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: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:You could also have a 3rd smaller group of a/c within that which are at theatre entry standard that have specific modifications.
Like for Tornados we bought only 12-14 modern helmets, aka what is std on e.g. F-35s
- or, for Ch2s we bought 22 Streetfighter upgrade kits... so half a rgmnt can enter into MOUT, while the other forms a ring outside such urban battlefield; to ensure no one escapes :)
- the other tank rgmnt will be in deep maintenance (in Germany, but in an A/C facility, if that makes everyone feel better)

Attrition reserve will have been assigned to another continent (BATUS).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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 »

We need to avoid having fleets within fleets where possible. Having a small fleet of TES platforms causes problems as if these are locked away until the fire starts then you reduce the availability of aircraft to the squadrons for day to day use as the pool of aircraft available is smaller and these still need to go through deep maintenance and are susceptible to breakdowns and such. IF they are kept as part of the operational fleet then there will be time when one or more of these TES platforms in going to be unavailable for one reason or another. What will probably happen though is the fleet will be the same standard until a fire breaks out, then a number of platforms will receive UOR updates which they will retain after the event, and there not by design you have a fleet within a fleet. This happened to the Tornado F3, Tornado GR1 and Jaguar GR1 in the first Gulf War and many other platform besides. Historically we keep our kit at the best standard we can afford and rely on UORs when it hits the fan.

User avatar
swoop
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 03 May 2015, 21:25
Pitcairn Island

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by swoop »

Scimitar54 wrote:There will be more motion with a CAMM silo up forward on a smaller ship (Type23 for example), but I accept that vertical movement of the silo may need to be taken into account against the height at which the "cold launch" ends and the missile propellant ignites. Forward movement of the ship should help. Perhaps a variant of "Fire on the up Roll" may still have an application today. :idea:
It would be interesting to see how well the active stabilisers are performing on the hull. Remember that four are fitted under the waterline.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

swoop wrote:It would be interesting to see how well the active stabilisers are performing
We know that from cruise ships (similar size; perhaps? a different hull form):
- at first they work well
- and past a "certain" sea state they stop working... so the change is a memorable experience for the PAX
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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 »

Well it has been stated that they QE was too stable during the deployment across the Atlantic that they couldn't carry out some of the F-35 flight operations tests they wanted to. They are hoping for far worse weather next time.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

But some further thoughts on how the "loadout" on the two carriers, with a lot! of capacity, could be better:

When our carriers were mainly of WW2 design (if not of construction, because so many of them sprung back to life much later)... that led to some ingenious carrier a/c designs that would work within those (size) limits.

Not that we should pull out of F-35 :o but what else (cheaper, smaller) to load out to make the whole thing - carrier strike that is, no doubt they can be amphib substitutes... while we are waiting :) money's worth. So "now" rather than in ten years' time. Provocatively
- we should never have dropped Gannet, but rather proceeded with the version using counter-rotating propellers
- that one (one crew member added too, not just improving on how long it could stay up).

I used the std Gannet as a yardstick for how much space will be required, respectively, in the max folded config (in the hangar, lifts):
Gannet 1
Buccaneer! 1.16
Skyhawk 1.35
SeaHarrier 1.36
(U)K Phantom II 1.8
F-111B 2.6
F-14 Tomcat 2.7

So the cousins only bothered in the age of dumb bombs (Skyhawk) and after that rather built bigger ships than shrink the performance. Just like with Skyhawks (numbers!) keeping the AEW up there 24/7 numbers might come in handy, rather than maximising the performance - and surely that has not been done with the choice of a helo-based solution as the ceiling is so drastically curtailed - numbers, numbers... which translates to size (in the hangar).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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:Well it has been stated that they QE was too stable during the deployment across the Atlantic that they couldn't carry out some of the F-35 flight operations tests they wanted to. They are hoping for far worse weather next time.
Is this testament to how good she is or just how calm the weather was lol

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:But some further thoughts on how the "loadout" on the two carriers, with a lot! of capacity, could be better:

When our carriers were mainly of WW2 design (if not of construction, because so many of them sprung back to life much later)... that led to some ingenious carrier a/c designs that would work within those (size) limits.

Not that we should pull out of F-35 but what else (cheaper, smaller) to load out to make the whole thing - carrier strike that is, no doubt they can be amphib substitutes... while we are waiting money's worth. So "now" rather than in ten years' time. Provocatively
- we should never have dropped Gannet, but rather proceeded with the version using counter-rotating propellers
- that one (one crew member added too, not just improving on how long it could stay up).

I used the std Gannet as a yardstick for how much space will be required, respectively, in the max folded config (in the hangar, lifts):
Gannet 1
Buccaneer! 1.16
Skyhawk 1.35
SeaHarrier 1.36
(U)K Phantom II 1.8
F-111B 2.6
F-14 Tomcat 2.7

So the cousins only bothered in the age of dumb bombs (Skyhawk) and after that rather built bigger ships than shrink the performance. Just like with Skyhawks (numbers!) keeping the AEW up there 24/7 numbers might come in handy, rather than maximising the performance - and surely that has not been done with the choice of a helo-based solution as the ceiling is so drastically curtailed - numbers, numbers... which translates to size (in the hangar).
From the abstract school of sentence construction. WTF?

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »



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 »

Jake1992 wrote:Is this testament to how good she is or just how calm the weather was lo
Opinion was she was too stable for stability when operating aircraft trails to be useful which was seen as a credit to the ships design and a negative as they would have to do the trails on the next trip.

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:
Jake1992 wrote:Is this testament to how good she is or just how calm the weather was lo
Opinion was she was too stable for stability when operating aircraft trails to be useful which was seen as a credit to the ships design and a negative as they would have to do the trails on the next trip.
Well it maybe a pain in the arse for testing but shows how well she was designed and built.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RichardIC wrote:WTF?
Why don't you report on DG and get the anger out... unpleasant language, and I deeply disapprove of your sentence construction.
- Or go to the local pub and get your lights punched out; that's the real world, meeting with that kind of approach (putting, should I say :thumbdown: , a 'hard stop' to it).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by downsizer »

Or you could just try making sense! :crazy: :eh:

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 »

What's this all about besides the obvious??


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 »

The Armchair Soldier wrote:Apaches join HMS Queen Elizabeth for the first time:
Is that the floatation gear on the inner pylons?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

RichardIC wrote:Is that the floatation gear on the inner pylons?
Believe the flotation gear (part of it) is between the pylons mounted directly to the stub wing. In the large image it's above the Hellfire launcher on the port side.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

The Armchair Soldier wrote:Apaches join HMS Queen Elizabeth for the first time
So, so far thats the following aircraft who have landed on QE (although trials need to be concluded for most):
UK
F-35B
Merlin HM.2
Merlin HC.4
Wildcat
Chinook
Apache

For the UK just Merlin Crowsnest to go and all elements of the TAG will have been aboard. Maybe Puma just to cover the set off?

USN and USMC
V-22
SH-60

Just CH-53, UH-1Y and AH-1W to go. Will an AV-8B make an appearance at some point?

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »

From British Army website:
An Apache Attack Helicopter belonging to 656 Sqn Army Air Corps has made its debut landing aboard the 65,000-tonne flagship of the Royal Navy - HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Under Joint Helicopter Command, the Attack Helicopter will begin a series of tests and evaluations in what is known as the Platform Ship Integration Testing or PSITs for short.

Over a three-day period, the Apache will be assessed for its compatibility with the ship’s operating systems – how it’s manoeuvred around the flight deck and in the cavernous hangars below, maintenance and arming, testing on the giant lifts which bring the aircraft up on deck, along with a host of other tests.

Once the PSITs have been successfully negotiated in Portsmouth, HMS Queen Elizabeth will take to sea with Apache aboard for its sea trials in July where it will conduct landings and take-offs from a pitching and rolling deck.

Only on completion of this,. will the Apaches be officially certified to be able to operate from both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, when she becomes operational.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
(MoD/British Army)

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Bagged another aircraft to the collection!

We seriously need a sticky post to keep track of everything that has landed on QE. What is it now?

- Lightning
- Wildcat
- Merlin
- Apache
- Osprey
- Sea Stallion
- Seahawk
- Local Scottish Man's Drone
- Rosyth Dockyard Owl

Anything else? :p

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »

Found a video of QE passing underneath the Forth Rail Bridge...!

User avatar
hovematlot
Member
Posts: 268
Joined: 27 May 2015, 17:46
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by hovematlot »

HMS Dragon have just tweeted the confirmation that they will escort QNLZ on Westlant 19.
Wonder who else....?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

hovematlot wrote:HMS Dragon have just tweeted the confirmation that they will escort QNLZ on Westlant 19.
Wonder who else....?
I wonder if one of the Tides will make it over there this time.

Does anyone know if the UK waters workup to Westland 19 is involving Fort Vic? Now she's out of re-fit presumably they'll start doing some solid stores RASing?

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »

Westlant19 will feature several US port visits, including one to the Washington DC area.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hms- ... c-training

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 »

It would be nice if we sent a beginners CSG over for Westlant19, with in addition to HMS Dragon a T-23, Fort Victoria and a Tide. Not only would if give a good impression, but would allow the vessels involved to start to get used to operating together over an extended period of time.

Post Reply