Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:Why? what will POW get from a trip to the US
The further trials using the ITF aircraft to prove the SRVL concept for 1. They've been fairly limited to date. PoW off the East Coast of the US with the ITF aircraft was going to do a lot more, including work with the Bedford Array. We can probably put the arrival of SRVL in operational service back at least a year now, probably more. Although it has to be said that SRVL is not really a time critical piece of work anymore, as with any UK planned munitions to be integrated this side of 2030 there is no chance of a UK F-35B approaching a weight where SRVL would be required for bring back.
Huh? The aircraft can be loaded up today with enough qualified bombs, fuel and missiles to hit max TO weight. There was a photo of one from QEs deployment to the US though that was done to exercise the loading and not flying, arrangements.
A F35B has been loaded to 60K lbs on the qe carrier?

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:Huh? The aircraft can be loaded up today with enough qualified bombs, fuel and missiles to hit max TO weight. There was a photo of one from QEs deployment to the US though that was done to exercise the loading and not flying, arrangements.
F-35B max take off is >60,000lb.
Empty weight = 35,000lb
Max fuel = 13,500lb
Max UK weapon loadout now = 4,058lb's (2 Asraam, 2 Amraam C-5, 6 Paveway IV)
Max UK weapon loadout 2026 = 4,988lb's (2 Asraam, 2 Meteor, 8 Spear, 4 Paveway IV)

Even with pylon weights added in (figure 600lbs tops) we're well adrift from the max takeoff weight, and within VL limits for bringback if fuel is burnt. Truth is when Storm Shadow was dropped as an integration effort the need for SRVL pretty much vanished, with the possible exception of landing on in the Persian Gulf on a hot day in mid-summer.

The above max UK weapon load won't change unless we:
a) Buy the Gun Pod (about 600lb's of weight)
b) Use a multiple ejector rack for 4 x Spear on the inner and mid wing pylons (no plans to at present)
c) Buy something bigger than Paveway IV.

P.S. - Should add that I'm pretty sure that no other user can hit max takeoff weight with currently cleared stores either. The USMC has 1,000lb JDAM that can be carried internally, but I've yet to see a USMC jet carrying 1,000lb JDAM external (not saying they can't though..) and no sight of 2,000lb JDAM. IF they could though they could hit a max load of 10,370lb's (25mm Gun Pod, 2 x AIM-9X, 2 x AIM-120C7, 4 x 1,000lb JDAM and 2 x 2,000lb JDAM. And thats still lower than Max Take Off Weight. To hit that figure JSOW and External Tanks need to be integrated.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:Why? what will POW get from a trip to the US
The further trials using the ITF aircraft to prove the SRVL concept for 1. They've been fairly limited to date. PoW off the East Coast of the US with the ITF aircraft was going to do a lot more, including work with the Bedford Array. We can probably put the arrival of SRVL in operational service back at least a year now, probably more. Although it has to be said that SRVL is not really a time critical piece of work anymore, as with any UK planned munitions to be integrated this side of 2030 there is no chance of a UK F-35B approaching a weight where SRVL would be required for bring back.
Huh? The aircraft can be loaded up today with enough qualified bombs, fuel and missiles to hit max TO weight. There was a photo of one from QEs deployment to the US though that was done to exercise the loading and not flying, arrangements.
A F35B has been loaded to 60K lbs on the qe carrier?
I misspoke, I meant max VL weight on a hot day in the Indian Ocean. OK smarty pants?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:b) Use a multiple ejector rack for 4 x Spear on the inner and mid wing pylons (no plans to at present)
Does this exist/ been tested (the latter likely not)?

An afterthought:
Ron5 wrote: I misspoke
... the statement is inoperative :roll:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Huh? The aircraft can be loaded up today with enough qualified bombs, fuel and missiles to hit max TO weight. There was a photo of one from QEs deployment to the US though that was done to exercise the loading and not flying, arrangements.
F-35B max take off is >60,000lb.
Empty weight = 35,000lb
Max fuel = 13,500lb
Max UK weapon loadout now = 4,058lb's (2 Asraam, 2 Amraam C-5, 6 Paveway IV)
Max UK weapon loadout 2026 = 4,988lb's (2 Asraam, 2 Meteor, 8 Spear, 4 Paveway IV)

Even with pylon weights added in (figure 600lbs tops) we're well adrift from the max takeoff weight, and within VL limits for bringback if fuel is burnt. Truth is when Storm Shadow was dropped as an integration effort the need for SRVL pretty much vanished, with the possible exception of landing on in the Persian Gulf on a hot day in mid-summer.

The above max UK weapon load won't change unless we:
a) Buy the Gun Pod (about 600lb's of weight)
b) Use a multiple ejector rack for 4 x Spear on the inner and mid wing pylons (no plans to at present)
c) Buy something bigger than Paveway IV.
Pretty much irrelevant :D

PS You should add drop tanks to the list.
PPS Landing on a hot day in a hot place is the reason d'etre for SRVL so making that the exception is kinda weird.

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Does this exist/ been tested (the latter likely not)?
No. MBDA have shown triple, quad and hexa racks for Spear and SmartGlider (the triple appears to be an adaptation of the Brimstone rack). US uses the BRU-61/A rack for 4 SDB1 and will do for SDBII. But its not cleared for F-35 yet.
Ron5 wrote:PS You should add drop tanks to the list.
Which non-existent F-35 drop tanks should I add?
Ron5 wrote:PPS Landing on a hot day in a hot place is the reason d'etre for SRVL so making that the exception is kinda weird.
How many times do we actually think that will happen? What is the cost and risk to develop SRVL vs. the actual likelihood of it being needed and the cost of dumped munitions if we didn't...

PhillyJ
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:27
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by PhillyJ »

Nipper update, spoke to him yesterday face to face and between myself and his DetCo, WO, PO and LH, that have been with him from his arrival at Rosyth, he is going to stick with it.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

PhillyJ wrote:Nipper update, spoke to him yesterday face to face and between myself and his DetCo, WO, PO and LH, that have been with him from his arrival at Rosyth, he is going to stick with it.
I hope he's rewarded for his decision with a 2021 that's a lot more exciting than 2020 for him.

Online
bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by bobp »

After all the excitement and speculation QE gets its 3rd Phalanx......


Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Is it color matched to the others tho?

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Two Red and One Green? :mrgreen:

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »

Guess: White or grey?
ImageImageImageImage
Gotcha...! :mrgreen:


Online
bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by bobp »

SKB wrote:Guess: White or grey?
All kind of cute so I will opt for the Minion

PhillyJ
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:27
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by PhillyJ »

Ron5 wrote:I hope he's rewarded for his decision with a 2021 that's a lot more exciting than 2020 for him.
me too, kind of my fault as when his 2 years were up on PWLS I said put in for another 2 as it was going places and she would be a capital ship at some point.

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by topman »

PhillyJ wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I hope he's rewarded for his decision with a 2021 that's a lot more exciting than 2020 for him.
me too, kind of my fault as when his 2 years were up on PWLS I said put in for another 2 as it was going places and she would be a capital ship at some point.
Is 2 years a standard posting in the navy?

Online
bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by bobp »

PhillyJ wrote:me too, kind of my fault as when his 2 years were up on PWLS I said put in for another 2 as it was going places and she would be a capital ship at some point.
I am sure that PWLS will go on a trip similar to QE's at some point. A few more F35B would be welcome as well to allow that to happen. Just unfortunate that water and electric panels do not mix.

PhillyJ
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:27
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by PhillyJ »

topman wrote: Is 2 years a standard posting in the navy?
Seems to be on ships, yes. He even said he wouldn't mind going back to Rosyth, he's that fed up of Pompey!

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

bobp wrote:
PhillyJ wrote:me too, kind of my fault as when his 2 years were up on PWLS I said put in for another 2 as it was going places and she would be a capital ship at some point.
I am sure that PWLS will go on a trip similar to QE's at some point. A few more F35B would be welcome as well to allow that to happen. Just unfortunate that water and electric panels do not mix.
I still don't understand why it seemingly took so long for the leak to be discovered and plugged. Probably will never see an explanation.

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:I still don't understand why it seemingly took so long for the leak to be discovered and plugged. Probably will never see an explanation.
Thought it was a burst fire main pipe under lots of pressure?

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by topman »

PhillyJ wrote:
topman wrote: Is 2 years a standard posting in the navy?
Seems to be on ships, yes. He even said he wouldn't mind going back to Rosyth, he's that fed up of Pompey!
I know what it's like when you can others getting away and doing stuff and you're stuck in a posting that is going nowhere.
Has he tried a bit of AT?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I still don't understand why it seemingly took so long for the leak to be discovered and plugged. Probably will never see an explanation.
Thought it was a burst fire main pipe under lots of pressure?
Apparently the electronics were under water for some time so why so long?

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Remote (Automated) Damage Control sensors not detecting the problem perhaps?

BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Singapore

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by BlueD954 »

https://questions-statements.parliament ... -08/126964

Repairs of the damage caused by floodwater in the engine room of HMS PRINCE OF WALES are progressing as planned. The Ship's Company is conducting concurrent preparations for their programme of at sea training activity in 2021 which precede her operational commitments.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Air Marshall Knighton to the Defence Committee
"We know from our analysis that in order to sustain the F-35 capability and the carrier capability, we do need to increase the number of F-35s that we buy, and that we will want to do that over the period beyond 2025, when the next batch are brought into service"
Translation: we'll buy them when 'the product' will get to the stage of being delivered in full working order
- he also confirmed that the calculation until then is 100% availability of one carrier at a time with 24 jets on it
- ACA did not offer a warranty on the estimated 140% (from having two) over any 7 year period

The question not asked, but did cross my mind: how can we best deploy the other 40% average carrier availability, considering that we are talking any number of years between half a decade and a decade forward from today
- the idea of making some modifications to PoW having been (quietly; we know it now, but there was no announcement) dropped
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply