Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Smokey]

I meant to post this a couple of days ago but forgot.

[inch]

Well I ll be glad when we can just get some more pics on this page lol ,

[SKB]

Damn. I could have asked Admiral Lord West what colour the wardroom carpet is....
I could have bribed him with chips

[seaspear]

I thought the aim for the ship was for a sustainable 75 sorties a day for five days ,perhaps more important than amount of aircraft that can be fitted here and there

[SKB]

You can see QE live on the HMS Warrior webcam, they've added her to the preset views.
http://www.hmswarrior.org/webcam

[swoop]

I would have expected a standardised tie-down layout for the helo's. 2nd cab being creative with the strops?





Also of note in someone's previous post, was a near water level view from the aft port quarter which really showed how light she is forward.
The boottop angle was quite prominent.

[WhitestElephant]

You say we only have 6 AAW and 8 ASW but you neglect the 5 GP escorts we have.

Do you mean those 5 T23s on borrowed time? Or the crappy little T31?

You are delusional if you think the RN surface fleet is significantly larger than the RAN.

[Zealot]

And how is it not a good fit for the RAN instead of a 70,000tn supper carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth is 65,000tn and designed to operate upto 36 F35s.

She was Designed to carry 72 Aircraft; 50 of those I imagine being F35.

[Jake1992]

You say we only have 6 AAW and 8 ASW but you neglect the 5 GP escorts we have.

Do you mean those 5 T23s on borrowed time? Or the crappy little T31?

You are delusional if you think the RN surface fleet is significantly larger than the RAN.

The "crappy T31" when you have no idea what there going to be like just like everyone on here you may be right they might come out as just pimped out OPVs but you could just as easily be wrong and they come out as capable light frigate capable of escorting.
No one on here knows what they are going to be like as there is no real information on them yet, some take the pessimistic look on them ( pimped OPV ) others take a more hopeful look ( Spartan venator 110 ) but just saying there going be crappy doesn't make it so and show ignorance that you think your right no matter what

But it's clear to see that you can not put a rational counter argument across when your shown be wrong by saying the RN fleet is the same size as the RANs so you just resort to insults

[WhitestElephant]

The "crappy T31" when you have no idea what there going to be like just like everyone on here you may be right they might come out as just pimped out OPVs but you could just as easily be wrong and they come out as capable light frigate capable of escorting.
No one on here knows what they are going to be like as there is no real information on them yet, some take the pessimistic look on them ( pimped OPV ) others take a more hopeful look ( Spartan venator 110 ) but just saying there going be crappy doesn't make it so and show ignorance that you think your right no matter what

But it's clear to see that you can not put a rational counter argument across when your shown be wrong by saying the RN fleet is the same size as the RANs so you just resort to insults

I think we have a reasonably good idea of how low-end the T31 will be, given the budget and some of the proposals put forward by BAE etc.

I take issue with your original assertion that a large deck carrier is "over kill" for the RAN. Why do you feel that the RN is somehow so much better than the RAN, that we can operate large fixed-wing carriers and they cannot?

I never said the RN is the same size as the RAN, I said they were of similar size, and they are. Ignoring the joke that is T31, the RN will end up with 6 AAW destroyers and 8 ASW frigates. The RAN 3 and 9 respectively - a difference of two!

The RAN is significantly smaller than the RN, 47 vessels to the 77 of the RN that a 50% larger fleet

Quoting me figures which include vessels like the P2000s and Gleaner to "prove" the RN is significantly larger than the RAN is just stupid.

Anyway, I've had enough with your bullshit comments and dreadful English.

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

[Jake1992]

The "crappy T31" when you have no idea what there going to be like just like everyone on here you may be right they might come out as just pimped out OPVs but you could just as easily be wrong and they come out as capable light frigate capable of escorting.
No one on here knows what they are going to be like as there is no real information on them yet, some take the pessimistic look on them ( pimped OPV ) others take a more hopeful look ( Spartan venator 110 ) but just saying there going be crappy doesn't make it so and show ignorance that you think your right no matter what

But it's clear to see that you can not put a rational counter argument across when your shown be wrong by saying the RN fleet is the same size as the RANs so you just resort to insults

I think we have a reasonably good idea of how low-end the T31 will be, given the budget and some of the proposals put forward by BAE etc.

I take issue with your original assertion that a large deck carrier is "over kill" for the RAN. Why do you feel that the RN is somehow so much better than the RAN, that we can operate large fixed-wing carriers and they cannot?

I never said the RN is the same size as the RAN, I said they were of similar size, and they are. Ignoring the joke that is T31, the RN will end up with 6 AAW destroyers and 8 ASW frigates. The RAN 3 and 9 respectively - a difference of two!

The RAN is significantly smaller than the RN, 47 vessels to the 77 of the RN that a 50% larger fleet

Quoting me figures which include vessels like the P2000s and Gleaner to "prove" the RN is significantly larger than the RAN is just stupid.

Anyway, I've had enough with your bullshit comments and dreadful English.

I am not saying the RN are better than the RAN I believe the RAN is a very good navy and I'm jealous of the new LHDs they have. When I comes the the flat top issus I was surgesting for what the RAN needs a 30,000tb odd CV and converting the LHDs to fix would allow a better over all capabilty than one 70,000tn super carrier, the RN had them due to the fact that our goal is to be globally deployed and have a strike capability anywhere in the world, the RAN on the other hand is consentrating on it own region for good reason.

You have no idea what the T31 is going to be like your just assuming. The budget is meant to be what's left after out of the T26 budget but once again we have no idea what that is and just assume based on what very little info there is out there. All we've seen is a few concept designs ranging from the pimped up OPV ( avenger ) to the capable little frigate ( Spartan ) but until there is a comfermed budget you and the rest of us are just guessing.

For you to conveniently leave out the T31s just to try and make your point work doesn't mean you are correct, as it stands and looks likely to go forward the RN surfice combatant fleet will be just over 50% larger than that of the RANs that is just fact.
As for the over all fleet every vessel was taken in to account from both navy's small and large vessels, unlike you I am not trying to doctor the numbers to suit my point I'm using the facts that are there.

But saddly I can see you have resorted to insults again because you arguement that the RAN and the RN are the same nearly the same size does not add up.

[Aethulwulf]

The QEs will actually be able to operate more than 36 F35Bs if needed, it's been stated and widely accepted on here that it can operate 60-70 aircraft, once you take away ASW AEW COD AAR your left with space for around 42-48 aircraft

She was Designed to carry 72 Aircraft; 50 of those I imagine being F35.

I hate to shatter your illusions, but you need to learn there is often a big difference between the truth and things that are "stated and widely accepted" on internet forums, or even stated by self proclaimed "defence experts" on YouTube clips.

There is no way the QEC can operate 70 aircraft. See might have the space to ferry 70 aircraft, but not to operate them.

She was designed around the ability to operate 36 F35s and 4 Merlins. Her hanger is large enough to hold 24 F35s. In addition, there are another 24 parking places on deck. While this in theory gives a total of 48, years of operational experience has shown that when you exceed about 80-85% capacity the sortie generation rate goes down instead of up. In other words, a QEC carrying 48 aircraft is not as capable as a QEC with 40 aircraft.

Even if you could squeeze more aircraft onto the ship, you would start running into problems with not enough maintenance workshops, squadron briefing rooms, aircrew accommodation berths, weapon magazine space, fresh water generation, waste water treatment, etc.

[Jake1992]

The QEs will actually be able to operate more than 36 F35Bs if needed, it's been stated and widely accepted on here that it can operate 60-70 aircraft, once you take away ASW AEW COD AAR your left with space for around 42-48 aircraft

She was Designed to carry 72 Aircraft; 50 of those I imagine being F35.

I hate to shatter your illusions, but you need to learn there is often a big difference between the truth and things that are "stated and widely accepted" on internet forums, or even stated by self proclaimed "defence experts" on YouTube clips.

There is no way the QEC can operate 70 aircraft. See might have the space to ferry 70 aircraft, but not to operate them.

She was designed around the ability to operate 36 F35s and 4 Merlins. Her hanger is large enough to hold 24 F35s. In addition, there are another 24 parking places on deck. While this in theory gives a total of 48, years of operational experience has shown that when you exceed about 80-85% capacity the sortie generation rate goes down instead of up. In other words, a QEC carrying 48 aircraft is not as capable as a QEC with 40 aircraft.

Even if you could squeeze more aircraft onto the ship, you would start running into problems with not enough maintenance workshops, squadron briefing rooms, aircrew accommodation berths, weapon magazine space, fresh water generation, waste water treatment, etc.

Your comment on the amount of aircraft the QE can operate seems to go against everything Iv seen from denfence ministers to serving admirals and officers that state the QEs maximum is closer to the 60-70 mark.

From what I read the widely totted 36 figure comes from the desire to generate 72 sorties a day, when the design parameters were set for the request of design it was for a 36 F35 minimum so get the sortie generation needed. People often believe that means it's a 36 maximum which has never been stated as far as Iv seen.

As for the 36 plus 4 halos do you honestly believe that the RN would have a carrier designed that would go to sea with only 4 halos to do ASW and AEW never mind COD or AAR when operating at its maximum ? To me that sounds very unlikely considering we tend to operate 9 ASW halos alone.
You only have to look at the realise from the RN depicting the strike and literal combat configurations for standard use ( not flat out ) it show over 40 aircraft in use

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

120 tankers worth !!!!!!!

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

The QEs will actually be able to operate more than 36 F35Bs if needed, it's been stated and widely accepted on here that it can operate 60-70 aircraft, once you take away ASW AEW COD AAR your left with space for around 42-48 aircraft

She was Designed to carry 72 Aircraft; 50 of those I imagine being F35.

I hate to shatter your illusions, but you need to learn there is often a big difference between the truth and things that are "stated and widely accepted" on internet forums, or even stated by self proclaimed "defence experts" on YouTube clips.

There is no way the QEC can operate 70 aircraft. See might have the space to ferry 70 aircraft, but not to operate them.

She was designed around the ability to operate 36 F35s and 4 Merlins. Her hanger is large enough to hold 24 F35s. In addition, there are another 24 parking places on deck. While this in theory gives a total of 48, years of operational experience has shown that when you exceed about 80-85% capacity the sortie generation rate goes down instead of up. In other words, a QEC carrying 48 aircraft is not as capable as a QEC with 40 aircraft.

Even if you could squeeze more aircraft onto the ship, you would start running into problems with not enough maintenance workshops, squadron briefing rooms, aircrew accommodation berths, weapon magazine space, fresh water generation, waste water treatment, etc.

Actually Captain Jerry Kyd has stated more that once that QNLZ can accomodate 70 aircraft in a surge scenario setting, but if you want to doubt him, he is on twitter, so you could contact him directly and then await his response .......

[imperialman]

She was Designed to carry 72 Aircraft; 50 of those I imagine being F35.

Higher numbers like 72 represent the ferrying capability and doesn't relate in any way to operational capability. Could 72 aircraft physically be embarked on QE, yes almost certainly but it wouldn't be of any use to do so.

QinetiQ estimated a realistic maximum as 48 F-35s, plus helicopters in surge conditions and even then that's impacting the sortie generation rate quite a bit. In reality, QE is unlikely to ever carry that many, especially now she has to make space for many more helicopters.

In summary, the vessel could theoretically deploy with a CVW surged to the upper fifties or carry 72 jets, she is not however ever going to IMHO.

[RetroSicotte]

It's a bit pointless debating over it, as none of us know the exact quantities of aircraft type for this.

The Royal Navy, a first hand source, has stated "50" a few times, likely based around 36 F-35B, 4 Crowsnest Merlins and then 10 assorted helos of unstated type.

Captain Jerry Kyd has stated "over 70". The article writer at Wired misinterpreted this pretty obviously as "72 F-35's" and wrote it as such, when Kyd has stated elsewhere "over 70 aircraft". Bear in mind that Kyd in the same report was also talking about UAVs such as Scan Eagle size aircraft, and likely included this in his estimations. Also bear in mind the Royal Navy's intended operation of smaller UAV helos in the future.

Anything over 48 F-35's would go against the measurements one can make, even allowing for those measurements to not be particularly accurate. Especially as aircraft often move in squadrons.

Could it operate at 48 F-35B plus 4 Crowsnest helos and a few other assorted helos without suffering efficiency issues? Certainly. The CdG can operate 30 Rafale, 2 Hawkeyes and 5-7 helos on a much smaller carrier without any issues post current refit. A ship 30% larger can certainly accommodate a similar growth. If you measure out the space in hanger and up top, having 50+F-35 and 4 Merlins does fit, so dropping several of those F-35 frees up a lot of space for folded helos.

However anything larger than that and yes we'll start to see some oddities. Over 70 is definitely into the high helo/drone quantities or ferrying.

Also bear in mind that QE has less reliance on carrying helicopters itself, due to the large helo facilities on the RN's escorts, especially the City class and Tide class. So that "extra helos" number is very flexible.

So I wouldn't let people get too worked up over it. We can make estimates, but it's as always likely gonna fall somewhere in the middle.

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

It's a bit pointless debating over it, as none of us know the exact quantities of aircraft type for this.

The Royal Navy, a first hand source, has stated "50" a few times, likely based around 36 F-35B, 4 Crowsnest Merlins and then 10 assorted helos of unstated type.

Captain Jerry Kyd has stated "over 70". The article writer at Wired misinterpreted this pretty obviously as "72 F-35's" and wrote it as such, when Kyd has stated elsewhere "over 70 aircraft". Bear in mind that Kyd in the same report was also talking about UAVs such as Scan Eagle size aircraft, and likely included this in his estimations. Also bear in mind the Royal Navy's intended operation of smaller UAV helos in the future.

Anything over 48 F-35's would go against the measurements one can make, even allowing for those measurements to not be particularly accurate. Especially as aircraft often move in squadrons.

Could it operate at 48 F-35B plus 4 Crowsnest helos and a few other assorted helos without suffering efficiency issues? Certainly. The CdG can operate 30 Rafale, 2 Hawkeyes and 5-7 helos on a much smaller carrier without any issues post current refit. A ship 30% larger can certainly accommodate a similar growth. If you measure out the space in hanger and up top, having 50+F-35 and 4 Merlins does fit, so dropping several of those F-35 frees up a lot of space for folded helos.

However anything larger than that and yes we'll start to see some oddities. Over 70 is definitely into the high helo/drone quantities or ferrying.

Also bear in mind that QE has less reliance on carrying helicopters itself, due to the large helo facilities on the RN's escorts, especially the City class and Tide class. So that "extra helos" number is very flexible.

So I wouldn't let people get too worked up over it. We can make estimates, but it's as always likely gonna fall somewhere in the middle.

Let's put it this way, if we ever need QNLZ to have 48 F35's plus helos on, the **** has definitely hit the fan! Will we ever see that many aircraft embarked on her? No, but we could realistically see upwards of 25-30, with that being a mixture of F35's and helos. Admittedly, I suspect that a fair number could also be USMC F35's too.

[Jake1992]

It's a bit pointless debating over it, as none of us know the exact quantities of aircraft type for this.

The Royal Navy, a first hand source, has stated "50" a few times, likely based around 36 F-35B, 4 Crowsnest Merlins and then 10 assorted helos of unstated type.

Captain Jerry Kyd has stated "over 70". The article writer at Wired misinterpreted this pretty obviously as "72 F-35's" and wrote it as such, when Kyd has stated elsewhere "over 70 aircraft". Bear in mind that Kyd in the same report was also talking about UAVs such as Scan Eagle size aircraft, and likely included this in his estimations. Also bear in mind the Royal Navy's intended operation of smaller UAV helos in the future.

Anything over 48 F-35's would go against the measurements one can make, even allowing for those measurements to not be particularly accurate. Especially as aircraft often move in squadrons.

Could it operate at 48 F-35B plus 4 Crowsnest helos and a few other assorted helos without suffering efficiency issues? Certainly. The CdG can operate 30 Rafale, 2 Hawkeyes and 5-7 helos on a much smaller carrier without any issues post current refit. A ship 30% larger can certainly accommodate a similar growth. If you measure out the space in hanger and up top, having 50+F-35 and 4 Merlins does fit, so dropping several of those F-35 frees up a lot of space for folded helos.

However anything larger than that and yes we'll start to see some oddities. Over 70 is definitely into the high helo/drone quantities or ferrying.

Also bear in mind that QE has less reliance on carrying helicopters itself, due to the large helo facilities on the RN's escorts, especially the City class and Tide class. So that "extra helos" number is very flexible.

So I wouldn't let people get too worked up over it. We can make estimates, but it's as always likely gonna fall somewhere in the middle.

I couldn't agree more that 48 F35s is the max a QE could opperate once you take in to account the halo wing you do come to the stated 60-70 aircraft.
It's when people take the for mentioned 36 F35s or 40 aircraft over all as true fact, it's clear that a QE would no sail with only 4 halos to do ASW and AEW even if COD and AAR are dropped

[js44]

Mostly lurk and don't really post but did the harbour tour earlier and got some pretty decent pics and would be selfish not to share on here! There seemed to be a bit of testing going on of the propulsion system while berthed as at one point we noticed exhaust smoke coming from one of the islands. The dockyard was extremely busy due to the carrier being in port so it is good to see the public taking such interest in the navy/forces. Some people had actually been onboard QE for some kind of tour, but they all seemed to be naval officers in uniform, their families, and veterans.

[RetroSicotte]

Awesome stuff! Very appreciated for posting them!

[js44]

Got about 50 photos but am having some trouble posting them for some reason, frustrating. Maybe one day when I get my act together you will all wake up to find the thread swamped with lovely HMS Queen Elizabeth photos. Was great to finally see here though, I have been waiting years! First took an interest when I saw something about the RN's future carriers at one of those big festival of the sea/navy days in 2005 when I was 11. Remember standing on the deck of lusty that day and thought that was big but this thing is just ridiculously huge especially when you see it for real. Still amazed we are getting 2 of these after all the defence cut misery that has happened since then.

[Sunk at Narvik]

Heh! I first read about "CVF" in a 2001 edition of WarshipsIFR. Having first taken an interest in ships in my early teens (late 70's) when it was all about "managed decline" and immenent scrapping of the Ark Royal of "Sailor" fame- its quite something to see how the RN has been turned around and back into a proper "blue water" navy.

[inch]

Shame we don't have the numbers we had then tho sunk at narvik , I bet if you told the rn back then how few ships we have gone down too they would have said impossible ,a very sorry state tbh ,gowd help us if owt kicked off nowadays ,but the carriers yes a bright spot at least ,everything else not so imho