StevoJHJust did some google searching, yes they do have gas turbines from what i can see.
http://www.shipsandharbours.com/picture/number718.asp
http://www.flotilla-australia.com/2bhp.htm
StevoJHSuch CGI are really a cynic PR stunt, smoke ‘n’ mirror. Designed to give the impression to the average uninterested politico that the thing is already around, tries to make him think that all the money has already been spent. After such graphics 95% of people won’t look into the real state of the project.
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.
StevoJHI like the flight deck where it is. I know Tico “cruisers” have a turret in the extreme aft, but that has always made me cringe. Not because it is not astheticly pleasing, but rather because you have a magazine full of explosives nessled there right between the steering gears. To boot, I know that flight decks require structural stiffening which means more metal. I worry about putting more metal higher up in the ship and making her slightly more top heavy, but then again the aft turret and VLS are a little higher too. Essentially, to me, it comes down to this…. if it works for the Burke, it works for me. I have also heard some gripes from guys in the field that flight decks more forward in the ship suffer from turbulance from the superstructure.
Radars, I am pretty ignorant of the differing types of arrays and bands. I pretty much have to look at the Burkes (the most modern USN combatants) and see what they use for arrays.
The Burkes has a slight trouble with falling to bits in heavy seas i heard. Anyway, SPY-3 is teh radar to be fitted to the Zumwalts, which means that it will probably be the eventual SPY-1 replacement, the problem with SPy-1 is that its apparrently very heavy, making it hard to mount high in the superstructure, possibly why Several of the new european designs (T45, Horizen, Sachen) went instead for a very highly mounted AESA or APAR radar rather then a fixed phased array along the lines of SPY-1.
Reason i suggested a flight deck shifted forward was that if it lies closer to the centre of the ship, it might remain operational in a higher sea state then if it is kept right aft.
StevoJHDid we not make a big fuss about German attempts to back out in the mid- late 90’s (possible the source of those penalty clauses) – would be ironic if they came back and bit us on the backside.:cool:
That WAS the reason for the penalty clauses.
StevoJHMaximus Slade
Sorry for the critisism. Anyway, How much do missile illuminators and the Radar’s (APAR?) cost? I see you have 5 Illuminators for SM2 (isnt it being replaced by SM6?) plus two main radar systems, which while redundency is fine, it would have to depend upon the cost of the radar systems. And losing a radar aboard a single ships shouldn’t be so important with CEC so widespread within the USN which has 70+ aegis ships.
How about switching the forward radar to SPY-3 and the rear radar to a search set such as smart L? would moving the flight deck closer of the center of the ship be a good idea? possibly moving the rear turret to the location of the flight deck, with the flight deck raised to just above turret height forward of the turret, or even placing the aft VLS behind the flight deck as well, moving the flight deck and hanger well forward. What effect would it have on flight ops and ship size, could it be worth it?
—————
Changing the topic slightly, a modified T45 with 72 VLS forward (third row in the middle) and a TAS aft with the VLS all being the Sylver A70 type or strike length Mk.41 would make me like the ship better. Especially if it was then retitled as a cruiser.
Cut down the ship with a 32 cell A70 or Mk.41 for a 5,000t destroyer as the T22 and T23 replacement. How would that sound?
StevoJHIt would be worth paying money to see, it might be advisable to have a doctor present though.
forget the doctor, it might solve a few problems.
StevoJHBut a proper army and navy take centuries….
Wasnt the quote something along the lines of “It takes three years to build a ship, it takes centuries to build a tradition”?
Lets face it, once the foundations are laid, you can rapidly expand the size of an army or airforce. Aircraft and Army Vehicles can be produced by converting existing production lines for civilian vehicles or by building new factories. You can build tanks and planes rapidly, in days or weeks.
It takes at least 3 years to make a new ship and it is much harder to increase construction capacity due to specialised skills that are far less common in the UK then those used for aircraft and vehicle production.
StevoJHNo need to be arsey! 😀 If CVF lasts 50 years i’ll be a monkeys uncle. Who would want it to? the world or war and defence would have changed so much by then.
All the latest press releases have dropped mention of 50 years, they all say “Will be in the fleet for at least 30 years”.
StevoJHRegarding the F35’s, the 72 in the initial order are to replace the F/A 18A/B’s. The final 28(?) (it says around 100, not neccessarily exactly 100) will replace the 24 Super Hornets.
Regarding the Crew Numbers for the ANZAC replacements, the Hobarts will have a similar crew size to the ANZACs despite a much larger displacement, as do the UK T45’s (~180) with are also 7000t+.
Hopefully the ADF will acquire the NFH-90’s to complement the MRH-90’s rather then SH-60R’s since it will take the ADF to 4 Helo Types eventually. Tigers, NFH/MRH-90, Chinook, Training Helicopter.
StevoJH…And would have an ancient propulsion system and a huge crew, they would have been cut from the fleet years ago. T42 is a garbage ship, but it did have the benefit of cost on its side, which is why its still with us.
When i said modified britols i meant sizewise. Give them all Gas turbine propulsion like the T42’s and they wont have much higher running costs, but they could operate effectively in heavier weather, and come the lessons learnt from 1982 they would have the room for growth so that Sea Wolf or Goalkeeper could be added, the T42’s never had much room for growth in the design.
StevoJHAs for T22 and T42, you are correct about soggy dog, but why not fit T42 that needs better CIWS than a T22 with two goalkeepers then? The answer is because they would not fit, Phalanx does.
And the reason Goalkeeper wont fit is that the Ships weren’t originally supposed to get a CIWS system, and it probably didn’t help that the batch 1 and 2 ships are stumpy little things built on an economy budget.
It would have been Interesting had they been built as modified Bristols, with Sea Dart replacing Ikara in B and with a flight deck and Hanger on the stern. They might even have had goal keeper or phalanx fitted during construction. Even without a CIWS they’d still be much better in both survivability and capability then the T42 B1 and 2’s though.
StevoJHI don’t know why they don’t describe her as being ‘laid up in ordinary’ just like they did in the old days. Those ships were effectively empty hulls with most fittings removed but available to be reactivated with lots of work.
In terms of aircraft, aren’t we now only operating approx 30 Harriers in total with the rest unavailable ?
From memory there are 67 or so harriers, all of these are being, or have been upgraded to GR.9 standard. In addition there are 9 two seaters operated by the OCU.
3 Squadrons of 9 Aircraft Eact plus the OCU. If we want to be charitable we can seperate the NSW and call it 4 squadrons of 9 aircraft, giving 36 operational airframes. Enlarge all four squadrons to 12 aircraft and 48 Harriers are now being used. That give 19 Attrition spares, but remember that the production line *might* still exist as they were building replacement airframes until only a couple of years ago.
Each carrier can probably carry a dozen Harriers plus another dozen helicopters, so event with Invincible available there are more Harriers then can fit on the carriers.
StevoJH+ aircraft.
Aircraft themselves wouldn’t be an issue, there are plenty of RN Helicopters and RAF GR.9’s, the problem is finding the air and ground crew to support the Harriers.
StevoJH1) She’s been on 18 months notice since she decommissioned, its been on the wikipedia article ever since she decommissioned
2) The Invincible class along with all the ship classes since are designed to be able to swap engines rapidly instead of spending the time to repair them, so engines are easy to put back into her.
3) The propellers on deck are not a problem since she’d probably need a fairly substantial refit before she could reenter service anyway.
4) The biggest problem for putting her back in service would probably not be her material state, but finding the crew to take her to sea.
StevoJHI will not reduce the crew compliment for a singular reason: damage control. Believe it or not the number of personnel on board a ship could make the difference between coming home and sinking.
“Sea Talon” is a (in my head) concept of the Talon laser area defence weapon that BAe is developing. Whenever a system is put on ship that was developed for a different use they always put “sea” in front of it, a la “Sea Sparrow.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LThD0FMvTFU
And if the USN was willing to fork out the cash to fill two Trident subs with Tomahawks, then I am sure they’ll fork out the cash to fill these.
Oh, they’d have the will to do it, but even if they could afford to build the ships (Tico replacement?) could they afford to buy the missiles?
Which takes me to my previous question, this is an RN thread, not a USN thread. So:
1) Does anyone know the power output of the RR PWR2 with Core H?
2) How much power does Talon require? Could it replace SM-2/SM6 and Aster 30 in the Area Air Defense role?
Sign In
