Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[The Armchair Soldier]

Interesting comment from Admiral Zambellas.

I thought that to date the only drones operated from carriers needed catapults to launch and arrestor wires to land. Is he just speculating or does he know something we don't?

The internet suggests that the takeoff and landing distance required for the drones currently operated by the UK is approx. 2,000 ft.

He could be referring to ScanEagles which the RN already use.
Or maybe something to do with this? http://defense-update.com/20130904_pzl- ... aeEQflVhBc

[The Armchair Soldier]

What a magnificent view of five marvels of British engineering captured in a single image courtesy of RN photographer PO(Phot) Owen Cooban.

In the background, the iconic Forth Rail Bridge. Then the old Forth road crossing. Next to it the replacement road bridge, the Queensferry Crossing , due to take its first traffic next year.

And in the foreground, on the left, under the giant blue structure of the Goliath crane, the forward, midship and forward island sections of HMS Prince of Wales.

And a few metres away, in Rosyth’s main basin (nearly three million cubic metres of water – enough to fill more than 1,100 Olympic-sized swimming pools), a hive of activity beneath scaffolding and canvas, is her older sister HMS Queen Elizabeth.

More here:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-la ... -elizabeth

[-Eddie-]

Thanks for those pictures, it's a shame we can't get them any larger. Remember when the ACA used to provide big pictures every month or so?

[SKB]

(^Photo) That's probably the only place in the whole world where you'll see three different bridges from three different centuries all built beside each other.

[cockneyjock1974]

(^Photo) That's probably the only place in the whole world where you'll see three different bridges from three different centuries all built beside each other.

Yeah all three of em running past my back garden

[hovematlot]

What a magnificent view of five marvels of British engineering captured in a single image courtesy of RN photographer PO(Phot) Owen Cooban.

I would add those 4 Resolution class SSBN to the mix. The engineering in those was pretty marvellous!

[Bring Deeps]

Yes, that could be it although you don't need a carrier to launch seaspear. No doubt all will be revealed in due course.

[Bring Deeps]

What a magnificent view of five marvels of British engineering captured in a single image courtesy of RN photographer PO(Phot) Owen Cooban.

I would add those 4 Resolution class SSBN to the mix. The engineering in those was pretty marvellous!

I don't know if this link will work but you get a very good view of all the laid up subs on bing maps:

https://www.bing.com/maps/#Y3A9NTYuMDI2 ... FudWxsJTdE

[The Armchair Soldier]

It seems RN/RAF pilots have been flying strike ops from U.S. carriers in Syria:

Syria Air Strikes Conducted by UK Military Pilots

UK pilots embedded with coalition allies' forces have been conducting air strikes over Syria against the Islamic State group, it has emerged.

This is despite UK MPs voting in 2013 against military action in Syria.

About 20 personnel, including three pilots, have been embedded with other coalition nations' forces, including the US and Canada, the BBC understands.

Read More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33562420

[U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert] pointed out that already British pilots were the only foreigners permitted to fly Super Hornets on strike missions. “No other pilot can even sit in a Hornet, because they can’t get the clearance.”

Read More: http://news.usni.org/2015/07/16/britain ... 4zByT.dpuf

[ArmChairCivvy]

Let me see now... we will have one FAA sqdrn, one RAF sqdrn, and one "swing" one that in a surge can onboard (i.e have kept the quals to do that up). OCU and the 4 test a/c aside. Check sum: 48.

So from the above it seems that there is one from each?

[cpu121]

I've given her the once over this morning, it something has been lifted, then it's not overtly obvious. It certainly looks like the ski ramp is still incomplete.

Yeah, turns out it has been in the same position all week and maybe since the 30 June photo on the website - probably just keeping it out of the way more than anything else

Usually only get a fleeting glimpse from the FRB compared to close ups while visiting the industrial estates at Rosyth.

[The Armchair Soldier]

Some of you may already know this, but it's news to me so I'd thought I'd share.

HMS Queen Elizabeth now has her own official Twitter feed:

https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz

[SKB]

HMS Queen Elizabeth has been in the water for a year and a day now. She was floated out on 17th July 2014.

[desertswo]

Let me see now... we will have one FAA sqdrn, one RAF sqdrn, and one "swing" one that in a surge can onboard (i.e have kept the quals to do that up). OCU and the 4 test a/c aside. Check sum: 48.

So from the above it seems that there is one from each?

"A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away . . . (actually it was 1980 )," there was a pilot from the UK serving with the EA-6B Prowler squadron in Carrier Air Wing Nine deployed aboard USS Constellation (CV 64). I've been raking through the detritus of my remaining gray matter, but I'll be damned if I can recall whether he was FAA or RAF. It mattered not, because whether he was drawing his flight pay from books belonging to the First Sea Lord or the Chief of the Air Staff, he still had to be able to go from zero to 120 kt/h in 1.5 seconds off the pointy end, and consistently snag one of those four cross-deck pendants. When you've just been ordered to "call the ball," the color of money is pretty meaningless.

The following deployment it was the F-14A Tomcat jocks who had to entertain a "special guest star"; only this time it was of the USAF variety, as it happens, an F-15 Eagle driver. It seems that the Navy had been given the mission of putting in what the good Lord had left out.

[Ron5]

Let me see now... we will have one FAA sqdrn, one RAF sqdrn, and one "swing" one that in a surge can onboard (i.e have kept the quals to do that up). OCU and the 4 test a/c aside. Check sum: 48.

So from the above it seems that there is one from each?

Your 48 has about the same validity as the UK 136 planning number carried by the JSF project office. F-35B numbers will be set, or maybe just indicated, in the fall defense review.

In fact, given UK government history on such matters, I'd say whatever the final number will be, it will NOT be 48

[Gabriele]

Main Gate 5 is in 2017. It gives government a too easy way to not publish a number in the SDSR. The SDSR will not contain a final number, but merely confirm the 48 out to 2023, to stand up OCU, OEU and the first two squadrons, and leave anything else for 2017.
That's how i see it. I'll be glad to be proven wrong, eventually. But i'm pretty convinced that i'll actually be proven right.

[Geoff_B]

Main Gate 5 is in 2017. It gives government a too easy way to not publish a number in the SDSR. The SDSR will not contain a final number, but merely confirm the 48 out to 2023, to stand up OCU, OEU and the first two squadrons, and leave anything else for 2017.
That's how i see it. I'll be glad to be proven wrong, eventually. But i'm pretty convinced that i'll actually be proven right.

Nice Gabriele, although i suspect we may see indications a top up batch in 2017 for carrier strike to allow for potential 2nd carrier air group and then shunt the final decision on total numbers back to the 2020 SDSR. I think they probably want to see how the development of the type goes before going all in, plus they may want to re-assess the threat potential to UK and their force 2020 concept before making final decisions on total F-35 numbers.

[Gabriele]

I think they probably want to see how the development of the type goes before going all in, plus they may want to re-assess the threat potential to UK and their force 2020 concept before making final decisions on total F-35 numbers.

Read: "like with everything else in the Equipment Budget document, we will publish only highly vague budget figures for "procurement" and "support", divided by macro-areas, while saying absolutely nothing about requirements, numbers, squadrons or any actual planning figure, until we sign a contract depending on how much money the Treasury's accounting tricks have left actually available."

Sorry. I'm cynical.
I really hate how they never actually explain what they aim for. Is it really so damaging for national security to say how many Meteors, Warriors, F-35s are in the plan? Other countries do not seem to consider it such a danger, and publish documents with the plans in them.

No, it is not damaging for national security. But it is damaging for a government which wants to have the ability to slash budgets right up to contract signature, without anyone outside of the MOD being able to clearly track the evolution of things.

Sorry, again. Just makes me mad.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I agree that transparency is not at its best ("can be improved") and therefore putting less time and effort into reading the primary sources; just picking up from other folks

[cockneyjock1974]

Quote from a serving officer on the QE......

"Well one difference is that QE's fwd island now has a system visibly operating (at times at least) under ship's power.

Quite a milestone"

Wonder if he's referring to the LRR?

Haven't been taking pics folks as nothing new to post but will do if something crops up.

[easydiver]

Just want to say thanks to desertswo and others for explaining the difference between flyco (as we call it here) and the ship's air traffic control. It all helps to appreciate what's going into these great new ships.

[Enigmatically]

Quote from a serving officer on the QE......

"Well one difference is that QE's fwd island now has a system visibly operating (at times at least) under ship's power.

Quite a milestone"

Wonder if he's referring to the LRR?

He must be.

Certainly the LRR has been listed on the Radhaz boards for the last week or so.

Mike's explanation, whilst true, is not the whole truth

Firstly as well as Flyco and the ATC annex (ATCC in US speak I think) there is also the Flight Deck and Hangar Operating Centre (not sure of its name in the USN but they do have it, albeit in a different place)

Secondly, whilst the functions (and voice comms) are similar between the 2 navies, QEC has moved a long way in how it implements those functions from Invincibles and the USN. It is a good example where the RN have gone for far more developed and integrated systems. This does help to reduce manning, bit contrary to what has often been said, does not make you more dependent on systems than the USN. You are dependent on different systems it is true. It is also true that on QEC those systems have more resilience to damage or failure than their predecessors. Indeed they are more resilient to issues on normal operation as well. Some of that is building directly on lessons learned from the USN

Hard to explain but it is a significant change. I honestly believe that when the USN visit further down the line they will start asking for some of what QEC has done.

[cockneyjock1974]

Thanks for the info Enigmatically, I notice the LRR has moved again today, pointing due South now I believe.

[seaspear]

Nice post Enigmatically

[Jdam]

From Gab's twitter.

It seems that the Long Range Radar on HMS Queen Elizabeth's forward island has gone live and is being tested. Another step forwards.