UK Royal Navy's CVF future aircraft carrier

[matty181190]

we're so fucked when we get these, pilots wont have a clue what to do, navy wont either. Because they have nothing current to train with..

[xsf908]

How many fighters these carries will carry ?

[matty181190]

@xsf908 maximum of 36-40 i believe however on normal ops it will only carry 12? i think that is correct

[hamish153]

it looks like a flight simulator and ship simulator trailer

[ClassValedictorian]

This should keep Argentina in its miserable place for a little while longer.

[smarter1then3u]

wot future?, that's present day in us or russia just buy one of those

[TheOscarrek]

they will have f-35c not f-35b stovl variant

[jonboy1973]

Nice to see what the Royal Navy could have had,before the Liberal demopratts got some power...watch my words.....

[longlivestalin1]

f 35 finally...get rid of that ugly harrier. :-)

[MrDeano324]

@longlivestalin1 I dont think it was quite what you was expecting though was it? ("get rid of that ugly harrier")

[longlivestalin1]

@MrDeano324 actually i think the f 35 is very nice, if the harrier was a vtol a 10 then the f 35 is a vtol f-22-but i love sukhoi the best.

[conza410]

@longlivestalin1 it may be ugly but boy does it pack a punch

[ejzen11]

New uk navy ship prototype will be nuclear?

Tanks!

[tomcornwall83]

It makes you wonder what kind of ship could be built if cost was not such an issue, or no issue at all.

[tomcornwall83]

T45 pretty good ship though. Anyone know if it has Aster 15/30 missiles or not?

[bullseye2121]

Know what has Aster missiles? CVF will only have CIWS to protect it from missiles that get past type 45. MOD said it would be to expensive to have Aster fitted to CVF.. Like usual. The treasurey only funds enough for them to do it cheap as possible. If you wana find out more info on CVF type 'navy matters' in google and theres alot of info on there regarding the history of CVF.

[AerospaceEngineer90]

CVF doesn't need Aster, fitting CVF with Aster means that there is even less money, that money would be better spent on purpose built AAW Vessels, no matter how many we have whether that is 6 or 60 i do not advocate fitting anything more than CAMM to the carriers

[bullseye2121]

I know CVF isnt getting Aster, i was telling him that the MOD was originally thinking about having aster fitted to CVF. They decided against it because of cost grounds, just like they decided against having more armour fitted to CVF because of cost too..

[bullseye2121]

I would rather have more type 45 indeed to protect the carrier, but to have aster fitted directly on to the carrier would of been great. Even fitting RAM instead of CIWS would of been an improvement, sadly our treasure doesn't give a shit and the public don't have a clue either. The problem with this country is it does it on the cheap, only when we have actually lose a ship do they take notice.

[AerospaceEngineer90]

T45 isn't a pretty good ship.. It's a pretty fucking brillaint AAW vessel, there are some drawbacks, 1. lack of ABM Missiles, it will get them... if and when Aster 45/ Aster ABM is developed. 2. 48 VLS cells, it can easily fit 64 and probably more than that!

3. lack of numbers, UK requirement stated that 5(although personally i put the figure at 6 but i'm not a professional) would be required at any one time which means that the royal navy need AT LEAST 8 ships to fill the requirement.

[bullseye2121]

I agree that it's a great ship for AAW, but for tax payers to get the best out of the money spent they should of added harpoons/CIWS instead of just designing the type 45 to be fitted for but not with.

[wiganerrmc]

yes it will be using Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles

[tomcornwall83]

I dont know if anyone has mentioned this, but these ships are NOt going to be built.

[AerospaceEngineer90]

they have to be built the government needs the political capital and a reason to have scraped so many other vital projects for the british armed forces aswell as early retirement for lots of equipment (3 T23's, cutting the SSN fleet from 10-8, cutting the number of T45s from 12-6, and more)

[FlytheUnionJack]

ita about time the gov rebuilds the navy, 1 T45 cant be in two places at one time!!!

the RN will be stronger when in a carrier group where all the major war ships work togeather, but the RN will loose its power to patrol or have small forces here and there all over the world

[sleepycriminal]

Yes they are...

[tonightwefly]

alot of the comments are not terue but come on guys the royal navy is a joke, America wont always be there, the govenment seem to be sheering biyts off because they think ah america will bail us out, let them foot the bill! what a joke

[sherman4970]

They spend that much and they will be the only RN vessels out there!!!JOKE.

[ppp56]

kayman92. No they are not due to be cancelled. As has been stated by madbob73 and and bullseye2121, there has been massive investment so far and it would be very hard to pull out now. Furthermore, if cut there would be huge job losses, the last thing the government needs now, especially so close to Gordon Browns on constituency!

[ppp56]

The worst thing about youtube videos like this is the massive number of commenters with absolutely no idea what they are talking about, speaking only through some rediculous nationalist vision of the British or American armed forces.

[tonightwefly]

omg i could not agree more with your comment, peoples figures are completly out and its anoying to just read bulls**t everywhere

[kayman92]

i heard the project was considered to be cancelled due to the recession is this true?

[bullseye2121]

No, unless they want to waste all the steel that has been bought. This project will never be canceled not only because they equipment has all been bought, but the work is being done a Labour homeground.

[madbob73]

Not true at all, most of the contracts have been signed & according to the RN official site work has begun on the hull. Let's put it this way if the governement can find £40b to bail out a bank, it can find £4bn for defence.

[kayman92]

ok just asking

[AerospaceEngineer90]

theres no way on gods clean earth that the carriers will be cancelled now, the government has slashed the RN surface fleet from 35 vessels in 1997 to 24 today and need the political capital from the carriers (means they can cancel even more crucial projects). the fact is that these 2 carriers will cost 3.9bn but to replace the vincy class like for like with 3 ships of the same size would cost 4.8bn at a bare minimum

[tonightwefly]

We have alot more ships than 24!

[AerospaceEngineer90]

not warfighting combatants...

4 T22B3

13 T23

7 T42 (might be 6 now)

0 T45 (Daring isn't officially in commission yet

[FlytheUnionJack]

9 nuclear subs aswell. 1 of the T42s is still in the UK, but its in reserve so it can be used if it must

[AerospaceEngineer90]

i thought it was 8 SSNs now? Anyway the last T42 wont sail again apart from to the knackers yard and 7 Astutes will replace every other SSN in the RN. and SSNs are not escorts

[hobied62]

Wow!! when is the combat game comming out because the vids look great?

[chrthiel]

It's not a game, it's a promo vid for thenew British carriers currently under construction.

[hobied62]

Sorry should not be obtuse. The vids get better and the delivery dates go longer. Are we looking at 22C carriers (and I don'y mean the design ) Parhaps by the delivery date they may fly themselves,

May be we could save time and do a Utube serch Captain Scarlet (Ironicaly also fantacy from Britain)

[madbob73]

The delivery date slipped because it made sense! F-35 is a good 8 years away from being in service.

[shanemason1984]

Your all talking bollocks

[akula182]

Stupidity is contagious. These ships are LOADED w/aviation fuel & munitions of all kinds. They catch fire easily. Last year, the " George Washington" had $78mil. worth of damage due to food oil cans in a trash site onboard, & it hadn't launched a combat plane.

[Hairysteed]

Aside from the size, How is the QE different from the smaller "Harrier-carriers"?

No catapults, no arresting gear = no AEW

[AmbassadorMolari]

No air - to - air refueling too, resulting in a small mtow.

[madbob73]

Wrong - it can refuel air to air just not via the buddy system (the F35B anyway)

[AmbassadorMolari]

You can't compare the amount of fuel they can take up to a catapult launched aircraft. It's sad the Frogs have a better carrier than Britain, who once used to rule the seas.

[madbob73]

'The Frogs' have no carrier at the moment. The CdG has spent half of its life in refit with problems of one sort or another! They desperately need a 2nd carrier - whats the use of only 1 carrier when its only available half the time.

[AmbassadorMolari]

A classic aircraft carrier is always better than these antisubmarine cruisers with V/STOL planes. Imagine if you had had a real aircraft carrier during the Falkland war.

[madbob73]

It's exactly because of the Falklands why the RN still want STOVL, given the severe weather in the South Atlantic - conventional carriers can be severely limited in that arena in bad icy weather.

[sleepycriminal]

They dont....new carriers are 2nd best in the world....

[madbob73]

It is being built so they can be fitted in future. For the moment the primary threat to UK interest is the Falklands so the RN wanted STOVL as it is easier to operate than conventional aircraft in the South Atlantic in adverse weather.

It carries more planes which can fly further distances. The Heli's it carries all have AEW radar and of course it won't be sailing alone it will be escorted by T45's

[Hairysteed]

My point is that Helo-bourne AEW as well as the F-35B can operate from light STOVL carriers as well - only in smaller numbers and reduced sortie rates

[TPreyland]

Look out for the U.S submarine aircraft carrier which is now on the drawing board!

[hobied62]

Look for Captain scarlet cloudbase the British have trumpt you again on the drawing board!!

[gabriel567567567]

the usa should have stole that idea from the uk we deserve it more right now because were in iraq the uk doesnt need it right now but the uk and usa are parteners so were probably going to get that carrier and planes too so no wury

[SeaToby1]

The new Queen Elizabeth class carriers will have their complement of F-35Bs much sooner, and before there is one squadron on all of the US aircraft carriers. Even with the delay of a few years during construction to spread out their costs, by the time of their commissioning the Lightning IIs will be available, as soon as the ships are built.

[Tehfallinator]

I'd like to see that this take on the Nimitz

[TheBadMaus]

???

[AbsolomDaak]

Hey, I worked on this! In fact, that's me signalling the Merlin to land! :-D

[hew35s]

Announced over ten years ago and a further two year delay recently announced. Much as I love the RN and I'd dearly love to see these I'd say there's about as much chance of their being built as there is my visiting the moon. Expect more announcements of delays and then a repeat of history; formal cancellation around 2010-2011 at the latest.

[Solidboat123]

Anyone know if the FAA is planning on maintaining the tradition of naming its aircraft 'Sea _____' , seen as how the RAF are going to be flying them too?

Personally I think they should name the F-35 the Sea Fury in honour of the previous one

[fayik123]

when you think how quickly boeing and airbus can produce their aircraft it just shows how slow the british are at building ships

[VeyronboyV1]

But these CVF carriers are alot bigger than the 747-400 or the A380.

[Corsican153]

Fella,how did you think it was logical to compare the building of a factory line aircraft to the building of a first of it's kind aircraft carrier? That's just plain daft.

[fayik123]

15 or 20 years is most likely. THe problem is witht he uk is they are so slow to introduce new stuff where as the usa have massive production. THe british army are still using 60's technology landrovers which is beyond belief.

[VeyronboyV1]

They are planned for 2014-2018.

[fayik123]

plus delays of ten or 20 years

[fayik123]

You are in for a very long wait untill this ever reaches the water

[madbob73]

of course, only fools (and argentinians) believe that a carrier can be knocked together in 6 months...

We will get them, after all it will be serving for the next 50 years. Without doubt though I can see us extending the life on at least 1 of the current carriers until the JSF is combat ready.

[fayik123]

for some really cool harnesses checkout civilianlabs..com on google.

[matapan50]

I admit to bias; i'm half-english(mother's side)but the Falklands proved that control of an island depends on control of the waters around it. I dont know why the Americans didnt at least talk to the British about buying CV-67 and CV-66 (John F. Kennedy & America)when they were taken out of service. For craps sake, the navy went and s-a-n-k the America as a reef. plenty of other vessels they could have done that with. What a waste. I could be wrong; The ships could have been in bad condition.

[Caspian237]

Matapan50, CV67 and CV66 are large manpower intensive warships and the truth is that the RN could not afford to crew them. I agree that we should still build CVF but the old problems of Britain being an Island Nation are no longer valid. Most of our trade is with Europe, we have the Channel Tunnel and at any rate, we would not require an aircraft carrier to keep open the English Channel. Land based airpower would be more effective.

[matapan50]

Yeah, I guess your'e right about that. I know the manpower angle is acute; I think the British Treasury called even ships like the County-class "manpower-intensive".Given all that, it is still critical, in my opinion, for USN to maintain super-close relationship with RN; inter-operability, the whole shot. Too valuable an ally.

[madbob73]

We have large overseas assets to defend. Who knows what happens when oil is needed from the South Atlantic? We need these babies as a statement of intent more than anything. If we hadn't got rid of our large carriers in the first place there would have been no falkands for example

[Caspian237]

madbob, some would say that the war came because of a perceived lack of political will, also that the military junta in Argentina was scrambling around looking for a distraction from domestic problems which would have been the case regardless of the size of Britain's carriers. They might also say that if there was a threat in the South Atlantic then it would be cheaper to fortify the islands and permanently station more jets than to use carriers and amphibious forces to retake them.

[AerospaceEngineer90]

not too sure i still think that we will get F-35.. it will alot to modify the T3 Typhoons to be flown off of the carriers and they would be in STOBAR config which means that it wouldn't be able to take off fully laden with gear or fuel and would end up as something only marginally better than the harrier.

[AerospaceEngineer90]

im all seriousness the best thing would have been never getting rid of proper carriers, replacing the Ark and Eagle with proper carriers(say around 860-880ft and displacing 48,000-54,000 tonnes with 2 cats) in the 70's and early 80's adding the SHAR radars onto the Phantoms and serving them into the 90's... not bothering with the Typhoon whatsoever and going it alone with the P.110 and producing a naval variant, P.110 could have entered service by around 1996 at the latest.

[AerospaceEngineer90]

R&D is cheaper when there are alot of nations participating but that also means that the jet has to be made to suit all of their needs and that pumps the prices per unit up ALOT and the R&D so it wouldn't have cost much more if anything to go it alone instead of going into the Typhoon project, P.110 provided similar performance and would have cost around £40m per unit(tops) rather than £68m

(also what i said above would coincide with new carriers around 2020[CVF + EMALS?])

[matapan50]

The sooner those carriers are in operation, the better. We need help and don't let anyone tell you we don't. The Brits invented carriers in the first place who better to be out there with us. Just my opinion.

[AerospaceEngineer90]

unfortunatly the carriers wont be around for some time, QE wont enter service until 2016 at the earliest, PoW isn't likely to be around until 2019 (again thats being optimistic) and as i have already said the first few years of service for these will have the carriers kitted out with Harriers and rotary wings, Lightning cant be expected to have IOC until about 2020 in the UK if ever

[matapan50]

That is certainly not good. I think the British Government should remember they are an island nation.

[Caspian237]

I don't think the Government has made any judgements regarding the future of Britishforeign policy. I think it's more likely that given the credit crunch, the govt will lose less votes by delaying the carriers for two years than they would by denying troops in an active theatre of their equipment. I think it is sensible decision. Besides, in the previous timescales there probably would be a lack of F-35 to fly off them in the first place and very few GR7/9's to warrent the deck space.

[AerospaceEngineer90]

There around around 65-70 GR7-9/A's in service at the moment, when you consider that there will always be 1 carrier in port at any on time (if not both of them ballpark figure would be about 300days at sea per year between them) that will be enough and this will be a common sight into the first 2 or 3 years into QE's service

I do agree it is more important that the boots on the ground get the best gear, armoured recce vehicles and IFV's overhead cover is also important though

[flyingenterprise]

The powers to be have been forced to realise that we cannot afford to be the worlds policeman with such expensive equipment. In the meantime the army and Royal Marines fight a tough and bloody battle in Helmand province with too few boots on the ground and very limited battlefield mobility. The RAF do a great job as do the Army Air Corps but it would be even more difficult for UK gound forces without US air support

[Bassmaster86]

I really hope the RNAS gets the green light for ops on these carriers...that Joint Force Harrier is a shame.

[Solidboat123]

We don't even have 800 and 801 NAS at the moment, they've been merged into the 'Naval Strike Wing', based not at Yeovilton but Wittering. Bit of a joke, I think

[kaossammi]

britain has the most trained n well equiped amphibious force in the world.. royal marines are holding the most dangerous province in afghanistan at the moment get a grip yank...

[kicknbazz1615]

why dont royal navy carriers use the steam catapult???

[AerospaceEngineer90]

we use STOVL aircraft for better sortie rate, lower ship company the ability to launch aircraft in bad conditions etc with a sacrifice in range and take off weight.

[Caspian237]

In addition, STOVL means that RAF jets will be able to operate from the carriers with minimal training. Important because the UK does not have permanent carrier air groups like the US Navy. They use Tailored Air Groups (TAG's), that is, changing the airgroup depending on the mission. However, one of the main reasons is that the Ministry of Defence don't want to have to pay for the steam catapults. However they are keeping an eye on the development of Electro Magentic Catapults for future use.

[AerospaceEngineer90]

Don't remind me! RAF operating from the carriers is something that neither the RAF or the Navy want, atm the RAF is loosing lots of great servicemen esp ground crew because of long tours on navy carriers(it's severely understaffed as it is (1990 RAF had 85000 servicemen, now it has 41000 without a similar drop in aircraft)

but it might be academic anyway F-35 procurement is looking shaky chances are we'll get a reduced order just for the FAA and the RAF will loose STOVL and just use Typhoon's

[Caspian237]

It will be truely sad if F-35 (whatever flavour) is sidelined by the MoD. Would there even be enough to equip 800, 801 Naval Air Squadrons? Two Squadrons of 12 (possibly reduced to 9) hardly justifies the expense of the carriers.

[AerospaceEngineer90]

we will be getting F-35 of some description we've put over 2bn into the project already. it would be possible to stiff the RAF over JSF then they would re-arm the harrier squadrons with the excess Typhoons or disband them

A reduced order to 80 or so would make it possible to arm 4 or 5(major crisis) FAA squadrons (800,801,809,899 and 892 in a crisis) in the ratio's [12,12,12,25 with 892 getting whatever is available if and when they need it) 899 obviously acting as training and HQ

[A290B573G]

they look not too dissimilar to the invincible class outwardly, apart from the smoother edges

what is different about them apart from the aircraft load?

[Caspian237]

They are far larger than the Invicible class. A increase in tonnage from 22K to 65K tons and there for the ability to project more aircraft and support better, more efficient aviation support facilites.

[hulahoop7]

PS don't believe BS about the USN, it is huge and all powerful. 11 - 12 100kton super carriers, 11-12 50k ton helicopter carriers. 25 Landing ships. 70 anti air destroyers.

The RN currently has have 2 22kt CVs, 1 22kt LPH, 6 landing ships and 6 anti air destroyers.

[Caspian237]

Ah yes I'm fully aware of US naval supremecy. The British Carrier and Amphibious forces are really only a compliment to this and a useful addition to any future European military co-operation. It is highly unlikely that Britain will have to go it alone with these units.

[hulahoop7]

Ships are a function of many variables. More aircraft means more handlers, means more accomodtion, means more fuel and weapons stores. The CVNs are over 100k tons for a reason. Remember the CVFs will come in at 65k tons. Saying that, I also believe that a CVF could probably get up to 50 rather than 40 aircraft in a Falklands type emergency.

[hulahoop7]

They can do 85% of a Nimitz on the first day around 60% there after. No bad for a carrier with under half the airgroup and 50% of the purchase and running cost. Nimitz's are no expense spared carriers - no question. But there is an argument that the USN should take a look. They could have 24 CVFs for the cost of there current 11-12 CVNs. More ships in more places for the same cost and crew numbers

[Caspian237]

Hey Hulahoop, you seem to know your stuff. CVF will certainly have a smaller airgroup than a Nimitz, but I don't think the difference is as great as it seems. I've seen Nimitz flight decks jam packed with planes yet comparable diagrams of CVF (even in surge conditions) don't make use of total available space.

[HaloZero147]

are the nuke powered?

[MachiavellianHeir]

No, Rolls-Royce Marine Trent engines are to be used which are gas powered.

[codcutter]

nope

[gamerzipo]

FYI the future aircraft is the F-35 if none of you havent noticed BTW nice vid

[EddieHfromBottom]

I think we'd be kidding ourselves to say they are "more powerful" than Nimitz class, but they should be hugely powerful ships nonetheless. Given Nimitz Air Group of 85 or so compared to 40 for these, lets be realistic. Having said that, give it up for our great nation. It'll be good to play in the big league again!

[numba1danman]

ha well thats like saying we will never win the falklands... argentina has like 30 planes to our 8!

remember we didn't even lose one plain, seen as our pilots, sailors and soldiers ARE the best then nothing would come close to this!

[balderdashandpiffle]

The Nimitz may have a larger air group but she can only operate in a sea state of force 5 whereas CVF can operate in force 7. The CVf can launch more rapidly and can deliver a similar number of sorties per day as the Nimitz class.

So the New Queen Elizabeth class should be broadly similar to if not slightly better than the Nimitz class in operational effectiveness.

[Pearcernboi15]

when built these will be the most technolagicaly advance aircraft carriers in the world. they give an ratio of power compaird with the nimitz aircraft carriers of 4 nimitz's to 1 cvf according to millitary of defence 2006 and NATO adiministration aliance.

[EggyNL]

It certainly is an impressive ship but let's be realistic.

Nimitz class carriers carry 85 aircraft vs 40 on the CVF. The US Navy has plenty of escort vessels something which the Royal Navy sorely lacks because of all the budget cuts.

[Pearcernboi15]

nimitz have more aircarft, but we have to consider the facts like how quickly the carrier can get its pilots in the air. lets say if they were to battle if the CVF could get its aircraft in the air quicker then the nimitz then the CVf will be able to perform a deadly strike 1st. that will sink the ship and all the aircraft will be lost. another thing the nimitz are very old and weve got to consider a new more modern carrier will be more affective. its all down to the training and reliability.

[SeaToby1]

The number of aircraft of US carrier air groups have been reduced considerably over the years. As the aircraft have gotten larger, their numbers have been reduced. Today's US carriers barely carry 70 aircraft, not 85,90, or 100.

Both navies have seen their budget cuts, especially to their air groups.

[p0sn]

these carriers may be lighter than the nimitz class but you have to admit that it is highly likely that they will be more technolagicaly advanced.

[madbob73]

Come on lets be realistic, the USN gets 10 times the funding the RN does - that just isn't true.

Aside from the US carriers there will be nothing that beats these babies though.

[Johnrosssssss]

Go UK!