UK Defence Forum

dmereifield wrote:The F35 looks tiny on board, really highlights the size of the QE class

Yes - it also highlights the fact that there is ample room to the right of the ramp for a UAV catapult system, if ever such a thing was needed. The F35 gives it scale.

Caribbean wrote:.....it also highlights the fact that there is ample room to the right of the ramp for a UAV catapult system, if ever such a thing was needed.

Was any thought given to a possible UAV/Catapult arrangement in the original design?

Compared to USN LHDs, ship flight deck space is hugely different. A strike and air-defense a QNLZ can provide is completely different from those a USN LHD or much smaller Juan Carlos LHD can provide. Sortie rate, turn around time, weapon handling, everything may differ.

Donald

Only if you have the a/c and helicopters to do it. We don’t have the numbers our standard air group would likely be little different to what could be deployed on any of the ships u mention.

There is a train of thought that says we need smaller numbers distributed across multiple deployment locns rather than a large concentration in one location. We choose the later time will tell which was right.

Poiuytrewq wrote:Was any thought given to a possible UAV/Catapult arrangement in the original design?

No idea about the original design, but it seems to be mentioned quite frequently these days, presumably because UAVs are becoming far more capable than even a few years ago and payload weights are dropping. What payload capacity would be needed today to carry a decent sensor suite, compared to, say, 10 years ago?

For example, there must be plenty of radars in the < 25kg weight range with decent resolutions at reasonable ranges. Leonardo's picoSAR (trialled at Unmanned Warrior on S100 and SW4 Solo) weighs 10kg and has a range of 25km, for instance. The lightest SAR radar that I've come across so far was developed at Brigham Young University (IIRC). It weights around 900g, with a 10cm resolution at 3.3km and can be mounted on a ScanEagle. It's still in development and may yet improve in both capability and weight. Power and antenna size are clearly going to be limitations on small UAVs, but it does give an idea of what may be possible using very modest payloads (particularly when you consider that an unmanned vehicle could be used in much higher-threat environments)

Wooooow!
Click to enlarge:

Nice photoshop.... That with a Merlin or wildcat up top as well would be a good show of force IMHO

SKB wrote:Wooooow!

That looks great!

Phil R

(British Defence News) 29th September 2018
A nicely edited compilation video showing the 2 initial F-35B landings, the takeoff, and it landing again - all from a Merlin's perspective.


(ON THE ROGER) 29th September 2018
And a view of the first landing from inside FLYCO in the aft island. Filmed by RAF Air Marshal Stuart Atha.

@4:20 the take off looks to be from the mid deck position and the carrier looks like she is doing far from max speed. Speaks well for operating fully loaded F-35's with ample room aft for prepping.


Now all we need to see is some nice SRVLs.

Not sure if been posted but here’s the BBC report on it featuring a clearly excited BAE Test Pilot Pete Wilson and Jerry Kyd having to talk to Jonathan Beale about defence costs, a part of his job that I’m sure he’s grown to love and enjoy..

Many years ago I witnessed HMS Ark Royal operating Harriers, I was extremely impressed by how quick and simple landings and take offs were, even on their confined decks. I got the same impression watching the F35b first landing and take off from HMS Queen Elizabeth. Simple, straight forward with a lack of drama.

It will be interesting to compare flight operations aboard US Carriers and those aboard QE when (if) their is a full complement of aircraft aboard. Watching videos of operations on US carriers the impression is of hustle and bustle, lots of personnel on deck, aircraft being moved around the deck the drama of catapult launches, the even more dramatic landings. All very carefully choreographed. I think operations on QE will look very different, with far fewer personnel on deck, much less movement of aircraft and little drams involved during launch and recovery ops.

Will be interesting to see what the Marines think about it all, I know they've brought their Harriers over in the past, but the bigger aircraft + ski jump + SRVL...

Yes ive been thinking little j what the us marines make ov queen Elizabeth and a platform for f35b operations ie space/ automation etc will they like the idea or the more manpower tried and tested method .the rn is more akin to be a marines partner in lots of ways and i know the marines get on great with the rn , whereas the french c de g is more akin to the us navy carrier in operations etc

Little J wrote:Will be interesting to see what the Marines think about it all, I know they've brought their Harriers over in the past, but the bigger aircraft + ski jump + SRVL...

And the bar...don't forget the bar. When they were on Illustrious in 07 that was one of the things they saw as a massive plus. Not totally for a beer onboard either, but more as a place where the days activities could be discussed in a relaxed manner. They had nothing similar onboard LHD's and CVN's. People often forget the people part of the equation is just as important as all the other facilities.

WhiteWhale wrote:@4:20 the take off looks to be from the mid deck position and the carrier looks like she is doing far from max speed. Speaks well for operating fully loaded F-35's with ample room aft for prepping.

She looks like shes not making much more than 10 knots in the video.

Caribbean wrote:No idea about the original design, but it seems to be mentioned quite frequently these days, presumably because UAVs are becoming far more capable than even a few years ago and payload weights are dropping. What payload capacity would be needed today to carry a decent sensor suite, compared to, say, 10 years ago?

Not sure why we'd bother with electromagnetic launch for UAV's. Lots of cost and expense. Plenty of VTOL UAV's on the way, even if we ignore the SW4 or Firescout C. Most of them are funded by the US. On the big side there is the tiltrotor V-247 Vigilant which could tote a Crowsnest size AEW system (like the Vigilance pods) up to over 25,000 ft for over 17 hours. Or it could be used for AAR for rotary wing and fast air with a buddy tank. The DARPA TERN is being developed as well which will bring a Reaper like capability to Destroyer sized decks. Both those capabilities are scheduled to arrive in the same timeframe that it would take to develop, install and test a small EMALS system on QE.
At the other end of the spectrum there will be smaller UAV's either with colossal endurance, like the Zephyr, which don't need to land for 30 days + or systems like the Scan Eagle/Integrator that could be launched from a catapult and recovered by skyhook arrangement.
Unless we're looking to launch and recover a Taranis style UCAV (and we're not going to be for the foreseeable) any UAV requirements could be covered easily.

Its been great to finally see the F-35 on board, to think what it took from first cut of steel to this moment

Will it only be 2 aircraft?

Little J wrote:Will be interesting to see what the Marines think about it all, I know they've brought their Harriers over in the past, but the bigger aircraft + ski jump + SRVL...

I wonder if after all the testing it'd be worth them retrofitting the USS America & Tripoli with ski ramps given they are more aviation centric ships with no well decks & more hanger space.

Dahedd wrote:I wonder if after all the testing it'd be worth them retrofitting the USS America & Tripoli with ski ramps given they are more aviation centric ships wit

The USMC were well aware of the utility of the ski jump for decades before the America Class were built. In fact they were well aware of it before the preceding Wasp Class were built. The fact that it has not been included in 2 generations of new build designs following their initial operation of STOVL aircraft on the Iwo Jima Class would indicate that there is zero chance of it happening. The loss of 1 helo spot is an issue for them, but more than that it would be the challenge to the primacy of the CVN as the USN's main aviation ship. The USN really worries about Congress getting ideas about light carriers and curtailing the number of CVN's. They seem to have to bat away the idea every few years. The issue for the USN is that their own studies indicate that they need 13 CVN's to actually maintain all of their taskings. And they're never going to get another 2-3. The recent use of America Class off Libya as a light carrier shows that they are prepared to fill in gaps with them, but not to the extent that they could ever jeopardise CVN numbers.
The real smart move for the USN would be to build 8-9 Ford Class and use the money saved from not building 2 of them to build 6 QE Class with cats and traps. It would actually be cheaper in monetary terms and be the same in terms of manning. Stick the CVN's on the West Coast for the inevitable confrontation with the Chinese and use the QE CV's for the Atlantic, Med, Gulf and Indian Ocean areas. 6 US QE Class with the 2 RN QE's and the French CdG is plenty enough to keep the Russian's in their box.

Timmymagic wrote:

Dahedd wrote:I wonder if after all the testing it'd be worth them retrofitting the USS America & Tripoli with ski ramps given they are more aviation centric ships wit

The USMC were well aware of the utility of the ski jump for decades before the America Class were built. In fact they were well aware of it before the preceding Wasp Class were built. The fact that it has not been included in 2 generations of new build designs following their initial operation of STOVL aircraft on the Iwo Jima Class would indicate that there is zero chance of it happening. The loss of 1 helo spot is an issue for them, but more than that it would be the challenge to the primacy of the CVN as the USN's main aviation ship. The USN really worries about Congress getting ideas about light carriers and curtailing the number of CVN's. They seem to have to bat away the idea every few years. The issue for the USN is that their own studies indicate that they need 13 CVN's to actually maintain all of their taskings. And they're never going to get another 2-3. The recent use of America Class off Libya as a light carrier shows that they are prepared to fill in gaps with them, but not to the extent that they could ever jeopardise CVN numbers.
The real smart move for the USN would be to build 8-9 Ford Class and use the money saved from not building 2 of them to build 6 QE Class with cats and traps. It would actually be cheaper in monetary terms and be the same in terms of manning. Stick the CVN's on the West Coast for the inevitable confrontation with the Chinese and use the QE CV's for the Atlantic, Med, Gulf and Indian Ocean areas. 6 US QE Class with the 2 RN QE's and the French CdG is plenty enough to keep the Russian's in their box.

They won't build any QEs especially in place of any CVNs because just like with the American class ( only on a great scale ) if they look to work well it'll put the CVNs at even greater risk of cuts.
Also many and build cost might be the same as the 2 CVNs but you then have to find extra escorts for these new carriers

Jake1992 wrote:They won't build any QEs especially in place of any CVNs because just like with the American class ( only on a great scale ) if they look to work well it'll put the CVNs at even greater risk of cuts.
Also many and build cost might be the same as the 2 CVNs but you then have to find extra escorts for these new carriers

Oh there is zero chance of them building any, but it would address their number issue. In terms of escorts if the USN actually follows through on the FFG(X) they'll be fine. Mind you they seem incapable of ending the LCS programme...

Timmymagic wrote:Not sure why we'd bother with electromagnetic launch for UAV's.

Who mentioned electromagnetic launch or EMALS? I didn't - I was thinking of the smaller mechanical rigs that seem to feature quite frequently alongside a lot of current drones! But your comment reminds me - wasn't there a lightweight electromagnetic system developed some years ago that might fit this niche? I seem to remember reading about it on one of these pages (or possibly TD)

Timmymagic wrote:systems like the Scan Eagle/Integrator that could be launched from a catapult and recovered by skyhook arrangement.

That's more the type of system (or future developments with somewhat larger payload and greater endurance) that I had in mind. It looks as if there is sufficient room in the area beside the ramp to operate drones with a similar wingspan to the F35. Recovering them might be a challenge if they get too large, however. We might need to add a simple arrestor system at the stern

Timmymagic wrote:Plenty of VTOL UAV's on the way,

Yes - which is why I put in the caveat "if ever such a thing was needed", since that's also a likely scenario. Vigilant and TERN look very interesting, though the price may be a significant factor. Smaller semi-disposable fixed-wing drones may prove more achievable for the RN

Caribbean wrote:
Vigilant and TERN look very interesting

I’ve always thought TERN would be a good addition to the Type 26s in their ‘global cruiser’ role, enhancing their ability to observe and influence events occurring inland, along with extended range 5” shells and tomahawk. TERN would also enable the carrier strike group to have more ‘eyes and ears’ in the air without taking up space on the carrier itself.

As I'm sure we all expected, night flying has already started.