Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[S M H]

There is only a few docks that can take the carriers due to there hull cross section. The agreement to use the French navy's dock can not be invoked as it occupied by there carrier. So with no lock gate on King George dock in Southampton it leaves Belfast H & W in the U.K. That's full of off shore wind farm parts. so unless they vacate the dock at Rosyth its Holland or Germany.

[SKB]

I take it Portsmouth dock is full?

Portsmouth's drydocks aren't large enough for the QE class. The largest drydocks there are only 260m long and 35m wide. (Rosyth's No.1 dock is 310m long and 40m wide)

It's sadly ironic that the RN chose to base large aircraft carriers in a base that doesn't have drydocks large enough for emergency QEC repairs or refits. Instead, they planned to continue using Rosyth when available (which it isn't, it's got PoW in dock no.1), or Toulon, France when available (which it isn't, Charles de Gaulle is having a refit!). And apparently Belfast now has windfarm turbine parts in their huge drydocks...
*sigh*

[Timmymagic]

It's sadly ironic that the RN chose to base large aircraft carriers in a base that doesn't have drydocks large enough for emergency QEC repairs or refits. Instead, they planned to continue using Rosyth when available (which it isn't, it's got PoW in dock no.1), or Toulon, France when available (which it isn't, Charles de Gaulle is having a refit!). And apparently Belfast now has windfarm turbine parts in their huge drydocks...

i suppose the nearest solution to Portsmouth would be Southapton..if it still had gates...and a shipyard attached.

[GibMariner]

Cammell Laird:
No. 5 Dock (Wirral): 289m (max) x 42.7m (at the entrance)
Inchgreen Drydock (Port Glasgow): 305m x 45m

(Rosyth's No. 1 Dock was expanded to 320.5m x 42.1m)

Toulon also has a second dry dock that should be able to take a vessel the size of QE, I believe the dimensions are the same as the one currently being occupied by CDG.

There would likely be other factors than drydock dimensions at play (if the rumours are even true in the first place), just mentioning some other options that haven't been listed so far.

[SKB]

I've said it before, but Portsmouth really needs to have 'D Lock' (the largest) expanded. D lock is the 'newest' drydock in Portsmouth, having been opened in 1914...

I think there is potential for a 320m long dock in Portsmouth, which could be created by moving D Lock's West Gate 60m further to the west, without it protruding out into Portsmouth Harbour and causing issues with neighbouring jetties or channels. (There is also room for further expansion by lengthening the dock at the eastern end into Basin 3)

The extra width could be gained from expanding 15m to the south (at the expense of losing some land between D and C locks).

Current 'D' Lock (280m x 35m)

D lock (Current).jpg

Expanded 'D' Lock idea (320m x 50m)

D Lock (Expanded).jpg

[ArmChairCivvy]

Toulon also has a second dry dock that should be able to take a vessel the size of QE, I believe the dimensions are the same as the one currently being occupied by CDG.

The Ruskies would be around like a greased lightning, to get a replay of the vid in the Bay of Biscay (their own carrier breaking down; the tug hasn't left her side since - just in case):

[bobp]

Lets hope that the rumours of propeller damage, prop shaft damage etc. etc. are just that.

[ArmChairCivvy]

propeller damage, prop shaft damage

Sure! The former would be trivial (nothing like the CgG dropping the propeller altogether!). But the latter, if incurred, would point to a design fault.

[R686]

propeller damage, prop shaft damage

Sure! The former would be trivial (nothing like the CgG dropping the propeller altogether!). But the latter, if incurred, would point to a design fault.

Not always, the debris mention could be anything floating under the surface, you would be surprised at how much cargo was lost overboard in rough seas. For all we know they could of hit a submerged container.

[ArmChairCivvy]

You are right, and we are galloping ahead (of even the rumours) at lightning speed.

My thinking was derived from the length of the shafts and the number of support points, relative to that. My "lab test" is two iron/ steel nails of equal diameter. Hammer, meet the nail head... but slightly obliquely. The shorter one does not even notice, while the longer one is bent (not necessarily ruined: luckily I do not need a dry dock to pull it out, hammer it back to "straightness" and use it again, as if nothing - save for the huffing and puffing - had happened).

[GibMariner]

I've said it before, but Portsmouth really needs to have 'D Lock' (the largest) expanded.

I think there is potential for a 320m long dock in Portsmouth, which could be created by moving D Lock's West Gate 60m further to the west, without it protruding out into Portsmouth Harbour and causing issues with neighbouring jetties or channels.

The extra width could be gained from expanding 15m to the south (at the expense of losing some land between D and C locks).

Current (280m x 35m)

D lock (Current).jpg

Expanded (320m x 50m)

D Lock (Expanded).jpg

There was a proposal to build a new dock in the 60s along the North West Wall (where the Type 45 is berthed) for CVA-01. I agree there should be a dock large enough to take the carriers in their homeport, rather than have to deal with the difficulties of getting into Rosyth (and always have No. 1 Dock available) or using a civilian or foreign yard.

The Royal Navy's military docks were considered to be too small by the 1920s, various plans have existed since then to enlarge existing dry docks or establish new dockyards at other locations. None came to fruition due to the age-old problem of not having enough money.

[inch]

Could have hit that Russian sub ,trying to do the same as royal navy did in the 80 to there carriers and parking underneath bit to take pics lol

[ArmChairCivvy]

enlarge existing dry docks

Don't know if it has been enlarged, but in Hamburg the one they used for building Bismarck is still in full swing.

parking underneath bit to take pics

The story has it (this is from an ex-submariner) that the Akulas were so noisy that one was followed (only because it was not going full blast) on its way home - under it!

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

AIS still turned off?

[SKB]

New MOD/RAF video.

[S M H]

parking underneath bit to take pics

I saw the pictures that the navy took of the two props on a Russian carrier they had two props on the same shaft line. The inner shaft was sleeved on the rear prop like the counter rotating air screw props on the Gannet. This was made public many years later. The Russians don't need to repeat the navy's submarine feat as they can see all the information they need online. Getting Queen Elizabeth's sound signature is a different matter. If the rumour mill right its probably submerged rope nets. Anything larger would have caused the blades to be out of balance. with vibration problems . So running at 26 knots makes it sound more like slight damage. Or even the blades need adjusting routinely done on large merchant ships. When hull scrubs are undertaken by divers.

[djkeos]

Surely hope HMS Queen Elizabeth can continue her sea trials, but if necessary the dock at Rotterdam Keppel Verolme (recently taken over by Damen Shipyards) will have plenty of room to accommodate her. Dimensions dry Dock no. 7: length 405 m/ beam: 90 m/ max. draft 11.60 m Cranes: 3 (20 t, 30 t and 80 t)

[CameronPerson]

I hope she's able to continue with the trials because I couldnt handle the inevitable field day the press would have pointing out that she had to dock in a foreign country because of our lack of suitable dry docks

[PhillyJ]

The Ruskies would be around like a greased lightning, to get a replay of the vid in the Bay of Biscay (their own carrier breaking down; the tug hasn't left her side since - just in case)

That video made me seasick just watching it! Hats off to the tug crew walking around as if nothing mattered whilst the deck pitched back and forth.

[Gabriele]

The Royal Navy is budgeting to have one carrier at Very High Readiness (2 to 10 days of notice to move) and the other at High Readiness (20 to 30 days notice to move). We'll occasionally see both out at sea together, if they succeed.

[shark bait]

Good news. Very big challenges ahead to make that happen, but its a good plan.

[Aethulwulf]

This readiness profile was always the implication of the stated plan for Continuous Carrier Capability and Continuous Amphibious Readiness.

While the carriers might both occasionally be 'at sea' at the same time, it is likely that routine overseas deployments will be scheduled to avoid both carriers being on deployment at the same time.

[Gabriele]

This readiness profile was always the implication of the stated plan for Continuous Carrier Capability and Continuous Amphibious Readiness.

In theory. In practice, we had no earlier indication of what exactly they meant. The (legitimate) fear of having one effectively tied up in Pompey all the time has been voiced here and elsewhere more than once. This is the first real indication that it should not be the case.

While the carriers might both occasionally be 'at sea' at the same time, it is likely that routine overseas deployments will be scheduled to avoid both carriers being on deployment at the same time.

Unless we get to see big exercises of carrier + Lead Commando group. Then we might see a large task group going out, with one carrier "playing Ocean". Now that would be CEPP, delivered. The last time the Royal Navy deployed a Task Group worthy of the name was Taurus 2009...

[Aethulwulf]

While the carriers might both occasionally be 'at sea' at the same time, it is likely that routine overseas deployments will be scheduled to avoid both carriers being on deployment at the same time.

Unless we get to see big exercises of carrier + Lead Commando group, like the old Taurus in 2009. Then we might see a large task group going out, with one carrier "playing Ocean". Now that would be CEPP, delivered.

Just getting all the necessary pilots deck qualified for such a big exercise would be hard enough, let alone the strain on the logistics chain. I wouldn't expect anything like that to be attempted until after 2027.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Continuous Amphibious Readiness.

Difficult to get a full Cdo Rgmnt out of the two, on a continuous basis
- will that be a Company+ at VH, and other elements rolling onboard if time permits?