The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[BKNO]

alexsa unlilely to be identical to the UK CVF (CATOBAR and different systems) and this and the work share issue does add an additional layer of complexity to the project.

Man this have been sorted a LONG time ago and NOT by thales UK but MOPA2 in France using the UK's blueprints...

France have requiered different set of modifications like a higher internal air-fuel volume and logements for stabilisators actuators whioch arent part of the RN requierements.

alexsa You cannot discount this issue.

Yes i CAN for obvious reasons it have been sorted and is NOT the reason for the UK shipbiulders high bill.

alexsa For the UK the French involvement has an additional advantage in that the additional design work for the CATOBAR option will be done.

I dont actully think that RN requierements for it are the same, for your infos, the Freench Defense ministry already ordered their catapults to the US manufacturers.

alexsa Despite the fact CVF is intended to be 'future prooofed' to allow conversion to CATOBAR from STOL this will greatly simplify the process should that decision be made.

I guess they will have to pay to use MOPA2 design then

 

[alexsa]

Man this have been sorted a LONG time ago and NOT by thales UK but MOPA2 in France using the UK's blueprints...

France have requiered different set of modifications like a higher internal air-fuel volume and logements for stabilisators actuators whioch arent part of the RN requierements.



Yes i CAN for obvious reasons it have been sorted and is NOT the reason for the UK shipbiulders high bill.



I dont actully think that RN requierements for it are the same, for your infos, the Freench Defense ministry already ordered their catapults to the US manufacturers.



I guess they will have to pay to use MOPA2 design then

Whatever. ...... I bow to your superior passion for France.

 

[Alpha Epsilon]

The UK Defense minuster refuses to sign the bill as simple as that and it's NOT because France shipbuliders are more expansive or need to resctruturate it is because MoD wants the UK industrials to restructurate because they cant stick to the agrement on cost otherwise.

BAE Systems and VT Group have already agreed in principle on merging, the delay now is because France is proposing this joint build programme and Lord Drayson obviously is looking into the matter. Also the delay is probably because so or so Gordon Brown wants to announce the CVF orders.

 

[alexsa]

BAE Systems and VT Group have already agreed in principle on merging, the delay now is because France is proposing this joint build programme and Lord Drayson obviously is looking into the matter. Also the delay is probably because so or so Gordon Brown wants to announce the CVF orders.

BKNO appears to think the move to a joint building programme does not add any complexity to the programme and any delays from the day the french joined the programme are the fault of the UK.

I think the programme has been unduly slow to date but the French inclusion, while advantagous to both parties (in my view) will have an impact on the final approval process.

Lets hope it gets going (soon).

 

[alexsa]

I guess they will have to pay to use MOPA2 design then

Sorry I could not let this go as it was such a trite comment .... In response ...... I guess MOPA2 will pay for the CVF design then..... since they have been using UK blue prints.

Now we have both been childish.

 

[gf0012-aust]

for your infos, the Freench Defense ministry already ordered their catapults to the US manufacturers.

why does France need to order US catapults when they have been issued a license to use the older Mk4 catapults anyway?

AFAIK the Mk 7 catapults are embargoed for export. If Jeff is lurking he may be able to confirm....

 

[BKNO]

gf0012-aust why does France need to order US catapults when they have been issued a license to use the older Mk4 catapults anyway?

Because the C-13 2 are going to be 15 m longer than the C13 instaled on the CdG.

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=104560&motcherche=catapulte

And because it makes sense to buy them off-the shelf at lower cost.

gf0012-aust AFAIK the Mk 7 catapults are embargoed for export. If Jeff is lurking he may be able to confirm....

Whatever you say...:

http://www.meretmarine.com/bateauclasse.cfm?classeid=3

alexsa Now we have both been childish.

Well it's more like i jave been atempting to be funny you see like F-104 were "banking with atempt to turn"???

 

[Alpha Epsilon]

I guess MOPA2 will pay for the CVF design then..... since they have been using UK blue prints.

Well, they have. Iirc all together 145 million pounds.

 

[alexsa]

Well, they have. Iirc all together 145 million pounds.

Thank you..... the design must have been worth it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Whatever you say...:

actually, its not whatever I say - its common knowledge that France does not have access to the latest US catapult tech. The US has made it clear to the UK that French participation in the CV project would see some technologies with held.

Its the same with some of the projects on sensor technology in australia. When ADI was sold to Thales, the US made it very clear that certain projects would be compromised and that steps would need to be taken to restrict French access to the overall project technical details.

France is restricted from participating in various sensor and naval related techs. I do know that for a fact as I had personal dealings wrt the French Military Attache when I worked in Canberra.

 

[StingrayOZ]

You can see why the US wants to stop france from more recent tech, it could be included in their products and sold to countries they don't want it sold to. Or the french could design products that specifically target the weakness in US products.

I think the problem with the CVF is its many design goals are compromising it too much and pushing the cost up. It has to be a Catobar/STOVL carrier that can also carry nuclear weapons, be upgraded to Catobar later, carry troops and perform some amphibious rolls, etc etc.

If its hard getting one thing through one set of goals and government process, then meeting twice as many through two governments has to be even harder.

I am also concerned about the CVF design as I've seen it so far, seem to have a awefully small hanger.

 

[Tasman]

I am also concerned about the CVF design as I've seen it so far, seem to have a awefully small hanger.

The capacity of the hangar (less than half the air group) certainly represents a complete U turn from earlier RN practice (admittedly abandoned long ago) of wanting to be able to stow the entire air group in the hangar. According to Naval Technology its dimensions are 155m x 33.5m x 6.7m and it is designed to hold 20 aircraft.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/specs.html

In fact the hangar is similar in length to typical British carriers from the WW2 and Post War era (e.g. Hermes). It is also higher and, importantly, is approximately twice as wide (although Eagle and Ark Royal had a second hangar in a double storied arrangement). It is shorter but wider than that planned for the cancelled CVA-01. If the hangar width really is 33.5m as reported the total hangar area is actually quite large compared with earlier British carriers and 20 aircraft seems an extremely conservative figure for its capacity. However, that 33.5m may be the maximum width and not its average. Does anyone have more detailed info re these dimensions?

Cheers

 

[swerve]

...
I think the problem with the CVF is its many design goals are compromising it too much and pushing the cost up. It has to be a Catobar/STOVL carrier that can also carry nuclear weapons, be upgraded to Catobar later, carry troops and perform some amphibious rolls, etc etc.....

Amphibious role? Can you say where you've seen that given as a requirement? I've not been able to find it.

 

[swerve]

... 20 aircraft seems an extremely conservative figure for its capacity. However, that 33.5m may be the maximum width and not its average. Does anyone have more detailed info re these dimensions?

Cheers

The hangar layout drawings on Richard Beedalls Navy Matters site show slightly more - 22 F-35 in the hangar. However, we really don't know.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think the problem with the CVF is its many design goals are compromising it too much and pushing the cost up. It has to be a Catobar/STOVL carrier that can also carry nuclear weapons, be upgraded to Catobar later, carry troops and perform some amphibious rolls, etc etc.

As soon as you change it to CATOBAR, you dramatically influence bunkerage issues. (in the negative)

 

[Tasman]

The hangar layout drawings on Richard Beedalls Navy Matters site show slightly more - 22 F-35 in the hangar. However, we really don't know.

Thanks for directing me to that site - much more info. The latest hangar design is:

163 metres long and 29 metres wide with a roof height of 7.1 metres, rising to 9 metres in ‘hard hat’ areas for access to helicopter rotor heads. Total hanger area is 4,700 sq m. The design allows for up to 24 JSF's (plus spares) to be accommodated in the hanger, or 20 in an individual maintenance box environment, or up to 45 Sea King size helicopters.

http://frn.beedall.com/cvf1-24.htm

I think that seems quite reasonable for the planned air group. It is certainly seems to be pretty much as large as possible without increasing the size of the ship.

Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

Ive heard the french are getting nicer accomodation than the UK carriers. Even with Catobar. No doubt there is a compromise some where else.

Given the size of 65,000 tons, the hanger space doesn't seem to be proportionally larger. The F-35 B is not exactly a cheap plane to buy, maintain and replace, either. If there is an upgraded version (or of UAV) with improved stealth coatings hanger space will become important..

Compared with the BPE which can hanger about 20 F-35's and the Cavour which can handle around the same with an additional half dozen on deck. Even the current UK carriers can hanger a simular ammount. I would have though the additional 40,000 tons of displacement would have bought them more hanger space.

Perhaps the UK isn't looking at a large conventional airwing and forsees the hanger space becomming less important.

But it certainly raises a number of questions for me.

 

[Tasman]

Ive heard the french are getting nicer accomodation than the UK carriers. Even with Catobar. No doubt there is a compromise some where else.

Given the size of 65,000 tons, the hanger space doesn't seem to be proportionally larger. The F-35 B is not exactly a cheap plane to buy, maintain and replace, either. If there is an upgraded version (or of UAV) with improved stealth coatings hanger space will become important..

Compared with the BPE which can hanger about 20 F-35's and the Cavour which can handle around the same with an additional half dozen on deck. Even the current UK carriers can hanger a simular ammount. I would have though the additional 40,000 tons of displacement would have bought them more hanger space.

Perhaps the UK isn't looking at a large conventional airwing and forsees the hanger space becomming less important.

But it certainly raises a number of questions for me.

If you look at the illustration in the link you will see that the hangar takes up a large proportion of its deck level and it is difficult to see how it could be substantially enlarged. It also includes two rows of compartments surrounding it for ease of access and as extra protection, modular (containerised) storage space and room for spares. The hangar is much bigger than the Invincible class with more than double the area.

It is true that the BPE can hangar 20 F-35Bs in a much smaller ship but the BPE would be unable to support this air group in sustained action anywhere near as well as the CVFs. As well as aircraft a carrier needs to carry fuel, stores, spare parts and have adequate workshop room. As a major combatant it also needs strong protection. The CVF will be also carry a substantial proportion of its air group on deck. Have a look at the illustrations and you will get a better idea of the size of the flight deck area compared with a small carrier like Cavour or an amphibious/sea control ship like the Spanish BPE.

http://frn.beedall.com/cvf1-24.htm

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

As well as aircraft a carrier needs to carry fuel, stores, spare parts and have adequate workshop room. As a major combatant it also needs strong protection. The CVF will be also carry a substantial proportion of its air group on deck. Have a look at the illustrations and you will get a better idea of the size of the flight deck area compared with a small carrier like Cavour or an amphibious/sea control ship like the Spanish BPE.

Exactly - hence my reference to the issue of bunkerage. The debate about the available space on an aircraft carrier is often ignored wrt bunkerage.

Carriers also carry organic fuel for their air wings as well as fuel oil for their escorts. they need to carry spare parts and weapons systems components. Reduce the bunkerage and you reduce the warfighting potentiol.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yes, I can see even tho the hanger space isn't conciderably large the CVF would be far more effective than a BPE or Cavour.

However, given the cost of a BPE (~$360 million) or Cavour ($1 billion) compared to the CVF (??) Its an interesting value for money comparison. Also the CVF is supposed to be able to operate over 40 fixed wing aircraft (so I've heard). With a small hanger I see this a quiet an operation.

Also with such a hanger configuration the deck edge lifts are less important if 50% of the airwing is going to be on deck at any one time. In the CVF they may cause sea worthyness issues? They appear to be very low. Nimitz carriers already have situations where waves break on the lifts. I would imagine the CVF would be even worse in the Atlantic.

Perhaps the UK wants to reduce its man foot print. Look at the number of escorts that are being ordered. Maybe less than 6 Type 45's? Some very interesting decisions.