Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
PhillyJ
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:27
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by PhillyJ »

inch wrote:Historic times for your lad phillyj in the long history of the rn and he should be v proud he taking part and a witness to such events
Definitely, he is even talking about signing up for another 4 years when he has completed his current 4...this from the lad who was all ready to jack it in when he was banished to Rosyth for 10 months! :lol:

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

PhillyJ wrote:It is believed a gantry holding an electrical cable hit the ship.
Sounds like it may have been this...


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 »


(Gravity Industries) 22nd November 2019
An honour to have been part of HMS Queen Elizabeth’s visit to Washington, and the Atlantic Future Forum.
Thanks to a fantastic British Embassy, Royal Navy and Royal Marines effort

(NavyLookout) 21st November 2019
Inventor Richard Browning of Take on Gravity demonstrates his jet suit to American guests arriving by boat for visit to HMS Queen Elizabeth anchored off Annapolis near Washington DC.

Original footage by: UK Military & Defence Staff in the US

(WNAV News) 21st November 2019
We had the opportunity to visit the HMS Queen Elizabeth today. Take a look at all that we saw and heard on the Royal Navy's aircraft carrier, currently anchored in the Chesapeake Bay.

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 »

From Twitter, pictured in QE's FLYCO:

Image

Poster (Chris Cavas) counted 45 spots.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by inch »

Good spot that ,45 and bout 20 in hangar but wouldn't be too practical I quess

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by inch »

Might even get more onboard hmsplws as being prob about 2mm longer and 2mm wider lol;-)

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 »

'Knuckle' and 'Graveyard' meaning...?

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Maybe the Graveyard is for long stay parking :lol:

Qwerty
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 06 Apr 2018, 15:36
Germany

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Qwerty »

If the graveyard and for’ard end of the runway represented your thumb in a clenched fist, the knuckle would be where your index finger knuckle would be.

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:Maybe the Graveyard is for long stay parking :lol:
I think you're correct as well as being funny. The Graveyard has the only spots (A, B, C) that cannot be accessed (by aircraft) if spot D is occupied. In every other location, all spots can be accessed regardless. So presumably the Graveyard would be the place to store the long term unavailable. Or dead.

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 »

inch wrote:Good spot that ,45 and bout 20 in hangar but wouldn't be too practical I quess
45 on top, 20 below for two carriers plus 8 in training/test fleet = 138

138 is the total commitment to the US

Coincidence??? I think not :D

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by inch »

Wonder if they ever load 45 on flightdeck UK/USMC f35 for shits and giggles photo opportunity one day

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 »

Yet the graveyard area on QE has new heatproofing, layed down in Portsmouth after her Rosyth visit earlier this year.
Perhaps graveyard is also an area for static F35 engine testing?

P.S. Rochdale 0-3 Portsmouth (Away win!) :thumbup:

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by serge750 »

I do like the engine test area of CdeG, right at the back exiting the rear of the ship, bet it looks good at night time testing !! sorry of topic.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by inch »

Not sure if right thread but which carrier had the bigger volume area hmsqe class or the 2 hangar decks combined on ark royal/eagle mmh?

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 »

inch wrote:Not sure if right thread but which carrier had the bigger volume area hmsqe class or the 2 hangar decks combined on ark royal/eagle mmh?
The Ark Royal had two hangars. Both were 60ft wide and 16ft high. The upper hangar was 568ft long and the lower 452ft. They were connected by three rectangular lifts, two of 45ft by 22ft and one of 45ft by 25ft. The lifts were unusual double-decker affairs, with one platform linking the flight deck to the upper hangar and a second that connected the two hangars. This could allow two aircraft to be moved at once, but it also made it much more difficult to move an aircraft from the lower hangar to the flight deck. This involved three movements of the lift - the aircraft would be loaded onto the lower platform, the lift would rise and the aircraft unloaded onto the upper deck. The lift then had to be lowered to allow the aircraft to move onto the upper platform, before finally moving to the deck.
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... Royal.html

Ark Royal (R91)
Upper Hangar = 568ft × 60ft × 16ft = 545,280 ft3 (173.1m x 18.2m x 4.8m = 15,122.016m3 )
Lower Hangar = 452ft × 60ft × 16ft = 433,920 ft3 (137.7m x 18.2m x 4.8m = 12,029.472m3 )
Total Hangar Volume = 979,200 ft3 (27,151,388m3)

QE
Hangar Deck = 509ft x 110ft x 22ft (155m x 33.5m x 6.7m*)
Total Hangar Volume = 1,231,780 ft3 (34,789.75m3)
*QE minimum hangar ceiling height is 22ft (6.7m) at lowest up to 33ft (10m) at highest.

Verdict: QE has a larger total hangar volume than Ark Royal (R91) did, even with its two hangars.

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:Poster (Chris Cavas) counted 45 spots.
45 spots but not all for F-35B. Bridge Park A and Flyco Park E won't fit an F-35, look like they're for folded helo only. Take away Fly 1, Fly 2 and Fly 3 and the 4 F-35B on the elevators and you end up with 26 F-35B spots and 2 helo spots on the deck that wouldn't interfere with air ops. Add in the 23/24 F-35B spots in the hangar and room for vehicles (cranes, tractors etc) and you end up with c50 usable spots. Which matches to the 36 F-35B and 14-15 Merlin figure that has been the programmes goals. It's almost as if they knew what they were doing...

Hopefully this and the hangar illustrations previously seen will stop everyone speculating on 70 F-35B operating onboard. At most for efficient ops you could probably cram an extra 4 F-35B onboard and retain the ability to move around but thats it.

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

inch wrote:Not sure if right thread but which carrier had the bigger volume area hmsqe class or the 2 hangar decks combined on ark royal/eagle mmh?
SKB wrote:
inch wrote:Not sure if right thread but which carrier had the bigger volume area hmsqe class or the 2 hangar decks combined on ark royal/eagle mmh?
The Ark Royal had two hangars. Both were 60ft wide and 16ft high. The upper hangar was 568ft long and the lower 452ft. They were connected by three rectangular lifts, two of 45ft by 22ft and one of 45ft by 25ft. The lifts were unusual double-decker affairs, with one platform linking the flight deck to the upper hangar and a second that connected the two hangars. This could allow two aircraft to be moved at once, but it also made it much more difficult to move an aircraft from the lower hangar to the flight deck. This involved three movements of the lift - the aircraft would be loaded onto the lower platform, the lift would rise and the aircraft unloaded onto the upper deck. The lift then had to be lowered to allow the aircraft to move onto the upper platform, before finally moving to the deck.
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... Royal.html

Ark Royal
Upper Hangar Volume = 568ft×60ft×16ft = 545,280 feet3
Lower Hangar Volume = 452ft×60ft×16ft = 433,920 feet3
Total Hangar Volume = 979,200 feet3

QE
Total Hangar Volume = ?
Is it volume that's important or floorspace with a minimum height?

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by inch »

Cheers skb for inf,see what you mean roders96 , suppose it's how many aircraft in floor area

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 »

inch wrote:
By floor space area:

Ark Royal (R91)
Upper Hangar: 568 ft x 60 ft = 34,080 ft2 (173.1 m x 18.2 m = 3,150.42 m2)
Lower Hangar: 452 ft x 60 ft = 27,120 ft2 (137.7 m x 18.2 m = 2,506.14 m2)
Total area: 61,200 ft2 (5,656.56 m2)

QE
Hangar: 509 ft x 110 ft (155 m x 33.5 m)
Total area = 55,990 ft2 (5,192.5 m2)

Ark Royal (R91) had a larger total hangar floor space area than QE, because of its two hangars.
However, QE has a larger overall hangar volume (see my previous post)

sea_eagle
Member
Posts: 175
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:57
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by sea_eagle »

Two very interesting articles from The Economist recently. It is a paysite but I recall you can read 3 or 4 articles for free.
Aircraft-carriers are big, expensive, vulnerable—and popular
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019 ... nd-popular
Couple of useful diagrams showing declining range of carrier aircraft since the 1950's and second chart shows effect of Chinese missile range meaning a carrier has to stand off further from the coast to stay safe.
Even when you add on the 500km range of the JASSM missiles the F-35 is armed with, American carriers attacking China would be well within being-struck range before they got their planes into strike range (see map).
Aircraft-carriers are under threat from modern missiles
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/ ... n-missiles
Russia and China are both developing long-range missiles that are manoeuvrable and accurate enough to hit large ships at sea. China’s DF-21D, an anti-ship ballistic missile that can travel over 1,500km (950 miles), is already a threat.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jensy »

Considering a Merlin is nearly 22ft tall, and an F-35, even with the canopy and flaps closed is over 14ft I'm not sure that extra space would be of much use. Though we could probably take every single Wildcat from the AAC/FAA to sea.

That said, I'm sure its toilet roll and original Routemaster capacity would have been highly impressive.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by inch »

Suppose after leaving space for internal lift aircraft movements and center lift in middle of carrier instead of deck edge lifts their prob wouldn't be much in it even tho slightly bigger area in ark royal floor area skb , guess why they not repeated 2 hangar design again

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 »

Now if QE had a single island with all that air ducting and trunking from two marine jet turbines to one island and funnel, her internal volume would be less. Maybe even a bit of hangar floorspace might become lost or unusble with a decreased ceiling height too. Twin islands really do save space, at least below the flightdeck.

User avatar
cockneyjock1974
Member
Posts: 537
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:43
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by cockneyjock1974 »

Any word on SRVL for the latest deployment? Surely with the amount of Daves they had on board, they must have tried something. I’ve seen no video or reports about it.

Post Reply