User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 10:11:07 AM EDT
Well at long last the MoD has released definative drawings and sizes for the two new Strike Carriers the Royal Navy is to receive @2015.
920ft, 65,000 tons, 36 F-35s, 4 AWAC's (poss E2's) and 8 Helos. Integrated Electric Propulsion, same system and gear as DDX, and a stealthy hull and superstructure. First of Class, HMS Queen Elizabeth will be finished as a STOVL carrier, but her Sister ship, HMS Prince of Wales, is due to be fitted with EMALS as a conventional Strike Carrier, the UK MoD is in talks with the USN to buy the gear. Both ships will be built for cat gear, but it will not be available in time for the first of class and will be retrofitted afterwards. £300 Million, $530 Million has been allocated for long lead items and detail designwork. The Phrench are to buy and modify the design and build a sister ship of the same design for their Navy. ANdy      The layout of the conventional deck design can be seen in this drawing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 10:12:54 AM EDT
[#1]
Interesting!
Thanks for sharing Andy! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 10:19:57 AM EDT
[#2]
Pfft, a rusty A-4 with malfunctioning Exocets can take that out in one pass!
 Just kidding.Looks nice, build it faster so it can sail with the US Navy when we invade commie China. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 10:21:14 AM EDT
[#3]
I almost didn't see that boom/hoist piece of equipment. Nice camouflage! It works well in a nautical environment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 10:24:07 AM EDT
[#4]
What do the green and yellow lines on the deck layout mean?
I'm guessing black is the cats, and red is the landing path? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 10:26:40 AM EDT
[#5]
How do you make something that is almost a quarter mile long have "stealthy" features?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 10:28:31 AM EDT
[#6]
Andy,
Are ya'll designing any new escort classes to guard her? I don't know if ya'll have anything equivalent to AEGIS, and carrier are tempting targets. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 10:29:19 AM EDT
[#7]
On radar it only looks an eighth of a mile long.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 10:34:34 AM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 10:35:54 AM EDT
[#9]
You have to get closer to "see" it than another ship of similar size. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 10:38:05 AM EDT
[#10]
You guys don't need that !
 That sure is a pretty ship, glad you're getting them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 10:39:20 AM EDT
[#11]
What on earth will the French do with a ("Surrendeur Class"?) carrier? Launch themselves, clad only in berets & skivvies, lemming-like, off the sides in a futile attempt to evade capture? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 10:39:36 AM EDT
[#12]
Welcome back into the club, Mate!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 10:42:17 AM EDT
[#13]
The picture should have F/A-18Es in it, considering how the JSF program is going.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 10:46:28 AM EDT
[#14]
When it comes to stealth it's not the size, it's the shape. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:04:48 AM EDT
[#15]
Don't start that! We have a delegation off to Washington next year to talk turkey. No source code for the FCS and now DoD wants to shut the alternate engine (Rolls Royce) = the F/A-18 could be back in the frame again. At the moment it's a mix of STVOL and CTOL F-35's. ANdt |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:11:37 AM EDT
[#16]
8 of these... Type 45 Air Defence Destroyers, first, HMS Daring, to be launched March 2006.  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:12:59 AM EDT
[#17]
Will the CTOL's launch with the bow ramp, a la Kuznetsov? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:13:15 AM EDT
[#18]
Why the mix? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:16:45 AM EDT
[#19]
Probably because the STOVL F-35B is gonna suck big time in performance (payload and range). |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:19:00 AM EDT
[#20]
It's a 'bolt on' ramp quite literally! When the cat's go on the ramp comes off is the plan. ANdy |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:19:44 AM EDT
[#21]
That's what I though, which begs the question of why have them at all over the conventionals. Unless they're thinking about a Falkslands type situation where they then operated Harriers off the island itself. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:21:29 AM EDT
[#22]
Sell the plans to Al Qaeda and provide engineers to assist in the construction of the HJS Osama and its brothers. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:25:27 AM EDT
[#23]
Beat me too it. One of the requierement is to be able to carry 2,000lb bombs internally. The STVOL versions bomb bay was shrunk to lose weight and cannot take the 'heavy hitters' now. ANdy |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:29:30 AM EDT
[#24]
The carriers will have a joint RN/RAF air wing with the Royal Navy Pilots being the primary 'Fighter Jocks' and the RAF being the primary 'Bomber Boys'. By using STVOL F-35's they can be flow ashore to provide CAS for expeditionary forces. ANdy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:30:40 AM EDT
[#25]
Yeah, just like the USMC does. Oh, what..... They never did that. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:31:55 AM EDT
[#26]
Ah, so it is a Falklands type thing. Okay. Makes sense. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:36:56 AM EDT
[#27]
You name carriers as badly as we do. They should be the Furious and Courageous! Naming carrirs after battleships pfft!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:37:51 AM EDT
[#28]
Yeah, but they could. Over the Falklands the Harriers short legs meant they had a very limited patrol time over the fleet. So basically they had to hope they met an Argie attack. Once troops were ashore they started refueling Harriers at Port San Carlos, which allowed the Harriers to really protect things. vito, why a joint RAF/RN thing? Why not just RN pilots? What's the theory there? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:38:22 AM EDT
[#29]
RAF pilots getting carrier qualed? 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:48:14 AM EDT
[#30]
Yes, they could, but that's already been proven impractical; A fully-laden Harrier (even the US version) cannot VTOL. Coming back Winchester and Bingo makes a landing easily on a short runway or parking lot, but getting up ain't so easy. Harriers in both Gulf Wars operated from much greater distances and still didn't forward deploy. At least I can give the Brits credit for trying to prove the concept. Not to mention the obvious performance shortcomings of all current and projected STOVL aircraft. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:53:56 AM EDT
[#31]
+1 The Royal Navy is back! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:55:29 AM EDT
[#32]
CTOL: Conventional Take Off and Landing. Catapults and arresting gear. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:56:13 AM EDT
[#33]
Looking Good!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:03:36 PM EDT
[#34]
Wow....she's a beaut! So how many carriers does the UK currently have? Will you retire some once those new ones are ready for service?
Thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:16:01 PM EDT
[#35]
It works like this... Why the STVOL F-35s' for the RAF/RN? Well the RAF provides organic CAS to all our ground forces operating in harms way. From the Gulf to Afghanistan, the RAF will send a squadron along to keep the troops company. The RAF has the ability to fully deploy and forward support it's Harriers and the squadrons are self contained for this purpose. All they need is a flat patch of dirt. Why the joint RAF/RAF thing? With both forces using the same planes it made sense to combine the two forces, streamlines training and support. If the Navy are short of pilots it can ask for reinforcements from the RAF. The carriers can 'surge' to carrying 48 F-35's in a shooting war and that excess would be made up from the RAF who have plenty of pilots. ANdy |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:17:17 PM EDT
[#36]
Damn! you`re fast! The theory is basically one training and maintenance pipeline to streamline operations in the "joint" environment and most importntly -save money! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:17:42 PM EDT
[#37]
We had three tidlers, HMS Invincible has already paid off from service. As each of the new ones enters service the others will pay off. ANdy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:22:44 PM EDT
[#38]
Carriers....Brits.....Pfffft!!
EVERYONE KNOWS that you should be building BATTLESHIPS!!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:25:07 PM EDT
[#39]
Maybe we should buy these for LHA(R)s. One of the requirements for LHA(R) is to accept a detachment of 20+ JSFs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:27:47 PM EDT
[#40]
We were talking about the LHA(R) in work this week. So the Light Fleet Carrier is back? ANdy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:33:33 PM EDT
[#41]
Just looking at the cost of CVN-21, I'm not sure how we can keep affording the carriers we're building now. With tactical data links being what they are, I'm not sure it isn't wise to have 18 of your carriers vs 11 or 12 of the ones we have built. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:37:16 PM EDT
[#42]
I wonder what the keel of the first one will ultimately become? I mean, you know it will be cancelled midstream once the F-35 is shitcanned.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:39:08 PM EDT
[#43]
I think I'll tag this one
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:41:06 PM EDT
[#44]
Major export program. Think F-16 on steroids. No way this program is getting cancelled. If they're smart, they'll cancel the STOVL version (big bucks, very limited interest and lackluster performance) and keep moving forward with USAF -A and Navy -C versions. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:44:29 PM EDT
[#45]
No one has any money to buy any substantial numbers, at that is before the inevitable 300% cost overruns. The only country that could afford to buy them is CHina, and they probably already stole the plans. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:44:49 PM EDT
[#46]
We're looking at US$3.2 billion a copy, how does that compare with CVN-21? Andy |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:47:41 PM EDT
[#47]
Last rumor I heard it was tipping $10 billion. Hell, our destroyers are $3 billion a copy now. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:49:18 PM EDT
[#48]
US Navies LHA(R) for the curious minds.
ANdy 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:49:36 PM EDT
[#49]
Nevermind, we can buy four of your carriers for the cost of one CVN-21.
www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/06/92m-in-preparations-for-cvn-21-construction/index.php |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 12:52:34 PM EDT
[#50]
What are the manpower requirements to operate one of the new Royal Navy carriers compared to one of ours? Can we man 4 of the smaller carriers with the crew from one of our carriers? |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
