by phil gollin » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:12 am
I'll repeat my post of 27th July :-
Quote :-
First, - the best site for the Queen Elizabeths is this :-
http://frn.beedall.com/cvfmain.htm
This gives (and has given for years, the whole convoluted saga. If you want to see officialdom at its worst read that - it will have you crying.
The two Islands were chosen for two main reason one, they increase the available deck space over an equivalent single island and two, it gives the required separation for the radars. There are also factors associated with the spacing of the main gas turbines (carried above waterline) and their uptakes.
The ships, as has been stated, are designed to be convertible between "ordinary" cat and trap/angled deck and V/STOL operation.
As for the superiority of either. These have been designed as "strike" carriers. Their main mission is the deployment of land attack missions. The various studies show that the V/STOL type ship can generate both more missions on a continuous basis and faster turnarounds/take-offs/landings. This may seem odd, but it basically comes down to two issues. V/STOL aircraft are much more easily handled and despatched/received and the mission is one where the aircraft fly-off attack and come back with no flight re-fuelling. With these parameters then V/STOL wins hands down.
HOWEVER, no one claims that a V/STOL would be better if one looked for major re-fuelling requirements or specialised attack missions. The advantage to V/STOL version is a specific one associated with its main mission - NOT overall flexibility or other missions.
AEW is the main bone of contention with the V/STOL version being presently intended to use helicopter based AEW (good but limited range due to height limitations).
Another, indeed sometimes claimed as the main reason for the need for the ships to be convertible, is the probable future need to operate UAVs from the ships.
But it is best to read the proper web-site than my ramblings.
unquote
As stated the website gives the whole (huge) story.
The Islands are presumably angled for a certain amount of stealth (?).
The RN chose the V/STOL F-35 as they believed that for their proposed main mission there would be larger sortie generation by V/STOL rather than "cat-and-trap".
There are two main "downsides" ;
1: The RN is therefore limited on long-range strike compared with, say, a suitably equipped version of the French PA-2 version of the CVF
2: The RN will have to operate helicopter based AEW rather than the French being able to operate Hawkeye turbo-prop AEW
The RN think they are right, I presume the French think they are right.
I'll repeat my post of 27th July :-
[color=red][i]Quote :-
First, - the best site for the Queen Elizabeths is this :-
http://frn.beedall.com/cvfmain.htm
This gives (and has given for years, the whole convoluted saga. If you want to see officialdom at its worst read that - it will have you crying.
The two Islands were chosen for two main reason one, they increase the available deck space over an equivalent single island and two, it gives the required separation for the radars. There are also factors associated with the spacing of the main gas turbines (carried above waterline) and their uptakes.
The ships, as has been stated, are designed to be convertible between "ordinary" cat and trap/angled deck and V/STOL operation.
As for the superiority of either. These have been designed as "strike" carriers. Their main mission is the deployment of land attack missions. The various studies show that the V/STOL type ship can generate both more missions on a continuous basis and faster turnarounds/take-offs/landings. This may seem odd, but it basically comes down to two issues. V/STOL aircraft are much more easily handled and despatched/received and the mission is one where the aircraft fly-off attack and come back with no flight re-fuelling. With these parameters then V/STOL wins hands down.
HOWEVER, no one claims that a V/STOL would be better if one looked for major re-fuelling requirements or specialised attack missions. The advantage to V/STOL version is a specific one associated with its main mission - NOT overall flexibility or other missions.
AEW is the main bone of contention with the V/STOL version being presently intended to use helicopter based AEW (good but limited range due to height limitations).
Another, indeed sometimes claimed as the main reason for the need for the ships to be convertible, is the probable future need to operate UAVs from the ships.
But it is best to read the proper web-site than my ramblings.
unquote[/i][/color]
As stated the website gives the whole (huge) story.
The Islands are presumably angled for a certain amount of stealth (?).
The RN chose the V/STOL F-35 as they believed that for their proposed main mission there would be larger sortie generation by V/STOL rather than "cat-and-trap".
There are two main "downsides" ;
1: The RN is therefore limited on long-range strike compared with, say, a suitably equipped version of the French PA-2 version of the CVF
2: The RN will have to operate helicopter based AEW rather than the French being able to operate Hawkeye turbo-prop AEW
The RN think they are right, I presume the French think they are right.