| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Brits to build two full-size carriers |
| 2007-08-08 |
| The British government has signed contracts for the construction of two large aircraft carriers -- the largest warships ever built for the Royal Navy. Given the designation CVF (for aircraft carrier-future) during their development, the new carriers will displace some 65,000 (metric) tons full load compared to approximately 100,000 (long) tons for the Nimitz class nuclear powered carriers. . . . The two British ships, to be named Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, are scheduled for completion in 2014 and 2016, respectively. The ships will operate conventional aircraft, which will make arrested landings and will launch with a ski-ramp (rather than catapults, as in U.S. carriers). The carriers will replace three small, “Harrier carriers” of the Invincible class, ships displacing 19,500 tons full load that were completed in the early 1980s. . . . The British carriers are expected to operate the U.S.-developed F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) as well as helicopters. The CVF design is unusual in having a “split” starboard-side island structure with two starboard, deck-edge elevators connecting the hangar and flight decks. The design provides for supporting 500 aircraft sorties over five days, consuming perhaps 800 metric tons of ordnance. The ships will have gas turbine engines with electric motors providing a maximum speed of 25 knots (compared to 30+ knots for U.S. nuclear carriers). The manning goal for the carriers is some 600 plus up to 800 in embarked squadrons and command staff, i.e., a total of about 1,400 men and women. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #26 So ships sunk by enemy action do not remain on the rolls. They're generally stricken from the commissioning list, but they're still Navy property. Aircraft also remain Navy property, even if lost. Two exceptions that I know of: The USS Arizona is still commissioned. So is the USS Pueblo. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-08-08 21:59 |
| #25 IOW, the Euros are still mindsetted on limited "police actions" or limited conventional wars. WAFF.com/OTHERS > mindset due to on-going weaknesses in pan-Euro economies + wafflings over the working mechanisms of the "future" EU. Proposed CV's may have double-islands. Iff back in the Vietnam era and under USN, these would prob be labeled as CVS's [Support Carriers]. As for the OSPREY, TMK Amer companies are still working on vastly improved post-OSPREY designs for the USDOD - the V-22 series is gener nothing more than a REAL-TIME TESTBED FOR FOLLOW-ON FUTURE VTOL's/VSTOL's. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-08-08 21:23 |
| #24 The AEW aircraft issue is supposed to have been solved with a V/STOL type AEW plane, but I haven't read any details. The last I've read on the subject (about 3 weeks ago), there was some mention about a AEW-variant of the V-22 Osprey. The problem being that a AEW Osprey does not exist, nor is there any V-22 AEW variant on the drawing boards. |
| Posted by: mrp 2007-08-08 19:50 |
| #23 The new QE and PoW are much larger ships than before, and from what I've read they were 'sold' to the pols as warships, not humanitarian ships. Appears the Admiralty has been a tad embarrassed over their inability to project power. The AEW aircraft issue is supposed to have been solved with a V/STOL type AEW plane, but I haven't read any details. I know they used a Harrier variant for that, but supposedly it really sucks at AEW. As to escorts, if the RN keeps retiring ships the QE will be lucky to have a destroyer and a sub as escort. Not enough in a real shooting war. Wonder if they plan to second their carriers to us in joint ops? We provide one carrier and sufficient escort for us and their carrier; they provide one carrier and political cover. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-08-08 19:30 |
| #22 JustAboutEnough Yes. That was the thing that was bothering me. I also know that when the US first started building post-Dreadnaught battleships they renamed at least one ship so that the newer one could be named after a state. Anonymoose may be generally right in what he said, though. Property of the US Navy does not mean on the rolls. Guess I will keep researching the question. |
| Posted by: kelly 2007-08-08 18:52 |
| #21 I fail to see why Britain is bothering to build these vessels when their leadership doesn't even have the spine to use them. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-08-08 18:50 |
| #20 The Gerry Ford will have a new nuclear reactor power plant, which will provide upwards of three times the electrical output of the current power plant. This would open up the opportunity to begin experimenting with the kinds of weapons systems that heretofore were not possible with the kind of electrical power available. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-08-08 16:27 |
| #19 Ref # 16 kelly: US naval vessels sunk by enemy forces in line of duty remain as US property. And I might add, you don't want to be caught by the US Navy attempting to salvage one of their ships. Not sure this is accurate. For example, USS Hornet, 7th of that name, was a carrier sunk 27 Oct 1942 by the Japanese in the Battle othe Santa Cruz Islands. They rebuilt another Hornet (tied up today in Alameda CA). So ships sunk by enemy action do not remain on the rolls. |
| Posted by: JustAboutEnough 2007-08-08 16:21 |
| #18 They class of carriers being laid down now is designed around electromagnetic catapults. Which also opens the door to some very interesting uses for that power then the cats are not needing to be energized. Hypervelocity Rapid-Fire Rail guns anyone? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-08-08 16:01 |
| #17 No, not planning on plunder. Just watching a boneyard thing on the History Channel. They talked about decommissioning ships when sold for scrap and I just got to wondering what the status of a ship lost in action would be. |
| Posted by: kelly 2007-08-08 15:46 |
| #16 kelly: US naval vessels sunk by enemy forces in line of duty remain as US property. And I might add, you don't want to be caught by the US Navy attempting to salvage one of their ships. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-08-08 14:29 |
| #15 Catapults are steam-powered, though IIRC they're working on a magnetic linear induction design. The Queen Elizabeths will be gas turbine powered, so unless they install an auxilliary boiler with its own separate fuel supply, there's no steam to power the cats. Hence, the ski ramp. |
| Posted by: Mike 2007-08-08 14:15 |
| #14 The F-35 is supposed to have a VTOL and STOL variant. Future American carriers may not have catapults. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-08-08 13:35 |
| #13 The catapults matter to the degree that the Brits still haven't figured out an effective carrier-based airborne early warning system (AEW) for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers. Without such a system, the HMS Prince of Wales , c. 2014 has about as low a chance of survival against air/missile attack as the HMS Prince of Wales , 1941 edition. |
| Posted by: mrp 2007-08-08 13:10 |
| #12 The real question is what are the odds that there will even BE a Brit navy by the time these are done? (always assuming the GET done) My guesstimate is that all things military will be susumed into the EUssr within 3 years. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2007-08-08 13:03 |
| #11 Why don't the Brits do catapults? The need for catapaults is required for heavy aircraft carrying heavy loads. RN is going to be using lighter aircraft benefitting from more advanced materials and engines. Also, catapault's take up room and energy from other departments. This way they can build what is ostensibly a more capable carrier without forcing compromises in other parts of the ship. |
| Posted by: Almost Anonymous5839 2007-08-08 12:53 |
| #10 Why don't the Brits do catapults? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2007-08-08 11:14 |
| #9 Names to be changed to Imam Chuck and Imam Wills. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-08-08 10:34 |
| #8 Bet they will never be launched or commissioned. Speaking of which, a thought crossed my mind the other day. What is the status of a naval vessel (US) that is sunk in combat. Or just sunk a la Threaher. Is it formally striken from the rolls or what? Just curious. |
| Posted by: kelly 2007-08-08 09:57 |
| #7 By the time they get built, they'll be named for imams from the London |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2007-08-08 09:54 |
| #6 Hopefully the Brits will put them to good use. But I see them rusting on some god-forsaken coast in 50 years due to a screw up on some EU/UN mission. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-08-08 09:50 |
| #5 I don't consider ski ramp carriers to be full-size carriers. But I guess it's an improvement on the Harrier carriers. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-08-08 09:46 |
| #4 Im surprised by this as we have the most pacifist/PC government in British history!!!!! Brown is no Churchill/Thatcher!!! |
| Posted by: Paul 2007-08-08 09:29 |
| #3 QE is fine, but I could find a better name than PoW. Warspite would be good, or Ark Royal (if they get rid of the half-carrier when these are built). |
| Posted by: Gary and the Samoyeds 2007-08-08 09:28 |
| #2 They probably weren't even designed to be used in anything like a war. They were prolly sold to the pols by pointing out that they could only perform humanitarian missions, and even those not very well. But, since they will also probably just be taken away for use by the European navy, it doesn't matter at all. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-08-08 09:27 |
| #1 These ain't nuthin' but a future sub captain's office trophy unless they build the escort group to go with them. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2007-08-08 09:22 |