Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Timmymagic]

I would hope that the Unmanned Helos would see the need for Scaneagle removed, mainly because I never really trust the cable that catches the damn things.....

It's ok the MoD has solved that problem....we no longer operate Scan Eagle....contracts ended.

[WhitestElephant]

Taking this in consideration the F-35 operable from the Cavour should be between 10-12 and obviously less than 24 .

Which isn't a bad capability, but i'd sooner have 2 QEC than 3 Cavour.

This reminds me of an article Spazsinbad posted back in 2013 on f-16.net

An Italian Rear Admiral stated that Cavour could accommodate 10 F-35s in the hangar, and 6 parked on deck. There really isn't a lot of room. Now factor in helicopters for AEW or ASW and you have to start deleting F-35s. Not hard to imagine why the RN opted for HMS Queen Elizabeth.

[Timmymagic]

Was Cobham not looking at a pod for the F35C? I know they are going to use that stealth drone as a tanker, which to me is a total waste of a platform.

If it's a wet pylon and rated for the weight there's nothing stopping them using the current one (I have to wonder if the UK has any buddy refueling pods at all these days) apart from the integration and trials. I've not personally seen anything regarding a less observable pod, or less observable external tanks and pylons save for the Israeli statement that they were looking at LO pylons and conformal tanks (and the Boeing proposal for a stealthy centreline pod for the advanced F-18 that they floated). I'm surprised that no company has looked at these as a comparatively compelling offer to F-35 users. It may be that the investment required, or the technical hurdles necessary to get over are too high to justify the investment. Stealthy/stealthier pylons must surely have been looked at during all of the LO work over the years, the only conclusion I can reach is that to date they wouldn't work very well.

[ArmChairCivvy]

If it's a wet pylon and rated for the weigh

- internally, fed through the "pylon" there can be 300+% more, w/o tapping into the drone's own fuel

the Boeing proposal for a stealthy centreline pod for the advanced F-18 that they floated

- that was for a sensor, much smaller, and as soon as they got serious, they made it internal

no company has looked at these as a comparatively compelling offer

- because none of these things are compelling; hanging bits off a stealth optimised form???
- how are those stealthy wing-tip pylons coming? That is about as easy as it can ever be. And for the alpha strike "bomber" they just simply have to have them... or we "put on " non-stealthy escorts? ... could be LockMart Mktg Dpt keeping the Brits happy and onboard

[RNFollower]

Here's a question to think about while we wait for PoW's naming and float out. How would you IMPROVE the QE class in future upgrades and refits?
Keep it reasonable. No "third island" or "nuclear reactor" type answers allowed!

Purely Hypothetical but:
Built as CATOBAR from the start
Not delayed to save Costs
Limited buy of Superhornets around 10 years ago to build up skills
F35C added as become available later on

Edit. for the record I do like the STOVL and the F35B, but CATOBAR just seems sexier

[RNFollower]

Obviously the main goal would eventually be EMALS, but thats too far ahead. Even if they planned it right today, it wouldn't happen for 20 years with how much they'd need to do to bring it in.[/quote]

EMALS? From what I gather from my American friends, EMALS isn't performing that well at all on the GRF, so I would suggest that we are 10-15 years away from that being refitted to QNLZ, which I would have thought would be the first to be refitted with that kind of system, if at all.

Maybe Enigmatically can answer, but wouldn't QNLZ need to have the flight deck extended over the bow section, just like the Americans did with the Enterprise? All hypothetical anyway .....[/quote]

Thinking back to the MP.net days, was there not an alternative to EMALS being thrown around. A British Firm called EMCAT?

[RNFollower]

There has been so many posts in the last week I have barely kept up with it. Anybody would think that QNZL had docked in Pompey and PWLS was about to be named. oh wait a minute....

[Meriv9]

Taking this in consideration the F-35 operable from the Cavour should be between 10-12 and obviously less than 24 .

Which isn't a bad capability, but i'd sooner have 2 QEC than 3 Cavour.

This reminds me of an article Spazsinbad posted back in 2013 on f-16.net

An Italian Rear Admiral stated that Cavour could accommodate 10 F-35s in the hangar, and 6 parked on deck. There really isn't a lot of room. Now factor in helicopters for AEW or ASW and you have to start deleting F-35s. Not hard to imagine why the RN opted for HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Yes i think the aim is 12F35 plus 5-6 helos on the Cavour, and 8-10 F35 for each of the two Trieste.

This bring us to the 30ish F35 between the three platforms, each Trieste cost 1.1 mld € and the cavour has cost 1.4 back in 2010, means they cost and are going to cost around 3-3,2£ bilions around what you paid for the QE no? Short of the airwing capabilities by a 20% (QE is at 36 no?). Is there an estimated per day sorties of the QE?

Gabriele is way more expert than me and i could be wrong

P.s. everything built at military standards and not commercial like the JC.

[Pongoglo]

Totally off topic I know but I was only just this moment heading down the A3 in the direction of Portsmouth when much to my surprise I was overflown at very low level by an MI 24 Hind in close formation with an MI 8 Hip! Spetznaz making a pre-emptive strike to take out QE ? A very odd sight over Hampshire and to be truthful I had to do a double take to make sure my somewhat ageing eyes weren't deceiving me. Both cabs were painted in identical 'deserty' camouflage livery and moving too fast for national identity to be determined, however unlikely even post Glasnost to be Russian, possibly Czech or Polish and heading for Odiham perhaps on a NATO Ex - anyone any idea??

[Defiance]

This bring us to the 30ish F35 between the three platforms,

You're only buying 30 F-35B overall so that's a garbage line of reasoning. You're not likely to get much beyond 18 operational at any time, personally I think that's a fair guess.

Not accepting that reality makes it obvious there's not much point going any further in this debate.

[R686]

....or a Bronco, that has a history on carriers already.

looks a little hard on the gear but doable, only other problem the are no longer in production

[ArmChairCivvy]

are going to cost around 3-3,2£ bilions around what you paid for the QE no?

No. And did you include the tranches the other Ministries paid towards the Cavour, Employment, Regions... what have you (just trying to get at the real total, before any comparison)?

[Aethulwulf]

....or a Bronco, that has a history on carriers already.

looks a little hard on the gear but doable, only other problem the are no longer in production

The US recently put a few upgraded examples back into service in Iraq/Syria.

So, get a dozen from the US, stick a Captor-E radar on the front, another rear facing one on the back (plus a datalink) and off you go with a new AEW for QNLZ...

...how hard could it be?

[Meriv9]

This bring us to the 30ish F35 between the three platforms,

You're only buying 30 F-35B overall so that's a garbage line of reasoning. You're not likely to get much beyond 18 operational at any time, personally I think that's a fair guess.

Not accepting that reality makes it obvious there's not much point going any further in this debate.

I myself wrote i could be wrong so why so aggressive, you could have just wrote, look you are just buying X amount.

I was just writing that because someone else wrote before i prefer 2 QE in place of 3Cavours.

I know that we are buying less, and that we wont deploy all three flat tops together .

[Defiance]

This bring us to the 30ish F35 between the three platforms,

You're only buying 30 F-35B overall so that's a garbage line of reasoning. You're not likely to get much beyond 18 operational at any time, personally I think that's a fair guess.

Not accepting that reality makes it obvious there's not much point going any further in this debate.

I myself wrote i could be wrong so why so aggressive, you could have just wrote, look you are just buying X amount.

I was just writing that because someone else wrote before i prefer 2 QE in place of 3Cavours.

I know that we are buying less, and that we wont deploy all three flat tops together .

But it's the crux of the problem. Theoretical capacity doesn't mean anything useful when you can't fill them, the RN will be better able to capitalise on their deck space than the Italians, that's just a fact. QEC was designed to operate the F-35 in significant numbers as efficiently as possible from the outset, you can't say the same about Cavour.

That was me who said 2 QEC > 3 Cavour, and I maintain that 100%. There are different operational scenarios, but for the UK, the above is completely accurate. That's different for Italy, which is why you have what you have. But for the UK we've been through this thought exercise, we did the due diligence and came out with 'bigger = better'.

[Timmymagic]

Timmymagic wrote:
If it's a wet pylon and rated for the weigh

- internally, fed through the "pylon" there can be 300+% more, w/o tapping into the drone's own fuel

It was a question about the F-35C buddy capacity, no drone in sight I'm afraid.

Timmymagic wrote:
the Boeing proposal for a stealthy centreline pod for the advanced F-18 that they floated

- that was for a sensor, much smaller, and as soon as they got serious, they made it internal

Nope. It was for the proposed Advanced Super Hornet. Carried weapons principally. You're thinking of the fuel tank with IRST sensor at the front that has gone into service.First image in the below:



http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... od-(-EWP-)

The Israelis seem to be interested in the after market kit..how serious they are, or if they have made progress I have no idea. Also not sure if they're applicable to the B variant.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-220748/

[Meriv9]

Defiance 100% agree on what you wrote, as you said we have different scenarios.

Now what i just want to understand is the cost comparison

are going to cost around 3-3,2£ bilions around what you paid for the QE no?

No. And did you include the tranches the other Ministries paid towards the Cavour, Employment, Regions... what have you (just trying to get at the real total, before any comparison)?

The ministry of defense said the grand total for the Cavour is 1,5 bln € plus 2,5 for the Jsf and its logistical support. The contract for the Trieste has been signed for 1.1 bln € both for platform and weapon systems .

In the 6,2 bln £ cost for the two QE are included only construction cost of the platform or also logistical, operational?

[Opinion3]

My carrier upgrades are as follows

1. Remove the fantasy that it works as Ocean replacement and build a proper LPD / LPH solution designed so from the outset
2. Add some form of CEC, I also understand that the technology behind "CEC" has been largely superceded but the concept is more valid than ever.
3. Add Sampson, a higher Radar is more effective, putting Sampson and BMD capabilities on the carrier is the highest floating platform we are ever likely to have. Integrate this with the above 2.
4. Ensure that we have the bees-knees electronic defense and attack capability. Really we need this capability for some of the flying assets too. The Americans have the EA-18Gs
5. Uprate the self-defence capabilities I think maybe more Phalanx and possibly Sea-Ram, but I suspect we have the capability to design, build and deploy something even cleverer. This might be based on CAMM, LMM, Brimstone or a combination of the above
6. Ensure that the shore facilities are more efficient, someone suggested a drive through replenishment. Excellent idea..... more ideas like that
7. Keeping the Rosyth crane
8. Moving the helicopters to another suitable and large vessel, like the MARS SSS thus freeing up the carrier's deck for maximum fighter operations

Now for the bits I have no answers for

9. Making the task force drone capable. With AEW and ASW being the focus. The objective being to provide 24+hr coverage per flight
10. Maximising the capabilities of the F35B. It's weapons fit in UK guise isn't good enough. We actually have some good weapons to choose from but we are skimping on the development and procurement.
11. Make sure that the carrier is suitably special forces capable. Do we have the right means to carry out extractions, rescues and insertions?

[Ron5]

I was thinking about the Osprey tanker there and I'm sure I read that her tank carries only 13,000 lbs of fuel.


Adding about 200 miles to the combat radius of a pair of F35.

Check your math. 13,000 lbs won't give 800 miles range.

[Ron5]

A few days ago I was reading about the developments that are occurring with the F-35 engine. I think it was in Aviation week. Might be available online.

Anyhoo, two aims of the programs. Firstly to improve fuel economy and second to improve thrust. The first phase would enable about 10% improvement in economy and was relatively simple to do. Subtracting the R&D costs, manufacturing and introducing the new engines would be cost neutral i.e. wouldn't cost more than buying the old engines. So 10% range improvement for free (nearly!).

Second phase would give about a 25% improvement. But not free

I fully expect some kind of funded improvement program will emerge that would be preferable to some of the ideas being floated here.

Of course this has nothing to do with QE news but we left that behind many pages ago.

[Timmymagic]

Quick question on the antennas on the QE Class.

It's noticeable that the ESM/Comms antennas on the QE and the renders we've seen so far for Type 26 are quite similar. Type 45 has a quite different, though very tall antenna. With the retirement of the late batches of Type 22 a significant intelligence capability was lost. So which of the new ships has that capability. I'm guessing that it would be T26 and QE Class, rather than T45, based on the QE Class being a flagship and it and T26's mast aerials looking more complex than the T45. Has anyone ever seen anything about the capabilities on these ships and which would replace the Batch 3 Type 22's?

[CR4ZYHOR5E]

As has been said, the Italians are only buying 30 -B models (15 for air force, 15 for navy) in total so I'd be staggered if we ever see more than 8-10 deployed on Cavour/Trieste at any one time. Half a dozen F-35Bs and helos on Cavour/Trieste packs a good punch.

The UK's initial buy of 48 is expected to service routine deployments of 12-14 F-35Bs. Add another 6-10 USMC airframes and you're probably looking at 20+ F-35Bs routinely deployed on QE/PoW, in addition to the associated component of helos.

I for one would like to see deployments with something like 12 UK F-35s, 6 USMC F-35s and 6 Italian F-35s all deployed on QE. That would be a really good advert for NATO interoperability.

[WhiteWhale]

....or a Bronco, that has a history on carriers already.

looks a little hard on the gear but doable, only other problem the are no longer in production

https://www.youtube/watch?v=0QQuyql36aY

The US recently put a few upgraded examples back into service in Iraq/Syria.

So, get a dozen from the US, stick a Captor-E radar on the front, another rear facing one on the back (plus a datalink) and off you go with a new AEW for QNLZ...

...how hard could it be?

Love the Bronco and have personally seen one take off and land within less then half of the CVF's deck, without any noticeable headwind so providing the propellers don't hit the ramp then it should be doable. If you want an old aircraft in that role anyway.

Other options:

The PZL Skytruck, if you don't mind the Ruskie connections.
The AW609, expensive and might be stuck in development hell.
The Osprey, humongous costs, seems to be oddly prone to crashing...
Short Sherpa, although may need a deployable chute and brake upgrade.
DHC twin otter,
Sukhoi Su-80, Just a little bit Russian again.
+Dozens more.

Plenty of options, just the budget to test/convert/trial/buy licences.etc.


Or!

Something altogether more awesome.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08 ... onder-fly/

[matt00773]

The UK's initial buy of 48 is expected to service routine deployments of 12-14 F-35Bs. Add another 6-10 USMC airframes and you're probably looking at 20+ F-35Bs routinely deployed on QE/PoW, in addition to the associated component of helos.

The initial 48 are for 2 squadrons of F-35s - 24 to be routinely deployed on QE and rising to 36/48 as procurement advances and threat situation changes. There will be just the 1 squadron for QE IOC in 2020 however.

[dmereifield]

If we can't routinely field about 18 UK F35bs, plus about 4-6 allied F35bs it will look very poor to Joe public. You can just imagine the press articles and the infographics showing how *few* airframes we can deploy compared to what the US, French, (and soon) Indian and Chinese carriers field. The take home message will be that we are unable to operate the carriers independently and need the US to bail us out.
Note I make no comment on capabilities, just the perception