Did the assumption about "say another 14 C2/3" come from Janes, and if so do you think that was reference to overall numbers or that the two concepts were to be more closely aligned?
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Also, if removing the aegis from the awd, and wanting at least a capable antisubmarine ship, they can increase the number of torpedos both for the helo and the heavy ones, but it would need a redesing affecting the skyline of the ship maybe..but i suppose they can do it, i am not sure if the the nansen had more torpedos than an f100, being smaller.., but a dutch frigate it has more (it was 20 something torpedos for the dutch no idea of what size, and the f100 had 6 heavy and some for the helo).. sharing some shapes with the f100 from the old joint program between the spanish and dutch and....
Well I suppose the RAN and the RN will have lots to talk about. They have previously signed an agreement on understanding regarding these ships (along with NZ). They will be working together, however they may not build the same hull. This isn't the 80 or 90's and the dream of a common european frigate is dead.
They seem to be after extremely simular ships. I don't know if torpedo load out is that important but dedicated UUV (dock?), UAV/helo facilities etc would require simular modifications. The AWD requirement of 2 helo's was never met with the F-100 design.
Obviously a frigate based off a F-100 would be an immensly powerful ship.The RN instead seems to be focusing more on the other duties than the outright firepower, which is a fair call for this type of ship.
So do they want to convert an air warfare hull for this or come up with a fresh design. Without UK input I could almost bet on a converted F-100, but with UK design input a custom hull might be the go. I just hope they don't water it down. Australia still wants powerful vessels that can perform land strikes tactom, harpooning, antibalistic missile etc. The UK hasnt put a priority on any of that stuff.
They seem to be after extremely simular ships. I don't know if torpedo load out is that important but dedicated UUV (dock?), UAV/helo facilities etc would require simular modifications. The AWD requirement of 2 helo's was never met with the F-100 design.
Obviously a frigate based off a F-100 would be an immensly powerful ship.The RN instead seems to be focusing more on the other duties than the outright firepower, which is a fair call for this type of ship.
So do they want to convert an air warfare hull for this or come up with a fresh design. Without UK input I could almost bet on a converted F-100, but with UK design input a custom hull might be the go. I just hope they don't water it down. Australia still wants powerful vessels that can perform land strikes tactom, harpooning, antibalistic missile etc. The UK hasnt put a priority on any of that stuff.
Well, i have to correct, for the f100 it has 2 double heavy torpedo launchers, plus the magazyn for the helo´s, but i dont find the figure as 6 heavy torpedos, sorry, anyway they are ready for the asroc´s, so they can launch torpedos from the 48 cells.
The thing with the torpedos is that you may need more than one to sink a ship or a sub, it is not the same difficulty if you launch 3 torpedos searching the same sub target than 1 torpedo, with the countertorpedos measueres of the ships or subs, but asroc are for lightweitht torpedos, you might need a heavy torpedo with a range of 40 kms because your cannon doest reaches there, and your harpoons are useless, and you can cannot send your helo to launch missiles or torpedos, i dont know...
I know uav´s might be very useful, if we want more space for uav´s, i think they have to move the torpedo launchers, maybe the can fit it in the space left from the big spy-aegis and where the harpoons are, then put the harpoons above the helo-uav hangar. The thing is to use both sidees of the f100´s helo hangar to make it a double hangar or for the uavs.
Let me say that an european frigate wasnt at least for me, a "dream", it was talks, research, watching possibilities but not taken as something very expected or a dream.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
agc33e,
An F-100 derived hull, while having a huge firepower potential, is not a specialised ASW platform and as such is not optimal for the role if the RAN decides to go for a full out top of the range ASW platform, a platform that they could get by leveraging RN experience with T22, T23 and the current T26 design work.
A specific instance of this would be quietening gear such as used in the T23's.
An F-100 derived hull, while having a huge firepower potential, is not a specialised ASW platform and as such is not optimal for the role if the RAN decides to go for a full out top of the range ASW platform, a platform that they could get by leveraging RN experience with T22, T23 and the current T26 design work.
A specific instance of this would be quietening gear such as used in the T23's.
I dont know much of the T´s, but the norwegian nansen was a program presented as antisubmarine mainly, they even have the tail sonnar plugged, not the reserve of space but the sonar itself, and that in a ship 2000 tonnes smaller.
Probably a smaller system to aegis-spy gives some room to put more weight in the center part ofthe skyline, where the harpoons, you can put the helo´s magazynes more there in the center, and have 2 hangars? psss
Alonso Quijano
New Member
what kind of F-35 will work the new British aircraft carriers?
F-35B or F-35C?
or both?
F-35B or F-35C?
or both?
The F35B, but there has been much debate about whether the C would be better.
Troothsayer
New Member
I'm starting to wonder how late in the CVF build would the RN leave it before deciding the price of F35 is just too much?
For example say CVF is built to current spec and then it was decided that F35's price is too prohibitive? How long would the refit of an additional gas turbine to power cats take if we took the drastic step of switching to Rafale?
I think the RN will stick with the F35b regardless and just accept fewer aircraft. There are issues with catapults etc as there is no steam propulsion. There are USN plans for a electric rail gun type arrangement. I don't know the timescales, also it is untried and if the USN lose interest and revert to steam; I can't see the RN wanting to pick up the development costs.
It would be interesting to see the benefits of electric over steam, smooth launch,simpler, lighter more compact? There must be motive behind the USN interest.
It would be interesting to see the benefits of electric over steam, smooth launch,simpler, lighter more compact? There must be motive behind the USN interest.
Benefits of electric over steam? You get rid of a lot of bulky, expensive, maintenance-intensive, potentially dangerous steam piping & steam generators. You don't have to make the painful choice of steam propulsion, with all its disadvantages, or auxiliary steam generation gear. You can have an all-electric ship, with its numerous advantages. You can recover energy from the arresting gear & feed it into the catapult, or propulsion. Lots of advantages!
The USN is currently building an all-electric carrier, Gerald R Ford, to enter service in 2015. If EMALS (Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System) doesn't work, they're a bit stuffed: they don't have a Plan B.
The USN is currently building an all-electric carrier, Gerald R Ford, to enter service in 2015. If EMALS (Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System) doesn't work, they're a bit stuffed: they don't have a Plan B.
Last edited:
Moving to F-35C would assist in allowing a broad range of aircraft on board the QE's. Most obvious would be the Hawkeye AEW, but also the COD would be a useful plane to have use of.
The only "problem" would be the relative disadvantages of the F35C visa-vis the A model (from an RAF perspective).
Be interesting to see the extent to which the RN wor with the RAN and RNZN on the T26. I doubt the RAN could get an AAW ship from T-26 design and also have things like torpedo launchers, towed array, TLAM etc on a ship that size (assuming an AEGIS system will be fitted).
If the RN intend on fitting 32 CAAM cells, Harpoon, 2x CIWS, TAS, TLAM and 155mm gun on a T-26 (or at least fitted for but not with) i doubt this could be expanded to include the full AEGIS system without radical redesign.
The only "problem" would be the relative disadvantages of the F35C visa-vis the A model (from an RAF perspective).
Be interesting to see the extent to which the RN wor with the RAN and RNZN on the T26. I doubt the RAN could get an AAW ship from T-26 design and also have things like torpedo launchers, towed array, TLAM etc on a ship that size (assuming an AEGIS system will be fitted).
If the RN intend on fitting 32 CAAM cells, Harpoon, 2x CIWS, TAS, TLAM and 155mm gun on a T-26 (or at least fitted for but not with) i doubt this could be expanded to include the full AEGIS system without radical redesign.
See Swerve's reply quoted below, the USN HAVE to make it work or their next carrier will be the worlds most expensive F35B carrier in history.
I thought the Aussies were buying a new class of AAW ships? Why would they want to turn their ASW ships into AAW ships too? The only advantage of that is if you're moving to a one class fleet, with AAW and ASW all covered by one type, like the Arleigh Burke likes to do. As long as they can include CEC of some kind in T26 it should be enough, it won't need full AEGIS.
Thats a good point about recovering energy from arrest gear... like a Toyota Prius!. This should enable installing on much smaller ships? I can't think it would be such a difficult task, so I wasn't suggesting they would lose interest just if they did revert to steam. I assume they will still generate power from steam?
I would prefer the CVFs to be with catapults or even EMALS, as I agree it provides more flexibility on aircraft choice.
Troothsayer
New Member
Do you think the US would sell us EMALS if there were any indication we may go the Rafale route rather than F35?
They sell us things all the time that could have other US things included that they know we won't buy, eg. they sold AMRAAM knowing we'd not buy their fighters to boot. I don't think they'd really be that petty with a major ally, especially if we made it clear we wouldn't buy F35 either way (bluff or not). And it'd do the same thing as all their other recent little altercations with us have done, push us closer to Europe and away from them.
t68
Well-Known Member
Would it be in the best interest of the RAF/RN if the funding for the F35B cannot make the number's up would a mix of hybrid BAE Hawk 200/T45 Goshawk be viable in a trainer/ light attack role aboard the Queen Elizabeth class carrier?
Being light and nimble i would not think you would need the catapult but i might be wrong,with long flight deck just might be feasable.
Being light and nimble i would not think you would need the catapult but i might be wrong,with long flight deck just might be feasable.
Last edited:
But how will the electicity be generated from the reactor in the first place, if not from a steam turbine?
I do think the idea of a Hawk 200/ based Goshawk would be very cost effective solution in a "hi lo" mix with say F35c. As the head of the Army was saying a few months back, you could have used a Super Tucano for some of the work in Afghanistan. It would also help keep the production line going.
Sorry, I had a brain fart. I was thinking of the new LHAs, while typing about Ford. Doh!
Yes, AFAIK there'll be steam plant for electricity generation, but no piping to anywhere else in the ship, nor space allowed for its later installation, so retrofit of steam catapults would need gutting & rebuilding.
BTW, other officially stated advantages of EMALS include greater energy efficiency (steam catapults are supposedly only about 4-6% efficient), reliability, & much greater controllability. Steam catapults have limited operating weight & speed ranges: if you can launch heavy aircraft, you can't launch very light ones, e.g. UAVs. Electric catapults don't have that problem. Fully controllable from zero up to maximum weight, & any speed up to maximum.