Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Jensy]

It doesn't actually exist in the real world, so it's at least 15 years away from potential UK purchase, 20 would be more likely.

Not far off the timeframe of the Bell HSTOVL family, should DARPA chose to go beyond their Speed and Runway Independent Technologies (SpRInT) programme. The smallest proposed platform is a UCAV




A more leftfield and European approach would be looking again at the AW609 and other proposed Leonardo tilt-rotors like the NG.

Italy had (has?) a vague aspiration for a family of tilt-rotors:

Apart from new vehicles, the document calls for "The acquisition of a series of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, both piloted, optionally piloted and unpiloted, dual, including new tiltrotors."

The document describes the planned development of a family of tiltrotors for dual use ranging from 8 to 14 tons.

"A first aircraft of eight tonnes for six passengers would allow the rapid transport of personnel and material, host an aerial command post," and carry out medical evacuations [...]

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2015/0 ... re-vision/

That first aircraft sounds an awful lot like a variant of the, 7,620 kg MTOW, AW609. Turning it into a UAV would be an excellent opportunity to strengthen our GCAP and MBDA partnerships with Italy.

[new guy]

AW609??? seriously?

[Little J]

Aw609 fuselage is not sized to be of any use as a military platform. You might as well start from scratch.

[mrclark303]

It doesn't actually exist in the real world, so it's at least 15 years away from potential UK purchase, 20 would be more likely.

Not far off the timeframe of the Bell HSTOVL family, should the DARPA chose to go beyond their Speed and Runway Independent Technologies (SpRInT) programme. The smallest proposed platform is a UCAV




A more leftfield and European approach would be looking again at the AW609 and other proposed Leonardo tilt-rotors like the NG.

Italy had (has?) a vague aspiration for a family of tilt-rotors:

Apart from new vehicles, the document calls for "The acquisition of a series of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, both piloted, optionally piloted and unpiloted, dual, including new tiltrotors."

The document describes the planned development of a family of tiltrotors for dual use ranging from 8 to 14 tons.

"A first aircraft of eight tonnes for six passengers would allow the rapid transport of personnel and material, host an aerial command post," and carry out medical evacuations [...]

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2015/0 ... re-vision/

That first aircraft sounds an awful lot like a variant of the, 7,620 kg MTOW, AW609. Turning it into a UAV would be an excellent opportunity to strengthen our GCAP and MBDA partnerships with Italy.

It sounds interesting Jensey, but experience tells us that such systems require extensive high end engineering and enduring funding to reach operational levels.

I don't think Europe has the drive or the finance to see it through.

I still think the ' keep it simple stupid ' approach is the way to go, the US Navy is developing a range of UAV options, just equip the carriers accordingly ( angled deck, traps) and hope they can use the ski jump.

It would appear a carrier capable Ghost Bat is being investigated, that's good, it's already in development and if a production version is procured in large numbers between the UK, Australia and the US ( possibly also Japan), it would crucially, actually be affordable.

If the UK bought say 100 carrier capable Ghost Bats and just deployed as required, alongside F35B on the Carrier, or Land based alongside Thypoon, or perhaps even Posiden or AH64E, we would have a hugely flexible asset.

Any new sophisticated V/STOL ( manned/ unmanned) system that promises, speed, range and a broad range of combat capabilities is going to be extremely complex and expensive.

[sol]

It would appear a carrier capable Ghost Bat is being investigated, that's good, it's already in development and if a production version is procured in large numbers between the UK, Australia and the US ( possibly also Japan), it would crucially, actually be affordable.

I couldn't find any news that US Navy is interested in the Ghost Bat, just suggestions that it "might be". On the other hand, both USMC and USN are testing Kratos XQ-58 Valkyrie, which does not require flying deck for either taking off or landing. It would be interesting to see how would USMC operate the type if it enter service, as if they could use it from their America and Tarawa LHA, I don't see reason why it could not be used from QE class.

[shark bait]

Aw609 fuselage is not sized to be of any use as a military platform. You might as well start from scratch.

Depends on the role and requirement. I'm not suggesting it's a Merlin HC4 replacement.

This is a platform that's been developed almost fully, for the civil role. Why reinvent the wheel if there's something it can contribute to the carrier strike group?

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ars-likely

I don't think Europe has the drive or the finance to see it through.

I still think the ' keep it simple stupid ' approach is the way to go, the US Navy is developing a range of UAV options, just equip the carriers accordingly ( angled deck, traps) and hope they can use the ski jump.

It would appear a carrier capable Ghost Bat is being investigated, that's good, it's already in development and if a production version is procured in large numbers between the UK, Australia and the US ( possibly also Japan), it would crucially, actually be affordable.

If the UK bought say 100 carrier capable Ghost Bats and just deployed as required, alongside F35B on the Carrier, or Land based alongside Thypoon, or perhaps even Posiden or AH64E, we would have a hugely flexible asset.

Any new sophisticated V/STOL ( manned/ unmanned) system that promises, speed, range and a broad range of combat capabilities is going to be extremely complex and expensive.

Whether Europe has the appetite to sustain a globally competitive defence industry is certainly up for debate. The willingness to fund and support industry on the other hand is clear. There's two different European attack helicopters in service, despite much of the continent picking Apache instead. Italy is even developing a next generation, despite the very modest sales of the AW129.

As for future of UK carrier aviation:

If we're going down the cat and traps direction then fine, something off the shelf is fine. We've killed off the Spirit Mosquito, which I doubt will be reversed. Ghost Bat, Stingray whatever we can afford but our recent track record on 'capability insertion' has been appalling,

Personally I think it's mad to convert the carriers until we're replacing the main combat platform they're based around: Lightning. As I said above, we've been on a very long road to get here and only the MoD/RN Admirals could think it's sensible to start carving up the decks of two five-ish year old ships.

In a fantasy pre-2008 world, I'd have fitted the carriers with UK EMCAT and operated a CATOBAR fast jet and E-2Ds, whilst combing the boneyard for S-3 Vikings. However we are where we are and far less able to fund such lofty ambitions than then.

The greatest barrier to tilt-rotors going mainstream has been the V-22 itself. As the first, in service, example of the type it has suffered a lot of teething issues, some fatally, over many decades and is expensive as a result. Very expensive. The next generation is seeking to be cheaper to buy and operate.

Were Osprey not the best part of a F-35 in price it would be the solution to everything other than fast jets on the carriers. Then again it, or another tilt-rotor solution, manned or unmanned, might be cheaper than delivering 'project Ark Royal'.

Of course the USMC, Spain and Italy operate a VTOL platform that does mach 0.9, can carry 4,200kg of payload, and has a Rolls-Royce engine but that's another story....

[new guy]

Royal Navy has interest in ghost bat, and the RAF too.

[mrclark303]

Aw609 fuselage is not sized to be of any use as a military platform. You might as well start from scratch.

Depends on the role and requirement. I'm not suggesting it's a Merlin HC4 replacement.

This is a platform that's been developed almost fully, for the civil role. Why reinvent the wheel if there's something it can contribute to the carrier strike group?

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ars-likely

I don't think Europe has the drive or the finance to see it through.

I still think the ' keep it simple stupid ' approach is the way to go, the US Navy is developing a range of UAV options, just equip the carriers accordingly ( angled deck, traps) and hope they can use the ski jump.

It would appear a carrier capable Ghost Bat is being investigated, that's good, it's already in development and if a production version is procured in large numbers between the UK, Australia and the US ( possibly also Japan), it would crucially, actually be affordable.

If the UK bought say 100 carrier capable Ghost Bats and just deployed as required, alongside F35B on the Carrier, or Land based alongside Thypoon, or perhaps even Posiden or AH64E, we would have a hugely flexible asset.

Any new sophisticated V/STOL ( manned/ unmanned) system that promises, speed, range and a broad range of combat capabilities is going to be extremely complex and expensive.

Whether Europe has the appetite to sustain a globally competitive defence industry is certainly up for debate. The willingness to fund and support industry on the other hand is clear. There's two different European attack helicopters in service, despite much of the continent picking Apache instead. Italy is even developing a next generation, despite the very modest sales of the AW129.

As for future of UK carrier aviation:

If we're going down the cat and traps direction then fine, something off the shelf is fine. We've killed off the Spirit Mosquito, which I doubt will be reversed. Ghost Bat, Stingray whatever we can afford but our recent track record on 'capability insertion' has been appalling,

Personally I think it's mad to convert the carriers until we're replacing the main combat platform they're based around: Lightning. As I said above, we've been on a very long road to get here and only the MoD/RN Admirals could think it's sensible to start carving up the decks of two five-ish year old ships.

In a fantasy pre-2008 world, I'd have fitted the carriers with UK EMCAT and operated a CATOBAR fast jet and E-2Ds, whilst combing the boneyard for S-3 Vikings. However we are where we are and far less able to fund such lofty ambitions than then.

The greatest barrier to tilt-rotors going mainstream has been the V-22 itself. As the first, in service, example of the type it has suffered a lot of teething issues, some fatally, over many decades and is expensive as a result. Very expensive. The next generation is seeking to be cheaper to buy and operate.

Were Osprey not the best part of a F-35 in price it would be the solution to everything other than fast jets on the carriers. Then again it, or another tilt-rotor solution, manned or unmanned, might be cheaper than delivering 'project Ark Royal'.

Of course the USMC, Spain and Italy operate a VTOL platform that does mach 0.9, can carry 4,200kg of payload, and has a Rolls-Royce engine but that's another story....

All good valid points Jensy....

The direction of travel re Loyal wingman and just how it's utilised with the RAF/ Carriers etc will be entirely down to the next administrations first SDSR.

It entirely depends upon their defence priorities and defence funding.

If it was me, new projects....

I would first off ensure GCAP is funded to the full requirement and fully up and running.

I would launch a programme to acquire a fully carrier capable, jointly operated Loyal wingman, for both services. Considering the huge funding GCAP will soak up, I would most definitely select something off the shelf ( at least a programme that's already up and running) and something more than a PowerPoint presentation.

That done, I would upgrade all Tranche 2 and 3 Typhoon to the latest standard with Radar 2 etc.

I would revise our follow on F35B order and increase numbers to 90, to allow formation of four squadrons.

That would be my order of priorities, fast air wise at least.

It's going to be Labour and I have no reason to think they will be any better than the Tories....

[bobp]

PWLS Captain speaks to press

[Spitfire9]

How fast could UK get a carrier group to the waters off Guyana? I have heard that Venezuelan forces are building on the border with Guyana, a member of the Commonwealth. There is to be a vote on Sunday in Venezuela concerning a longstanding border dispute with Guyana.

[Phil R]

London to Belize is roughly the same distance as London to Guyana, so just over 2 days based on Ark Royal in 1972.

Phil R

[RichardIC]

London to Belize is roughly the same distance as London to Guyana, so just over 2 days based on Ark Royal in 1972.

Phil R

You'd have to average over 100mph to cover 5,000 miles in 48 hours.

Ark was already half way across the Atlantic for a visit to New York when she was diverted. She launched aircraft from a position near Bermuda and two Buccaneers flew a 2,500 mile round-trip sortie over Belize.

[new guy]

1) HMS PoW is much closer.

2) It is about a 10 or 11 day sail at 15 knots, add 3 days on because the rediness requirement is for 72 hours, then it could be a two week voyage there.

3) We won't do anything.

[RichardIC]

1) HMS PoW is much closer.

2) It is about a 10 or 11 day sail at 15 knots, add 3 days on because the rediness requirement is for 72 hours, then it could be a two week voyage there.

3) We won't do anything.

PoW isn't the high-readiness carrier. She hasn't got an air group and she almost certainly isn't carrying enough crew to support operational flying.

QE would have to travel from Portsmouth.

[Scimitar54]

1) Neither QNLZ or PWLS would be sailing at 15 knots, most likely their maximum sustained speed.
2) A 72 hour readiness period for PWLS would not be required, because it would be included
within the transit time (unless the requirements, as at 3) were to be supplied via a USN naval base.
3) The major problem with deploying PWLS would be the transfer of an appropriate and adequately sized “Air Group” together with the required engineering support and munitions.

[Poiuytrewq]

1) Neither QNLZ or PWLS would be sailing at 15 knots, most likely their maximum sustained speed.
2) A 72 hour readiness period for PWLS would not be required, because it would be included
within the transit time (unless the requirements, as at 3) were to be supplied via a USN naval base.
3) The major problem with deploying PWLS would be the transfer of an appropriate and adequately sized “Air Group” together with the required engineering support and munitions.

4) Fort Victoria is not available!

[new guy]

1) Neither QNLZ or PWLS would be sailing at 15 knots, most likely their maximum sustained speed.
2) A 72 hour readiness period for PWLS would not be required, because it would be included
within the transit time (unless the requirements, as at 3) were to be supplied via a USN naval base.
3) The major problem with deploying PWLS would be the transfer of an appropriate and adequately sized “Air Group” together with the required engineering support and munitions.

The carrier has a maximum speed of 25k, tested to above 32k heavy. At 15k, the range is 10,000nm. So I assume the cruising speed is 15k.

[Jackstar]

Heading home.

[Scimitar54]

Poiuytrewq Wrote:-

4) Fort Victoria is not available!

No doubt there are contingency plans and if not, “Heads should roll”.

Much could depend upon the stores that may already be embarked (or not).

[PhillyJ]

PWLS home on the 11th I hear.

[Scimitar54]

Sounds about right, if not diverted!

[PhillyJ]

Confirmed by KHM for tomorrow, about 1040 passing Round Tower I guess.

Screenshot_20231210-123330.png

[djkeos]

She's home

[SKB]

(Forces News) 11th December 2023


(CobraEmergency) 11th December 2023


(Navy Lookout) 11th December 2023


(Picture Exclusive) 11th December 2023


(ships,planes and gaming) 11th December 2023

[Ianmb17]