Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Pymes75]

So if the jets are coming here, why is the QE bothering going to the US?

The test aircraft of 17(R) will remain at Edward AFB in the US.

[Pymes75]

Does anyone have any further information as to which month QNLZ will sail? I've heard June and August banded around and wondered if anyone could clarify.

[SKB]

It would suck for the ship's company if it sailed during the World Cup....

[Gabriele]

Seems June for sailing, but initially she'll stay in UK waters for a bit, i guess, if i try to make sense of the timings.

Merlin HC4 embarkation expected, while there is no news yet about Apache, even though that must happen at some point. There is also RAS to test out, since the first try was cut short.

[Digger22]

I'm planning a trip to see her on the 6th of June, so she better still be in Portsmouth! Fingers crossed.

[whitelancer]

Sailing June for more trials before leaving for the US in August returning in December, always subject to change of course, but I believe that's the current plan.

[SKB]

I'm planning a trip to see her on the 6th of June, so she better still be in Portsmouth! Fingers crossed.

She should be. Portsmouth Harbour's June spring tide is:

Thursday 14th June (HT: 12:25)
Friday 15th June (HT: 00:45 & HT: 13:14)
Saturday 16th and Sunday 17th possibly too.

Sunset times: 14th (21:19), 15th (21:20), 16th (21:20), 17th (21:21)
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/qhm/portsm ... ide-tables

[Little J]

Does anyone have any further information as to which month QNLZ will sail? I've heard June and August banded around and wondered if anyone could clarify.

Can't really imagine her not being in / near UK waters for a F-35-QEC photo op...

[SDL]

You know they'll do something around the Dover cliffs.

[SKB]

(Photo: Mary Rose Museum) 17/5/2018

[CR4ZYHOR5E]

Good photo....what’s the platform directly in the middle of the shot (back rear right of ship)? Phalanx is back left, front left and front right, is that correct (apologies for non nautical terms)?

[SKB]

I visited QE today and took some photos....

QE 18May2018 1.JPG

QE 18May2018 2.JPG

QE 18May2018 3.JPG

QE 18May2018 4.JPG

QE 18May2018 5.JPG

QE 18May2018 6.JPG

QE 18May2018 7.JPG

QE 18May2018 8.JPG

QE 18May2018 9.JPG

QE 18May2018 10.JPG

QE 18May2018 11.JPG

[hovematlot]

Good photo....what’s the platform directly in the middle of the shot (back rear right of ship)? Phalanx is back left, front left and front right, is that correct (apologies for non nautical terms)?

I thought that (Starboard Quarter) sponson was for one of the 30mm DS30M Mk2 gun mounts.

[SKB]

Some more....

QE 18May2018 12.JPG

QE 18May2018 13.JPG

Saw visiting French OPV Flamant (P676) there too

Flamant P676 OPV54 France 1.JPG

HMS Diamond (D34) was in. HMS Daring (D32) and HMS Dauntless (D33) are still in refit. T23 HMS Iron Duke (F234) is getting new radar.

HMS Diamond 18May2018 1.JPG

And HMS Forth (P222)

HMS Forth 18May2018 1.JPG

QE 18May2018 14.JPG

[hovematlot]

All that scaffolding to the right of the aft Phalanx sponson on the Port Quarter is possibly fitting the housing for the AP/SPN-41 azimuth transmitter. Part of the Instrument Carrier Landing System (ICLS). Being fitted as part of the CIP for the F-35B.
As seen here on USS Wasp

[SKB]

[Timmymagic]

Merlin HC4 embarkation expected, while there is no news yet about Apache, even though that must happen at some point. There is also RAS to test out, since the first try was cut short.

I don't think we've seen a Wildcat land on yet. Is that seen as not necessary to trial, or as its unlikely to actually operate from QE its seen as something to do later just for completeness?

[NickC]

The US House Armed Services Committee, HASC, report on the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act says the USN F-35C doesn’t have range to conduct long-range strikes without in-flight refueling.

"The committee notes that the aircraft carrier air wing has been optimized for striking power and sortie generation and believes that it may not be configured to support the long-range strike required by current and future threat systems. While the introduction of the F-35C will significantly expand stealth capabilities, the F-35C could require increased range to address necessary targets. The committee believes that several options could be used to address this issue to include developing a stealth tanker capability, improved engine technology, or to develop and procure a strike capability that is purposely built to strike at increased range."

The F-35C suffers from the length of its development cycle, the competition for the Joint Strike Fighter program began in 1993, 25 years ago, in a different era, the cold war had ended and China was not perceived as a threat. China has introduced the Dongfeng 21D, an anti-ship ballistic missile with a range of ~900 miles and a CEP of 20 meters, may be accurate enough with satellite tracking and terminal guidance to hit an aircraft carrier far offshore especially if equipped with a tactical nuclear warhead. The Chinese also recently released photos of their H-6K bomber (updated version of the Soviet Tu-16) with combat radius of 2170 miles plus its AKD20 Air Launched Cruise Missile, derived from the CJ-10 land based cruise missile, reported to have a range of 930 – 1550 miles (1500 – 2500 km) that gives the aircraft a strike range of 3720 miles.

The USN cancelled the 1980's Advanced Tactical Aircraft program, the McDonnell Douglas A-12 in 1991. the A-12 was a stealthy low observable delta-wing design and would have had a range radius of 800 nautical miles and an internal weapons bay capable of carrying 5,000 pounds of ordnance.

HASC acknowledge the future UAV MQ-25 Stingray tanker could double the range of the F-35C, pushing the Navy to develop a "carrier-based long-range strike capability."// "directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the HASC by January 25, 2019, on options to expand the strike range of a carrier air wing in a contested environment, including manned and unmanned capabilities, and Department of the Navy capabilities it plans to pursue in the Next Generation Air Dominance capability."

If HASC views accepted the use of the shorter range F-35B and with no tankers by the RN puts the QE/PoW at very high probability of being sunk in war with peer adversary with its limited stand off range bringing it within compass of many more threats and accurate targeting, memories of the loss of Prince of Wales, Repulse and Hermes.

[Lord Jim]

The last point is where many have their heads in the sand.

[Poiuytrewq]

If HASC views accepted the use of the shorter range F-35B and with no tankers by the RN puts the QE/PoW at very high probability of being sunk in war with peer adversary.....

So what are the options to neutralise these threats?

The first thing is not to let anything penetrate the defensive screen. Are we confident that the T45,T26,Aster,CAMM and Phalanx systems will cope with a threat such this?

In a peer on peer conflict losses are inevitable and currently RN does not have sufficient strength in depth to cope in my view. With current planning the strength in depth issue looks unlikely to improve in the short to medium term.

[Dahedd]

Is it such a huge issue. The B has ,a,far better range than the Harriers it replaces & if I remember correctly it carries more fuel internally than the original F18 did even with drop tanks.



Grrrr typos.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The USN cancelled the 1980's Advanced Tactical Aircraft program, the McDonnell Douglas A-12 in 1991. the A-12 was a stealthy low observable delta-wing design and would have had a range radius of 800 nautical miles and an internal weapons bay capable of carrying 5,000 pounds of ordnance.

HASC acknowledge the future UAV MQ-25 Stingray tanker could double the range of the F-35C, pushing the Navy to develop a "carrier-based long-range strike capability."// "directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the HASC by January 25, 2019

Build the A-12? To meet its mission criteria, it crew to the size that the catapults of the day were not able to "throw"
- when the catapults were being looked at for our carriers, the generation now being introduced was quoted as adding 25%
... so there's the answer

Rather than

the original F18 did even with drop tanks

take (which is something we can't do) the next edition of SH, for which you can specify conformals as a factory option

[Jake1992]

The US House Armed Services Committee, HASC, report on the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act says the USN F-35C doesn’t have range to conduct long-range strikes without in-flight refueling.

"The committee notes that the aircraft carrier air wing has been optimized for striking power and sortie generation and believes that it may not be configured to support the long-range strike required by current and future threat systems. While the introduction of the F-35C will significantly expand stealth capabilities, the F-35C could require increased range to address necessary targets. The committee believes that several options could be used to address this issue to include developing a stealth tanker capability, improved engine technology, or to develop and procure a strike capability that is purposely built to strike at increased range."

The F-35C suffers from the length of its development cycle, the competition for the Joint Strike Fighter program began in 1993, 25 years ago, in a different era, the cold war had ended and China was not perceived as a threat. China has introduced the Dongfeng 21D, an anti-ship ballistic missile with a range of ~900 miles and a CEP of 20 meters, may be accurate enough with satellite tracking and terminal guidance to hit an aircraft carrier far offshore especially if equipped with a tactical nuclear warhead. The Chinese also recently released photos of their H-6K bomber (updated version of the Soviet Tu-16) with combat radius of 2170 miles plus its AKD20 Air Launched Cruise Missile, derived from the CJ-10 land based cruise missile, reported to have a range of 930 – 1550 miles (1500 – 2500 km) that gives the aircraft a strike range of 3720 miles.

The USN cancelled the 1980's Advanced Tactical Aircraft program, the McDonnell Douglas A-12 in 1991. the A-12 was a stealthy low observable delta-wing design and would have had a range radius of 800 nautical miles and an internal weapons bay capable of carrying 5,000 pounds of ordnance.

HASC acknowledge the future UAV MQ-25 Stingray tanker could double the range of the F-35C, pushing the Navy to develop a "carrier-based long-range strike capability."// "directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the HASC by January 25, 2019, on options to expand the strike range of a carrier air wing in a contested environment, including manned and unmanned capabilities, and Department of the Navy capabilities it plans to pursue in the Next Generation Air Dominance capability."

If HASC views accepted the use of the shorter range F-35B and with no tankers by the RN puts the QE/PoW at very high probability of being sunk in war with peer adversary with its limited stand off range bringing it within compass of many more threats and accurate targeting, memories of the loss of Prince of Wales, Repulse and Hermes.

Doesn't this make the case for the RN to get AAR in the form of V-22 or something ( I don't like the idea of F35 buddy system as its a very expensive way of doing with our very limited numbers )

[Caribbean]

Doesn't this make the case for the RN to get AAR in the form of V-22 or something ( I don't like the idea of F35 buddy system as its a very expensive way of doing with our very limited numbers )

One would have thought so, but the decision doesn't need to be made for a couple of years yet and there are a number of other possible solutions in development at the moment

[Jake1992]

Doesn't this make the case for the RN to get AAR in the form of V-22 or something ( I don't like the idea of F35 buddy system as its a very expensive way of doing with our very limited numbers )

One would have thought so, but the decision doesn't need to be made for a couple of years yet and there are a number of other possible solutions in development at the moment

The reason I prefer the V-22 option over others is the commonality they'll be able to have in a bulk buy for AAR COD and potentioally a few EV-22s for AEW ( like what the USMC are developing )