Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Thorvicson]

Its OK my dad was FAA and loved the museum I think he was just a looking a little concerned incase I decided to build one in that scale as I taking a lot of photo's. He went relatively quickly last year and due to be being made redundant I was on hand to act as a carer for him for those final months which he greatly appreciated. Anyway I have got over his loss now which is why I felt up to posting the pictures on-line.

I thought the gang might find it interesting as we didn't actually get much coverage of CATOBAR design during the brief switch over.

[whitelancer]

During the period when CATOBAR was in play was the parallel deck design as intended for CAV 01 considered? It has always seemed to me that such an arrangement would have been ideally suited to QEC rather than the traditional angled deck.

[Old RN]

I believe the current QE flight deck is essentially the same parallel layout as CVA01 and seems much better than the angled deck for a "wide" carrier. Originally the outstanding advantage of the angled deck was that it left the front of the carrier to park aircraft while landing on without needing the barrier (which meant that if you did not catch the wire you crashed!). Niw we have much wider carriers and much more controlled landings (with autocontrolled systems) the prospect of a CATOBAR with the current QE layout seems very credible. If I were asked to do a CATOBAR version I would have left the current geometry, but put catapults in place of the skijump. It allows the side parked aircraft to be left where they throughout the launch/recovery cycle.

[Thorvicson]

During the period when CATOBAR was in play was the parallel deck design as intended for CAV 01 considered? It has always seemed to me that such an arrangement would have been ideally suited to QEC rather than the traditional angled deck.

No you can see from the model photos I posted that it returned to a standard angled deck, for CATOBAR, the modern aircraft need the space to stop and the space to go full throttle if they miss. It might have been possible if we had gone with a Nimitz class sized hull of 320m or even remained at the intended 300m CVF design but at 280m that section was taken out of the forward Hanger are and the sponsons.

[whitelancer]

Their is no reason a parallel deck need be any shorter than an angled deck.
Compare two early designs for CVA 01. Top with angled deck, bottom with a parallel deck. Interestingly QE will in effect be operating a parallel deck with F35B, with a single "runway" for take off and rolling vertical landings.

[SKB]

New video from the Ministry Of Defence !

[cockneyjock1974]

I have to say QE's night time lighting is superb at the moment, nice to see the navigation lights on.

[hovematlot]

I have to say QE's night time lighting is superb at the moment, nice to see the navigation lights on.

Hopefully in the next few days you'll hear QE's tannoys booming out over the basin 'Hands to Harbour Stations, Hands to Harbour Stations assume NBCD state 3 condition Y'

[cockneyjock1974]

I have to say QE's night time lighting is superb at the moment, nice to see the navigation lights on.

Hopefully in the next few days you'll hear QE's tannoys booming out over the basin 'Hands to Harbour Stations, Hands to Harbour Stations assume NBCD state 3 condition Y'

I'll let you know when it happens, local rumours is now the 22nd but we'll wait and see.

[swoop]

Pity there's no bridle catchers think they look the ants pants with twin bow cats and catchers

No point now, with nose wheel attachment to the cat's shuttle.

[Timmymagic]

No point now, with nose wheel attachment to the cat's shuttle.

Then they should be retained for aesthetic purposes...along with quadruple pom-poms....

[shark bait]

UK Carrier Strike Group;

1 x QE
2 x T35
2 x T26
1 x Astute
+ RFA support.

24 x F35
16 x Merlin

= Powerful .

Carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth due to sail from Rosyth "if not this month, next month" says RAdm Keith Blount, RN. Will head to Portsmouth base

https://twitter.com/CombatAir

[The Armchair Soldier]

Some interesting QEC slides at Paris Air Show:







Credit to Thomas Newdick for the images.
https://twitter.com/CombatAir

Edit: Oops, looks like I got ninja'd.

[shark bait]

Would like to know what do the circles on the map represent? areas of operation? Baltic sea looks like a bad place for a carrier....

Is this the first time we have seen 10 spots? that's a big lift in one go. Thought we would see more Chinook, but I guess it difficult to operate in large numbers at sea without modification.

[SKB]

Strange that the RN used a plan of a QEC with portside angled deck extension....

[dmereifield]

Looks impressive, but surely

1 x QE
2 x T35
2 x T26
1 x Astute
+ RFA support.

24 x F35
16 x Merlin

would only be available in a national emergency, F35 aside, we don't have the resources for 2 T45 and an Astute for routine CSG deployments, do we?

No F35 when in lit M configuration, doesn't sound good when we are unlikely to have the second CV available at the same time. Unless I'm missing something, wasn't there talk of always deploying at least 12 F35 for all deployments?

[Timmymagic]

Carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth due to sail from Rosyth "if not this month, next month" says RAdm Keith Blount, RN. Will head to Portsmouth base

Is that indicating that the fast cruise may have found some minor issues to be addressed? Any news on the tugs? Are they there yet?

[shark bait]

Those vessels could be available for routine deployments. The difficulty is generating that many aircraft for routine deployments, at least until into the 30's.

• Generating 2 T45 for a carrier croup is not difficult, really they have no other role. Six enables two for each carrier and two for other roles, which is plenty. That assumes the availability is higher than it is today.
• Frigates may or may not be difficult depending on how things shape up there. If our light frigate is capable, and we improve availability sustaining 2 frigate's with the carrier group is realistic.
• SSN's are difficult. Seven boats is suppose to enable 4 available at any one time. Unfortunately we don't get that availability and only have 6 boats in service. With the availability we get from the sub service routine operations with the carrier group will be very challenging.
• The RFA looks well positioned to sustain a carrier group

So we should have the assets to provide a large carrier group, but the availability of those assets at present is terrible, and must be fixed if we want a prioper carrier group like the above.

[Pymes75]

No F35 when in lit M configuration, doesn't sound good when we are unlikely to have the second CV available at the same time. Unless I'm missing something, wasn't there talk of always deploying at least 12 F35 for all deployments?

That's when it's in full Commando Carrier configuration. The slides show the three 'dedicated' roles (2x Carrier Strike configs and 1x LitM) but nothing for the typical RFTG deployment which it is expected will carry 12x F-35B as well as a mix of Merlins, Apaches and Wildcat. RFTG was hinted at in the naming ceremony programme but it wasn't fully detailed.

Interesting that they're indicating that the full strike package of 36x F-35Bs will require allied aircraft. It will be interesting to see if this ever equates to Italian aircraft as well as the obvious USMC squadron(s).

[RetroSicotte]

Well, with only 48 in the near term, reaching 36 WOULD be difficult given their shared role.

I always find it's better to think of these deployment numbers in terms of the 48, rather than the 138.

[Pymes75]

Well, with only 48 in the near term, reaching 36 WOULD be difficult given their shared role.

I always find it's better to think of these deployment numbers in terms of the 48, rather than the 138.

Indeed. I just think it's the closest the MOD has come to admitting what seasoned observers have thought for a while, namely that allied aircraft will be required to embark the full compliment (36) of strike fighters - at least, for the foreseeable future.

Still, 24 x Lightning IIs as well as a 16+ Merlin cabs of varying types still presents a formidable capability - especially if the F-35 lives up to the 5th Gen hype!

[Timmymagic]

Still, 24 x Lightning IIs as well as a 16+ Merlin cabs of varying types still presents a formidable capability - especially if the F-35 lives up to the 5th Gen hype!

Exactly we should all forget about max numbers of F-35 its possible to fit and realise that 24 F-35 is 3x the number of Harriers carried on the CVL at best in later years and more fixed wing than the TF sailed with to the Falklands on 2 carriers. Capability wise there is no comparison, Sea Harrier F/A2 with Blue Vixen and Amraam B's on board was not a bad fighter. But an F-35 with Meteor and Asraam is better than Sea Harrier or Phantom in comparison to the threat it could face. It's also arguably better than the F-14 was for the USN as a fleet defence fighter (that is assuming that Meteor works as advertised, Phoenix certainly didn't).

[Timmymagic]

But an F-35 with Meteor and Asraam is better than Sea Harrier or Phantom in comparison to the threat it could face.

I should have said 'relative to the threat they would have faced in their service lives'.

[cockneyjock1974]

Despite conflicting comments on social media, I will be providing daily updates this week if she has moved.

Status: Still berthed.

[dmereifield]

Those vessels could be available for routine deployments. The difficulty is generating that many aircraft for routine deployments, at least until into the 30's.

• Generating 2 T45 for a carrier croup is not difficult, really they have no other role. Six enables two for each carrier and two for other roles, which is plenty. That assumes the availability is higher than it is today.
• Frigates may or may not be difficult depending on how things shape up there. If our light frigate is capable, and we improve availability sustaining 2 frigate's with the carrier group is realistic.
• SSN's are difficult. Seven boats is suppose to enable 4 available at any one time. Unfortunately we don't get that availability and only have 6 boats in service. With the availability we get from the sub service routine operations with the carrier group will be very challenging.
• The RFA looks well positioned to sustain a carrier group

So we should have the assets to provide a large carrier group, but the availability of those assets at present is terrible, and must be fixed if we want a prioper carrier group like the above.

Thanks, the 2 x T45seems like it will be difficult unless other assets take over from their current deployments? But, we aren't going to have enough T23/T26/T31 to take up the slack are we?

I'm also sceptical of such an escort group given the number of escorts that our previous carriers were accompanied by in the latter years, as well as the amphibious assault ships (including our flagship) at present.

I hope I'm wrong, but I cannot imagine seeing such a task force other than in a national crisis, or for the odd photo op