Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Tony Williams]

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

Depends what you are measuring. I suggested that three smaller ships (say 30,000 tons) would be more useful than two 65,000 tonners, while probably costing a similar sum to buy and run. It would allow two carriers to be available in action at any one time rather than one, if required. Yes, I would expect that two 30,000 ton carriers utilised to the maximum on operations would cost more to run than one 65,000 tonner, but two ships in action should also allow a higher sortie rate (depending on a lot of factors - but at the bottom, one flight deck can only launch one aircraft at a time, two flight decks can launch two). And you would have the advantage of two decks providing far more resilience, plus providing more deployment options.

[shark bait]

. Yet, as I understand it, the effectiveness of the anti-radar characteristics is decidedly patchy, working much less well from some angles than others.

I believe that to be correct. An enemy with an advanced radar system may be able to see you, but because of the characteristics you described, they cannot be tracked or provide sufficient data to get a weapons locked. So it might not be get in and out without getting spotted, but it will likely be get in and out without getting shot at.

The financial argument you point out is an interesting one I think. Could it be better off if the significant lump of cash spent on stealth was allocated to active decoys instead?

[Gabriele]

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

Depends what you are measuring. I suggested that three smaller ships (say 30,000 tons) would be more useful than two 65,000 tonners, while probably costing a similar sum to buy and run. It would allow two carriers to be available in action at any one time rather than one, if required. Yes, I would expect that two 30,000 ton carriers utilised to the maximum on operations would cost more to run than one 65,000 tonner, but two ships in action should also allow a higher sortie rate (depending on a lot of factors - but at the bottom, one flight deck can only launch one aircraft at a time, two flight decks can launch two). And you would have the advantage of two decks providing far more resilience, plus providing more deployment options.

The day i'll see two Juan Carlos (near 30.000 tons ships) generating 75 combat aircraft sorties in a day, i'll believe to it. But we won't see that happening anytime soon. By the way, it takes an America, or at the very least a Wasp class ship to embark 20 F-35Bs in any meaningful way. That's a lot more than 30.000 tons. USMC large LHDs (more on the 40.000 tons side, as we know) with 23 AV-8s, used as "Harrier Carriers" in 2003 were generating around 30 sorties per day, with periodic surges to 60. Against 76 and surge at 110 for Queen Elizabeth.

Math just won't work out like you suggest.

[RetroSicotte]

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

Depends what you are measuring. I suggested that three smaller ships (say 30,000 tons) would be more useful than two 65,000 tonners, while probably costing a similar sum to buy and run. It would allow two carriers to be available in action at any one time rather than one, if required. Yes, I would expect that two 30,000 ton carriers utilised to the maximum on operations would cost more to run than one 65,000 tonner, but two ships in action should also allow a higher sortie rate (depending on a lot of factors - but at the bottom, one flight deck can only launch one aircraft at a time, two flight decks can launch two). And you would have the advantage of two decks providing far more resilience, plus providing more deployment options.

The actual run down the deck to the ramp is most definitely not the biggest factor in what drives sortie rate.

For one thing, imagine what having to cease takeoffs to make the deck lift go down for more would do to your sortie rate. Or how many F-35's you can have lined up on deck ready at any given time. Or what space for ones coming back and transitioning to the hanger? How does not being able to land vertically while still retaining takeoffs should it be needed affect it? Or what deckspace you have available to move around a plane that gets stuck for whatever reason on the deck. Could you even fit the automated munitions system and independant lifts into such carriers in the same efficient way it's in QE? Or that the QE can lift/lower 4 aircraft at once on its lifts, as opposed to probably 2 on a light carrier?

While I'm sure that desertswo could talk in vastly more depth and expertise on these elements, I cannot in any world see two light carriers creating more sorties than a QE class without requiring some vastly expensive redesign of carrier concepts to scale.

QE has even seen some murmurs about being able to surge to 190-200 per day above the normally talked 110. Even at the lower estimate, I just don't think it's possible in any meaningful way.

[Gabriele]

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

Whenever you add a new system, or a new capability, on an aircraft, you gain something and lose something else. Stealth is a massive survivability boost, but has its drawbacks and needs its own share of maintenance.
EO-DAS is a system not seen before on any aircraft. Massive boost, but it is another thing to maintain.
Internal targeting system means aircraft maintenance to fix it, instead of separate pod maintenance. On the other hand, each and every fleet aircraft is always ready to acquire and hit targets, while the number of recce and targeting pods tipically isn't that large.
Embedded night vision versus googles has advantages, but is another thing that needs maintenance as part of the aircraft itself.

In general, if there is a lot more stuff in the system, there's more work to be done. Is it considered a worthwhile trade? Apparently, very much so.

[RetroSicotte]

Makes you wonder how much stuff like targeting pods that's going to free up for Typhoons to carry once the Tornados don't need them any more.

Just a tiny factor, but it is there.

[swoop]

I've just visited MP.net... She's all gone now!

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.

A capable Sim. aboard QE will be a huge benefit to the crews, so surely a compartment will be dedicated to this aboard ship? Certainly man-portable size would be sensible.

Fuel. When the vertical tails of the aircraft have to be used as fuel-tanks, that is telling us something! Certainly there will be the inevitable teething problems that show up after initial deployment aboard ship, but those will decrease over time. The F-14 Tomcat is a classic example of going through testing and then discovering problems, then evolving into something quite different. The Dave will be a problem as well, but will evolve along similar lines as other airframes.

The paint/stealth coating. Surely this becomes less important one combat op's have commenced and air superiority has been gained/SAM suppression achieved? The initial phase requires stealthiness, but after that a lower level may become acceptable for the environment it is used in.

[downsizer]

Makes you wonder how much stuff like targeting pods that's going to free up for Typhoons to carry once the Tornados don't need them any more.

Just a tiny factor, but it is there.

Not many. Or at least probably not as many as most would assume.

[RobWilliams]

A capable Sim. aboard QE will be a huge benefit to the crews, so surely a compartment will be dedicated to this aboard ship? Certainly man-portable size would be sensible.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-royal-navy-a ... h-carrier/

Somewhere in that inverview there's a bit about 'hanging' two self-contained simulation containers in the hangar deck being the selected flight simulator setup for the QEC.

[Tinman]

Makes you wonder how much stuff like targeting pods that's going to free up for Typhoons to carry once the Tornados don't need them any more.

Just a tiny factor, but it is there.

Not many. Or at least probably not as many as most would assume.

Agreed people see airframes with a the shiney new technology and make the assumption it's on all airframes.

[Tony Williams]

The day i'll see two Juan Carlos (near 30.000 tons ships) generating 75 combat aircraft sorties in a day, i'll believe to it. But we won't see that happening anytime soon.

Juan Carlos is not a strike aircraft carrier, it is a multipurpose amphibious warship (LPD and LPH combined) with the capability of being able to handle a few STOVL combat plans if necessary.

I think it would have been better for the RN to acquire ships like this rather than separate smaller LPHs and LPDs, mainly because they are far more versatile but also because they provide an emergency STOVL deck in case something nasty happens to a strike carrier.

By the way, it takes an America, or at the very least a Wasp class ship to embark 20 F-35Bs in any meaningful way. That's a lot more than 30.000 tons. USMC large LHDs (more on the 40.000 tons side, as we know) with 23 AV-8s, used as "Harrier Carriers" in 2003 were generating around 30 sorties per day, with periodic surges to 60. Against 76 and surge at 110 for Queen Elizabeth.

Who said anything about 20 planes? As I understand it, the normal F-35B complement on the RN carriers will be 9 planes. They are not going to be generating very much in the way of high sortie rates. And while "surges" of higher numbers are theoretically possible they might not happen in practice, since the MoD will predictably keep the F-35 buy to a minimum, so you might end up with the RAF and RN scrapping over who gets priority for them in any serious conflict. No prizes for guessing who would win...

[desertswo]

The day i'll see two Juan Carlos (near 30.000 tons ships) generating 75 combat aircraft sorties in a day, i'll believe to it. But we won't see that happening anytime soon. By the way, it takes an America, or at the very least a Wasp class ship to embark 20 F-35Bs in any meaningful way. That's a lot more than 30.000 tons. USMC large LHDs (more on the 40.000 tons side, as we know) with 23 AV-8s, used as "Harrier Carriers" in 2003 were generating around 30 sorties per day, with periodic surges to 60. Against 76 and surge at 110 for Queen Elizabeth.

A minor detail in your military cosmology perhaps, but one more time for possible penetration: There are no "USMC" ships . . . period. You really ratchet up the jaws of people like me when you do that. Until they hit the beach, grunts are passengers on the bus, and nothing more.

[Gabriele]

Who said anything about 20 planes? As I understand it, the normal F-35B complement on the RN carriers will be 9 planes. They are not going to be generating very much in the way of high sortie rates. And while "surges" of higher numbers are theoretically possible they might not happen in practice, since the MoD will predictably keep the F-35 buy to a minimum, so you might end up with the RAF and RN scrapping over who gets priority for them in any serious conflict. No prizes for guessing who would win...

Someone did. If it wasn't you, it was another proponent of a non-existant 30,000 tons carrier design. I don't even know where the sense is in talking of aircraft carrier sizes without talking about the air wing.
As for the (terrible) idea of having the air force in charge of the carrier borne aircraft, that is another issue entirely.

A minor detail in your military cosmology perhaps, but one more time for possible penetration: There are no "USMC" ships . . . period.

It might amaze you, but i know, thank you. But that is the fastest way to be sure everyone will understand what i'm talking about if i point out who the user is. I'll try and keep note of your sensibility to that, next time.

[WhitestElephant]

Who said anything about 20 planes? As I understand it, the normal F-35B complement on the RN carriers will be 9 planes. They are not going to be generating very much in the way of high sortie rates. And while "surges" of higher numbers are theoretically possible they might not happen in practice, since the MoD will predictably keep the F-35 buy to a minimum, so you might end up with the RAF and RN scrapping over who gets priority for them in any serious conflict. No prizes for guessing who would win...

Is not the pertinent point, that when we actually do need to surge both squadrons, we can, and in a way that only the Queen Elizabeth class will be able to deliver.

FRP is around the corner, with costs expected to drop by a significant margin. The plan is still for the two front-line squadrons, and we may yet see a third sometime in the 2020s.

Regarding the RAF and RN scrapping over who get priority - assume we had QE and the two F-35B squadrons back in 2011 during the Libyan campaign. Do you suppose the RAF would have operated them from Italy (as we did with Typhoon) rather than on the QE? I don't.

We will see F-35 operate from where is most effective, in the best possible way for our nation, be that the carriers or an airfield in the desert. It is entirely dependent on the type of conflict we are fighting.

[swoop]

Somewhere in that inverview there's a bit about 'hanging' two self-contained simulation containers in the hangar deck being the selected flight simulator setup for the QEC.

Oh dear. The race-for-space has already begun on the hangar?* A smaller setup in a compartment elsewhere would suffice (imho).


* With several embarked squadrons (rotary + fixed wing + UAV) and the standard RN procedure of putting the birds into the hangar, space becomes precious.

[Tony Williams]

Is not the pertinent point, that when we actually do need to surge both squadrons, we can, and in a way that only the Queen Elizabeth class will be able to deliver.

FRP is around the corner, with costs expected to drop by a significant margin. The plan is still for the two front-line squadrons, and we may yet see a third sometime in the 2020s.

Regarding the RAF and RN scrapping over who get priority - assume we had QE and the two F-35B squadrons back in 2011 during the Libyan campaign. Do you suppose the RAF would have operated them from Italy (as we did with Typhoon) rather than on the QE? I don't.

We will see F-35 operate from where is most effective, in the best possible way for our nation, be that the carriers or an airfield in the desert. It is entirely dependent on the type of conflict we are fighting.

I am not against the RN having carriers - I just think that three 30,000 tonners would have provided more versatility and better value for money than two 65,000 tonners. And with two 30,000 ton carriers available at any one time, they could easily host two F-35B squadrons between them, plus other aircraft.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I do agree about versatility, but value for money is open for discussion. Cavours is a 26.000 tonner and thereby pretty close to what is being called for.

Jeff Head's pages include this: ""The hanger can double as vehicle parking, holding up to 24 tanks or many more lighter vehicles. The hangar has side access ramps for ROR operations as as well as two elevators to the flight deck.

Thje Cavour is also designed to take the new, 5th generation STOVL JSF fighter, the F-35B, with which Italy is a partner country. The Cavour can hold up to ten F-35Bs in her hanger, and oanther six F-35Bs on deck if necessary. These aircraft will be very serious enhancements over the Harriers the Cavour currently embarks in her airwing. Normall, the Cavour carrier 12 fighters, and then the airwing is augmented by AEW helos, ASW helos, and SAR helos"
- I think with the maxed out 16 the sortie generation would soon start to fall off because of the crowded deck handling and lift ops

The fact that the QEs can provide a fully operating base for a considerable number of Chinooks and a Chinook-capable pad becoming the new RN standard will be a valuable multiplier, and will rectify the design errors that the current amph fleet (on its own) suffers from

[Tiny Toy]

I am not against the RN having carriers - I just think that three 30,000 tonners would have provided more versatility and better value for money than two 65,000 tonners. And with two 30,000 ton carriers available at any one time, they could easily host two F-35B squadrons between them, plus other aircraft.

Better value for money would have been designing in cats and traps from the start so you don't need F-35B, we could have Rafale M or (if we hadn't already shelved the idea in 2001) STOBAR Eurofighter and not be spending twice to nearly three times as much on F-35B. Every single decision that has been made with respect to CVF seems to have been the one that results in higher costs and less interoperability.

[WhitestElephant]

I am not against the RN having carriers - I just think that three 30,000 tonners would have provided more versatility and better value for money than two 65,000 tonners. And with two 30,000 ton carriers available at any one time, they could easily host two F-35B squadrons between them, plus other aircraft.

Better value for money would have been designing in cats and traps from the start so you don't need F-35B, we could have Rafale M or (if we hadn't already shelved the idea in 2001) STOBAR Eurofighter and not be spending twice to nearly three times as much on F-35B. Every single decision that has been made with respect to CVF seems to have been the one that results in higher costs and less interoperability.

The F-35B is wholly more capable than the Rafale, and the cost of a FRP F-35 wont be so dissimilar to a Rafale either (some suggest F-35 will cost less).

When was the last time foreign NATO assets operated off an American, French or British carrier (exl. training exercises)?

[RetroSicotte]

Why does everyone keep saying less interoperability?

F-35C could land on American Nimitz/Ford classes and on the French CdG.

F-35B could land on American America classes, Italian Cavour, the Spanish carrier, the upcoming Turkish one...heck, any LPH in a pinch if needs be.

F-35B has operability with far more ships, and vastly more "emergency landing" potential. (which honestly is the most likely situation to require landing on another nation's ship)

[Pymes75]

I am not against the RN having carriers - I just think that three 30,000 tonners would have provided more versatility and better value for money than two 65,000 tonners. And with two 30,000 ton carriers available at any one time, they could easily host two F-35B squadrons between them, plus other aircraft.

3x 30,000t carriers would cost considerably more to operate as the crew size would remain roughly the same (as did the Invincibles), so operating 2x carriers at any one time to put 2x Sqns of F-35Bs on station for an operation would very inefficient. Equally, 2x smaller carriers will consume a lot more fuel than 1x 65,000t carrier. Seeing as running costs were a major factor in the design brief of the QEs, these are important considerations in the solution chosen.

[Tiny Toy]

2x smaller carriers will consume a lot more fuel than 1x 65,000t carrier. Seeing as running costs were a major factor in the design brief of the QEs, these are important considerations in the solution chosen.

If they had nuclear propulsion as they should, then the cost of fuel would not be an issue.

[Ron5]

We really need to shut that old chestnut of 3 smaller carriers being better and cheaper than two large ones.

The question has come up dozens of times since 1945, usually when the latest bunch of politicians see the cost of running a carrier group for the first time.

There's been several studies in response. Every single one of them has concluded a large carrier is substantially more cost effective than a number of smaller ones. I'm more familiar with the American studies because some have made it into print and USN types are more chatty. The Brits are more shy about such things.

Every carrier navy in the world can easily be seen to subscribe to the same view. The US continue to build the largest carriers they can. China, Russia, Italy, India, Britain & France all have or are or would like to buy larger carriers than they currently operate.

If I remember correctly, the original CVF requirement was rumored to be 100 fast jet sorties a day over a period of about a week. That lead to the current QE dimensions although the sortie rate requirement was later downgraded to save money.

That's fast jet sorties only and if you think of the most demanding scenario, providing air defense, CAS and strike for an opposed amphib assault, it's none too generous.

It excludes helicopter sorties for AEW, plane guard & ASW. It makes allowance for routine a/c maintenance and a/c unserviceability. Doing the math, it implies that serviceable F-35's have to be capable of between 2.5 and 3 sorties a day each. That needs a lot of stores, a lot of fuel, a lot of spares, a lot of technicians.

The easiest way to demonstrate the superiority of large carriers, is to follow the reduction to absurdity argument i.e if 3 30k carriers are better than 2 at 65k, then 4 25k are better still. Or 5 20k or 6 15k or..... let's put one F-35 on every frigate & destroyer in the fleet and do away with carriers altogether. Think of all the money we'd save! And yes, it's been seriously suggested.

[Ron5]

2x smaller carriers will consume a lot more fuel than 1x 65,000t carrier. Seeing as running costs were a major factor in the design brief of the QEs, these are important considerations in the solution chosen.

If they had nuclear propulsion as they should, then the cost of fuel would not be an issue.

Have you checked the cost of nuclear propulsion recently?????? Jeesh.

[IrishT]

2x smaller carriers will consume a lot more fuel than 1x 65,000t carrier. Seeing as running costs were a major factor in the design brief of the QEs, these are important considerations in the solution chosen.

If they had nuclear propulsion as they should, then the cost of fuel would not be an issue.

The cost of designing a nuclear reactor would have outweighed the savings made from not using conventional propulsion.