The Queen Elizabeth-Class Aircraft Carrier thread

[Mr Carrot]

After missing its proposed final concept deadline by about 2 years (the latest revised one was March), I hear the RN have commisioned a study into "rolling landing for VTO jets for the CVF", we are about to lose one of our three carriers, at this rate JSF will be out of service before the bloody carriers keel is laid.

Anybody got any more info on the faffing about, I personally thing that the Thales/BAE joint project was a big mistake. BAE now dragging their heels and Thales proposing a smaller ship. Fucking Labour fucking about with THE most important millitary asset we will have for the next 50 years (ignoring the SSBNs).

[Badger Man]

Trust me - it'll be down sized and down graded gradually until it's no bigger than the ones we have now.

Luckily I'm out in 2010, so wont affect me anyway (carrier faggots!!)

[[n00b].eesh.]

Any help on the acronyms. I am an unlearned fellow.

[Mr Carrot]

The CVF dear boy, is Carrier Vehicle Future, the development name for our new carriers the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

[[n00b].eesh.]

Ah right. I remeber this.

[Bugstomper]

HMS Queen Elizabeth, fine.. but prince of wales? why can't we go back to really great names like HMS Warspite, HMS Dreadnought and HMS BigFuckingShipWithLotsOfBigGuns?

Not that i'd ever vote labour, but i wouldn't blame labour directly as an entity as the tory's were screwing over the forces long before labour turned up.

British governments of all colours have to make up their mind to either stop trying to be a world power, or to pay to be one, we can't do it on the cheap anymore as sometime soon there will be a major disaster because of it (like the falklands almost was).

[Mr Carrot]

The carrier names are rather poor, but so has the naming conventions for everything bar the subs for the last 40 years.

Apparently people identify with sheffield, duncan or even as you point out Prince of Wales more than HMS Nelson, HMS Lion or my personal fave HMS Indefatigable.

To be fair the carriers should be HMS Ark Royal and HMS Eagle

The diff between the 91 force reductions and the current lot of cuts is there was no need to maintain a large conventional force to fight a ground war in Europe after the collapse of the USSR. Yes there were Air Force reductions, we certainly didnt need a large interceptor force and the cutting of a good deal of naval vessels in my opinion valid as convoy protection and sub hunting was no longer the RN mandate.

with the post falklands changes British forces were more than able to cope with several global hotspots and send a far larger force for Gulf War 1 without facing overstretch.

The current labour cuts arnt clever thinking, the hits to the RN especially are just silly. Hoon and Brown are the real problem rather than the country trying to act like a super power its a chancellor trying to act like scrouge.

[Mr Carrot]

Oh and going on some reading ove done recently, I would recommend Britain and the Economic Problem of the Cold War by Geiger (its 55 quid mind), Britain proportioanlly spent more on cold war defence then any other western country.

Per person and %age of GDP up till the early 80s (then Reagan came along....). Admitedly you dont see the real fruits of this spending especially pre thatcher because of the Unions doing a great deal to fuck up procurment and poor gov schemes where they would pour a lot of money into a program then cancel it for political reasons even though it was becomming a viable platform.

It meant come 1991 there was a lot that could be validly cut.

[Eja Cool8]

The CVF is still mired in wrangling over who gets to build them, and how much the bill's going to be....

From;
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-2.htm

your one-stop shop for all RN news.

Procurement Process -
Current Situation (9 May 2005)

In March 2005, the CVF IPT Leader initiated a "100-day" major review of the CVF project, to be completed in mid-June. It will examine and re-assess key requirements, options, costs, schedules and risks. The final report is expected to rapidly find its way to the desk of the Sir Peter Spencer (Chief Executive of the DPA), and soon after to the new Secretary of State for Defence, Dr John Reid. There are already hints that the report will recommend that the budget request for the D&M phase will have to be increased from £2.9 billion to £3.5 billion if the key user requirements are to be met. Failure to provide the extra money may render the project unviable.

The next milestone for the CVF Project is the critical Main Gate investment decision, this represents the main investment decision of the programme and is the point at which the alliance procurement approach and supplier arrangements will be formally adopted. It will also mark the end of the Assessment Phase and the entry in to the Demonstration and Manufacture Phases.

However long and hard negotiations over price (BAE sources continue to brief the press that they cost the project at £4 billion) and schedules still remain before the main gate review process can even begin. Only when these issues are resolved and agreement has been reached on all major matters, can Mr John Coles, CVF Integrated Project Team (IPT) Leader, and Rear Admiral Ric Cheadle, Director Land and Maritime, present the IPT’s business case and recommendations to the Investment Approvals Board (IAB), whose remit includes responsibility for the scrutiny and approval of all investment decisions across the Ministry of Defence. The IAB is chaired by Professor Roy Anderson, the MOD’s Chief Scientific Adviser, and also includes the Chief of Defence Procurement; Air Chief Marshal Sir Anthony Bagnall, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff; General Sir Kevin O' Donoghue, Chief of Defence Logistics; and Ian Andrews, Second Permanent Under Secretary of State. When the IAB has completed its work, as a “Category A” project, the CVF programme will then also require ministerial approval by the Defence and Overseas Planning (DOP) Committee of the Cabinet Office. The DOP is chaired by the Prime Minister and is entitled to question the IAB over its recommendations, and to ask for a re-assessment if it is deemed necessary.

Officially this process is expected to be completed by the end of 2005, but unofficially, sources are indicating that it may well be January or February 2006 before the final approval "rubber stamp" is received and the Main Gate milestone is formally achieved.



© 2004 Richard Beedall unless otherwise indicated.
All rights reserved. 5/19/2005



This is what the latest version of the design looks like;



around 64.500 tonnes apparently, if it gets built.....

[spl@t]

Eja has returned :o

[Mr Carrot]

Huzzah!

[Bugstomper]

Before i got offered a contract extension on my research work at uni i went to a few defence industry places for job interviews and whenever i asked them about the typical lead time on a project i was shocked at how laxidaisical they were as far as schedules or deadlines were concerned, i'd never get away with that at uni and that's only for academic research, it really was an eye opener.

[Eja Cool8]

Originally Posted by spl@t

Eja has returned :o

That was a tad pre-emptive, but I can now confirm that I am definitely back

Latest on CVF as of last month;

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-09.htm

[Mr Carrot]

Eja survives AIDS shocker!

[Eja Cool8]

Cirrhosis of the Liver if anything

[Eja Cool8]

http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_f...0902_1_n.shtml

http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_f...0907_1_n.shtml

[Ventral]

Why get the French involved at all? International development is generally a political slug match more than it is producing a decent piece of war machinary....

[Eja Cool8]

Originally Posted by Ventral

Why get the French involved at all? International development is generally a political slug match more than it is producing a decent piece of war machinary....

Well, there's kind of a drive to improve European Military capability overall, especially as regards air power projection, and that, by definition, is best done off a Carrier, especially nowadays.

France's experience of building the Charles De Gaulle has, it seems, soured their view of their own purely French capital ship designers and integrators. They want a second Carrier, and they like the Thales design for the CVF. Thales is basically a UK/French company, and the design, as I understand it, has some French input, although it's mostly British, and carrying on the fine British tradition of innovation in Carrier design, I might add.

So it looks like the situation is that the French build their own, in France, to the basic Thales design (theirs will be built to fly the Navalised Rafale Fighter as opposed to our F-35 Stealth fighter bombers) under a license agreement, which keeps them out of our hair, and brings cost savings over the three Carriers, which if it happens, isn't a bad deal.

[Bugstomper]

so what would you say is innovative about this carriers design? I know the super structure is meant to be 'radar resistant' to produce a lower signature (isn't it meant to be the radar equivalant of a fishing boat? or have i mixed that up with one of our new frigates?).

[Mr Carrot]

I think thats the Daring class.

If they had put in the magnetic launch catapults and PAAMS then it would have been innovative. I think its use of internal space is the only thing thats going to be really good, the RN after all have learnt to cram a hell of a lot into nothing at all with Ocean etc.

[Eja Cool8]

I said "innovative", not "revolutionary", and that's more in the construction & integration of the ship than anything, making it work to cost, which if past experience is anything to go by, could have stuffed the project completely.

Also the jury's still out on whether they'll include the robotic rearming/refuelling stations that were mooted a few years back, don't see too many of them on Carriers around the world

[mick3ymous3]

What I reckon we're all really missing is a major war to give the designer and engineers a kick in the backside and shift the project along. There's no urgency to bring out new hardware in peace time.

All this research and development is just to please the big wigs and justify the massive amounts of money spent on defence projects.

[Badger Man]

Originally Posted by mick3ymous3

What I reckon we're all really missing is a major war to give the designer and engineers a kick in the backside and shift the project along. There's no urgency to bring out new hardware in peace time.

All this research and development is just to please the big wigs and justify the massive amounts of money spent on defence projects.

I'll pass on the war if it's all right with you mate!

And the defence budget is largely usually wasted on paperwork exercises and crap, rather than giving front line what it needs to do all the jobs we're given.

Then they add to the bill by producing glossy brochures for every serviceman/woman to tell us about the measures taken to cut costs! What does irony mean again?

A decent wage to induce people to join/stay would be a start imo

[Eja Cool8]

Hear, hear m8.

A Scottish General recently, when asked about falling recruitment, made the point that they'd been running big recruiting ads down the sides of buses here in Edinburgh, big colourful "Scottish Infantry-Never Stronger" type things, but on the back of the buses there were little one foot square recruiting ads for the Bus company, and stating the pay rate.............which is roughly double what someone would earn if they joined the Services.

Kind of says it all.

[mr_o]

there is also alot of mis-trust in the government after the super regiment pap.

[Eja Cool8]

More on the allocation of CVF work between various Yards, etc.;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...806950,00.html

[Mr Carrot]

Appeaseing Brown methinks.....

[Eja Cool8]

Originally Posted by Mr Carrot

Appeaseing Brown methinks.....

Why? Because final integration of the "superblocks" is going to take place at Rosyth?

Last time I looked into it, there were only two yards in the UK which, according to the Project Management, were both large enough, and capable in terms of skills & infrastructure to handle something this complex. One was Rosyth, the other was the Nigg yard in the North of Scotland, but that's a purely civvy yard, more used to putting Oil Rigs together.

Rosyth has a wealth of experience with large naval vessels, and they do damn good work according to the MoD, on or under time, on or under budget, they're the best people for the job, they really are

[mr_o]

plus i will get to see it sail passed my house when its done \o/

[Eja Cool8]

Just to correct myself there, it was three yards, as Inchgreen on the Clyde was also a contender, although that is also a civvy yard.