Britain To Get CVF Supercarriers?

#2
Seem to remember some of the 'Moduals' required are under construction. Don't remember hearing about the 'Keel' being laid.
john
Crecy and Agincourt would have been good traditional British names.
 
#3
Well there are threads about it on both Pprune and the Rn section at warships1.com. Long story short - CVF was due to go to Main Gate 2 on October 26th but the price of £3.8bn was too much and Main Gate was missed. Very latest reports (i.e. yesterday) suggest some sort of compromise has beenreached and CVF will now go to Main Gate. However, so far this is just one source. Even if CVF is submitted to MG, this will be a long process which, ultimately, will onyl lead to a decision to enter into final negotaitions with the Aircraft Carrier Alliance. So I wouldn't hold my breath for any definite, confirmed orders for a year at least.
 
#4
I was surprised by the Based at Pourtsmouth decision.
My boozing buddy, Jack, an old submariner (diesil boats only), frquently complains that his old base is now just a mooring point for civvy yachts.
Why oh Why does Uk seem never to have a proper LONG term defence policy.
john
 
#5
And more importantly why couldn't they stump a bit of extra cash and get a couple of full on carriers rather than ones with ski-jumps so only us, the Spanish or the Italians will be able to use them? Even the bloody French have flat tops.
 
#6
Brick said:
And more importantly why couldn't they stump a bit of extra cash and get a couple of full on carriers rather than ones with ski-jumps so only us, the Spanish or the Italians will be able to use them? Even the bloody French have flat tops.
Here bloody here, the capibility would pay for itself in no time at all.
 
#7
Shame there isn't a navalised version of the Typhoon since then we could have just cancelled the F-35, for which they're still denying us access to the source code last I heard, and bought a large part of our mass Eurofighter order as carrier borne planes so we wouldn't end up with so many regular ones when we go buying 200+ of them later and ending up going spare. Could probably make enough of a saving to partly offset the extra cash to build a flat top as opposed to a ski-jump carrier but that'll never happen.
 
#8
well the cvf is both ski jump and no ski jump, it is essentially a catapult launch carrier which has been designed for easy conversion to ski jump, thats why the french are getting a conventional launch one
 
#9
jonwilly said:
I was surprised by the Based at Pourtsmouth decision.
My boozing buddy, Jack, an old submariner (diesil boats only), frquently complains that his old base is now just a mooring point for civvy yachts.
Why oh Why does Uk seem never to have a proper LONG term defence policy.
john
It will probably add value to the housing market in Pikeymouth!!!!
 
#10
Yes, the CVF programme continues - over budget and over time and with no discernible risk management strategy. Having spoken to several contractors and serving procurers, it looks like the biggest procurement fuch up since erm...the last one! A naval officer of my acquaintance described the programme as a cluster and then laughed and said "It doesn't matter how late it is because we haven't got anything to fly off it anyway..."

Fetch me an NAO Inquiry team!
 
#12
Uusal SNAFU. Big headlines in papers 2 or 3 years ago - 2 new carriers by 2011 then later it became 2012/2014/2016/the next millenium?

In the interim the Navy has had the cuts ostensibly to pay for them but still nothing spent yet. This lot will be long gone and it will be some other govts problem no doubt.

End result will be a reduced carrier, probably bigger than the Ark at pres, but only 1 not the 2 originally promised. :roll:
 
#13
Brick said:
Shame there isn't a navalised version of the Typhoon since then we could have just cancelled the F-35, for which they're still denying us access to the source code last I heard, and bought a large part of our mass Eurofighter order as carrier borne planes so we wouldn't end up with so many regular ones when we go buying 200+ of them later and ending up going spare. Could probably make enough of a saving to partly offset the extra cash to build a flat top as opposed to a ski-jump carrier but that'll never happen.
As i understand it, a plane pretty much needs to be built from the ground up as a carrier aircraft because of the tremendous stresses involved in carrier landings. The undercarraige and fuselage would need a complete redesign to navalise typhoon. It all comes down to the way you land onto a carrier- it's pretty much a controlled crash. That and if you use a skijump type setup then crabair can operate from the deck with little extra training, which makes the whole thing a joint service project and that's good politics.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
Big And Expensive Systems have already done some initial studies for a navalised Typhoon. I'm not sure whehter they could odify existing aircraft but I'm pretty sure they could modify next tranche ones before build. They proposed it some years ago. The CVF design apparently has some leeway for inclusion of a catapult should JSF go TU.

Oh, and of course the French have a working aircraft in the Rafale - off the shelf from a European partner? :)
 
#15
The origanal design cost 3 bil for the pair was fully automated so minimum crewing (around 1000) was fully catapult equipped and had pod engines for better manoueving

The new ones are 800mil dearer not fully automated, have no weapon systems, shaft engines and from what is said here no catapult. oh last i heard the project was on hold.

So once again BAe and the MOD totally balls up a good design
 
#16
Did someone mention the French?
I do believe, no link, that the French will accommodate us with Rafale if JSF doesn't happen.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
smoojalooge said:
So once again BAe and the MOD totally balls up a good design
Be fair - its a joint programme, BAE and Thales.

ObnoxiousJockGit said:
Did someone mention the French?
I do believe, no link, that the French will accommodate us with Rafale if JSF doesn't happen.
And apparently when UK MOD tried to use that to threaten the Septics that if they didn't play on JSF we had an alternative the Septics wet themselves laughing. Don't they think we'll buy French aircraft? :twisted:
 
#18
'The MOD considered all other options very carefully before selecting the JSF as the preferred aircraft for its new aircraft carriers. The other options included a marinised version of the Eurofighter (232 Eurofighters are ordered for the RAF) the American F18E, the French Rafale and an updated Harrier. But the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant JSF emerged as the best option.'

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2396
 
#19
Brick said:
And more importantly why couldn't they stump a bit of extra cash and get a couple of full on carriers rather than ones with ski-jumps so only us, the Spanish or the Italians will be able to use them? Even the bloody French have flat tops.
I read an interesting article about this a while ago.

Apparently, ski jumps and VSTOL allow planes to be launched and recovered more quickly than on conventional carriers. There's no need to attach the planes to a catapult on the way out or to wait while they catch an arrestor wire one at a time on the way back.

They can also launch and recover in less favourable weather conditions. Something to do with the direction and speed of wind over the deck.

The article also mentioned very high attrition rates among US Navy pilots. Landing fast, modern jets on a convenitonal aircraft carrier is like driving your car into a garage at 100+ mph and never once hitting the sides. Many younger pilots are right at the limits of their ability and this apparently leads to a high level of loss.

At the other end of their career, thousands of catapult launches and 'crash' landings take their toll on the pilots' bodies and a fair few of them end up too knackered to continue flying off carriers.

Having said this, I'll eat my hat if our new carriers ever get built. The Fleet Air Arm don't have anything like enough pilots to crew even one carrier and they don't seem to be making any effort to recruit and train more. I can see Gordon Brown quietly cancelling the project when he gets in.

After all, a couple of aircraft carriers aren't going to lift anybody out of poverty, are they?
 
#20
The Typhoon is too heavy for CVF, it would require a very costly redesign job to 'navalize' it.

But fear not!

The powers-that-be have thought ahead and factored a CTOL option into the CVF design in case things turn out differently in the future.

I prefer the F35 STOVL option myself, unlike Rafale/Hornet/Typhoon they can be placed on HMS Ocean as well giving us a crude, third flat-top if required.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top