F-16.net

Thumper3181 wrote:

And I have been telling you to look at the LHAs and LHDs as comparison. If the CVFs are going to be STOVL carriers then they should have been along the lines of the new LHA(X).

LHA's and LHD's have no comparison here with the CVF. They are designed for completely different roles. Fixed wing aircraft have very limited capabilities on LHA/LHD ships because it is not their primary role to provide air support.

Also like Snypa said, the CVF is not trying to be a super-carrier. So don't use something like the Nimitz class as the bar for comparing. Charles de Gaulle is a full size carrier so that is what the bar should be set at for comparisons involving the CVF. Super-carriers really are for superpowers.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Take a look at the Makin Island, compare the specs. Look at the split Island on the CVF. Everything points to a botched design in terms of trunking and maximizing usable internal volume.

Actually the split island is very beneficial. Not only is it more efficient in terms of deck space it also increases the CVF's effectiveness in launching and recovery ops. Another bonus I read somewhere is reduced turbulence on deck caused by larger, single islands.

Thumper3181 wrote:

There is no reason other than design incompetence and penny pinching why a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier cannot make 28-30 knots and carry 50 - 60 conventional aircraft. It has been done before and I see no reason why it cannot be done again. While the CVFs may wind up being useful ships the UK will not be getting the most bang for the buck (or pound) as proposed.

Thumper3181 wrote:

They do not fold on the B. It shares the same wing as the A. Only C folds.

I've been mentioning the fold up wings and their effect throughout this thread. Yes you're quite right, the F-35B does NOT have fold up wings and the aircraft complement quoted for the CVF is for the F-35B. But you've been comparing the CVF complement number with aircraft carriers that do operate navalised aircraft such as the F-18 (with its fold up wings) so there is one answer to your comment above.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Nothing like putting a couple of hot jet engines high up in the ship straddling the elevators and underneath you bridge. I am not talking about a huge cruise missile. Penguin would do to put these ships out of action. It's kind of like skimping on deck armor on battlecruisers in WWII.

Are you an Aircraft Carrier designer? I would guess not after your earlier claims that a nuclear power plant took up less space than a GT power plant. So have you got a source that specifically points out that this is a flaw in the ship design, so I can have a little read?

Thumper3181 wrote:

Big time. Add to that the increased full burn. The inability to launch in some conditions (remember those missing 3 - 5 knots) and the fact that the sea rolls up and down. Not much fun being barely airborne at 100 knots and needing another 50 feet of altitude real quick.

In the rough South Atlantic in 1982 Sea Harriers took off for combat on a 170m deck runway. The CVF has a 260m deck runway available if needed. And lets not forget that the F-35B is capable of vertical flight, so even if 260m isn't enough (hypothetically speaking) then it can be assisted with a little vertical thrust on takeoff.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Sorry, but it's true.Since 1976 the US has had over 30 Spraunce class destroyers, 30 Ticondaroga class cruisers, 50 OHP frigates, and 50 Arleigh Burkes destroyers built for and operated by the USN.

Funny how the Royal Navy has been using gas turbines since 1947 compared to the US which started operating GT's in the late sixties.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Over 160 large modern warships built within the last 30 years. I wish you had not taken what I said as an insult, it was not meant to be. The USN and GE by sheer numbers are the most expert in this field.

I would agree with you that the USN/GE are top experts in marine GT's but don't get this idea that they are on their own at the top. The RN/RR are also top experts, otherwise we would see a GE monopoly when it came to GT's. Why is the Rolls Royce/Northrop Grumman WR-21 GT a top contender for powering future US warships?

F-16.net Sponsor

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

I wrote:

... pointing out that the UK isn`t building a super carrier so the comparisons are limited in my view. Convenient but true.

Thumper3181 wrote:

And I have been telling you to look at the LHAs and LHDs as comparison. If the CVFs are going to be STOVL carriers then they should have been along the lines of the new LHA(X).

Why should the UK build any ship to the USN model?

Thumper wrote:

While the CVFs may wind up being useful ships the UK will not be getting the most bang for the buck (or pound) as proposed.

We won`t know that until they are in service.

I wrote:

And the RN "invented" turbine power for ships in the nineteenth century, touche!

Thumper3181 wrote:

Yes, steam turbines which for this application would provide superior performance while requiring less interior volume.

Not just steam turbines. Rolls` pioneered gas turbines as well and that`s a fact.

Quote:

The trunking issue will not be an issue when the Gas turbines are mounted high up.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Nothing like putting a couple of hot jet engines high up in the ship straddling the elevators and underneath you bridge. I am not talking about a huge cruise missile. Penguin would do to put these ships out of action. It's kind of like skimping on deck armor on battlecruisers in WWII.

The Battlecruiser analogy is a poor one. Their top armour wasn`t "skimped" on, it was an inherent design feature to reduce weight and increase speed. Naval tactics caught up with them with plunging attacks from shells instead of lower trajectory hits which were anticipated.

No CVN or any other carrier is armoured like an Iowa or Queen Elizabeth class Battleship.

I wrote:

To say the RN is inferior to the USN in terms of gas turbines, their application and the know-how is outrageous Thumper!

Thumper wrote:

Sorry, but it's true.Since 1976 the US has had over 30 Spraunce class destroyers, 30 Ticondaroga class cruisers, 50 OHP frigates, and 50 Arleigh Burkes destroyers built for and operated by the USN.
Look again Snypa, all of the above ships use various models of the GE LM2500. All of those ships where pure Gas Turbine powered. Some of the ships backup generators and diesels may be BAE/RR but not the prime movers. I did the research.

I was under the impression that RR supplied a LOT of GT`s to the USN. I stand corrected, there is a hell of a lot of RR equipment other than gas turbines on a large number of US ships. The Prop`s on CVN`s are RR items for example and you listed others. I could list a lot more but we are talking gas turbines right?

You are right, the USN navy knows a thing or two about gas turbines, that is why they have chosen MT-30 for your new ships Laughing

The USN LCSs` will be powered by MT-30, something in the order of 50+ ships.
Also the DDX or DDG-1000 Zumwalt demonstrator is powered by the MT-30.
RR is in a good position to supply IFEP prime movers to your next generation destroyers. I did feel put out Thumper because I used to work for RR, not in the Marine Products Division though.

I did some catching up and it seems Rolls have some 54,000 gas turbines in operation throughout the world including supplying 70+ navies. Don`t discount their expertise and experience, which is considerably longer than LM or GE.

I wrote:

Fold the wings then do the math.

Thumper wrote:

They do not fold on the B. It shares the same wing as the A. Only C folds.

Thanks for that. STT hit on a good one I think, how many aircraft could a CVN house if the wings on the aircraft didn`t fold? Certainly not 90. Another reason for an unfair comparison to CVN.

Conan put up a good post, the capability CVF will supply should be good for RN ops`and the UK. It wouldn`t be enough for the US but we are not building them with an open chequebook.

The sortie rates for F-35B should be (this is a requirement) 110 a day so I can`t see how twin islands and hot exhausts are going to play havoc with air ops`? In fact, Thales see the twin island approach as an advantage, so do the RN.

Dwight`, CVN-77, the G H Bush you say is a transitory design? I hear that she will get a new nuclear powerplant, phased array radars and a revised island amongst many other innovations. Hope she works well. I also see that the DDG-1000 is in a little trouble as far as new systems are concerned. Congress sees some systems such as the dual band radar, proposed super gun and massive permanent magnetic motor as too risky?

Quote:

Why should the UK build any ship to the USN model

Why shouldn't they? Lets face it the new LHA will have all the capabilities of the CVF (plus able to embark marines and landing craft) and will cost only 3 billion dollars per ship. Half the price of the CVF.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ip/lhx.htm

Gee, I wonder why the clever yanks can do that? Because they have been building these things for years and they build many of them. They benefit from the accumulated knowledge of years of modern carrier building and they enjoy the fruits of economies of scale. No magic.

Quote:

Not just steam turbines. Rolls` pioneered gas turbines as well and that`s a fact.

Nope.
Frank Whittle in England and Hans Von Ohain developed the gas turbine at about the same time. After the War GE and Pratt and Whitney developed jet engines independently of Frank Whittle's design. Rolls Royce developed the Nene and sold it to the Soviets who used it to power Mig-15s. Some of which where used to shoot down Americans in Korea.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay ... Tech24.htm

Quote:

The Battlecruiser analogy is a poor one. Their top armour wasn`t "skimped" on, it was an inherent design feature to reduce weight and increase speed.

Not at all in fact your comments reinforce the argument. Hood was a bad design based on incorrect assumptions. The Admiralty got the first hint that Jackie Fisher was wrong when 3 battle cruisers, the Indefatigable, Queen Mary and Invincible blew up under German fire at the Battle of Jutland. The Admiralty knew right away that battle cruisers with thin deck armor where vulnerable to long range fire. In fact studies where done and modifications where made to the design of the Hood to attempt to remedy the situation.

Quote:

You are right, the USN navy knows a thing or two about gas turbines, that is why they have chosen MT-30 for your new ships

You mean the ones that where canceled?

Quote:

Thanks for that. STT hit on a good one I think, how many aircraft could a CVN house if the wings on the aircraft didn`t fold? Certainly not 90. Another reason for an unfair comparison to CVN.

Both of you keep missing the point. This is not meant to be a pissing contest. You said if the wings fold that they could fit more than 40. I told you that the wings cannot fold therefore that line of argument does not work. It has nothing to do with comparing a CVN to the CVF. Of course you can fit more planes with folding wings.

Quote:

Conan put up a good post, the capability CVF will supply should be good for RN ops

Not if you are going to play with the big boys. Also as to cost se my previous comment on the cost of the Future LHA vs the CVF. More bang for the pound.

Quote:

The sortie rates for F-35B should be (this is a requirement) 110 a day

Just because its a requirement does not mean it will be met.

Quote:

so I can`t see how twin islands and hot exhausts are going to play havoc with air ops`? In fact, Thales see the twin island approach as an advantage, so do the RN.

Well it will be a problem. Hot air rises and this is a large volume of very hot air. Second, have you ever been in a big city with large buildings on a windy day. The wind is going to be funneled (magnified) between those two islands.

Quote:

revised island amongst many other innovations

But still a single island.

Quote:

Hope she works well. I also see that the DDG-1000 is in a little trouble as far as new systems are concerned.

Actually they are still in the development phase. LCS (the one using the MT-30s) is in trouble. The Navy canceled LMs contract.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Why shouldn't they? Lets face it the new LHA will have all the capabilities of the CVF (plus able to embark marines and landing craft) and will cost only 3 billion dollars per ship. Half the price of the CVF.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ip/lhx.htm

Gee, I wonder why the clever yanks can do that? Because they have been building these things for years and they build many of them. They benefit from the accumulated knowledge of years of modern carrier building and they enjoy the fruits of economies of scale. No magic.

Well I guess your not one of them seeing as you constantly confuse the purpose of an CVF with an LHA. An LHA is VERY LIMITED in projecting fast jet air power, a CVF will be far superior in doing that. Why? Because an LHA is designed for a completely different role to a conventional aircraft carrier - its an amphibious assault ship hence the marines, LCAC's etc. The primary role of an aircraft carrier is to launch fast jets, in high numbers at high sortie rates.

Don't confuse an LHA with an aircraft carrier, it cannot even come close to doing the job of a conventional aircraft carrier, because it wasn't designed to do the task of an aircraft carrier. It would be like using an apache as a medical evac chopper. It has no comparison, a LHA operates large numbers of aircraft because it is configured for V/STOL ops (mainly helicopters).

Thumper3181 wrote:

Both of you keep missing the point. This is not meant to be a pissing contest. You said if the wings fold that they could fit more than 40. I told you that the wings cannot fold therefore that line of argument does not work. It has nothing to do with comparing a CVN to the CVF. Of course you can fit more planes with folding wings.

No were trying to point out an obvious fact to you. You state that a 65,000t carrier should carry more aircraft, what we are saying is that the CVF can. If it operated F-35C's of F-18's (of which it can) the numbers would be a lot higher. The RN have chosen to initially operated the CVF's in STOVL configuration.

So really instead of criticizing the design of the CVF, you should really criticize the decision to use it in a STOVL configuration. The CVF is capable of both STOVL & CTOL ops.

thumper3181 wrote:

Not if you are going to play with the big boys. Also as to cost se my previous comment on the cost of the Future LHA vs the CVF. More bang for the pound.

The RN have been playing with the "big boys" for decades and has been a very valuable force in assisting on naval operations. So I can't see how the RN increasing its power projection capabilities is going to be anything else but an improvement to future coalition operations.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Just because its a requirement does not mean it will be met.

Lol...and is that based on anything? Theres nothing that says it won't be met.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Well it will be a problem. Hot air rises and this is a large volume of very hot air. Second, have you ever been in a big city with large buildings on a windy day. The wind is going to be funneled (magnified) between those two islands.

And these carriers aren't big cities are they. Wind speed increases in a city because of the reduction in volume caused by skyscrapers and other buildings. So the wind velocity needs to increase to maintain its mass flow rate through the city. For an aircraft carrier at sea, two islands vs one island is insignificant for this phenomena.

Now if you have ever taken off in a light aircraft such as a Cessna on a windy day and the wind is passing by a large structure such as a hangar or terminal building before it gets to you, there is a noticeable increase in turbulence across the runway. This does apply to aircraft carriers, two smaller islands will result in less turbulence on deck than a single island. Time will tell whether this is significant or not but other advantages of two islands include:

- More efficient use of deck space.
- More effective for launch and recovery ops.

The US probably have stuck with a single island because they have been operating their carriers now in that configuration. Changing to two islands would require a big change in the crew training regime, so why bother. The US have perfected ops on their current carriers so there isn't really a great advantage to change. The RN are only just coming back to large deck carriers so this isn't the case for them.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Actually they are still in the development phase. LCS (the one using the MT-30s) is in trouble. The Navy canceled LMs contract.

The WR-21 is a top contender for powering future US warships though.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

I wrote:

Why should the UK build any ship to the USN model

Thumper3181 wrote:

Why shouldn't they? Lets face it the new LHA will have all the capabilities of the CVF (plus able to embark marines and landing craft) and will cost only 3 billion dollars per ship. Half the price of the CVF.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ip/lhx.htm

STT has already touched on CVF versus LHA, two ships, one aircraft carrier, one assault ship, two different roles. LHA according to the link you provided can only carry 20 F-35 max`. LHA is lighter by 15,000 T hence lower capacity, it is obviously cheaper to build than CVF. Plain wrong for any comparison in my view. The RN has it`s own amphibious assault ships.

Quote:

Not just steam turbines. Rolls` pioneered gas turbines as well and that`s a fact.

Thumper wrote:

Nope.
Frank Whittle in England and Hans Von Ohain developed the gas turbine at about the same time. After the War GE and Pratt and Whitney developed jet engines independently of Frank Whittle's design. Rolls Royce developed the Nene and sold it to the Soviets who used it to power Mig-15s. Some of which where used to shoot down Americans in Korea.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay ... Tech24.htm

Whittle patented his design in 1932, O Hain started working on his gas turbine a year later and patented his design in 1935, who`da thunk it! Laughing

Thumper you are kidding me right? I don`t know what GE did after the war but GE were GIVEN the RR Welland jet engine during the war, COPIED it and put it in the P-59 Airacomet, this was 1941-43. In fact Whittle even worked with Americans to educate them about building and understanding this new technology. AT the wars end RR had a recognized lead in these turbines. We even gave the nene to the Russki`s, Welland to the Yanks. It was a brainfart of immense proportions. Even the Germans acknowledged the RR Welland as being far superior to the junk that powered the Me-262 which had a service life measured at 4-7 HOURS.
.

Quote:

The Battlecruiser analogy is a poor one. Their top armour wasn`t "skimped" on, it was an inherent design feature to reduce weight and increase speed.

Thumper wrote:

Not at all in fact your comments reinforce the argument. Hood was a bad design based on incorrect assumptions. The Admiralty got the first hint that Jackie Fisher was wrong when 3 battle cruisers, the Indefatigable, Queen Mary and Invincible blew up under German fire at the Battle of Jutland. The Admiralty knew right away that battle cruisers with thin deck armor where vulnerable to long range fire. In fact studies where done and modifications where made to the design of the Hood to attempt to remedy the situation.

The Battlecruiser was a mistake and Fisher knew it. Hindsight is a humbling experience. The HOOD received an extra 1,000 tons of deck armour and was due to receive even more but she was needed at sea. She was already a very "wet" ship, more armour would have made that worse but it was needed.

WWI ended so she never got the extra armour, with the naval treaties signed she wasn`t allowed to get the extra armour anyway due to displacement limits.
The weakness in the HOOD was magazine armour. The HOOD was built and received the armour conceived for her design, no skimping, the design proved a bad one due to evolving naval tactics. Any ship can succumb to changing tactics, including a mighty CVN, it is certainly possible.

Of course the CVF could get bushwhacked by an unforseen threat as with the battlecruiser.A CVN could get bushwhacked by one of those very quiet SSKs` that proliferate, every man and his uncle has one of those, the USN has a lot of trouble detecting those SSK`s that is why they are seconding NATO SSKs` to try to find a counter to them. A submariner calls a surface ship "target", including CVN`s. An SSK will be more dangerous to CVF or CVN than a crusie missile.
The RN knows a thing or two about sea skimmers, the FI taught us a harsh lesson but the carriers didn`t get a single scratch in the Falklands, the "tiny" air group kicked butt.

I wrote:

You are right, the USN navy knows a thing or two about gas turbines, that is why they have chosen MT-30 for your new ships

Thumper wrote:

You mean the ones that where canceled?

Your original argument implied that the USN, GE, and LM are better at GT`s than the RN and RR. The very fact that the LCS vessels were to be fitted with MT-30`s along with the Zumwalt tech` demonstrator debunks that notion, at least, the USN has more faith in RR than you do!!

I wrote:

The sortie rates for F-35B should be (this is a requirement) 110 a day

Thumper wrote:

Just because its a requirement does not mean it will be met.

Give me a valid argument as to why it cannot be done? By the way, your rule of thumb that you get an aircraft for every ton on a ship only holds when you have folding wings so I think the folding wing items in this discussion are valid.

Further, your thoughts on the Island arrangements are based on the assumption that hot air rises, as indeed it does, and will interfere with air op`s. I have already mentioned that the trunking will place outlets well above the flight deck. Unless physics takes a surreal turn only around CVF op`s I don`t see an issue.

You are right Thumper, this should not be a pissing contest.
1. CVF has to be built within the confines of our own budget.
2. BIG Carriers offer more value both operationaly and financially.
3. Building 4 smaller carriers would not be a good idea because of point 2.
4. Three carriers are being built with French involvement which will make them cheaper, which ties in with point 2 again.
5. The CVF will give the UK the ability to carry out independent op`s to a degree suitable for the UK, not the USN, which is the only driver for the whole project that matters.
6. A max` speed of 27-28 knots will be perfectly adequate, losing three knots on a CVN affecting air op`s and recovery is not an issue when you use STOVL aircraft (F-35 which will be considerably more powerful than a Sea Harrier).
7. A nuclear powerplant is clearly more expensive than a conventional plant and takes up more space, precious little we have of that so we have to use it wisely. A CODAG-E is reconfigurable if parts of the system take damage, is less maintenance intensive and you can put system components anywhere on the ship you desire.

I think you are correct that the CVF will not be the best ship we can build but we cannot afford anything else. That is not to say that they will be useless.

It does actually look like Sea RAM is more likely than Phalanx, a phased array radar would be nice but a more conventional radar will be effective. We will rely on T-45/ Astute for CVF defence. Both formidable escorts. Along with the FSC project for ASW work
I think the RN can look forward to a small but powerful capability. The RN has been in the business of shipbuilding for a long time and will have great input in CVF design. This was done on T-45 to great effect.

MASC aircraft will be Merlin, I think it can do a job. Hawkeye would be better but we can`t afford the carriers for that. T-45`s main sensor is said to be very impressive and has a range of hundreds of KM. It may be BAE brochure talk but they say it is vastly more powerful than other conventional systems the RN has had before.

Now, I know there is no substitute for a high eye in the sky but the type of opponent the RN is likely to face will dictate CVF use. If we face a powerful and dangerous foe, we will likely be a part of coalition op`s. For small regional skirmishes the CVF will do a job. Nobody in the UK is saying that we want the RN to be doing the job USN does. That isn`t possible for a non-superpower like the UK.

Thumper, STT, DL, and others, this has been an enjoyable and interesting discussion as well as educational.
I personally don`t have much more to add, just want to say thanks guys for all of your input Cheers

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

Note also... of those so keen to bring up the Falklands War tactics: The RN used destroyer sized ships as radar pickets ( not unlike USN at WWII Okinawa ), as they didn't have big airframe AWACs coverage.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

That`s true ELP, the T-45 will be FAR more capable than a T-42 in that role with Paams-Aster/Sampson combo`. The RN has to make do with what it`s got and will develop tactics to suit. It worked in the FI though the RN lost Sheffield.

A Hawkeye-D would be lovely but Merlin is what the RN will probably get. The RN will evolve tactics to suit. Incidentally, the Sea King ASaC 7 does a tremendous job for MASC at the moment and has excellent net-centric capability. Even the USN was/is interested in it`s Cerberus battle management system.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

Quote:

Even the Germans acknowledged the RR Welland as being far superior to the junk that powered the Me-262 which had a service life measured at 4-7 HOURS.

The Junkers-Jumo 004 and BMW 003 engines where technologically far more advanced than the Welland or even the Derwent that came afterwards. Basically, the Germans pioneered the axial flow engine which is a more effective arrangement than the centrifugal assemblies used by the British and US designers of that period. The reason is actually simple. Even though you get more pressure ratio out of a centrifugal stage over an axial stage, you can easily chain 10 or more axial stages whereas the outward throwing centrifugal impellers limits an engine to one and sometimes two compressor stages. The axial design also minimizes the diameter of the engine for a given airflow rating. This is the design that endured and almost all modern engines are axial engines with extremely few exceptions.

The problem with the German engines was that by 1944 there is basically no supply of the raw materials for high temperature alloys due to Allied advances and bombing -- nickel is basically non-existent. The Germans pioneered yet another technology to get the engines serviceable -- hollow turbine blades with intra-blade air cooling. But even so, it is not enough. The engines last about 10 hours and some conks out sooner. When built with proper nickel alloys, the Junkers 004 had very good service life. The Russians basically copied and produced it very successfully as the RD-10 and used it in the YAK-15/17 jets post war.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

None of your post is really relevant will all due respect as far as the roles these engines played at the beginning of the jet age vis-a-vis RR and GE and the questions posed in this thread. The Meteor with it`s Wellands` was shipped immediately to the USA for evaluation and then shipped back. This gesture kick started the US jet engine program. The Nene engine followed and powered several US fighters. The Nene was conceived in just a few months. It was the Nene that powered the Mig-15 also. The point of my earlier comment was that RR pioneered these engines before GE. It was only because of RR GE got the start it needed. Lets not rewrite our history books. The US was license building RR engines for years after the war.

The Welland was more reliable, capable of flying for 120 hours between overhauls opposed to the Jumo`s 10 hours. Good pilots got a bit longer out of them, but not much. The Jumo had awful throttle response and this was the prime reason for them being shot down by P-51`s when they were landing. If` or buts don`t matter. Militarily, the Welland was the better unit at that time and in it`s day. Period. The JUMO was a poor engine until it was developed properly post war.

German pilots who flew the 262 and the Meteor after the war said the perfect jet would have been the 262 with RR Welland or Derwent engines. That says it all for me. Those pilots were not impressed by the Jumo.

Yes, the Jumo had more potential and that has been realised but it is of no consequence in this thread. I really don`t understand why it bothers some people when they discover some things were done FIRST outside of the US.
Now the US is the acknowledged leader in military jet engines, but don`t forget your humble beginnings and the aid RR gave you.

Quote:

An LHA is VERY LIMITED in projecting fast jet air power, a CVF will be far superior in doing that.

There is absolutely no difference in the ability of the LHA(X) and the CVF to project airpower. They have much more in common than the CVF does to a conventional carrier. The LHA(X) carries around 40 AC and the CVF carries around 40 AC. Both carry STOVL AC, and like the CVF there will be no fixed wing AEW asset. CVF's additional deck space is negated due to the ski jump taking up much useable space. The CVF is a few knots faster but the LPA(X) is half the price and can carry marines.

Before you dismiss it take a look at the ship schematics at global security for Flight 0.

Quote:

If it operated F-35C's of F-18's (of which it can) the numbers would be a lot higher.

Quote:

The RN have chosen to initially operated the CVF's in STOVL configuration.

So let me see, the decided to go with a relatively inferior AC in choosing the B over the C, and they can fit less of them. Hmmmm. I guess it makes sense to someone, but I sure don;t get that one. Oh, by the way, the B is probably going to be more expensive as well. Oh that just makes so much sense!

Quote:

So really instead of criticizing the design of the CVF, you should really criticize the decision to use it in a STOVL configuration. The CVF is capable of both STOVL & CTOL ops.

I have been all along, but you see, the design parameters of the ship have dictated that it be STOVL. I would be willing to bet that a catapult (or two) and arresting gear never get fitted. The ship is too slow and you need EMALS catapults since you are using gas turbines. Those catapults have not yet been developed and when they are what makes you think that there is going to be enough electricty produced to drive them. Oh, I forgot, just hang another MT-30 off the fantail.

Quote:

The RN have been playing with the "big boys" for decades and has been a very valuable force in assisting on naval operations.

They are not fast enough to operate with the CVNs.

Quote:

This does apply to aircraft carriers, two smaller islands will result in less turbulence on deck than a single island. Time will tell whether this is significant or not but other advantages of two islands include:

All those billions spent over the years on aircraft carrier design studies and we missed that one. I better write my congressman. Seriously, it's because of the gas turbines and their trunking.

Quote:

The US probably have stuck with a single island because they have been operating their carriers now in that configuration. Changing to two islands would require a big change in the crew training regime,

What training? What difference?

Quote:

STT has already touched on CVF versus LHA, two ships, one aircraft carrier, one assault ship, two different roles.

See above.

Quote:

LHA according to the link you provided can only carry 20 F-35 max

Wrong, look again. they are giving a typical airwing 20 F-35s and 20 MV-22, plus several helos. Nothing stopping the Marines from loading up on F-35Bs.

Quote:

LHA is lighter by 15,000 T hence lower capacity,

Perhaps maybe, just perhaps as these types of ships go the LHA(X) due to extensive experience with these type ships is a better more efficient design.
Lets go through this again. About the same number of STOVL AC, lack of fixed wing AEW. Both seem to have similar aviation capacity and the LPA(X) does it for half the price and carries marines as well.

Quote:

The RN knows a thing or two about sea skimmers, the FI taught us a harsh lesson but the carriers didn`t get a single scratch in the Falklands, the "tiny" air group kicked butt.

The fact that the RN is launching this ship without fixed wing AEW indicates to me that the did not learn one of the more important lessons of the Falklands. True no carrier was hit. This was at the expense of the escorts who, due to lack of a long range high endurance AEW asset where forced to be radar pickets.

Please save me about the part where Merlin will be MASC. A helicopter no matter how good it is cannot fly high enough, long enough, or fast enough to proved the proper AEW coverage that a capitol ship should have. That in itself is the CVFs biggest failing and until it can embark a true AEW platform and conventional AC it is clearly in the same class as the LPA(X).

Thumper3181 wrote:

There is absolutely no difference in the ability of the LHA(X) and the CVF to project airpower. They have much more in common than the CVF does to a conventional carrier. The LHA(X) carries around 40 AC and the CVF carries around 40 AC. Both carry STOVL AC, and like the CVF there will be no fixed wing AEW asset. CVF's additional deck space is negated due to the ski jump taking up much useable space. The CVF is a few knots faster but the LPA(X) is half the price and can carry marines.

Before you dismiss it take a look at the ship schematics at global security for Flight 0.

There is a vast difference between an LHA and a conventional aircraft carrier. I'll say it again, an LHA is VERY LIMITED in projecting fixed wing aircraft as it does not have a ski jump or any other launch assist measures for fixed wing aircraft. It doesn't have any launch assist measures because it uses the deck space for more aircarft instead. The purpose of an LHA is NOT to launch fixed wing aircraft, thats why it is so limited in doing that role.

Find me a source that says the opposite to what I've just said.

Thumper3181 wrote:

They are not fast enough to operate with the CVNs.

Invincibles have been for years now, so a large deck carrier in its place alongside the USN will be a welcome change. I'm sure they are not going to steam off 2 or 3 knots faster, they didn't with the Invincibles.

Thumper3181 wrote:

What training? What difference?

One island being split into two islands a distance apart results in quite a difference. Ops are handled differently. The USN are on to a good thing with a single island, so there's no need to change it. The RN are only just coming back to large deck carriers, so it doesn't matter for them. Little design differences like this can make a big difference in coalition operations.

Its not that one design is superior to the other, its that you have a variation, and variation is good. It means if an unforeseen event/attack happens that happens to inadvertently take advantage of an unknown flaw it the current ship design, you havn't got the whole fleet based of that design. In other words one design will have it advantages over the other and vice versa.

An example of this? Well its been mentioned a couple of times in this thread already - Sea Dart/Phalanx protecting the USS Missouri in GW1.

Thumper3181 wrote:

All those billions spent over the years on aircraft carrier design studies and we missed that one. I better write my congressman. Seriously, it's because of the gas turbines and their trunking.

Well they missed the angled flight deck, ski jump, steam catapult and meatball. In fact all of those innovations were conceived by RN engineers without major funding. I've already pointed out to you the benefits of a twin island configuration.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Perhaps maybe, just perhaps as these types of ships go the LHA(X) due to extensive experience with these type ships is a better more efficient design.

Not saying the LHA(x) isn't an efficient design, but I know the CVF is a very efficient design. One example of this is the crew complement, for a carrier her size she has quite a small crew complement thanks to automation advances. With a smaller crew you not only have less men on deck, you require less accommodation and reduced crew support facilities on board.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Wrong, look again. they are giving a typical airwing 20 F-35s and 20 MV-22, plus several helos. Nothing stopping the Marines from loading up on F-35Bs.

Its ok looking at numbers but how do you launch them? If you dumped the ski jump and launch space that results in high sortie rates for a CVF, you would have a huge amount of aircaft on board. Thats what they do on an LHA, they don't have any launch assist measures because the main purpose of an LHA is amphibious assault, its not an aircraft carrier. They focus on large aircraft complements over high sortie rates & combat loads.

So you cannot compare numbers without comparing sortie rates and combat/fuel load. And that is not even factoring in recovery as well.

Thumper3181 wrote:

The fact that the RN is launching this ship without fixed wing AEW indicates to me that the did not learn one of the more important lessons of the Falklands. True no carrier was hit. This was at the expense of the escorts who, due to lack of a long range high endurance AEW asset where forced to be radar pickets.

Agreed, lets hope they wake up and smell the coffee soon. I hope to see something like the E-2 operating off deck on the CVF in the near future.

---

Right like Snypa I think I've said all I need to say on this now. In the last few posts of mine I havn't really said anything new. So a good discussion but I'll call it a day now - unless something new is said. Smile

Newbie Joined: Aug 29, 2006 Posts: 11 Status: Offline

I think there are 2 important points that havent yet been raised with regards to the number of aircraft this ship will carry. The RAF will be buying 150 f-35B no more, this has to be split between 2 services! Assuming the eventual number is a round 152 which makes a cool 13 squadrons.

You'll likeley see

7 Squadrons to the RN
3 Ship born squadrons per ship an OCU of 6 and an OEU of 6

That leaves 6 squads for the RAF

If neccessary i'm sure that you'll see an RAF sqaudron aboard in times of war etc etc. But why quote more than 36 aircraft if they wont be available unless the Falkands 2 happens.

The lack of a fixed wing AEW is mildly alarming, they wont be totally helpless though the same sampson radar that equips the t45 destroyer will be mounted on the rear island, with a quoted range of 400km (248miles) she's not exactly short sighted. I expect the figures will be verified during the coming weeks as Daring is handed over to the Navy fo sea trials.

The second point is this ship will be a huge improvement over any royal navy contribution to joint ops as will her escorts!

I wonder though with CVF-01 due to enter service in 2014 and the f-35B due in a much earlier 2012 if the navy is stuck with them because it needs to use them off an invincible class carrier to avoid being totally without airpower for several years. The deck on a CVF is 260 meters which is more than enough to launch an f-35 off with a ski jump, hell the typhoon quotes a 300m takeoff roll i bet with a ski jump that wouldnt struggle either. Circumstances i suspect have dictated the layout of the CVF as much anything else.

Apologies for any typos poor grammar or nonsense, beer is invloved!!

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

Quote:

The lack of a fixed wing AEW is mildly alarming, they wont be totally helpless though the same sampson radar that equips the t45 destroyer will be mounted on the rear island, with a quoted range of 400km (248miles) she's not exactly short sighted. I expect the figures will be verified during the coming weeks as Daring is handed over to the Navy fo sea trials.

The problem is that no radar mounted on a ship has more than about 35~45km range for targets flying near the surface -- AShMs and/or low flying aircraft. The radar horizon problem is present even on USN AEGIS vessels which has the ability to track a ballistic missile or warhead at ranges in excess of 800km with their 4MW SPY-1D(v) radars.

An AWACs gives the battle group an eye in the sky with no radar horizon limits and a big fat aperture. A helo based AEW gives you the same except that the aperture is a lot smaller (the radar on the chopper won't be like the one of the E-2D) and the endurance of the helo is abyssmal compared to a fixed wing turboprop.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

Paulofische wrote:

I think there are 2 important points that havent yet been raised with regards to the number of aircraft this ship will carry. The RAF will be buying 150 f-35B no more, this has to be split between 2 services! Assuming the eventual number is a round 152 which makes a cool 13 squadrons.

Current planning is for 138 JSF-B. The RAF at the moment will "own" ALL 138 aircraft in a "joint force". (work that one out).

Paulofische wrote:

You'll likeley see

7 Squadrons to the RN
3 Ship born squadrons per ship an OCU of 6 and an OEU of 6

That leaves 6 squads for the RAF

My you are indeed pi@&$d!
So am I! Laughing

Those numbers are a bit awry. When the buy was 150, the RAF were getting 90, the RN 60. The RN is fighting to get ownership of it`s share and are determined to see 3 Sqns of 36 fighters on board their CVF.
I don`t think BOTH carriers will be available at all times either, that is why I would like to have seen three built instead of two.
The RAF will still get the Lions share as it has more Harriers (GR9) to replace.
The real issue will be manning. The RN is really struggling to fill squadron spots since Sea Harrier was elbowed, most JFH pilots are actually RAF.

I am not getting into airgroup size again! It`s been done to death on the thread. Fact is nothing is firm publicly.

Paulofische wrote:

The lack of a fixed wing AEW is mildly alarming, they wont be totally helpless though the same sampson radar that equips the t45 destroyer will be mounted on the rear island, with a quoted range of 400km (248miles) she's not exactly short sighted. I expect the figures will be verified during the coming weeks as Daring is handed over to the Navy fo sea trials.

I would expect to see even better performance from Sampson simply because it is perched up higher on CVF. Alas, I personally don`t think Sampson will find it`s way onto CVF. It is planned " Only as the budget allows".

Paulofische wrote:

I wonder though with CVF-01 due to enter service in 2014 and the f-35B due in a much earlier 2012 if the navy is stuck with them because it needs to use them off an invincible class carrier to avoid being totally without airpower for several years. The deck on a CVF is 260 meters which is more than enough to launch an f-35 off with a ski jump, hell the typhoon quotes a 300m takeoff roll i bet with a ski jump that wouldnt struggle either. Circumstances i suspect have dictated the layout of the CVF as much anything else.

If JSF-B isn`t ready in time, cue the Super Hornet. Another marvelous MOD decision to retire the Sea Harrier too early to save money. Flight deck length is nearer 280m by the way, sorry to quibble.

Dwight wrote:

An AWACs gives the battle group an eye in the sky with no radar horizon limits and a big fat aperture. A helo based AEW gives you the same except that the aperture is a lot smaller (the radar on the chopper won't be like the one of the E-2D) and the endurance of the helo is abyssmal compared to a fixed wing turboprop.

Actually, that`s incorrect, the Sea King ASaC 7 has exactly the same endurance as the Hawkeye 2000, around 4 hours. I do agree though that the Hawkeye has it beaten hands down on altitude and therefore sensor range.
The job of Sea king is to provide detection of low flying aircraft or missiles and manage the battle space, which it certainly can do with it`s battle management system. It can also give over the horizon targeting data for surface to surface missiles, and is equipped with datalinks of course.
The MASC solution could be Merlin although NH-90 is being looked at as well, even aerostats and UAVs` were considered! Wonder if the USN has any Trackers in one piece at AMARC! I kid you not, that question was actually raised.

In conclusion though, it is no substitute for a high flying Hawkeye. I know which system the RN really wants, Hawkeye -D. I think it`s ISD is around 2010.

Quote:

I would expect to see even better performance from Sampson simply because it is perched up higher on CVF.

Not enough to matter against low flying targets.

Quote:

If JSF-B isn`t ready in time, cue the Super Hornet.

Removing the ski ramp and installing an EMALS catapult and arresting gear will not happen overnight if at all. Do you realize what that would entail?

Quote:

Actually, that`s incorrect, the Sea King ASaC 7 has exactly the same endurance as the Hawkeye 2000, around 4 hours.

Endurance is not the same as persistence. The helo cannot travel as fast so it takes longer to get on station and once there will be more vulnerable to attack. Second the helo cannot loiter at nearly the same altitude. You can see a lot better at 35,000ft than you can at 10,000ft.

The fact still remains, as constituted these ships will be no more capable than the new LPAs the USN is fielding. Air wing size is similar and aircraft type are the same.

Quote:

I'll say it again, an LHA is VERY LIMITED in projecting fixed wing aircraft as it does not have a ski jump or any other launch assist measures for fixed wing aircraft.

The ski jump merely allows for a shorter takeoff roll. The LHA/LHDs at 850-900 feet long the Navy has decided that a ski jump is not necessary. Please quantify what advantage the ski jump confers over a 600 foot take off roll.

Quote:

The purpose of an LHA is NOT to launch fixed wing aircraft, thats why it is so limited in doing that role.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of the LHA is to project power ashore. Go tell the Marines that they don;t need those Harriers to support them.

Norman Polmar Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet 16th Edition.

Quote:

Find me a source that says the opposite to what I've just said.

How about you cite one to support your assertion.

Quote:

Not saying the LHA(x) isn't an efficient design, but I know the CVF is a very efficient design. One example of this is the crew complement, for a carrier her size she has quite a small crew complement thanks to automation advances.

Who is going to do damage control. Who is going to maintain the ship? Sure you can run a ship with less, but will you have enough firefighters if shes hit. Will you have enough people to perform the thousands of daily maintenance tasks. Small crews are a popular theory, lets see how ell they do in wartime or on a real long cruise.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth get go-ahead.