1.  MoD received proposals from at least two groups.
And for reasons that I explained chose the STOBAR version because of its SIMPLICITY

2.  Based on their brochure engineering there were at least two very different designs.
Actually five versions, the last time  I checked. STOVL, STOBAR, and three possible CATOBARS . The STOBAR vwersion was selectecd as the most simple to build at the moment.

3.  I'd have no doubt that there was voluminous documents responding to the MoD's stated capability requirements and explaining why a particular design was the way it was and the best way to meet these.
Also explained.

4.  I've no doubt that proposals were examined in great detail by MoD, no doubt including outside experts, to assess the credibility and merits of the detailed proposals.
Bull. There was a lot of British political back and forth. In the end it came down to that politics and MONEY. Who would build it [the North, Labor needed the votes] and how much would the Exchequer budget for the project, drove the final choice selection, the WORST of the five submissions from a design point of view..

5.  MoD required the two main tenders to work together, which no doubt involved cross-fertilisation to finalise an acceptable design and construction plan to meet MoDs capability requirements.
Again bull. The design by committee approach is still in effect with bad decisions being made even down to this date. I am wondering why the catapult was landed. Even on a STOBAR at least designing the shuttlecock  raceway for a catapult allows you the option of putting one into the carrier if you ever decide to CATOBAR it.

6.  If there are significant flaws in the design then either MoD does not consider them important and/or has decided that there are offsetting advantages that outweigh them.

There are many utilities to an angled deck on a carrier.  One is to provide more deck space.  Another is to provide dual launch capacity.  There are many others.  The design in question may have the deck area but without the canted deck for operations it would seem to create problems.  Either one has parked aircraft on the side opposite the islands and VTOL landing is restricted to over the stern in between rows of parked aircraft or all the space there is empty and wasted to allow VTOL aircraft to approach from the side and land.

1. I prefer an offset or angled deck CATOBAR carrier with catapults as it offers the ability to use CTOL aircraft as well as STOVL aircraft.  The tradeoff  is that you have to build HUGE  carriers to operate decent modern aircraft. [Planes in the vernacular-joke.]  
2. The single island STOBAR carrier can use one of its hardstands for its alert five [probably the aft  hardstand park as it larger and clearer in area. 
3. You have to keep the port-side flight-deck clear for your rolling runs. starboard is your  working and movement area. I doubt you will find much difference in a CATOBAR carrier. Landing between the rows of parked aircraft is a standard naval aviator hazard.  Approach from the aft is the SAFEST way to land on a moving ship. Chase reduces the approach problem to yopu matching one vector bouncing around in front of you instead of three.
4. The wasted space as shown in variant two is minimal.

With a canted deck one can launch and recover there and preserve the bow as an isolated deck park or use the bow for launch and have much of the deck free to help cycle or use both the angled deck and bow for dual launch.  The right down the middle of the deck flight operation area seems a bad use of space.  It's difficult to know what the design teams were thinking.  It almost seems they came up with a design that only works because the design air wing is so small compared to the size of the hull.

If you have the lifts to do that you can use your bow flight-deck as a hardstand. You have only two lifts in the Thales offering. The American carriers have four, for a reason.

That the RN will end up not having a fleet air defense fighter for around 20 years does not indicate, nor have a Sea King AEW replacement before 2022, does not indicate these ships will have a proper air wing anytime soon.

Introductiion of the Queen Elizabeths will be about 2014-2016. Initial airgroups will be Harriers and Merlins. Initial Sparkies  I expect to be about 2018. 

Which Harriers? AV-8Bs? The planes can be back-fit with a decent dual mode radar and the missiles to go with it.

Lastly it doesn't seem to make much sense to have 2 air wings and 2 carriers.  Having 3 carriers would ensure the 2 air wings are normally always active.  Naval aviators need to fly as operating at sea is rather challenging.  Personally I doubt a Labor government will actually order them as they've been putting it off for years now.  The Sea King AEW has been flying since 1982 and it's not like the replacement program for them has been given any funding either the past ten years.

I don't know from where the RN AWACs will come. It makes no sense to build carriers this big without a squadron of AWACs to go with it. But then a small air wing of 30 or so fixed wing aircraft with four of them as AWACs birds makes no sense either. you'd expect the RN to operate these carriers in PAIRS or in company with a US or allied CV of some type. 

As an LHA.

These ships are almost perfect as disaster aid and peacekeeping mission support ships. As I look at the possible helo air-wings that  such a carrier will support,  I can see  its  "peacekeeping" characteristics as dominant in the current Thales configuration.

Herald

Re computers, I think a bit of confusion with machine tools for silencing subs.  On the need for computers to model complex matters the USSR was vastly superior to the US in mathamatical modelling and could get the proverbial quart into a pint bottle.  

 

Clearly I hit a raw nerve on US Treachery at Suez, the truth always tends to upset.  The return ill aimed spray merely makes me laugh and offer pity.

 

I think anyone comparing the Falklands to Okinawa is inhaling substances.  The scale and intensitity is far closer to Madagascar. 

 

UK soldiers and the MoD now consider the SA 80 an unrivalled rifle, although I'd agree the in-service development was less than ideal.  A problem that started with a flawed acquisition process in terms of trials and acceptance.  As results now show the basic design is outstanding.  If the Brit Army has been landed with junk it's from the US, Bowman. Another 'triumph' of US engineering, I'd laugh but this one is sad.  Enough said.  Visit arrse and see what real soldiers say about it.

 

On carriers I think we can safely say that UK has particular capability requirements.  What they want is a ship that meets those.  You don't get prizes for going over the top, that's the traditional gold plated way and at last MoD seems to be learning this.

 

The remarks about 'design by committee' demonstrate a lack of understanding (or touching innocence), the days of an engineering giant like Brunel are way past.  System engineering is a team effort with no room for prima donnas.  It's taken long enough for MoD to get serious about system engineering and they should be encourged. Of course prima donnas will shreik about 'design by committee it'll all be rooned', probably sour grapes. 

 

Incidentally reference to strikes passes me by, must be some obscure cultural reference but I can't see what Arthur Scargill has to do with it.

 

 

 

 

1) Add an angled flight deck and go with the 290m length if possible.

 

2) Configure as CATOBAR

 

3) Provide E2's (3/4) for AEW&C

 

4) Airgroup of (Upto)36 F-35Bs 

 

5) Mix of SAR/Utility Helos

 

Wouldn't this make more sense? Admittedly costly, but at least there would then be full functional capability present.

 

Brett.  

 

I really just don't get it......

Surely this, if its going to be done, should be done properly. What about (as a possible option for Herald's One Island Layout):

The RN/RAF likes the STOVL capability, it gives a high sortie rate, allows for RAF aircraft to be embarked while actually making the carrier itself cheaper.

The only thing I have a problem with is the lack of any long term plan for an AEW system, giving the sheer effort in terms of politics and economics to get these built and fund the British part of the F-35 program it would seem that any AEW system being mooted is being done so in private so as not to cause any more stress to the treasury...

Agreed.

 

But my outline above includes F-35Bs (as in STOVL rather than CTOL). Who says CATOBAR cannot be included for the E2s predominantly. There is nothing stopping a CATOBAR AWAC aircraft and a STOVL fighter.

Brett.