Post Amazingly Cool Pictures Of Ships or Boats!
Discussion
That's just general willy waving from the US Navy though. They have 10 Nimitz Class carriers and 3 planned Ford Class. You might ask why do they need so many. It because they can and the influence the armed forces has over budgets in the US is a lot stronger than here.
The new Royal Navy carriers despite being only 160ft shorter than the US carriers will only be carrying 40 aircraft compared to the 90 of the Nimitz class. With only 600 people on board (will we find enough to fill them both?) compared to 3,200 on the Nimitz class again the need for supporting so many is lessened. To me this suggests that much of the support provided by the escort ships of the US Task force for their carriers will be greatly reduced and systems integrated into our new carriers. We might only need a support fleet of 5 per carrier.
I've read also that the ski ramp can be removed and the deck retro-fitted for catapults (as is the case with the planned French carrier) to operate catapult launched fixed wing aircraft.
It's been a long time coming, since Harold Wilson's 1966 Defence White paper - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Defence_White_Pa... - that announced the cancellation of the CVA carriers and the TSR2.
The new Royal Navy carriers despite being only 160ft shorter than the US carriers will only be carrying 40 aircraft compared to the 90 of the Nimitz class. With only 600 people on board (will we find enough to fill them both?) compared to 3,200 on the Nimitz class again the need for supporting so many is lessened. To me this suggests that much of the support provided by the escort ships of the US Task force for their carriers will be greatly reduced and systems integrated into our new carriers. We might only need a support fleet of 5 per carrier.
I've read also that the ski ramp can be removed and the deck retro-fitted for catapults (as is the case with the planned French carrier) to operate catapult launched fixed wing aircraft.
It's been a long time coming, since Harold Wilson's 1966 Defence White paper - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Defence_White_Pa... - that announced the cancellation of the CVA carriers and the TSR2.
[quote=FourWheelDrift]That's just general willy waving from the US Navy though. They have 10 Nimitz Class carriers and 3 planned Ford Class. You might ask why do they need so many. It because they can and the influence the armed forces has over budgets in the US is a lot stronger than here.quote]
It's amazing what you can do with a big willy though
. I fully support the QE class and what they stand for, but why the two islands, (apart from hiding the funnels), they can't be much good for vorteces across the flightdeck, and they make these ships look just plain odd. At least they seem to have the Type 45's design right, as they really do look the biz.
It's amazing what you can do with a big willy though
. I fully support the QE class and what they stand for, but why the two islands, (apart from hiding the funnels), they can't be much good for vorteces across the flightdeck, and they make these ships look just plain odd. At least they seem to have the Type 45's design right, as they really do look the biz.The crew numbers mentioned by "fourwheeldrift" are for core ships company, not including the aircrew. The other thing to keep in mind when comparing our RN to the USN is the massive defence budget the US has and also that the US Armed Forces are literally a job creation scheme. Their carrier's could be far more integrated and automated, but they won't do it, because it enables them to employ people. Prime example is the weapon prep teams on a CVN consist of 400 personnel alone.
As for the catapult/ski jump options, the CV (conventional) option still exists within our design databases and doing a conversion (although expensive) is still a real possibility if required.
I'm still confident these ships will enter service, though I expect further re-alignment (read as delays) by the government (whoever they may be at the time).
As for the catapult/ski jump options, the CV (conventional) option still exists within our design databases and doing a conversion (although expensive) is still a real possibility if required.
I'm still confident these ships will enter service, though I expect further re-alignment (read as delays) by the government (whoever they may be at the time).
AshVX220 said:
The crew numbers mentioned by "fourwheeldrift" are for core ships company, not including the aircrew. The other thing to keep in mind when comparing our RN to the USN is the massive defence budget the US has and also that the US Armed Forces are literally a job creation scheme. Their carrier's could be far more integrated and automated, but they won't do it, because it enables them to employ people. Prime example is the weapon prep teams on a CVN consist of 400 personnel alone.
As for the catapult/ski jump options, the CV (conventional) option still exists within our design databases and doing a conversion (although expensive) is still a real possibility if required.
I'm still confident these ships will enter service, though I expect further re-alignment (read as delays) by the government (whoever they may be at the time).
Am I right in my thinking that many of the tasks/services of the support fleet of a US Carrier Task group are dealt with by the new UK carriers themselves so less support ships needed?As for the catapult/ski jump options, the CV (conventional) option still exists within our design databases and doing a conversion (although expensive) is still a real possibility if required.
I'm still confident these ships will enter service, though I expect further re-alignment (read as delays) by the government (whoever they may be at the time).
FourWheelDrift said:
AshVX220 said:
The crew numbers mentioned by "fourwheeldrift" are for core ships company, not including the aircrew. The other thing to keep in mind when comparing our RN to the USN is the massive defence budget the US has and also that the US Armed Forces are literally a job creation scheme. Their carrier's could be far more integrated and automated, but they won't do it, because it enables them to employ people. Prime example is the weapon prep teams on a CVN consist of 400 personnel alone.
As for the catapult/ski jump options, the CV (conventional) option still exists within our design databases and doing a conversion (although expensive) is still a real possibility if required.
I'm still confident these ships will enter service, though I expect further re-alignment (read as delays) by the government (whoever they may be at the time).
Am I right in my thinking that many of the tasks/services of the support fleet of a US Carrier Task group are dealt with by the new UK carriers themselves so less support ships needed?As for the catapult/ski jump options, the CV (conventional) option still exists within our design databases and doing a conversion (although expensive) is still a real possibility if required.
I'm still confident these ships will enter service, though I expect further re-alignment (read as delays) by the government (whoever they may be at the time).
FourWheelDrift said:
Am I right in my thinking that many of the tasks/services of the support fleet of a US Carrier Task group are dealt with by the new UK carriers themselves so less support ships needed?
Not really you still need subs, distroyers and frigates round them thats before the supplies train....No catapult at the mo as they run steam and as they are turbine ship you'd need steam generators which are big heavy and expensive, IF they do get a cat it will be electrical and that hasn't left the lab yet (the ones at fair grounds don't have the bang).
The air wing hasn't fully flown yet will be V expensive and probably not much cop (when compared to the JSP without the vertical capability). Britain has so far only said they will purchase 3 yes 3 of those planes...
and finally 2 towers?? one for air ops (best placed towards the back of the boat) one for ship ops (best placed at the fron). Yes I know all other people manage it with one.
Edited by badgers_back on Thursday 9th April 15:54
FourWheelDrift said:
Jonny671 said:
Sorry, but whats the point in the Nuclear Ice breakers?
[Clarkson] Powwwwwwwweeeeeeeeerrrrrrrr [/Clarkson]And they won't run out of fuel and freeze to death if they do get stuck in the ice.
Surely smashing through ice is a pointless excercise?
Jonny671 said:
FourWheelDrift said:
Jonny671 said:
Sorry, but whats the point in the Nuclear Ice breakers?
[Clarkson] Powwwwwwwweeeeeeeeerrrrrrrr [/Clarkson]And they won't run out of fuel and freeze to death if they do get stuck in the ice.
Surely smashing through ice is a pointless excercise?
FourWheelDrift said:
AshVX220 said:
The crew numbers mentioned by "fourwheeldrift" are for core ships company, not including the aircrew. The other thing to keep in mind when comparing our RN to the USN is the massive defence budget the US has and also that the US Armed Forces are literally a job creation scheme. Their carrier's could be far more integrated and automated, but they won't do it, because it enables them to employ people. Prime example is the weapon prep teams on a CVN consist of 400 personnel alone.
As for the catapult/ski jump options, the CV (conventional) option still exists within our design databases and doing a conversion (although expensive) is still a real possibility if required.
I'm still confident these ships will enter service, though I expect further re-alignment (read as delays) by the government (whoever they may be at the time).
Am I right in my thinking that many of the tasks/services of the support fleet of a US Carrier Task group are dealt with by the new UK carriers themselves so less support ships needed?As for the catapult/ski jump options, the CV (conventional) option still exists within our design databases and doing a conversion (although expensive) is still a real possibility if required.
I'm still confident these ships will enter service, though I expect further re-alignment (read as delays) by the government (whoever they may be at the time).
As for the two Islands, this was part of the Thales physical design dating back to the competition phase, the Thales team spoke to alot of WAFU's (Fleet Air Arm and RAF types) who wanted full ATC capability and a seperate area for them to operate, hence the aft tower was born as the FLYCO (Flying Control), on current CVS's the FLYCO is a tiny compartment aft of the bridge that you struggle to get 3 people in and they couldn't see the entire deck. On the QE class FLYCO will accomodate more people, able to do more tasks and able to see the entire deck. It works very, very well in experiments we've conducted and although ugly, is a massively beneficial aspect of the design.
You can stop with the WAFU comments How many people do you need in ATC, yes we could only get three or so people in the office on Lusty or Vinnie but we didn't have any problems. But to be fair, they didn't really have a lot of deck to see, with only 5 spot out of view directly aft of the island. The thing that really worked with the old style islands was that physical connection, where, if comms went down, you could just walk to atco in the dry to talk to boss and lil boss. I like the idea of smaller islands but I just hate the idea of the two. If the US crews can organise 4.5 acres of deck with 80+ aircraft on it, then surely the Thales should have been able to design something practical in a similar manner?
How many people do you need in ATC, yes we could only get three or so people in the office on Lusty or Vinnie but we didn't have any problems. But to be fair, they didn't really have a lot of deck to see, with only 5 spot out of view directly aft of the island. The thing that really worked with the old style islands was that physical connection, where, if comms went down, you could just walk to atco in the dry to talk to boss and lil boss. I like the idea of smaller islands but I just hate the idea of the two. If the US crews can organise 4.5 acres of deck with 80+ aircraft on it, then surely the Thales should have been able to design something practical in a similar manner?badgers_back said:
spitfire-ian said:
badgers_back said:
Britain has so far only said they will purchase 3 yes 3 of those planes...
They've said they'll purchase 3 so they can evaluate them and have an input into the development of them.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff