Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Ron5]

So we're stuck with the ramp

The main operator of the F35B doesn’t use a ramp at sea.[/quote

So? Are you saying the ramp has no benefit? I'm sure if the Wasps and the Americas were a little longer, they would have one too? Either way if you put a Cat on QE, it would be in the waist position, as her bow length puts the Blast deflector in the angled runway anyway, so leave the bow alone and save the cost of removing the ramp.

I’m saying that you don’t need a ramp to operate f35b from a ship in an operational configuration. There is benefits to having a ramp but theres always a trade off to be decided on for your aircraft operations. IF you going to the extent of fitting catapults ect then taking the ramp off if relatively minor. I also don’t believe any ship that has catapults do landing and takeoff at the same time it’s always in cycles.

Removing the ramps to make the QE's better for UAVs is the very definition of the tail wagging the dog.

On the other hand, the gator navy is optimized for helicopters therefore no ramps.

[Jensy]

Removing the ramps to make the QE's better for UAVs is the very definition of the tail wagging the dog.

Which is why fitting catapults (of the capability described in the RFI), whilst remaining commited to the F-35b as the primary aircraft for the carriers, seems frankly mad.

One of them would have to give, and I'm very doubtful that Lockheed Martin would swap our 'B' fleet for 'C' models without a substantial mark-up (proposed max 25,000kg catapults wouldn't be powerful enough for the C anyway). The political fallout would be even more extreme considering the Liam Fox/Phillip Hammond U-turn only a decade ago.

Both Rafale and S.Hornet have been pitched as being ramp capable, to operate from STOBAR carriers fitted with arrestor gear but no cats. Perhaps pursuing this method of launch/recovery might be a better compromise for LANCA developments and other future fixed-wing carrier-based aircraft? Even the E-2 was once considered capable of STOBAR ops, in the very early days of CVF.

If the prospective UAVs are lightweight enough, there might not even be a need for changing the runway layout, with arrestor gear fitting parallel to the hull. Though as Digger22 say upthread, the ships are wide enough that an angled deck could be painted without the need for substantial deck extensions (might need to move the port fwd, CIWS and 30mm), though some deck parking will definitely be lost, the capability gained would be worth it.

I also don’t believe any ship that has catapults do landing and takeoff at the same time it’s always in cycles.

Can't speak for the USN, however neither the CDG or any of the proposed layouts for CVF/PA2 with catapults would have been capable of doing so either, with the forward catapult and it's blast deflector sitting in the middle of the runway. The newest French carrier designs however are long enough, though still doubtful it would be operationally sensible.

Cycles are vital to ensuring the safety of the deck crew and preventing accidents in launch/recovery from becoming catastrophic, especially with jets loaded/loading with munitions. Hard lessons have been learnt in the past.

Having said that, I believe a starboard landing spot (at the stern) was being incorporated into the carriers at some point, this could allow emergency landings when the other landing spots are occupied.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Can F35B also use catapult to fly? Even if it is not much powerful = optimized for smallish/slowish UAV, it will contribute in increasing the lift-off weight and reducing the fuel lost in launch?

If so, a small (less powerful) catapult "curved along the sky jump", will provide good for BOTH UAVs and F35Bs to be operated from QE CV.

Fantasy; Can there be a UAV with a size like SkyVan, to provide Air2Air refuel and AEW?

[Repulse]

What now seems clear with all the talk of EMALS is that the UK F35b numbers will be capped, most likely to the 48 ordered. Solely operating these on the two carriers in the short term will be essential, until technology and alternatives come on line. Once available in day 10-15 years, longer term could it be actually the F35b becomes a flexible RAF (ground support) asset, capable of flying from non traditional airstrips? Seems to me to this fits the “unconventional” war fighting narrative being pushed.

Also, whilst it is naturally assumed these catapults are for the two carriers, the RFI wasn’t specific (a third experimental carrier anyone? )

[Timmymagic]

Thats the 'Green' bit of the previous tweet arriving...

For my money 'something new' has to be a CROWSNEST test aircraft conducting landing trials...and of course some F-35B are the 'Bluish'..

[Little J]

Can F35B also use catapult to fly? Even if it is not much powerful = optimized for smallish/slowish UAV, it will contribute in increasing the lift-off weight and reducing the fuel lost in launch?

If so, a small (less powerful) catapult "curved along the sky jump", will provide good for BOTH UAVs and F35Bs to be operated from QE CV

On a standard Dave B it would probably put to much stress on the nose gear, fitting the undercarriage from the C is not possible due to the lift fan... The only way of doing it would be to use the old RN set up that used to launch Buccaneers, etc...

[inch]

Repulse ,I'd be happy just with a little iddy biddy Trieste Lpd and they could put a emal on that from scratch lol,,

[Tempest414]

so with the talk of any new CAT's being 25 ton capable max the CdG's CAT's are 27 ton 60 000 lbs max and a F-18 E/F max takeoff needs 66 000 lbs or 28.5 ton

[SKB]

I wonder if the "something new" is to be a test firing of its newest third Phalanx?
The "blueish" one with a lightning strike is obviously an F-35B

[PhillyJ]

I wonder if the "something new" is to be a test firing of its newest third Phalanx?
The "blueish" one with a lightning strike is obviously an F-35B

Too soon for any 809 F35B's?

[Ron5]

Removing the ramps to make the QE's better for UAVs is the very definition of the tail wagging the dog.

Which is why fitting catapults (of the capability described in the RFI), whilst remaining commited to the F-35b as the primary aircraft for the carriers, seems frankly mad.

One of them would have to give, and I'm very doubtful that Lockheed Martin would swap our 'B' fleet for 'C' models without a substantial mark-up (proposed max 25,000kg catapults wouldn't be powerful enough for the C anyway). The political fallout would be even more extreme considering the Liam Fox/Phillip Hammond U-turn only a decade ago.

Both Rafale and S.Hornet have been pitched as being ramp capable, to operate from STOBAR carriers fitted with arrestor gear but no cats. Perhaps pursuing this method of launch/recovery might be a better compromise for LANCA developments and other future fixed-wing carrier-based aircraft? Even the E-2 was once considered capable of STOBAR ops, in the very early days of CVF.

If the prospective UAVs are lightweight enough, there might not even be a need for changing the runway layout, with arrestor gear fitting parallel to the hull. Though as Digger22 say upthread, the ships are wide enough that an angled deck could be painted without the need for substantial deck extensions (might need to move the port fwd, CIWS and 30mm), though some deck parking will definitely be lost, the capability gained would be worth it.

I also don’t believe any ship that has catapults do landing and takeoff at the same time it’s always in cycles.

Can't speak for the USN, however neither the CDG or any of the proposed layouts for CVF/PA2 with catapults would have been capable of doing so either, with the forward catapult and it's blast deflector sitting in the middle of the runway. The newest French carrier designs however are long enough, though still doubtful it would be operationally sensible.

Cycles are vital to ensuring the safety of the deck crew and preventing accidents in launch/recovery from becoming catastrophic, especially with jets loaded/loading with munitions. Hard lessons have been learnt in the past.

Having said that, I believe a starboard landing spot (at the stern) was being incorporated into the carriers at some point, this could allow emergency landings when the other landing spots are occupied.

I'm not sure what's mad about fitting a small cat to the left of the ramp for UAV's like LW and having them perform an arrested landing on the existing runway. There's a loss of a few parking stops but if there will be fewer F-35B embarked,I don't see this as much of a problem.

I also have a problem understanding why folks are insistent on an angled runway for UAV's.

Cycles of take offs followed by recoveries only apply to conventional carrier aircraft. STOVL's and helicopters interleave.

[serge750]

Looks like you would only lose 5 or 6 parking spots if you put a Catapult forward beside the ski jump so its not really that many, presumably they would put one on the waist as well just incase one went down, that would potentially give speedy launches, they would also lose a few parking spots from the waist position as well, but, if the unmanned airframes are going to be potent then as said before it could be beneficial

Looks like you could still park 10 or more airframes on deck while still using the main runway for F35b & using both catapults if you needed to.

https://i.redd.it/52ogvmczr7gz.jpg

[S M H]

Even the E-2 was once considered capable of STOBAR ops, in the very early days of CVF.

In the 1980s a lot of ramp test were carried out in the U.S. They were primary done for use of a ramp on damaged runways by the air force. There was work done for Hawkeye operations of the newly acquired carrier at the request of India. Including strengthening the nose wheel strut. Because of the stress caused by entry to the ramp As the carriers arrester gear space was intact. Russian helicopter base system was selected stopping the testing.

[Jensy]

I'm not sure what's mad about fitting a small cat to the left of the ramp for UAV's like LW and having them perform an arrested landing on the existing runway. There's a loss of a few parking stops but if there will be fewer F-35B embarked,I don't see this as much of a problem.

I also have a problem understanding why folks are insistent on an angled runway for UAV's.

Cycles of take offs followed by recoveries only apply to conventional carrier aircraft. STOVL's and helicopters interleave.

In honesty this was more a criticism of buying the F-35B and tailoring the carriers to it, only to realise (within the carrier's first decade of service) that a catapult might be needed. STOBAR I find a little easier to stomach as the ski jump remains the core method of aircraft launch.

My apprehension also depends on just how "small" said catapult is. The quoted figures would support all the aircraft currently in use by the Marine Nationale, including an almost fully loaded E-2 (good for cross-decking, I'll admit).

At that scale, I still think it's somewhat mad not to have a fighter that is compatible with it, rather than thinking it's mad to fit the catapults at all.

However if a catapult solution could be found that is relatively cheap, and doesn't involve substantial structural changes, then fantastic. Though I still think you need two of them for redundancy.

Spot on about STOVL ops. A major benefit is that you don't have 25t+ of aircraft crashing into the deck, at nearly 200 knots whilst hoping to catch a cable, which makes eveything a lot simpler. Also, as demonstrated on Westlant you can currently land up to three F-35Bs simultaneously (possibly four with another pad). For these reasons my preference would remain a STOVL UAV that can mirror and integrate with the Lightnings, helicopter and whatever future 'vertical lift' platforms might enter service.

All that's said, if today's Times article was reflective of the IR then I doubt the scale of unmanned aircraft for the carriers is going to be much more than Protector, and possibly as small as Watchkeeper.

[PhillyJ]

Just for info, potential chilly runaround for PWLS this week...within postcode sadly before I start more hearts a fluttering!

[RichardIC]

[Timmymagic]

Too soon for any 809 F35B's?

They're not standing up until 2023, administratively they may have a couple of people preparing the squadron for re-activation at the moment, but I doubt any more than that.

[PhillyJ]

PWLS going for a wind tomorrow at 0800 if anyone up and about down there at that time! I'm sure my nipper will love the early 0530 close of ship.

[Jdam]

I'm just happy that she is going back out to sea even if its just a quick run around the block to see if the repairs are ok.

Also just happens the QE is out at sea, just saying

[seaspear]

With the discussion around the ability to launch U.A.Vs of a meaningful size for instance the MQ-25 for the U.S.N would carry 15,000 pounds of fuel for extending the range of aircraft ,is it worth considering a new build of ship for the launch of U.A.V,s that could support carrier operations and even independently perform other tasks on its own using a variety of U.A.V,s avoiding modifications to the carriers?

[Poiuytrewq]

2023 seems ambitious to say the least!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/0 ... -aircraft/

Royal Navy eyes 'catapult system' to launch drones and jets from aircraft carriers
Experts warn 'Plan B' launch and recovery systems needed for F-35

The MoD has asked industry for ideas about future “aircraft launch and recovery systems” that could be fitted to ships in the next five years.

The document issued by the MoD says it “wishes to assess the availability of electromagnetic catapult, and arrestor wire systems for the launch and recovery of air vehicles”.

Potential solutions should be “sufficiently technically mature to be fitted to a suitable ship from 2023”.

The system must be capable of launching an aircraft of almost 25 tonnes, with arrestor gear able to handle just over 21 tonnes - the discharge of fuel and weapons reducing the weight of returning aircraft.

These weights are typical of modern-day crewed fighter aircraft, but might also indicate future heavy-lift drones providing combat, refuelling, airborne radar or logistic services are being considered.

Aircraft are catapulted from ships using either high-pressure steam from the ship’s reactors or, in modern systems, electromagnetic power. The towbar on the jet’s front wheels is attached to a block that runs in a channel along the flight deck. To land, the pilot has to snag steel cables stretched across the ship with a hook at the tail of the aircraft.


George Allison, a defence expert, said the request from the MoD “shouldn’t be taken as an indication that the Royal Navy are abandoning the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B model and returning to catapult launched fighters”.

More likely, the system would be used for “larger uncrewed aircraft as the armed forces begin to rely on them more, in place of crewed platforms,” he said.

It is anticipated that the forthcoming Integrated Review (IR) will reduce the total number of F-35 jets from 138 to the 48 for which £9 billion has already been committed. No announcement about future launch systems for aircraft carriers is expected in the IR.


Tim Ripley of Jane’s Defence said the idea of using an electromagnetic catapult system and arrestor gear - known as ‘cats and traps’ in defence circles - showed the MoD was experimenting in a bid to avoid mounting defence procurement costs.

The F-35 programme has produced affordable jets, he said, but the wider systems required to support the highly technical aircraft meant the project overall was hugely expensive.

“They seem to have been able to make it to price, but they can’t operate it to price, [the MoD] needs to have a Plan B,” he told the Daily Telegraph.

His concerns echo recent comments from the US Chief of the Air Staff.

General Charles Q. Brown hinted that supporting F-35 operations was so expensive they should be used less as a multi-mission fighter as originally envisaged, and more for special missions only.

“I want to moderate how much we’re using those aircraft,” he said.

“You don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays.

“This is our ‘high end’ [fighter], we want to make sure we don’t use it all for the low-end fight … We don’t want to burn up capability now and wish we had it later.”


Mr Ripley says as the Royal Navy’s new Queen Elizabeth-Class aircraft carriers are expected to remain in service for around 50 years they won’t always fly the F 35B.

The MoD's future combat air system - called Tempest and expected to be a mix of crewed planes and drones - could well be operated by cats and traps. Tempest is due in service from the mid-2030s.

With engineering spaces below the flight deck Britain's new carriers have been built to take electromagnetic catapult systems in the future if need be.

HMS Prince of Wales had originally been designed with the US Navy’s EMALS system (Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System) in mind.

However, when the MoD decided to buy the vertical take-off variant of the F-35, the plans were stopped.

Electromagnetic catapults allow for a smoother acceleration of the aircraft compared to steam systems, thereby reducing stress on airframes.

The Royal Navy has embarked on a drive for innovation, with the Future Maritime Aviation Force, which may include this system, being a key element.

Gareth Corfield, a defence specialist, said: "The weights this proposed catapult is supposed to handle are well below the F-35C's (the carrier variant) maximum takeoff weight of 32 tonnes. But it could be an early look at how the Tempest optionally manned aircraft could be used by the Royal Navy.

“Timing is key and the 2023 installation date might fall towards the end of HMS Queen Elizabeth's first major refit after her South China Sea deployment later this year."

A Royal Navy Spokesperson said the service was "committed to ensuring it is ready to confront future wars, and is exploring the use of novel and innovative technologies including uncrewed air systems.

“This tender is purely an information gathering exercise to gauge existing technology and it is not an indication of intent of further procurement activity.

“The Armed Forces regularly conduct fact finding exercises with industry partners to understand the latest technological developments and how they can improve existing equipment to meet future threats.”

[Jdam]

The revisiting of some sort of catapult system is painful, considering what we have went through in the last ten years with the back and forward on cats and traps with the QE. We had the opportunity to install these things, we were getting F-35'C and swapping the B's we had, I think we were in the production lines for emals, then we were only getting one and thankfully got both. These carriers have been a great success story (in my opinion) and the government just seem intent on fucking that up!

I don't want to go down the route were we are going to have 1 carrier with them and 1 without, I've said in the past I would rather have 2 carriers with STOVL than 1 with cats and traps. We have them now, we have made out choice can we please just get on with it.

[RichardIC]

OK, I'm a cynic in the extreme, but there's virtually nothing about this Government that doesn't justify cynicism.

So this is how this plays out. You're about to announce that one of your largest defence procurements, and the thing that the Royal Navy has repeatedly said the Queen Elizabeth class carriers are built around, is going to be gutted.

But in the review in which the announcement is made you make some unfunded noise about innovation and blue sky thinking and being ahead of the curve and being a global visionary.

And the week before publication you issue a request for information - which costs absolutely nothing, absolutely big fat zero - which allows you to plant free headlines in the newspaper a lot of your hardcore devotees read and generally speaking is one of your cheerleaders. And it all adds up to "proof", hardcore evidence even, of what a visionary you really are.

Then you can quietly drop it because it was only a request for information anyway. It's not like you promised anything.

Classic distraction technique.

[RichardIC]

Just for clarity. I may be a cynic but I'm not a full blown conspiracy theorist.

I'm not suggesting the whole RFI (which costs nothing) was a plant. But it has become very convenient for MoD media.

It quickly gained traction among some senior defence trade journos on social media last week - the sort of people MoD media will certainly follow.

Then over the weekend they're getting screamed at with demands to know what they're doing to counter the negative story in The Sunday Times.

So they think, "bloody Hell, that catapult thing, call The Torygraph". And they suggest that they may want to speak to some of the people they've seen talking about it on Twitter as experts who will stand up the story.

Here's two of The Telegraph's expert witnesses in one Tweet:

[PhillyJ]

I'm just happy that she is going back out to sea even if its just a quick run around the block to see if the repairs are ok.

Also just happens the QE is out at sea, just saying

Sorry you may have misunderstood my update, or I yours! She is just spinning around in the harbour, no open sea trip...yet.