Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[SKB]

(Robert Wilkinson)

I hope they do something before the commissioning about the rust around the anchor hawse, QE looks she's been crying

[SKB]

HMS Queen Elizabeth and RFA Tidespring

QE&TS1.jpg

QE&TS2.jpg

QE&TS3.jpg

QE being nudged into Princess Royal Jetty by her tugs, just north of RFA Tidespring at Victory Jetty. An interesting size comparison.
You can watch this in the video below at 2:00.

[Ron5]

Why isn't she moored with her bow toward the exit? For a quicker getaway if needed.

[SKB]

Why isn't she moored with her bow toward the exit? For a quicker getaway if needed.

Because QE's islands and lifts are all built on the starboard side. QE needs to berth with those next to the jetty.
It also allows the bridge crew to see the jetty easier, the lifts are near to the jetty for access, QE's electrical mains umbilical plugs in on the starboard side, the gangways are on the starboard side. It's also tradition, all previous RN carriers have always berthed on their starboard side.

[Ron5]

Great. Super explanation.

[rbw91]

I was wondering if there were any other reasons, the ones mentioned all sound a bit trivial.

[SKB]

Traditional old biplane aircraft engines torqued to the left side, as did their steering on deck. To avoid aircraft torque-drifting and hitting the island, the island was positioned to the right (starboard) side on the first carriers, not the left (port) side - except in Japan.

The starboard side island tradition stuck and has continued into the modern and recent jet plane age. The island has a good view on the starboard side. But not of the port side, the flightdeck and sponsons block/restrict the view if the jetty is on the port side. It would be only natural to berth your aircraft carrier on the side with the better unrestricted view of the jetty -the starboard side.

Modern carriers don't just use their aircraft lifts for moving planes up and down from hangar to flightdeck. When berthed at a jetty, they are also used as big loading bays for loading and unloading equipment and stores. QE's aircraft lifts are - surprise surprise - on the starboard side.

[hovematlot]

Fantastic pictures SKB. Thanks. Love the shots of her with RFA Tidespring, really good comparison. And I thought Tidespring was big!

[Ron5]

Traditional old biplane aircraft engines torqued to the left side, as did their steering on deck. To avoid aircraft torque-drifting and hitting the island, the island was positioned to the right (starboard) side on the first carriers, not the left (port) side - except in Japan.

My understanding is that early land aviators established an anti-clockwise landing circuit as standard. Obviously all pilots should use the same direction to avoid accidents. The practice was not changed for aircraft carriers (once again for obvious reasons), so the island was placed to starboard so the circling pilots could have a clear view of the landing strip on their trip around.

I've read stories that the rotary engines & their torque led to the anti-clockwise direction but I've also read that is nonsense. Not all rotary engines rotated the same direction.

No idea why the Japs were different.

[benny14]

Some interesting comments by the First Sea lord.

"We’ve done a lot of work to consider what a comprehensive, sovereign UK Carrier Strike group should look like.

It will vary according to the circumstances of each deployment, but in a high threat environment we would expect a carrier to be accompanied by two destroyers for air defence, two frigates for anti-submarine protection, a tanker and a solid support ship, together with an attack submarine held on a reasonably tight rein."

"Of course, with a force of 19 frigates and destroyers, this will necessitate a change to how the Navy delivers some of its other commitments.

The new Offshore Patrol Vessels and subsequently the Type 31e frigates will pick up many of our fixed tasks, freeing up the more complex Type 26 frigates and Type 45 destroyers for their core roles in support of Carrier Strike and the Nuclear Deterrent."

"To this core we can add other specialist vessels as required, and we expect to integrate ships and aircraft from partner navies too.

"In the coming years we will test the UK’s first directed energy weapon from a Royal Navy ship.

This kind of system will be able to provide close-in protection for naval vessels operating near to shore, while high powered microwave systems, also under development, will disrupt sensors and communications.

Last month, I visited the US Navy’s surface warfare laboratory in Virginia to learn about their electromagnetic rail gun.

This can project a tungsten warhead at a target 110 nautical miles away. It arrives at Mach 9, and can pass through 9 inches of steel.

In time, all these weapons will have a role to play in countering a swathe of emerging threats across land, sea and air, including hypersonic and ballistic missiles, drones and fast intercept craft, and our new Type 26 frigate is designed with the power and space requirements to integrate these systems as they reach maturity."

He also makes some interesting points on the royal marines and our amphibious capacity. Worth reading the whole thing. Linked below.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... al-lecture

[dmereifield]

"in a high threat environment we would expect a carrier to be accompanied by two destroyers for air defence, two frigates for anti-submarine protection, a tanker and a solid support ship, together with an attack submarine held on a reasonably tight rein"

Which of it's deployments would constitute a high threat environment during peace time?

I also note that the FSL does not explicitly state that these would all be UK assets....

[shark bait]

When that's assembled with 24 F35 and 15 Merlin on board it will be the most powerful naval formation that doesn't fly the Stars and Stripes.

A hell of a lot of work to make that happen though....

[Phil R]

I also note that the FSL does not explicitly state that these would all be UK assets....

"sovereign UK Carrier Strike group"

I would assume UK only assets as the carrier group was described as "sovereign".

Phil R

[dmereifield]

I also note that the FSL does not explicitly state that these would all be UK assets....

"sovereign UK Carrier Strike group"

I would assume UK only assets as the carrier group was described as "sovereign".

Phil R

I would be delighted if we are able to routinely deploy the CBG as described (whilst still meeting our other commitments and standing tasks) with allied assets in addition, as and when necessary, but the pessimist in me won't believe it until we (hopefully) see it...

[shark bait]

Its possible; (4 escorts in the carrier group + 2 escorts on standing tasks ) * 3 + 1 in transit = 19

Need to fix the availability crisis before that happens though.

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

Nice little side remark to the paymasters at the MOD with the reference to 19 ships, in other words 'you want the navy to do more, we need more ships!'.


Looking forward to seeing QNLZ with 24 F35's routinely embarked.

[benny14]

Which of it's deployments would constitute a high threat environment during peace time

I would say that that type of deployment would only be used during wartime or in high threat situations, such as if a UK CSG deployed to North Korea, the South China Sea or the Gulf during heightened tensions. We will most likely still see 1x Frigate, 1x Destroyer and a support ship as the usual composition during most deployments. And as stated, the CSG will be a massive NATO capability, and as such will be supported by other members, in the same way the French carrier, and US carriers are commonly supported by other ships. The type 45 has acted as the US carriers and French carriers AAW protection during their time in the gulf on multiple occassions.

"To this core we can add other specialist vessels as required, and we expect to integrate ships and aircraft from partner navies too."

[dmereifield]

Which of it's deployments would constitute a high threat environment during peace time

I would say that that type of deployment would only be used during wartime or in high threat situations, such as if a UK CSG deployed to North Korea, the South China Sea or the Gulf during heightened tensions. We will most likely still see 1x Frigate, 1x Destroyer and a support ship as the usual composition during most deployments. And as stated, the CSG will be a massive NATO capability, and as such will be supported by other members, in the same way the French carrier, and US carriers are commonly supported by other ships. The type 45 has acted as the US carriers and French carriers AAW protection during their time in the gulf on multiple occassions.

"To this core we can add other specialist vessels as required, and we expect to integrate ships and aircraft from partner navies too."

Thanks.

[Opinion3]

Does the Royal Navy not need to train for such high threat environments?

[benny14]

Does the Royal Navy not need to train for such high threat environments?

The RN trains 24/7.

[Old RN]

No idea why the Japs were different.

My understanding is that they planned to operate pairs of carriers, one with a port island and the other with a starbord island. The carriers would steam together with one having its "circuit" being clockwise and one anti-clockwise. That way the two carriers flight operations would not interfere with each other.

[swoop]

Some interesting comments by the First Sea lord ..."with an attack submarine held on a reasonably tight rein."

That would be bloody stupid. The same logic that Mr German used to keep the Bf-109 fighters glued to the bomber formations instead of being able to do what fighters do best.

Leave it up the the sub commander to instigate tactics, instead of interfering Mr Sea Lord.

[abc123]

Some interesting comments by the First Sea lord ..."with an attack submarine held on a reasonably tight rein."

That would be bloody stupid. The same logic that Mr German used to keep the Bf-109 fighters glued to the bomber formations instead of being able to do what fighters do best.

Leave it up the the sub commander to instigate tactics, instead of interfering Mr Sea Lord.

With only 1 SSN there and only one CV active- what can he do? To send her somewhere to hunt and leave CBG unprotected?

[Ron5]

Some interesting comments by the First Sea lord ..."with an attack submarine held on a reasonably tight rein."

That would be bloody stupid. The same logic that Mr German used to keep the Bf-109 fighters glued to the bomber formations instead of being able to do what fighters do best.

Leave it up the the sub commander to instigate tactics, instead of interfering Mr Sea Lord.

Not the only stupid thing he said. In a high threat environment, his claim that 4 escorts can protect a carrier plus it's RFA group is absurd and dangerous.

[seaspear]

What are the definitions of a high threat environment that four escorts can counter ?