Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[swoop]

We know that "conversion" from ramp to cats 'n trap is NOT going to happen. The sheer amount of work required to destroy entire modules of the ship's structure would be in comparison to building a new ship entirely.
She is fitted with a ramp. Period. End of story.


Now, for those who do not know much about the intricacies of the ship's structure and the machinery involved with C&T flight op's, this video is well worth a viewing.
Yes, it doesn't contain CGI bollocks presentation, but it is superb in detail. EMALS is still not functional and reliable, so steam is the only option (currently) available. Like it or not.

[SKB]

Ark Royal IV (R09) in 1975


Ark Royal thread, including complete BBC "Sailor" tv series: http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=185

[Digger22]

Apparently Steam is obsolete, the cats on the Nimitz class are barely operational and the only way forward is EMALS!! Or so some would say...

[ArmChairCivvy]

the cats on the Nimitz class are barely operational

Heh-heh

[whitelancer]

Having seen the operation of Harriers on Ark Royal V its interesting to compare. For both landings and take offs I would say Harrier ops were simpler, quicker, safer and less manpower intensive. Whether such advantages of STOVL ops make up for the disadvantages is a matter of opinion.
As an aside its interesting to note that all the representations of CVF in CATOBAR configuration show an angled deck. I would have thought a parallel deck as in CVA-01 would have been a much better arrangement.

[SKB]

I wonder what the total number of crew would be if the QEC ships were fully CATOBAR, with angled deck and F-35C ?

[whitelancer]

I wonder what the total number of crew would be if the QEC ships were fully CATOBAR, with angled deck and F-35C ?

Shouldn't that be "with a parallel deck and F-35C"
With nothing more to go on than observations I reckon cats and traps would add at least 50 extra personnel.
Anyone know the figures for the US Carriers?

[S M H]

The French carrier two cats rather than U.S.N. carriers 4 62 personnel

[whitelancer]

The French carrier two cats rather than U.S.N. carriers 4 62 personnel

Thanks SMH

Given the Navy's manpower shortage another reason it may have been best to stick with F35B rather than go for the C.

[ArmChairCivvy]

another reason it may have been best to stick with F35B rather than go for the C.

Agreed, another 1.5 times crewed OPV earned there.

But, to take it further: launch rate is not the same as sortie rate, even with slightly higher payload and range. Sortie generation per day and ability to mix rotary and fixed wing ops, due to the low impact recovery method (in the main) are not to be sniffed at.

[whitelancer]

@ ArmChairCivvy

Agreed. But launch and recovery rates are extremely important. For instance if you have aircraft low on fuel you want to get them on board as quickly and efficiently as possible. Similarly if you are launching a strike package, you don't want the aircraft launched first hanging around using up precious fuel waiting for those launched last. Perhaps not quite the problem it was in the past but still a consideration. Further it makes swapping between launch and recovery operations quicker. Deck layout obviously also plays an important part in this. Difficult to see how you could improve on QE in this regard.

[R686]

@ ArmChairCivvy

Agreed. But launch and recovery rates are extremely important. For instance if you have aircraft low on fuel you want to get them on board as quickly and efficiently as possible. Similarly if you are launching a strike package, you don't want the aircraft launched first hanging around using up precious fuel waiting for those launched last. Perhaps not quite the problem it was in the past but still a consideration. Further it makes swapping between launch and recovery operations quicker. Deck layout obviously also plays an important part in this. Difficult to see how you could improve on QE in this regard.

Agree with what you are saying, a comparison with the current French carrier with twin cats she has the ability of a launch rate of the catapults of one aircraft per minute(Upto 22000kg), and with launch and recovery cycle of roughly 90-minute.

And if I'm reading it right accomadation for upto 800 Marines,

Rafale-M x12
Super Etendard x12
E2-C x4
ASW helicopters x12

[swoop]

Having seen the operation of Harriers on Ark Royal V its interesting to compare. For both landings and take offs I would say Harrier ops were simpler, quicker, safer and less manpower intensive.

Don't forget that STOVL OP's can be conducted under far worse sea-states and weather conditions.

[shark bait]

only 62 additional people to maintain and operate all that additional catapult equipment?

[marktigger]

Given the Navy's manpower shortage another reason it may have been best to stick with F35B rather than go for the C.

didn't the feasibility study carried out at great expense demonstrate it wasn't cost effective from an engineering point of view to fit them?

[Clive F]

Isn't it also easier for RAF pilots to convert to F35b landings on Carrier than F35c? Therefore more likely to happen.

[S M H]

n't it also easier for RAF pilots to convert to F35b landings on Carrier than F35c? Therefore more likely to happen.

It is not only the carrier qualification for C.O.B.A.R. its the continuation training required to keep the very perishable skills required for the arrested landings. As I expect that the R.A.F. will use there short take off and vertical landing capability as they did with the harriers. Transition to shipborne landing will require less training and continuation training than C.O.B.A.R. They will make S.V.R.L. simulator with a Bedford array equipped runway to perfect the skill before actual carrier landings. The costs will be significantly lower than C.O.B.A.R. ops.

[Defiance]

Big drive for synthetic training across the board, if I remember rightly the QEC is getting a pair of containerised sims for the hangar deck.

[downsizer]

Correct, they are.

[SKB]

QE already has that "first vertical landing" record...

^ A demo model F-35B in July 2014.

[R686]

QE already has that "first vertical landing" record...

^ A demo model F-35B in July 2014.

What was that made of wood?

[Defiance]

Big drive for synthetic training across the board, if I remember rightly the QEC is getting a pair of containerised sims for the hangar deck.

They'll be craned on board and will therefore be the first 'aircraft' to land vertically on deck.

Practice landing while the crane is in motion, does that qualify as 2 landings

[Digger22]

I can't agree with SB that placing the launch and recovery system within each aircraft could be classed as an advantage, over the carrier doing that. Its all well and good looking at the extra manning levels and maintenance of any such on board system, but surely having to repeat this multiple times on each airframe is counterproductive, and before I hear the usual about the decision has been made etc, maybe a little R+D into an alternative to EMALS, ie an enclosed loop electric powered steam catapult type thingy, may be worth while? We could even get some proper planes to fly off them then!! (He says tongue in cheek)

[ArmChairCivvy]

I can't agree with SB that placing the launch and recovery system within each aircraft could be classed as an advantage

Even an "availability" advantage? There will never be 100% unavailability.

[R686]

I can't agree with SB that placing the launch and recovery system within each aircraft could be classed as an advantage

Even an "availability" advantage? There will never be 100% unavailability.

Whole fleets of planes can be grounded for all sorts of reason, another reson for not putting all you eggs in one basket, really wish they made a successor to the Skyhawk, pity the F/A50 is not carrier capabile.