I thought the initial idea was that they’d all be LHA ( no welldock better aviation set up ) but after the first 2 started build the USMC came to the conclusion that we’ll docks well still need so that change was made with 9 order to replace the existing wasps and the LHAs became extras.Max Jones wrote:What is the current situation with the Wasp-class in general? I've heard that the America-class are replacing them but with 11 built it seems like an expansion rather than direct replacement and considering they are being called LHAs to seemingly disassociate them.
If they were supposed to operate together, I assume one of the old Tarawa-class inn serve could be brought up.
Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I see that earlier announcement ruffled a few feathers.
UK needs a realistic view of its military strength
UK needs a realistic view of its military strength
Read More: https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1194 ... w84yyLML3wThe HMS Queen Elizabeth, with a displacement of 65,000 tons, doesn't even have any UK-made fighter jets on it - not to mention that its sea trials were not as smooth as the UK expected.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
No chance of that while Cummings controls access and pulls the strings of government.Scimitar54 wrote:Any “Right Thinking” PM should restore the right of the individual Service Chiefs to see the Prime Minister at any time if they have concerns that are not being addressed. The removal of this right (by Cameron) was and remains an absolute disgrace.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Well he would wish to feather his own nest wouldn’t he! Trouble is adequate though some of his advice may be, there is a strong likelihood that bad advice will be given in at least some areas and the PM and his government will end up being the fall guys. We elected them, not him! Hopefully he will put a serious foot wrong before long and be given a an immediate dishonourable discharge.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
(@RNASCuldrose) 16th July 2020
As 'Table Top' exercises go - this has to be the best 'table' ever! Here's the
@HMSQNLZ Flight Deck Management Team discussing their forthcoming GROUPEX embarkation - an important milestone for #CarrierStrike that Culdrose personnel will play a key role in.
(@HMSQNLZ) 17th July 2020
A different #F35Friday as our flight deck crews practice how to move and operate aircraft on a busy deck.
This https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdDHCSpWkAE ... =largewill become apparent during #Groupex when we will embark two #F35 squadrons and a full rotary wing group.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Still only 10 x F35s and 6 x Merlins though. Perhaps an object lesson on why Aircraft numbers need to increase incrementally and not all in one go.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
617 + USMC = 2 squadrons.
Wondering if the mug and bottle are there to catch leaks....
Wondering if the mug and bottle are there to catch leaks....
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Just spotted a Jungly, so that increase it to 7 x Merlins!
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Just wondering if anyone has ever seen this image before...its a Faradair Hybrid STOL aircraft currently under development in the UK. 18 seat, 1100 mile range, 10,000lb cargo (3 x LD3 containers). Un-pressurised (15,000ft altitude) and is aiming for a $4m pricetag...operating costs of $600 per hour...with a stall speed of c40 knots...thats means with a QE running at 20 knots she could hit the deck at c30 knots safely, add in some wind and its practically stationary. With the range and cargo listed thats pretty much the same performance as a C-2 Greyhound.
"It will be fully capable of landing and taking off from our new aircraft carriers, without the need of 'cats and traps', enabling 5t of cargo to be flown long range to the carrier if needed." according to Faradair.
At the prices mentioned, vastly cheaper than helicopters...fixed wing COD, AEW or ASW anyone?
Ghastly 'camo' though...
https://www.faradair.com/
"It will be fully capable of landing and taking off from our new aircraft carriers, without the need of 'cats and traps', enabling 5t of cargo to be flown long range to the carrier if needed." according to Faradair.
At the prices mentioned, vastly cheaper than helicopters...fixed wing COD, AEW or ASW anyone?
Ghastly 'camo' though...
https://www.faradair.com/
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
It would look much better in “Navy” (FAA) Blue!
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Big question I have could it fit in the hanger at all and if not do we really want a situation where air craft ( possible AEW ) being exposed to the weather and sea all the time.Timmymagic wrote:Just wondering if anyone has ever seen this image before...its a Faradair Hybrid STOL aircraft currently under development in the UK. 18 seat, 1100 mile range, 10,000lb cargo (3 x LD3 containers). Un-pressurised (15,000ft altitude) and is aiming for a $4m pricetag...operating costs of $600 per hour...
"It will be fully capable of landing and taking off from our new aircraft carriers, without the need of 'cats and traps', enabling 5t of cargo to be flown long range to the carrier if needed." according to Faradair.
At the prices mentioned, vastly cheaper than helicopters...fixed wing COD, AEW or ASW anyone?
Ghastly 'camo' though...
https://www.faradair.com/
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Yes it could fit in the hangar and on the elevator.Jake1992 wrote:Big question I have could it fit in the hanger at all and if not do we really want a situation where air craft ( possible AEW ) being exposed to the weather and sea all the time.
Dimensions are:
Length 48 ft
Width 57 ft
Height 14 ft 10 inch
For comparison the F-35B dimensions are:
Length 51 ft 5 inch
Width 35 ft
Height 14 ft 4 inch
For COD, which is what they seem to be proposing it for, it would just be a visitor. Land on, drop the cargo off and straight off again. As for the QE Class elevator it would easily fit as they're sized for 2 F-35B.
But realistically, for any other role than COD, where it would need to stay aboard, there would need to be a solution for the wing. Quite what that would add to the weight (as there are 3 of them..) would I suspect make or break it as a concept.
Apparently the wings can take hardpoints as well...
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
As ever in the world of GA they're after investors (they did make a rather good point about the £50m wasted on E-fan though..). Looks like the wing and general design have gone through a lot of research and review. Refreshingly the decision to remain unpressurised (which costs a lot and adds risk) does indicate some common sense.Ron5 wrote:Define "under development"
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Only a paper project so far I think. Dime a dozen.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
If we are actually serious about Carrier Strike and all that entails, the RN is eventually going to realise it needs a COD platform if it wishes the Carriers to be able to stay at sea for an period of time. What fills that role could be a Merlin, a Chinook or least likely an Osprey.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Press release states first flight of prototype targeted for 2023/24...Ron5 wrote:Only a paper project so far I think. Dime a dozen.
...looks like lots of hurdles still to overcome before a prototype is built.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Absolutely, the odds would be on it never taking shape at all. But it does illustrate that there could be viable alternatives out there in the near future to hugely expensive V-22's or FVL etc.Aethulwulf wrote:Press release states first flight of prototype targeted for 2023/24...
...looks like lots of hurdles still to overcome before a prototype is built.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
The F135 engine inside its transport container is 9350 lbs. However, it is so bulky that it doesn't fit inside an Osprey. The engine has to be removed from its protective container and loaded on to a special skid before being loaded via the Osprey's rear ramp (leaving it exposed to weather, sea spray, etc during the loading / off loading). The Faradair aircraft does not appear to have a rear ramp. With its cargo transport being designed around LD3 containers, I can't see how a F135 engine could ever be loaded. This would appear to be a show stopper for this aircraft ever being used for COD/Maritime Intra Theatre Lift by the Navy.Timmymagic wrote:Just wondering if anyone has ever seen this image before...its a Faradair Hybrid STOL aircraft currently under development in the UK. 18 seat, 1100 mile range, 10,000lb cargo (3 x LD3 containers). Un-pressurised (15,000ft altitude) and is aiming for a $4m pricetag...operating costs of $600 per hour...with a stall speed of c40 knots...thats means with a QE running at 20 knots she could hit the deck at c30 knots safely, add in some wind and its practically stationary. With the range and cargo listed thats pretty much the same performance as a C-2 Greyhound.
"It will be fully capable of landing and taking off from our new aircraft carriers, without the need of 'cats and traps', enabling 5t of cargo to be flown long range to the carrier if needed." according to Faradair.
At the prices mentioned, vastly cheaper than helicopters...fixed wing COD, AEW or ASW anyone?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
With that wingspan you would have to clear a lot of QE deck space for a landing and take off,
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Why would you transport a nine and a half thousand-pound engine from shore when you could more easily have them or any other heavy cargo carried by the supply ship ?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Alternatively, like the US and French navies you could have an Engine Bay and UETF on the carrier to repair and then test u/s engines, requiring only spares and at most replacement engine modules.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Would you not carry a couple of spare engines on a QEC aswell ?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
The USN needs COD to deliver an F-35 engine because it lacks the ability to transfer said engine from a supply ship to a carrier at sea. The transfer tackle thingies can't take the weight.
The Royal Navy doesn't in theory have that problem. The FSS, when ordered, built, and commissioned will have super duper tackle thingies that can take the weight as will the receptors on the QE's. Problemmo solved. And you thought the MoD didn't think ahead. You fule.
Of course there's no money, shipbuilding capacity or political backbone to order said FSS but minor detail.
The Royal Navy "need" for COD is for emergency and semi-emergency airlift for personnel & spares to and from the carriers when far, far away. I seem to remember the "to" part being taken care of in the Falklands campaign by stuff being parachuted into the sea close to the ships. Of course some made its way to the briny deep.
Personally, I can't see why Merlins and the long range Chinooks (mk 6?) handling the job. Not exactly an onerous task. And if the carrier is too far away, same as if it were a frigate or destroyer, c'est la vie (gallic shrug).
The Royal Navy doesn't in theory have that problem. The FSS, when ordered, built, and commissioned will have super duper tackle thingies that can take the weight as will the receptors on the QE's. Problemmo solved. And you thought the MoD didn't think ahead. You fule.
Of course there's no money, shipbuilding capacity or political backbone to order said FSS but minor detail.
The Royal Navy "need" for COD is for emergency and semi-emergency airlift for personnel & spares to and from the carriers when far, far away. I seem to remember the "to" part being taken care of in the Falklands campaign by stuff being parachuted into the sea close to the ships. Of course some made its way to the briny deep.
Personally, I can't see why Merlins and the long range Chinooks (mk 6?) handling the job. Not exactly an onerous task. And if the carrier is too far away, same as if it were a frigate or destroyer, c'est la vie (gallic shrug).