Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Scimitar54]

Would only go to provide yet another example of a “Labour Project” costing a great deal and then after the money has been spent, decide that they don’t want what they spent so much of “Our Money” on disposing of an irreplaceable asset to waste yet more of “Our Money”.

[Fr0sty125]

Would only go to provide yet another example of a “Labour Project” costing a great deal and then after the money has been spent, decide that they don’t want what they spent so much of “Our Money” on disposing of an irreplaceable asset to waste yet more of “Our Money”.

Government’s of all colours have done this it’s a MOD issue.

[Scimitar54]

It would be a Political issue. nothing whatsoever to do with the MOD.

[Repulse]

You’d hope that the review hasn’t already started with the answer “bigger Army”, rather than the question of “if the US is flaky how best do we help lead to fill the gaps” - naive I know. If it’s done the right way the carriers are absolutely fine

[serge750]

Lets hope that the dry docking to replace the shafts on QE re-enforces the case that you need both QEC to achieve an on-call carrier availiabity .......

[Repulse]

I see Max Hastings is sprouting the usual anti-carrier shite in the Times.

[Jdam]

Strategic defence review bringing out the usual rhetoric from the usual people

[Jdam]

She's looking good.

[SKB]

(Jim Ramsay) 20th July 2024

[Timmymagic]

Cross posted on the Reaper/Protector thread....

"Development of the so-called Sea Protector capability is expected to take two to three years—and, if successful, the UK Royal Air Force (RAF) could then purchase the wing kits to enable carrier operations.

“This is a capability I would like to have in service in 2028,” Air Commodore Alex Hicks, the RAF’s head of capability delivery for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft, told Aviation Week on the eve of Farnborough Airshow. The project is not yet funded and would be subject to the Strategic Defense Review, he noted."

https://aviationweek.com/shownews/farnb ... ector-uavs

[Repulse]

This is exactly what the carriers should be leveraged for. People get obsessed with carrier strike, but the fact is they are two solid multirole floating aviation platforms the likes of which are fairly unique in the world.

Honest question would give greater operational capability - 24 F35Bs or 18 F35Bs and 6 Sea Protectors?

[Timmymagic]

[Timmymagic]

This is exactly what the carriers should be leveraged for. People get obsessed with carrier strike, but the fact is they are two solid multirole floating aviation platforms the likes of which are fairly unique in the world.

Honest question would give greater operational capability - 24 F35Bs or 18 F35Bs and 6 Sea Protectors?

Depends on the scenario, and the Sea Protector capability (AEW anyone?). But it does illustrate the flexibility. Sea Protector gives real long range strike as well (albeit against non-peer threats...).

[Ron5]

This is exactly what the carriers should be leveraged for. People get obsessed with carrier strike, but the fact is they are two solid multirole floating aviation platforms the likes of which are fairly unique in the world.

Honest question would give greater operational capability - 24 F35Bs or 18 F35Bs and 6 Sea Protectors?

24 F-35B's

[Timmymagic]

General Atomics definitely giving it the big one...

[Ron5]

Poor location for cat. Takes away aircraft storage.

[sol]

Honest question would give greater operational capability - 24 F35Bs or 18 F35Bs and 6 Sea Protectors?

Why would you have 6 Protectors on one carrier? You could probably have 24 Bravos and 2-3 Protectors at the same time.

[sol]

Poor location for cat. Takes away aircraft storage.

Due sky jump ramp it would also be limiting on type of drones that could be launched as those with larger wing span would probably not be able to be used. also forward island could impede operating drones.

Older, but still good artcile on Navy Lookout about possibility to install catapults on QE class

https://www.navylookout.com/cats-traps- ... ed-drones/

[Caribbean]

Poor location for cat. Takes away aircraft storage.

I don't think I've ever seen them park an F35B there when at sea, only when static. It seems to be mainly used as a park for deck handling equipment.

[Digger22]

We haven't needed the space yet. I can't see why we don't put a Catapult in the waist position. It should also be capable of Launching more than Drones. Otherwise we will have to replace it down the line. Same goes for arrestor gear. Retaining the ramp would Give Qe Class the ability to launch and recover anything.

[sol]

I don't think I've ever seen them park an F35B there when at sea, only when static. It seems to be mainly used as a park for deck handling equipment.

It was use to park aircraf during CGS 21, when two squadrons operated from QE

[Bring Deeps]

Without wishing to pile onto Ron (and anyway isn't this area Fly 1?) the history of aircraft carrier development has been a story of constant innovation. When they were first introduced the RN didn't think helicopters could operate off the same deck as fixed wing aircraft.

Trials and experiment saw that they could. Integrating drones is just another pivot point. It will be fascinating seeing how this works out over the next 10 years and it can only be a good thing for the QEC's long term future.

[Bring Deeps]

Not Fly 1, it's 'the graveyard'.

[Caribbean]

I don't think I've ever seen them park an F35B there when at sea, only when static. It seems to be mainly used as a park for deck handling equipment.

It was use to park aircraf during CGS 21, when two squadrons operated from QE

Thanks - never seen that picture!

[Jensy]

General Atomics definitely giving it the big one...

I'm somewhat curious about the F-35C in UK markings...