Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: RN Carrier U Turn  (Read 9804 times)

justboatonic

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,515
  • Location: Thornton Cleveleys
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2012, 10:34:05 pm »

Does it really matter!? The carriers or should that be carrier, wont have any UK forces planes on the damn thing(s) for a number of years anyway!

Yet another cock up by HMG to compound many, many other cock ups.
Logged

dodes

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 738
  • Location: Hampshire
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2012, 08:08:59 pm »

Royal Naval gas turbines run on high grade diesel fuel, I know this for when I used to organise fuel barges for them, I remember the Arrow took on 250 ton in France, but on arrival in Devonport, it was all offloaded to sullage because it had a green dye in it, AVCAT is a higher grade fuel with it's own problems, But what annoys me is the lack of confidence and knowledge base in this country that we cannot afford to lead in new tech cats, this country once lead the world on innovative ideas and design with past carriers, not including the very small cvh's.
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,893
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #27 on: April 23, 2012, 08:55:48 pm »

Dodes, couldn't agree with you more.
All this coming so soon after a "government Spokesperson" declared that the UK "had no provenance in building tankers".
The mind has ceased to boggle. BY.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

john s 2

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,184
  • Location: Southend on Sea Essex
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #28 on: April 23, 2012, 09:16:41 pm »

High grade Diesal fuel must cost a lot more than bunker fuel. Can anyone confirm that the piston used in a catapult luanch was one off use? Being jettisoned after use? I was told these cost about 3000 each. Probably more now. Would the new system have reusable parts? Thamks John.
Logged

CF-FZG

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 235
  • Location: Oxfordshire
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2012, 09:24:02 pm »

To be honest guys, I've been involved with re-fuelling "gas-turbine" engined ships of many nationalities. Never once did we pump across 3,000 tonnes of "avcat" (I seem to recall that the Yanks call it JP4). The only Avcat we sent over was to fuel the aircraft....perhaps 500 cubes at a time. The "Ark", "Impossible" and "Indefensible" were all fuelled with diesel. Exactly the same stuff as you put in your (diesel) car. Sometimes....when needs must....the bottom dregs of the Avcat tanks would be mixed in with the diesel. Much better than the other way about. Similarly, when we had ships using FFO (heavy Furnace Fuel Oil), the Diesel could be used to sort of clean the pipes, mixing it with the FFO. Benefits all round. BY.

Thanks for clearing my 'error' up concerning the fuel used by marine turbines, I'm used to putting Jet-A1 through turbines hence my comment.

JP5 is the NATO code for AVCAT - it's a high flashpoint jet fuel used primarily by Navies and is yellow in colour, (easier to see spillages on a deck), whereas JP4 is a gasoline/kerosene blend with a very low flashpoint and is a 'very dirty' burning fuel - hence the 'coal smoke' trails you see coming out of US aircraft in films.

But what annoys me is the lack of confidence and knowledge base in this country that we cannot afford to lead in new tech cats,

Dodes, the tech works, it's been demonstrated in a ground based installation - the problem is by being 'the lead' on any new tech that's introduced, we'd be responsible for all installation problems and putting them right - a serious amount of cash that we don't have.  Now if the NextGen US carriers weren't so far behind us, it wouldn't be so much of a problem due to 'risk sharing', that's why (as far as I understand the current situation is) they will be 'fitted for, not with' the new cats, then when they're ready, it will be a simpler installation that trying to refit them.


Mark.
Logged
Mark.

Tonka Toys - Big boys toys :)

CF-FZG

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 235
  • Location: Oxfordshire
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #30 on: April 23, 2012, 09:27:36 pm »

High grade Diesal fuel must cost a lot more than bunker fuel. Can anyone confirm that the piston used in a catapult luanch was one off use? Being jettisoned after use? I was told these cost about 3000 each. Probably more now. Would the new system have reusable parts? Thamks John.

John, the pistons were retained in the tube, the strops were jettisoned at first, but later on were 'caught' by the ship after launch, not sure if it was a shortage of them or the cost {:-{

As far as the bits you see on deck, there isn't really any visible difference between a steam cat and a rail gun.



Mark.
Logged
Mark.

Tonka Toys - Big boys toys :)

john s 2

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,184
  • Location: Southend on Sea Essex
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #31 on: April 23, 2012, 09:33:35 pm »

Once again, thanks Mark.What i was told was wrong. John.
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,893
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #32 on: April 24, 2012, 05:52:16 pm »

Watching a US carrier launching things like Vigilantes and Phantoms from no more than 150ft away (during a RAS) I must admit it was a very noisy but very impressive spectacle. In those days (work it out for yourself by the aircraft types) the USN used a simple wire strop that simply dropped into the sea after launch. Cheap'n'cheerful and it worked. BY.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

pugwash

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,845
  • Location: recently left Amble and now in the wet Northumberland hills
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #33 on: April 24, 2012, 06:44:39 pm »

Bryan you used to drive the seagoing filling stations - something called avtur seems to ring a bell - used to fuel the Wasp helicopter
 in the late 60s, or is my mind playing tricks (again)

Geoff
Logged
Failing to prepare means preparing to fail.

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,965
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #34 on: April 24, 2012, 07:37:14 pm »

You can see the strop being dropped in this illustration of the Triang Minic Ships Naval Boxed Set - http://www.triangminicships.com/classic_edition/boxed_sets/rn_task_force_boxed_set.htm

I'm sure there was another illustration of a carrier launch in their catalogue which also showed the strop falling free. I distinctly remember reading somewhere at the time that these strops cost 7 each and felt quite shocked at the waste of money!

Colin
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,893
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #35 on: April 24, 2012, 09:04:01 pm »

Bryan you used to drive the seagoing filling stations - something called avtur seems to ring a bell - used to fuel the Wasp helicopter
 in the late 60s, or is my mind playing tricks (again)

Geoff
Avtur.....wow, that goes back a bit!
Not altogether happy about being called a nautical filling station though. The old adage "The Royal Navy Sails Courtesy Of The RFA" is really quite true. But as you well know, the role of the RFA has expanded far beyond what used to known as the "Grey Cap and Muffler Brigade".
"Avtur" was nasty stuff. More akin to nitro-glycerene than any recognizable fuel nowadays. Not so much for fuelling the Wasp...but I recall Whirlwinds using it.  Regards, Bryan.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,893
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #36 on: April 24, 2012, 09:07:50 pm »

You can see the strop being dropped in this illustration of the Triang Minic Ships Naval Boxed Set - http://www.triangminicships.com/classic_edition/boxed_sets/rn_task_force_boxed_set.htm

I'm sure there was another illustration of a carrier launch in their catalogue which also showed the strop falling free. I distinctly remember reading somewhere at the time that these strops cost 7 each and felt quite shocked at the waste of money!

Colin
Colin. These strops were only about 3ft long with an eye at each end. Very disposable. But I suppose that "quantity" soon mounts up. Still, cheap for purpose.. Bryan.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

raflaunches

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3,071
  • The Penguins are coming!!!
  • Location: Back in the UK, Kettering, Northants
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #37 on: April 24, 2012, 09:19:58 pm »

You can't beat the smell of Avtur, especially burnt Avtur! All you Raf and Navy ground crews know what I mean :-))
I thought the little gas turbine in the Wasp was designed to run on any thing flammable, even whiskey, that was the story I was told!
We still use Avtur in the Raf probably a little more refined but still just as lethal.
Nick B
Logged
Nick B

Help! The penguins have stolen my sanity, and my hot water bottle!

Illegitimi non carborundum!

BrianB6

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,036
  • I'm not sure if I can get up from here
  • Location: Melbourne
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #38 on: May 09, 2012, 11:49:49 pm »

Seen on the BBC news this morning:-
"The government has changed its mind over the type of fighter planes it is ordering for the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier, the BBC has learned.
David Cameron has signed off a decision to use the jump-jet variant of the US-built F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, as planned by the Labour government.
The coalition had wanted to switch to a variant using "catapults and traps" but costs are believed to have spiralled.
The government is expected to make the announcement on Thursday.
As part of its defence spending review in 2010, the government decided to "mothball" one of the two aircraft carriers ordered by Labour.
This followed a doubling of costs for the project."
More on the website.
Logged

dodes

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 738
  • Location: Hampshire
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #39 on: May 10, 2012, 08:36:15 am »

The mention of Ark Royal as a laid up carrier, I think slightly wrong, she was converted into a helicopter/commando carrier not so long ago, the talk within the RN was the Ocean was a unreliable failure and she would be replaced by Ark Royal, but events have overtaken this. Though I am surprised that one of the CVH's now that they have no real purpose was not used to trial a cat, I would not be surprised if the yanks where approached for this trial they would lend or give some carrier borne tomcats, now they are obsolete to them. But I think that one classs of aircraft is a bit silly as we have seen in the past, a mixture of aircraft types where always carried for different tasks. As for the Typhoon it is still a very long way off from being able to even replace the Tornado, it is now a very old tech plane which took too long to get airborne and is now outstripped by new tech planes on the scene now.
Logged

Bob K

  • Bob K
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,714
  • Location: Windsor
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #40 on: May 10, 2012, 09:20:19 am »

Sorry guys, but after reading that on BBC News I am really confused.  So, we are going back to using the jump jets - which no doubt will now incur massive additional costs as we cancelled on that project earlier.  Why will it cost a reported an extra Billion Pounds to design catapults and arresters that are either already in use by France and the USA, or at least should be able to be adapted from their designs, especially if we were using the same aircraft as France.

What I can't get my head round is why have such a huge carrier at all, neccessary for cat/trap take off and landing, when reverting to a more Harrier-like aircraft that can be launched and landed on much smaller ships such as the ones we just got rid of ?

The projected enter service date of 2020 may now be put off even longer. 
Logged
HMS Skirmisher (1905), HMS Amazon (1906), HMS K9 (1915), Type 212A (2002), HMS Polyphemus (1881), Descartes (1897), Iggle Piggle boat (CBBC), HMS Royal Marine (1943), HMS Marshall Soult, HMS Agincourt (1912)

Xtian29

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 511
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #41 on: May 10, 2012, 02:27:32 pm »

Hello

In French we are saying that this not weather vane this that rotates but the wind. Here with this carrier project : the wind is not rotating but the weather vane is turning like a wheel !

It's really impressive how your political people are managing this ! 

Don't be affraid, here we also have same political stupidy  O0

Xtian
Logged

Bob K

  • Bob K
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,714
  • Location: Windsor
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2012, 03:20:04 pm »

Hello Xtian:

France has a super aircraft carrier, the 'Charles de Gaulle' (R91).   It may be nearly 10 years before Britain has one like her.

Perhaps your new President may kindly loan us the plans of of the 'Charles de Gaulle' steam catapult ?
It is a shorter version of the one used in the US Nimitz class ships. 

Cheers !    Bob
Logged
HMS Skirmisher (1905), HMS Amazon (1906), HMS K9 (1915), Type 212A (2002), HMS Polyphemus (1881), Descartes (1897), Iggle Piggle boat (CBBC), HMS Royal Marine (1943), HMS Marshall Soult, HMS Agincourt (1912)

Xtian29

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 511
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #43 on: May 10, 2012, 06:15:08 pm »

Hum ... We can't loan the plan of the French carrier steam catapult as they are coming from US : Yep !   :embarrassed:

Logged

Netleyned

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,984
  • Location: Meridian Line, Mouth of the Humber
    • cleethorpes mba
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #44 on: May 10, 2012, 06:19:15 pm »

Excuse me
Why do we need a plan?

We invented it !

Ned
Logged
Smooth seas never made skilful sailors
Up Spirits  Stand fast the Holy Ghost.
http://www.cleethorpesmba.co.uk/

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,893
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #45 on: May 10, 2012, 06:21:52 pm »

I was under the impression that the new catapult was to be an electric/magnetic thing rather than an old tech "steam" object. But the US have found building one is more difficult than they thought. Hence the original (mistaken) notion that going back to steam power would be easier, quicker and cheaper. Then it transpired that somebody realised that a steam catapult needs steam, and that means having either a boiler or a nuclear plant (same thing in the long run)...and a Gas Turbine doesn't make steam.
Makes you wonder what some of these so-called whizz-kids actually learned at school.
As far as keeping the "Ark" and her siblings is concerned, while I agree that scrapping them and the Harrier fleet was (to put it mildly) a little precipitate....have you ever been into the hangar area of "Ark" etc? For a ship that looks so large on the outside, the hangar area is really quite small. Hence only carrying 12 Harriers...and that at a push. BY.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

Netleyned

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,984
  • Location: Meridian Line, Mouth of the Humber
    • cleethorpes mba
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #46 on: May 10, 2012, 06:29:46 pm »

That means 5 yank cabs

Ned
Logged
Smooth seas never made skilful sailors
Up Spirits  Stand fast the Holy Ghost.
http://www.cleethorpesmba.co.uk/

Shipmate60

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,480
  • You bark - I will bite!!!
  • Location: Fareham
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #47 on: May 10, 2012, 06:52:12 pm »

The new carriers were supposed to be fitted for but not with a new electro-magnetic catapult.
It requires a bit of development and there hadn't even been a decision taken as to use and recover the strops or just once only.

Bob
Logged
Officially a GOG.

Xtian29

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 511
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #48 on: May 10, 2012, 07:42:07 pm »

Poor British, excepted talking about it, you are far to have an operational carrier  {:-{
Logged

Liverbudgie

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,168
  • Model Boat Mayhem is the Best!
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #49 on: May 10, 2012, 08:08:11 pm »

That's as maybe, but when you have an occasional one in commission we will have two, more or less :kiss:

LB
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up