« Previous · Home · Next »
British Carriers Revisited
By John
By PSYOP COP
Not that I’m one to wander from my lane, but I thought many would be interested in reading this article.
I’m glad the British are getting back into the carrier business. Not that they ever “technically” left, but “Harrier carriers” just aren’t the same. The British learned this painful lesson in 1982, but I guess it still took them 25 years to correct it.
A couple of interesting things to note:
First, one of the weaknesses of the smaller carriers that Britain fielded during the Falklands campaign was that they lacked a real AEW capability. The lack of that capability is what really bit them in the arse, not the short range and limited intercept capabilities of Harrier jump-jets. The Harriers actually acquitted themselves nicely, killing (I believe) a dozen or so Argentine aircraft in air-to-air combat. With an E-2C around, the British would not have lost as many ships as they did to aerial attack though.
Secondly, the artist’s concept shows a straight-deck and not the angled-deck (a British concept, by the way) that permits simultaneous launch-and-recovery operations. Even with a ramp for STOVL operations, an angled-deck could still be incorporated into the design to permit this valuable capability.
Lastly, I would have rather seen one of them commissioned as the Ark Royal. I always liked the sound of that name for an aircraft carrier.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1165
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference British Carriers Revisited:
» Queen Elizabeth Way from Queen Elizabeth Way
The coin has gone on display at Newcastle University, northeast England, on Vale [Read More]
» Ski Boat from Ski Boat
Manufacturer of boats for wake sports, water ski and the family. [Read More]
Comments
I was aware that the Brits used a modified Seaking for AEW. If I'm not mistaken, this was actually an ad hoc development during the Falklands conflict, necessity being the mother of invention and all that.
That idea of the Osprey being made into an AEW platform has merit, I believe. I'd be interested in seeing the Brits pursue that.
I believe you will observe that is an angled-deck in the artist's concept.
Yes, that thought occured to me. However, on the article itself, the illustration was smaller. Also, while the deck is angled, it looks more that it serves the purpose to expand space on the flight deck and is not marked for landings. Observe the plane that is getting ready for launch. It's too far back to permit simultaneous launch/recovery operations.
Then again, it is an artist's concept.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/584CAAE8-8B39-4271-86E8-86320C7804B7/0/Carrier3_761x437.jpg shows an angled deck.
My bad.
Rich,
The deck may be angled, but even in those illustrations the launch area is in the landing rollout zone.
I believe that would put the kibosh on simultaneous ops. What's odd about it is that if they just moved the ski jump over to the starboard side of the ship, they could do it.
You guys are missing something big in the "Is it or is it not an angled deck" debate.
It is my understanding that the British CVs are an upgradeable design. The ships will be launched with a ski ramp and carrying VSTOL F-35s, but provisions have been made for the removal of the Ski ramp and installation of catapults and arrestor gear. If or when the Brits decide they want to use CATOBAR aircraft, they can modify the ships to do so. From all appearance the Brits intend to first swap over from harriers to F-35 jumpjets, shortly after the new carriers arrive, the brits will install catapults and arrestors and round out thier airwings with AWACS and possibly EF-2000s.
The Brits are trying to spread out thier budgetary woes, (by buying the ship and the arrestor gear and new planes allseperately) and trying to widen thier learning curve. (Going from harriers and helos to cats and traps ain't easy, it'll take time to do so.) Its hard enough for them just to buy a pair of 65,000 ton carriers,
More fascinating notes about these new CVs, The British are buying two of them to replace thier four current throughdeck cruisers, (I refuse to call those 'toys' carriers. The French are throwing in with the Brits to buy a third to back up thier nuclear carrier. All three ships will be conventionally powered, (So the French will wind up with one nuke carrier and one conventional carrier. Kind of awkward.) No word on whether or not the French will be buying thier carrier in CATOBAR flavor, but I'm almost certain they will.
Size comparisons
Invincible Cass 20,000 tons
Charles De'Gaulle CVN 40,000 tons
Queen Elizabeth (expected) 65,000 tons
Gerald Ford class CVN 100,000 tons
That should give you a rough idea of just how big these boats are, the Brits are building something relatively close to the size of our Carriers, and decently larger then The French navies current nuclear aircraft carrier. The Royal Navy has been pulling alot of ships and equipment lately, but if they can get these two ships successfully deployed, the Royal navy might just be back in the world wide game. Of course, if the ships wind up being failures, (Or if the politicians torpedo the whole thing) then the Royal navy could very well wind up being sidelined for at least another 20 years.
Post a comment
Potential comment conditions listed here. Oh, and you may use basic HTML for formatting.
They still haven't really solved the AEW problem. Good discussion here:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm