Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[WhitestElephant]

The SDSR 2010 talked about having the capability to put 1,800 marines ashore. We currently get that with a RFTG consisting off HMS Ocean, 1 x Albion and 2 x Bays. When Ocean is retired and the Queen Elizabeth class take over, it will take some creative thinking to get that headline figure of 1,800. Because I am counting only 1,350 marines at standard capacity with 1 x QE, 1 x Albion and 2 x Bays.

Remove the Albion's and the figure drops to 950 marines. If anything, we should start considering replacing the Albion's with LHDs, because the new carriers wont have anywhere near the same capacity as Ocean.

[SKB]

Now would be a good time to buy those 'spare' Mistrals from France. (And maybe some Rafales while we're at it )

[ArmChairCivvy]

The SDSR 2010 talked about having the capability to put 1,800 marines ashore. We currently get that with a RFTG consisting off HMS Ocean, 1 x Albion and 2 x Bays. When Ocean is retired and the Queen Elizabeth class take over, it will take some creative thinking to get that headline figure of 1,800. Because I am counting only 1,350 marines at standard capacity with 1 x QE, 1 x Albion and 2 x Bays.

Remove the Albion's and the figure drops to 950 marines. If anything, we should start considering replacing the Albion's with LHDs, because the new carriers wont have anywhere near the same capacity as Ocean.

Exactly: between those two above paragraphs one moves from any kind of intervention/ nipping "it" in the bud power projection to a mere evacuation

[shark bait]

The SDSR 2010 talked about having the capability to put 1,800 marines ashore.

Had not seen that figure before. Thats a lot of marines. How about a cruise ship with a Chinook!

[PhillyJ]

Canberra and QE2 have long gone, not sure they would be so appreciative to give up the latest liners! So, I remember '82, does the Govt have the ability to take over liners for the benefit of the nation, what rule governs this? (I hope this does not go too O/T)

[shark bait]

Canberra and QE2 have long gone, not sure they would be so appreciative to give up the latest liners! So, I remember '82, does the Govt have the ability to take over liners for the benefit of the nation, what rule governs this? (I hope this does not go too O/T)

yep they can. not sure about the rules but here's a list of the numbers available

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... evised.pdf

[shark bait]

Canberra and QE2 have long gone, not sure they would be so appreciative to give up the latest liners! So, I remember '82, does the Govt have the ability to take over liners for the benefit of the nation, what rule governs this? (I hope this does not go too O/T)

yep they can. not sure about the rules but here's a list of the numbers available, 31 cruise ships we could choose between!

"Militarily useful British-registered merchant vessels are vessels that could be requisitioned in the appropriate circumstances in support
of the Armed Forces. Other types of ship might also be used in certain cases. Foreign-flagged but British-owned ships could also be
requisitioned in certain circumstances"

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... evised.pdf

[WhitestElephant]

Canberra and QE2 have long gone, not sure they would be so appreciative to give up the latest liners! So, I remember '82, does the Govt have the ability to take over liners for the benefit of the nation, what rule governs this? (I hope this does not go too O/T)

As far as I know, any UK registered ship can be requisitioned by HM government. The laws surrounding this are probably in the Merchant Shipping Act somewhere.

[desertswo]

I know that Enigmatically is sort of limiting himself to "drive by comments" but if either he or anyone else has any insight into the post-weld NDT, particularly when joining up the major LEGO blocks, I'd be very interested in hearing about the process. I used to have to read the X-rays and/or sonograms of post-repair welds on hull plating and main steam piping, but this is a whole other level of magnitude.

[shark bait]

As far as I know, any UK registered ship can be requisitioned by HM government. The laws surrounding this are probably in the Merchant Shipping Act somewhere.

Sounds about right. I imagine the rules are kept pretty vuage to allow them the flexibility to do what they want.

[jimthelad]

I'd smash sturgeon though, I have really low standards and done much worse in Joannas, Elgin. Probs a fair bit of work to get her juiced up!

"Jo's" many a crime against dececy has been committed there!!Are you still in the fair city?

[downsizer]

I'd smash sturgeon though, I have really low standards and done much worse in Joannas, Elgin. Probs a fair bit of work to get her juiced up!

"Jo's" many a crime against dececy has been committed there!!Are you still in the fair city?

Nah, my Jos days are behind me now mate!

[Enigmatically]

I know that Enigmatically is sort of limiting himself to "drive by comments" but if either he or anyone else has any insight into the post-weld NDT, particularly when joining up the major LEGO blocks, I'd be very interested in hearing about the process. I used to have to read the X-rays and/or sonograms of post-repair welds on hull plating and main steam piping, but this is a whole other level of magnitude.

Not my field ( I don't post about my field for reasons that are probably obvious). However

Radiography and ultrasound are both used.

Indeed pretty much every day for the last few weeks PWLS and the dry dock are out of bounds for an hour or so each day due to radiography.
So a fair amount of testing is going on. This is not unusual, though the timing of this is another thing that has changed from QNLZ. Not sure why, its only now I've thought about it. On which subject it never ceases to amaze me that the welders can make a weld stronger than the original metal.

There is of course also a lot of pressure testing on all the pipework through the programme. Still happening in some parts of QNLZ (due to changes, pre-commissioning etc). I'm sure you know all about this as well DSWO.

Elsewhere on QNLZ a few major milestones in commissioning are now very close. Though of course for these, still photos will not really convey what is going on

[desertswo]

I know that Enigmatically is sort of limiting himself to "drive by comments" but if either he or anyone else has any insight into the post-weld NDT, particularly when joining up the major LEGO blocks, I'd be very interested in hearing about the process. I used to have to read the X-rays and/or sonograms of post-repair welds on hull plating and main steam piping, but this is a whole other level of magnitude.

Not my field ( I don't post about my field for reasons that are probably obvious). However

Radiography and ultrasound are both used.

Indeed pretty much every day for the last few weeks PWLS and the dry dock are out of bounds for an hour or so each day due to radiography.
So a fair amount of testing is going on. This is not unusual, though the timing of this is another thing that has changed from QNLZ. Not sure why, its only now I've thought about it. On which subject it never ceases to amaze me that the welders can make a weld stronger than the original metal.

Yeah, the safety concerns with radiography are pretty intense. In the ship repair environment over here it's generally done on the light loaded graveyard shift.

[Biggles]

Just jumping back to the size of the ships. This is driven by sortie generation rate, not the number of jets that can be accommodated. For QNLZ it is set at about 75 per day I think. A 30,000T ship would not be able to achieve such a rate.

[Enigmatically]

Just jumping back to the size of the ships. This is driven by sortie generation rate, not the number of jets that can be accommodated. For QNLZ it is set at about 75 per day I think. A 30,000T ship would not be able to achieve such a rate.

As I have said on a few occasions (but for some reason people seem to ignore it), it is not just that

A ship big enough to let F-35s land on it and take-off, is not the only pre-requisite for being able to operate them effectively.

They are quite needy aircraft. As I have said before even the Wasps and Nimitzs will not be able to provide all the facilities because they weren't designed with that in mind, whereas GRF and QEC were and are. But even if a smaller ship were designed with F-35 as a focus, it would not be able to provide all the base facilities needed.

Both consortia came to that conclusion

[shark bait]

They really will be a magnificent capability, the product of great British design and engineering!
Its a shame no American commentators (or even British ones) will acknowledge that.

[Tony Williams]

Just jumping back to the size of the ships. This is driven by sortie generation rate, not the number of jets that can be accommodated. For QNLZ it is set at about 75 per day I think. A 30,000T ship would not be able to achieve such a rate.

No,but two would...see my previous post.

The whole point about the advantages of smaller carriers is that you could have more of them.

[Tony Williams]

Just jumping back to the size of the ships. This is driven by sortie generation rate, not the number of jets that can be accommodated. For QNLZ it is set at about 75 per day I think. A 30,000T ship would not be able to achieve such a rate.

As I have said on a few occasions (but for some reason people seem to ignore it), it is not just that

A ship big enough to let F-35s land on it and take-off, is not the only pre-requisite for being able to operate them effectively.

They are quite needy aircraft. As I have said before even the Wasps and Nimitzs will not be able to provide all the facilities because they weren't designed with that in mind, whereas GRF and QEC were and are. But even if a smaller ship were designed with F-35 as a focus, it would not be able to provide all the base facilities needed.

Both consortia came to that conclusion

Well, I've heard a lot of criticisms of the F-35 but this is a big new one to add to the pile!

(Should have gone for the BAE P.1216 in the 1980s... ).

[Enigmatically]

Just jumping back to the size of the ships. This is driven by sortie generation rate, not the number of jets that can be accommodated. For QNLZ it is set at about 75 per day I think. A 30,000T ship would not be able to achieve such a rate.

As I have said on a few occasions (but for some reason people seem to ignore it), it is not just that

A ship big enough to let F-35s land on it and take-off, is not the only pre-requisite for being able to operate them effectively.

They are quite needy aircraft. As I have said before even the Wasps and Nimitzs will not be able to provide all the facilities because they weren't designed with that in mind, whereas GRF and QEC were and are. But even if a smaller ship were designed with F-35 as a focus, it would not be able to provide all the base facilities needed.

Both consortia came to that conclusion

Well, I've heard a lot of criticisms of the F-35 but this is a big new one to add to the pile!

(Should have gone for the BAE P.1216 in the 1980s... ).

Its not a criticism of the F-35.

It is part of a continuing trend in our combat aircraft that is part of the reason they are more capable. But it is invisible (unlike stealth ironically) so is ignored

[Ron5]

Just jumping back to the size of the ships. This is driven by sortie generation rate, not the number of jets that can be accommodated. For QNLZ it is set at about 75 per day I think. A 30,000T ship would not be able to achieve such a rate.

No,but two would...see my previous post.

The whole point about the advantages of smaller carriers is that you could have more of them.

Incorrect. For a given sortie rate, one large ship will always be substantially cheaper than two smaller units. Substantially.

[bobp]

The f35b carries a large logistics foot print. As well as fuel, armament , it has a bigger maintenance footprint due to its specialist systems and stealth coatings. The ship has to be capable of carrying out these tasks . I understand that there will be on board, flight simulators and mission trainers as well. The f35b is a complex and highly capable system and there will be also a need for replacement parts spares to be held on ship.

[jonas]

The f35b carries a large logistics foot print. As well as fuel, armament , it has a bigger maintenance footprint due to its specialist systems and stealth coatings. The ship has to be capable of carrying out these tasks . I understand that there will be on board, flight simulators and mission trainers as well. The f35b is a complex and highly capable system and there will be also a need for replacement parts spares to be held on ship.

As far as the stealth coating is concerned, I believe that will only be done in a specialised building complex at RAF Marham.

[Gabriele]

The f35b carries a large logistics foot print. As well as fuel, armament , it has a bigger maintenance footprint due to its specialist systems and stealth coatings. The ship has to be capable of carrying out these tasks . I understand that there will be on board, flight simulators and mission trainers as well. The f35b is a complex and highly capable system and there will be also a need for replacement parts spares to be held on ship.

As far as the stealth coating is concerned, I believe that will only be done in a specialised building complex at RAF Marham.

Major re-coating and verification, yes, unless the UK choses to save that money by sending its aircraft to the Cameri MRO centre like the other european F-35 users are expected to do. We don't yet have a public indication of what infrastructure is funded for Marham, and what isn't. I'm not sure the MOD should be spending the serious money needed for a complete MRO line, just to give BAE and LM more work to do in the UK. That money might be best used for other stuff, from integration of british weaponry to completely different things (army vehicles, for example) but we will see what decisions are made on that. The integrated training centre has more potential of being a better investment as it might well be chosen by other european F-35 users as an alternative to keeping personnel all the way out in Luke and Beaufort, stateside.

But there is at least a degree of coating maintenance done wherever the aircraft goes. The F-35 for example comes with an inflatable maintenance shelter produced by Aero Sekur, which is used in the field to maintain the aircraft in a sealed, air conditioned area. Being inflatable, it is supposed to be deployable even in USMC style expeditionary airstrips.
On the carrier, which is designed from the outset for the F-35, i wouldn't be surprised if there was a space reserved for this kind of work. A portable scanning device weighting just a few kg is in development for quick evaluation of the state of coating, and the US Navy has already said that F-35C squadrons will have a few men more (around 20 according to a recent press report) compared to Super Hornet squadrons, in large part due to the care required to keep the RCS contained at all times.
On the other hand, compared to the Harrier, changing the engine should be much easier, due to the fact it slides out backwards, F-16 style. Harrier requires removing the wings to swap out an engine...

As for the simulators, they will fit in a container. Maybe 40 feet, maybe 20, i can't remember at the moment, but nothing too damning. It is expected that one such container will be on the active aircraft carrier at all times. The F-35 anyway isn't the first machine which comes with field-deployable simulators, either, although of course the ones which came before were, to a degree or another, less sophisticated.

The deployable squadron-level ALIS currently is quite large, but it supposed to go down to just a few man-portable boxes of computer equipment in the next months.

One factor to keep in mind is that the F-35 has a fuel capacity which goes between 180 (F-35B) and 250+ % that of an F-16C, and it burns some 60% more. That is quite a lot of fuel.
And for the first few years, until things stabilize and get better known and dealt with, it will no doubt consume more spare parts than desirable. But this is to be expected. Hopefully it gets better in line over time.

[Tony Williams]

Its not a criticism of the F-35.

It is part of a continuing trend in our combat aircraft that is part of the reason they are more capable. But it is invisible (unlike stealth ironically) so is ignored

Well, if you don't want to call a substantial maintenance requirement a "criticism" of the F35, I'll settle for "significant negative factor".

It is still unclear just how the cost/benefits of stealth in the F-35 actually work out. We know that incorporating stealth features into a design involve some significant compromises; they result in a plane which is bigger than it otherwise would be, resulting in some performance disadvantages. We know it makes the plane more expensive to buy and a lot more expensive to maintain. Yet, as I understand it, the effectiveness of the anti-radar characteristics is decidedly patchy, working much less well from some angles than others. And some countries are working very hard on techniques to make stealth planes more easily detectable to radar. And the plane is hardly stealthy to thermal imagers, with the huge engine throwing out a lot of heat. Nor is it stealthy in visual terms, being rather big. A senior officer in the USN recently question the value of stealth, and they are of course continuing to buy the F/A-18. Time will tell if it's really worth it.