Gimmick or Innovative design? Better check with Mystic Meg's crystal ball but as everybody reckons they will be sold abroad it wont be our problem will it?

It does seem strange that no current carrier has that design, but it wouldn't be the first time we came up with an innovative idea for aircraft carriers. Rather than a weakness you could say its better not have all ops being done in one structure, knock out the island on a Nimitz class and its all over.
Supposedly its the best of both worlds....the forward island is purely for ship operations and is better placed forward (like the french CdG) while the aft one is for Flight ops which is better further aft, like the Nimitz class. That and an increased flight deck area, reduced air turbulance and a better layout in the lower decks. Its hard to compare it to the Nimitz class as the propulsion is completely different, no need for funnels etc on a CVN, but look at the other conventional powered flat tops in the world and the islands are BIG!

As for structural weakness..its not been widely reported that one F35B has been grounded after a part of the airframe around the wing route was found to be cracked with calls from some areas for the entire project to be scrapped... It gets better and better!!!

 

Hi,
If memory serves I recall an American carrier, Saratoga (?) with the bridge and funnel separated and the planes seemed to land ok.
Regards

 

Regardless of whether the design is a sound one or not, it's become quite apparent over the last couple of decades that when the MOD decides that it requires new kit, it will rarely draw influence from foreign countries, much less actually take on a tried and tested foreign design.
No, they prefer to completely reinvent the wheel with the predictable outcome being huge cost overruns and the item in question being horrendously late.
Occasionally they do get it right, but just as often they get it wrong and we're left with a colossal fudge which generally takes many years and many millions to get right.

 

But surely all the modern design's are from the "super" CAD/CAM system's which takes everything into account and there should be no design/ fatigue failure's, rather than a man with experience, a brain, a good eye and and lead in his pencil.

 

CAD/CAM has been a revolution and with the advent of computerised Finite Element Analysis todays designs are far less prone to unexpected problems associated with 'experience, a brain, a good eye and and lead in his pencil'. Of course it always helps if the person using it has 'experience, a brain and a good eye'.

 

Why is it flawed ???.just because the yank design is different .I personaly dont find myself in a position to comment on carrier design or any other ship fpr that matter.I know WE were the first with the mirror landing system angled flight deck and oh yes steam catapults and along the way many more things .Why should we follow them we have quite able naval architects of our own.
PS does it realy make a differance where the island is or wether it is two or three or even sat right **** end i think not

 

I put a question mark after "flawed" as I was hoping someone who knows would answr the question. I am not saying the American design is better, or worse. The Yanks moved the island aft to reduce turbulence. The French moved the island on CdG forward to "shelter" the aircraft landing. MoD builds 2 islands, which to my thinking, will increase turbulence. But I do not know if I am right, which is why I asked the question.

 

Les, like yourself my time in the Drawing Office did not include Carrier's and the only Carrier I had a good look at everyday for many month's was the Leviathan. The "firm" of G.B. has had some great designer's/inventor's as with the item's you have mentioned, however, there it stop's and we do not make progress on them mainly because G.B. does not have the finance to take them to the next stage. America however does and we can learn a lot from them and some of their failure's (which they can afford) in my view we should not write them off, we should be able in today's world "pick and choose" the best feature's off their design's. Certainly in the RADAR world(my pet subject) we would not have a decent RADAR system looking after G.B. if it was not for the American's progressing what was "our" invention.

 

We do not make progress because of defence cuts (on all sides may i add)but that does not mean our inventors top men are not good .I remember seacat seaslug not going to there potential samse as arrayed towed sonar all ours but lost in a fuddle of cuts .We also have some very very fine radars .to have the aquioment is one thing the capabilities another .In exirecises when i was in we have sat under there radar umbrella many time udetected and our subs have got through there carrier groups many many times undetected .As far as islands on carriers are concerned does it make a differance where the island is does it make them superior and to the elizebeth class having tow islands (not a gimmick )just a build design for a reason.Do we need to follow them like they and much more of the world followed us ???? i think not

 

It was said in another thread recently about our ability to knock our own achievements, and yet at the moment here we are again, assuming something is bad before we actually know the facts.
Your spot on Les, its all speculation and we will only know when they are built. You are right about our innovations, and James is right about the powers that be having a history of screwing up a perfectly good design..... the Austin Champ anybody? but without hard facts its all meaningless.

 

Who is "assuming"? I ask the question, because I want informed opinion. It concerns me, and I assume, that the computer modlelling & wind testing has proved the 2 island idea. All I am asking for is someone with the knowledge, to give me an answer.

 

RADAR is only as good as the operative who is looking at the screen which is where the problem may lay. Make no mistake all our RADAR's are based on American development's even though a British Company name may be on the box. Today GB has no long range land based RADAR, UKAD mainly work's from the American Boeing AWAC's downloading their overview along with being able to "button on" (RAF speak) other short range land based RADAR's (Civilian and Military) from here and abroad into the system. We have in the past tried our own intergrated system called "Linesman" which was the first computerised system unfortunatly the computer's could not "talk" to each other, the reason being was that the project was so big the one computer company could not install the whole system and it was Sub contracted to other's with dire result's and eventual scrapping. It was a bit like the present much vaunted National Health GB wide Computer system, unfortunatly a computer installed at Newcastle Freeman's hospital cannot "talk" directly to a computer in a North Yorkshire hospital because the contract's were given to different companies by the local health board's and the hospitals end up having to fax any info. Costly madness at it's best unfortunatly. I am not "knocking" GB I live here, however, we have dropped some almightly and costly clanger's which we can ill afford, but possibly the American's can.

 

Why do I get the feeling that a lot of people including some site members are going to be upset if the new carriers (now well under construction) are a huge success and so revolutionary in design that every country who operates carriers want one.
The two island plan may be different but what if it is a worldbeater, just like the steam catapult, the angled flight deck, the all steel flight deck and many other new ideas brought about by the Royal Navy and British ship builders.
Why dont the Nay Sayers stay in the shed until its up and running and proven. Unless of course you are hidden ship designers and have a great insite into these ships which you are willing to share with members not so skilled in aircraft carriers, their construction, design and operation.

Don

 

My sentiments exactly Don. We all know design cock ups and stupid mistakes have been made, and they will again no doubt but why not wait to see IF it goes wrong, not second guess with little evidence either way. First the Type 45's got it, and continue to get it regardless of the fact that they still are not the finished product, they are late, yes can't argue with that but then they are not going anywhere nasty soon. Just because its not on them now, doesn't mean it never will be. Now its the carriers getting the stick, even though they have not even been launched. They may be crap! but they might not! Oh not forgetting the Wave's and Bays, we even end up justifying the stuff that does work! We also seem to be under the impression that if its US, it must be the best as well and thats just not the case. They too have their success stories, nobody can deny that, but they also have a lot of serious issues with kit, Arleigh Burkes with a serious hull weakness, San Antonio's which entered service in a very poor state, F-15 fighters which in there advancing years have literally fallen apart in mid air....and so on and so on.

 

Well opinion on SN isn't proof or reasurrance that something will or wont work
A lot of the reasons stated above are all availiable on various forums and articles, a 5 minute Google search, and then looking on the better sites will give the only answers that are around at the moment, the official press releases etc. Because its a new idea, the only people in a better position to answer are the guys who actually designed it.... so unless one of them is a member and is free to divulge details we just wont know until they are in service.

 

... we just wont know until they are in service.

We should all hope to live that long. (Jester)

 

Well I still think only when I see one in the Solent, will I believe they actually exist!

 

Interested to read that the great man himself Capt Eric "Winkle" Brown apparently was consulted about their design, his knowlege and exploit's are legendary with the record of having flown the most type's of aircraft in the World, by anyone. Unfortunatly he no longer give's his talk's which were a joy to listen to ( a really nice chap with it). He is GB foremost Naval Aviator and the first to land a jet fighter on a Carrier (Vampire), thing's have moved on since then but I am sure his experience's will be of benefit with the design of new build's.