|
|
|
Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF)
Queen Elizabeth Class
Part 3

Introduction: The CVF Project
The "Future Aircraft Carrier" (CVF) project forms the core
element - although
far from the most expensive - of the MOD's Carrier Strike
Programme. The other main elements being the Joint
Combat Aircraft, the Maritime Airborne
Surveillance and Control platform and Military Afloat Reach
Sustainability (MARS) support ships.
The requirement for CVF stems directly from the 1998
Strategic Defence Review by the then new Labour government. This policy
was re-endorsed in the New Chapter work published in 2002 and then again
by the Defence White Paper in December 2003. A CVF, with its
embarked air group, will provide the aviation means for excursionary warfare in
support of the land campaign from the sea, avoiding the need for
concrete runways and permission for overflights - i.e. the UK can
intervene at a posed threat at a time of its choice. This
national capability for ships with embarked aircraft and support
equipment is known collectively as ‘carrier strike’.
The Future Aircraft Carrier project - also occasionally referred to as the
"Carrier
Vessel for the Future" project - is expected to
deliver to the Royal Navy two new aircraft carriers - HMS Queen Elizabeth and
HMS Prince of Wales as replacements for the
three small (20,000 tonnes) carriers of the Invincible class. At
about
65,000 tonnes full load and 920ft long, the new carriers will in terms of
both dimensions and tonnage be the largest warships ever to enter
service with the Royal Navy.

|
Nomenclature Note:
Under the standard NATO warship
classification system (largely derived from the USN), CV is the basic
abbreviation for aircraft carrier.
The "CVF" Project began as CVSG(R) - a
Replacement aircraft carrier (CV), Support, Guided
missile - i.e. a replacement for the Invincible-class.
In 1997-8 CVSG(R) was changed to the
handier term of Future Aircraft Carrier, or CV(F). By 1999 the
brackets were often being dropped, leaving CVF.
In late 2005 the expression "Carrier,
Vehicular, Future" began to be used by the MOD - apparently because of a
perceived need to have CVF be a direct one-to-one abbreviation of words.
In 2006 the term "Carrier Vessel for the
Future" also appeared. This seems to link to American
phrasing, for example in regards to the carrier variant (CV) of the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter.
|
In January 2003 BAE Systems was selected as the
preferred prime contractor for the CVF project, but using a Thales UK
developed design concept, and the two companies formed the joint Future
Carrier Alliance to build the ships. Subsequently the project
suffered badly from disputes regarding responsibilities, cost and
timescales, and even the basic design features such as the ships
displacement and dimensions have been subject to frequent significant
changes.
The
first part of what had become a two stage Main Gate approval process was
announced in December 2005 - with £300 million to be spent to completing
the detailed design for CVF.
A £3.8 "main investment" decision to actually order and
build the ships (stage two of the Main Gate) was announced on 25 July
2007. The target dates for the ships to enter service are 2014 and
2016.
Separately, France plans to build a tailored variant of CVF as the second aircraft
carrier (porte-avions No.2, PA2) for the Marine Nationale (French Navy), a
companion to its existing existing nuclear powered aircraft carrier
FNS Charles de Gaulle. On 24th January 2006,
the UK and France agreed to co-operate to create a Common Baseline
Design, based on the CVF Delta design to meet France’s requirements for
an additional carrier. Significant savings are expected to result
from the UK and France sharing the detailed design costs, and some joint
procurements of equipment.
Project Origins
In the mid-1990's it was expected that the Royal Navy's (RN's)
three Invincible-class of
small aircraft carriers would decommission between about 2010 and 2015 -
after 30 years years of service.
|

Boeing JSF's launch from a CVS in this 1996 artists impression |
Preliminary studies in to a possible replacement started as early as 1994. Early
thinking generally assumed three new small (20,000 tonnes) carriers,
although a wide variety of alternatives were considered, ranging from new build
ships of various sizes and sophistication, through to rebuilding of the
existing Invincible-class, to merchant ship conversions, and even the purchase of old US
Navy carriers.
in 1995 BAe-SEMA studied a 30-year ship life-extension
programme for the Invincible-class. They found that a SLEP was
technically risky on account of existing hull fatigue and the problems
of inserting an additional hull section to meet the need to increase
aircraft capacity. It was
found that the the hull could be cut safely at one point only, directly
in front of the bridge, and inserting a new 80ft hull section would
increase aircraft capacity by just four. Even when stretched, the CVS's
comparatively narrow beam and constricted hangar layout would continue
to pose operational problems and, moreover, and could not provide the
dramatic increase in air wing capacity offered by the larger new-build
aircraft carriers. It was concluded that a "SLEP and Stretch" was
disproportionately expensive given the limited capability improvement
conferred by the modifications.

A
1997 concept for a new 30,000 tonnes aircraft carrier
The
eventual decision to replace the three Invincible-class
aircraft carriers with two much larger Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF)
vessels by 2015 was perhaps the
single most important outcome of the UK government's 1998 Strategic
Defence Review (SDR). The SDR had found that
the ability to deploy offensive airpower would be central to future
force projection operations. However, it also noted that the UK
couldn't be certain that there will always be access to suitable
airbases. Successive operations in the Gulf, Bosnia and Kosovo had
demonstrated that aircraft carriers could provide valuable flexibility, as
well as offering a coercive presence which contributes to conflict
prevention and forestalls the need for war. The current Invincible-class
aircraft carriers were designed for Cold War antisubmarine warfare
operations in the North Atlantic. However, the limited size of
their air groups meant that they were now less able to fulfil the
increasingly challenging security demands facing the UK around the
world. There was thus a clear need for larger vessels, each
of which would be capable of carrying and operating a larger and more
powerful carrier air group, if the costs could be contained within
affordable limits. The formal requirement - ST(S) 7068 - was
subsequently approved (called "Initial Gate") at the end of 1998.
However, despite the SDR decision to build new carriers,
the MoD tried to pre-empt any
opposition to the CVF project (not least from the Treasury) by revisiting the lowest cost
alternative - a refit option of the existing Invincible's with no hull
plug "stretch".
In early 1999 an invitation to tender for a Further Special Refit (FSR)
study contract was issued to consider the
feasibility of extending the service life of two of the three existing
Invincible class CVS's by 10 years, i.e. the required in-service date
for their replacements would change from 2012 to 2022. The FSR feasibility study addressed
various issues including the costs of a life-extension refit; the
operational costs of the converted vessels; adaptation costs to enable
the ships to operate JSF-class aircraft; and an appropriate refit
programme. The work was completed before CVF
Initial Gate in November. Although its conclusions were never published, the FSR
study apparently found that the CVS's could not be cost-effectively
altered to safely operate the STOVL variant of the Joint
Strike Fighter which was now firmly pencilled in as the RN's Future Carrier
Borne Aircraft, partly because they were simply too small for any
plane much larger than the Harrier. The FSR
approach would therefore only produce short-terms savings while
resulting in a considerable loss
of capability compared with CVF, the approach was
thus played down by officials and industry.
Back to top
|< <
Part 3 >
>|
|