Register here

Author Topic: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development  (Read 48521 times)

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7189
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline SteveO

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 311
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #106 on: October 03, 2016, 02:19:02 pm »
Interesting related article here -

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/f-35-and-carrier-enabled-power.html

I wonder if we will soon be able to fit all of the UK's operational frontline combat aircraft into one carrier  ::)

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 780
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #107 on: October 11, 2016, 09:24:02 am »

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3175
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #108 on: February 16, 2017, 12:06:47 am »
Original Thales/BMT CVF Alpha design, note the podded propulsion, 4 x MT30 gas turbines and what appears to be SAMPSON on the aft island. This version was apparently 292m long as opposed to the 280m long of the final design.

CVF as built was the Delta design, more or less a halfway point between the very capable/expensive Alpha design and the much less capable/cheaper Beta and Charlie designs. 

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7189
  • _ \\ //
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #109 on: March 16, 2017, 10:09:53 am »
Warship's launch is delayed amid fears over rising costs (The Times, registration may be required.)

Quote
The launch of Britain’s new aircraft carrier has been delayed by three months because of technical problems that have yet to be fixed.

The multibillion-pound programme to have HMS Queen Elizabeth and a squadron of F-35 jets operating at sea by 2021 is also under threat, the National Audit Office (NAO) says in a report being published today. A second carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, is due to be operational by 2026.

The government’s spending watchdog says that the overall cost of the two ships — £6.2 billion, almost double the original estimate — could rise by up to £124 million.
To the Stars

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3540
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #110 on: March 19, 2017, 09:55:19 pm »
CVF as built was the Delta design, more or less a halfway point between the very capable/expensive Alpha design and the much less capable/cheaper Beta and Charlie designs.

External pods? Very noisy and very vulnerable. AFAIK there are no MILSPEC azimuthal (or fixed) thruster pods available or likely to be.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3175
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #111 on: March 20, 2017, 12:45:24 am »
The only flagged vulnerability was to shock but it was felt this could be managed by changing the internal bearing type. That said the use of pods on the Queen Mary, the same pod types albeit with a different bearing type to that considered for CVF ultimately got RR and Converteam a big compensation bill. Although it was the bearings, that the BMT/Thales CVF team intended not to use, that caused the problems in the Queen Mary.

either way not using pods seems to have been a reasonable decision, at least from a project risk perspective.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2017, 02:52:28 am by JFC Fuller »

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2142
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #112 on: March 20, 2017, 02:05:18 am »
CVF as built was the Delta design, more or less a halfway point between the very capable/expensive Alpha design and the much less capable/cheaper Beta and Charlie designs.

External pods? Very noisy and very vulnerable. AFAIK there are no MILSPEC azimuthal (or fixed) thruster pods available or likely to be.

There are podded systems in some amphibious ships (the French Mistake and the Australian Canberra). But yes, it's pretty unproven technology with a bunch of potential issues like shock sensitivity and noise transmission.  That said,pods were incredibly popular for a while, until they started to get operation experience with pods in large cruise ships.  They became a lot less popular in  military concepts as the reliability issues started.   

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3540
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #113 on: March 20, 2017, 04:53:25 pm »
The Spanish Juan Carlos LHD (aka Canberra) is military to the waterline and then civil to the keel. Both it and the Mistral designs are built to commercial standards and the avipods are COTS. Neither ship meets basic MILSPEC for noise or survivability.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Volkodav

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #114 on: March 25, 2017, 02:05:18 am »
The Spanish Juan Carlos LHD (aka Canberra) is military to the waterline and then civil to the keel. Both it and the Mistral designs are built to commercial standards and the avipods are COTS. Neither ship meets basic MILSPEC for noise or survivability.

Interestingly rumour has it Canberra had to curtail Tiger certification trials and return to port after a major engineering casualty, indicating the RAN is not doing too well with their COTS toys to date.  Just because something is cheaper upfront doesn't necessarily mean it will be cheaper through life, especially if it keeps breaking and/or wears out quicker.