Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Bongodog]

Almost any vessel with a flight deck & hangar could ferry replacement aircraft and transfer them across to the carrier using VTOL

It would melt the flight deck.

I was kind of assuming that they would apply relevant coatings (and strengthening, where applicable), but maybe all posts should be accompanied by a full technical spec and list of caveats going forward

Or people could just fill in the blanks themselves.

Except that your statement at the minute is wildly inaccurate without serious technical work and expense that isn't going to happen.

I suppose playing devil's advocate, in a war emergency you could bolt steel panels to the deck as a temporary measure to VTO F35's from a suitable transport ship to the Carrier.

I can't think of a reason we would need to do that today, bar another Falklands war, but it's possible.

Necessity is the mother of invention as they say....

Other ships are also made of steel...

That's not what I am saying. If you wanted to VTO ferry F35B's from a STUFT transport ship and launch them from the deck, then you need to protect the deck, i.e steel sheets bolted to the deck and hosed down with water...

But the deck would already be made of steel, so it would help nill.

It would help immensely, installing a sacrificial steel plate would prevent the afterburner blast literally cutting a hole through the deck. The problem would be could you install sufficient steel without increasing the centre of gravity of the ship too much.

[mrclark303]

Almost any vessel with a flight deck & hangar could ferry replacement aircraft and transfer them across to the carrier using VTOL

It would melt the flight deck.

I was kind of assuming that they would apply relevant coatings (and strengthening, where applicable), but maybe all posts should be accompanied by a full technical spec and list of caveats going forward

Or people could just fill in the blanks themselves.

Except that your statement at the minute is wildly inaccurate without serious technical work and expense that isn't going to happen.

I suppose playing devil's advocate, in a war emergency you could bolt steel panels to the deck as a temporary measure to VTO F35's from a suitable transport ship to the Carrier.

I can't think of a reason we would need to do that today, bar another Falklands war, but it's possible.

Necessity is the mother of invention as they say....

Other ships are also made of steel...

That's not what I am saying. If you wanted to VTO ferry F35B's from a STUFT transport ship and launch them from the deck, then you need to protect the deck, i.e steel sheets bolted to the deck and hosed down with water...

But the deck would already be made of steel, so it would help nill.

Oh yes it would! Back in the 1960's, they tested the F4K on HMS Eagle. As she didn't have the Phantom mods, they bolted steel to the flight deck and hosed it down straight afterwards!

Now that's on an an armoured Carrier flight deck, with the reheat efflux at an angle, so yes, a merchant ship with a thin steel plate deck would absolutely require over plating to take the massive shock and heat of a F35 VTO.

[new guy]

Oh yes it would! Back in the 1960's, they tested the F4K on HMS Eagle. As she didn't have the Phantom mods, they bolted steel to the flight deck and hosed it down straight afterwards!

Now that's on an an armoured Carrier flight deck, with the reheat efflux at an angle, so yes, a merchant ship with a thin steel plate deck would absolutely require over plating to take the massive shock and heat of a F35 VTO.

Thanks for backing it up with evidence. nice information. I still have minor doubts, but you have convinced me a bit.

[new guy]

But the deck would already be made of steel, so it would help nill.

It would help immensely, installing a sacrificial steel plate would prevent the afterburner blast literally cutting a hole through the deck. The problem would be could you install sufficient steel without increasing the centre of gravity of the ship too much.

Would that not just make a steel plate with a hole then? Surely that is not usable, as much as a deck with the hole is not usable.

[serge750]

the f4k were taking of horizontal - a lot more concentrated heat from a nozzle pointed straight down at the deck - but as with most things, if prepared prperly/ money spent it could be done...

[Caribbean]

Almost any vessel with a flight deck & hangar could ferry replacement aircraft and transfer them across to the carrier using VTOL

It would melt the flight deck.

I was kind of assuming that they would apply relevant coatings (and strengthening, where applicable), but maybe all posts should be accompanied by a full technical spec and list of caveats going forward

Or people could just fill in the blanks themselves.

Except that your statement at the minute is wildly inaccurate without serious technical work and expense that isn't going to happen.

I suppose playing devil's advocate, in a war emergency you could bolt steel panels to the deck as a temporary measure to VTO F35's from a suitable transport ship to the Carrier.

I can't think of a reason we would need to do that today, bar another Falklands war, but it's possible.

Necessity is the mother of invention as they say....

Other ships are also made of steel...

That's not what I am saying. If you wanted to VTO ferry F35B's from a STUFT transport ship and launch them from the deck, then you need to protect the deck, i.e steel sheets bolted to the deck and hosed down with water...

But the deck would already be made of steel, so it would help nill.

It would help immensely, installing a sacrificial steel plate would prevent the afterburner blast literally cutting a hole through the deck. The problem would be could you install sufficient steel without increasing the centre of gravity of the ship too much.

If we are talking of say a hypothetical STUFT 80,000 ton container ship, so lots of potential deck area to use, they are specifically designed to take enormous top weight with the containers.

So a shipyard could easily bolt steel plates to the deck, they wouldn't have to be massively thick, as you could immediately hose it down to rapidly cool it, all simple engineering.

You only effectively need to build launch pads big enough to VTO and VL.

In fact a modern container ship could potentially ferry a good number of F35B's and converted very quickly with materials readily available...

[new guy]

Would be better is SRVL than VTOL as less time with thrust focused on one point

[wargame_insomniac]

the f4k were taking of horizontal - a lot more concentrated heat from a nozzle pointed straight down at the deck - but as with most things, if prepared prperly/ money spent it could be done...

Backing this up, look at the work that JMSDF had to to take with their two Izumo class DDH in order to be able to regularly operate F35Bs. One refit was to reshape the flight deck and the second was to add the heat reflective coating to the flight deck.

[new guy]

the f4k were taking of horizontal - a lot more concentrated heat from a nozzle pointed straight down at the deck - but as with most things, if prepared prperly/ money spent it could be done...

Backing this up, look at the work that JMSDF had to to take with their two Izumo class DDH in order to be able to regularly operate F35Bs. One refit was to reshape the flight deck and the second was to add the heat reflective coating to the flight deck.

As far as we know.

[Digger22]

I agree, if an Emergency required F35 to land and then take off in VTOL mode, on an unprotected deck, I'm sure a temporary solution has already been issued. If routine landings were planned, a deck would be permanently protected.
And that is a guess.

[inch]

Just get a load of plumbers heat mates thrown down,do trick

[bobp]

So PWLS has got a new Captain.......

[SW1]

[Ian Hall]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-p ... on-in-2025

[The Armchair Soldier]

In response to a Telegraph article claiming we can't deploy an aircraft carrier due to crew shortages for RFA Fort Victoria:

Defence Minister: Aircraft carriers could go to the Red Sea to support action against Houthi rebels in Yemen

British aircraft carriers are "available" to be deployed to the Red Sea if they are needed to support further action against Houthi rebels in Yemen, according to defence minister James Cartlidge.

The MP told GB News "there is no truth whatsoever" in reports the ships could not be deployed.

He said: "I'm pleased to confirm both our carriers are in Portsmouth, they are at readiness and they are available to be deployed if needed, if the operational decision is that that is the appropriate response.

Read More: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/defence-minis ... EEt8XQ1H_p

[Ron5]

Partly in response to this idiot piece in the same rag:

Absence of aircraft carriers for Houthi mission is a sea change

These ruinously expensive display pieces are obsolete
Isabel Oakeshott
14 January 2024 • 7:57pm

Some time into his tenure as the defence secretary, Ben Wallace asked the Navy to think the unthinkable. Could they scrap one of Britain’s precious aircraft carriers?

To understand what a shocking suggestion this was, we must go back to the late 1990s when HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales were conceived. It took three Labour governments; one coalition; two Tory governments; umpteen political about-turns; and a multiple of the original £2.3 billion budget to transform the vessels from a job-creation scheme for bored shipbuilders on the Clyde to anything remotely seaworthy. The 25-year saga almost bankrupted the Navy and drove successive defence secretaries to despair. Now, amid the most serious challenge to freedom of navigation since the two ships were delivered, they are nowhere to be seen – raising serious questions about their utility in an age of modern warfare.

On the face of it, the crisis in the Red Sea is the perfect opportunity for the Navy to show that all the pain and woe for the ships they call “our nation’s spearhead” was worth it. After all, the United States has sent one of its carriers to the region. Various fighter jets including the F/A-18 Super Hornet and E2 Hawkeye command and control aircraft have been zooming off USS Dwight D Eisenhower to teach Houthi militants a lesson. As Britain joins US air strikes against dozens of positions in Yemen, surely one of our great carriers is on its way to the action?

Sadly not. Both ships are currently keeping watch in that notorious trouble spot known as... Portsmouth Harbour. A few days ago, Tobias Ellwood, the Tory MP and former defence minister, asked the Defence Secretary whether he plans to task an aircraft carrier to the Middle East. The answer was no time soon, though according to the Ministry of Defence, our Carrier Strike Group (the collective term for the carriers and their support vessels) is ready to sally forth, should the call come.

To describe that as misleading is generous. For while it is true that the Navy could just about cobble together something resembling a Carrier Strike Group, despatching it anywhere remotely risky would be criminally foolhardy – and leave Britain dangerously exposed. The painful truth is that since the ships were first commissioned, the march of technology has threatened to render them both obsolete.

We do not have enough smaller warships or submarines or indeed weaponry to optimally protect them, in the way the US carrier is kept safe, unless we are willing to abandon the protection of our own coast and our nuclear deterrent.

In 1998, when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown approved the project, carriers were still the undisputed empresses of the sea. They had played a key role in the Falklands and would be critical to operations in Afghanistan. No piece of military hardware was more emblematic of hard power. Few countries can afford them, making them international status symbols. In the time it took to make them, the UAE built an entire booming metropolis: Dubai. No sooner were they ready, than they developed mechanical faults.

Meanwhile our enemies have been busy developing “carrier killers”. As a result, what the Navy optimistically calls “our national spearhead” is now vulnerable to a new generation of weapons such as China’s Dongfeng-21D, a ballistic missile said to be able to close in on its target at 10 times the speed of sound. They are extremely difficult to intercept, and Beijing can make about 1,200 for the price of an aircraft carrier. Iran has similar stuff – so our carriers need to be kept hundreds of kilometres away from conflict zones. Unfortunately they are equipped with a take-off and landing system that limits aircraft range – rendering them somewhat useless in a situation such as we now have in the Red Sea. It is hard to avoid a sinking feeling that these two glorious vessels will never be much more than a ruinously expensive display piece.

No wonder Wallace, head in hands, commissioned a study into the viability of “mothballing” one of the pair. What he actually meant was getting rid of it altogether. Ashen-faced admirals then pretended they would be more expensive to scuttle than keep. Presumably Wallace couldn’t face an almighty fight – or the national humiliation of scrapping a flagship.

The unprecedented threat to freedom of navigation all over the world shows that the Navy is more relevant to our national security and prosperity than ever.

Sadly, the absence of any realistic role for our two flagships in today’s conflict suggests that our carriers are not. It is a bitter pill to swallow, but Wallace was probably right.

[tomuk]

Isabel Oakeshott

Just what the defence commentariat needs

[Jensy]

Generous of her to share her ability to spew rambling nonsense with the Defence community.

What none of the Hastings/Hitchens crowd ever seem to question is: why are most of the top ten economies in the world, and some below, operating/building/planning fixed wing aviation at sea?

[Poiuytrewq]

Generous of her to share her ability to spew rambling nonsense with the Defence community.

A new low.

With so many contradictions and factual inaccuracies I’m amazed that the Telegraph published it.

Clearly a hatchet job designed to shovel funding elsewhere but the big question is whether or not Labour is listening.

[Bongodog]

Generous of her to share her ability to spew rambling nonsense with the Defence community.

A new low.

With so many contradictions and factual inaccuracies I’m amazed that the Telegraph published it.

Clearly a hatchet job designed to shovel funding elsewhere but the big question is whether or not Labour is listening.

The logistics of flying 4 typhoons from Cyprus across Egypt on a 3000 mile round trip compared to a 300 mile round trip from a carrier seems to have escaped the detractors, especially that if Egypt had said no it was simply not possible.

I feel the single biggest issue affecting carrier usage is the need to eke out the remaining life in Fort Victoria, presently she is definitely required to head to the far East in 2025 for the planned carrier deployment, if she was activated to support a carrier in the Red Sea in 2024, could Cammell Laird put her into good enough condition for 2025 ? Also she needs to keep going through to 2030 by whch time she will be 40 years old.
The fault lays in two places, whoever offered up Fort George for scrapping in 2010 instead keeping the already worn out Fort Austin & Fort Grange and the people who let the replacement programme drift for years

[SW1]

I’ve heard this repeated so often this past weekend its beginning to sound like desperation to get an aircraft carrier involved in something any to justify there existence.

Lets sail an entire carrier task group for 4 weeks from the uk to the Red Sea with over 2000 people in it so that it can bomb a couple of targets because it’s logistically easier than retaking a handful of typhoons from Cyprus makes no logistical sense at all.

Typhoons have been flying 5/6/7 hour round trips out of Cyprus over Iraq and syria for the past 10 years it’s hardly something new for them. Hell even when they launch on QRA for bears around the UK it can be 6 plus hour missions.

[Repulse]

It only works as long as we just need to drop a couple of bombs every few days, and Egypt allows us to do it.

[SW1]

It only works as long as we just need to drop a couple of bombs every few days, and Egypt allows us to do it.

It can work as long as it needs to and there’s more options than thru Egypt we don’t know what route they took.

This is an American show not ours

[shark bait]

This is an American show not ours

This much is true. The Typhoon show is just to lend a drop of credibility to American diplomacy and does nothing to alter the balance of maritime security in the region.

[SW1]

This is an American show not ours

This much is true. The Typhoon show is just to lend a drop of credibility to American diplomacy and does nothing to alter the balance of maritime security in the region.

Our involvement in any US lead operations is nearly always to lend credibility to American diplomacy.

The limited operation may change the maritime security balance but the jury is out with that. I suspect we’re just getting started in what will be another enduring commitment it’s got mission creep written all over it.