Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
-
- Donator
- Posts: 220
- Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:06
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Not a great photo but the arrival of Corgi's QNLZ enabled a comparison with the previous HMS Prince of Wales as both models are to the same scale.
Corgi model not bad and comes with the added bonus that F35s are fixed to the deck which is a foolproof way of avoiding engine cover related accidents.
Corgi model not bad and comes with the added bonus that F35s are fixed to the deck which is a foolproof way of avoiding engine cover related accidents.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Shows how broad the flight deck is compared to POW ! Quite surprised there are not more F35 on deck, would be good to have a few merlins aswell - but i do like the additions of Chinocks
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I hope news likes this manages to suppress some of the 'Should have been CATOBAR crowd'....the reality of a rather less capable ship seems to have surprised French commentators as well....seems like you can't get a Nimitz equivalent on that tonnage after all...I suspect the first of many disappointments to come.
$1.3bn for 2 EMALS cats and AAG...2 sets for CVF would have increased overall costs by 1/3rd (and bear in mind that PoW came in at c£2bn in reality)....and thats before you get an additional set for shoreside training/maintenance, huge amounts of additional personnel for the lifetime of the ship, spares, support, upgrades....and then the big cost...buying an aircraft that makes it all worthwhile...E-2D, which would have cost an additional $4bn for 8. And again thats before all the long term costs are factored in....
$1.3bn for 2 EMALS cats and AAG...2 sets for CVF would have increased overall costs by 1/3rd (and bear in mind that PoW came in at c£2bn in reality)....and thats before you get an additional set for shoreside training/maintenance, huge amounts of additional personnel for the lifetime of the ship, spares, support, upgrades....and then the big cost...buying an aircraft that makes it all worthwhile...E-2D, which would have cost an additional $4bn for 8. And again thats before all the long term costs are factored in....
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Of interest tweet from Think Defence re Lockheed to design new F-35 variant for mystery customer
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/lockhee ... -customer/Understand this is for the UK, developing a catapult version of the F-35B so it can also operate with French aircraft carriers
Alert 5
@alert5
· Dec 29, 2021
Lockheed Martin to design and develop F-35 variant for foreign customer - http://alert5.com/2021/12/29/lockheed-m ... -customer/
1:59 PM · Dec 29, 2021·Twitter Web App
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
How on Earth could that be a UK priority? Unless the UK is planning on adding a smaller catapult for UAVs and F35Bs to the QE class, how does it make any sense?NickC wrote: ↑02 Jan 2022, 15:45 Of interest tweet from Think Defence re Lockheed to design new F-35 variant for mystery customer
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/lockhee ... -customer/Understand this is for the UK, developing a catapult version of the F-35B so it can also operate with French aircraft carriers
Alert 5
@alert5
· Dec 29, 2021
Lockheed Martin to design and develop F-35 variant for foreign customer - http://alert5.com/2021/12/29/lockheed-m ... -customer/
1:59 PM · Dec 29, 2021·Twitter Web App
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
That makes zero sense, lets forget the fact there already is a catapult version of the F-35 which should be able to work on the French carrier, the F-35 is able to operate on America-class, which has no ramp so why cant the F-35B work on the French flat top with out modification!?!?
That is just cant be true, we have so many other things money needs spending on right now
That is just cant be true, we have so many other things money needs spending on right now
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Sounds like an early April Fool's Day joke or clickbait. I doubt CdeG has the deck coatings to allow an F-35B to land vertically either.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Didn't the MOD release a request last year for a smaller catapult ? ( something to do with unmanned vehicles ) seem to remember a 2023 time frame for information - or was i dreaming that ? sure their was a discussion many pages back - will have a look later to satisfy my curiosity when i have more time...
Page 513 about a smalish launch & recovery system....
Page 513 about a smalish launch & recovery system....
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
F-35B still has to point its nozzle a bit downwards still which probably causes some mischief with the catapults. Probably doesn't do the deck surface any good either as it'll get a lot more grief from a 'glancing' F-35B exhaust compared to what it usually experiences with Rafale.Jdam wrote: ↑02 Jan 2022, 19:16 That makes zero sense, lets forget the fact there already is a catapult version of the F-35 which should be able to work on the French carrier, the F-35 is able to operate on America-class, which has no ramp so why cant the F-35B work on the French flat top with out modification!?!?
Still though, sounds like a recipe to make a UK F-35B that flies slower, carries less and runs out of range quicker.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I think lockheed martin has just been given $49m and will come back & say "we have just developed a F35C-uk" but put some more stipes on it ...
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Modifying the French carrier with a section of protective coating must be far cheaper than developing this F-35B/C.Defiance wrote: ↑02 Jan 2022, 19:42F-35B still has to point its nozzle a bit downwards still which probably causes some mischief with the catapults. Probably doesn't do the deck surface any good either as it'll get a lot more grief from a 'glancing' F-35B exhaust compared to what it usually experiences with Rafale.Jdam wrote: ↑02 Jan 2022, 19:16 That makes zero sense, lets forget the fact there already is a catapult version of the F-35 which should be able to work on the French carrier, the F-35 is able to operate on America-class, which has no ramp so why cant the F-35B work on the French flat top with out modification!?!?
Still though, sounds like a recipe to make a UK F-35B that flies slower, carries less and runs out of range quicker.
Like you said its just going to be a worst of both worlds.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Doesnt take much to get the naval bods on the end of a hook it would seem.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
How about an F35C, but with STOVL capability ? (Rotatable Jet Pipe and Lift Fan) and/or an arrester hook.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
KiwiMuzz
Why on earth bother with a B/C ????
The tail hook might get in the way when vectoring the nozzle downwards, ( unless its detachable depending on the mission ? edit + just realized, they could lower it in a VL mode anyway -D'OH ) but as the C has a bigger wing that should mean more fuel than the B version + bigger bomb bays
Just bite the bullet buy 30 F35C + 4 hawkeye & convert QE to full CATOBAR, whilst leaving POW as the back-up STOVL/LPH multi-role strike carrier
To "save" money though the gov would probably go the STOBAR route - like the indians - i read on twitter today that their rafaels are going to start ski-jump tests next week?
I also read some where the C version was to heavy to land on the CdeG ?
Why on earth bother with a B/C ????
The tail hook might get in the way when vectoring the nozzle downwards, ( unless its detachable depending on the mission ? edit + just realized, they could lower it in a VL mode anyway -D'OH ) but as the C has a bigger wing that should mean more fuel than the B version + bigger bomb bays
Just bite the bullet buy 30 F35C + 4 hawkeye & convert QE to full CATOBAR, whilst leaving POW as the back-up STOVL/LPH multi-role strike carrier
To "save" money though the gov would probably go the STOBAR route - like the indians - i read on twitter today that their rafaels are going to start ski-jump tests next week?
I also read some where the C version was to heavy to land on the CdeG ?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Got to disagree with you there I will always take 2 STOVL carriers over 1 CATOBAR carrier.serge750 wrote: ↑02 Jan 2022, 22:39 Just bite the bullet buy 30 F35C + 4 hawkeye & convert QE to full CATOBAR, whilst leaving POW as the back-up STOVL/LPH multi-role strike carrier
To "save" money though the gov would probably go the STOBAR route - like the indians - i read on twitter today that their rafaels are going to start ski-jump tests next week?
I dont like STOBAR either as its seem to be the worse of both systems (heavy aircraft with no assist to launch them)
It is an interesting problem going forward, we got so much bang for our buck with QE and POW that should we ever upgrade them to CATOBAR it wouldn't be that much more to build a 3rd carrier. (This maybe a bit unrealistic with start up costs and so on) Then the question becomes what would you rather have a 3rd carier or 2 CATOBAR carrier.
For me personally we have the right choice for the UK and if we really want to invest in the carriers going forward maybe the MV-22 would be a better choice, have an AEW module, air to air refueling and we could use it for carrier on board delivery.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I like the suggestion of buying the MV22 far more than the options of either trying to get a new F35 variant which sounds the worst of both worlds or trying to retrofit CATOBAR retrospectively after the carrier construction was finished.
It is such a shame that 2008 financual crisis, amongst many other things, led to such muddled thinking from the then government over what to do with carriers.
If the MV22 can be operated from the forthcoming Multi Role Support Ships as well as the carriers, that would give us more options with deploying the Littoral Strike Groups.
It is such a shame that 2008 financual crisis, amongst many other things, led to such muddled thinking from the then government over what to do with carriers.
If the MV22 can be operated from the forthcoming Multi Role Support Ships as well as the carriers, that would give us more options with deploying the Littoral Strike Groups.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Sorry i meant keep BOTH but convert QE to CATOBAR & keep POW as a STOVL/LHP multi role carrier if they are really interested in cross decking with the french, personally im not for the idea if it takes away money just for show, but hay hoJdam wrote: ↑03 Jan 2022, 12:53Got to disagree with you there I will always take 2 STOVL carriers over 1 CATOBAR carrier.serge750 wrote: ↑02 Jan 2022, 22:39 Just bite the bullet buy 30 F35C + 4 hawkeye & convert QE to full CATOBAR, whilst leaving POW as the back-up STOVL/LPH multi-role strike carrier
To "save" money though the gov would probably go the STOBAR route - like the indians - i read on twitter today that their rafaels are going to start ski-jump tests next week?
I dont like STOBAR either as its seem to be the worse of both systems (heavy aircraft with no assist to launch them)
It is an interesting problem going forward, we got so much bang for our buck with QE and POW that should we ever upgrade them to CATOBAR it wouldn't be that much more to build a 3rd carrier. (This maybe a bit unrealistic with start up costs and so on) Then the question becomes what would you rather have a 3rd carier or 2 CATOBAR carrier.
For me personally we have the right choice for the UK and if we really want to invest in the carriers going forward maybe the MV-22 would be a better choice, have an AEW module, air to air refueling and we could use it for carrier on board delivery.
But as you say what we have now is really good, if we could get a system like the Hawkeye in either a Osprey type conversion or UCAV stol that would make the QEC even better !!!
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
tbh the idea is so batshit insane it might just be BS
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
And here was me thinking that the UK was to develop another first for the carrier world - catapult assisted take-off and no barrier landing - we could have called it CATNOBAR
.... I'll get my coat
.... I'll get my coat
- These users liked the author Caribbean for the post (total 3):
- djkeos • Jensy • Wrekin1410
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5624
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
If they really wanted to could they fit fixing points for strops like in the 50's on the Vixens and Bucc's. The French may even have a load of strops left over from the Super Ed's