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.
bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 1576
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby bobp » 15 Jan 2019, 12:15

PhillyJ wrote:Well that's my lad all packed up and relocated


Good luck to your son in his new career. Hope he does well and has some stories to tell in future years.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5207
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby SKB » 15 Jan 2019, 21:22

Image
(@TameCrab ) 15 Jan 2018
CIWS going on QE.


Nice square hole in the tent to drop the Phalanx through.

PhillyJ
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:27
Location: England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby PhillyJ » 16 Jan 2019, 01:22

bobp wrote:Good luck to your son in his new career. Hope he does well and has some stories to tell in future years.
Cheers. It's quite surreal how I've been following the QE Class build for so long and now have a Son preparing to board and serve upon the POW, when I started he was but a nipper and at school not knowing what he wanted to be. He's met the Capt and will have his tour of his Ship soon.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 1576
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby bobp » 16 Jan 2019, 05:32

My lad joined the army in 1990 and he is still serving. I am also immensely proud of him and how he has progressed in his career. Stay in touch with your son as much as you are able, that's not always easy when he is on deployment.

User avatar
swoop
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 03 May 2015, 21:25
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby swoop » 17 Jan 2019, 08:30

SKB wrote:I'm curious to know if Rosyth's basin is large enough to hold both carriers at the same time. Would PoW have to be temporarily moved out from the basin's J/K berths into the Firth of Forth's deep water channel to make room?

Heaps of room in there and the tugs know what they are doing.
Queenie would enter the basin and go straight into the dry dock regardless.

PhillyJ
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:27
Location: England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby PhillyJ » 17 Jan 2019, 09:55

swoop wrote:Queenie would enter the basin and go straight into the dry dock regardless.
For goodness sake do not let any DM or Scum journalists see her being called 'Queenie', they'd soon jump on it and report back that the crew have nicknamed her that alongside 'Big Lizzie'! :lol:

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1453
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 18 Jan 2019, 08:43

Nothing new here, but a good read and some fantastic images.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-que ... ary-power/

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 » 18 Jan 2019, 09:14

I agree about the images, and the article is nicely written (in general enough terms for a wider distribution), but also gives a fresh and credible quote for the sortie rate (that we often discuss here).

OK, this " by 2023, we are committed to 24 UK jets onboard, and after that it’s too far away to say.” can be done at a push, but
- the 2026 fully operational date for CEPP does not figure at all, and
- the most dazzling fact-let is actually on the chart: getting two fully operational squadrons could stretch out all the way to 2034 (?)

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3487
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 18 Jan 2019, 16:19

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I agree about the images, and the article is nicely written (in general enough terms for a wider distribution), but also gives a fresh and credible quote for the sortie rate (that we often discuss here).

OK, this " by 2023, we are committed to 24 UK jets onboard, and after that it’s too far away to say.” can be done at a push, but
- the 2026 fully operational date for CEPP does not figure at all, and
- the most dazzling fact-let is actually on the chart: getting two fully operational squadrons could stretch out all the way to 2034 (?)


There's no great sortie rate mystery. For public consumption the party line is a sustained rate of two sorties per day per aircraft that can surge to three a day for a short while. So 36 F-35's at 2 a day equals a sustained 72 sortie rate that can surge to 108.

Of course in practice these numbers could and will be exceeded. But it all depends on the number of jets onboard.

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 » 18 Jan 2019, 17:29

Ron5 wrote:So 36 F-35's at 2 a day equals a sustained 72 sortie rate that can surge to 108.

Of course in practice these numbers could and will be exceeded

Yes, how come :) I thought 72 came from 3 x 24?
- the only part I take dispute with is the "of course"

Uptread we have a lot of good discussion about how not all sorties were created equal.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3487
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 19 Jan 2019, 16:03

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Uptread we have a lot of good discussion about how not all sorties were created equal.


I read it, mostly bollox.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Yes, how come :) I thought 72 came from 3 x 24?


Dunnno. The design point was a complement of 36 FJ's.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:the only part I take dispute with is the "of course"


Why? In stress conditions the ship will be overloaded, overworked, margins will be cut and rule books ignored. Such is the nature of things.

topman
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby topman » 19 Jan 2019, 18:03

I think people are reading too much into those numbers in the article and put their own answers to get a conclusion they favour.

The 72 number is the ships theoretical maximum in terms of ship design for things like refuelling ammo loads etc.

The number of F35 sorties will be another number entirely it will depend on a whole other number of factors.

You won't be flying every jet three or even twice a day, everyday.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 767
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby downsizer » 19 Jan 2019, 18:11

topman wrote:I think people are reading too much into those numbers in the article and put their own answers to get a conclusion they favour.

The 72 number is the ships theoretical maximum in terms of ship design for things like refuelling ammo loads etc.

The number of F35 sorties will be another number entirely it will depend on a whole other number of factors.

You won't be flying every jet three or even twice a day, everyday.


Take your reality elsewhere. It's not welcome here. ;)

topman
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby topman » 19 Jan 2019, 18:27

downsizer wrote:
topman wrote:I think people are reading too much into those numbers in the article and put their own answers to get a conclusion they favour.

The 72 number is the ships theoretical maximum in terms of ship design for things like refuelling ammo loads etc.

The number of F35 sorties will be another number entirely it will depend on a whole other number of factors.

You won't be flying every jet three or even twice a day, everyday.


Take your reality elsewhere. It's not welcome here. ;)


True, however I'm always surprised at what is a fairly obscure bit of information and most people don't really talk about it on places like here. Yet put FJ and aircraft carriers together and it brings out a fascination with sortie rates for some unfathomable reason!

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1297
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby seaspear » 20 Jan 2019, 02:58

Are there any thoughts on the upgrading of the s1850m radar so that it is comparable to Smart-l-ewc as per on Dutch naval vessels ?

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 » 20 Jan 2019, 06:24

Ron5 wrote:Dunnno. The design point was a complement of 36 FJ's.
t

The design point was sortie generation (initial & sustained) which should not come as a great surprise to anyone as without any a/c up in the air the carrier's main offensive weapon system is 'inoperative'.

Of course, when we first allow for the planned Merlin complement, then stack the hangar full (but leave the lifts free for use) and then fill the deck (and allow the precious a/c to be exposed to salt over prolonged periods), we can have all 48 (of our planned JSF strength) onboard on one carrier, at once :lol: https://jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftc ... e-a-12.jpg

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 484
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Location: United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Halidon » 20 Jan 2019, 07:43

seaspear wrote:Are there any thoughts on the upgrading of the s1850m radar so that it is comparable to Smart-l-ewc as per on Dutch naval vessels ?

Going to an active array would be nice, but I wouldn't give it enormous priority at the moment. If the RN pursues such an upgrade for Type45, tagging the carriers onto that buy makes a ton of sense. But if you're talking carrier-only money, there are likely plenty of other priorities.

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 » 20 Jan 2019, 08:24

Halidon wrote:such an upgrade for Type45, tagging the carriers onto [that buy] makes a ton of sense.


Under any kind of threat situation there would/ should be a T-45 in presence.

Takes me to another question: Command facilities. T-45s are not equipped to flagship level. There were the Albions (and Ocean was upgraded), and then the carriers coming, so that was not deemed necessary/ was deemed an unnecessary and expensive overlap.
- however, one of the planning assumptions was CEC-level coordination in the AAW domain ( a subset for sure, but the one where being a laggard "could sink" the MTF, just like the lack of air cover "sank" TF 'Z')
- as CEC proc was canned, has enough "comms" been put in place for the sensor-shooter separation to become reality (also for the RN; USN is onto their next iteration already)?

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Timmymagic » 20 Jan 2019, 09:40

Halidon wrote:If the RN pursues such an upgrade for Type45, tagging the carriers onto that buy makes a ton of sense.


You'd think so. If the UK has 9 S1850, and 7 are upgraded leaving the remaining 2 as S1850M might actually cost more in the long run.

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 » 20 Jan 2019, 09:49

Timmymagic wrote: and 7


Is our test installation on land the 7th in that reference?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3487
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 20 Jan 2019, 15:54

topman wrote:
downsizer wrote:
topman wrote:I think people are reading too much into those numbers in the article and put their own answers to get a conclusion they favour.

The 72 number is the ships theoretical maximum in terms of ship design for things like refuelling ammo loads etc.

The number of F35 sorties will be another number entirely it will depend on a whole other number of factors.

You won't be flying every jet three or even twice a day, everyday.


Take your reality elsewhere. It's not welcome here. ;)


True, however I'm always surprised at what is a fairly obscure bit of information and most people don't really talk about it on places like here. Yet put FJ and aircraft carriers together and it brings out a fascination with sortie rates for some unfathomable reason!


Seriously??

The MoD and the RN have from day one have repeatedly beaten the drum that CVF is the first carrier in the world designed to a requirement for sortie generation and you don't understand why folks talk about it.

Get a grip.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3487
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 20 Jan 2019, 16:00

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Dunnno. The design point was a complement of 36 FJ's.
t

The design point was sortie generation (initial & sustained) which should not come as a great surprise to anyone as without any a/c up in the air the carrier's main offensive weapon system is 'inoperative'.

Of course, when we first allow for the planned Merlin complement, then stack the hangar full (but leave the lifts free for use) and then fill the deck (and allow the precious a/c to be exposed to salt over prolonged periods), we can have all 48 (of our planned JSF strength) onboard on one carrier, at once :lol: https://jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftc ... e-a-12.jpg


Sortie rate is an abstract number and as soon as they figured it could be satisfied with 36 aircraft, a rather concrete number, either would be used as design points depending on the circumstance.

Of course there was some iteration, the initial sortie rate targets were reduced to make sure the carriers could be built within their (mostly) politically set dimensions.

topman
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby topman » 20 Jan 2019, 17:11

Ron5 wrote:
topman wrote:
downsizer wrote:
topman wrote:I think people are reading too much into those numbers in the article and put their own answers to get a conclusion they favour.

The 72 number is the ships theoretical maximum in terms of ship design for things like refuelling ammo loads etc.

The number of F35 sorties will be another number entirely it will depend on a whole other number of factors.

You won't be flying every jet three or even twice a day, everyday.


Take your reality elsewhere. It's not welcome here. ;)


True, however I'm always surprised at what is a fairly obscure bit of information and most people don't really talk about it on places like here. Yet put FJ and aircraft carriers together and it brings out a fascination with sortie rates for some unfathomable reason!


Seriously??

The MoD and the RN have from day one have repeatedly beaten the drum that CVF is the first carrier in the world designed to a requirement for sortie generation and you don't understand why folks talk about it.

Get a grip.


Seriously yes, especially as a lot of the talk is of wishful thinking.

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 484
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Location: United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Halidon » 20 Jan 2019, 21:05

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Halidon wrote:such an upgrade for Type45, tagging the carriers onto [that buy] makes a ton of sense.


Under any kind of threat situation there would/ should be a T-45 in presence.

True, and I've seen some pretty serious pushback against the prospect of overspending on CVN radars over here. But A) the economics of a T45 upgrade would likely improve if they can buy 2 more sets and spread the cost with the Carriers a bit and B) 2 (or more) rotating arrays could potentially be coordinated across multiple hulls to maximize coverage without having to go the mutli-face array route.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Takes me to another question: Command facilities. T-45s are not equipped to flagship level. There were the Albions (and Ocean was upgraded), and then the carriers coming, so that was not deemed necessary/ was deemed an unnecessary and expensive overlap.
- however, one of the planning assumptions was CEC-level coordination in the AAW domain ( a subset for sure, but the one where being a laggard "could sink" the MTF, just like the lack of air cover "sank" TF 'Z')
- as CEC proc was canned, has enough "comms" been put in place for the sensor-shooter separation to become reality (also for the RN; USN is onto their next iteration already)?

Our DDGs aren't equipped as flagships but are irregularly used as such, one is flagship of SNMG-1 at the moment. It's a pain for a number of reasons, but workable to run a small command staff out of a "regular" combatant. The lack of CEC is problematic for AAW/BMD, I'm not well enough versed in T45 or RN systems to say how well they're doing without it when they've taken part in BMD exercises. CEC upgrades should be backwards-compatible with legacy CEC systems (at least to an extent), at any rate nations are still getting in line for their CEC upgrades so we're doing something right.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2941
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 20 Jan 2019, 23:37

I do not think even the Carriers have good Command capabilities, wasn't that one of the things removed to save a few pennies? WE know the RN wanted to move forward with CEC, but could not get any such programme funded as it was seen as "Nice to have" rather then essential back when these decisions were made. I mean the Big Bad bear and Dragon had not really reappeared on the threat radar then, and the threats that were visible weren't believed to be of such a threat that CEC would be needed to cope. The fact that the RN's new platforms were designed when the world was different, and these designs have been stuck to even though things have changed greatly during their construction is going to cause issues for the RN. Simply look at the defensive systems on the new Carriers, does anyone think they are adequate for high intensity naval combat? The lack of systems like CEC within a Carrier Group makes the formation vulnerable to massed missile attacks and the lack of BMD gives them no defence against the weapons of this type being developed to engage such formations.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: donald_of_tokyo, Tempest414 and 9 guests