Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Gabriele]

@R686
Your one and only argument for claiming two Cavours are as capable as one QE is that the two Cavours can carry 36 F-35B's and 8 helicopters. Carrying & operating are two very different things.

Incorrect,
So are saying that because Cavour is smaller it cannot operate aircraft in an efficient manner?
In a high intensity environment (and that’s the only time you might see 36 F35B except for the odd training ex) 2 separate platforms will enable you adjust the tempo to operational needs for crew rest serviceability (ship and aircraft) and or RAS or in other words half your battle group can stay in the fight while the other reorganizes itself, also multiple platforms will also equal tactical deception against red forces (spread them thin) , multiple platforms means you have more options in force rotation, multiple platforms means you can do concurrent operations with fast air without affecting your amphibious assault and landings (one can be the fast air Carrier the other the LPH)and heavy equipment and stores.

As I said before there is no right or wrong answer to this, the reason USN carriers keep getting bigger is the number of different aircraft and roles for which they want of each individual Squadron to perform Strike-OCA/DCA CAS EW etc etc, why do you think that USN carriers have multiple Cats and it’s just not for getting aircraft in the air fast but Redundancy( in this case 3 plus Platforms)

The only thing that it really means is that you will be stuck to trying to do the job of one large carrier with two smaller and less capable ones. The Royal Navy experienced that at the Falklands, making do with Invincible and Hermes, and the questionable benefits are surpassed by the problems. Even then, it was awfully clear that HMS Hermes, being larger and carrying more fuel, more weaponry, more stores, was the key element in sustaining the air effort. "Lose HMS Invincible and the operation is seriously hampered; but lose HMS Hermes and the operation is over", is a point that admiral Woodward had very clear in his mind and that is well present in his memories of op Corporate.

The idea of multiple small carriers being "better" than fewer large ones is something that comes up every now and then. But it continues to be the wrong suggestion, and no amount of make believe is going to change that.

Also, the Royal Navy had just two aircraft carriers in 1982, and an handful of Sea Harriers. It managed to deploy both carriers and 90% of the Sea Harriers it had. If push came to shove in a big way, every effort will be made to put to sea both QEs. Exactly how easy this would be, we will know once we are told what exactly they are meaning with "putting both in service".

[Tony Williams]

@R686
The idea of multiple small carriers being "better" than fewer large ones is something that comes up every now and then. But it continues to be the wrong suggestion, and no amount of make believe is going to change that.

Depends on how big the smaller carriers are, how many planes they are required to operate, what type of planes they are, and how small is the number of larger carriers. "Make believe" is not required, just an assessment of these factors. A requirement for a large air group would obviously push up the size, so would the ability to turn it into a CATOBAR ship.

If push came to shove in a big way, every effort will be made to put to sea both QEs. Exactly how easy this would be, we will know once we are told what exactly they are meaning with "putting both in service".

Indeed we will. Keeping the "spare" carrier ready for deployment except when undergoing maintenance or other dockyard work would be a very different matter from, say, commissioning each carrier for three years at a time and mothballing the spare in the meantime. That would probably take months to recommission. However, to keep both ready would presumably require a second crew on permanent standby.

I find it hard to imagine that if the MoD would have specified such large ships if they knew then what we know now - that the new carriers would be STOVL only with the CATOBAR plan ditched, that the squeeze on the Defence budget would continue for years, and that we (apparently) will be buying only a small fraction of the number of extremely expensive F-35 originally planned, with only a dozen of them normally carried. Not the best way to spend an increasingly limited budget, especially given the constant reduction in the number of escorts.

[Pymes75]

Also, the Royal Navy had just two aircraft carriers in 1982, and an handful of Sea Harriers. It managed to deploy both carriers and 90% of the Sea Harriers it had. If push came to shove in a big way, every effort will be made to put to sea both QEs. Exactly how easy this would be, we will know once we are told what exactly they are meaning with "putting both in service".

I would hope the 'second' carrier would at least have a skeleton 'dockside' crew of Marine and Weapons Engineers to keep the ship in a serviceable material state. Question then would be can the RN find the remaining crew amongst it's staffers to man a second carrier at short notice?

[shark bait]

I find it hard to imagine that if the MoD would have specified such large ships if they knew then what we know now - that the new carriers would be STOVL only with the CATOBAR plan ditched, that the squeeze on the Defence budget would continue for years, and that we (apparently) will be buying only a small fraction of the number of extremely expensive F-35 originally planned, with only a dozen of them normally carried. Not the best way to spend an increasingly limited budget, especially given the constant reduction in the number of escorts.

I don't think so, bigger is defiantly better. Having a larger carrier allows you to operate more effectively even with STOVL.
I seriously doubt smaller ships would be much cheaper to operate, especially when the operational trade offs are accounted for.

[The Armchair Soldier]

The ACA booklet SKB posted a few pages back has a piece on the reasons behind QE's vast size. I haven't had the chance to read it fully yet, but it might be worth a look:

http://issuu.com/faircountmedia/docs/hms_queenelizabeth

Page 79

[serge750]

Hi guys

On the 2x QEC or 3 cavour debate, the QEC class as you know is expected to serve the best part of 50 yrs, if the samaller carriers only last 35 yrs you still should factor this into the added costs of this shorter service life expectancy into the more smaller vs larger debate, as said before due to the larger size of the QE class they can stay on station longer than smaller carriers,

The only benefit I can see of more smaller carriers is the potential availability of smaller carriers, I too would love 3x QEC but....

Assuming the same running costs of 3 smaller carriers & airgroup is the same as 2 Qec & airgroup, 2x QEC is about £6.5 bn ? devided by 50 yrs = £130m per year, £2bn for a cavour ? times by 3 = £6bn, initialy cheaper yes until you factor in a 35 yr life span, £6bn devide by 35yrs = £171m ?

[downsizer]

It's a bit of a moot point being as we've got what we've got surely?

[serge750]

Totally agree downsizer and I'm so looking forward to seeing them sail the ocean waves, even initialy with only a smaller number of british planes but as more are purchased i'm sure the decks will get busier & lets not forget the other nations planes that may visit, USMC, Italian navy etc,

ps just wanted to add my two cents worth

[R686]

@R686
Your one and only argument for claiming two Cavours are as capable as one QE is that the two Cavours can carry 36 F-35B's and 8 helicopters. Carrying & operating are two very different things.

Incorrect,
So are saying that because Cavour is smaller it cannot operate aircraft in an efficient manner?
In a high intensity environment (and that’s the only time you might see 36 F35B except for the odd training ex) 2 separate platforms will enable you adjust the tempo to operational needs for crew rest serviceability (ship and aircraft) and or RAS or in other words half your battle group can stay in the fight while the other reorganizes itself, also multiple platforms will also equal tactical deception against red forces (spread them thin) , multiple platforms means you have more options in force rotation, multiple platforms means you can do concurrent operations with fast air without affecting your amphibious assault and landings (one can be the fast air Carrier the other the LPH)and heavy equipment and stores.

As I said before there is no right or wrong answer to this, the reason USN carriers keep getting bigger is the number of different aircraft and roles for which they want of each individual Squadron to perform Strike-OCA/DCA CAS EW etc etc, why do you think that USN carriers have multiple Cats and it’s just not for getting aircraft in the air fast but Redundancy( in this case 3 plus Platforms)

The only thing that it really means is that you will be stuck to trying to do the job of one large carrier with two smaller and less capable ones. The Royal Navy experienced that at the Falklands, making do with Invincible and Hermes, and the questionable benefits are surpassed by the problems. Even then, it was awfully clear that HMS Hermes, being larger and carrying more fuel, more weaponry, more stores, was the key element in sustaining the air effort. "Lose HMS Invincible and the operation is seriously hampered; but lose HMS Hermes and the operation is over", is a point that admiral Woodward had very clear in his mind and that is well present in his memories of op Corporate.

The idea of multiple small carriers being "better" than fewer large ones is something that comes up every now and then. But it continues to be the wrong suggestion, and no amount of make believe is going to change that.

Also, the Royal Navy had just two aircraft carriers in 1982, and an handful of Sea Harriers. It managed to deploy both carriers and 90% of the Sea Harriers it had. If push came to shove in a big way, every effort will be made to put to sea both QEs. Exactly how easy this would be, we will know once we are told what exactly they are meaning with "putting both in service".

The only thing that it really means is that you will be stuck to trying to do the job of one large carrier with two smaller and less capable ones. 

We are not discussing replacing 1 for 2 but 2 for 3 or in my case 4

The Royal Navy experienced that at the Falklands, making do with Invincible and Hermes, and the questionable benefits are surpassed by the problems. 

And the reason for is exactly as they are today lack of will and the economic state for economy,  it was an unfortunate set of events that lead to that situation, the decommissioning of Ark Royal(R09) back in 79, the early withdrawal of Bulwark(R08) because of a fire in her boilers, she was used in the trials of the Sea Harrier and the late delivery of their replacements because of economic burden(Invincible's ) 

Even then, it was awfully clear that HMS Hermes, being larger and carrying more fuel, more weaponry, more stores, was the key element in sustaining the air effort. "Lose HMS Invincible and the operation is seriously hampered; but lose HMS Hermes and the operation is over", is a point that admiral Woodward had very clear in his mind and that is well present in his memories of op Corporate. 

All that supports is the need for multiple platforms big or small. Because Illustrious was not ready they turned to the next best thing on hand Bulwark, but unfortunately because of her unmaintained state they decide against the idea.

The idea of multiple small carriers being "better" than fewer large ones is something that comes up every now and then. But it continues to be the wrong suggestion, and no amount of make believe is going to change that. 

While I'll concede that building multiple carriers is expensive, but we also have to look at the overall picture of what makes a carrier and the roles in which you want to do which comes down to aircraft and manpower. The overriding factor of 4 smaller carriers has not changed the status Que. For your most expensive equipment after the carriers themselves is the aircraft( ie the same as QE) the manpower question is also the same 

Also, the Royal Navy had just two aircraft carriers in 1982, and an handful of Sea Harriers. It managed to deploy both carriers and 90% of the Sea Harriers it had. If push came to shove in a big way, every effort will be made to put to sea both QEs. Exactly how easy this would be, we will know once we are told what exactly they are meaning with "putting both in service"
.

As I said before while only having 2 at the the was only because of bad luck and timing, the signs were there for the oncoming campaign, but with hindsight not acted upon. It's the old saying you go to war with what you have not what you want. Economic pressure dictates the force structure at the time, the 3 Invisibles were replacements for Ark Royal, Eagle and Hermes. Ark Royal(R09)&Eagle(R05) we're original supposed to be a class of 4.

Back in the early 60's the RN had hoped of getting new carriers also know as CV01 with the budget at the time has 2 going to be built the RN had hoped that 3 were built but unfortunately  the 66 White paper scuttled those planes, as you can plainly see the RN is infact favourable to multiple CV platforms and it's economic pressure that halts those plans. 

The size of the current CVF was dictated by future proofing the CV as Catobar ops dictate the size of the aircraft and catapults, it's also interesting to note that the air group for both was to be the same, the size of the CV was Infact a by product of future proofing.

[R686]

Hi guys

On the 2x QEC or 3 cavour debate, the QEC class as you know is expected to serve the best part of 50 yrs, if the samaller carriers only last 35 yrs you still should factor this into the added costs of this shorter service life expectancy into the more smaller vs larger debate, as said before due to the larger size of the QE class they can stay on station longer than smaller carriers,

The only benefit I can see of more smaller carriers is the potential availability of smaller carriers, I too would love 3x QEC but....

Assuming the same running costs of 3 smaller carriers & airgroup is the same as 2 Qec & airgroup, 2x QEC is about £6.5 bn ? devided by 50 yrs = £130m per year, £2bn for a cavour ? times by 3 = £6bn, initialy cheaper yes until you factor in a 35 yr life span, £6bn devide by 35yrs = £171m ?

Size of the platform does not equal lenght of service, build quality does that for you, you can build the same ship with the internals of different quality it's the build quality which would dictate years of service at times of refit, just look at INS Viraat with the $ thrown at her during its lifetime

[R686]

It's a bit of a moot point being as we've got what we've got surely?

Your not wrong, can't change the past one built and another building, all it's comes down to now is funding with past history not being kind.

[shark bait]

It is rather moot I will agree. It's what we've got and to me it is clearly the right option.

What I think is a better discussion (and more realistic) is would 2 small carriers be good to work along side the bigger ones as future Albion replacements

[SKB]

It is rather moot I will agree. It's what we've got and to me it is clearly the right option.

What I think is a better discussion (and more realistic) is would 2 small carriers be good to work along side the bigger ones as future Albion replacements

France has a couple of Mistral's going spare, although HMS Vladivostok and HMS Sevastopol will both need a name change.

[shark bait]

That is a very very nice thought. Just not sure how practical it would be in reality

[R686]

It is rather moot I will agree. It's what we've got and to me it is clearly the right option.

What I think is a better discussion (and more realistic) is would 2 small carriers be good to work along side the bigger ones as future Albion replacements

Yes of course, scuttle bug is that you may or may not lose another Bay if funding is agreeable a trio of Juan Carlos/ Canberra class LHD will improve the situation as well as taking a role away from the CVF also being F35B compatible will increase options on how you deploy, but please note the LHD should not be seen as a replacement for CVF

It's also worth mentioning that of the diffrent concepts of both Cavour & Canberra

Cavour is an aircraft carrier with a secondary role of Amphiboius Assualt.

Canberra is an Amphiboius Assualt ship with a secondary role of an aircraft carrier.

[Tony Williams]

That is a very very nice thought. Just not sure how practical it would be in reality

Apparently the ships intended for Russia are stuffed full of Russian equipment and would need a very expensive strip-and-replace programme to be of any use within NATO.

[Gabriele]

The only thing that it really means is that you will be stuck to trying to do the job of one large carrier with two smaller and less capable ones. 

We are not discussing replacing 1 for 2 but 2 for 3 or in my case 4

The Royal Navy experienced that at the Falklands, making do with Invincible and Hermes, and the questionable benefits are surpassed by the problems. 

And the reason for is exactly as they are today lack of will and the economic state for economy,  it was an unfortunate set of events that lead to that situation, the decommissioning of Ark Royal(R09) back in 79, the early withdrawal of Bulwark(R08) because of a fire in her boilers, she was used in the trials of the Sea Harrier and the late delivery of their replacements because of economic burden(Invincible's ) 

Even then, it was awfully clear that HMS Hermes, being larger and carrying more fuel, more weaponry, more stores, was the key element in sustaining the air effort. "Lose HMS Invincible and the operation is seriously hampered; but lose HMS Hermes and the operation is over", is a point that admiral Woodward had very clear in his mind and that is well present in his memories of op Corporate. 

All that supports is the need for multiple platforms big or small. Because Illustrious was not ready they turned to the next best thing on hand Bulwark, but unfortunately because of her unmaintained state they decide against the idea.

The idea of multiple small carriers being "better" than fewer large ones is something that comes up every now and then. But it continues to be the wrong suggestion, and no amount of make believe is going to change that. 

While I'll concede that building multiple carriers is expensive, but we also have to look at the overall picture of what makes a carrier and the roles in which you want to do which comes down to aircraft and manpower. The overriding factor of 4 smaller carriers has not changed the status Que. For your most expensive equipment after the carriers themselves is the aircraft( ie the same as QE) the manpower question is also the same 

Also, the Royal Navy had just two aircraft carriers in 1982, and an handful of Sea Harriers. It managed to deploy both carriers and 90% of the Sea Harriers it had. If push came to shove in a big way, every effort will be made to put to sea both QEs. Exactly how easy this would be, we will know once we are told what exactly they are meaning with "putting both in service"
.

As I said before while only having 2 at the the was only because of bad luck and timing, the signs were there for the oncoming campaign, but with hindsight not acted upon. It's the old saying you go to war with what you have not what you want. Economic pressure dictates the force structure at the time, the 3 Invisibles were replacements for Ark Royal, Eagle and Hermes. Ark Royal(R09)&Eagle(R05) we're original supposed to be a class of 4.

Back in the early 60's the RN had hoped of getting new carriers also know as CV01 with the budget at the time has 2 going to be built the RN had hoped that 3 were built but unfortunately  the 66 White paper scuttled those planes, as you can plainly see the RN is infact favourable to multiple CV platforms and it's economic pressure that halts those plans. 

The size of the current CVF was dictated by future proofing the CV as Catobar ops dictate the size of the aircraft and catapults, it's also interesting to note that the air group for both was to be the same, the size of the CV was Infact a by product of future proofing.

Okay, last time i try to answer to this endless story: it is nonsense.
Of course the Royal Navy, and any navy, would like the security of having multiple platforms. But money, and its manifestation as aircraft and manpower too, have a say in it.

It is of absolutely no usefulness or use at all to propose "replacing 2 large with 3 or 4 small" when it is clear that:

- It would not cost less
- It would not do more, but actually less, with only the theorical benefit of being able to "absorb" the loss of one

It is not desirable to try and make up a "large carrier" by deploying two small ones. The possibility to "disperse" multiple carriers over a wider area is also a moot point unless you also have the extra escorts and supply ships that go along with the small carrier with small stores space.
It just isn't going to work, period. The Royal Navy has long given up on the ambition of deploying separate groups. There is no "carrier group" and "amphibious group" anymore, but the single Response Force Task Group. This could only change, and even then in theory only, assuming that the savings were effectively re-invested into escorts and support, if the multiple-carrier solution was a hell of a lot cheaper. But it isn't.

[cockneyjock1974]

Looks like the rest of the bow section (UB01) has been craned on, pics to follow.

PS with the greatest of respect i'm with Gabby and Downsizer this small VS big carrier debate is a waste of grey matter. My hope is that every year a purchase of F35B's is allocated out of our £40 billion defence budget until we have 100+ numbers.

I genuinely feel or more to the point wish, that the RN should get 48 B's and reform 3 squadrons plus 899 training. The RAF should get it's fair share of Dave B's but I genuinely feel the RAF should have the Dave C as well. Purely for probe and drogue, weapons carriage and range reasons (or just in case we go Catobar in the decades to come).

Anyway that's too sensible for any government.

[Pymes75]

Looks like the rest of the bow section (UB01) has been craned on, pics to follow.

Cheers Cockney! Really good to have 'our man' in Rosyth back!!

[cockneyjock1974]

[The Armchair Soldier]

Excellent pictures again, CJ, thanks for sharing them.

[R686]

Gabriele. 
We both have differing opinions on the matter, I haven't change the numbers of aircraft or manpower requirements for 2x CVF or 4x light carriers over the life of the program those numbers do not change. But let's look at your points of your last post. I looked into the $ a bit more it's also does not take into account if the UK could build them to the same price.

A- "It would not cost less"
CVF- Cost to Build: £3,5 billion (US$5,520 billion), which is £7 billion for the two carriers of the QE-class by the 2008 contract. And this is without the extra cost of slowing down the build and the u-turns from STOVL to CATOBAR and back again.
( most sources use USD so I have used that as the comparison basis)
Japanese Izumo - 113.9 Billion Yen or 1.5B USD
America class program USD 10.1B for 3 USS America cost USD 3.4 
RAN- Canberra class LHD AUD3.2B or USD3.5B for 2
Using the most costliest of the lot the USN America class is USD 10.2Bfor 3 or USD 13.6B for 4 compared to the USD 11B for 2x CVF




B- It would not do more, but actually less, with only the theoretical benefit of being able to "absorb" the loss of one 

Wow the "theoretical" benefit if the unthinkable did happen you have just lost 50% of you carrier capability plus 50% of your compatible aircraft along with your manpower requirements. 

With 4 smaller carriers if you lost one is 25% of your carrier force ship, aircraft and manpower or in other words if you can now surge your 3rd carrier into action as a replacement which bring you back to the same operation strength with one QE. 

We saw in the Falklands with the lose of the General Belgrano and the affect it had on the sole aircraft carrier Veinticinco de Mayo back to port for the remainder of the war, would the UK risk there last remaining carrier if one was lost?

[Enigmatically]

I do like the concept of more, smaller ships provide better flexibility and survivability. Indeed I believe that the USN should go that way.

BUT, and its a big but. Both consortia looked at the issue and decided that the current QEC size was most appropriate. The desire to include the possibility of catapults was a factor, but if you recall, the original design competition required both consortia to submit separate designs for a STOVL and CATOBAR carrier. All 4 were of a similar size. Only subsequently did the MOD ask the consortia for an adaptable design, and that too was a similar size.

As I have said before the reasons are many fold. Yes it is possible to operate F35Bs off a smaller carrier. However to provide the capability for full load bring back, to get to the "sweet-spot" of sortie generation rate, to provide the information, briefing, simulation and support capabilities needed to make full use of these aircraft all lead to a carrier around the size of QEC.

It would be possible to build 3 or 4 smaller carriers, but they would not give the strike power as 2 QEC, and would cost more through life. Remember the build cost is a tiny part. The manpower for 3 or 4 smaller carriers would come to more

[SKB]

Thanks to CJ for more new photos and confirmation of the UB01 (VB03-VB04) lift.
PoW Assembly diagram updated
I guess that front part of the ramp will be the next lift.

PoW Assembly Diagram 30May2015 UB01.PNG

[cockneyjock1974]

Cheers folks, I hope i'm right about the lift lol. However the pics indicate it's taken place, I've compared them with the other ones and it certainly looks like UB01.

SKB nice one on the diagram.