’ although it remains to be seen just how different the two would actually be.
Of course, under the least optimistic scenario, the RAF keeps all 50 F-35Bs, or the buy gets deferred to death, or canceled altogether. The RN gets stuck with two massive hulls which would make splendid accommodation hulks. After all, the Royal Navy has a long and glorious history of providing accommodation hulks….
TinWingWho needs spare capacity, how about we actually “stimulate” heavy industry and get BAe to create jobs/capacity. Wouldn’t need much room to build the blocks for a few extra T45’s/C1/2 and the CVFs will be using different docks for fit-out.
Penny pinching is killing the services IMO
The problem with that theory is that the British shipbuilding industry is effectively dead on a commercial level. More to the point, there is no point in building additional hulls when the there is no conceivable budget scenario under which they could be fully equipped and fitted out, let alone manned, operated and maintained.
In any case, a few short term, temporary shipbuilding jobs won’t do much to decrease unemployment. It’s hard to even imagine very much enthusiasm in the British workforce for the sort of industrial employment that has been unfamiliar for the last two generations.
TinWinghere’s an idea from another thread: how about a pop-up ski-jump for the USN L-class boats? that way they’d get maximum fixed-wing performance & capability without necessarily sacrificing deck space for a landing spot.
would such a pop-up ramp be technically feasible? would it add enough benefit to offset cost? i know the political realities within the US navy would still likely kibosh any such plan, but i’m just thinking about different ways they could potentially maximize the capability and flexibility of these ships.
First of all, the term “L-class boats” refers to WWI submarines, not modern LHD/LHA amphibious ships.
Second of all, there’s no merit to a “pop-up ski-jump,” as a usefully large ski-jump involves a 12 to 14 degree angle, large enough to be immovable. While the ex-Foch was modified with a small retractable devices to aid the marginal take-off performance of the Rafale from the short catapults, something of a practical scale wouldn’t have ameaningful effect with just a deck run.
TinWingIt’s worth noting that a LPH/LHA/LHD is primarily an amphibious warfare platform and not an aircraft carrier. This is why unobstructed deck space is more vital than a permanent ski jump. Harriers most likely would fly off to an austere shore base in the event of a real wartime scenario.
With the coming of the F-35B, and its far more adequate take off performance, a ski jump would be even less desirable aboard large American LHD/LHAs.
TinWingOk i have a question why does the Norwegian F310 Nansen have that crown over the bridge where the Aegis sits? From what I understand the F100 Bazan and the F310 Nansen were built on the same hull by Navinatina but why did the superstructers change so much?
It kind of looks like a huge brain on the Nansen…
Also i know the F310 Nansen is configured for ASW and the F100 Bazan is AAW.
thanks
The two types aren’t built on the “same hull.” In fact, the F310 is not only shorter, but has a narrower beam. Perhaps the two ships have similar designs, or one might be “based” on the other, but they are not identical.
TinWingI am not that hot on the APAR idea. It ties itself to using X-band for the sole purpose so the emissions can also acts as illumination for the SM-2 semi active homers. However, X-band on modulated CWI simply does not have the range and volume of S-band on PRF, the latter probably having a range of 2 or 3x, although APAR delivers the superior resolution. But then of course, having Smart-L to produce an S or L-band or NATO E band for wide volume search mitigates this.
But in the future, to keep using X-band means that your AESA arrays are tied to a Gallium product, GaAs for now. GaN delivers far greater power but at the expense of great heat and so far remains unreliable despite all the research put into it. I won’t throw all my eggs on that one. But if you use S-Band, you open up your array design to use Silicon Carbide, which delivers power densities similar to GaN, but transfers heat better, so far has proven reliable, and a hell of a lot cheaper, enabling the potential to build huge arrays at low costs. Except that SiCa doesn’t do X-band. But it will be perfectly alright if your S-band AESA use SiCa, and S-band is sufficient to provide mid phase updates to any active homing missile (this array cannot do X-band illumination naturally). If you have to use X-band somehow, you have to put a separate small dedicated array, not necessarily an X-band GaAs type AESA, but even a mechanical array.
In other words, the Ceafar S-band/CeamountX-band combination falls closer to the ideal than APAR?
TinWingA very nice vessel but with a dated machinery set. It was orginally planned that the class would get the WR21 but it was not available at the time. There is some suggestion that the machinery space design could still accomodate such a plant.
The WR-21 itself appears to have become dated, and Rolls Royce has apparently shifted all marketing efforts to the cheaper, more powerful MT-30.
Beyond the 6 Type 45s, I sincerely doubt there will be any more WR-21 turbines ordered.
TinWingFunny how the french seem to think ordering more ships from home yards will have a positive impact on their fiscal situation wheras Brown seems to think delaying ours is the better plan.
I hate it when the french get things right 🙁
The big difference is that the French still have a commercially viable shipbuilding industry. Recently a couple of cruise ship orders have been cancelled, and with the French CV-F delayed, and presumed cancelled, a couple of BPC orders seem to be both politically expedient and a financially sound means of insuring the survival of a strategic shipyard – until the cruise ship orders start coming in again.
Basically, Britain doesn’t have any major commercial shipyards left worth subsidizing, such is the state of its industrial sector. Does anyone need to be reminded where the QMII was built?
TinWingIf they are available immediately, at low purchase cost, and you’re a navy for which manpower is ralatively cheap, then they are attractive options, so long as you limit yourself to good maintenance and little else.
Indeed if manpower isn’t a deciding issue, there’s nothing wrong with a perfectly serviceable steam powered ship. India is in a different position than a Western navy and can afford the additional manning. Moreover, the Indians have maintained experience with steam propulsion and were still completing steam powered frigates in the 90s.
So an Austin-class is hardly out of place in Indian service…..although I think it is likely that a new built replacement will be procured at some point.
TinWingNo but diesel is and steam is an ancient technology that is rapidly being abandoned. That these ships use that propulsion form will seriously work against any possible sale.
Podded propulsors make tremendous sense for any large amphibious ship, but they are a fairly recent innovation that wasn’t common, or available, 10 to 15 years ago.
Direct drive diesels on conventional shafts will continue to appear for many years in new construction, though.
TinWingAbsalon/F125: I have lumped these together as they are not that far apart doctrinally, both are essentially colonial gun boats, the product of western naval supremacy. Their primary focus is interaction with the land and are thus well equipped for helicopters and small craft. Yet they are well enough designed that they provide considerable capability to those countries unwilling to fund true amphibious forces like the one the UK has or the Netherlands is pursuing. Again, excellent well thought out designs that perfectly combine cost, technology and capability to create a doctrinally compatible unit.
These two types are about as different in concept and detail as any two superficially similar ships can be. Oddly, most people don’t realize the very traditional Baltic wartime role the Absalon would have, and while the platform is very affordable, it is also very simple in construction.
The F125 has a very different operational concept, and if you ask me, it’s about time that someone took this approach. Personally, I find the upward creep in displacement to be disturbing, as well as the idea of replacing 8 general purpose frigates with 4 giant, glorified coast guard cutters.
TinWingRNLN OPV: The perfect frigate for the post soviet space (if you have a few proper frigates left) the primary reason for this love affair will be explained below in the systems section. However from a platform perspective, they are well armed or for the ocean patrol role and come with a helicopter.
Systems
Thales Integrated Mast (i-mast family): This system (in its i-mast 400 form) has been selected for RNLN OPVs. It features a volume search radar (SMILE) a surface search radar (SEASTAR) and an optical surveillance system (GATEKEEPER) all fixed within a single integrated structure and providing full 360 degree coverage. A truly exceptional system that I would be happy to see used on any platform, especially frigates (Thales has proposed a larger i-mast 500 variant).
The integrated mast is overkill for an OPV!
I think that it is interesting in concept, but it might even be too expensive for the RN’s C1 requirement.
The RNLN OPV itself looks to be a bit oversized, underarmed and underpowered. Habitability is always a good thing, and using mild grade steel cuts costs, but there is a fine line between a useful patrol ship and a defenseless surface combatant with a brilliant sensor fit, but not much else.
I keep getting the feeling that the entire point of the design was to provide a platform for the integrated mast, providing work for the shipyard while hoping for a major foreign order for the sensor suite. All I can say is that I prefer the design of the Bertholf class for the same mission.
TinWingType 45, 7000 tons IEP, plenty of upgrade room (72 VLS cells?) a large main gun and space for a Merlin. Oh and the epic sensor suite, what is not to love about Sampson and S1850M? I believe this to be the best destroyer/large frigate design in service today and if asked to design such a ship for export it would be my baseline. Kudos to the Royal Navy for an exceptional design.
It’s late, horribly over-budget and the unit total has been cut in half? Did I mention the potential support issues with the already obsolete WR-21 gas turbines? What about the inflexibility of the Sylver VLS and the fact that Aster-30 probably will never be upgraded to true ABM capability?
If you ask me, either the RN should have pursued a more realistic specification, or should have gone to the Mk41 VLS and APAR or AEGIS instead of a PAAMS.
In my opinion, the F-100 is a more salable design for export markets, hence the Australian order.
TinWingI have doubts over the fundamental design of the CVA-01, which was compromised in so many respects for financial savings, and incorporated too many useless “innovations.” Contrary to what many people think, the size of the CVA-01 was dictated not by the size of the 50,000lb Phantom and Buccaneer, but the expected 70,000lb multi-role replacement. In any event, the CVA-01 would not have been able to accommodate a F-14 sized fighter any better than the Midway class might have.
In the end it was the wrong ship at the wrong time, and even if construction had truly started, it might have been canceled in 1968 or 1975, and it is hard to imagine the CVA-01 having survived the Nott review. Moreover, the troubled early histories of the large liners Canberra and QE2 would lead me to question the ability of the British shipbuilding industry to turn out a larger conventional carrier in this period. We can only imagine that it would have been a protracted affair, with massive delays, and the need for substantial modifications due to the peculiar design.
Sign In
