Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Rn cvf??
NotUkOnly    2/3/2007 10:55:30 AM
I am wondering what the consensuus is these days on the status of these vessels? Type 45 is being built although in smaller numbers than originally envisaged so does that mean Cvf must be built? It just seems to me that if these were to built they would have already been started? Whats the scoop guys??
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
EssexBoy    Four T45s - Neo   3/26/2007 1:34:13 PM
 
The rumours that the RN might only get four T45s stem from the fact that BAe (and probably the government) are trying to sell two T45s to the Saudis. Nobody has been able to get confirmation from BAe or the Mod that such ships would be in addition to the six on order for the RN, or whether they would come out of the six on order. There is a similar lack of clarity concerning the Eurofighters that are to be diverted to the Saudis.
 
The Mod will face major budgetary problems over the next few years and are desperate to save money. It may be the case that the Mod want the Saudis to buy ships five and six to keep production going and push the purchase of the last two ships for the RN  back a few financial years. Alternatively, the programme might be halted after the sixth ship.
 
Also (according to the Navy-Matters site) the order for the second batch of three T45s is for the hulls only not for  fully kitted out ships.
 
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral    Solution   3/27/2007 10:49:03 PM
Build the CVF hulls in France. Use the spare ship building capacity and money saved to build more type 45 and River Class. The hulls can still be fitted out over here. We only need the ability to build something as large as a CV or two every fifty years.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    That is a mistake.   3/28/2007 4:23:23 AM

Build the CVF hulls in France.[???????????????] Use the spare ship building capacity and money saved to build more type 45 and River Class. The hulls can still be fitted out over here. We only need the ability to build something as large as a CV or two every fifty years.
Either yourselves, Germany, Japan,  Korea, Italy, Spain, Russia, or the United States.

The French are horrible ship builders.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

stingray1003       3/28/2007 5:30:28 AM
I've heard rumors of 4 Type 45's. But even with 6 destroyers things will be very tight. With US carrier groups they assign two destroyers to each carrier. That may not be possible with just 4 (given one in dry dock at any one time). Certainly escorting any other shipping, LHD's, roro, commerical, refueling etc is going to be very difficult.
 
 If any thing about recent events is to be learnt, its protection of people and assests.
 
 Australia has 1/3 the population and far less than that economy wise.
 
 In theory the RN should be atleast 3 times the size of the RAN. Historically the RN has been even bigger than that.
 
 6 x 27,000 t LHD's
 9-12 x Destroyers
 24 x Recent Frigates
 6-9 x older frigates
 18 x mine hunters
 18 x submarines
 
 Okay I understand nuclear subs are more expensive and capable, but your not far behind on the subs. Major surface combatants and carrier deck space is a whole other issue. The CVF just doesn't seem to deliver. Hanger space for 24 aircraft? The BPE LHD can hanger 20 F-35's. And still have room for command, crew, coms, etc etc. And its got a floodable dock. 
 
 Im not against big carriers. Hell, I think Australia should have a CVF size ship as well as its LHD's. Maybe more CdG sized, but conventionally powered. Or simular to the Indian indigionous aircraft carrier (~38,000 t).
 
 Im just not seeing where the money is going with the CVF. Surely out of the budget you could build 3 x 38,000 ton carriers. Still be capable of CATOBAR, hanger ~ 25 F-35's plus a few helos. 
 
 Perhaps put the hard word on some former colonies like Australia and Canada to buy one. Both previously operated ex RN carriers, both looking at the F-35. One a piece, plus atleast 3 for the UK, sell the french one or two (they can launch Rafeles).  
 
 Then the UK would have three, and have two more in the hands of friendly nations. The CVF prices itself out of the hands of these nations, even as a 2nd hander.
 
 Appart from being big, with huge deck space, I just don't see the CVF advantage.
 
 Australia seems to really have lucked out, by absolutely requiring a LHD, the only one that is really suitable just happens to support the F-35, and can operate as many as 30 of them! And its getting 3 destroyers with a strong possibility of a 4th.
 
 Mean while the UK is most likely getting two carriers, with a regular airwing of ~20 aircraft and a total of 4 to 6 destroyers. But for 300% more money.
 
 I would be real interested in the spanish right now. The BPE is just a fill in as a carrier. I've heard rumors of a 35,000+ t carrier being built for little coin. Why not get them to build the hulls, for half the price of the french, and do the UK fit out, and get 3 or 4 of them for the price. If not spain, talk to Italy.
 
 If your going to go overseas, why go french, they don't deserve it. Atleast the spanish are cheap. You can have your carrier and the destroyers too!
 
Quote    Reply

Padfoot       3/28/2007 7:20:27 AM


 

 Appart from being big, with huge deck space, I just don't see the CVF advantage.

 

 Australia seems to really have lucked out, by absolutely requiring a LHD, the only one that is really suitable just happens to support the F-35, and can operate as many as 30 of them! And its getting 3 destroyers with a strong possibility of a 4th.

 

 Mean while the UK is most likely getting two carriers, with a regular airwing of ~20 aircraft and a total of 4 to 6 destroyers. But for 300% more money.

 



Isn't Australia purchasing the F-35A? You won't get any of them flying off an LHD.

The CVF will operate 48 aircraft.

Also, nobody really knows how many Type 45's the RN is getting, just lots of speculation at this point. And remember the current UK government won't win the next election, so the RN might end up with 10 new destroyers.

 
Quote    Reply

streaky bacon       3/28/2007 7:29:09 AM
No way in hell should the CVFs be built in foreign yards even though it will save money! I feel that with the CVF the UK shipbuilding industry has a great opportunity of some proper investment and excellent PR! As a nation we should put greater pride in building these wonderful assests that at last provide our Service personnel with a true strike capability only bettered by the US.  As a nation with an un-surpassed ship building tradition why should we see further jobs lost to France and Spain who never compete on a level playing fields! Letting the CVFs be built in these countries will only strenghten their position and weaken another UK industry! We are in competition with these countries at many levels and should not forget that! £3.6 billion is alot of money that provides alot of jobs! Let the UK benefit and let us keep our traditions going!  
 
Quote    Reply

stingray1003       3/28/2007 8:39:35 AM
Australia is chosing between the french Mistral LHD, and the Spanish BPE. The BPE is the favoured ship, because its cheaper, it can actually carry the required troop numbers, it can hanger all types of our helicopters, its bigger and more capable. At this stage I would say its 90% certain we will get the BPE, I have not heard a comment saying no, or maybe not the BPE. The french also initally had a larger version of the mistral, but that was canned as too risky (even tho it met the requirements better than the smaller mistral). The fact the mistral barely meets the criteria is a big flashing sign its not going to get picked.
 
 The BPE is 230 m long, 27,000t and is designed for the F-35 and harrier as well as amphibious assults. It will take over carrier duties from the current spanish carrier PdA when the F-35 comes on board, and when it is in dock. Its larger than the invincible class of carriers the UK currently uses. Its larger than Australias previous carriers. It can carry as many as 30 harriers as a full aircraft carrier (20 hangered 10 decked).
 
 There is no doubt we are getting two of these ships. Australia absolutely positively needs them, no change of government will change that and they will be offically ordered later this year, most likely when the BPE is in the water and the accounts check out.
 
 Australia is not like other countries, its not shrinking its defence, but significantly upgrading it. There is a popular discussion in Australia that we need to arm ourselves up. There is a large group of media that want the F-22. Not just a few, like 60-100 of them instead of the ~120 F-35A's. Possibly in combination with other aircraft (24 superhornets etc).  We have not ordered the F-35A. We are still yet to order. We can certainly order 75 F-35A's and 25 F-35B's with out blowing out budget. We can certainly afford to operate both aircraft.
 
 In fact concidering some of the current preposals, we could end up ordering a fair bit more than that to ensure our place as a regional power, so these aren't wild dreams. There is certainly popular political support, defence spending is almost sexy again. The problem is not money, its should we buy better and bigger. Hence the why buy the sad, pathetic, slow, useless F-35's, lets get lots of F-22's, upgrade thoses (because Americans are too girly) and upgrade our F-111 fleet at the same time. 
 
 Well what ever the UK does I hope it decides soon. Australia is only just finally recovering for the failed sale of the Invincible carrier we were ment to buy before the Fauklands war. If the UK could ever come up with a viable preposal to get Australia into a new UK built carrier, we would be there in two seconds with a cheque. But theres not, so we are going spanish, with an Australian fitout and specification. We can't build it here, its too big and we are flat out building destroyers and other vessels and by the time we finish our Destroyers, we will be building more submarines and servicing what we got.
 
 I would have thought a country like the UK would want of the order of 4 aircraft carriers. You had three, now your getting two. 4 or 6 destroyers with only 48 aster missiles. We are looking at designing our destroyers with ~ 64 missiles, possibly 80. Simular to the upcomming US Zumwalt destroyers. And maybe 2 helicopters.
 
 48 aircraft? Hmm, with only hanger space for around 24 on the latest updates I've seen. Your going to deck 24 aircraft continously? Wow, sounds like fun!
 
 I dunno, maybe Im missing something. But seems everyone is so exited by the CVF they don't seem to really question its capability and value for money. They just want it built. Why look the gift horse in the mouth, lets all be quiet or we won't get any carriers.
 
 Certainly if you want
 
Quote    Reply

stingray1003       3/28/2007 8:39:53 AM
Australia is chosing between the french Mistral LHD, and the Spanish BPE. The BPE is the favoured ship, because its cheaper, it can actually carry the required troop numbers, it can hanger all types of our helicopters, its bigger and more capable. At this stage I would say its 90% certain we will get the BPE, I have not heard a comment saying no, or maybe not the BPE. The french also initally had a larger version of the mistral, but that was canned as too risky (even tho it met the requirements better than the smaller mistral). The fact the mistral barely meets the criteria is a big flashing sign its not going to get picked.
 
 The BPE is 230 m long, 27,000t and is designed for the F-35 and harrier as well as amphibious assults. It will take over carrier duties from the current spanish carrier PdA when the F-35 comes on board, and when it is in dock. Its larger than the invincible class of carriers the UK currently uses. Its larger than Australias previous carriers. It can carry as many as 30 harriers as a full aircraft carrier (20 hangered 10 decked).
 
 There is no doubt we are getting two of these ships. Australia absolutely positively needs them, no change of government will change that and they will be offically ordered later this year, most likely when the BPE is in the water and the accounts check out.
 
 Australia is not like other countries, its not shrinking its defence, but significantly upgrading it. There is a popular discussion in Australia that we need to arm ourselves up. There is a large group of media that want the F-22. Not just a few, like 60-100 of them instead of the ~120 F-35A's. Possibly in combination with other aircraft (24 superhornets etc).  We have not ordered the F-35A. We are still yet to order. We can certainly order 75 F-35A's and 25 F-35B's with out blowing out budget. We can certainly afford to operate both aircraft.
 
 In fact concidering some of the current preposals, we could end up ordering a fair bit more than that to ensure our place as a regional power, so these aren't wild dreams. There is certainly popular political support, defence spending is almost sexy again. The problem is not money, its should we buy better and bigger. Hence the why buy the sad, pathetic, slow, useless F-35's, lets get lots of F-22's, upgrade thoses (because Americans are too girly) and upgrade our F-111 fleet at the same time. 
 
 Well what ever the UK does I hope it decides soon. Australia is only just finally recovering for the failed sale of the Invincible carrier we were ment to buy before the Fauklands war. If the UK could ever come up with a viable preposal to get Australia into a new UK built carrier, we would be there in two seconds with a cheque. But theres not, so we are going spanish, with an Australian fitout and specification. We can't build it here, its too big and we are flat out building destroyers and other vessels and by the time we finish our Destroyers, we will be building more submarines and servicing what we got.
 
 I would have thought a country like the UK would want of the order of 4 aircraft carriers. You had three, now your getting two. 4 or 6 destroyers with only 48 aster missiles. We are looking at designing our destroyers with ~ 64 missiles, possibly 80. Simular to the upcomming US Zumwalt destroyers. And maybe 2 helicopters.
 
 48 aircraft? Hmm, with only hanger space for around 24 on the latest updates I've seen. Your going to deck 24 aircraft continously? Wow, sounds like fun!
 
 I dunno, maybe Im missing something. But seems everyone is so exited by the CVF they don't seem to really question its capability and value for money. They just want it built. Why look the gift horse in the mouth, lets all be quiet or we won't get any carriers.
 
 Certainly if you want to crossdeck with our LHD your more than welcome!
 
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral    CVF shortcomings   3/29/2007 12:00:28 AM
It certainly seems to be a small hanger (and very tall). I think that the CVF should have two hanger decks this size. We may rarely operate 48 aircraft off them, but it would be nice to have room for them below the flight deck. Out of the weather. It's a committee design.
 
Quote    Reply

stingray1003       3/29/2007 3:20:27 AM
What do they intend to do with that tall hanger.. Tallest ship hanger in the world!
 
Store aircraft vertically?  It just seems crazy.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics