Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[bobp]

Definitely a game changer. Hope to see one fully kitted out doing the same trial, fully fuelled and with weapons etc.

[Tempest414]

If this develops as everyone hopes then presumably we might see an angled flight deck added to the class as part of a major refit. That makes me slightly nervous after what happened to HMS Victorious. In that case the high costs of the refit were used to justify decommissioning the ship early.

for the perpose of this the angled flight deck could be as simple as repainting the deck

[SW1]

Before everyone gets too excited this is a grey eagle proof on concept demonstration. It’s about were VAAC harrier was as the basis of F35.

[shark bait]

Correct, a long way to go from demonstration to deployment, but cool nonetheless.

[bobp]

Is this the Future...

[new guy]

Impressive.

Now it needs to do it again fully loaded and at night to confirm but a 200m LPH looks like more than enough to handle that.

As expected the game just changed.

Possibly less, if a lightweight catapult/ arrestor gear was installed as has been hinted at.

Calm down, it is:


a) smaller than MQ-9B stol
b)lightened
c) Weaponless.

MQ-9B stol will require significant length and especially width, not a 150m LSD/LPD/LHD.

[new guy]

NOTE: The angled runway was for takeoff, not landing.
That is probably because they don't want to do the work of working out the ramp dynamics.
It still landed on the main runway.

I believe that we do need a new runway system, but for a different reason; Wingspan.

If this was the smaller one, wait till you see the MQ-9B stol on it.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Calm down, it is:
a) smaller than MQ-9B stol

3.2t vs 4.6t. Only "a bit smaller". Wingspan is 16m vs 20m. No a small difference, but easily scalable.

b)lightened
c) Weaponless.

More important is here.

I think, if there be a MQ-9B with new STOL wing, it will easily be operated from QE/POW CV similar to Mojave. This is the heart of the Mojave trial, I understand. And, heavy weight trial can be done with Mojave, and its experience can be transferred to MQ-9B.

MQ-9B stol will require significant length and especially width, not a 150m LSD/LPD/LHD.

I think it is entirely possible to see 150m flat top to operate these UAVs. "What will be the operational restriction?" is the only point.

For example, if the 150m flat top is steaming at 20knots, the effect will be equivalent or even better than 200m runway in stop. This will be an operational restriction, but this kind of restriction is not special.

[Tempest414]

NOTE: The angled runway was for takeoff, not landing.
That is probably because they don't want to do the work of working out the ramp dynamics.
It still landed on the main runway.

I believe that we do need a new runway system, but for a different reason; Wingspan.

If this was the smaller one, wait till you see the MQ-9B stol on it.

Why do we need MQ-9B this could operate for upto 25 hours in armed overwatch with 8 Hellfire or with 4 Sting Ray or carry up to 20 Sonobuoys and a data link as part of the ASW screen

And to me it looks like it could operate from a 200 by 32 meter deck given that it looked to get off at about 80 meters with ahead wind and land in about 110 meters

[Poiuytrewq]

Impressive.

Now it needs to do it again fully loaded and at night to confirm but a 200m LPH looks like more than enough to handle that.

As expected the game just changed.

Possibly less, if a lightweight catapult/ arrestor gear was installed as has been hinted at.

Is this the final vindication of the UXV concept?

7E9D8ED8-C240-4F58-9BA7-5C9E65787ADC.jpeg

[new guy]

Impressive.

Now it needs to do it again fully loaded and at night to confirm but a 200m LPH looks like more than enough to handle that.

As expected the game just changed.

Possibly less, if a lightweight catapult/ arrestor gear was installed as has been hinted at.

Is this the final vindication of the UXV concept? 7E9D8ED8-C240-4F58-9BA7-5C9E65787ADC.jpeg

That is 50m metres long.

[new guy]

NOTE: The angled runway was for takeoff, not landing.
That is probably because they don't want to do the work of working out the ramp dynamics.
It still landed on the main runway.

I believe that we do need a new runway system, but for a different reason; Wingspan.

If this was the smaller one, wait till you see the MQ-9B stol on it.

Why do we need MQ-9B this could operate for upto 25 hours in armed overwatch with 8 Hellfire or with 4 Sting Ray or carry up to 20 Sonobuoys and a data link as part of the ASW screen

And to me it looks like it could operate from a 200 by 32 meter deck given that it looked to get off at about 80 meters with ahead wind and land in about 110 meters

because commonality, larger payload, interoperability, systems designed for it in the form of Sky guardian and sea guardian

Mojave is just a demonstrator.

[new guy]

Look at this takeoff distance graph from GA.
https://www.ga-asi.com/images/products/ ... P07263.pdf



This shows the restraints of the system.

Now scale that up to the larger MQ-9B, what do you think will happen.

[SW1]

https://www.ga-asi.com/ga-asi-demonstra ... uk-carrier

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) conducted a first-of-its-kind demonstration of its short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability on the HMS Prince of Wales, a Royal Navy aircraft carrier, using the Mojave Unmanned Aircraft System. The demonstration took place on November 15, 2023, when the Prince of Wales was underway off the East Coast of the U.S., and the Mojave was controlled by an aircrew within a control station onboard the ship. The demonstration included takeoff, circuits, and approaches and ended with a landing back onto the carrier.

Equipping UAS with STOL capability provides greater versatility and allows the aircraft to operate in areas previously deemed unsuitable for UAS operations, including landing onto and taking off from an aircraft carrier. MQ-9B STOL will be capable of carrying the same payloads and conducting the same missions as the SkyGuardian and SeaGuardian, including maritime surveillance, Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), Airborne Early Warning (AEW), and surface strike.

[Tempest414]

Look at this takeoff distance graph from GA.
https://www.ga-asi.com/images/products/ ... P07263.pdf



This shows the restraints of the system.

Now scale that up to the larger MQ-9B, what do you think will happen.

simple add JATO packs been done for years will get this sucker off loaded in under 200 meters

[Scimitar54]

Bring Deeps wrote:-

That makes me slightly nervous after what happened to HMS Victorious.

I do not think we should be worried about this for the QEC class, as they would neither be “Lengthened”, “Widened”, or “Heightened”, nor have to be re-boilered and re-engined and many other modernisation requirements as HMS Victorious did. Furthermore, regarding HMS Victorious IIRC, much of the shipbuilding work had to be done TWICE!

Once again, I believe that we have no need to worry about QEC modification on the cost angle.
Time to carry out the work MAY still be a concern however, with only two of them.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Calm down, it is:
a) smaller than MQ-9B stol

3.2t vs 4.6t. Only "a bit smaller". Wingspan is 16m vs 20m. No a small difference, but easily scalable.

Correction.
name max-weight / wingspan
Mojave 3.2t /16m
MQ-9A 4.6t /20m
MQ-9B 5.7t/ 24m

Max weight is proportional to wingspan. As lift power is proportional to wing length with the same speed, in principle the required runway shall be similar, if they adopt wings with similar cross section design.

[SW1]

Calm down, it is:
a) smaller than MQ-9B stol

3.2t vs 4.6t. Only "a bit smaller". Wingspan is 16m vs 20m. No a small difference, but easily scalable.

Correction.
name max-weight / wingspan
Mojave 3.2t /16m
MQ-9A 4.6t /20m
MQ-9B 5.7t/ 24m

Max weight is proportional to wingspan. As lift power is proportional to wing length with the same speed, in principle the required runway shall be similar, if they adopt wings with similar cross section design.

That isn’t quite correct. Lift is proportional to wing area. Weight/wing area will get you your wing loading. Takeoff speed is then proportional to the square root of your wing loading.

This assumes you lift coefficient is the same ie same cross section (flaps/slates) wing angle of attack across the designs.

[Repulse]

Interesting, not seen all the various points pulled together and laid out so clearly before.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/project ... nd-drones/

[donald_of_tokyo]

That isn’t quite correct. Lift is proportional to wing area.
Weight/wing area will get you your wing loading. Takeoff speed is then proportional to the square root of your wing loading.
This assumes you lift coefficient is the same ie same cross section (flaps/slates) wing angle of attack across the designs.

Thanks for clarity. Lift is proportional to wing area. And, with the same cross-section, it is proportional to the wing span. And takeoff speed calculation follows the same way.

So, assuming the similar speed condition for Mojave and MQ-9B is valid, because their max-take-off weight is proportional to wing-span. It does not contradict to your point.

[SW1]

That isn’t quite correct. Lift is proportional to wing area.
Weight/wing area will get you your wing loading. Takeoff speed is then proportional to the square root of your wing loading.
This assumes you lift coefficient is the same ie same cross section (flaps/slates) wing angle of attack across the designs.

Thanks for clarity. Lift is proportional to wing area. And, with the same cross-section, it is proportional to the wing span. And takeoff speed calculation follows the same way.

So, assuming the similar speed condition for Mojave and MQ-9B is valid, because their max-take-off weight is proportional to wing-span. It does not contradict to your point.

If we take your table the weight figures have gone up by a bigger percentage than your wing span ones have. If you google mojave and grey eagle you will notice the wing is very different and has a much bigger area. Span is not a useful comparison here.

[donald_of_tokyo]

If we take your table the weight figures have gone up by a bigger percentage than your wing span ones have. If you google mojave and grey eagle you will notice the wing is very different and has a much bigger area. Span is not a useful comparison here.

You are right. My point was, the STOVL MQ-9B wing concept looks very similar to that of Mojave, and will have a "widely-similar" lift-off and landing requirements. And therefore, the full-load Majave trial will tell us about full-load MQ-9B STOL handling.

[new guy]

If we take your table the weight figures have gone up by a bigger percentage than your wing span ones have. If you google mojave and grey eagle you will notice the wing is very different and has a much bigger area. Span is not a useful comparison here.

You are right. My point was, the STOVL MQ-9B wing concept looks very similar to that of Mojave, and will have a "widely-similar" lift-off and landing requirements. And therefore, the full-load Majave trial will tell us about full-load MQ-9B STOL handling.

Well if you look at the Mojave graph, you can see that if you want an actual weapons load with endurance, you will need QEC and not some 150m vessel.
https://www.ga-asi.com/images/products/ ... P07263.pdf

[donald_of_tokyo]

If we take your table the weight figures have gone up by a bigger percentage than your wing span ones have. If you google mojave and grey eagle you will notice the wing is very different and has a much bigger area. Span is not a useful comparison here.

You are right. My point was, the STOVL MQ-9B wing concept looks very similar to that of Mojave, and will have a "widely-similar" lift-off and landing requirements. And therefore, the full-load Majave trial will tell us about full-load MQ-9B STOL handling.

Well if you look at the Mojave graph, you can see that if you want an actual weapons load with endurance, you will need QEC and not some 150m vessel.
https://www.ga-asi.com/images/products/ ... P07263.pdf

No objection. I myself is pushing that any MQ-9B STOL operation shall be done from QECV.

However, technically, I understand 150m is just doable, with some operational restriction. For example, if the 150m LPH is steaming at 20 knots (which is/was a normal figure for Carriers), then how much of its capability will be attained?, is a question worth considering.

[shark bait]

Probably an unpopular opinion; cats and traps is an unhelpful distraction from developing the carriers