Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Of course we could throw in the wardroom silver. You do realise that Hammond and co would keep the dosh.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Perhaps the deal that the Treasury have in mind is to swap HMSQE & F35bs with cash adjustment, in exchange for the ex. HMS Hermes & some SHARs. Seems to be about the limit of our current crop of "Bean Counters".
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Our negotiators would probably end up paying some money to the Indians too, and then argue that we have saved money.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
A tad disappointed that despite QE being in dry dock for two weeks we have had no news.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Aye I wonder if they found any problems in dry dock or all Great guns ?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
They are probably gong over her with a magnifying glass to see how everything has held up after her initial operations, being the first of the class and all that. In that respect, no news is good news.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I haven't read of the work done during the dry docking and was curious if this may have included paintwork on the side that had been erased
-
Online
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5600
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Not directly RN QNLZ issue, but French CGD "inside" video here is very impressive. We will be seeing RN version of this kind of movie within 2 years?
-
- Member
- Posts: 96
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 11:36
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Note the 2 16 cell SAM sites near the E2A planes,donald_of_tokyo wrote:Not directly RN QNLZ issue, but French CGD "inside" video here is very impressive. We will be seeing RN version of this kind of movie within 2 years?
Needed for the QE class carriers ASAP if taking a cruise in the south China sea.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Should I be surprised that CdG's displays are in English? And I wonder what sea state that remote aircraft handling system can be used?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Maybe there will be a film crew for the follow on trials of the F35 on westlant 19? fingers crossed
Would be good to see her meet up with CdeG when in the med going to the far east on her first deployment...
Would be good to see her meet up with CdeG when in the med going to the far east on her first deployment...
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
The international language of communication for maritime and aviation is English.Digger22 wrote:Should I be surprised that CdG's displays are in English? And I wonder what sea state that remote aircraft handling system can be used?
If you read the read the English straight off the display you won’t have to translate it.
(The language of Diplomacy is French)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4104
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Along with a couple of Type 45'sdonald_of_tokyo wrote:Needed for the QE class carriers ASAP if taking a cruise in the south China sea.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I do like the Robotic Aircraft Tractor. Must be a great space saver. Also interesting that they have, like the USN, a UETF on board the carrier.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Enjoyed the CdG tour, nice to see areas such as the Engine workshop and test area. Also garbage disposal and L:aundry in action.cyrilranch wrote:Not directly RN QNLZ issue, but French CGD "inside" video here is very impressive. We will be seeing RN version of this kind of movie within 2 years?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Not directly a QEC issue, but Flight Global has an interesting short analysis of the Japanese Izumo carriers.
"Fully loaded, the Izumo class ships displace 27,000 tonnes, which compares with 22,000 tonnes for the Royal Navy’s former Invincible class. The ships will reportedly carry about 10 F-35Bs in addition to helicopters and, possibly, the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, which Japan is also obtaining."
MODIFICATION WORK
“There may be issues of having to provide extra workshop facilities, redesigning weapons magazines, and in particular providing all the necessary support for the F-35B’s considerable surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities,” says Childs. “Also adding further heat resistance to the flight deck. The Japanese may also have to decide whether or not they want to equip the Izumo class with a ski-jump ramp like the British, but unlike the Americans.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ll-457571/
"Fully loaded, the Izumo class ships displace 27,000 tonnes, which compares with 22,000 tonnes for the Royal Navy’s former Invincible class. The ships will reportedly carry about 10 F-35Bs in addition to helicopters and, possibly, the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, which Japan is also obtaining."
MODIFICATION WORK
“There may be issues of having to provide extra workshop facilities, redesigning weapons magazines, and in particular providing all the necessary support for the F-35B’s considerable surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities,” says Childs. “Also adding further heat resistance to the flight deck. The Japanese may also have to decide whether or not they want to equip the Izumo class with a ski-jump ramp like the British, but unlike the Americans.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ll-457571/
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Article is a bit thin as it's solely based on the uninformed guesses of a couple of media watchers. Not sure why they think it was a secret that the class could accept Harrier/F-35B type aircraft.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I thought it was interesting to see that QEC is about 2.5 times the displacement of Izumo, but able to operate 3.6 times the number of F35.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
This always has me question what is the real tonnage of the QEs I keep see mainly 2 weights 65,000t and 70,600t Iv even seem that PoW is 72,000t but a lot less often than the other figures.Aethulwulf wrote:I thought it was interesting to see that QEC is about 2.5 times the displacement of Izumo, but able to operate 3.6 times the number of F35.
Now I know there’s different tons but each Iv seen has said metric tons.
Does anyone know for sure what the actual weight is ?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Assuming of course the speculation about 10a/c is correct and also assuming that 10 isn’t some sort of norm they expect to carry. Given the Japanese say the ship was only supposed to carry a handful of helicopters we will need to wait and see.
But it highlights the usefulness of the vertical takeoff version and the effect of deploying a sqn of jets has on an area when very few outside the US can deploy any more than that.
Mind you as the Japan have been averaging about 1000 qra interceptions per year for the last few years you can see why dispersing assets is high up the list
The Japanese ship also cost about 1b pounds according to the best available info on the web so quite a bit cheaper. Donald may know more as his part of the world
But it highlights the usefulness of the vertical takeoff version and the effect of deploying a sqn of jets has on an area when very few outside the US can deploy any more than that.
Mind you as the Japan have been averaging about 1000 qra interceptions per year for the last few years you can see why dispersing assets is high up the list
The Japanese ship also cost about 1b pounds according to the best available info on the web so quite a bit cheaper. Donald may know more as his part of the world
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Does that mean we could of bought 6-7 for our QEC ? 7000 crew for about the same air complement ?
but how many would of survived a UK SDSR.....3 at most
OK there are also drawbacks only having 2 platforms but Seems like the RN might be on a winner if we can keep em for 40yrs+ if they did cut a QEC it would be a major blow for the UK military standing in the world. whereas 6-7 smaller one could be salami sliced for years...
but how many would of survived a UK SDSR.....3 at most
OK there are also drawbacks only having 2 platforms but Seems like the RN might be on a winner if we can keep em for 40yrs+ if they did cut a QEC it would be a major blow for the UK military standing in the world. whereas 6-7 smaller one could be salami sliced for years...
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
The difference is in ton measurements.Jake1992 wrote:This always has me question what is the real tonnage of the QEs I keep see mainly 2 weights 65,000t and 70,600t Iv even seem that PoW is 72,000t but a lot less often than the other figures.Aethulwulf wrote:I thought it was interesting to see that QEC is about 2.5 times the displacement of Izumo, but able to operate 3.6 times the number of F35.
Now I know there’s different tons but each Iv seen has said metric tons.
Does anyone know for sure what the actual weight is ?
65k tonnes is roughly about 70k+ short tons, which is a common unit of measurement in the US. But in general people tend to think "tons" is just a singular thing, and thus you get these debating numbers.
Wikipedia is horrendous for people making this error and having mismatches amounts everywhere by accident, or in purpose to try and make their preferences look "bigger".
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
As I mentioned above each displacement quote Iv read on many different sites have all said metric tons for the measurement but gave a different figure, now clearly someone’s got to be wrong.RetroSicotte wrote:The difference is in ton measurements.Jake1992 wrote:This always has me question what is the real tonnage of the QEs I keep see mainly 2 weights 65,000t and 70,600t Iv even seem that PoW is 72,000t but a lot less often than the other figures.Aethulwulf wrote:I thought it was interesting to see that QEC is about 2.5 times the displacement of Izumo, but able to operate 3.6 times the number of F35.
Now I know there’s different tons but each Iv seen has said metric tons.
Does anyone know for sure what the actual weight is ?
65k tonnes is roughly about 70k+ short tons, which is a common unit of measurement in the US. So people tend to compare UK ships in tonnes to US ships in short tons, making the US ones appear larger than they actually are.
I do remember though that the QE had came out a good deal heavier than her planed displacement which I believe was meant to be around the 65,000t mark.
It’s also similar with other measurements of the class with seeing both 280m and 284m for length and 70m and 73m for beam. Now I know these are only small difference and I might be just a niggle of mine but it’d be nice to know the true measurements.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I'll get my Son to source a tape measure and check for you as he is up at Rosyth and tells me he is bored waiting on HMS POW to be ready, so needs something to do. Not sure he can get the weight for you though!Jake1992 wrote:It’s also similar with other measurements of the class with seeing both 280m and 284m for length and 70m and 73m for beam. Now I know these are only small difference and I might be just a niggle of mine but it’d be nice to know the true measurements.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
The length and width would be a good start keep him busyPhillyJ wrote:I'll get my Son to source a tape measure and check for you as he is up at Rosyth and tells me he is bored waiting on HMS POW to be ready, so needs something to do. Not sure he can get the weight for you though!Jake1992 wrote:It’s also similar with other measurements of the class with seeing both 280m and 284m for length and 70m and 73m for beam. Now I know these are only small difference and I might be just a niggle of mine but it’d be nice to know the true measurements.