UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 Sep 2018, 03:41

Thanks for pointing out the comments; one has to agree with the following (and it takes an interview with a 3-* for messages to different audiences being balanced, to further the getting to "the" right result):
"There is a certain amount of jaundice in defense reporting, none of which is very helpful to readers, analysts, or observers. Competitors or enemies are often ridiculed for how unsophisticated their gear is or how poorly trained or lacking in experience they are when it suits our fancy, yet in another article are branded as existential threats and in many cases superior to us.

[...] Never mind that we contradict ourselves on an almost daily basis, one day telling everyone we are the best by far and that we can and will kill anyone who opposes us and the next screeching, wailing, and bemoaning our complete and utter vulnerability to foes"

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1697
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Location: Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby R686 » 26 Sep 2018, 04:23



Comments section was an interesting read, well it put a smile on my dial for a wet old day in Sydney town sitting around

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby seaspear » 26 Sep 2018, 11:14

The comment on" future proofing with electric catapults "for uavs would this be powerful enough for the mq-25 refuelling drone under development in preference to the Osprey

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 26 Sep 2018, 13:03

seaspear wrote:The comment on" future proofing with electric catapults "for uavs would this be powerful enough for the mq-25 refuelling drone under development in preference to the Osprey


I think I bigger question would be is it can laurch a MQ-25 can it recover them with out assertion gear ?

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby seaspear » 26 Sep 2018, 13:23

assertion or arrestor ? Im sure the ACA have some ideas what are practical for future upgrades as does the captain

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 26 Sep 2018, 13:47

seaspear wrote:assertion or arrestor ? Im sure the ACA have some ideas what are practical for future upgrades as does the captain


Sorry 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 ?

NickC
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby NickC » 26 Sep 2018, 13:48

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 :)

PhillyJ
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:27
Location: England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby PhillyJ » 26 Sep 2018, 15:03

Jake1992 wrote:Sorry auto correct on the phone drives me insane lol

It is a nightmare isn't it!
Jake1992 wrote:
If arrestor gear is needed will that effect the area for srvl or standard vertical landing ?

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 in :lol:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 Sep 2018, 15:11

NickC 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 :)


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 = cheaper
- 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)

NickC
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby NickC » 26 Sep 2018, 16:06

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
NickC 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 :)


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 = cheaper
- 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)


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.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 26 Sep 2018, 16:51

PhillyJ wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Sorry auto correct on the phone drives me insane lol

It is a nightmare isn't it!
Jake1992 wrote:
If arrestor gear is needed will that effect the area for srvl or standard vertical landing ?

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 in :lol:


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.

Keithdwat579
Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 14 May 2018, 22:06
Location: Niue

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Keithdwat579 » 26 Sep 2018, 16:55

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.

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 404
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 26 Sep 2018, 17:25

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.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1238
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Timmymagic » 26 Sep 2018, 17:57

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 ?


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.

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.

WhiteWhale
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 19 Oct 2015, 18:29
Location: Somalia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby WhiteWhale » 26 Sep 2018, 18:33

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.

User avatar
-Eddie-
Member
Posts: 174
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby -Eddie- » 26 Sep 2018, 19:46

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.

SDL
Member
Posts: 616
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby SDL » 26 Sep 2018, 20:27

So it's happened already?

User avatar
-Eddie-
Member
Posts: 174
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby -Eddie- » 26 Sep 2018, 20:46

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.

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 404
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 26 Sep 2018, 20:57

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. :idea:

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby seaspear » 26 Sep 2018, 21:32

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.

Keithdwat579
Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 14 May 2018, 22:06
Location: Niue

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Keithdwat579 » 26 Sep 2018, 23:26

SDL wrote:So it's happened already?


I did suspect that they would do the first landings without the media attention.

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.


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.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 Sep 2018, 05:11

Scimitar54 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. :idea:

I certainly agree with the above, but this
The 10+ Billion required to convert the CV's to cats and [...] to buy more, but different, F-35s

is not the right thing (in the long list of priorities and gaps to be filled, after some fairly lackadaisical management).

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 205
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Location: Korea North

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Cooper » 27 Sep 2018, 08:55

SDL wrote:So it's happened already?


Honestly, I'm really not that bothered about seeing the 'first' F35B landing, at all.

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.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3047
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 27 Sep 2018, 10:00

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. :idea:
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.

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.

PhillyJ
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:27
Location: England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby PhillyJ » 27 Sep 2018, 10:02

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.
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. 8-)

HMS Furious.jpg

HMS Hermes.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: albedo and 14 guests