Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Tempest414 wrote:There is also a deficit in all aircraft types that will be operated from them
Really?

- It's going to have the worlds best strike fighter in F-35
- UK F-35B with Asraam CSP and Meteor will be the best fleet interceptor ever fielded by any nation
- Merlin HM.2 the best shipborne ASW on earth
- Merlin Crowsnest - A very good AEW solution, maybe not as good as E-2D, but still up there
- Merlin HC.4 - A very good naval utility helicopter and TRAP platform
- Apache E - The best helicopter gunship on earth
- Wildcat - The best naval strike helicopter on earth
- Chinook - De-facto the best western medium/large transport helo

- It's missing a dedicated COD and AAR platform, thats it. With FSS and Heavy-RAS it doesn't need a COD solution, Chinook and Merlin can provide a capability if required for a reasonable range, Chinook can undersling or carry more internally than a CMV-22.
- As to AAR, realistically the capability provided by shipborne AAR is anaemic and not as critical on a STOVL carrier as a CATOBAR carrier, no bolters on STOVL. Besides, the QE Class will pretty much always be operating within range of Voyager which is vastly more capable than any shipborne AAR capability.
- You could claim she's missing a dedicated EW aircraft, but with a fully LO fighter-bomber complement its not as necessary as with a mixed airwing. The USN is also struggling to field the full EA-18G capability...

The real gaps for QE are number of available escorts, timely arrival of FSS, numbers of P-8 available to support, numbers of Merlin available to cover ASW and AEW simultaneously (You really need a minimum of 12 Merlin HM.2 on-board to cover both in full), T45's ability to defend against ballistic missiles, self defence capability, EW fit-out and most crucially....the range of weapons carried by it's principal weapon, the F-35B.

Until 2025 we're limited to legacy Asraam, Amraam C-5 until the Amraam D's arrive c2021 and PWIV. Not bad at this stage. By 2025/6 it should be carrying Asraam CSP, Amraam D, Meteor, PWIV standard and PWIV Penetrator, Spear and possibly Spear EW and SmartGlider Light....we might even actually order some gun pods...
Gaps will remain of a dedicated AShM, long range strike missile (no Storm Shadow, JSM could partially cover this area and AShM), ARM (covered in part by Spear) and a heavyweight, gliding weapon (like JSOW, this may get covered by MBDA's SmartGlider Heavy if we buy in to it).

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5555
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Timmymagic wrote:- It's going to have the worlds best strike fighter in F-35
- UK F-35B with Asraam CSP and Meteor will be the best fleet interceptor ever fielded by any nation
- Merlin HM.2 the best shipborne ASW on earth
- Merlin Crowsnest - A very good AEW solution, maybe not as good as E-2D, but still up there
- Merlin HC.4 - A very good naval utility helicopter and TRAP platform
- Apache E - The best helicopter gunship on earth
- Wildcat - The best naval strike helicopter on earth
- Chinook - De-facto the best western medium/large transport helo
I have no argument here what we need is the right numbers of the above as I have put forward above and if it was me I would look at the pros and cons of Chinook v CH-53K for the Navel heavy lift helicopter i.e do we spend money adapting 12 Chinooks for navel use with Power folding rotors and so on or buying the off the self CH-53K and add a new type to the fleet. As I have said above we have to remember that the main role for both Chinook and Apache is support of the army and in the shift around the lift helicopter force went from

48 chinooks
28 Merlin HC-3/3A
30 Puma HC-1
30 Sea King HC-4

to

60 Chinook
25 Merlin HC-4
24 Puma HC-4

we also lost 14 ASW Merlin's in the move from MH-1 to 2 standard which is coming home to roost with the Carriers coming on line

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

IMO what’s needed to make the most of the carriers and give the over all fleet the aircraft it needs is something like this -

12 x V-22 for COD and AAR
24 x Merlin ( 12 ASW and 12 Jungly )
30 x V-247 ( 10 AEW, 10 EW and 10 Attack )
12 x Chinook marines upgrade
Wildcat attack upgrade
FAA access to at least 60 F35Bs

This should be the aim for by the late 2020s but as always would require more money. I do think though that an increasing amount of politicians in parliament are starting to realise this.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Tempest414 wrote:There is also a deficit in all aircraft types that will be operated from them
No solution then?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5555
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

RichardIC wrote:No solution then?
Sorry No solution to what then ? if this is a question on the escort problem it was not me you put the question to so I would not reply if it is a to the aircraft problem then I have put forward a number of options

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

You're right. I apologise. Post in haste...

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by serge750 »

I do love the idea of getting a few Ospreys for the carriers, I have reservations for using them for COD as they are so expensive but would prefer them to be used for the RM for initial airborne assault, maybe re role a couple for AAR if and when needed with a palletized refueling system, or IF it were possible Crowsnest to release the Merlins for ASW but that's another can of worms.... :problem:

But a I suspose it would be a lot cheaper to buy a dozen or so new build ASW merlins !!!


We really do need more F35 !!! even just a couple (or three) of extra squadrons just for RN then use the RAF F53b for surge capacity...

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Unless they are modified the Chinooks, ACC Wildcats and Apaches are only suitable for specific one off, short term deployments nothing more except if the balloon goes up in a big way, and therefore should not be counted as true assets for Carrier Aviation. To do so will serious damage the platforms and it will not be cheap the rectify when things are over.

As seen with the Polish order, it would still be possible to purchase additional Merlins, both HM and HC varieties to allow more options for deployments, and of course a few examples oriented towards use by SF and RM for special operations.

If we want to use the RAF and AAC platforms routinely form the carriers they are going to have to go through a refit similar to what the Merlins went through to protect them form the hazards of being at sea for any length of time and ideally to allow them to be stowed in a more space friendly manner.

As for COD I don't think we have ever used this system to the same extent as the USN, in fact I believe they are unique in this mainly due to operating the C-2 Greyhounds. The CTOL HMS Ark Royal used a version of the Gannet in this role which limited what could be brought on board the carrier. Osprey would be nice but one of the main reasons for the C-2 was its ability to transport aircraft engines to and from the Carrier.

Related to this does the QE have an ETF? The USN carriers do at the stern of the vessel on the hanger deck. If you cannot test an engine it means you have to swap put any that go u/s with a serviceable one and stack those that are u/s until they can be unloaded in port. It also means you have to have a stack of serviceable engines available for replacements on the carrier. This will not be an issue initially as there will be plenty of space in the Hanger due to the small size of the airwing, but this issue could affect the availability of the F-35s deployed over time if the ship embarks on a long deployment and necessitate regular stop overs in friendly ports and the pre-positioning of equipment like aircraft engines at the stop overs.

Now I may have got this all wrong so if anyone has experience of non USN carrier operations for a sustained period I would welcome their input.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:Unless they are modified the Chinooks, ACC Wildcats and Apaches are only suitable for specific one off, short term deployments nothing more except if the balloon goes up in a big way, and therefore should not be counted as true assets for Carrier Aviation. To do so will serious damage the platforms and it will not be cheap the rectify when things are over.

As seen with the Polish order, it would still be possible to purchase additional Merlins, both HM and HC varieties to allow more options for deployments, and of course a few examples oriented towards use by SF and RM for special operations.

If we want to use the RAF and AAC platforms routinely form the carriers they are going to have to go through a refit similar to what the Merlins went through to protect them form the hazards of being at sea for any length of time and ideally to allow them to be stowed in a more space friendly manner.

As for COD I don't think we have ever used this system to the same extent as the USN, in fact I believe they are unique in this mainly due to operating the C-2 Greyhounds. The CTOL HMS Ark Royal used a version of the Gannet in this role which limited what could be brought on board the carrier. Osprey would be nice but one of the main reasons for the C-2 was its ability to transport aircraft engines to and from the Carrier.

Related to this does the QE have an ETF? The USN carriers do at the stern of the vessel on the hanger deck. If you cannot test an engine it means you have to swap put any that go u/s with a serviceable one and stack those that are u/s until they can be unloaded in port. It also means you have to have a stack of serviceable engines available for replacements on the carrier. This will not be an issue initially as there will be plenty of space in the Hanger due to the small size of the airwing, but this issue could affect the availability of the F-35s deployed over time if the ship embarks on a long deployment and necessitate regular stop overs in friendly ports and the pre-positioning of equipment like aircraft engines at the stop overs.

Now I may have got this all wrong so if anyone has experience of non USN carrier operations for a sustained period I would welcome their input.
I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said here with the exception of the use of V-22s for COD, I believe the CV-22s can carry an F35 engine internally this is with the USN are replacing the C-5 Greyhound with them so they would be suitable for us since we are using the same aircraft give or take.

With regard to sorting spare engines on the carrier could this be stored on the SSS as the new rigs are designed to transfer an F35 engine while at sea ?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5555
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Jake1992 wrote:IMO what’s needed to make the most of the carriers and give the over all fleet the aircraft it needs is something like this -

12 x V-22 for COD and AAR
24 x Merlin ( 12 ASW and 12 Jungly )
30 x V-247 ( 10 AEW, 10 EW and 10 Attack )
12 x Chinook marines upgrade
Wildcat attack upgrade
FAA access to at least 60 F35Bs

This should be the aim for by the late 2020s but as always would require more money. I do think though that an increasing amount of politicians in parliament are starting to realise this.
I think by 2030 we need to make sure the Carrier group and air wing is up and running with as few new types as possible. What I see is needed is

Fleet base line by 2030
Type 45 ) upgraded and fitted to carry 48 CAMM on top of the 48 Aster to give a missile load out 96 missiles
Type 26) first two ships in the water and working as part of the Carrier group
SSS ) first in the water working in the carrier group

Fleet nice to have
Type 45 upgraded for BMD

Carrier air wing base line

F-35 ) six Sqn's of 10 jets 3 FAA and 3 RAF to allow HMS QE to deploy with 20 jets as a strike carrier and HMS POW to deploy with 10 jets as LPH ( Like a America Class LHA ) Leaving the RAF to use its 30 jets as seen fit and surge to the carriers as needed
Merlin ) The Merlin fleet should look like 40 x ASW , 30 x HC-4 , 12 x AEW
Wildcat ) deployed aboard the escorts

Air-wing nice to have

12 V-22 for AAR and COD
12 CH-53K for Heavy lift

This would allow a Carrier air-wing of
( HMS QE 20 x F-35 , 9 x Merlin ASW , 4 x Merlin AEW ) and
( POW 10 x 35 , 9 x ASW , 4 x AEW , 10 to 12 x HC-4

Or with the nice to have kit
( HMS QE 20 x F-35 , 9 x ASW , 4 x AEW , 2 x V-22 AAR , 2 x V-22 COD ) and
POW 10 x F-35 , 9 xASW , 4 x AEW , 10 x HC-4 , 5 x CH-53K , 2 x V-22 AAR , 2 X V-22 COD

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4584
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Personally, I see the need for a capability to surge 4 frontline Sqds of 12 F35B a/c with the ability to integrate & operate USMC sqds from the two CVFs as sufficient for both Carrier Strike and air defence for a task force, given overall priorities. Add the reserve, OCU and experimental a/c probably gets us to @70 a/c in total.

This does require all F35Bs to be prioritised to naval duties and as such should ultimately come under the FAA, but it would also allow the RAF to focus on their priorities also rather than end up with “138” F35Bs where the requirement is questionable.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:12 CH-53K for Heavy lift
Interesting proposal for heavy lift. I think the cost is clearly the biggest negative. At around twice the price of a Chinook they would be hard to justify although if Chinooks are to be regularly used at sea what toll will this take on these non-marinised airframes? Could a fully marinised option actually be cheaper in the long run?

It would be interesting to know if the MOD ever seriously costed the possibility of a dozen fully marinised Chinooks with powered folding rotors. They really would be a game changer for the Commando Helicopter Force.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5555
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote:Personally, I see the need for a capability to surge 4 frontline Sqds of 12 F35B a/c with the ability to integrate & operate USMC sqds from the two CVFs as sufficient for both Carrier Strike and air defence for a task force, given overall priorities. Add the reserve, OCU and experimental a/c probably gets us to @70 a/c in total.

This does require all F35Bs to be prioritised to naval duties and as such should ultimately come under the FAA, but it would also allow the RAF to focus on their priorities also rather than end up with “138” F35Bs where the requirement is questionable.
I truly believe that the F-35 force should be formed into 10 jet sqn's it is by far the most effective way forward for the carriers . Current thinking is 4 sqn's of 12 jets 2 FAA and 2 RAF = 48 front line jets and only really allows the FAA to deploy 12 jets to each carrier meaning the Navy / MOD have to go cap in hand to the RAF/ USMC to add more jets. For me if I was the FAA I would be pushing for 3 sqn's of 10 jets as this would allow them to deploy 20 jets on 1 carrier and 10 jets on the other which then can be joined by a RAF or USMC unit if needed to give carrier 1 30 jets and carrier 2 20 jets but the main thing is the FAA can get on with operating from the carriers without the RAF and leaving the RAF to play with there jets as they see fit.

I have said in the past that if the F-35 order was to be split I would go for 70 F-35B and 70 F-35A with all Bs going to the FAA split into 4 sqn's of 10 jets and a OCU/ OEU of 10 jets leaving 20 jets in the pool

gordon44
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 25 Jun 2015, 17:29

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by gordon44 »

Going back in time to the construction off HMS Queen Elizabeth at Rosyth , found these images by accident . This site may not be familiar to many.

https://canmore.org.uk/search/image?SIM ... %20carrier

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5555
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:It would be interesting to know if the MOD ever seriously costed the possibility of a dozen fully marinised Chinooks with powered folding rotors. They really would be a game changer for the Commando Helicopter Force.
the cost for the UK alone to do all the mods needed just for 12 air-frame will be cost heavy however if we could find others who want to operate Chinooks from a deck like maybe Australia the cost may come down

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SW1 »

The uk already operates a stand alone chinook fleet, the cockpit is different to the rest of the world wide fleet as well as a few other things.

Chinook has been continually deployed at sea and I suspect there’s pilots and ground crew in the chinook force with more time at sea than some of those in CHF.


The air fleets being discussed are completely devote of any reality what is currently the situation or likely to be. There won’t be ch53, nor v22 nor lots more merlins nor 6 sqns of f35.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by topman »

Lord Jim wrote: Related to this does the QE have an ETF? The USN carriers do at the stern of the vessel on the hanger deck. If you cannot test an engine it means you have to swap put any that go u/s with a serviceable one and stack those that are u/s until they can be unloaded in port. It also means you have to have a stack of serviceable engines available for replacements on the carrier. This will not be an issue initially as there will be plenty of space in the Hanger due to the small size of the airwing, but this issue could affect the availability of the F-35s deployed over time if the ship embarks on a long deployment and necessitate regular stop overs in friendly ports and the pre-positioning of equipment like aircraft engines at the stop overs.

Now I may have got this all wrong so if anyone has experience of non USN carrier operations for a sustained period I would welcome their input.
I don't think it'll have one, not really any need for one. All dets manage without and just take spare engines with them. A UETF would take up more space than a few engines anyway, add in maintenance costs plus extra personal trained on how to use it. I can't see how it would be needed tbh.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5555
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote:he air fleets being discussed are completely devote of any reality what is currently the situation or likely to be.
Until 6 months ago a Point class FLSS was devoid of any reality. I agree CH -53K wil not happen but as for having 5 sqn's of F-35 with 10 jets in each or the FAA having 3 sqn's of 10 jets and the RAF having 2 sqn's 12 jet is very doable we are only talking about 2 to 6 jets more in the front line fleet

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by topman »

Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:he air fleets being discussed are completely devote of any reality what is currently the situation or likely to be.
Until 6 months ago a Point class FLSS was devoid of any reality. I agree CH -53K wil not happen but as for having 5 sqn's of F-35 with 10 jets in each or the FAA having 3 sqn's of 10 jets and the RAF having 2 sqn's 12 jet is very doable we are only talking about 2 to 6 jets more in the front line fleet
Its the numbers you're talking of being deployed to the aircraft carrier or anywhere else, that is unrealistic.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5555
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

topman wrote:Its the numbers you're talking of being deployed to the aircraft carrier or anywhere else, that is unrealistic.
Why ?

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by topman »

Tempest414 wrote:
topman wrote:Its the numbers you're talking of being deployed to the aircraft carrier or anywhere else, that is unrealistic.
Why ?
If I'm reading your post right, you think 3 FAA badged sqns from JFL will deploy 30 aircraft out 30 to two different locations at the same time?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Really looking at it that you have 60% odd of any aircraft as front line then to allow the carriers and RAF to operate properly then the full 138 need to be in service at once. This would allow the FAA to have 3 squadrons of 12 ( 24 and 12 between the carriers ) and 4 squadrons of 12 for the RAF that can surge the carriers as required.

Much less than the above then either the carriers will be toothless or the RAF would have only a token F35 fleet.

If during peace time the QEs are operated with less than the 24/12 mix then they will look like the massive white elephants HMG have wanted to avoid and they might aswell of gone for 2 x 45,000t carriers.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by topman »

There's not really any 'RAF' or 'FAA' sqns, they are all part of one force. They may be nominally named as one or the other but they'll have a mix of people from both services in them.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by topman »

Jake1992 wrote:Really looking at it that you have 60% odd of any aircraft as front line then to allow the carriers and RAF to operate properly then the full 138 need to be in service at once. This would allow the FAA to have 3 squadrons of 12 ( 24 and 12 between the carriers ) and 4 squadrons of 12 for the RAF that can surge the carriers as required.

Much less than the above then either the carriers will be toothless or the RAF would have only a token F35 fleet.

If during peace time the QEs are operated with less than the 24/12 mix then they will look like the massive white elephants HMG have wanted to avoid and they might aswell of gone for 2 x 45,000t carriers.

Who's going to man this 138 jet fleet and how do we pay for it?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

topman wrote:deploy 30 aircraft out 30 to two different locations at the same time
Is it me, or does that comment highlight the difference between RAF and FAA thinking? As in, the RAF is largely a "static" organisation, with occasional expeditionary forays (at great difficulty and expense - hence the understandable dismay at the prospect of deploying to two different locations at the same time), whereas the FAA (when properly constituted) is primarily an expeditionary organisation (with two purpose-built mobile bases) and some static facilities. The focus and expectations are completely different - and not a particularly good fit IMHO.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Post Reply