Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
assertion or arrestor ? Im sure the ACA have some ideas what are practical for future upgrades as does the captain
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Sorry auto correct on the phone drives me insane lolseaspear wrote:assertion or arrestor ? Im sure the ACA have some ideas what are practical for future upgrades as does the captain
Oh im sure they do it was just a question.
The EMALS they're on about putting on will they be full size or small ?
If arrestor gear is needed will that effect the area for srvl or standard vertical landing ?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Also noticed comments on pros and cons of nuclear power for carriers, the very, very big con for nuclear is cost.
Looks like cost of the new reactor for Columbia SSBN $1.1B, for the Ford CVN, ROM ~$2B for its reactors?, plus another ~$1B for mid-life refuelling and finally nuclear reactor decommissioning another $1B, total ~$4B. (excludes the overheads of running the nuclear facilities for nuclear weapons and Navy propulsion reactors for their carriers and submarines at $23B a year, no knowledge of UK figures, info on nuclear spend and clarity even in US is limited.)
The total cost of ~ 65,000/70,000 ton QNLZ in dollars ~ $4B, a bargin
Looks like cost of the new reactor for Columbia SSBN $1.1B, for the Ford CVN, ROM ~$2B for its reactors?, plus another ~$1B for mid-life refuelling and finally nuclear reactor decommissioning another $1B, total ~$4B. (excludes the overheads of running the nuclear facilities for nuclear weapons and Navy propulsion reactors for their carriers and submarines at $23B a year, no knowledge of UK figures, info on nuclear spend and clarity even in US is limited.)
The total cost of ~ 65,000/70,000 ton QNLZ in dollars ~ $4B, a bargin
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
It is a nightmare isn't it!Jake1992 wrote:Sorry auto correct on the phone drives me insane lol
I think a cheaper alternative would be to employ a couple of AB's waiting out on deck with a gert big fishing net to catch anything on the way inJake1992 wrote:
If arrestor gear is needed will that effect the area for srvl or standard vertical landing ?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
What we miss, in the broader discussion - while we go he-he, GdG in dock again - is that France has made a deliberate choice to have shorter-lifed cores for their navy, and thereby their recycling goes straight into the 50-60 civilian nuclear plants cycle = cheaperNickC wrote:(excludes the overheads of running the nuclear facilities for nuclear weapons and Navy propulsion reactors for their carriers and submarines at $23B a year, no knowledge of UK figures, info on nuclear spend and clarity even in US is limited.)
The total cost of ~ 65,000/70,000 ton QNLZ in dollars ~ $4B, a bargin
- we chose to go for the "optimum" and are paying dearly for it, in the normally not-disclosed costs
- we also chose our carriers not to be nuclear powered... for v good reasons
- not going to go into the technicalities (the energetic and less energetic reactor & fuel types; very different optima for a hunter-killer or a boomer... the ones we have; but they are not carriers. Hence a different thread, if anyone cares to open one)
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Thanks for input, had assumed that French for budgetary reasons were forced down that path with the sub-optimum low enriched uranium whereas UK had the advantage using the much superior enriched uranium based on the US tech per the US/UK 1958 Nuclear Agreement, not realising its not that clear cut.ArmChairCivvy wrote:What we miss, in the broader discussion - while we go he-he, GdG in dock again - is that France has made a deliberate choice to have shorter-lifed cores for their navy, and thereby their recycling goes straight into the 50-60 civilian nuclear plants cycle = cheaperNickC wrote:(excludes the overheads of running the nuclear facilities for nuclear weapons and Navy propulsion reactors for their carriers and submarines at $23B a year, no knowledge of UK figures, info on nuclear spend and clarity even in US is limited.)
The total cost of ~ 65,000/70,000 ton QNLZ in dollars ~ $4B, a bargin
- we chose to go for the "optimum" and are paying dearly for it, in the normally not-disclosed costs
- we also chose our carriers not to be nuclear powered... for v good reasons
- not going to go into the technicalities (the energetic and less energetic reactor & fuel types; very different optima for a hunter-killer or a boomer... the ones we have; but they are not carriers. Hence a different thread, if anyone cares to open one)
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
In the first landing trials on HMS Furious in WW1, that's pretty close to what they did. Guys on the deck tried to catch loops from the aircraft's wings to pull it down. The aircraft's stalling speed being close to the wind over deck.PhillyJ wrote:It is a nightmare isn't it!Jake1992 wrote:Sorry auto correct on the phone drives me insane lolI think a cheaper alternative would be to employ a couple of AB's waiting out on deck with a gert big fishing net to catch anything on the way inJake1992 wrote:
If arrestor gear is needed will that effect the area for srvl or standard vertical landing ?
-
- Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 14 May 2018, 22:06
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Its great to hear from the captain about the possibility of catapults in the future, if they are full sized, which i assume they would be for the likes of the MQ25, you will probably need arrestor gear! If you get arrestor gear you need an angled deck! in which case its no longer a stovl carrier, but a full blown catobar carrier, so it opens up the options on future aircraft, Navalised Tempest??(fantasy I know) which would be great but I think it seems very unlikely, but its great to see the possibilities are still open for a conversion in the future. although these catapults could just be for something like scan eagle. The potential of the class is immense but we need to harness it.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Disagree with the wording, but not the sentiment. We need to free it up to reach it's full potential, not harness or restrict it's development. For me, this is also the most likely reason that the number of F35b's is being kept to 48 for now. If it does not prove to be the correct choice once in service, then the option is still there to acquire an F35c Fleet (and maybe even an F35c/F18f SH mix). If we need to fit Cats & Arrestor Gear and if an Angled Deck is required for this, then why not have the possibility to acquire the aircraft that can use that capability at some point in the future.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I can't imagine that we will ever see electromagnetic launch or arrestor gear on the QE Class. There simply isn't the need. Look at the developments in the US with the V-247 Vigilant or the DARPA TERN. VTOL UCAV's are coming very soon and they'll fit on the QE very well. And when it comes to long duration persistent ISTAR UAV the Zephyr is moving in the right direction.Jake1992 wrote:ry auto correct on the phone drives me insane lol
Oh im sure they do it was just a question.
The EMALS they're on about putting on will they be full size or small ?
If arrestor gear is needed will that effect the area for srvl or standard vertical landing ?
This is going to bring a lot of exciting capabilities to the table. The V-247 for example could be used for AEW. Stick a radar fit out on it and it can go higher than 25,000ft for 17 hours. Stick a buddy tank on it and it could offload almost as much fuel as an MQ-25 or V-22 tanker.
Not that we'll ever get it mind, but its worthwhile noting that capabilities are being developed that increasingly vindicate the STOVL concept, with the exception of the MQ-25 there is nothing on the horizon for Catobar.
-
- Member
- Posts: 273
- Joined: 19 Oct 2015, 18:29
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Scimitar54 wrote:Disagree with the wording, but not the sentiment. We need to free it up to reach it's full potential, not harness or restrict it's development. For me, this is also the most likely reason that the number of F35b's is being kept to 48 for now. If it does not prove to be the correct choice once in service, then the option is still there to acquire an F35c Fleet (and maybe even an F35c/F18f SH mix). If we need to fit Cats & Arrestor Gear and if an Angled Deck is required for this, then why not have the possibility to acquire the aircraft that can use that capability at some point in the future.
Britains economy is about to be kerb-stomped, the Royal Navy is facing further cuts. The 10+ Billion required to convert the CV's to cats and the many billion more to buy more, but different, F-35s is never going to happen.
The CVFs are always going to be SRVL+ramp carriers, if the RN wish to extend the B's range they will do it the same way they did with the Harrier, by bolting on drop tanks. Maaaaaybe, in a future where a spare few million pops up they might rig up some sort of buddy refueling or helo-refueling. Maybe, if the Mod wins the Euromillions a couple of converted ospreys leased off the USMC. That's it.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I'm going to assume the first F-35 landing has taken place aboard QE. But obviously no confirmation.
The 'more information should be available in the next day or two' matches up with Navy Lookout's weekend prediction for news.
The 'more information should be available in the next day or two' matches up with Navy Lookout's weekend prediction for news.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I believe so, yes.
Some people are asking why not just release the news if this is the case, and I think it's because they'll want to draft an official news release via the Royal Navy and have images to go with it. Might take a few days to collate all of the information and clear it for publication.
Some people are asking why not just release the news if this is the case, and I think it's because they'll want to draft an official news release via the Royal Navy and have images to go with it. Might take a few days to collate all of the information and clear it for publication.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
WhiteWhale wrote [quote][/quote]Britains economy is about to be kerb-stomped, the Royal Navy is facing further cuts. The 10+ Billion required to convert the CV's to cats and the many billion more to buy more, but different, F-35s is never going to happen.
I take it that you would also have subscribed to the quote "The Titanic is unsinkable".
Think positive and fight for what is needed.
Too many people have defeatist attitudes. The Politicians don't need any further encouragement to reflect the same! They need to be pushed into doing the right thing, not the wrong thing.
I take it that you would also have subscribed to the quote "The Titanic is unsinkable".
Think positive and fight for what is needed.
Too many people have defeatist attitudes. The Politicians don't need any further encouragement to reflect the same! They need to be pushed into doing the right thing, not the wrong thing.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
There have not been released any specifics relating to the future upgrades of the carrier to say what the captain was referring to he did not mention any timeline so as to address current concerns , would certainly agree it all about the funding of such.
-
- Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 14 May 2018, 22:06
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I did suspect that they would do the first landings without the media attention.SDL wrote:So it's happened already?
I agree, the idea that Britain is completely broke and it can't afford to run a elderly yoga class is ridiculous, if the political will is there, the money would come without breaking the bank and sending the country into a recession, but to say that we have to be limited to 2% GDP is ridiculous, we have the money but it is just spent elsewhere, more money is needed, not an awful lot but more is needed, along with(arguably more important) manpower, if the will is there instead of the defeatist attitude it will happen..maybe..hopefully...hmm.Scimitar54 wrote:I take it that you would also have subscribed to the quote "The Titanic is unsinkable".
Think positive and fight for what is needed.
Too many people have defeatist attitudes. The Politicians don't need any further encouragement to reflect the same! They need to be pushed into doing the right thing, not the wrong thing.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I certainly agree with the above, but thisScimitar54 wrote: The Politicians don't need any further encouragement to reflect the same! They need to be pushed into doing the right thing, not the wrong thing.
is not the right thing (in the long list of priorities and gaps to be filled, after some fairly lackadaisical management).The 10+ Billion required to convert the CV's to cats and [...] to buy more, but different, F-35s
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Honestly, I'm really not that bothered about seeing the 'first' F35B landing, at all.SDL wrote:So it's happened already?
All I'm interested in seeing is Queen Elizabeth leaving Portsmouth for the first time on operational deployment with a full compliment of F35's and Merlins on the flight deck.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Thinkig positive to get funds is important. Claiming more assets without enough funds is just a lye. If you do not have good future view of funds, dreaming optimistic future fleet will damage RN significantly.Scimitar54 wrote:Think positive and fight for what is needed.
Too many people have defeatist attitudes. The Politicians don't need any further encouragement to reflect the same! They need to be pushed into doing the right thing, not the wrong thing.
The first thing to ditch is, “efficiency savings”. And if we lose and not enough funds were to be allocated, thinking small is very important. Military is not dream. It must face reality, Only reality.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Cheers Ron, I think I've seen footage of this but cannot find it at the moment. My Grandad was on board HMS Furious and HMS Hermes in the early 1920's and, all things going well, his Great Grandson will be on HMS Prince Of Wales from January.Ron5 wrote:In the first landing trials on HMS Furious in WW1, that's pretty close to what they did. Guys on the deck tried to catch loops from the aircraft's wings to pull it down. The aircraft's stalling speed being close to the wind over deck.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Could the QEs be extended to the orginal 300m they were planned as to give extra capacity at some point if every desired ?
If so how long do people think it'd take and how much would it cost ?
Or would it be cheaper to build from new ?
If so how long do people think it'd take and how much would it cost ?
Or would it be cheaper to build from new ?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Good luck to himPhillyJ wrote:all things going well, his Great Grandson will be on HMS Prince Of Wales from January.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
If an extra 20 metres were ever added to the QE to make it 300 metres long (it never will, this is just hypothetical play), then I think the perfect place would be to split the QE in two between LB02 and LB03 (just behind the forward island), skid the bow end forwards and weld in new 20 metre blocks behind LB02, its flightdeck, and sponsons, as the hull is nice and straight there and would add 20 metres of internal space into the hangar, as well as the flightdeck. Maybe i'll stick a drawing into the fantasy thread later...
^ In 2018, Silver Spirit grew from 195.8 to 210.7 metres long. Her tonnage increased from 36,009 to 39,519 GT, and capacity - from 540 to 608 passengers
^ In 2018, Silver Spirit grew from 195.8 to 210.7 metres long. Her tonnage increased from 36,009 to 39,519 GT, and capacity - from 540 to 608 passengers
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Maybe we can use Goliath again after all. World's largest Bandsaw?SKB wrote:If an extra 20 metres were ever added to the QE to make it 300 metres long (it never will, this is just hypothetical play), then I think the perfect place would be to split the QE in two between LB02 and LB03 (just behind the forward island), skid the bow end forwards and weld in new 20 metre blocks behind LB02, SP01Aft, CB02E, SP02Aft as the hull is nice and straight there and would add 20 metres of space into the hangar, as well as the flightdeck. Maybe i'll stick a drawing into the fantasy thread later...