Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Little J
Member
Posts: 848
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Has liked: 84 times
Been liked: 67 times
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Little J »

Beat me... Was just gonna post this.



Can't see why the Navy has to pay for it not being built correctly?

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1535
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Has liked: 162 times
Been liked: 133 times
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Macron/Sunak diplomacy at work?

Bring Deeps
Donator
Posts: 197
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:06
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 16 times
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Bring Deeps »

Little J wrote: 18 Mar 2023, 15:30 Beat me... Was just gonna post this.



Can't see why the Navy has to pay for it not being built correctly?
Under English contract law if you know there is a problem with something but you accept it anyway you usually lose the right to seek compensation later. If you change your mind the longer you wait before claiming breach of contract the harder it gets.

POW was commissioned in December 2019 so waiting nearly 4 years before trying to get compensation is going to kill your chances of success.

If the RN knew there was a problem, given the profile of the ship, it is likely that the decision to accept the vessel would have been taken at the highest level. I don't suppose we will know for sure until the papers are released in 30+ years time.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2716
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Has liked: 79 times
Been liked: 92 times
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Was there ever amy doubt....
These users liked the author dmereifield for the post:
Ron5

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2192
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Has liked: 67 times
Been liked: 71 times
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by R686 »

Bring Deeps wrote: 18 Mar 2023, 16:43
Little J wrote: 18 Mar 2023, 15:30 Beat me... Was just gonna post this.



Can't see why the Navy has to pay for it not being built correctly?
Under English contract law if you know there is a problem with something but you accept it anyway you usually lose the right to seek compensation later. If you change your mind the longer you wait before claiming breach of contract the harder it gets.

POW was commissioned in December 2019 so waiting nearly 4 years before trying to get compensation is going to kill your chances of success.

If the RN knew there was a problem, given the profile of the ship, it is likely that the decision to accept the vessel would have been taken at the highest level. I don't suppose we will know for sure until the papers are released in 30+ years time.
I boils down to when the problem was know before or after accepting considering the sister ship does not have the problem

Just trying to rack the ole grey matter, didn't QE have some sort of seal problem in trials or was that POW?

tomuk
Member
Posts: 760
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 170 times
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by tomuk »

The thrust block cracked on QE

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
Has liked: 40 times
Been liked: 36 times
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Dobbo »

Timmymagic wrote: 14 Mar 2023, 14:09
Ron5 wrote: 12 Mar 2023, 13:25 You understand wrong. Currently vertical landing with a full weapons load (fuel would be dumped) isn't a problem. It might become one in the future with the heavier weapons in the pipeline but even then it would only be in the hottest of climates. With the expectation of engine thrust increases, that too might turn out to be unnecessary.
This is true. Plenty of margin even in the Tropics at present. With the decision to remove Storm Shadow from the integration list 10+ years ago the real need for SRVL dropped away. Current UK Max weapons load is around 5,500lbs, with a future max of c6,500lb's when all Block IV weapons arrive. Thats still within VL limits with some fuel burned off, even in the Tropics.

The only reason we would need SRVL eventually is when FCASW and external tanks arrive, or if the UK purchases weapons with higher weight (like JDAM 1,000lb). But even then the chances of an aircraft being launched with the exact payload that max's weight is probably highly unlikely. SRVL is very much about future proofing, but I suspect that the RN is quite relaxed about the slow pace of it.
Do we know if FCASW might be capable of F35 integration? I’m anticipating a high level stand off anti shipping and land attack weapon - which it sounds like needs to be resolved with SRVL…

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6749
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 284 times
Been liked: 112 times
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Dobbo wrote: 19 Mar 2023, 08:19
Timmymagic wrote: 14 Mar 2023, 14:09
Ron5 wrote: 12 Mar 2023, 13:25 You understand wrong. Currently vertical landing with a full weapons load (fuel would be dumped) isn't a problem. It might become one in the future with the heavier weapons in the pipeline but even then it would only be in the hottest of climates. With the expectation of engine thrust increases, that too might turn out to be unnecessary.
This is true. Plenty of margin even in the Tropics at present. With the decision to remove Storm Shadow from the integration list 10+ years ago the real need for SRVL dropped away. Current UK Max weapons load is around 5,500lbs, with a future max of c6,500lb's when all Block IV weapons arrive. Thats still within VL limits with some fuel burned off, even in the Tropics.

The only reason we would need SRVL eventually is when FCASW and external tanks arrive, or if the UK purchases weapons with higher weight (like JDAM 1,000lb). But even then the chances of an aircraft being launched with the exact payload that max's weight is probably highly unlikely. SRVL is very much about future proofing, but I suspect that the RN is quite relaxed about the slow pace of it.
Do we know if FCASW might be capable of F35 integration? I’m anticipating a high level stand off anti shipping and land attack weapon - which it sounds like needs to be resolved with SRVL…
That's the plan.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
Dobbo

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
Has liked: 40 times
Been liked: 36 times
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Dobbo »

Ron5 wrote: 19 Mar 2023, 13:16
Dobbo wrote: 19 Mar 2023, 08:19
Timmymagic wrote: 14 Mar 2023, 14:09
Ron5 wrote: 12 Mar 2023, 13:25 You understand wrong. Currently vertical landing with a full weapons load (fuel would be dumped) isn't a problem. It might become one in the future with the heavier weapons in the pipeline but even then it would only be in the hottest of climates. With the expectation of engine thrust increases, that too might turn out to be unnecessary.
This is true. Plenty of margin even in the Tropics at present. With the decision to remove Storm Shadow from the integration list 10+ years ago the real need for SRVL dropped away. Current UK Max weapons load is around 5,500lbs, with a future max of c6,500lb's when all Block IV weapons arrive. Thats still within VL limits with some fuel burned off, even in the Tropics.

The only reason we would need SRVL eventually is when FCASW and external tanks arrive, or if the UK purchases weapons with higher weight (like JDAM 1,000lb). But even then the chances of an aircraft being launched with the exact payload that max's weight is probably highly unlikely. SRVL is very much about future proofing, but I suspect that the RN is quite relaxed about the slow pace of it.
Do we know if FCASW might be capable of F35 integration? I’m anticipating a high level stand off anti shipping and land attack weapon - which it sounds like needs to be resolved with SRVL…
That's the plan.
Could the F35 carry an FCASW if it if such a size that the VLS model ends up filling a strike length MK41?

Appreciate the VLS model will be smaller, and that it won’t fit internally, but we are talking about what is likely to be a very large weapon…

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2850
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 96 times
Been liked: 347 times
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Dobbo wrote: 19 Mar 2023, 21:11 Could the F35 carry an FCASW if it if such a size that the VLS model ends up filling a strike length MK41?
Appreciate the VLS model will be smaller, and that it won’t fit internally, but we are talking about what is likely to be a very large weapon…
It will be the same missile in VLS, Canister, air launched and sub launched. The only differences will be the addition of a rocket booster for zero speed launch. Tomahawk and Storm Shadow have exactly the same weight without boosters (2,900 lbs). Expect it to be between that size and JASSM-ER (not the XR/JASSM-ERB2).

Post Reply