Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sources: Royal Navy Wins Fight For Carriers
Sky News ^ | 10/14/2010 | Niall Paterson

Posted on 10/15/2010 4:00:48 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld

The Royal Navy looks set to have two new carriers capable of supporting planes as well as helicopters, Ministry of Defence sources have confirmed. There had been speculation the second of the two carriers ordered by the Navy - the HMS Prince of Wales, due to enter service in 2018 - would be either be scrapped, downgraded, or moth-balled following the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR). Originally conceived as a Queen Elizabeth class carrier capable of supporting the American-built F35 Joint Strike Fighter, it had been rumoured the MoD would alter its specifications to that of a helicopter carrier. But it would appear pressure from the Royal Navy has prevailed over financial concerns. With just two days remaining before all SDSR decisions must be finalised, further horse-trading between the Army, Navy, Air Force and National Security Council could see these plans change. Cabinet Office sources have told Sky News the negotiations are likely to continue "until the last possible moment", but indications are the aircraft carriers as initially envisaged will survive the cuts.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.sky.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aircraftcarrier; carrier; f35; greatbritain; jsf; ministryofdefence; mod; navair; queenelizabeth; royalnavy; uk

1 posted on 10/15/2010 4:00:50 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


2 posted on 10/15/2010 4:02:45 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

No angled flight deck? I wonder why.


3 posted on 10/15/2010 4:05:40 PM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

Thank God for that. Unfortanately, it will probably mean savage cuts in the rest of the surface fleet, but escorts are quicker and easier to build. If we had lost our carrier air group capabilities, future British Governments would have grown accustomed to the situation and we would never have got them back....


4 posted on 10/15/2010 4:06:13 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RC2

MoD announced that the Royal Navy and RAF will operate the STOVL F-35B variant. At the same time it was announced that the carriers would take the form of large, conventional carriers, initially adapted for STOVL operations. The carriers, expected to remain in service for 50 years, are designed for but not with catapults and arrestor wires.


5 posted on 10/15/2010 4:07:49 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

That upswept deck on the bow seems to have served them well.


6 posted on 10/15/2010 4:11:22 PM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RC2

The Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal, were designed for anti-submarine warfare in the North Atlantic as part of a combined NATO fleet and have limited space for STOVL fixed-wing aircraft.


7 posted on 10/15/2010 4:13:58 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RC2

That is very interesting because the British were the first to have carriers with angled decks.


8 posted on 10/15/2010 4:21:43 PM PDT by skimask
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

GOOD but add an angled landing deck! They will need a couple of these to protect the billions of barrels of OIL in the Falklands!


9 posted on 10/15/2010 4:46:14 PM PDT by WellyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

What do you think the four white “check marks” on the flight deck are meant to indicate?


10 posted on 10/15/2010 5:47:51 PM PDT by az_gila (AZ - one Governor down... we don't want her back...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: az_gila
Landing spots just like on a LHA/LHD.

11 posted on 10/15/2010 6:05:52 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: magslinger

ping


12 posted on 10/15/2010 9:53:10 PM PDT by Vroomfondel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vroomfondel; SC Swamp Fox; Fred Hayek; NY Attitude; P3_Acoustic; investigateworld; lowbuck; ...
SONOBUOY PING!

Click on pic for past Navair pings.

Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.

13 posted on 10/16/2010 5:07:59 AM PDT by magslinger ('This is a United States Marine Corps FA-18 fighter. Send 'em up, I'll wait!')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2
No angled flight deck? I wonder why.

An angled flight deck is for arrested landings of conventional takeoff and landing aircraft. This ship will use the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing aircraft.

The F-35B will take off without a catapult by using a short rolling takeoff off of the bow ski jump, and land vertically on one of those white checkmark spots.

The carrier was designed to have an angled deck if for any reason the Royal Navy decided to go with a catapult takeoff/arrested landing (CATOBAR) aircraft. For the angled deck, pretty much all you have to do is repaint the lines. (And add the arrestor gear, and the catapults, and...)

Here is a pic of the CVF in both forms:


14 posted on 10/16/2010 6:24:30 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
For the angled deck, pretty much all you have to do is repaint the lines. (And add the arrestor gear, and the catapults, and...)

The 'impact' area of the deck will need to be strengthened, and there will need to be extensions aft and port forward (visible in the comparison pics you posted).

The catapults will be ... interesting. I'm assuming that they wouldn't go with steam, because that would require major plumbing changes PLUS a source for steam (since the ships will be gas-turbine powered). That leaves hydraulic or, more likely, electro-magnetic of the variety being put into CVN-78. Electro-magnetic catapults will require LOTS of additional electric power, however. I'm assuming that the ships are designed to be upgraded for the extra required capacity ...
15 posted on 10/16/2010 6:34:02 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

I believe there’s all sorts of penalty clauses built into these things; if the govt pulled out, it might be nearly as expensive as continuing with the difference that there wouldn’t be any jobs created/saved in the areas where they are being built.

As an aside, not sure how it is with new US defence stuff, but whenever the media and politician report new defence contracts in the UK, they always emphasise how many jobs will be created as opposed to the contribution made to the country’s defence capabilities which seems to always takes second place to job creation.


16 posted on 10/16/2010 10:04:30 AM PDT by Mac1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2

I’ll ask for you


17 posted on 10/16/2010 10:59:16 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

Personally, I think it might mean the successor project (next gen nuclear subs) gets the axe.


18 posted on 10/16/2010 11:01:00 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

Too late for that. The Astute programme is already well under way. The first two have already been launched and construction on a further two is already well under way. Worst case scenario will see the Trafalgar class being kept in service a little bit longer.
If you are talking about replacements for the bomber subs, its already been established that they will be replaced come hell or high water (even the lib dems have acceded to this)...


19 posted on 10/16/2010 11:14:20 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

No, not the Astute program (although they may shave number 6 and/or 7 off). I’m talking about the NEXT generation after that (initial work already being done).


20 posted on 10/18/2010 12:59:36 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

As for the boomers, they may “program slip” them (retain Vanguard for longer) or they may replace them with cheaper alternatives. It depends if the commitment is to nuclear armed submarines or an independent deterrent. They could replace them with bombers or (my preferred solution) cruise missile subs.


21 posted on 10/18/2010 1:01:51 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

That will be interesting. The Harrier has nozzles that can rotate to angle with the ramp whereas the F-35 Aft nozzle rotates to a straight down position and the lift fan blows directly down. Not sure if this makes a difference but the F-35 shouldn’t need a ramp.


22 posted on 10/18/2010 1:09:28 AM PDT by Always Independent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
The 'impact' area of the deck will need to be strengthened, and there will need to be extensions aft and port forward (visible in the comparison pics you posted).

The catapults will be ... interesting. I'm assuming that they wouldn't go with steam, because that would require major plumbing changes PLUS a source for steam (since the ships will be gas-turbine powered). That leaves hydraulic or, more likely, electro-magnetic of the variety being put into CVN-78. Electro-magnetic catapults will require LOTS of additional electric power, however. I'm assuming that the ships are designed to be upgraded for the extra required capacity ...

Yes, I know it would take a whole lot more refit than just "add arresting wires and drop in a catapult." That's why I ended with "and..."

Today's Aviation Week Ares Blog says that the first carrier will be a helicopter ship, the second will be built with arresting gear and EMALS catapults, then the first ship will be retrofit with arresting gear and EMALS during it's first refit.

23 posted on 10/18/2010 9:34:04 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Always Independent
That will be interesting. The Harrier has nozzles that can rotate to angle with the ramp whereas the F-35 Aft nozzle rotates to a straight down position and the lift fan blows directly down. Not sure if this makes a difference but the F-35 shouldn’t need a ramp.

The Rolls-Royce LiftSystem can rotate the rear nozzle at any angle from 5 to 95 degrees, plus rotate left-right 12 degrees for yaw control. When not in use, it locks to zero degrees. So the only angles it can't do are 1 through 4 degrees.

Also, the front lift fan has variable area vane box nozzle that controls flow and vectors thrust from 42 to 105 degrees.

In any case, the Harrier doesn't angle it's nozzles to "angle with the ramp." It rolls forward using nozzles rearward, then just before it hits the ski jump it rotates the nozzles down about 45 degrees or so. The ski jump allows the Harrier to convert some of it's forward motion into vertical motion, allowing it to take off with a larger load when compared to an equal length takeoff run on a flat surface. The same will hold true for the F-35B.

For reasons best know by the service, the Marines never used a ski jump on their ships for their AV-8B Harrier IIs, and don't plan to use one with their F-35Bs.

24 posted on 10/18/2010 10:02:39 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RC2

Not any more. The carriers will be modified with the angled deck after the UKs Strategic Defence Review yesterday. The UK has made the decision to buy F-35C instead of F-35B.


25 posted on 10/20/2010 9:02:49 AM PDT by Tommyjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson