Aircraft Carriers III

The difference between the £1.5bn and £1.65bn is the money wasted after Liam Fox ordered a review on catobar conversion and F-35C instead of F-35B. All because the F-35B was seen as a little shaky at the time.
Like I said the decision to slow the build is very well documented and was ordered by the Treasury to save £100m in year costs at the height of the GFC. It was very well documented at the time and the result of that decision as well.
£6.2 billion minus £1.5 = £4.7bn....
Which means I'm also being very generous at 1 ship costing £2.5bn as the programme cost included upgrades to dockyards, naval bases, onshore power supplies and onshore training facilities. The PoW is also being built significantly quicker which has an enormous effect on total costs. Quite frankly I'd be justified in having its price as closer to £2bn. But I thought I'd be very generous. If you don't understand Programme costs, IPA reported programmes or GMPP reporting it might be a little hard to grasp...
I don't care about your acronyms (LOL those I leave to spin doctors):

for me the cost of a ship is

money spent on her class

divided by

the number of ships in said class

Yesterday at 9:11 PM
6.2/2=3.1
 
... happens:
Pilots eject as F/A-18 from USS Ronald Reagan crashes into Philippine Sea
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

An F/A-18 Hornet flying from US Navy aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) crashed into the Philippine Sea during routine operations on November 12.

The F/A-18 from Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 5 experienced a mechanical issue that forced the crew to eject, the US Navy said.

The crew was recovered by USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) search and rescue aircraft and brought back to the ship for evaluation by medical personnel. Both aviators are in good condition.

The navy says the aircraft carrier has resumed normal operations adding that the crash is under investigation.

CVW 5 is embarked onboard Ronald Reagan and is currently underway on a patrol in the US 7th Fleet area of operations.

The aircraft crash occurred just days after USS Ronald Reagan completed participation in exercise
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
with units from the US Air Force, the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) and the Japan Air Self-Defense Force.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, an MH-60 Sea Hawk helicopter crashed aboard the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) during flight operations. The aircraft carrier was underway in the Philippine Sea at the time of the accident, after completing participation in the Republic of Korea Navy fleet review.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
... happens:
Pilots eject as F/A-18 from USS Ronald Reagan crashes into Philippine Sea
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A very sad fact of life, but Naval Aviation operations, particularly aboard ship are dangerous for everybody, BD Popeye continues to remind us of that, and I for one, am a believer!

As I pointed out many moons ago, I am a big fan of having two fans turning and burning aboard ship, as we transition to the F-35C and the Marines continue to rack up hours on their F-35Bravos? at some point someone is going to have an engine failure??

I much prefer twin engine fighter aircraft aboard ship for that singular reason, but its a fact of life, and the Charlie and Bravo will go on to distinguish themselves as outstanding fighter aircraft....
 
Last edited:

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Pilots eject as F/A-18 from USS Ronald Reagan crashes into Philippine Sea

You know right now the USN is looking for a replacement for that lost Super Hornet. One of the Super Hornet squadrons will be required to send a bird to VFA-??? aboard CVN-76. A better circumstance would be that an aircraft fresh out of re-work at Naval Aviation Depot on NAS North Island CA.
 

Timmymagic

New Member
Registered Member
I much prefer twin engine fighter aircraft aboard ship for that singular reason, but its a fact of life, and the Charlie and Bravo will go on to distinguish themselves as outstanding fighter aircraft....

The twin/single debate primarily revolves around thrust and frontal aspect these days. When it comes to engine failures, analysis of losses of twin engined and single engine fighters seems to show that they have similar loss rates. Any serious trouble with an engine on a twin engined fighter tends to impact the other engine too. If there was greater physical seperation on western designs (like the Tomcat or the SU-27 variants) there may be a slight advantage. But all those years of operating Jaguars, Tornado's, F-18, Typhoon, Rafale and F-15 with modern engines seems to indicate that unless you need the thrust you're better off with 1. I suppose its similar to the debates over twin engined airliners flying long distances over water in the 80's.
 

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
This is starting to get so Sci Fi...45991459_440695686660922_8734920009169502208_n.jpg I can remember not so long ago when ships like these (QE with USS Michael Monsoor DDG 1001) were just CGI artist's impressions, now here they are sailing in company...46001277_475457832858666_2900493965922926592_n.jpg Little bit of trivia, th ski jump ramps on the QECs have slight camber to port, i.e. the starboard side is slightly higher than the port side, to impart a turn to port on leaving the ramp. This is a safety feature, so that if the aircraft has an engine failure on launch, the aircraft won't drop into the sea immediately in front of the carrier and get run over by the ship. The pilot will presumably have ejected by this point, so it's more about preventing damage to the ship form the crashed aircraft.45676986_1886085891489330_8324490095390359552_n.jpg And a nice sunset picture from the recent NYC visit.
 
Last edited:
Top