Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Digging through my library I found an article in "Navies in the 21st Century", by Conrad Waters, discussing the state of the Royal Navy and the Carriers in Particular. It discusses how in order to keep both Carriers the Royal Navy realised that Carrier Strike was no longer Possible and the role of the Carriers was now going to be covered by a doctrine called Carrier Enables Power Projection (CEPP). This emphasised the ability and use of the Carrier to support amphibious operation and will result in the RN Carriers being used far more like the USN's America class LHDs than true Carriers.
It also points out that CEPP presents a number of risks. Firstly it requires the continuous availability of a Carrier. Secondly the high value of the Carrier will require a constant effective escort force meaning these operations will dominate all future RN operations. And thirdly CEEP is a "Joint" operation and is dependant on the availability of assets from all three services. Finally working with the RN's other amphibious ships will not be a simple affair, due to obvious things like the maximum speed of the various platforms.
A lot of the above has already been discussed over time, but I though it was interesting as discussions here have moved towards how many F-35s will be operating from the Carrier. Numbers of up to 36 have been discussed, and yes that was in the original design specifications, but that was when Carrier Strike was the role of the new Carriers. The RN may still aspire to this but I cannot see them ever carrying more than 24 and even then only in times of crisis. Instead they will probably carry a composite air wing comprising of one squadron F-35s and a mixture of helicopter types and personnel from the RN, RAF and even AAC. This was set out in the 2015 SDSR but I think it will actually become reality. The MoD will want to be seen as getting the most out of the Carriers, and having them sail around with 12 F-35Bs and 12 to 16 RN Helicopters would be embarrassing when one considers the time and resources given to the Carrier programme. Of course this will not be heavily advertised and any references will be of "Carrier Operations", which covers everything.
It also points out that CEPP presents a number of risks. Firstly it requires the continuous availability of a Carrier. Secondly the high value of the Carrier will require a constant effective escort force meaning these operations will dominate all future RN operations. And thirdly CEEP is a "Joint" operation and is dependant on the availability of assets from all three services. Finally working with the RN's other amphibious ships will not be a simple affair, due to obvious things like the maximum speed of the various platforms.
A lot of the above has already been discussed over time, but I though it was interesting as discussions here have moved towards how many F-35s will be operating from the Carrier. Numbers of up to 36 have been discussed, and yes that was in the original design specifications, but that was when Carrier Strike was the role of the new Carriers. The RN may still aspire to this but I cannot see them ever carrying more than 24 and even then only in times of crisis. Instead they will probably carry a composite air wing comprising of one squadron F-35s and a mixture of helicopter types and personnel from the RN, RAF and even AAC. This was set out in the 2015 SDSR but I think it will actually become reality. The MoD will want to be seen as getting the most out of the Carriers, and having them sail around with 12 F-35Bs and 12 to 16 RN Helicopters would be embarrassing when one considers the time and resources given to the Carrier programme. Of course this will not be heavily advertised and any references will be of "Carrier Operations", which covers everything.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
What I don't understand is that F-35s are on track to be operational (on carriers) in 2023, but the year given for CEPP is 2026
- what on earth will be added in the three years?
- or is it just about the different air assets being rotated through, for training?
- what on earth will be added in the three years?
- or is it just about the different air assets being rotated through, for training?
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)
-
- Member
- Posts: 46
- Joined: 10 Jul 2015, 22:06
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
When Duncan was Launched she had 4 extra "fittings" on the main mast just below the Sampson Radar and at the time someone told me was part of the CEC being trialled. I cannot see them fitted to any of the other T45 pictures. I could of course be wrong.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Don't know about that, but we had an order in (5% of a production batch for several USN ships) and we cancelled it.RNFollower wrote:seem to remember CEC being fitted to HMS Duncan for trials when new
- so all the Links (16 and beyond...) which come nowhere near are now "the thing"
Apologies for going off subject of QEC.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
he whole thing is part of the foggy area under the surface ot the Carrier programme. On the surface it is all flags and firewooks, celebrating the reintroduction of carrier aviation to the Royal Navy. Underneath we have the timescales for he introduction of the F-35 in sufficient nunbers, queries about how many of the "B" variant will be bough, when will Crowsnest actually be operational. what other platforms are going to be embarked and will they be modified for extended sea depolyment and so on. All these questions are awaiting answers.ArmChairCivvy wrote:What I don't understand is that F-35s are on track to be operational (on carriers) in 2023, but the year given for CEPP is 2026
- what on earth will be added in the three years?
- or is it just about the different air assets being rotated through, for training?
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
2 Carriers fully operational, personnel trained, operational training and we can't ignore the integration of weapons to make F-35B really useful.ArmChairCivvy wrote:What I don't understand is that F-35s are on track to be operational (on carriers) in 2023, but the year given for CEPP is 2026
- what on earth will be added in the three years?
- or is it just about the different air assets being rotated through, for training?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Plus the first of the FSS ships will be available in 2026. Full logistics support, via FSS, is critical to sustained operations.Timmymagic wrote:2 Carriers fully operational, personnel trained, operational training and we can't ignore the integration of weapons to make F-35B really useful.ArmChairCivvy wrote:What I don't understand is that F-35s are on track to be operational (on carriers) in 2023, but the year given for CEPP is 2026
- what on earth will be added in the three years?
- or is it just about the different air assets being rotated through, for training?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Without trying to stir things up ,has there been any studies on the emplacement of the Emcat system for the launching of drones ?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I don't think there is any talk of modifying the Carriers to launch UAVs. The may have a launcher and retrieval kit embarked but for a medium sized UAV but I cannot see them operating UAVs the size of Predator or larger.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
50 years is a long time and they were always intended to carry UAVs. A problem may have been introduced by the decision to go for STOVL configuration and the lack of a suitable STOVL UAV.
If the EMCAT project were to be re-activated and development continued, perhaps we might be able to get a full size (Waist) Catapult at a more affordable cost .... but that would still leave us with the lack of Arrestor Gear.
Oh well, it was a nice thought.
If the EMCAT project were to be re-activated and development continued, perhaps we might be able to get a full size (Waist) Catapult at a more affordable cost .... but that would still leave us with the lack of Arrestor Gear.
Oh well, it was a nice thought.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4098
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Sensible but still surprising if true.
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defen ... ssion=true
Is this a priority when money is tight and budgets are under so much pressure?
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defen ... ssion=true
Is this a priority when money is tight and budgets are under so much pressure?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Preparations for the break up of the Union?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
There are some issues with Rosyth and continuous carrier availability. The second carrier will still be at 20-30 days notice during the periods of dry docking, so they will have to be kept short (a few weeks). The carriers will only be dry docked for the hull maintenance type work that can only be undertaken in a dry dock. All other maintenance/refit work will be carried out alongside at Portsmouth. Previously when carriers went in to Rosyth for dry docking and refit, they would mostly loose their crew over these long periods. This will not be the case during the much shorter dry dockings for QEC.
The first issue with Rosyth relates to the crew. While at Rosyth (and travelling there and back) they are 'away from home', which counts against their harmony guidelines. This reduces the number of days away from home they are able to undertake for other duties.
The second issue with Rosyth is the restricted access. There are only a few days every two weeks when the tides are high enough for QEC to get in and out. If the winds are too high during these days, the carrier will miss the slot and have to wait a couple of weeks for the next one. This clearly could cause problems with keeping to the 20-30 day notice requirement.
Whether these (and other) issues are enough of a problem to justify spending hundreds of millions on a big dry dock in Portsmouth (or some of the other options) is the question currently being studied.
The first issue with Rosyth relates to the crew. While at Rosyth (and travelling there and back) they are 'away from home', which counts against their harmony guidelines. This reduces the number of days away from home they are able to undertake for other duties.
The second issue with Rosyth is the restricted access. There are only a few days every two weeks when the tides are high enough for QEC to get in and out. If the winds are too high during these days, the carrier will miss the slot and have to wait a couple of weeks for the next one. This clearly could cause problems with keeping to the 20-30 day notice requirement.
Whether these (and other) issues are enough of a problem to justify spending hundreds of millions on a big dry dock in Portsmouth (or some of the other options) is the question currently being studied.
-
- Member
- Posts: 46
- Joined: 10 Jul 2015, 22:06
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
This is an issue that was anaylised last week by an article on the "Save the Royal Navy" websiteAethulwulf wrote:There are some issues with Rosyth and continuous carrier availability. The second carrier will still be at 20-30 days notice during the periods of dry docking, so they will have to be kept short (a few weeks). The carriers will only be dry docked for the hull maintenance type work that can only be undertaken in a dry dock. All other maintenance/refit work will be carried out alongside at Portsmouth. Previously when carriers went in to Rosyth for dry docking and refit, they would mostly loose their crew over these long periods. This will not be the case during the much shorter dry dockings for QEC.
The first issue with Rosyth relates to the crew. While at Rosyth (and travelling there and back) they are 'away from home', which counts against their harmony guidelines. This reduces the number of days away from home they are able to undertake for other duties.
The second issue with Rosyth is the restricted access. There are only a few days every two weeks when the tides are high enough for QEC to get in and out. If the winds are too high during these days, the carrier will miss the slot and have to wait a couple of weeks for the next one. This clearly could cause problems with keeping to the 20-30 day notice requirement.
Whether these issues are enough of a problem to justify spending hundreds of millions on a big dry dock in Portsmouth (or some of the other options) is the question currently being studied.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/dry-do ... e-options/
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
True, but they did not mention the two issues I outlined above.RNFollower wrote:This is an issue that was anaylised last week by an article on the "Save the Royal Navy" website
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/dry-do ... e-options/
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4098
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I wasn't aware of this issue but it would seem to virtually rule Rosyth out. Working under such constraints isn't really going to work longterm it would appear.Aethulwulf wrote:The second issue with Rosyth is the restricted access. There are only a few days every two weeks when the tides are high enough for QEC to get in and out. If the winds are too high during these days, the carrier will miss the slot and have to wait a couple of weeks for the next one.
If the crew harmony guidelines are a major influencing factor it would also appear to rule out all of the other options as well?
Getting back to Portsmouth from Belfast, Liverpool or Glasgow isn't a lot different to returning from Edinburgh.
Does this make Portsmouth the only realistic longterm option, hence the feasibility study?
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Having extensive facilities at the home port is by far the most sensible option. It'll make the next 50 years much easier, and not only benefit the carriers.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I don't think these issues rule out Rosyth, or dictate that it must be Portsmouth - but they are factors in the decision.Poiuytrewq wrote:I wasn't aware of this issue but it would seem to virtually rule Rosyth out. Working under such constraints isn't really going to work longterm it would appear.Aethulwulf wrote:The second issue with Rosyth is the restricted access. There are only a few days every two weeks when the tides are high enough for QEC to get in and out. If the winds are too high during these days, the carrier will miss the slot and have to wait a couple of weeks for the next one.
If the crew harmony guidelines are a major influencing factor it would also appear to rule out all of the other options as well?
Getting back to Portsmouth from Belfast, Liverpool or Glasgow isn't a lot different to returning from Edinburgh.
Does this make Portsmouth the only realistic longterm option, hence the feasibility study?
The downside for Portsmouth is the infrastructure work will likely mean it is the most expensive option (at least over the short term). And there are many other things the Navy wishes to spend money on.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
With the suggested potential for commercial contracts, is there any likelihood of getting some of the cost paid by other budgets (Dept. of Trade and Industry, for instance)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4098
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Its all a question of priorities I suppose.Aethulwulf wrote:I don't think these issues rule out Rosyth, or dictate that it must be Portsmouth - but they are factors in the decision.
The downside for Portsmouth is the infrastructure work will likely mean it is the most expensive option (at least over the short term). And there are many other things the Navy wishes to spend money on.
Maybe the likely outcome is Rosyth in the short term with Portsmouth more of a longer term aspiration.
As ever it will probably all come down to the money available.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5624
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Could be a good thing to buy and operate MQ-8c from the carriers to help with learning how to operate UAVs within the carrier wing flow of opsLord Jim wrote:I don't think there is any talk of modifying the Carriers to launch UAVs. The may have a launcher and retrieval kit embarked but for a medium sized UAV but I cannot see them operating UAVs the size of Predator or larger.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Would we be able to fit a short EMALS in line with the ski jump, when the whole descution of converting the QEs was going on I read that they were designed to be able to operate with ski jumps it was stated that a ski jump would increase the effects of EMALSTempest414 wrote:Could be a good thing to buy and operate MQ-8c from the carriers to help with learning how to operate UAVs within the carrier wing flow of opsLord Jim wrote:I don't think there is any talk of modifying the Carriers to launch UAVs. The may have a launcher and retrieval kit embarked but for a medium sized UAV but I cannot see them operating UAVs the size of Predator or larger.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5624
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
yep do the study now and put it forward to form part of the 2027 - 2037 Budget plan with works starting in 2028 and completed in 2034 meaning the new dock is ready in around 15 years timePoiuytrewq wrote:Maybe the likely outcome is Rosyth in the short term with Portsmouth more of a longer term aspiration.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I have my doubts about the potential for starting up a commercial dry docking enterprise in Portsmouth, given the competition and the relatively few commercial ships that use Portsmouth.Caribbean wrote:With the suggested potential for commercial contracts, is there any likelihood of getting some of the cost paid by other budgets (Dept. of Trade and Industry, for instance)
It might be better investing in restoring the dry dock at Southampton, give the much larger number of commercial ships that use that port. (Or just use one of available the UK 'commercial' dry docks for QEC.)
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I wonder if the old King George V drydock in Southampton could be another potential option? Close proximity to Portsmouth and should be large enough to accommodate the carriers. Though if its going to cost a pretty penny to bring back into use you may as well spend the money on rebuilding a Dock in Portsmouth.