Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
South Africa

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Old RN »

If the catapult is for UAVs could it be installed on the starboard side parallel to the ski jump?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Jensy wrote:It does seem a bit odd how much effort (including the above) was put into developing/pioneering SRVL, yet the expectation seems to be that vertical landing will be the standard.
Don't forget the old adage that 'It's better to stop and land, than land and stop'...

Ultimately SRVL introduces an additional element of risk to a landing. The SRVL utilises all of the elements of a VL (engine thrust, liftfan etc) but retains speed on the deck. A failure of brakes, an aircraft losing steering on the deck at speed, a poor approach and resulting deck strike are all potential risks that a VL effectively removes or manages more effectively.

I think SRVL is going to be a bit of a slow development into live service for the RN, certainly don't expect to see it used by operational pilots until PoW is fully up and running with its Bedford Array. And even then its use may be limited. I suspect they will use it more often to maintain currency in it rather than it being a necessity due to aircraft weight (as I've pointed out before with the planned max UK weapons loadout currently planned the actual circumstances when it will be necessary are few and far between).

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Jensy wrote:Up front seems to make sense (where the 'graveyard' aircraft park is), though wingspan of something like the MQ-25 is going to be comparable or greater to that of a F-35b, so needs to have substantial clearance for the forward island and the ramp.
I rather cavalierly rejected the idea of using the graveyard as there doesn't appear to be enough room, the other side of the jump seems to be a better location.
Jensy wrote:Likewise I've got no idea what happens when a catapult meets a ramp, also not sure what would happen to a 'bolter' if it meets a ramp either? All the STOBAR carriers have angled decks.
As long as the undercarriage & air frame can handled the increased load and that the undercarriage is long enough to handle the rotation without the tail hitting the deck, I cannot think of any reason why a bolter LW could not take off up the ramp and go round.

For cats, I wouldn't place one on the main runway anyway for the reason below.
Jensy wrote:Finally, there's a reason the CDG has 2x catapults and the USN 4x per ship. One minor malfunction and half your airgroup is grounded (or decked?).
Very true and one reason for the RFI perhaps i.e. how reliable can they be made? Very, I think, is the theoretical answer. Much fewer moving parts than steam.
Timmymagic wrote:This has always been a concern for me with the SRVL, there's no barrier to be used in the event of an emergency.
I assume you mean barriers either side of the runway to prevent an landing aircraft from veering to one side or the other, and causing damage to parked aircraft and equipment? From, for example, a burst tire. Of course this could happen on a conventional carrier too. I suspect the chances have been assessed as being low enough to ignore.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

serge750 wrote:IF they did get small cats & traps fitted to the QEC ? could a E2D Hawkeye be launched & landed along with the LANCA's, as the E2 would be such a good capability to have...
E2's would be too heavy I think. I believe these cats would be for smaller (than the E2) UAVs.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:I suspect they will use it more often to maintain currency in it rather than it being a necessity due to aircraft weight
Very much depends on how much time the carriers will operate in very hot places.

Digger22
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Digger22 »

At the risk of ridicule, I have always believed that the QE class are capable of having wires and a cat (or two) in the waist position, while retaining the ramp. I don't believe an extra bit of deck welded on to form an angled deck is required, as they are wide enough to have an angled landing area, and cats positioned to launch off along that angled runway. The original conversion cost during build seemed ridiculous, unjustifiable and included costs other than the conversion. Having got them, I would like them to be as capable as possible.

andrew98
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by andrew98 »

Stupid question of the year for me....

Would it be possible to have a catapult launch that goes up the ramp? best of both worlds :wtf:

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »

Image

Fitting a trebuchet might work too.... :mrgreen:

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Little J »

SKB wrote:Fitting a trebuchet might work too.... :mrgreen:
I actually want to see some mad British boffin try this now :lol:

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Emphasis on the difference in scale of the flight decks

Image

Image

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »

Image
:mrgreen:

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Cooper »

I still sometimes think that, assuming the same level of funding was put in to them, we'd have been better off spending the same amount on 4 or 5 x 35,000t class carriers, similar to the Italian one, than 2x65,000t (or whatever they now displace) QE flat tops.

Having 3 of those at sea at all times, each with 12-16 F35's on board would have been a much more flexible force.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Cooper wrote:I still sometimes think that, assuming the same level of funding was put in to them, we'd have been better off spending the same amount on 4 or 5 x 35,000t class carriers, similar to the Italian one, than 2x65,000t (or whatever they now displace) QE flat tops.

Having 3 of those at sea at all times, each with 12-16 F35's on board would have been a much more flexible force.
It wouldn’t be affordable for the same cost, the 2 QEs cost a total £6.4bn but even if you could manage to build 4-5 Cavour style vessel for that you wouldn’t be able to afford the escorts needed.

A flat top in its self is pretty useless in anything other than to most Benin environment, they need AAW and ASW escorts along with supply vessels and ideally an SSN.
4 Cavours along with 4 ASW and at least 2 AAW plus 2 extra supply vessel could not be done for £6.4bn

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Digger22 wrote:At the risk of ridicule, I have always believed that the QE class are capable of having wires and a cat (or two) in the waist position, while retaining the ramp. I don't believe an extra bit of deck welded on to form an angled deck is required, as they are wide enough to have an angled landing area, and cats positioned to launch off along that angled runway. The original conversion cost during build seemed ridiculous, unjustifiable and included costs other than the conversion. Having got them, I would like them to be as capable as possible.
Why do you think they need the runway to be angled if a cat is fitted?

Digger22
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Digger22 »

Why wouldn't you. Having an angled landing on deck makes sense, as I'm sure some types would not appreciate the ramp if they missed the wires. Plus were forgetting the whole point of an angled deck, it keeps your parked stuff separate to aircraft landing on. In fact the SRVL concept seems a little unsafe to me, and must require a fairly empty deck??. Just another compromise amoung many.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Digger22 wrote:Why wouldn't you. Having an angled landing on deck makes sense, as I'm sure some types would not appreciate the ramp if they missed the wires. Plus were forgetting the whole point of an angled deck, it keeps your parked stuff separate to aircraft landing on. In fact the SRVL concept seems a little unsafe to me, and must require a fairly empty deck??. Just another compromise amoung many.
So you would have an angled runway in addition to the current runway. Wouldn't leave much room for a deck park. And seeing that the current runway doesn't point landing aircraft at a deck park, the original rationale doesnt apply.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by topman »

Cooper wrote:I still sometimes think that, assuming the same level of funding was put in to them, we'd have been better off spending the same amount on 4 or 5 x 35,000t class carriers, similar to the Italian one, than 2x65,000t (or whatever they now displace) QE flat tops.

Having 3 of those at sea at all times, each with 12-16 F35's on board would have been a much more flexible force.
And totally unaffordable, one of the reasons why it never happened.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I still feel we should replace the Albion's with a 220 x 36 meter LHA giving the UK a third flat top allowing the strike carriers to stay out at sea

Max Jones
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 20 Feb 2020, 12:48
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Max Jones »



Are aircraft already embarked?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

My guesses:

Something new = Crowsnest

Something borrowed = USMC F-35's

Something blueish but not = V-22

Digger22
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Digger22 »

Ron5 wrote:
Digger22 wrote:Why wouldn't you. Having an angled landing on deck makes sense, as I'm sure some types would not appreciate the ramp if they missed the wires. Plus were forgetting the whole point of an angled deck, it keeps your parked stuff separate to aircraft landing on. In fact the SRVL concept seems a little unsafe to me, and must require a fairly empty deck??. Just another compromise amoung many.
So you would have an angled runway in addition to the current runway. Wouldn't leave much room for a deck park. And seeing that the current runway doesn't point landing aircraft at a deck park, the original rationale doesnt apply.

Unfortunately we bought the B not the C. So we're stuck with the ramp, so yes, you would end up with two runways. However, the axis runway is just paint, and the advantage of having cats n traps would give the RN the ability to cross deck with anyone. We could even buy Hawkeye instead of Wedgetail.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Digger22 wrote:So we're stuck with the ramp
The main operator of the F35B doesn’t use a ramp at sea.

Digger22
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Digger22 »

SW1 wrote:
Digger22 wrote:So we're stuck with the ramp
The main operator of the F35B doesn’t use a ramp at sea.[/quote

So? Are you saying the ramp has no benefit? I'm sure if the Wasps and the Americas were a little longer, they would have one too? Either way if you put a Cat on QE, it would be in the waist position, as her bow length puts the Blast deflector in the angled runway anyway, so leave the bow alone and save the cost of removing the ramp.

wowu5
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 23 Nov 2020, 18:26
Hong Kong

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by wowu5 »

Th US assault ships not having ramp resulted in the need to always use the whole runway for take off.
Which's more of a political consideration than anything else, the Spanish and Italians for example never bother to not have a ramp for their ships.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Digger22 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Digger22 wrote:So we're stuck with the ramp
The main operator of the F35B doesn’t use a ramp at sea.[/quote

So? Are you saying the ramp has no benefit? I'm sure if the Wasps and the Americas were a little longer, they would have one too? Either way if you put a Cat on QE, it would be in the waist position, as her bow length puts the Blast deflector in the angled runway anyway, so leave the bow alone and save the cost of removing the ramp.
I’m saying that you don’t need a ramp to operate f35b from a ship in an operational configuration. There is benefits to having a ramp but theres always a trade off to be decided on for your aircraft operations. IF you going to the extent of fitting catapults ect then taking the ramp off if relatively minor. I also don’t believe any ship that has catapults do landing and takeoff at the same time it’s always in cycles.

Post Reply