Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[SKB]

ZM148 (BK14)
Takeoff at 12:30

[Tempest414]

Read the STRN article, you'll get your wish and more in 2024. Standard deployment then and going forward will be 24 jets plus gazillions of helos in support.

By the way, it should be 4x12 RN squadrons plus 18 aircraft RN OCU. What's with this RAF crap?

Many thanks I did read it . However as I have said before I still think all UK fast jet units should move to 10 jet squadrons and if the UK were to split the F-35 order from all B to 70 A and 70 B with all B's going to the FAA I would go with 5 squadrons of 10 jets plus a OCU of 10 jets and 10 jets in the pool this could allow both carriers to deploy with 20 jets as standard and if needed or wanted could be supported by the 5th squadron or USMC to give a 25 , 30 or even 40 jet air-wing. But at this time we are splitting the B's between the RN and RAF so by tuning the planned 4 x 12 into 5 x 10 we can get the same idea i.e each carrier deploys with 10 RN jets and is supported by 10 RAF or USMC jets in turn and if more jets are needed then 5 or 10 more jets can be pushed from same place

[SKB]

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1jMJgwwvzzgJL

[SKB]

(ForcesTV) 17th December 2019



(Richard Bell) 12:30 16th December 2019







(Wight Media Services) 16th December 2019

[planeaviation]

https://youtu.be/2D_C4NSNNuw

[sea_eagle]

Yes it is most definitely not stealthy in the sound department

I see the standard start point is just aft of the forward bridge at the 350' mark. If the deck is clear and/or the aircraft was fully loaded can it not use more or all of the deck for take-off? For instance at the 550' mark opposite the Flyco. Or is the plane programmed for just one take-off protocol? Surely a longer take-off would be a significant advantage in terms of lower fuel/higher launch speed or is there a speed limit using the ramp?

[planeaviation]

[Digger22]

That's one way to dry the deck. Can't recall a fixed wing jet ever departing a Carrier alongside before? Not even a SHAR?

Edit, just been reminded that Hermes launched her harriers that returned with her from the Falklands, while she was in Portsmouth!

[The Armchair Soldier]

What a beautiful shot.

[Flanders81]

Would the F35B be able to launch off the carrier without the use of the ramp if it started further back? Obviously how heavily it was loaded would make a difference, but is it possible?

[Roders96]

Would the F35B be able to launch off the carrier without the use of the ramp if it started further back? Obviously how heavily it was loaded would make a difference, but is it possible?

F35B regularly take off from american Lhds with shorter flight decks and no ski jump, so presumably yes.

[Ron5]

The ski jump is as much about safety as take off weight. Gives the pilot more time and space to eject if things go pear shaped. F-35bs can take off from shorter US flat decks at max weight with no issues.

[PhillyJ]

a room with lots of CCTV screens and engine monitoring screens (but not the ops room)

That will have been the Ship Control Centre (SCC) I suspect. Looks like this (can't hotlink it, sorry)
https://www.alamy.com/crew-members-work ... 70603.html

Cheers E, that is the room I visited and where my nipper had to log his BA checks.

[RetroSicotte]

Interesting note that I've been spotting.

The commander of the French Air Force during the Libyan ops, Lt. General Desclaux, states clearly that the Rafale can only launch from Charles de Gaulle with 4x 250kg bombs.
https://sldinfo.com/2011/10/the-libyan- ... rspective/

For example, with the Rafale from land, you can take off with two cruise missiles, as from the carrier it’s only one. The air force Rafale can take off from the land with six 250 kilos bombs – from the carrier, it only was four. You’re closer but you bring less ammunitions and you need gas anyway because in the dynamic targeting operation loiter time is important to mission success.

This presumably also includes 2x MICA missiles, some drop tanks, and a targeting pod.

And yet, the F-35B has already taken off from QE with 6x bombs of roughly the same size (plus ASRAAM missiles), its targeting pod is internal, along with its larger internal fuel.

So much for catapults launching "heavier aircraft" every time.

[ArmChairCivvy]

So much for catapults launching "heavier aircraft" every time.

Hey, c'on. That's why
- they wanted our design, or the joint one, for the next CV
- CdG is so short ('small') because to make it any bigger, they would have had to add one more reactor, to drive it... as they only have one size. So do we , I am not trying to make fun; just stating the facts and drivers for the design, with all its limitations

[RetroSicotte]

Hey, c'on. That's why

Little confused here. Something mistyped?

In general, I'm not posting that to lambast them. Bit of banter, but primarily to demonstrate how much the gap between STOVL and CATOBAR has narrowed these days.

[ArmChairCivvy]

demonstrate how much the gap between STOVL and CATOBAR has narrowed these days.

That is v true, and especially relevant to "what we want to do/ achieve".

In the 'Great Power Competition' though, it seems that India wants EMALS and the F-35 (version) to go with it

[Lord Jim]

Can some one remind me how much an A-6 could be loaded up with and launched from a Carrier?

[SW1]

Good to see we’re comparing apples pears and bananas and making conclusions. Out of curiosity what’s the max landing weight for types?

[seaspear]

The article below on measurments compared of different military aircraft suggests that the f35b is comparable to the loudest ,it would of been interesting if there were a number of flights conducted from the carrier next to the pier and how nearby residences were to be effected
http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20141031_f ... ummary.pdf
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... -too-loud/
great film footage but if you were living nearby you would hope its a oneoff

[Old RN]

Hey, c'on. That's why

Little confused here. Something mistyped?

In general, I'm not posting that to lambast them. Bit of banter, but primarily to demonstrate how much the gap between STOVL and CATOBAR has narrowed these days.

I would argue that the payload/range performance off the F35B is actually slightly better that the F18E (without in flight refuelling). Clearly the F35C is better than the F35B.

[SKB]

[SW1]

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/ ... n-fighter/

WASHINGTON – As questions continue to swirl about the vulnerability and reach of aircraft carriers, Congress has gutted funding for the U.S. Navy’s research effort into a next-generation fighter to replace the relatively limited range F/A-18 Super Hornet, an effort experts say could decide the continued relevance of the aircraft carrier in the 21st century.

[Ron5]

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/ ... n-fighter/

WASHINGTON – As questions continue to swirl about the vulnerability and reach of aircraft carriers, Congress has gutted funding for the U.S. Navy’s research effort into a next-generation fighter to replace the relatively limited range F/A-18 Super Hornet, an effort experts say could decide the continued relevance of the aircraft carrier in the 21st century.

Yeah, they cut a whole $13 million. Keep trying RAF man.

[Lord Jim]

I wouldn't say this puts the future of the Carrier in danger, but rather there is a need to shake up how they operate and the key appears to be range. But the carriers are not alone, the US Navy as a whole is having to resurrect it ability to sink enemy ship and submarines at far greater range as well as attacking land targets. The Chinese DF-21 is a threat but should be countered by the Carrier's BMD equipped escorts. Long range engagement should end up being carried out by a number of systems from long range missiles to airborne stand off weapons fired by both manned and unmanned platforms. What as interesting was the recognised need for the engagement of enemy submarines at far greater ranges. The USN cannot solely rely on the P-8 for this and will need a carrier borne platform to carry this out. again this could be either manned or unmanned. There might also be a need to replace the E-2 as a airborne battle management platform will be needed to co-ordinate engagements at these ranges and the E-2 might not be capable of being further upgraded to meet this challenge. The existing F/A-XX might be seen as being to short sighted and that more out of the box thinking is required to equip the next generation Carrier Air Wing.