Reply With QuoteJonas, there is a dedicated thread for the F-35 here,Originally Posted by CarrierFan2006
You are an old cynic (can comment on the sweaty part)
Unlike the F-35 and the Typhoon the C2 will have a very strict range of capabilities and will most likely be based on the E2 hawk eye, so they all ready have an airframe and tooling to start with.
The money spent will be the upgrading the airframe to meet the requirements needed.
That said I don’t see the UK and France buying any, I'm getting old and cynical as well
Jonas, there is a dedicated thread for the F-35 here,
You are an old cynic (can comment on the sweaty part)
Unlike the F-35 and the Typhoon the C2 will have a very strict range of capabilities and will most likely be based on the E2 hawk eye, so they all ready have an airframe and tooling to start with.
The money spent will be the upgrading the airframe to meet the requirements needed.
That said I don’t see the UK and France buying any, I'm getting old and cynical as well
(on a side note chaps, posts in this thread should be based on quality, not quantity - there's no need for continual idle disagreement and debate about what is nothing more than speculation)
IMO: Let the spams reopen the C2 production line for their own ends (they've done it before) and the RN/FAA can purchase a few too. If the French MN need a few, then a block purchase with the uk should also further help reduce unit cost. The only problem is ours will have to have British Engines (sarcasm).
Last edited by Arfah; 07-03-2011 at 11:57 AM.
Given the Article in Airforces monthly(Aug 2011) on the comments in US DoD on JSF I hope we've a plan B.
I've read the article too. There's some nice photos of the Super Hornet / Growler inside
Can we get a link for that? Or is it just paper copy so far?
Anyway, I've been wondering recently, can these carriers be retro-fitted with Nuclear Power? The price of oil and hydrocarbon based fuels is already rising further and with supplies predicted to start dwindling, could it be the case that Nuclear Power will be cheaper?
With a nuclear powerplant, there would also be lots more room for jet fuel (AVCAT)tankage or other stores. Sadly, I doubt it will happen. Nuclear reactors are expensive too and to add the retrofit costs... !
*With reference to Air Forces Monthly magazine. Subscribers receive it before it hits the shelves (sometimes) so you'll have to pop down to WHSmiths on thursday 7/7/11.*
Nice little bit from Hansard regarding carrier aviation:
Mr Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision has been made for (a) carrier-borne air-to-air refuelling capability and (b) fixed-wing carrier on-board delivery for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier; and what the in-service date is for each capability. [62458]
Peter Luff [holding answer 27 June 2011]: The strategic defence and security review announced the decision to procure the carrier variant of the joint strike fighter to operate from the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier from around 2020. We are currently studying the most cost-effective way to provide an embarked air-to-air refuelling capability and assessing potential solutions for the Queen Elizabeth class on-board delivery requirement.
Retro fit to nuclear power?
No doubt it would be possible,that is if you want a complete redesign and all the costs that would involve. Probably add a couple more billions for each vessel and add a few more years where we would be without naval air power. That then gives CVF opponents more ammunition to say 'we've done without it this long why do we need it'
Apart from which you would then need all the shoreside infrastructure to deal with a nuclear powered vessel,refits/maintenence etc. That would cost another huge amount of money to build.
Do we even have a reactor suitable to power a surface vessel,or will that have to be designed or purchased from the good ole USA.
No i'm afraid the idea is a complete non starter.
That was a request/requirement from french MOD for CVF FR/ PA2, they wanted more storage for aviation fuel and bombs/ammunitions
You could use the nuke plants from your SSBN... that's what they did for CdeG, K15 reactors from SSBN. (some argue it is slightly underpowered however)
Xav,
From what I've read of the CDG and its many problems,one of them was the fact that they did just that.
Most observers have stated that this was a mistake on behalf of the French,using a SSBN reactor for a surface vessel.
Myself I know very little about reactors so can only go on what I have read.
jonas
Like you, I know very little about naval reactors. However, the Astute-class submarine (7,400 tonnes submerged displacement) is fitted with the Rolls Royce PWR2 reactor. The Vanguard-class submarines (17,800 short tons submerged displacement) will be retro-fitted with the same reactor but with a re-designed core. This seems a long way from the power requirements of a vessel with a displacement under full load of 72,300 short tons.
There is a plan for a PWR3 reactor. However, the USS Ronald Reagan is powered by 2 Westinghouse A4W reactors. These reactors appear to generate between 3 and 4 times the power of the PWR2. The PWR3 design seems to focus more on safety than on power output.
I suggest that there is no likelihood of the Queen Elizabeth class being re-equipped with nuclear reactors. After the latest SDSR, the suggestion that the current government would admit that it had made yet another mistake would not be credible.
Just my amateur thoughts, of course.
wouldn't it have been too late & too costly to change the power plants for the carriers when the coalition booted labour out?
The nuclear powered QE option came and went about 4-5 years ago.
The amount of time it would take to fit nuclear power NOW would delay the program well into the 20's, while I don’t know much about naval reactors I think I can safely assume that they are long lead items and take some time to build.
Also I don’t see the point with the QE's being nuclear powered.
Posting Permissions
