Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[SKB]

That image is an old theoretical re-design drawn by Suricata FX back from when the UK decided to choose the F-35C instead of the F-35B.
It didn't happen, we reverted back to the original F-35B design, so no angled deck was required. PoW and QE will both have identical flightdecks

[xav]

Thales press release.... I am still strying to find out how many sets will be delivered... but can't seem to reach Thales right now

Thales contracted to deliver Royal Navy's new airborne surveillance and control capability

Thales and Lockheed Martin announce the contract award to deliver the Royal Navy’s new airborne surveillance and control system, under the ‘CROWSNEST’ programme. Lockheed Martin, who acts as the Ministry of Defence’s prime contractor for the Merlin helicopter, selected a new generation of the Thales Searchwater radar and Cerberus mission system to be fitted to existing Merlin Mk2s helicopters to provide the Navy with an airborne surveillance and control capability (ASaC).

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ility.html

Finally got ahold of them on the phone. Updated with:
Contacted by Navy Recognition, Thales confirmed:
10 role kits will be delivered to the Royal Navy. A role kit consists in:
- Mission subsystem including operator console
- Radar subsystem
- Radome deployment mechanism

30 Merlin Mk2 helicopters will be modified with fixed fittings to accept the role kits.

[Jake1992]

SKB thanks for clarifying that, I did always think it'd be abit weird to have to defferent designed decks even if it was only a minor difference lol

[Jessie]

SKB thanks for clarifying that, I did always think it'd be abit weird to have to defferent designed decks even if it was only a minor difference lol

Had it happened, it wouldn't have been a minor difference. The angled deck was for CATOBAR, meaning both carriers would have operated a different version of the F35, had they both come into service.

[Jake1992]

The pysicle angle of the deck could of been done with the assumption of cats but later not having the cats fitted couldn't of it ?
I am no surgesting that they should of done this in anyway just asking if it could of happened, as Iv read that the QE class is meant to be designed for ease of convention to cats if ever desired

[SKB]

Even though the F-35C is cheaper than the F-35B and has a greater range and weapons load, the cost of converting the two QEC's to F-35C type CATOBAR would have been prohibitively enormous. Plus, as the QEC's are conventionally powered by gas turbines and diesel engines, they could not produce enough electrical power to operate the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) catapult system required to launch the F-35C. Neither could the QEC's produce steam for conventional steam catapults. So buying the more expensive F-35B would actually make building and operating the two QEC's cheaper in the long term.

[Ron5]

Xav,
thanks for the update on Crowsnest.

The original MoD announcement made great play on how much kit would be re-used from the old Sea Kings yet your response from Thales implied all new stuff: new radar, new bag, new console. Can you reconcile the two statements?

[shark bait]

The C isn't cheaper than the B.

Power is not the reason QE is STOVL.

QE has 2 massive gas turbines, they can generate enough electricity for EMALS and propulsion at the same time, with a heat rate far in excess of what is required to run steam catapults.

STOVL requires vastly fewer sailors, and shifts the maintenance away from the platforms we have few of, onto the platforms we have many of, making the system as a whole cheaper.

[WhiteWhale]

The C isn't cheaper than the B.


.

Well to be fair for the aircraft that is expected to be the case and significantly so *eventually* Although the far greater simplicity to the ships design will eat into that difference significantly and across the ships and aircrafts lifespan. While a CVF could power an EMALS cat the charge rate could be an issue (especially if maintaining a high speed or accelerating) eating into the all important sortie rate.

All in all it comes down to one simple thing, what's cheapest? If having a shorter ranged aircraft is the price we have to pay for any hope of having two carriers then that's just fine by me.

[seaspear]

Was there ever a released cost of the physical conversion of the ship to emals ability , I understood there would have to of been enormous redesign beneath the flight deck , I dont believe presently there are plenty of aircraft owned by the R.N S.B that make that the deciding factor of which flight deck to choose.

[shark bait]

You miss my point.

The B moves the the equipment for launching and recovering jets off the ships and onto the aircraft, that has the same effect as modularising the kit.

The choice is either do bespoke maintenance on the carrier and take out half the fleet, or do programmed maintenance in a cosy hangar and take out 10% of the fleet. The latter is cheaper.


The C is more expensive today, and even if they hit their ambitious targets it will still not be significantly cheaper. That target seams highly ambitions because they are such a long way off, with the C being the most unique variant, with the fewest numbers planned.

[easydiver]

The C is more expensive today, and even if they hit their ambitious targets it will still not be significantly cheaper. That target seams highly ambitions because they are such a long way off, with the C being the most unique variant, with the fewest numbers planned.

The costs quoted are often for just the airframe and not the engine. IIRC the C is the most expensive airframe but with its lift fan the B has a much more expensive engine which makes it more expensive overall. Sorry I can't find up-to-date figures to back this up.

[Ron5]

I can and the B is significantly more expensive than the C. Always expected to be the case and is.

[seaspear]

It might be interesting if there is a comparison on downtime for maintenance for these two aircraft certainly running costs would be different

[shark bait]

If you look at the sticker price the B is marginally more expensive, but as we should know that is not how much it costs per aircraft in service.

Look at the Typhoon; BAE and the RAF would have us believe its 70 million a piece, when in reality its 120 million each.

With all the non optional extras bolted on the C is the most expensive variant.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The B moves the the equipment for launching and recovering jets off the ships and onto the aircraft, that has the same effect as modularising the kit.

The MoD is obligated to look at the over-the-life costs in selection, not the sticker price. On that alone, it becomes the "B".

You could then add the kit referred to above (and the mods to 200 of of the under-deck compartments in this "flexible" design* and you arrive at the ridiculous £2bn extra figure (and only £57m sunk costs that needed to be written off after all the U-turning)... it is all Gvmnt propaganda, to get off the naughty step, but the ball park is somewhat like that.

-----------
*) Dont get me wrong, the QE design is a good one, and it is even flexible as to Air Ops - but flexible it aint in the sense that the flexibility was advertised.

[SKB]

[SKB]

Nice recent photo of PoW taken 9th January 2017. When did she get her rectractable main mast fitted?
(click for full size)

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

Some of you clearly didn't see the pages upon pages upon pages of debate about the B and the C on the old MP.NET forum, because if you did and had, this nonsense about which variant of F35 to have on the QE's wouldn't exist. Doesn't matter what we want or which one us forum users think best, the overriding point is the Gov has made it's choice, rightly or wrongly, and we have to accept it. Don't get this rehashing of using old photo's of a CATOBAR version of QE (which will never EVER be converted to) and going on about a redundant topic.



back to your normal scheduled programmes ...........

[Ron5]

If you look at the sticker price the B is marginally more expensive, but as we should know that is not how much it costs per aircraft in service.

Look at the Typhoon; BAE and the RAF would have us believe its 70 million a piece, when in reality its 120 million each.

With all the non optional extras bolted on the C is the most expensive variant.

No. The sticker price for a complete fly away F-35C is significantly less expensive than F-35B. Now and predicted down the road.

[Ron5]

Some of you clearly didn't see the pages upon pages upon pages of debate about the B and the C on the old MP.NET forum, because if you did and had, this nonsense about which variant of F35 to have on the QE's wouldn't exist. Doesn't matter what we want or which one us forum users think best, the overriding point is the Gov has made it's choice, rightly or wrongly, and we have to accept it. Don't get this rehashing of using old photo's of a CATOBAR version of QE (which will never EVER be converted to) and going on about a redundant topic.



back to your normal scheduled programmes ...........

Quite right. Apologies for my part in that.

[hovematlot]

For those that were worrying....

[SKB]

Yay. Now do the same for PoW

[CR4ZYHOR5E]

Glad to see the tattoo has been removed, and it appears the large pennant number will be displayed on the aft island as shown in the CGI?

[Defiance]

Thank God, looked ugly where it is

@CR4ZYHOR5E

Potentially, but beware the disconned between the people that do the artwork compared to the actual technical staff.