Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Pymes75]

Thanks, I had thoughts on those lines myself. However those ships are all on their way out and before facts about the SSS come out, most of the helo spots will be on tankers
- will they have mags for storing and handling weapons onboard (sure, they have facilities to hold and transfer containerised/ palletised ammo/ other weapons, but that is slightly different)?

That's a good point and one I don't have an answer for.

Fort Rosalie will remain in service until 2023 and Fort Austin until 2024. Fort Victoria could remain in service until at least 2025, so it's just down to what the SSS will provide beyond 2025...

[shark bait]

That's a good point and one I don't have an answer for.

Fort Rosalie will remain in service until 2023 and Fort Austin until 2024. Fort Victoria could remain in service until at least 2025, so it's just down to what the SSS will provide beyond 2025...

Solid support ship will be in by then. They are supposed to be in by 2020 which is still possible if they get a move on (unlikely) but 2023 should be an easy target. When they come along they will probably have significant aviation capabilities, early indications is a triple sized hanger and 2 landing spots.

Never considered them for ASW work though. Could that work if supplemented by a frigate?

[ArmChairCivvy]

SB, nip over to TD. He has just updated the already outstanding review of RN MCM.

At the end there is a picture puzzle of the future... which of course is the mission bay of a T23!

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Reading through the naming ceremony publication: 'HMS Queen Elizabeth: Commemorating the naming of HMS Queen Elizabeth, Rosyth Dockyard, 4th July 2014', the expected air groups are as follows:

[RFTG] 12 x F-35B Lightning II
4 x Merlin HM2
4 x Merlin Crowsnest AEW (a)
6 x Merlin HC3 / HC4
4 x Apache AH1

[LitM] 12 x Merlin HC3 / HC4
3x Chinook HC4
8 x Apache AH1
6 x Wildcat Mk1

[Strike] 24 x F-35B Lightning II
9 x Merlin HM2
4 x Merlin Crowsnest AEW (a)

[Full Strike] 36 x F-35B Lightning II
4 x Merlin Crowsnest AEW (a)

http://www.pymes75.plus.com/military/cvf.htm

I would expect something like the RFTG air group to be the standard one for peacetime deployments as this offers the best mix of aircraft for low intensity/contingency operations such as NEOs. The LitM air group looks very like a USN LHA/LHD, whilst the 'Strike Air Group' is broadly equivalent to that of CdeG. To me, that ability to mix a large number of different aircraft types, not to mention the Full Strike option of 36x F-35Bs (should an operation require it) keeps the QECs firmly in the premier league of defence assets.

Forgot one more there Pymes, the alleged SHTF group with QEC at her full 50 aircraft warload footing

[shark bait]

Forgot one more there Pymes, the alleged SHTF group with QEC at her full 50 aircraft warload footing

Sounds similar to the STFU group

[Pymes75]

Forgot one more there Pymes, the alleged SHTF group with QEC at her full 50 aircraft warload footing

Ah yes, the proposed air group for Operation Armageddon!

[arfah]

Prince of Wales news from Janes.

http://www.janes.com/article/54570/dsei ... r-alliance

[shark bait]

From an outsiders perspective they do seem to be doing an incredible job, some well managed quality British engineering!

[ArmChairCivvy]

Learning curve from doubling output is 20-30% in car production (from doubling number of units; but we are talking 00'000s for the measurement).

NASA quotes 15% for ship building; but getting that between n:o1 and n:o2 is well done!

" If the rate of improvement is 20% between doubled quantities, then the learning percent would be 80% (100-20=80). While the learning curve emphasizes time, it can be easily extended to cost as well."
- ehmm, was there a clause in the renegotiated contract that both (budget) excess as well as undershooting would be shared 50/50?

[seaspear]

Is there an expectation that when the two carriers are in deployment together that they would have identical flight groupings .

[jimthelad]

The original QINETIQ study showed a capacity for surge ops with:

48 dave b
4 aew
8 asw merlin
4 wildcat

I cant find the link but it was on the last blog, it was initially restricted but found it's way via a friend but later released in a RUSI briefing document. Maybe Gab can help?

[Gabriele]

The original QINETIQ study showed a capacity for surge ops with:

48 dave b
4 aew
8 asw merlin
4 wildcat

I cant find the link but it was on the last blog, it was initially restricted but found it's way via a friend but later released in a RUSI briefing document. Maybe Gab can help?

Sorry, but no. I don't remember reading such a study. Sure would love to, though.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

The original QINETIQ study showed a capacity for surge ops with:

48 dave b
4 aew
8 asw merlin
4 wildcat

I cant find the link but it was on the last blog, it was initially restricted but found it's way via a friend but later released in a RUSI briefing document. Maybe Gab can help?

For the one CVF, right? I had heard vague mentions made towards an alleged '1 aircraft per 1000 tonnes' rule too.

One thing i have never been able to get any clarity on what those figures represent in terms of how they were arrived at? By that i mean was 50 considered the maximum number of aircraft theoretically capable of being embarked and operated without any efficiency penalties relative to the operation of the mandated air-group of 40?

Presuming the answer to that question is 'yes - it represents the theoretical maximum number of aircraft that can be carried without compromising operational efficiency' does that in turn mean that the 64/65 aircraft figure that has been rumoured represents the literal amount of aircraft that might be embarked and operated at any one time?

Perhaps it is none of the above and that if anything 64 represents the operational efficiency 'cliff' as it were and that the CVF could in fact theoretically accommodate even more aircraft???

[SKB]

I had heard vague mentions made towards an alleged '1 aircraft per 1000 tonnes' rule too.

70.6 F-35 B's

[seaspear]

It has been reported elsewhere that the U.S marines will also deploy the f35b on the Queen Elizabeth carrier ,how many is not stated or how soon, if this is a rotation of squadron size in addtion to stated deployment of normal 12 F35B,s

[ArmChairCivvy]

RE: "One thing i have never been able to get any clarity on what those figures represent in terms of how they were arrived at? By that i mean was 50 considered the maximum number of aircraft theoretically capable of being embarked and operated without any efficiency penalties relative to the operation of the mandated air-group of 40?

Presuming the answer to that question is 'yes - it represents the theoretical maximum number of aircraft that can be carried without compromising operational efficiency'"

I doubt that the answer is yes; all kinds of figures were floated at the design stage (before it was fixed as for physical dimensions). So if there was space for that number, the modelling of a/c deck, lift and intra-hangar movements soon brought realism in - and reduced it to be able to generate (and maintain) the target sortie rate. That target figure (these days) seems to be 108.

[The Armchair Soldier]

A new CGI image - HMS Queen Elizabeth in Liverpool, taken from this article.

[Bring Deeps]

If you look very carefully you can see a young lad offering to look after the ship while the crew go ashore in return for a small payment.

[Gabriele]

If you look very carefully you can see a young lad offering to look after the ship while the crew go ashore in return for a small payment.

God bless him!

[Pseudo]

If you look very carefully you can see a young lad offering to look after the ship while the crew go ashore in return for a small payment.

I see that they've taken the hubcaps, but they haven't had time yet to put it up on bricks to take the tyres.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

RE: "One thing i have never been able to get any clarity on what those figures represent in terms of how they were arrived at? By that i mean was 50 considered the maximum number of aircraft theoretically capable of being embarked and operated without any efficiency penalties relative to the operation of the mandated air-group of 40?

Presuming the answer to that question is 'yes - it represents the theoretical maximum number of aircraft that can be carried without compromising operational efficiency'"

I doubt that the answer is yes; all kinds of figures were floated at the design stage (before it was fixed as for physical dimensions). So if there was space for that number, the modelling of a/c deck, lift and intra-hangar movements soon brought realism in - and reduced it to be able to generate (and maintain) the target sortie rate. That target figure (these days) seems to be 108.

It is certainly the alternative way of looking at it but as per my post yesterday, it is something that we have never been provided with much official clarity on - not that i would necessarily be expectant of such clarity as i imagine OPSEC may well creep up.

[Lugzy]

If you look very carefully you can see a young lad offering to look after the ship while the crew go ashore in return for a small payment.

I see that they've taken the hubcaps, but they haven't had time yet to put it up on bricks to take the tyres.

scouser jokes , if I had a £ for every time Ive heard them jeeezzzz I'd have hmmmmm ,,,,,,,,,, a lot lol , funny thing is I jog down the pier head every morning past the cruise terminal before work , and I've seen many a fine ship along side including the three queens , but I have to say seeing the QE or the PoW would be a truly unforgettable sight , I wonder if that would be possible , would it fit?

Considering the Prince of Wales battleship was built just across the Mersey from were the cgi image shows at cammell lairds it would be a nice touch .

[cockneyjock1974]

If you look very carefully you can see a young lad offering to look after the ship while the crew go ashore in return for a small payment.

I see that they've taken the hubcaps, but they haven't had time yet to put it up on bricks to take the tyres.

You Can't beat the old scouser jokes , if I had a £ for every time Ive heard them jeeezzzz I'd have hmmmmm ,,,,,,,,,, a lot lol , funny thing is I jog down the pier head every morning past the cruise terminal before work , and I've seen many a fine ship along side including the three queens , but I have to say seeing the QE or the PoW would be a truly unforgettable sight , I wonder if that would be possible , would it fit?

Considering the Prince of Wales battleship was built just across the Mersey from were the cgi image shows at cammell lairds it would be a nice touch .

I love Liverpool! I go on holiday there every year to visit my car stereo

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

^^

Good thing i wasn't drinking anything at the time of reading that!

[wirralpete]

Prince of Wales will be affiliated to Liverpool
http://navaltoday.com/2013/02/19/video- ... t-to-life/
As stated above the cruise liner terminal means that Liverpool is one of the few cities in the Uk that QEC carriers will be able to visit and tie up alongside, also Liverpool is a favourite destination for crews to enjoy a 'run ashore'!
So expect to see plenty of visits in future.
Poor form gents in some of the other posts.