My point is the size of the crew. You want as many carriers as you can, each with a good length for take off and landing. The number and kind of aircraft depend on the purpose of your navy. I don't think any country will repeat the size of the US carriers, ever. So a 40k carrier with a tricat configuration and a length of 300 meters looks attractive to me. It won't be able to attack Afghanistan or Uganda but would help in defence of your other ships.
Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
I understand the problem now. You are approaching this from the wrong direction. Define your requirement/task (eg fleet defence, overland strike, ASW etc), this leads you to the aircraft type and numbers needed to meet this requirement (in the UK case, 36 F-35s to generate the necessary number of sorties per day). This will then define the size and type of carrier needed to accomodate and operate these aircraft. CVF started off at about 40,000 tonnes but grew to 65,000 tonnes to meet the needs of the air group; this is as it should be, otherwise you are dictating air group size and capability to meet an artificial limit set on the size of the carrier (read up on CVA-01 being limited to 50,000 tonnes in the 60s for an example of this).
Equation
Lieutenant General
Is it possible for the UK to combine paying for the cost for the new carrier task force in partnership with Australia? I mean she has the money but no carrier building capability and it would make sense for the two Royal Navies to share cost in building, operations, and maintenance, IMO. Let's say when the UK is done doing her sea shift, the Royal Australian Navy can then use it for her turn at sea ops. Of course the outgoing sea force would have to meet with the incoming one at there home naval base.
If Australia wants to join the programme, they will be most welcome to pitch in for hull 03! We have a production line up and running now, the more that are ordered, the lower the unit price. Remember the total price of the programme isn't just for two ships, it's also for the reorganisation of the entire British Shipbuilding industry, the overhaul of Rosyth Dockyard (including the purchase of the Big Crane) and covering the cost of the political delays to the copletion of the ships. Off the shelf unit price to you sir, still around £2Billion!
I sure wish the Aussies would opt for a Queen Elizabeth class CV...but they are betting on the Canberra's for their naval aviation needs and I do not believe they will do more at this stage.
The hull of the first, HMAS Canberra LHD01, was launched February 17, 2011 in Spain and will be outfitted in Australia in 2012 for eventual final launch in 2013 and commissioning in 2014.
Even though Australia denies it, I honestly believe that we will ultimately see F-35Bs flying off of these decks. They have kept that ski-jump on there for some reason...and I do not believe it is for a wholly helicopter air-wing.
Last edited:
Equation
Lieutenant General
Hey Jeff, is it possible that maybe Australia is looking to buy an Osprey tilt rotor type aircraft for that LHD01 (possible reason for the ski jump)?
Ospreys can't use the ski jump, the rotors can't be pitched forwards enough whilst it's on the deck so rolling takeoffs are more helicopter-like. Some UAVs will be able to launch from the ski Jump though...
Osprey's operate regularly off of the LPD San Antonio Class, the LHA Wasp Class, and the single remaining Tarawa class, none of which have a ski jump.
Utilizing a ski jump could assist them in fuel requirements if they can work out some pitch angle of their blades to allow hem to roll up and off the ski-jump, but they were designed to lift vertically with a full load.
Yes they could. But most smaller UAVs do not need them because they do not need as long a take-off run to get airborne.zoom said:
Last edited:
- Status