UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Jdam
Member
Posts: 286
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Jdam » 12 Oct 2018, 22:00

External Pylons on the F-35.

Do we know if they are conducting weapon releases on the QE trials?

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby benny14 » 12 Oct 2018, 23:18

Jdam wrote:Do we know if they are conducting weapon releases on the QE trials?

Operational trials are next year.

Bring Deeps
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:06
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Bring Deeps » 13 Oct 2018, 08:24

A fully operational QNLZ is going to pose some soul searching questions for the people who control the USN budget. Whilst the Nimitz/Ford class is in a league of its own it comes with a hefty price tag and that's not even taking into account the decommissioning costs. Leaving aside understandable pride does the US really need 10 and will it be able to afford 10 indefinitely?

Jdam
Member
Posts: 286
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Jdam » 13 Oct 2018, 10:33

An interesting question, I think as America already has the infrastructure and technology for it Nuclear powered Aircraft carrier that is a cost that already spent and currently no need to walk away from it.

That said I think the US Navy needs to invest in getting the construction cost and operational cost of the Ford class down a bit. Does every section need to be built in Newport? Due to it modular construction could another ship yard in the states do section of the carriers cheaper and ship it there by barge like we did with the QE carrier? Could they adopt the mole system the QE carriers have to get man power down? I sure people with a lot more experience can come up with some better question.

I think the issue is that these things needed to be thought of in the design phase but overall I think the states will stick with the 10 carrier plan.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1321
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Timmymagic » 13 Oct 2018, 10:34

Jdam wrote:External Pylons on the F-35.

Do we know if they are conducting weapon releases on the QE trials?


No they won't be. But they will want to undertake tests of the launch and recovery onboard with representative loadouts as part of the trials.

Enigmatically
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Enigmatically » 13 Oct 2018, 11:04

Bring Deeps wrote:A fully operational QNLZ is going to pose some soul searching questions for the people who control the USN budget. Whilst the Nimitz/Ford class is in a league of its own it comes with a hefty price tag and that's not even taking into account the decommissioning costs. Leaving aside understandable pride does the US really need 10 and will it be able to afford 10 indefinitely?

Those questions were posed in rather pointed fashion when we first agreed the design and cost. The USN have been let off the hook a bit by the political stuff (by both major parties) that put the cost up so much.

Think of how cheap they would be if you avoided Labour's delays and the Tories flip-flop AND you were ordering (say) 30. It would be less than 10 CVNs, as would the through life cost.

But has been said the USN worry they would then get dropped back to 10 QECs only. The USMC would love them but the USN would veto it as they are not allowed proper carriers that compete with USN (hence why they are not allowed ski-jump I suspect)

WhiteWhale
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 19 Oct 2015, 18:29
Location: Somalia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby WhiteWhale » 13 Oct 2018, 11:18

Enigmatically wrote:Those questions were posed in rather pointed fashion when we first agreed the design and cost. The USN have been let off the hook a bit by the political stuff (by both major parties) that put the cost up so much.



The US military budget is approaching the point of almost relgious doctrine, any questioning of it or attempts to curtail it is seen as an insult the flag, and the 'heroes and warriors'. If the US political system was a little bit less... insane, then a few CVF style ships in place of a couple of CVNs would perhaps be viable but currently anything other then hurling more money on bigger things is unpatriotic.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10366
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Oct 2018, 11:19

Enigmatically wrote: not allowed proper carriers that compete with USN (hence why they are not allowed ski-jump I suspect)


I rather suspect that the above is down to the fact the deck is over-busy; in fact, in the early days (trials) they found it difficult to operate the airwing that the Americas had been designed for
- how (and if) that was rectified I don't think I've seen in print anywhere

The talk about adopting (possibly) the SVRL, for weapons bring back, does not contradict the above as in such situations there would be advance warning of the need (leading to a tidy-up in the positioning of a/c, rotary or otherwise, on the deck 'on the double').

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1321
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Timmymagic » 13 Oct 2018, 11:56

Enigmatically wrote:Think of how cheap they would be if you avoided Labour's delays and the Tories flip-flop AND you were ordering (say) 30. It would be less than 10 CVNs, as would the through life cost.


Spot on.
It would make a lot of sense for the US to have 8-9 CVN's (Nimitz and Ford, number dependent on the USN aspiration for 11 CVN) specifically for the Pacific (and the inevitable confrontation with China) and save the budget from the 2-3 CVN's not built to purchase 6 CATOBAR CVF for the Atlantic, Med and Indian Ocean. With the 2 QE and CdG thats more than enough to keep the Russian's in their box and deal with any regional issues. Forward basing of a couple of CVF would also be a whole lot easier. A CVF forward based in the 7th Fleet AOR would make a lot of sense. Manning would be the same, the number of aircraft would remain roughly the same. But as you say the costs would be dramatically lower. Newport News will be busy with those Ford Class for decades, a CVF build could spread the love to other shipyards.
Thats a whole lot more presence and combat power for less overall cost...as a result it will never happen

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10366
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Oct 2018, 12:31

Timmymagic wrote:a whole lot more presence and combat power for less overall cost...as a result it will never happen


Well, as someone upthread pointed out there are institutional and embedded barriers, but distributed lethality is going to challenge a lot of the thinking
- one consequence is that carriers will be kept further out from coasts

You will still need units that can operate closer. And those units will need responsive air meaning: close by.

The most promising F-35 update would seem to be on the engine side of things. The "B"s will lift more (weapons/ fuel) and will go further with the same fuel. The QEs will be much more punchy (and the whole size category becomes a more sellable concept)
- if we only can afford a meaningful number of planes
- and talk about selling anything to the US; Harrier pulled the trick (being alone in its own category... will history "repeat"?)

Bring Deeps
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:06
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Bring Deeps » 13 Oct 2018, 13:24

-Eddie- wrote:Sea State 6! I wonder if the F-35s are still flying and landing in that?

-Eddie- wrote:Sea State 6! I wonder if the F-35s are still flying and landing in that?


-Eddie- wrote:Sea State 6! I wonder if the F-35s are still flying and landing in that?


In his well known book 'Sharkey' Ward talks about testing Harrier landings on HMS Invincible in 1981 and the risks involved in landing with the deck moving by 30 feet. It is not clear if that parameter was actually tested. Presumably some of the operations during the Falklands war must have involved similar or possibly worse conditions.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3513
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 13 Oct 2018, 17:59

Bring Deeps wrote:A fully operational QNLZ is going to pose some soul searching questions for the people who control the USN budget. Whilst the Nimitz/Ford class is in a league of its own it comes with a hefty price tag and that's not even taking into account the decommissioning costs. Leaving aside understandable pride does the US really need 10 and will it be able to afford 10 indefinitely?


Yes and yes. Nothing better for power projection. QE's are nice but how capable vs a CVN? 50%? Less?

If you are looking for something to break the US budget, it is not the carriers. It's the Trident SSBN replacements. Just like in the UK, their cost is horrific and overshadows all other navy spending.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3513
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 13 Oct 2018, 18:00

Enigmatically wrote:The USMC would love them but the USN would veto it as they are not allowed proper carriers that compete with USN (hence why they are not allowed ski-jump I suspect)


Pulease, not the same old nonense. If the Marines wanted ski jumps, they would be fitted tomorrow. They don't.

Digger22
Member
Posts: 238
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
Location: England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Digger22 » 13 Oct 2018, 18:19

Excuse the daft question, but if the Ski Jump provides a benefit to F35, then why wouldn't they want Ski Jumps too?

cpu121
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 10 May 2015, 02:09

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby cpu121 » 13 Oct 2018, 18:25

They value the extra landing spot for helicopters on a flat deck more than the benefits of the ski jump to the small fixed wing force. The LHD/LHAs are landing ships first and foremost.

S M H
Member
Posts: 371
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby S M H » 13 Oct 2018, 18:46

Bring Deeps wrote:In his well known book 'Sharkey' Ward talks about testing Harrier landings on HMS Invincible in 1981 and the risks involved in landing with the deck moving by 30 feet. It is not clear if that parameter was actually tested. Presumably some of the operations during the Falklands war must have involved similar or possibly worse conditions.
During the Falklands war. In operational use on Invincible one Harrier landed amidships landing in high sea state. There was a over the bow recovery because the sea state precluded turning the ship into wind. There is some advantages in operating the F35bs in sea states that would curtail cat and trap recoverys.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1718
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Location: Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby R686 » 13 Oct 2018, 23:32

Ron5 wrote:
Enigmatically wrote:The USMC would love them but the USN would veto it as they are not allowed proper carriers that compete with USN (hence why they are not allowed ski-jump I suspect)


Pulease, not the same old nonense. If the Marines wanted ski jumps, they would be fitted tomorrow. They don't.


Agree, in most other Navies an America class would be the CV.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Pongoglo » 14 Oct 2018, 11:58

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Might be already posted.

In this USS Essex F35B operation movie, F35Bs are using the full length of the deck, 257m long, and still after the lift-off, it looks "heavy". See from 2:40- onward.


I think the bombs are carried, and fuel are full. I'm looking forward to see "full load" lift off of F35B from QNLZ. It can even carry something under the wing, because not ALL the mission needs stealth. With tanks and bombs under the wing, how long F35B needs to run, to take off from QNLZ?

Also, with using the full deck, it looks like the deck crews are experiencing significant blast wind. There is clearly only a small room for other helicopters to be carried. I had an impression that, F35B "strike" operations from LHD is doable, but with significant limitations on deck handling of aircrafts.

QNLZ with its large flight deck lies in a different world, I think.


I think the 'B' looks great with the gun pod fitted and remember the criticism that Harrier GR9 got from the Pongo's in Afghan because it didn't have a gun. There was much discussion on ARRSE at the time. Problem was solved when it was replaced by Tornado and there was many a time when a gun run was used and the preferred option over a bomb. The gun has many advantages in COIN Ops, less chance of co-lateral for one.

Still cant understand why we couldn't get the gun to work with GR7/9. I remember watching a great documentary once which covered the trials and the disappointment felt by both the aircrew and the Industry bods was palpable when they failed. Sea Harrier had two (Aden 27's?) and the Yanks seem to have had no problems with the AV8B.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3513
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 14 Oct 2018, 12:33

I agree, one of life's minor mysteries. I've never seen an adequate explanation.

Digger22
Member
Posts: 238
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
Location: England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Digger22 » 14 Oct 2018, 12:38

cpu121 wrote:They value the extra landing spot for helicopters on a flat deck more than the benefits of the ski jump to the small fixed wing force. The LHD/LHAs are landing ships first and foremost.


If that were true, the first two Americas would have a well deck. One additional spot would see a departure every 5 ish minutes, 8 spots would still see 48 helicopters depart in 30 mins. To reduce the performance of the worlds most expensive Combat aircraft to sacrifice one spot does not make sense. I can only conclude that the ski jump isn't seen as value in their U.S. Marine role, as the Aircraft is capable of supporting an Invasion force without the ramp. QE has a different role for her Daves, so Utilising every performance advantage makes sense. Time will tell.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1327
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 14 Oct 2018, 12:46

Digger22 wrote:
cpu121 wrote:They value the extra landing spot for helicopters on a flat deck more than the benefits of the ski jump to the small fixed wing force. The LHD/LHAs are landing ships first and foremost.


If that were true, the first two Americas would have a well deck. One additional spot would see a departure every 5 ish minutes, 8 spots would still see 48 helicopters depart in 30 mins. To reduce the performance of the worlds most expensive Combat aircraft to sacrifice one spot does not make sense. I can only conclude that the ski jump isn't seen as value in their U.S. Marine role, as the Aircraft is capable of supporting an Invasion force without the ramp. QE has a different role for her Daves, so Utilising every performance advantage makes sense. Time will tell.


My understanding of it is that it's a very political move from the USN as they fear that if a ski jump is added to the LHDs they could be seen by politiains as a real carrier and put at risk the minimum of 10 CVNs. The helo spots were used as a excuse with some higher up USN personal telling politiains that at least 2 helo spots would be lost by a ski jump and possibly even 3 ( which we know is complet bull as its only 1 )

It's really simple it's all about preserving the CVN numbers as if the F35B is seen to be too capable off smaller flat tops it could put the CVNs at risk politically, and due to the fact the USMC doesnt need to get the upmost out of the F35B as they have the CVNs covering them.

Digger22
Member
Posts: 238
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
Location: England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Digger22 » 14 Oct 2018, 13:15

I suppose the most important comparison will not be published for sometime if ever, and that is the performance comparison of a Dave operating from an America class to a QE class, once the operational data is known of course. If their is a significant difference then US politicians will know about it anyway. As they have been flown off a ramp for some years now, the predicted advantage of QE is already known.

User avatar
QEC Eye in the SKY
Member
Posts: 277
Joined: 27 May 2015, 12:51
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby QEC Eye in the SKY » 14 Oct 2018, 14:06

Enigmatically wrote:
Bring Deeps wrote:A fully operational QNLZ is going to pose some soul searching questions for the people who control the USN budget. Whilst the Nimitz/Ford class is in a league of its own it comes with a hefty price tag and that's not even taking into account the decommissioning costs. Leaving aside understandable pride does the US really need 10 and will it be able to afford 10 indefinitely?

Those questions were posed in rather pointed fashion when we first agreed the design and cost. The USN have been let off the hook a bit by the political stuff (by both major parties) that put the cost up so much.

Think of how cheap they would be if you avoided Labour's delays and the Tories flip-flop AND you were ordering (say) 30. It would be less than 10 CVNs, as would the through life cost.

But has been said the USN worry they would then get dropped back to 10 QECs only. The USMC would love them but the USN would veto it as they are not allowed proper carriers that compete with USN (hence why they are not allowed ski-jump I suspect)


So coming back to the ski-jump, would it require some 300-400 compartments of either QE class to be cut up and reconfigured IF we ever went towards the full catobar route? There's talk of catapults being added, in fact Cdre Jerry Kyd himself mentioned it, not too long ago, and would the power output onboard either QE be enough to power the ships and catapults?


Thanks

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10366
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Oct 2018, 14:09

Digger22 wrote:can only conclude that the ski jump isn't seen as value in their U.S. Marine role, as the Aircraft is capable of supporting an Invasion force without the ramp. QE has a different role for her Daves, so Utilising every performance advantage makes sense.

Digger22 wrote:the performance comparison of a Dave operating from an America class to a QE class, once the operational data is known of course.


The clue to the difference might be in how many missions per day the USMC plan to get out of theirs vs. what we plan as the sortie capacity. There is a remarkable difference and that might be simply down to range (CAS close by vs. something else), which in turn would also mean that USMC does not need to max out on both fuel and weapons at take off?

Digger22
Member
Posts: 238
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
Location: England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Digger22 » 14 Oct 2018, 14:49

QEC Eye in the SKY wrote:
Enigmatically wrote:
Bring Deeps wrote:A fully operational QNLZ is going to pose some soul searching questions for the people who control the USN budget. Whilst the Nimitz/Ford class is in a league of its own it comes with a hefty price tag and that's not even taking into account the decommissioning costs. Leaving aside understandable pride does the US really need 10 and will it be able to afford 10 indefinitely?

Those questions were posed in rather pointed fashion when we first agreed the design and cost. The USN have been let off the hook a bit by the political stuff (by both major parties) that put the cost up so much.

Think of how cheap they would be if you avoided Labour's delays and the Tories flip-flop AND you were ordering (say) 30. It would be less than 10 CVNs, as would the through life cost.

But has been said the USN worry they would then get dropped back to 10 QECs only. The USMC would love them but the USN would veto it as they are not allowed proper carriers that compete with USN (hence why they are not allowed ski-jump I suspect)


So coming back to the ski-jump, would it require some 300-400 compartments of either QE class to be cut up and reconfigured IF we ever went towards the full catobar route? There's talk of catapults being added, in fact Cdre Jerry Kyd himself mentioned it, not too long ago, and would the power output onboard either QE be enough to power the ships and catapults?


Thanks


As much as I would love to see a mid life CATABAR conversion, unless we can come up with a compact and cheap Catapult while having no R+D budget or political will, it will never happen other than some portable light weight drone launching thingy.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SDL and 22 guests