Slashdot Mirror

Defense Industry Daily has a trio of articles that seem relevant to this discussion. One covers the British CVF future carrier design, background, and relevant contracts. The second covers the related French PA2 carrier project, which will now be a CVF design collaboration. The third covers, not DD(X), but the USA's CVN-21 carriers that will replace the Nimitz Class beginning around 2013 - AND how the manpower savings work out. When you see that, some of the concerns expressed here can be put to bed (but some remain valid). All come with useful diagrams, photos, etc.

• Design & Preparations Continue for Britain's New CVF Future Carrier (updated)
  
• France Steaming Ahead on PA2/CVF Carrier Project
  
• Design & Preparations Continue for the USA's New CVN-21 Super-Carrier (updated). What makes it different from the Nimitz Class?
  
• Costing the CVN-21: A DID Primer. Explains the CVN-21's real per-ship costs, the projected sources of $5 billion in lifetime operational savings, and where the key risks/ sensitivities are.

The US conversion of 4 Ohio Class SSBN (nuclear missile subs) to Special Forces and steath strike missions gives the US Navy a platform with the same potential relevance and situation-affecting punch as a carrier, albeit for different kinds of missions. Aircraft carriers remain exremely valuable in many, many war scenarios, however - and more than a few peacetime ones as well. For instance, the US carriers' ability to distill very large quantities of fresh water from the sea (it's good to have a nuclear plant on board) was very helpful in the tsunami's aftermath. For versatility and usefulness over a wide range of scenarios, there are still no real substitutes for aircraft carriers. People predict their demise - but then, they've been doing that to the tank for almost 40 years now, and Iraq showed that there is still no substitute for a tank. Same for the carriers. Personally, gotta say that I'm not so hugely positive about the DD(X), myself. Here's a DID article covering DD(X), with a bunch of links that you may find informative.

Defense Industry Daily has a trio of articles that seem relevant to this discussion. One covers the British CVF future carrier design, background, and relevant contracts. The second covers the related French PA2 carrier project, which will now be a CVF design collaboration. The third covers, not DD(X), but the USA's CVN-21 carriers that will replace the Nimitz Class beginning around 2013 - AND how the manpower savings work out. When you see that, some of the concerns expressed here can be put to bed (but some remain valid). All come with useful diagrams, photos, etc.

• Design & Preparations Continue for Britain's New CVF Future Carrier (updated)
  
• France Steaming Ahead on PA2/CVF Carrier Project
  
• Design & Preparations Continue for the USA's New CVN-21 Super-Carrier (updated). What makes it different from the Nimitz Class?
  
• Costing the CVN-21: A DID Primer. Explains the CVN-21's real per-ship costs, the projected sources of $5 billion in lifetime operational savings, and where the key risks/ sensitivities are.

The US conversion of 4 Ohio Class SSBN (nuclear missile subs) to Special Forces and steath strike missions gives the US Navy a platform with the same potential relevance and situation-affecting punch as a carrier, albeit for different kinds of missions. Aircraft carriers remain exremely valuable in many, many war scenarios, however - and more than a few peacetime ones as well. For instance, the US carriers' ability to distill very large quantities of fresh water from the sea (it's good to have a nuclear plant on board) was very helpful in the tsunami's aftermath. For versatility and usefulness over a wide range of scenarios, there are still no real substitutes for aircraft carriers. People predict their demise - but then, they've been doing that to the tank for almost 40 years now, and Iraq showed that there is still no substitute for a tank. Same for the carriers. Personally, gotta say that I'm not so hugely positive about the DD(X), myself. Here's a DID article covering DD(X), with a bunch of links that you may find informative.

Defense Industry Daily has a trio of articles that seem relevant to this discussion. One covers the British CVF future carrier design, background, and relevant contracts. The second covers the related French PA2 carrier project, which will now be a CVF design collaboration. The third covers, not DD(X), but the USA's CVN-21 carriers that will replace the Nimitz Class beginning around 2013 - AND how the manpower savings work out. When you see that, some of the concerns expressed here can be put to bed (but some remain valid). All come with useful diagrams, photos, etc.

• Design & Preparations Continue for Britain's New CVF Future Carrier (updated)
  
• France Steaming Ahead on PA2/CVF Carrier Project
  
• Design & Preparations Continue for the USA's New CVN-21 Super-Carrier (updated). What makes it different from the Nimitz Class?
  
• Costing the CVN-21: A DID Primer. Explains the CVN-21's real per-ship costs, the projected sources of $5 billion in lifetime operational savings, and where the key risks/ sensitivities are.

The US conversion of 4 Ohio Class SSBN (nuclear missile subs) to Special Forces and steath strike missions gives the US Navy a platform with the same potential relevance and situation-affecting punch as a carrier, albeit for different kinds of missions. Aircraft carriers remain exremely valuable in many, many war scenarios, however - and more than a few peacetime ones as well. For instance, the US carriers' ability to distill very large quantities of fresh water from the sea (it's good to have a nuclear plant on board) was very helpful in the tsunami's aftermath. For versatility and usefulness over a wide range of scenarios, there are still no real substitutes for aircraft carriers. People predict their demise - but then, they've been doing that to the tank for almost 40 years now, and Iraq showed that there is still no substitute for a tank. Same for the carriers. Personally, gotta say that I'm not so hugely positive about the DD(X), myself. Here's a DID article covering DD(X), with a bunch of links that you may find informative.

Defense Industry Daily has a trio of articles that seem relevant to this discussion. One covers the British CVF future carrier design, background, and relevant contracts. The second covers the related French PA2 carrier project, which will now be a CVF design collaboration. The third covers, not DD(X), but the USA's CVN-21 carriers that will replace the Nimitz Class beginning around 2013 - AND how the manpower savings work out. When you see that, some of the concerns expressed here can be put to bed (but some remain valid). All come with useful diagrams, photos, etc.

• Design & Preparations Continue for Britain's New CVF Future Carrier (updated)
  
• France Steaming Ahead on PA2/CVF Carrier Project
  
• Design & Preparations Continue for the USA's New CVN-21 Super-Carrier (updated). What makes it different from the Nimitz Class?
  
• Costing the CVN-21: A DID Primer. Explains the CVN-21's real per-ship costs, the projected sources of $5 billion in lifetime operational savings, and where the key risks/ sensitivities are.

The US conversion of 4 Ohio Class SSBN (nuclear missile subs) to Special Forces and steath strike missions gives the US Navy a platform with the same potential relevance and situation-affecting punch as a carrier, albeit for different kinds of missions. Aircraft carriers remain exremely valuable in many, many war scenarios, however - and more than a few peacetime ones as well. For instance, the US carriers' ability to distill very large quantities of fresh water from the sea (it's good to have a nuclear plant on board) was very helpful in the tsunami's aftermath. For versatility and usefulness over a wide range of scenarios, there are still no real substitutes for aircraft carriers. People predict their demise - but then, they've been doing that to the tank for almost 40 years now, and Iraq showed that there is still no substitute for a tank. Same for the carriers. Personally, gotta say that I'm not so hugely positive about the DD(X), myself. Here's a DID article covering DD(X), with a bunch of links that you may find informative.

Defense Industry Daily has a trio of articles that seem relevant to this discussion. One covers the British CVF future carrier design, background, and relevant contracts. The second covers the related French PA2 carrier project, which will now be a CVF design collaboration. The third covers, not DD(X), but the USA's CVN-21 carriers that will replace the Nimitz Class beginning around 2013 - AND how the manpower savings work out. When you see that, some of the concerns expressed here can be put to bed (but some remain valid). All come with useful diagrams, photos, etc.

• Design & Preparations Continue for Britain's New CVF Future Carrier (updated)
  
• France Steaming Ahead on PA2/CVF Carrier Project
  
• Design & Preparations Continue for the USA's New CVN-21 Super-Carrier (updated). What makes it different from the Nimitz Class?
  
• Costing the CVN-21: A DID Primer. Explains the CVN-21's real per-ship costs, the projected sources of $5 billion in lifetime operational savings, and where the key risks/ sensitivities are.

The US conversion of 4 Ohio Class SSBN (nuclear missile subs) to Special Forces and steath strike missions gives the US Navy a platform with the same potential relevance and situation-affecting punch as a carrier, albeit for different kinds of missions. Aircraft carriers remain exremely valuable in many, many war scenarios, however - and more than a few peacetime ones as well. For instance, the US carriers' ability to distill very large quantities of fresh water from the sea (it's good to have a nuclear plant on board) was very helpful in the tsunami's aftermath. For versatility and usefulness over a wide range of scenarios, there are still no real substitutes for aircraft carriers. People predict their demise - but then, they've been doing that to the tank for almost 40 years now, and Iraq showed that there is still no substitute for a tank. Same for the carriers. Personally, gotta say that I'm not so hugely positive about the DD(X), myself. Here's a DID article covering DD(X), with a bunch of links that you may find informative.

Defense Industry Daily has a trio of articles that seem relevant to this discussion. One covers the British CVF future carrier design, background, and relevant contracts. The second covers the related French PA2 carrier project, which will now be a CVF design collaboration. The third covers, not DD(X), but the USA's CVN-21 carriers that will replace the Nimitz Class beginning around 2013 - AND how the manpower savings work out. When you see that, some of the concerns expressed here can be put to bed (but some remain valid). All come with useful diagrams, photos, etc. * Design & Preparations Continue for Britain's New CVF Future Carrier (updated) http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/design -preparations-continue-for-britains-new-cvf-future -carrier-updated/index.php * France Steaming Ahead on PA2/CVF Carrier Project http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/france -steaming-ahead-on-pa2/cvf-carrier-project/index.p hp * Design & Preparations Continue for the USA's New CVN-21 Super-Carrier (updated). What makes it different from the Nimitz Class? http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/11/design -preparations-continue-for-the-usas-new-cvn21-supe rcarrier-updated/index.php * Costing the CVN-21: A DID Primer. Explains the CVN-21's real per-ship costs, the projected sources of $5 billion in lifetime operational savings, and where the key risks/ sensitivities are. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/costin g-the-cvn21-a-did-primer/index.php

Defense Industry Daily has a trio of articles that seem relevant to this discussion. One covers the British CVF future carrier design, background, and relevant contracts. The second covers the related French PA2 carrier project, which will now be a CVF design collaboration. The third covers, not DD(X), but the USA's CVN-21 carriers that will replace the Nimitz Class beginning around 2013 - AND how the manpower savings work out. When you see that, some of the concerns expressed here can be put to bed (but some remain valid). All come with useful diagrams, photos, etc. * Design & Preparations Continue for Britain's New CVF Future Carrier (updated) http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/design -preparations-continue-for-britains-new-cvf-future -carrier-updated/index.php * France Steaming Ahead on PA2/CVF Carrier Project http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/france -steaming-ahead-on-pa2/cvf-carrier-project/index.p hp * Design & Preparations Continue for the USA's New CVN-21 Super-Carrier (updated). What makes it different from the Nimitz Class? http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/11/design -preparations-continue-for-the-usas-new-cvn21-supe rcarrier-updated/index.php * Costing the CVN-21: A DID Primer. Explains the CVN-21's real per-ship costs, the projected sources of $5 billion in lifetime operational savings, and where the key risks/ sensitivities are. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/costin g-the-cvn21-a-did-primer/index.php

Defense Industry Daily has a trio of articles that seem relevant to this discussion. One covers the British CVF future carrier design, background, and relevant contracts. The second covers the related French PA2 carrier project, which will now be a CVF design collaboration. The third covers, not DD(X), but the USA's CVN-21 carriers that will replace the Nimitz Class beginning around 2013 - AND how the manpower savings work out. When you see that, some of the concerns expressed here can be put to bed (but some remain valid). All come with useful diagrams, photos, etc. * Design & Preparations Continue for Britain's New CVF Future Carrier (updated) http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/design -preparations-continue-for-britains-new-cvf-future -carrier-updated/index.php * France Steaming Ahead on PA2/CVF Carrier Project http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/france -steaming-ahead-on-pa2/cvf-carrier-project/index.p hp * Design & Preparations Continue for the USA's New CVN-21 Super-Carrier (updated). What makes it different from the Nimitz Class? http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/11/design -preparations-continue-for-the-usas-new-cvn21-supe rcarrier-updated/index.php * Costing the CVN-21: A DID Primer. Explains the CVN-21's real per-ship costs, the projected sources of $5 billion in lifetime operational savings, and where the key risks/ sensitivities are. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/costin g-the-cvn21-a-did-primer/index.php

Defense Industry Daily has a trio of articles that seem relevant to this discussion. One covers the British CVF future carrier design, background, and relevant contracts. The second covers the related French PA2 carrier project, which will now be a CVF design collaboration. The third covers, not DD(X), but the USA's CVN-21 carriers that will replace the Nimitz Class beginning around 2013 - AND how the manpower savings work out. When you see that, some of the concerns expressed here can be put to bed (but some remain valid). All come with useful diagrams, photos, etc. * Design & Preparations Continue for Britain's New CVF Future Carrier (updated) http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/design -preparations-continue-for-britains-new-cvf-future -carrier-updated/index.php * France Steaming Ahead on PA2/CVF Carrier Project http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/france -steaming-ahead-on-pa2/cvf-carrier-project/index.p hp * Design & Preparations Continue for the USA's New CVN-21 Super-Carrier (updated). What makes it different from the Nimitz Class? http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/11/design -preparations-continue-for-the-usas-new-cvn21-supe rcarrier-updated/index.php * Costing the CVN-21: A DID Primer. Explains the CVN-21's real per-ship costs, the projected sources of $5 billion in lifetime operational savings, and where the key risks/ sensitivities are. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/costin g-the-cvn21-a-did-primer/index.php

Some more detailed information about the project can be found here: the British part (aka CVF) and the French part (aka PA2).

Some more detailed information about the project can be found here: the British part (aka CVF) and the French part (aka PA2).

Since it doesn't seem to have been explicitly mentioned yet, I think it's important to point out that one of (if not the biggest) American concern is that technology given to the Brits will, because of the various partnerships in the defense industry, end up spread throughout the EU, possibly ultimately in China (if the embargo is ever lifted, or maybe even without that). Here are some relevant links: an admittidly biased blog, and a more objective defense industry news site.

But is it something like project Walrus?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/10/us-cbo -gives-ok-to-hula-airships-for-airlift/index.php#m ore

As the original post pointed out, most of the nuclear and conventional steam powered ships in the surface Navy have been decomissioned, and their replacements are powered by gas turbine engines. Gas turbine engines run off of JP-5, the same aviation fuel used by the Navy (it's the the Air Force and the Army that use JP-8). So a carrier should definitely be able to refuel a gas turbine ship if required in an emergency.

From an story in Defense Industry Daily [defenseindustrydaily.com], mentioned on slashdot a few days ago:
 
  SpaceX initially intended to follow its first vehicle development, Falcon 1, with the intermediate class Falcon 5 launch vehicle. However, in response to customer requirements for low cost enhanced launch capability, SpaceX accelerated development of an EELV-class vehicle, upgrading Falcon 5 to Falcon 9. SpaceX has sold a Falcon 9 launch to a US government customer, and still plans to make Falcon 5 available in late 2007. Their efforts are worth watching, and could affect the military satellite launch market.
 
With up to a 17 ft (5.2 m) diameter fairing, Falcon 9 is capable of launching approximately 21,000 lbs (9,500 kg) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in its medium configuration and 55,000 lbs (25,000 kg) to LEO in its heavy configuration, a lift capacity greater than any other launch vehicle. In the medium configuration, Falcon 9 is priced at $27 million per flight with a 12 ft (3.6 m) fairing and $35 million with a 17 ft fairing. Prices include all launch range and third party insurance costs, and SpaceX claims that this makes Falcon 9 the most cost efficient vehicle in its class worldwide.
 
So, Boeing's Delta IV Heavy lifts 25,000 kg for $254 million. The SpaceX Falcon 9 S9 will be able to lift the same amount for a starting price of $78 million. Wow.
 
Since it's based on the Falcon 5, the Falcon 9 will probably also be man-rated.
 
From here [spaceref.com]:
 
  A recent study performed by the Futron Corporation, concluded that Falcon 5 was superior in design reliability to other vehicles in its class, due to engine redundancy. Falcon 9, by extension, has even higher reliability with increased propulsion redundancy.
 
Falcon 5 and Falcon 9 will be the world's first launch vehicles where all stages are designed for reuse. The Falcon 1 has a reusable first stage, but an expendable upper stage. Reuse is not factored into launch prices. When the economics of stage recovery and checkout are fully understood, SpaceX will make further reductions in launch prices.
 
Meanwhile, in the parent article, NASA has announced that it will be spending $5.5 billion on developing the Crew Exploration Vehicle, $4.5 billion on the Crew Launch Vehicle, and between $5 and $10 billion on a new heavy-lift vehicle. Who wants to bet that by the time NASA's new rockets are ready, SpaceX will already have a similar rocket available at a tiny fraction of the price?
 
Granted, SpaceX still needs to pull off a successful launch of the Falcon I, scheduled for later this year. I wish them the best of luck.

From an story in Defense Industry Daily, mentioned on slashdot a few days ago:

SpaceX initially intended to follow its first vehicle development, Falcon 1, with the intermediate class Falcon 5 launch vehicle. However, in response to customer requirements for low cost enhanced launch capability, SpaceX accelerated development of an EELV-class vehicle, upgrading Falcon 5 to Falcon 9. SpaceX has sold a Falcon 9 launch to a US government customer, and still plans to make Falcon 5 available in late 2007. Their efforts are worth watching, and could affect the military satellite launch market.

With up to a 17 ft (5.2 m) diameter fairing, Falcon 9 is capable of launching approximately 21,000 lbs (9,500 kg) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in its medium configuration and 55,000 lbs (25,000 kg) to LEO in its heavy configuration, a lift capacity greater than any other launch vehicle. In the medium configuration, Falcon 9 is priced at $27 million per flight with a 12 ft (3.6 m) fairing and $35 million with a 17 ft fairing. Prices include all launch range and third party insurance costs, and SpaceX claims that this makes Falcon 9 the most cost efficient vehicle in its class worldwide.

So, Boeing's Delta IV Heavy lifts 25,000 kg for $254 million. The SpaceX Falcon 9 S9 will be able to lift the same amount for a starting price of $78 million. Wow.

Since it's based on the Falcon 5, the Falcon 9 will probably also be man-rated.

From here:

A recent study performed by the Futron Corporation, concluded that Falcon 5 was superior in design reliability to other vehicles in its class, due to engine redundancy. Falcon 9, by extension, has even higher reliability with increased propulsion redundancy.

Falcon 5 and Falcon 9 will be the world's first launch vehicles where all stages are designed for reuse. The Falcon 1 has a reusable first stage, but an expendable upper stage. Reuse is not factored into launch prices. When the economics of stage recovery and checkout are fully understood, SpaceX will make further reductions in launch prices.

Meanwhile, in the parent article, NASA has announced that it will be spending $5.5 billion on developing the Crew Exploration Vehicle, $4.5 billion on the Crew Launch Vehicle, and between $5 and $10 billion on a new heavy-lift vehicle. Who wants to bet that by the time NASA's new rockets are ready, SpaceX will already have a similar rocket available at a tiny fraction of the price?

Granted, SpaceX still needs to pull off a successful launch of the Falcon I, scheduled for later this year. I wish them the best of luck.

Odd, the exact terms of the contract didn't seem to designate the entire $100M for SpaceX, as they were actually one of two firms named in the contract - Orbital Sciences Corp. with its Raptor I and Raptor II was the other. Defense Industry Daily has the exact wording: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/04/100m-f or-small-spacelift-vehicles-and-support/index.php