Progress on Royal Navy CVF project; program moves to assessment phase

Sea Power, Dec 2000 by Preston, Anthony

The two consortia bidding for prime contractorship on the U.K. Royal Navy's Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) project are now well into the assessment stage. One of the teams is led by Thomson-CSF and includes Lockheed Martin; the other team is led by BAE Systems.

The CVF project is the "flagship" program of the new Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) and a major "Smart Procurement" initiative. Two contracts for the assessment phase were awarded to the potential prime contractors. Downselection is expected before the Main Gate in 2003. Ship procurement will be linked to the Future Carrierborne Aircraft (FCBA), for which the front-runner is the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

The key functional requirements imposed by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) relate to the needs for a sortie-- generation profile, battlespace integration, and ship speed sufficient to ensure both rapid deployability and the conduct of air operations. Nonfunctional requirements include availability, survivability, adaptability, enough stowage space for both ship and aircraft fuel, and adequate stores.

The DPA already has received expressions of interest from 22 companies in its quest to build a technology demonstrator for an electromagnetic catapult (EMCAT). The plan here is to establish the criteria needed to determine if the CVFs should be designed for assisted takeoff.

The CVF project team is examining a range of carrier designs produced by BAE Systems and Thomson-CSF and their respective partners during the assessment phase. It has long been recognized that the options include short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL), short takeoff but assisted recovery (STOBAR), and conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL). The CTOL design would require a catapult launching system, particularly for the fixed-wing airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft that may replace the current AEW Sea King helicopters. An EMCAT system also might be needed to launch tactical unmanned air vehicles (TUAVs).

The problem facing designers is that the conventional steam catapult is not compatible with the electric-drive system planned for the CVF. An auxiliary steam plant with considerable output therefore would be required. Hence the interest in EMCAT, which would use the electrical power generated by the ship's integrated power plant.

However, such a system would not be without its drawbacks. Some critics say that the electromagnetic field generated by an EMCAT might set off munitions already loaded on aircraft and/or being brought up from magazines. An aircraft carrier that has to stop catapult launches while aircraft are on the flight deck would be virtually useless, of course.

On the other hand, if the alleged risk of electromagnetic interference with ordnance turns out to be exaggerated, EMCAT would offer a hedge against cancellation of the JSF, because an EMCAT CVF could operate a range of fixed-wing aircraft. The choice here would be limited, though, to: (a) the French Rafale-M; (b) the latest version of the FIA-18 Super Hornet; or (c) a navalized variant of the Typhoon Eurofighter.

BAE Systems claims that adoption of the naval Eurofighter (which does not yet exist) would add about 10,000 tons to the ship's displacement; the Thomson-CSF team claims on the other hand that the ship can be designed with enough flexibility to operate whatever aircraft the MOD finally selects.

For the moment CVF still remains something of an enigma, if only because the computer-generated images now available provide few insights about the MOD's latest thinking. What is now taken for granted is that displacement will be at least 40,000 tons, and that the air group will include up to 50 airplanes. Informed opinion suggests that a 50,000-ton ship is more likely, but whether this is a light displacement or full load figure is deliberately kept vague. The British Treasury has a well-known habit of producing seemingly firm cost-per-ton figures by dividing the cost by the displacement, only to see the price escalate later when other cost parameters are included.

The potential opposition of the Royal Air Force is another factor that cannot be ignored. Some RAF leaders have accepted the CVF concept very grudgingly. Any sharp rise in displacement, therefore, could spark off another sterile debate on the merits of landbased vs. sea-based air power.

Antony Preston, a London-based naval analyst and broadcaster, is cofounder of the international newsletter NAVINT.