It's taken nearly 40 years...

[Oberon]

...but finally, HMS Queen Elizabeth will be built!!

From CVA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVA-01) to CVF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_CVF_programme)


On January 30, 2003 the MoD announced that the Thales design had won the competition but that BAE Systems would operate as prime contractor. The two companies are now part of a "carrier alliance" with the MoD and other companies.
The contract for the vessels was announced on 25 July 2007 by Defence Secretary Des Browne, ending several years of delay over cost issues and British naval shipbuilding restructuring. The cost is estimated to be GB£3.5 billion.


Will it stay on budget and on time? Hopefully the lessons from the Astute have been learnt.


[for a] deep strike package, we have done …quite detailed calculations and we have come out with the figure of 36 joint strike fighters …that is the thing that has made us arrive at that size of deck and that size of ship, to enable that to happen.
I have talked with the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) in America. He is very keen for us to get these because he sees us slotting in with his carrier groups. He really wants us to have these, but he wants us to have the same sort of clout as one of their carriers.

An increase of the merging of RN and USN...that's a good thing, so long as it doesn't lull the British Government into relying too much on the USN, as much as co-operation is a great thing...it can lead to complacency, particularly when facing the "Guns or butter" situation.

Still...this is good news! We may only be getting two new carriers (would prefer three or four!) but hopefully the strike power of these two will balance that out, still don't like putting all the eggs in two baskets....but in the age of cruise missile technology, I guess aircraft are only mainly needed in an Anti-Air role and the odd small strike mission where a TLAM would be overkill.

[Konovalov]

Hopefully we will see them enter service in 7-10 years time. :up:

[XabbaRus]

Beat me to it Obey..I am betting on a CVF but F-35 ending in the drink.

[geetrue]

Ten billion dollars is a lot of money honey ...

Here's a nice proposed picture ... but who will finish their aircraft carrier first, China or England?

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1158312007


http://images.scotsman.com/2007/07/25/25carb.jpg

[DAB]

Its just a relief to finally get the carriers ordered. I had visions of them being the subject of further cut backs by a new Labour government.

But so far all is good. I like the carriers, I like the procurement programme, the cooperation with the French on the hull and the US on the aircraft keeps Britain in both American and European defence industries. Just two concerns...

I'm not comfortable though with just having two. I know everyone in the MOD is convienced they can still maintain one ship at sea constantly. But have a third carrier allows for the unexpected and in theory - gives us the potentual for a short time to operate two carrier platforms in difficult combat situations.

The other thing I picked up on is the commisioning dates, provisionally 2014 and 2016. As far as I'm aware, Illustrious and Ark Royal are to be decommisioned in 2012 - and that leaves us with a rather embarising capability gap!

And then, just as a final concern. I'm not sure about the names. HMS Queen Elizabeth is an old dreadnought name, but I'm not aware that the name has illustrious battle honours - and surely with a rich maritime history - we should be naming our future flagships for vessels which have been at the navy's vanguard. HMS Prince of Wales is also interesting. I suppose the navy is keen to rehabilitate a name thats associated with maritime disaster - but again, why not go for a name better associated with the navy. I personally find it incredable to believe that we won't have an HMS Ark Royal come 2012.

My three cents worth anyway.

PS. Good time to repost this lovely article: http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2002/0207/0002073101.asp

[hoagiedriver]

Do they have an HMS Thatcher?

If so, does it partrol the Falkand Islands?

[Konovalov]

Ten billion dollars is a lot of money honey ...

Here's a nice proposed picture ... but who will finish their aircraft carrier first, China or England?

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1158312007


http://images.scotsman.com/2007/07/25/25carb.jpg

With either zero or weak unions and at times what amounts to slave labour I would expect China to get there first.

Back home in Australia our government has talked about carriers for years. Unfortunately it has all been exactly that. Talk.

[waste gate]

I know what CVA stands for, but what does CVF mean?

[fatty]

The F is for 'future.'

[waste gate]

The F is for 'future.'

Thanx fatty.

[tycho102]

Beat me to it Obey..I am betting on a CVF but F-35 ending in the drink.
Well, aren't they a year away from the C's? If you've got steam cats, you don't need C's.
As for cost, we're "downsizing" our military without consent, so I think the funding will free itself up.

[waste gate]

Why (if so) was it decided to build a conventionally powered carrier as opposed to a nuke powered ship? Is it the money required for construction as opposed to the money needed for upkeep, or what? Price versus cost.

[XabbaRus]

Nukes are too expensive really for the UK and the upkeep too.
There are also the political aspects.

People don't have a problem with the subs as they stay out the way. A CVF would be sitting there right at you.

I still think the F-35 will be later than the CVF. I wouldn't be surprised if the C variant got dropped and we went for CTOL in the end.

[waste gate]

I guess the Government has decided that they can keep the new CV running beyond what many say is an energy crisis. Funny.

[geetrue]

Purchase 100 of these ships instead of two aircraft carriers:

http://www.miamiherald.com/460/story/182561.html

http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2007/07/26/08/878-072607swift.embedded.prod_affiliate.56.jpg

Only problem is they use a lot of fuel in a hurry.

The ship, originally designed in Australia as a modern car ferry, can travel at 45 knots or about 53 mph, burning -- at full throttle -- about 1,600 gallons of diesel fuel an hour in its four 9,640-hp engines.

[bookworm_020]

Purchase 100 of these ships instead of two aircraft carriers:

http://www.miamiherald.com/460/story/182561.html

http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2007/07/26/08/878-072607swift.embedded.prod_affiliate.56.jpg

Only problem is they use a lot of fuel in a hurry.

The ship, originally designed in Australia as a modern car ferry, can travel at 45 knots or about 53 mph, burning -- at full throttle -- about 1,600 gallons of diesel fuel an hour in its four 9,640-hp engines.


Australia used one of them for a period of time (2 Years). HMAS Jervis Bay did some great work in East Timor, earning her the name the "Dili Express"

[DAB]

Purchase 100 of these ships instead of two aircraft carriers:

http://www.miamiherald.com/460/story/182561.html

http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2007/07/26/08/878-072607swift.embedded.prod_affiliate.56.jpg

Only problem is they use a lot of fuel in a hurry.


I agree, the UK lacks small craft capable of litoral water work - but why scrap two aircraft carriers vital for power projection.

I wouldn't want to be in one of those smaller craft without airsupport.

A better suggestion would be to keep the carriers and then replace our minesweepers with these multi role craft

[Oberon]

We did have what I termed "HMS WTF"

http://www.hydrographicsociety.org/News/Corporate-Members-News/RV%20Triton%20-%20overhead2.jpg

The RV Triton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RV_Triton)

But it seems that you Aussies have her now ;)

Whether this is a sign that the RN may consider a move towards more littoral water work in the future, but I gotta admit, I do doubt it. Since we are one of the plugs on the GIUK gap should things go sour up north, we do need a fair sized blue water navy. Unfortunately, that means that no doubt the littoral waters ideas will be put by the wayside during budget cuts. I think the River classes are quite recent, and HMS Clyde has not long gone out to the Falklands to relieve HMS Dumbarton Castle, but otherwise, our littoral waters forces aren't exactly spectacular...but then again, until now, we haven't really had much of a use for such a navy.

[Chock]

I have to say that I personally think it is good news that the UK is going to get a carrier or two, and although I love submarines, in my opinion this is money better spent than a Trident replacement, which is in my opinion a total waste of money considering the likelihood that we are probably never going to launch nukes at anyone without it resulting in the end of the human race. Whereas a carrier is actually likely to be used in the kind of operations the UK takes part in these days (not that they are always well advised).

It's also a great slap in the face for the Brass at the RAF's idiotic continued efforts to get rid of the Fleet Air Arm (or at least get rid of Naval aviation), which they have always sought to wipe out, in petty inter-service rivalry. Notably, with the ridiculous claim that the RAF could provide air cover for the Navy wherever it was.

In recent years we have seen exactly what the RAF was capable of with its completely SNAFU attack on Port Stanley's runway via several bungled attempts (these are the people who aborted one of the attacks on Port Stanley because they detected a cabin pressure failure on the bomber, only to discover while returning to base that the 'cabin pressure failure' was in fact caused by one of the pilots leaving a cockpit window open). Only one of the RAF's bombing missions to Stanley managed to put a slight crater at the edge of the runway, the rest of the stick of bombs completely missing the target. And the runway damage was repaired in about five minutes. That and the RAF's generally appalling performance with the Harrier in comparison to what the Fleet Air Arm managed to achieve with it indicates that jets on a carrier, able to provide CAP and CAS, will be a much more valuable force.

:D Chock