Register here

Author Topic: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development  (Read 55711 times)

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7281
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline SteveO

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 312
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: 845
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: 3208
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: 7281
  • _ \\ //
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 Britainís 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 governmentís spending watchdog says that the overall cost of the two ships ó £6.2 billion, almost double the original estimate ó 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: 3208
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: 2243
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: 104
  • 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.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 845
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #115 on: June 20, 2017, 04:39:48 pm »
We'll find out soon if this June 5 prediction was accurate.

"Coinciding with the tides and the booking of various tugs, itís estimated that HMS Queen Elizabeth will sail between the 21st and 24th of this month."
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-queen-elizabeth-sail-trials-later-month-date-revealed/

Online Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #116 on: June 24, 2017, 03:19:50 am »
Does anyone have access to a relativistic study of the abilities of the Crowsnest radar system to be fitted to the Merlin MK 2 helicopters?  I would have thought a better solution would have been a fixed wing carrier but that would have been canned when the government decided they would be moronic about the whole proper carrier role.

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 674
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #117 on: June 24, 2017, 06:42:39 am »
I can't say for certain on performance, but a few nations have helicopter-based AEW systems aboard their carriers. The competing Lockheed system with the Elta EL/M 2052 AESA radar would have been better but the main point was to achieve AEW at the lowest cost (perhaps the most consistent theme in land and sea-based British AEW programmes) and the existing Thales Cerebus is still very good. It was thought far cheaper to just take the kits out of the Sea Kings and put them into Merlins. The Crowsnest system should be better than the previous Sea King ASaC.7 with some processing improvements and the operators might suffer less from noise and vibration fatigue.

FOAEW's baseline was a Merlin conversion with existing Cerebus kits, the other competitors were the E-2, V-22 and Aerostat. The succeeding MASC was also a Merlin vs V-22 duel but still not ruling out a fixed-wing solution, but when MASC became Crowsnest in 2010 the fixed-wing option disappeared. It's clear that since the CTOL carrier was never a popular choice or a cost-effective conversion possibility, it realistically ruled out any fixed-wing type and since 2001 a Merlin conversion has always been the frontrunner.

I think the main gripe wasn't the selection of using existing kit, but rather that the ten HMA.1s in storage hadn't been converted instead to avoid reducing the anti-submarine Merlin fleet.

Even had the CTOL carrier gone ahead and a quartet of E-2C Hawkeye 200 or Ds been ordered, at around $180 million each and with all the non-standard logistical items it would have worked out very expensive. Also where do you get your twin-engine pilots from unless your using RAF crews? Only operating one carrier at a time in rotation removed the justification for the MOD and Treasury to spend large amounts when they can use as much existing kit as possible to reduce the equipment costs. There is persistent background noise about perhaps buying Ospreys for the carriers for COD etc., but I think that too is highly unlikely unless the RAF finds a need for some and a future Osprey AEW conversion is unlikely given the expense of the Crowsnest conversions and their relatively new status. I think the days of the Navy operating bespoke aircraft the RAF don't have are long gone.

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1917
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #118 on: June 24, 2017, 10:06:14 am »
Thales Cerebus Cerberus

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2294
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #119 on: June 24, 2017, 11:57:54 am »
The aardvark??