Register here

Author Topic: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development  (Read 72976 times)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« on: August 09, 2010, 09:17:38 pm »
Two artist's impressions of the Royal Navy's proposed future aircraft carrier (CVF) from 1999.  These both show examples designed to operate STOVL aircraft.

Source: http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf2.htm

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2010, 09:24:08 pm »
Artist's impression of STOVL design released in 1999.

Description from Navy Matters:
Quote
The relatively large island superstructure houses the four WR21 gas turbine prime movers.  This configuration allows an exceptionally large single hanger able to accommodate all of the standard (40 aircraft) airgroup.

Sources:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf2.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/cvf-pics.htm
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 09:35:03 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2010, 09:31:03 pm »
Artist's impressions of BAE Systems STOVL CVF concept from 1999.

Sources:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf2.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/cvf-pics.htm
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 09:35:24 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2010, 09:42:22 pm »
Artist's impression of nuclear-powered CVF with CTOL run on the port side and STOVL run on the starboard side.

Source: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2010, 09:58:40 pm »
Artist's impression of a Thomson-CSF STOBAR carrier concept circa 1998.

Sources:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf2.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/cvf-pics.htm

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2010, 10:02:52 pm »
Artist's impression of BAE Systems STOVL concept circa 2000.

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/cvf-pics.htm

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2010, 10:06:35 pm »
Artist's impression of BAE Systems CTOL concept circa 2002.

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/cvf-pics.htm

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2010, 10:35:48 pm »
Artist's impression of BAE Systems concept circa 2003.

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/cvf-pics.htm
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 10:38:55 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2010, 12:22:48 pm »
Artist's impression of BAE Systems CTOL concept 2001.

Artist's impression of CTOL CVF concept, date unknown.

Sources:
http://picasaweb.google.com/dimitar.gruev/NAVY#5227709327094533714
http://picasaweb.google.com/dimitar.gruev/NAVY#5229253959719851650
« Last Edit: October 21, 2010, 12:31:19 pm by Triton »

Offline uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2010, 05:38:52 am »
This programme must rank as the biggest waste of public money in the Defence field.

The carrier debate was fought and lost comprehensively in the 60s:

The RN does not have the manpower to operate carriers in any useful quantity

The ships that the UK can afford to build and operate are too limited in capability
to justify their huge cost

The nuclear hunter killer submarines became the RN's capital ships and are a capability
that matches that of even the USN.  In comparison British carriers are too small and
too specialised.   (Yes, I know the b~~~~y Falklands, but if we lose them this time
round and the Argies capture Mount Pleasant airbase it would take the USN to get
the islands back!)

But.... if the Labour Government had to have a job creation programme they could at
least have built a carrier capable of operating Rafales or F18s.  What plonker thought it good value to
built huge ships only able to operate a plane that at the time had not even flown (1998)?

With any luck the Chancellor of the Exchequer will stick to his guns and British Aerospace will be told, unless you can put catapults on these suckers within the budget, guess what you get to keep them and try and sell them to India, Brazil or whoever and yes, British Aerospace and not the British taxpaper will pick up the bill.   

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2010, 11:08:44 am »
Sometime after 2001 they went to a two-island design.  I'm not sure if the current design includes two islands.  I have a hard time believing that two islands are not going to create more turbulence over the deck than one.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2010, 11:45:32 am »
This programme must rank as the biggest waste of public money in the Defence field.

The carrier debate was fought and lost comprehensively in the 60s:

The RN does not have the manpower to operate carriers in any useful quantity

The ships that the UK can afford to build and operate are too limited in capability
to justify their huge cost

The nuclear hunter killer submarines became the RN's capital ships and are a capability
that matches that of even the USN.  In comparison British carriers are too small and
too specialised.   (Yes, I know the b~~~~y Falklands, but if we lose them this time
round and the Argies capture Mount Pleasant airbase it would take the USN to get
the islands back!)

But.... if the Labour Government had to have a job creation programme they could at
least have built a carrier capable of operating Rafales or F18s.  What plonker thought it good value to
built huge ships only able to operate a plane that at the time had not even flown (1998)?

With any luck the Chancellor of the Exchequer will stick to his guns and British Aerospace will be told, unless you can put catapults on these suckers within the budget, guess what you get to keep them and try and sell them to India, Brazil or whoever and yes, British Aerospace and not the British taxpaper will pick up the bill.    

How useful is the Queen Elizabeth-class in a situation similar to the mid-1990s Balkans peacekeeping mission by NATO? Did they have future international peacekeeping missions in mind when they drew up plans for the CVF?

« Last Edit: October 22, 2010, 06:30:10 pm by Triton »

Offline uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2010, 02:13:17 am »
Triton

You are correct that the desire to take part in "wars of liberal interventionism"
as opposed to "defensive operations of national survival" is the prime argument
in favour of carriers (much as East of Suez was until 1967).

Leaving aside the political argument whether we as a country can afford such interventions,
we can provide other contributions to an international coalition which we are better at and
are less expensive. 

However, even if one wants aircraft carriers, why oh why could not we have grasped the
nettle and ordered two proper flat tops (a bit like the US CVV programme of the 70s) that
could operate a balanced airgroup of F18s/Rafales, E3 Hawkeyes etc. Even these ships could have also
been double roled as helicopter carriers (the US used the Nimitz for its CH53s for the Raid on Iran).

No. sadly these ships are Gordon Brown's follies. Elaborate work creation programmes. They were first mooted in 1998! Here we are 12 years later with no ships (even the first Nimitz class did not take much longer than this and the USS Enterprise certainly didnt).  British Aerospace must take much of the blame (as usual-see Nimrods, Astutes, Eurofighter-in fact pretty much every project they touch).
Again, work creation programmes are a political issue, but if its a choice between schools and hospitals or mythical weapons systems....

Surprisingly in the same timescale Italy (often held up as a corrupt and inefficient country) has quietly built a new class of light carrier, which it can use with its existing Harriers until Joint Strike Fighter (though again it will probably end up with whatever Harrier derivative the US Marines have to settle for when JSF STOVL folds).

In comparison poor old CVA 01 was a model of efficiency!

UK 75

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 838
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2010, 05:11:36 am »
No the blame lies firmly with the government and especialy the Treasurey. This project has been delayed time and again, and everytime the RN came back with the solution No.11 asked the same questions it had first time around. How many studies have essentialy been a waste of time reproducing the same conclusions as the first.

These ships ought to have been built by now.

As for the idea of 'no carriers' thats one thats proved a falsehood as the USSRs efforts show.

Offline uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2010, 03:17:57 am »
Zen

Your mention of the Russian carrier efforts helped clarify something in my mind

Both Russia and France have found it very difficult to deploy carriers.  The De Gaulle
very much illustrates the problem of trying to get a full catapult carrier into a demi litre
pot.  Russia's Kuznetzov is a hybrid, not having catapults but able to operate the significant
SU 27 fighter.  However, this ship has many limitations and would be very expensive if costed
in Western terms.  China and India are trying to commission similar ships, but also facing
design versus cost versus capability issues.

This leaves what one might call the Harrier Carrier/Sea Control Ship option.  Such ships do not
come cheap and do not provide a very great capability.  More than one such ship in service at
any time was normally beyond even the RN.  Italy will alternate Garibaldi and Cavour.

In an ideal world the UK should be able to build, equip and operate at least two Eagle size conventional carriers with a reasonable small airgroup (F18s, AEW, support helo). However,
trying to get one seems to elude us.

UK 75

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 838
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #15 on: October 30, 2010, 06:17:03 am »
CdeG is a political beast and nothing so shows this as its limited dimensions.
Due to the decision to use the same drydock as the Clemenceaus where designed for rather than the much larger facility on the otherside of the same harbour.

Couple this with inadequet funding for the third reactor and you can see how the politicians having decided to have a new carrier then utterly hampered the effort.

That said CdeG is also limited by the aircraft she is designed to carry, Rafale, without a wingfold occupies rather a bit too much space per plane.
In theory there is no reason why a carrier of 44,000tons cannot field a decent airwing of quite capable aircraft.

Kuznetsov is a hybrid indeed. Navalised Flankers are just air defence only, with a little light bombing and recce thrown in for good measure, in essence they should be seen as an extension of the AAW systems. The real offensive punch comes from large missiles on the ship, but targeting over the horizon forces the deployment of aircraft. Alas that seems the factor the airwing lacks, relying of slow and vulnerable helicopters. Though the old USSR had plans for various aircraft that would do the job, none made it.

What eludes the UK political establishment is that Defence needs more than 2% and if we factor out Afghanistan, the projected figure is less than this.
Funding staying a 2.5% would've eased lot of problems, but ramping up for Iraq and Afghanistan to 5% was necessary and not done. Coffins cost less than equipment and training.

Offline PMN1

  • Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 667
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #16 on: November 05, 2010, 05:03:20 pm »
CdeG is a political beast and nothing so shows this as its limited dimensions.
Due to the decision to use the same drydock as the Clemenceaus where designed for rather than the much larger facility on the otherside of the same harbour.

Couple this with inadequet funding for the third reactor and you can see how the politicians having decided to have a new carrier then utterly hampered the effort.

That said CdeG is also limited by the aircraft she is designed to carry, Rafale, without a wingfold occupies rather a bit too much space per plane.


Amusing story on CdeG

http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=936


Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2057
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2010, 06:39:09 am »
What a bunch of A-holes.
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 838
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2010, 10:16:07 am »
MN has had lager CVs in its sights since the Clemenceaus if not before, obviously so since PA.58. Which would not fit that drydock.

PA.2 CVN could not fit that drydock. Increased size of the design is clearly to get the most out of the ship and its aircraft.

Basic facts dictate length of angled deck and distance from the bow, which in turn dictate total length.
Beam is dictated by stability factors. Deck edge lifts impose height above the waterline and that in turn forces up beam at the waterline.
These where all present during the 1952 effort in the UK, for which the ideal 'compromise' was Forrestal sized. There, drydock limitations force a smaller CV, still larger than the Clemenceaus.

Certainly the story of an alternative catapult system seems dubious.

Nuclear fueling issues are likely related to the nature of Frances civilian nuclear power program.

Denigrating others does no one any credit.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2057
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2010, 10:54:56 am »
Sorry, over-reacted. Been nervous at what you call
Quote
Very silly typical anglo-saxon francophobe rant
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 781
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #20 on: November 07, 2010, 09:43:56 am »
Very silly typical anglo-saxon francophobe rant, full of mistakes resulting from talking secondhand of things you know nothing about (a so-called "SS France" being built pre-war!), ending with a even more silly conclusion :
"She would have been a much better, more capable ship if she'd been designed as a dead dinosaur powered STOVL carrier but that would mean the French buying Harriers."
And, of course, now that the very limited Harrier is stone-dead, the ship would be useless. Charles de Gaulle was never meant to have 3 reactors. The drydock owned by DCN is in Brest; it had to be used anyway because the ship was nuclear-powered and only DCN could handle that, security and technology-wise. The civilian facility is not "across the harbour", but in Saint-Nazaire, 290 km away, and was not and is not equipped to build ships to full naval standards, not to mention nuclear-powered ones! The reason for the drydock in Brest not being lengthened over 260m was because of a very high cost, not because of a toolshed owned by the ministry of the interior (on an naval shipyard!). The catapult story is completely invented ; US C-13-3 where chosen from the very start, and they were always planned  staggered as they are. Same goes for the arresting gear; a US equipement was chosen from square one. US carriers also had overrun problems that led to lengthened landing areas. The reason for choosing LEU fuel for the SNLE-NG and PA1 reactors was not an attempt to export them. Someone writing that exporting HEU-fueled naval propulsion reactors has ANYTHING to do with the NPT is really a moron. Rafale-M spot factor is indeed slightly lower than the F/A-18E/F one. Flight deck is the strength deck also on US carriers, ever since the Forrestals. So on and so forth.
Yes, Charles de Gaulle has had problems, and still has, but there it is, operating supersonic combat aircraft and E-2C Hawkeye, including cross-deck operations with the USN. All the rest coming from countries which have been unable to do the same since 1978 is just laughable. As far as I'm concerned, I would prefer we mix as little as possible with these people in the future.

If "Stuart" is Stuart Slade, I'm not surprised by his attitude. I've found the degree of hyperbole and spin in his comments to generally rival that in Carlo Kopp's opinions.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2012, 11:30:58 pm by PaulMM »

Offline uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #21 on: November 08, 2010, 06:52:42 am »
Despite all the criticism in the Press about the carrier decision and the announcement about
co-operation with France, it might help find us a way out of the mess the last government created.

France is looking for a further carrier to go with De Gaulle. 

Now that we are building the carrier to the sensible spec, always suggested by Thales anyway
from what I remember, France might come on board for one carrier.

Rafale M has been a good buy for France but I am sure that we can get hold of some F18s from the
US to operate our share of the carrier force.  Unless France is prepared to let us have some on the cheap.

If the planners could get this right a joint UK/French force of three carriers by the 2020s would be a worthwhile contribution to the West's defence.  Who knows even India and Brazil might join in the programme, so that by 2025 5 proper carriers might have been built.


Of course if we want to stay in the world of Monty Gordon Brown and his silly kniggits with you Arthur
King who smells of Elderberries etc.  For me, the idea of the free world getting its act together and co-operating to have some decent ships and planes gets my vote.

I am sure the French Navy would not object to the Type 45s adding to De Gaulle's screen from time
to time (after all the Viper missile is a Gallic product).  Gosh we even have the makings of a half decent task force!   No, probably not, Rupert Murdoch wouldn't approve.

UK 75

Offline H_K

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #22 on: November 08, 2010, 02:52:44 pm »
If "Stuart" is Stuart Slade, I'm not surprised by his attitude. I've found the degree of hyperbole and spin in his comments to generally rival that in Carlo Kopp's opinions.

Yes, Stuart is Stuart Slade.

That article on CdG's problems had always stunk to high-heaven, and I figured that most of the hyperbole wouldn't stand a simple fact check. However, I've always wondered about some of the seemingly well-informed comments on internal flow, weapons storage etc. Hard to find first hand sources on that, even on French forums.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2012, 10:02:29 pm by PaulMM »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #23 on: November 08, 2010, 03:16:29 pm »
Has the Federal Republic of Germany or the Deutsche Marine expressed interest in acquiring and operating an aircraft carrier or carriers? Not that Germany has had much experience with aircraft carriers, though as the world's fourth largest economy and the largest in Europe, you would presume that they could afford a CVF and an airwing.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 03:27:39 pm by Triton »

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #24 on: November 08, 2010, 03:39:10 pm »
Has the Federal Republic of Germany or the Deutsche Marine expressed interest in acquiring and operating an aircraft carrier or carriers? Not that Germany has had much experience with aircraft carriers, though as the world's fourth largest economy and the largest in Europe, you would presume that they could afford a CVF and an airwing.

I find it... impossible. Germany almost hates the military expenses and it hasn't the tradition to be the global power such as the Great Britain or France. Just take a look into the past, how many military aviation projects Germany killed in the past 20 years or compare the standard and the equipment of its Eurofighters for example with the British ones. The same shell with the drastically different capabilities. Maybe I am a bit prejudiced in this case, but I am wondering, why is the Luftwaffe still using two engines in the Eurofighter and not one, making them even cheaper than they are now. Summarized: no chance for the German aircraft carrier at all!

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #25 on: November 08, 2010, 07:57:04 pm »
The German Navy expressed the desire to have a carrier capable strike fighter squadron a few years ago as a means of retaining their fast jet capability and contributing to NATO operations. But since the Marineflieger Tornado units have been disbanded probably will never be reformed.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7871
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2010, 09:50:10 pm »
The official tasks of the German Navy are still "to protect coasts and home waters"
and "to support allies with their tasks for NATO" and the whole navy is built up along
those lines. So, even without the current political climate, it would be difficult to justify
purchase of an aircraft carrier. Abraham, I would be interested, when and especially who
voiced this desire. Haven't heard of it still yet and searching via Google just brings up the
good old "Graf Zeppelin". If it was said by an officer of the Bundeswehr, I don't think, that
it was career boosting !  ;D
The only thing, that maybe is allowed to be discussed is a helicopter carrier, especially in the
light of the mission in Somalian waters, but even here reason is just to show, tat it's not
necessary...
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #27 on: November 08, 2010, 10:44:23 pm »
Abraham, I would be interested, when and especially who
voiced this desire. Haven't heard of it still eyet and searching via Google just brings up the
good old "Graf Zeppelin". If it was said by an officer of the Bundeswehr, I don't think, that
it was career boosting !  ;D

It was an op-ed in DefenseNews in 2006/07 written by an Admiral; the immediate past German Navy or Marineflieger commander. Will look it up for you from my 'files'. There was no suggestion for a German carrier, just a MFG with a carrier capable aircraft that could operate from another NATO carrier.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 12:49:02 am by Abraham Gubler »
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Geoff_B

  • The Scratchbuilding Demigod
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #28 on: November 09, 2010, 12:15:32 am »
Here's the first views published of the CATOBAR configured QE, mixing features of the PA2 design with the existing STOVL design.

2 Catapults and 3 arrestor wires, US style deck landing markings, over hang at the stern for a round down and revised port sponson fwd with extention for the angled deck and the port fwd gun mounting positions move onto the hull form the space now taken with the angled deck extention. F-35C in place of the F-35B, but no Hawkeye, just a single Merlin helicopter (note hanger must be empty as all 12 F-35C are shown on deck which is expected to be the permanent airgroup, with capacity for a futher 24 F-35s if required).

G

Offline Anderman

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 142
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #29 on: November 09, 2010, 01:49:25 am »
The German Navy expressed the desire to have a carrier capable strike fighter squadron a few years ago as a means of retaining their fast jet capability and contributing to NATO operations. But since the Marineflieger Tornado units have been disbanded probably will never be reformed.

I can´t remember which officer that was but it was in an interview in a issue of FlugRevue.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #30 on: June 03, 2011, 12:09:30 pm »
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 07:13:00 pm by Triton »

Offline phil gollin

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 194
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #31 on: June 04, 2011, 04:19:35 am »
.

The hangar deck design of the original CVF (Queen Elizabeth) was, supposedly, based around "maintenace cells" (meant to make servicing efficientwith minimal labour) for the STOVL version of the F-35.  Is the "cat-and-trap" version enough of the same size that they will fit into the same "cells" ?

.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7959
  • The path not taken.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #32 on: June 04, 2011, 04:41:46 am »
.

The hangar deck design of the original CVF (Queen Elizabeth) was, supposedly, based around "maintenace cells" (meant to make servicing efficientwith minimal labour) for the STOVL version of the F-35.  Is the "cat-and-trap" version enough of the same size that they will fit into the same "cells" ?

.

Good question.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Geoff_B

  • The Scratchbuilding Demigod
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #33 on: June 04, 2011, 07:19:43 am »
.

The hangar deck design of the original CVF (Queen Elizabeth) was, supposedly, based around "maintenace cells" (meant to make servicing efficientwith minimal labour) for the STOVL version of the F-35.  Is the "cat-and-trap" version enough of the same size that they will fit into the same "cells" ?

.
[/quote

That depends on what is referred to as original CVF, the artwork shown by Triton is the original Thales/BAE design selected of 300m with the larger hanger and capacity for 50 rather the 40 aircraft of the revised 280m Delta design that was orderd. In terms of hanger deck layout i dont think there is much difference between the F-35B and the F-35C as it has folding wing tips so may even have a slightly smaller footprint when folded. As for servicing alot will depend on how reliable and robust the F-35 system are at sea and how accessible they are, but that won't be known till the F-35C undergoes proper sea trials later in the decade.


Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7959
  • The path not taken.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #34 on: June 04, 2011, 07:24:53 am »
.....but that won't be known till the F-35C undergoes proper sea trials later in the decade.

If it gets that far, the way things are going.  :(
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #35 on: November 29, 2011, 04:56:57 pm »
Thales CVF model on display at Euronaval 2004.

Source:
http://bluey.gemnetworks.com/pictures/
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 06:35:59 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #36 on: November 29, 2011, 05:07:27 pm »
Artist's impressions of Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier in original STOVL configuration.

Source:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?163878-Queen-Elizabeth-Class-Aircraft-Carriers-News-and-Discussion/page2
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 07:00:03 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #37 on: November 29, 2011, 05:14:21 pm »
Artist's impressions of Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier in original STOVL configuration.

Source:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?163878-Queen-Elizabeth-Class-Aircraft-Carriers-News-and-Discussion/page2
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 07:00:17 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #38 on: November 29, 2011, 05:17:33 pm »
Artist's impressions of Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier in original STOVL configuration.

Source:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?163878-Queen-Elizabeth-Class-Aircraft-Carriers-News-and-Discussion/page5
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 07:00:40 pm by Triton »


Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #40 on: November 29, 2011, 07:08:27 pm »
Artist's impressions of Thales CVF concepts circa 2003.

« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 07:12:34 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #42 on: October 22, 2012, 04:52:22 pm »


« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 05:00:01 pm by DonaldM »

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1034
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #43 on: December 08, 2012, 02:36:45 am »
Here are a series of CVF configuration studies published in, 'Warship '97 International Symposium: Air Power at Sea'.
An interesting set of proposals across a range of sizes and a change from the flashy 3-D models mainly used to promote these designs.
 






 

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #44 on: December 08, 2012, 05:14:03 am »
Here are a series of CVF configuration studies published in, 'Warship '97 International Symposium: Air Power at Sea'.
An interesting set of proposals across a range of sizes and a change from the flashy 3-D models mainly used to promote these designs.

Great pictures, and on the other threads. Thanks for uploading.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline hole in the ground

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 238
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #45 on: December 08, 2012, 09:26:25 am »
26 STOBAR navalised Typhoon air wing?
fig. 24 ??? air wing?


edit:
also, figure 25 why have so many lifts? and why are they all so small?
« Last Edit: December 08, 2012, 09:29:46 am by hole in the ground »

Offline CliffyB

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #46 on: December 08, 2012, 02:26:09 pm »
Thank you very much for posting those sir and especially at such a high resolution!!! 

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7871
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #47 on: December 10, 2012, 03:18:59 am »

edit:
also, figure 25 why have so many lifts? and why are they all so small?

large enough to accomodate a F-18 with the wings folded . And two for bringing a/c down into the hangar
and two for bringing them up, with the weaposns lifts nearby ?
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline royabulgaf

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 385
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #48 on: December 10, 2012, 02:36:36 pm »
As I understand it currently, Britain has decided to go with the STOVL F-35B to eliminate the catapault on the QE and save some money.   I understand the PoW will however, have the CTOL F-35C and a catapault?  This seems so shortsighted, as this prevents cross-use with the French Navy, which really wanted that.  BTW, I'll believe the PoW will be built when I see it.

Offline Geoff_B

  • The Scratchbuilding Demigod
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #49 on: December 10, 2012, 03:11:11 pm »
As I understand it currently, Britain has decided to go with the STOVL F-35B to eliminate the catapault on the QE and save some money.   I understand the PoW will however, have the CTOL F-35C and a catapault?  This seems so shortsighted, as this prevents cross-use with the French Navy, which really wanted that.  BTW, I'll believe the PoW will be built when I see it.

The outlay to revise the design in build, procure the hardware and revise the contract was too much for the budget to bare at this time so the F-35 JCA selection reverted back to the F-35B and the QEC class will be completed as desigined in STOVL format. The UK are not getting F-35C and PoW is not being built in CTOL configuration.  The selling point being that both carriers will be completed and the 2nd carrier will be confirmed as entereing service under the next SDSR in 2015 so that 1 QEC will always be available.

PoW is already in build and following close behind QE, blocks should start to arrive at Rosyth next year with final assembly starting in 2014 once QE has been floated out.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #50 on: December 10, 2012, 03:48:08 pm »
large enough to accomodate a F-18 with the wings folded . And two for bringing a/c down into the hangar
and two for bringing them up, with the weaposns lifts nearby ?

These are deck edge elevators and pretty impossible to get an aircraft in sideways like that. Well not impossible but try 10 point turn. However the outside edge of the elevator is open so the aircraft can overhang up until the location of the landing gear. These elevators on USN carriers are sized to carry two strike fighters side by side.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7871
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #51 on: December 10, 2012, 11:48:32 pm »
Well, I just tried to show, that the lift isn't really too small.
Interesting to me, that there's again an "Alaskan Highway".
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline RLBH

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #52 on: December 28, 2012, 07:14:22 am »
These are deck edge elevators and pretty impossible to get an aircraft in sideways like that. Well not impossible but try 10 point turn.
Whether or not it's how the USN operates, the RN used to operate its' conventional carriers that way: aircraft were always aligned fore-and-aft below decks and on the elevators. It's quite possible that those associated with this study had experience with this method, and decided to carry it over.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7871
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #53 on: December 28, 2012, 01:17:10 pm »
Am I wrong, or was HMS Hermes the only RN carrier, which actually had a deck-edge lift ?

It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline CliffyB

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #54 on: December 28, 2012, 01:26:49 pm »
HMS Ark Royal (R07) and Eagle (R05) had deck edge lifts in their initial fits but they had them removed later in life.  CVA.01 and the Maltas would have had deck edge lifts and a few of the very early Invincible-class designs had deck edge lifts on their sterns but that's about it.  The Brits always seem to prefer centerline lifts.

Offline pf matthews

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #55 on: December 28, 2012, 02:55:56 pm »
Eagle (R05) was never fitted with a deck edge lift. When completed she was fairly close to the intended design as modified during WW2.
Ark Royal's deck edge lift only served the upper hangar, it was also quite small, was deemed to be not a success and as a result was removed.

Seek and you shall find.....
Pete

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #56 on: December 28, 2012, 03:36:02 pm »
Whether or not it's how the USN operates, the RN used to operate its' conventional carriers that way: aircraft were always aligned fore-and-aft below decks and on the elevators. It's quite possible that those associated with this study had experience with this method, and decided to carry it over.

I've never seen aircraft fore and aft on USN deck edge elevators. I would also suggest that no one else has. Aircraft are fore and aft in the hangars sure but that's what allows for the easy 90 degree turn onto and off the elevator. Further there is nothing in this study that suggests fore and aft spotting on deck edge elevators.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline RLBH

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #57 on: December 28, 2012, 03:53:36 pm »
Further there is nothing in this study that suggests fore and aft spotting on deck edge elevators.
There's nothing in the few drawings we've seen to suggest one way or the other.

The RN did plan for fore-and-aft spotting on the deck-edge aircraft lifts (look at the drawings - the after starboard lift is far too narrow for athwartships spotting) on CVA-01, so I don't think it can be ruled out. It would be completely impractical, I agree, but it's just plausible enough that it can't be rejected off-hand. For my money, the elevators shown are a little undersized for athwartships spotting, but fore-and-aft is silly, so I suspect that the former was planned and there's a scale discrepancy in the drawing somewhere.

Offline CliffyB

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #58 on: December 28, 2012, 04:29:04 pm »
Eagle (R05) was never fitted with a deck edge lift. When completed she was fairly close to the intended design as modified during WW2.
Ark Royal's deck edge lift only served the upper hangar, it was also quite small, was deemed to be not a success and as a result was removed.

Oh, cool!  Never new that bit about either of them.  Now that you mention it, they aren't resurrecting the double hanger for any of the new ships are they?  Haven't seen anything to know one way or the other.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7959
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7959
  • The path not taken.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #60 on: May 30, 2013, 03:45:59 am »
Quote
Two 1:44 scale models – the 37,000-tonne 200m-long (659ft) tanker has been reduced to 4.5m (15ft) in length, while the 65,000-tonne HMS Queen Elizabeth has been shrunk from 284m (931ft) in length to 6.45m (21ft) – were built and taken to the enormous ‘ocean basin’ test tank, owned by defence research firm QinetiQ.
(Video: Royal Navy)


The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7959
  • The path not taken.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #61 on: September 02, 2013, 04:25:51 am »
Via the UK Armed Forces Commentary blog:


Concept Art showing the hangar of the CVF carriers


Model trials of MARS Fleet Tanker and QE-class carrier, showing the RAS Masts and the two receiving bays on the carrier.


This graphic, once released by the MOD as part of the bidding call for MARS FT, has been preserved by http://navy-matters.beedall.com/. The small arrows indicate the RAS stations. On CVF we can see the two fuel-receiving stations on port side. Two arrows clearly indicate the aircraft lifts openings as well, for H-RAS, while a fifth arrow signals another fuel receiving station.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 04:45:33 am by Grey Havoc »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #62 on: December 15, 2013, 10:33:45 pm »
An early concept design from the UK Defence Procurement Agency of a CVF configured to operate STOVL aircraft.

Quote
By placing the island structure in the middle of the ship, there is the possibility of two runways. Of course, only one aircraft could be launched at the same time, but it would permit a staggered-start and thus a faster launch time. Since it is a STOVL carrier there is no real risk that the aircraft would hit the island structure since they land vertically. All the storing of aircraft is at the stern of the ship but having two runways limits the number of aircraft that can be stored on deck.

Source:
http://www.gillespie.ndo.co.uk/Navy/Future/stovlpic.htm
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 10:40:06 pm by Triton »

Offline Mr London 24/7

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 356

Offline shedofdread

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 391
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #64 on: May 19, 2014, 03:41:56 am »
 
Quote

   In 50 days time, on July 4, Her Majesty the Queen will formally name the U.K.’s newest aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth and of course, bless all those who sail in her. 

http://aviationweek.com/blog/50-days-go-hms-queen-elizabeth?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20140519_AW-05_797&YM_RID='email'&YM_MID='mmid'&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_6

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #65 on: May 20, 2014, 05:03:58 am »
"I christen this ship... the HMS Me. God bless her and all who sail in her."  ;D

Offline J.A.W.

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
  • "Keep on Truckin'.."
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #66 on: May 23, 2014, 02:53:33 am »
So is she Queen Elizabeth II.? Or Q.E. - no number?
"I choose to believe - what I am programmed to believe.."

Offline Geoff_B

  • The Scratchbuilding Demigod
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #67 on: May 23, 2014, 04:05:51 am »
HMS Queen Elizabeth, its named in honour not after her Majesty

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #68 on: May 23, 2014, 12:25:25 pm »
HMS Queen Elizabeth, its named in honour not after her Majesty

I don't understand what that means.

But what I also don't understand is why they didn't name her after another famous carrier. The RN has a lot of them. Why not preserve that tradition?

Offline J.A.W.

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
  • "Keep on Truckin'.."
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #69 on: May 23, 2014, 02:55:32 pm »
Indeed, 'Ark Royal'- could've combined both factors, whereas Q.E. & P.o.W. were both battleship names.

& other warships have been named for specific royal persons.. including K.G.V...

"I choose to believe - what I am programmed to believe.."

Offline JohnR

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 353
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #70 on: May 23, 2014, 05:22:06 pm »
So is she Queen Elizabeth II.? Or Q.E. - no number?
I agree she could quite reasonably be called Queen Elizabeth II - there was a King George V in WWI & WWII.
 
As I hazily recall there is a convention regarding the first large warship of a Monarch's reign being named after them, why this didn't apply to the Invincibles (at the time the largest planned surface warship) or the either boomer classes (the most powerful warships) I don't know.
 

Regards
« Last Edit: May 23, 2014, 05:33:10 pm by JohnR »

Offline RP1

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 440
  • I see the truth in it.
    • RP1 dot net
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #71 on: May 23, 2014, 11:51:55 pm »
Quote
But what I also don't understand is why they didn't name her after another famous carrier. The RN has a lot of them. Why not preserve that tradition?


Political survivability. A comment sometimes circulated is that one of the reasons CVA-01 was cancelled was that they had not been officially named. A ship with a name is more of a "real thing". Some have suggested that further to this, naming them after Royals was a masterstroke, in that it makes them politically very difficult to cancel.


RP1
"Just your standard-issue big gun."
- Batou, Ghost in the Shell

http://rp-one.net/

Offline J.A.W.

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
  • "Keep on Truckin'.."
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #72 on: May 24, 2014, 01:43:55 am »
Yeah right, & look what happened to the liner Queen Elizabeth, scuttled in Hong Kong..

Isn't the  into service/for sale question - still up for grabs anyhow?
"I choose to believe - what I am programmed to believe.."

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2818
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #73 on: May 24, 2014, 04:01:27 am »
The liner was SS Queen Elizabeth 2.  There is a great deal of confusion whether she is named after the previous Cunard liner Queen Elizabeth or after the current monarch.  Her successor is just MS Queen Elizabeth, if that means anything.

As to the carriers, they're nominally named after the battleships of the same names, though neither HMS Queen Elizabeth nor HMS Prince of Wales had remarkable records.  (PoW is famous, of course, but mainly because she came to such a bad end.)

Offline JohnR

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 353
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #74 on: May 24, 2014, 04:39:42 pm »
Yeah right, & look what happened to the liner Queen Elizabeth, scuttled in Hong Kong..

Isn't the  into service/for sale question - still up for grabs anyhow?

Q.E. wasn't scuttled in Hong Kong - after being with drawn from service she was sold to American interest to be first used as a floating hotel: a la Queen Mary, in Philadelphia - sufficient backing could not be raised for this.  She was then moved to Fort Lauderdale where again sufficient backing could not be found; she was actually scuttled there due to an approaching Hurricane, she was then raised and sold to the Hong Kong shipping magnate CY Tung.  She was refitted in Hong Kong as large scale floating education facility and named C Y University. As the refit was ending a number of fires were started onboard; generally believed to be caused by arson, the volume of water used in the attempt to put the fires out caused the ship to become top heavy and capsize (echo's of the Normandie).  She was declared a constructive loss and scrapped in situ over the next three decades.
Regards

Offline J.A.W.

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
  • "Keep on Truckin'.."
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #75 on: May 24, 2014, 04:50:08 pm »
Scuttled in H.K. - due to 'dubious' financial doings, or so the story goes..

& included in a `70s James Bond movie as a secret service hideaway too, 'The Man with the Golden Gun'..
"I choose to believe - what I am programmed to believe.."

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2514
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #76 on: May 24, 2014, 04:55:34 pm »
Scuttled in H.K. - due to 'dubious' financial doings, or so the story goes..



Did you even bother to read the previous post?

Offline J.A.W.

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
  • "Keep on Truckin'.."
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #77 on: May 24, 2014, 05:42:42 pm »
Scuttled in H.K. - due to 'dubious' financial doings, or so the story goes..



Did you even bother to read the previous post?

Well, since it was a comment on it, yes, maybe I ought to have included it as a quote.. ..a new page thing..

But look back at posts #69/70, on this thread, - if you want to put your comment there too?
"I choose to believe - what I am programmed to believe.."

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2514
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #78 on: May 24, 2014, 07:11:51 pm »
 :o   As JohnR's post makes quite clear there was no scuttling.

Offline J.A.W.

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
  • "Keep on Truckin'.."
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #79 on: May 24, 2014, 07:30:19 pm »
:o   As JohnR's post makes quite clear there was no scuttling.

Doubtless plenty of crustaceans were scuttling about the poor old former Q.E...
& as for the scuttlebutt re scuttling, that's what I heard - opinions may differ, but what did Lloyds reckon?

No further digressions from thread topic by me, though.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2014, 07:34:25 pm by J.A.W. »
"I choose to believe - what I am programmed to believe.."

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #80 on: June 06, 2014, 01:54:47 pm »
I wonder if R09 will be renamed HMS King George VII for the reign of Prince Charles?

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2818
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #81 on: June 06, 2014, 08:49:25 pm »
I wonder if R09 will be renamed HMS King George VII for the reign of Prince Charles?

Why should it be?  It's not really named after Charles but after the previous ships of the same name. 

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #82 on: June 06, 2014, 09:26:08 pm »
I wonder if R09 will be renamed HMS King George VII for the reign of Prince Charles?

Why should it be?  It's not really named after Charles but after the previous ships of the same name.

I stand corrected. I thought they were named for the current monarch and the heir apparent.

Quote
HMS Queen Elizabeth

There have been more than twenty ships named Elizabeth, the list of Battle Honours for which extends from the Armada in 1588 to Guadeloupe in 1810. However, only one ship by the name HMS Queen Elizabeth has served with the Royal Navy – as the lead ship of an important and innovative class of battleships which served with great distinction in both World Wars.

With 15 inch guns as her principal armament, the first HMS Queen Elizabeth was a 33,000 ton battleship. Built in Portsmouth, she was launched in 1913 and was completed the following year. Her service history during the World Wars included the surrender of the German High Seas Fleet during World War I. Despite damage from torpedoes during World War II, she went on to take part in operations in the Indian Ocean before returning home.

HMS Prince of Wales

The Royal Navy's first ship named HMS Prince of Wales was originally a French privateer, commissioned on behalf of the ex-King James, then taken as prize by HMS York in 1693 and brought into service as a Sixth Rate ship, armed with 14 guns.

There have been a further seven Royal Navy ships called Prince of Wales. The most recent a 'King George V' Class battleship, built by Cammell Laird in 1939. The service history of this ship included the Battle of the Denmark Straight during which the German battle ship, The Bismarck, was destroyed.

In 1941 HMS Prince of Wales transported Prime Minister Winston Churchill to Newfoundland where he met with the then President of the United States, Franklin D Roosevelt, to agree the Atlantic Charter.

Source:
http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/the-ships/the-queen-elizabeth-class.aspx

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #83 on: June 06, 2014, 09:41:03 pm »
Quote
The service history of this ship included the Battle of the Denmark Straight during which the German battle ship, The Bismarck, was destroyed.

Who the hell had the nerve to write that? That's terrible.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline J.A.W.

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
  • "Keep on Truckin'.."
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #84 on: June 06, 2014, 10:12:23 pm »
Agreed, that is a shocker.. HMS Hood was the capital ship not to survive that particular encounter..

& HMS Prince of Wales was, sadly - (& again in company with another WW1 era B-C, HMS Repulse)
 like-wise carelessly lost proving that even modern battleships at sea could not in fact defend themselves against
 determinedly proficient air attack..
"I choose to believe - what I am programmed to believe.."

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2435
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #85 on: July 17, 2014, 05:25:45 am »
Upppps .. she already has wet feet !!   :o ... and nobody told us ???  :-\

http://bbs.dsjunshi.com/forum.php?mod=viewtree&tid=763361&extra=page%3D1

Deino
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline CJGibson

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1105
  • GSATH is coming
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #86 on: July 17, 2014, 06:36:06 am »
Quote
The service history of this ship included the Battle of the Denmark Straight during which the German battle ship, The Bismarck, was destroyed.

Who the hell had the nerve to write that? That's terrible.

the same bloke who called that radar "Broomstick".


Chris

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7871
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #87 on: July 17, 2014, 09:00:06 am »
As there's no author mentioned, I would just use the "contact us" button. Maybe it's better,
if a Britsh citizen does this, because what the hell has a foreigner to care about British history ?
And to be fair, at least as a result of the battle in the Denmark straight, the hunt on the Bismarck
was started with greater efforts and finally Bismarck was sunk ... just about 1000 + seamiles
further south ? And who knows, what the author is doing, when not writing such stuff for
BAe Systems and Thales UK ... ;)
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2435
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #88 on: July 17, 2014, 10:42:22 pm »
 ;) ;) ;)
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline Mat Parry

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 401
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #89 on: July 18, 2014, 02:05:56 pm »
Looking at Deino's pictures this came to mind



I'm referring to the ship of course,
« Last Edit: July 18, 2014, 02:22:51 pm by Mat Parry »

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3137
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #90 on: July 18, 2014, 03:27:25 pm »
Unfortunately....use/uselessness is subjective. I can think of at least one agenda for which is it perfectly useful.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10932
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #91 on: July 18, 2014, 05:49:18 pm »
Unfortunately....use/uselessness is subjective. I can think of at least one agenda for which is it perfectly useful.

"War" comes to mind.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #92 on: July 21, 2014, 03:08:38 pm »
the same bloke who called that radar "Broomstick".

And he/she also wrote that the 4.5" gun was to be called the 114mm gun after metricisation even though the actual calibre is 4.45" making it a 113mm gun.
 
PS Back on topic: congratulations to the Brits for getting a very nice carrier in the water! Can't wait until she visits downunder.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7959
  • The path not taken.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #93 on: September 05, 2014, 12:27:20 pm »
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/11078025/Britains-largest-warship-nears-completion.html

Quote
The second of the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers will go into service with the Royal Navy, ending fears the 65,000 ton vessel would be mothballed or even sold as soon as it was completed to save money.

Prime Minister David Cameron announced at the NATO summit in Wales that the vessel – to be named HMS Prince of Wales – currently being constructed in Rosyth, Scotland, would join Britain’s fleet.

Hollow words, methinks.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Online Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 606
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #94 on: September 06, 2014, 02:59:49 am »

the same bloke who called that radar "Broomstick".


It does have a shared heritage with the original Broomstick (Britification of a Signaal/Thales NL radar), so the nickname woudn't be totally inappropriate  ;D

Offline CJGibson

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1105
  • GSATH is coming
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #95 on: September 06, 2014, 04:19:05 pm »
Aye, perhaps, but you might want to read the entire story in "Rebuilding the Royal Navy" which I was paraphrasing.

As an aside, I found a brand spanking new paperback copy of Brown and Moore's "Rebuilding the Royal Navy" in Waterstones in Aberdeen the other day. Nice to see it's been re-issued as a paperback, for twenty quid.

Chris

Offline shedofdread

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 391
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #96 on: September 10, 2014, 01:10:58 pm »
It would appear the second Queen Elizabeth class carrier will enter service after all...
 
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk39s-second-aircraft-carrier-will-enter-service-403407/?cmpid=NLC|FGFG|FGFDN-2014-0910-GLOBnews&sfid=70120000000taAm
 
Quote

UK Prime Minister David Cameron has announced the Ministry of Defence will bring its second aircraft carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, into service – a reversal of a decision made in 2010.
In the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) released in 2010 the government said it would mothball the second carrier, but this decision has been reversed in an effort to “project power globally”, Cameron said at the 2014 NATO summit in Newport, Wales.
A decision on the future of the second carrier was previously not expected until the next SDSR – expected around May 2015 – was released.
“The second carrier will be brought into service to ensure that we always have one carrier available 100% of the time,” Cameron says.
 Cameron says the UK needs to be “able to protect and project” – a capability the carrier will provide.
The first vessel, HMSQueen Elizabeth, was officially named in July at Rosyth dockyard near Edinburgh, Scotland.
The UK will operate its future fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighters and AgustaWestland Merlin HM2 helicopters from the carrier, which can carry some 40 aircraft.
The British Army’s Boeing/AgustaWestland Apache AH1 attack helicopter, the Royal Air Force’s Boeing CH-47 Chinook and the Royal Navy’s Merlin HC4 amphibious support helicopters are also expected to be operated from the vessels.

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3137
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #97 on: September 10, 2014, 01:19:06 pm »
Not really news, it has been pretty clear for some time that both ships would be operated in order to keep one flat deck available at any time as the RN has been doing since 2010.

Offline shedofdread

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 391
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #98 on: September 10, 2014, 03:46:53 pm »
Not really news, it has been pretty clear for some time that both ships would be operated in order to keep one flat deck available at any time as the RN has been doing since 2010.

Indeed, but it's good to have it confirmed  ;)

Offline Geoff_B

  • The Scratchbuilding Demigod
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #99 on: September 10, 2014, 10:48:16 pm »
Not really news, it has been pretty clear for some time that both ships would be operated in order to keep one flat deck available at any time as the RN has been doing since 2010.

Not really, they have implied they would like both carriers operational, but as it would breach the 2010 SDSR they had postponned the decision till the next SDSR in 2015. The NATO conference in this time of crisis gave them an ideal excuse to resolve the issue before the SDSR, and knocking off a potential election issue next year.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2014, 12:09:37 am by Geoff_B »

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3137
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #100 on: September 11, 2014, 03:12:39 am »
Yes, really. It only required a cursory glance at current RN flat-top operating patterns to work out that this was the way things were going, especially after the removal of the CTOL conversion cost issue. There is no such thing as "breaching" the 2010 SDSR, it is not a fixed immovable legal document but a brochure whose outputs can be changed on a whim.

Offline CJGibson

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1105
  • GSATH is coming
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #101 on: September 18, 2014, 12:01:41 am »
Nowt to add to the discussion, just a snap I took with my phone from the Forth Bridge on my way to Aberdeen.

The Queen Elizabeth has been moved to the outer basin and can be seen clearly from both bridges by taxpayers .

Chris

Offline Geoff_B

  • The Scratchbuilding Demigod
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #102 on: September 18, 2014, 01:04:55 am »
The first three lower blocks that form the first half of HMS Prince of Wales are now in position in the dry dock, so final assembly has begun. The remaining upper hull sections for CB02 are due up from Birkenhead at the start of next month, so we should see the PWLS start to take shape before the end of the year, the next major section is due up next spring, so we may see the 2nd hull assembled by the end of 2015 !

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7959
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1532
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #104 on: July 12, 2016, 10:00:42 am »

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7959
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline SteveO

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 352
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #106 on: October 03, 2016, 02:19:02 pm »
Interesting related article here -

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/f-35-and-carrier-enabled-power.html

I wonder if we will soon be able to fit all of the UK's operational frontline combat aircraft into one carrier  ::)

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #107 on: October 11, 2016, 09:24:02 am »

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3137
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #108 on: February 16, 2017, 12:06:47 am »
Original Thales/BMT CVF Alpha design, note the podded propulsion, 4 x MT30 gas turbines and what appears to be SAMPSON on the aft island. This version was apparently 292m long as opposed to the 280m long of the final design.

CVF as built was the Delta design, more or less a halfway point between the very capable/expensive Alpha design and the much less capable/cheaper Beta and Charlie designs. 

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7959
  • The path not taken.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #109 on: March 16, 2017, 10:09:53 am »
Warship's launch is delayed amid fears over rising costs (The Times, registration may be required.)

Quote
The launch of Britain’s new aircraft carrier has been delayed by three months because of technical problems that have yet to be fixed.

The multibillion-pound programme to have HMS Queen Elizabeth and a squadron of F-35 jets operating at sea by 2021 is also under threat, the National Audit Office (NAO) says in a report being published today. A second carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, is due to be operational by 2026.

The government’s spending watchdog says that the overall cost of the two ships — £6.2 billion, almost double the original estimate — could rise by up to £124 million.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #110 on: March 19, 2017, 09:55:19 pm »
CVF as built was the Delta design, more or less a halfway point between the very capable/expensive Alpha design and the much less capable/cheaper Beta and Charlie designs.

External pods? Very noisy and very vulnerable. AFAIK there are no MILSPEC azimuthal (or fixed) thruster pods available or likely to be.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2818
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #111 on: March 20, 2017, 02:05:18 am »
CVF as built was the Delta design, more or less a halfway point between the very capable/expensive Alpha design and the much less capable/cheaper Beta and Charlie designs.

External pods? Very noisy and very vulnerable. AFAIK there are no MILSPEC azimuthal (or fixed) thruster pods available or likely to be.

There are podded systems in some amphibious ships (the French Mistake and the Australian Canberra). But yes, it's pretty unproven technology with a bunch of potential issues like shock sensitivity and noise transmission.  That said,pods were incredibly popular for a while, until they started to get operation experience with pods in large cruise ships.  They became a lot less popular in  military concepts as the reliability issues started.   

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #112 on: March 20, 2017, 04:53:25 pm »
The Spanish Juan Carlos LHD (aka Canberra) is military to the waterline and then civil to the keel. Both it and the Mistral designs are built to commercial standards and the avipods are COTS. Neither ship meets basic MILSPEC for noise or survivability.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Volkodav

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #113 on: March 25, 2017, 02:05:18 am »
The Spanish Juan Carlos LHD (aka Canberra) is military to the waterline and then civil to the keel. Both it and the Mistral designs are built to commercial standards and the avipods are COTS. Neither ship meets basic MILSPEC for noise or survivability.

Interestingly rumour has it Canberra had to curtail Tiger certification trials and return to port after a major engineering casualty, indicating the RAN is not doing too well with their COTS toys to date.  Just because something is cheaper upfront doesn't necessarily mean it will be cheaper through life, especially if it keeps breaking and/or wears out quicker.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #114 on: June 20, 2017, 04:39:48 pm »
We'll find out soon if this June 5 prediction was accurate.

"Coinciding with the tides and the booking of various tugs, it’s estimated that HMS Queen Elizabeth will sail between the 21st and 24th of this month."
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-queen-elizabeth-sail-trials-later-month-date-revealed/

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 543
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #115 on: June 24, 2017, 03:19:50 am »
Does anyone have access to a relativistic study of the abilities of the Crowsnest radar system to be fitted to the Merlin MK 2 helicopters?  I would have thought a better solution would have been a fixed wing carrier but that would have been canned when the government decided they would be moronic about the whole proper carrier role.

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1034
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #116 on: June 24, 2017, 06:42:39 am »
I can't say for certain on performance, but a few nations have helicopter-based AEW systems aboard their carriers. The competing Lockheed system with the Elta EL/M 2052 AESA radar would have been better but the main point was to achieve AEW at the lowest cost (perhaps the most consistent theme in land and sea-based British AEW programmes) and the existing Thales Cerebus is still very good. It was thought far cheaper to just take the kits out of the Sea Kings and put them into Merlins. The Crowsnest system should be better than the previous Sea King ASaC.7 with some processing improvements and the operators might suffer less from noise and vibration fatigue.

FOAEW's baseline was a Merlin conversion with existing Cerebus kits, the other competitors were the E-2, V-22 and Aerostat. The succeeding MASC was also a Merlin vs V-22 duel but still not ruling out a fixed-wing solution, but when MASC became Crowsnest in 2010 the fixed-wing option disappeared. It's clear that since the CTOL carrier was never a popular choice or a cost-effective conversion possibility, it realistically ruled out any fixed-wing type and since 2001 a Merlin conversion has always been the frontrunner.

I think the main gripe wasn't the selection of using existing kit, but rather that the ten HMA.1s in storage hadn't been converted instead to avoid reducing the anti-submarine Merlin fleet.

Even had the CTOL carrier gone ahead and a quartet of E-2C Hawkeye 200 or Ds been ordered, at around $180 million each and with all the non-standard logistical items it would have worked out very expensive. Also where do you get your twin-engine pilots from unless your using RAF crews? Only operating one carrier at a time in rotation removed the justification for the MOD and Treasury to spend large amounts when they can use as much existing kit as possible to reduce the equipment costs. There is persistent background noise about perhaps buying Ospreys for the carriers for COD etc., but I think that too is highly unlikely unless the RAF finds a need for some and a future Osprey AEW conversion is unlikely given the expense of the Crowsnest conversions and their relatively new status. I think the days of the Navy operating bespoke aircraft the RAF don't have are long gone.

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2132
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #117 on: June 24, 2017, 10:06:14 am »
Thales Cerebus Cerberus

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2514
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #118 on: June 24, 2017, 11:57:54 am »
The aardvark??

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7959
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #120 on: June 26, 2017, 11:47:47 am »
Apparently waiting till around midnight before passing under the Forth bridges but already out of the dockyard basin.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-queen-elizabeth-heads-sea-trials/

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #121 on: June 26, 2017, 12:33:20 pm »
Finally some videos showing up.  The 2nd one indicates they may not be waiting till midnight to pass under the bridges.



Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7959
  • The path not taken.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 01:39:57 am by Grey Havoc »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline mrmalaya

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 322
  • Consider it done.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #123 on: June 27, 2017, 03:54:48 am »
What a state our country is in. Something this spectacular and worthy of a teensy, tiny, little bit of pride actually occurs, and there are people who are paid to write that junk.

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 543
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #124 on: June 27, 2017, 09:20:15 am »
"Can warship computers get hacked?

Computers don’t get hacked from nowhere",

Say's it all really, such poor use of the English language from a so called professional user of the language.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2057
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #125 on: June 27, 2017, 11:44:02 am »
Quite an impressive ship, it is a crying shame such big thing can't have freakkin' catapults, really.
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #126 on: June 29, 2017, 10:40:59 am »
Couple of new pics.


Offline _Del_

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 307
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #127 on: July 01, 2017, 11:03:40 am »
I'm sure this has been discussed at length somewhere,  but what drove the decision toward twin islands? Visibility fore and aft?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10932
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #128 on: July 01, 2017, 11:35:25 am »
I'm sure this has been discussed at length somewhere,  but what drove the decision toward twin islands? Visibility fore and aft?

Never understood that one either.  It's not as though US carriers have a problem tying up to the pier.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Geoff_B

  • The Scratchbuilding Demigod
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #129 on: July 01, 2017, 12:43:07 pm »
It was to separate the Gas turbines, They would either have a long island like Invincible which would put the deck lifts fore and aft of the island as per the New Indian Carrier and would may the Island and the propulsion below it a single core target. Gas turbines need fuel and lots of air and lots of exhaust capacity which results in large funnels. The separate islands Thales came up with each have the gas turbine below in the sponson the drive train is actually electrical and buried in the ship so there is no bulk trunking restricting the hanger space. The separate islands offer a split target and some system redundancy so either can run the ship if the other  and its turbine are damaged. It also acts as protection for each deck lift as Stovl carriers are expected to work in rougher waters than a CATOBAR carrier would like.

Offline _Del_

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 307
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #130 on: July 01, 2017, 07:58:20 pm »
Interesting. I hadn't paid much attention. I didn't know they had gone to an electrical drive.

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2058
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #131 on: July 02, 2017, 08:10:03 am »
Quote
Another milestone reached.

1st aircraft landed on @HMSQnlz today. Merlin Mk2 of 820 NAS had the honour

#QNLZatSea

via @VAdmJWoodcock https://t.co/zmKE8WrOxT
Twitter with a picture: https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/881128007657816065
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline CJGibson

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1105
  • GSATH is coming
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #132 on: July 03, 2017, 10:06:11 am »
On my way south from Aberdeen today, I was surprised to see  the QE sitting in the Firth among the tankers and idle semi-subs. Unfortunately I only had my phone with me. I've been watching it take shape as I traveled back and forth to Aberdeen, so it's nice to see it at sea at last. Oddly enough there was a Merlin HC.4 at Aberdeen Airport when I came in.

Chris

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #133 on: August 09, 2017, 04:27:24 am »
Not sure if this is photoshopped.


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2818

Offline Geoff_B

  • The Scratchbuilding Demigod
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #135 on: August 09, 2017, 01:13:26 pm »
Yeap it was pretty evident it would happen when CVN-77 docked in the Solent ahead of NATO exercises off Scotland, where the HMS Queen Elizabeth is on contractors sea trials, it was always going to be an ideal phot opportunity for both Navies

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #136 on: August 16, 2017, 02:08:41 am »


Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1034
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #137 on: August 16, 2017, 02:52:46 am »
A nice gallery of pictures of HMS Queen Elizabeth can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2017/jun/26/inside-hms-queen-elizabeth-in-pictures

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1532
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #138 on: August 18, 2017, 04:42:36 am »
Amateur Drone Lands on the U.K.'s New Aircraft Carrier, No One Even Notices

Quote
The drone went undetected and the Royal Navy didn't seem to care.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a27747/drone-uk-aircraft-carrier/

Offline Tzoli

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 567
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #139 on: August 18, 2017, 05:26:05 am »
Amateur Drone Lands on the U.K.'s New Aircraft Carrier, No One Even Notices

Quote
The drone went undetected and the Royal Navy didn't seem to care.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a27747/drone-uk-aircraft-carrier/

Why should they? The images it could record are the same that could be found on the net, if it would be an attack drone that small amount of explosive would do minimal harm to the ship (except if detonating near the radars) though modern radars are weather proof so small explosive can't really do much harm in my opinion.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #140 on: September 05, 2017, 03:20:01 am »
Prince Of Wales "ship naming" scheduled for this Friday.


Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 867
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #141 on: October 30, 2017, 07:13:23 am »
Queen Elizabeth has left Portsmouth to begin the second set of the sea trials.

http://www.forces.net/news/hms-queen-elizabeth-set-sail-today

More on the Queen Elizabeth leaving Portsmouth, this time from the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-41804502
« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 08:02:31 am by FighterJock »

Offline mrmalaya

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 322
  • Consider it done.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #142 on: October 31, 2017, 02:28:33 am »
Saw her for the first time last week.

We were visiting the RN Submarine museum in Gosport, and whilst putting my eye to one of the attack periscopes on display, she hove into view! So the first time I saw her was through a submarine periscope ;D

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 867
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #143 on: November 17, 2017, 10:46:44 am »
The Queen will officially commision the Queen Elizabeth  aircraft carrier on the 7th of December.

http://www.naval-technology.com/news/queen-commission-royal-navys-hms-queen-elizabeth-7-december/

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 867
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #144 on: April 15, 2018, 08:40:59 am »
Just to remind everyone who happens to live in the United Kingdom, there will be a special three part program on the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier starting tonight on BBC One at 20:00 - 21:00 BST.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #145 on: May 03, 2018, 04:18:33 am »
This probably won't last due to copyright.

EDIT:  Forgot to mention you should skip to 5:15 mark to get to the right video.  The preceding material is totally unrelated.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2018, 10:19:40 am by fredymac »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10932
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2057
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #147 on: May 09, 2018, 11:26:57 am »
Awesome picture, really !
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #148 on: May 09, 2018, 02:36:00 pm »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10932
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #149 on: May 09, 2018, 07:15:46 pm »


"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #150 on: August 07, 2018, 03:37:55 am »
From "Impossible Engineering" series.  Probably won't last too long.


Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 543
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #151 on: August 07, 2018, 12:01:38 pm »
I wonder if the new magnetic catapult system might work with those.  Seeing as someone made certain that steam types were impossible.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2818
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #152 on: August 07, 2018, 01:03:14 pm »
I wonder if the new magnetic catapult system might work with those.  Seeing as someone made certain that steam types were impossible.

That was the plan at one point (I didn't think steam ever was seriously considered, though I know some outside observers suggested a dedicated donkey boiler might be possible).  I think even the EMALS option is gone now, with no spaces to install it.

Offline royabulgaf

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 385
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #153 on: August 07, 2018, 07:51:19 pm »
Neither QE or PoW will have catapaults, pretty much a textbook penny wise and pound foolish move.  They cannot cross operate with French, USN, or Indian carrier aircraft, no fixed wing COD, AEW, or ASW aircraft, and for tactical aircraft limited to the F35B for all eternity.   Instead of a smaller Nimitz, you have a bigger Garibaldi.

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 543
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #154 on: August 08, 2018, 08:18:43 am »
There is room for the military to say what they want and stick to it.

Offline Geoff_B

  • The Scratchbuilding Demigod
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #155 on: August 08, 2018, 09:28:46 am »
Neither QE or PoW will have catapaults, pretty much a textbook penny wise and pound foolish move.  They cannot cross operate with French, USN, or Indian carrier aircraft, no fixed wing COD, AEW, or ASW aircraft, and for tactical aircraft limited to the F35B for all eternity.   Instead of a smaller Nimitz, you have a bigger Garibaldi.


So I take it you haven't noticed yet that the Viking retired some time ago so there are no fixed wing ASW carrier aircraft anymore, or that the USN has selected the Osprey to replace the Greyhound.



Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 543
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #156 on: August 08, 2018, 10:13:23 am »
So, a potential drone awacs type should not be possible?  The more capable conventional carrier version of the F-35 should be missed out on?  Only vtol and rotary wing aircraft for the life of the ships, which could be considerable?  Where is the advantage in that scenario?

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 874
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #157 on: August 08, 2018, 10:27:09 am »
Neither QE or PoW will have catapaults, pretty much a textbook penny wise and pound foolish move.  They cannot cross operate with French, USN, or Indian carrier aircraft, no fixed wing COD, AEW, or ASW aircraft, and for tactical aircraft limited to the F35B for all eternity.   Instead of a smaller Nimitz, you have a bigger Garibaldi.


So I take it you haven't noticed yet that the Viking retired some time ago so there are no fixed wing ASW carrier aircraft anymore, or that the USN has selected the Osprey to replace the Greyhound.
Valid points, though the UK has not thus far done more than gaze longingly at the V-22. I think it's fair to point out that the ramp is limiting in some ways, and that they have cut themselves off from the ability to, say, buy E-2 or MQ-25 off the shelf. And they will have to learn to love the USMC as well as Spanish and Italian navies. I don't think it's the end of the world, and although it's not the decision I would have recommended in their place I can understand their reasoning.

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1034
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #158 on: August 08, 2018, 11:30:11 am »
The bulk of the airgroups of these carriers will be helicopters. Up to 15 Merlins alongside the F-35s in the normal airgroup and in the amphibious role a mix JHC Chinooks, Merlins, Wildcats and Apaches.
For the sake of dozen or so F-35s the cost probably isn't worth it given the V/STOL capability. It's hard to imagine future naval AEW and ASW platforms not being helicopters or tilt-rotors.

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 867
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #159 on: August 18, 2018, 02:55:18 am »
The Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier will set sail for the US tonight to take part in sea trials with the F-35B Lightning 2 STOVL aircraft landing on the carrier for the first time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-45226387

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #160 on: September 06, 2018, 02:24:47 am »
Arrival in Mayport Naval Station (Jacksonville, Florida).


Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2057
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #161 on: September 06, 2018, 07:57:22 am »
The bulk of the airgroups of these carriers will be helicopters. Up to 15 Merlins alongside the F-35s in the normal airgroup and in the amphibious role a mix JHC Chinooks, Merlins, Wildcats and Apaches.
For the sake of dozen or so F-35s the cost probably isn't worth it given the V/STOL capability. It's hard to imagine future naval AEW and ASW platforms not being helicopters or tilt-rotors.

This is really stupid (not you Hood: rather the logic you describe).

This is the size of a Forrestal, yet the RN will use it as a glorified Iwo Jima LPH ! See also Moskva, HMS Ocean. It is not even an amphibious ship !

For the cost of such monstrosity the RN could have bought
a) a true Forrestal-size super carrier, CATOBAR
or
b) a pair of 30 000 tons Juan Carlos amphibious ships
or
c) a trio of 15 000 tons Invincible class Harrier carriers
or
d) a trio of HMS Ocean helicopter carriers, derived from the Invincible class

Nobody is building non-amphibious helicopter carriers anymore (such as Moskva or Iwo Jima, at least HMS Ocean was derived from the Invincibles). Except the RN. This is silly !

I think the RN should have decided early on for the V/STOL F-35, then designed a ship to carry 15 or 20 of them, what minimal size and tonnage do you need for such airgroup ?

Let's take the 43 000 tons Charles de Gaulle as a comparison. It can carry 28 to 40 aircrafts, all of them as big as a VSTOL F-35.  Now shrunk this to 20-25 aircrafts, remove the CATOBAR gear, and the nuclear reactor, and such a ship should be no bigger than a Clemenceau, that is, 33000 tons. So no need for twice the tonnage ! 

what's the point of such a big ship ? The RN would have been better served with a 25 000 / 30 000 tons enlarged Invincible class, big enough to carry 20 VSTOL F-35.

Invincible did a pretty good job in the Falklands with a DOZEN of subsonic + AIM-9 + non-stealth Sea Harriers. The F-35 is a huge leap in performance, add some more (12 to 20) and there you go, a good enough aircraft carrier.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2018, 08:06:16 am by Archibald »
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline thefrecklepuny

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #162 on: September 06, 2018, 01:06:44 pm »
The bulk of the airgroups of these carriers will be helicopters. Up to 15 Merlins alongside the F-35s in the normal airgroup and in the amphibious role a mix JHC Chinooks, Merlins, Wildcats and Apaches.
For the sake of dozen or so F-35s the cost probably isn't worth it given the V/STOL capability. It's hard to imagine future naval AEW and ASW platforms not being helicopters or tilt-rotors.

This is really stupid (not you Hood: rather the logic you describe).

This is the size of a Forrestal, yet the RN will use it as a glorified Iwo Jima LPH ! See also Moskva, HMS Ocean. It is not even an amphibious ship !

For the cost of such monstrosity the RN could have bought
a) a true Forrestal-size super carrier, CATOBAR
or
b) a pair of 30 000 tons Juan Carlos amphibious ships
or
c) a trio of 15 000 tons Invincible class Harrier carriers
or
d) a trio of HMS Ocean helicopter carriers, derived from the Invincible class

Nobody is building non-amphibious helicopter carriers anymore (such as Moskva or Iwo Jima, at least HMS Ocean was derived from the Invincibles). Except the RN. This is silly !

I think the RN should have decided early on for the V/STOL F-35, then designed a ship to carry 15 or 20 of them, what minimal size and tonnage do you need for such airgroup ?

Let's take the 43 000 tons Charles de Gaulle as a comparison. It can carry 28 to 40 aircrafts, all of them as big as a VSTOL F-35.  Now shrunk this to 20-25 aircrafts, remove the CATOBAR gear, and the nuclear reactor, and such a ship should be no bigger than a Clemenceau, that is, 33000 tons. So no need for twice the tonnage ! 

what's the point of such a big ship ? The RN would have been better served with a 25 000 / 30 000 tons enlarged Invincible class, big enough to carry 20 VSTOL F-35.

Invincible did a pretty good job in the Falklands with a DOZEN of subsonic + AIM-9 + non-stealth Sea Harriers. The F-35 is a huge leap in performance, add some more (12 to 20) and there you go, a good enough aircraft carrier.

I agree in general. The QE carriers are too big for what they may be being asked to provide. At 65,000 t, they could support the F-35C comfortably using catapults. But more than this, a CATOBAR ship allows more flexibility.  If wanting to save a bit of cash, then F/A-18E/F's are a reasonable alternative. It also means the use of E-2D providing more capabilities than a Merlin based AEW.For STOVL operations, everything is dictated by the STOVL capabilities of the fast jet. 

Remember, the QE class is heavier than the old Midway class. Which could carry more tactical types and was not a helo carrier with a fast jet sqn attatched.

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1034
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #163 on: September 07, 2018, 01:46:58 am »
I agree fully that the strategy seems madness but in an age of restricted manpower and budgets its unlikely Ocean will ever be replaced like for like. So the usual Whitehall fudge takes over.

As to size, I wouldn't be so concerned about that. Improved habitability has been a space hog in recent decades, look at how big the Type 45s are given their generous internal spaces (although saying that PoW has altered internals to allow for the troop carriage role). There is plenty of growth space in both ships, if these ships had been much smaller then the dual carrier-LPH role would probably have been impossible to achieve without severe cramping.

The CTOL or V/STOL argument has batted back and forth for years. The basic fact is that the UK was committed to the F-35B to serve both the RAF and FAA from the beginning of the JSF participation. That has been the main driver of the CVF ever since. The Cameron government switch was a temporary blimp (probably inspired by the geopolitics of that particular time). Going CATOBAR at the late stage would have meant construction delays, completion delays, more cost overruns and then breaking up commonality across the F-35 fleet, increasing pilot training costs and there is no way the RN could have afforded fixed-wing AEW like the E-2D. So the benefits would have been minimal.

Offline Harrier

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 927
  • BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #164 on: September 07, 2018, 01:56:42 am »
In the early.mid 1990s the CVF studies did come up with the answer of a ship with 20 aircraft in peacetime (12 STOVL/8 helo), and a surge capacity of about 30 (18/12?). 35,000ish tonnes and STOVL gave higher sortie rates so you did not need so many aircraft or a big ship.

These were outlined at the Warship 97 conference https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10673.msg169652.html#msg169652

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1997/1997%20-%200800.html?search=cvf%20aircraft%20carrier

Then along came the Balkans experience and the 1998 SDSR which sought a big piece of floating sovereign tri-service real estate for Bosnia-type operations, rather than to fight off Backfires in the North Atlantic. A Chinook needs room, as Ocean found out. By making the ship less 'fighty' and allowing it to get bigger it was thought to cost about the same as a smaller one. Air is free, steel is cheap etc.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2018, 02:06:39 am by Harrier »
BAe P.1216 Supersonic ASTOVL Aircraft: www.harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm

100 Years  - Camel, Hurricane, Harrier: www.kingstonaviation.org

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2057
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #165 on: September 07, 2018, 04:02:42 am »
Thank you both. It makes more sense to me now.
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #166 on: September 29, 2018, 08:59:38 am »




Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10932
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #167 on: September 29, 2018, 10:07:41 am »
Jeez that nose gear flexes like it's made out of rubber.  :o
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2057
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #168 on: September 29, 2018, 12:09:43 pm »
Can't help but thinking that huge fan door makes for one hell of an aerobrake - which is a little annoying for ski-jump lift-off, where the goal is to accelerate as fast as possible (per lack of catapult).
Just sayin'
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline Geoff_B

  • The Scratchbuilding Demigod
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #169 on: September 29, 2018, 01:19:25 pm »
Can't help but thinking that huge fan door makes for one hell of an aerobrake - which is a little annoying for ski-jump lift-off, where the goal is to accelerate as fast as possible (per lack of catapult).
Just sayin'


Nope, its not otherwise the F-35B would take off closed up, engine straight back and the Thrust Blast Deflector and go off in ctol mode with full afterburner.
This was the mode originally depicted on the CVF artwork and CGI from 2003 to 2009.
The stovl mode using the lift fan is more efficient and less stressful on the airframes.

Offline TomcatViP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 532
  • Hellcat
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #170 on: September 29, 2018, 04:28:17 pm »
Archibald:
Drag of the door:
S=0.7m²
Max Speed (with deck wind added) at lift-off=200kp/h=55m/s
massVol of air at zero alt: 1.225kg/m^3

Drag= 0.5x1.225*55²*0.7=1320N

Engine thrust: 190kN

% of DragVsThrust= 1.3/190(*100)= 0.007*100=0.7%

The terrible loss endured (for a peak second when the plane go above 90kph to 150kph (add wind on boith side of the equation) is less than 1% of the total thrust available. Given than the gains in term of airflows management have proved to be so significant that LM redesigned the fan doors (it opened sideways before), I doubt that anyone will see this as one hell of a price to pay.

Science is not pedantic (not a personal comment obviously).
« Last Edit: October 01, 2018, 10:09:02 am by TomcatViP »

Offline malipa

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 176
  • TU Delft AE student
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #171 on: September 30, 2018, 02:22:54 am »
You made one mistake in you calculation which is also very hard to approximate. There is also a flow going down through the fan in front of the door, so i don't think it will be that much drag at all.

I clearly didn't read the comment above correctly. I'm very sorry. The calculation was a nice argument.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 09:56:16 am by malipa »

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #172 on: October 01, 2018, 09:42:36 am »
Interesting view of landing from "flyco" or "pri-fly" for US.


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2818
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #173 on: October 01, 2018, 10:44:33 am »
That's just unnatural looking! 

Offline Harrier

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 927
  • BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #174 on: October 02, 2018, 02:01:05 pm »
Night trials.

Reminded me of the original 1986 Skunk Works/DARPA concept. Meant to be 'cool'...
BAe P.1216 Supersonic ASTOVL Aircraft: www.harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm

100 Years  - Camel, Hurricane, Harrier: www.kingstonaviation.org

Offline mrmalaya

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 322
  • Consider it done.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #175 on: October 02, 2018, 11:00:38 pm »
What a great image though.

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 867
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #176 on: October 03, 2018, 05:05:16 am »
Night trials.

Reminded me of the original 1986 Skunk Works/DARPA concept. Meant to be 'cool'...

Night trials already?  That is a bit quick, since they have only just started landing on the QE aircraft carrier.

Nice picture though.   B)

Offline phil gollin

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 194
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #177 on: October 08, 2018, 05:52:11 am »
.

If you look carefully at the video you can see the wires holding the plane up !

More seriously, I think they may need to fit triple glazing.

.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #178 on: October 08, 2018, 09:36:38 am »
Brief glimpse of night ops at 3:10 mark (but not of a landing).


Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #179 on: October 15, 2018, 02:26:09 am »
First rolling/vertical landing.


Offline SteveO

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 352
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #180 on: October 15, 2018, 04:54:27 am »
Nice video of the RV landing. Looks like a MK3 or 4 Merlin at the end of the video acting as plane guard.

Offline Boxman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 259
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #181 on: October 15, 2018, 09:41:51 am »
With rolling vertical landing eventually becoming a regular occurrence, will there be (or, is there already) a safety barricade system installed aboard the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers?


Offline Geoff_B

  • The Scratchbuilding Demigod
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #182 on: October 15, 2018, 11:57:24 pm »
Nice video of the RV landing. Looks like a MK3 or 4 Merlin at the end of the video acting as plane guard.

Merlin MK4, the grey ones are the fully navalised versions and the only ones deployed on QNLZ, the MK3 are still NATO green and are used for Training whilst awaiting their turn to upgrade. I think one is currently used on QNLZ as plane guard and COD whilst the other two are deployed ashore with the Royal Marines training with the USMC.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #183 on: October 29, 2018, 02:56:30 am »
F-35B test summary.


Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #184 on: December 06, 2018, 02:23:05 am »
Bomb transport and assembly procedures.


Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 867
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #185 on: December 06, 2018, 07:37:34 am »
Nice find fredymac, now the Queen Elizabeth is now a proper Warship since they have handled ordnance.   B)

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 543
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #186 on: December 06, 2018, 02:15:04 pm »
Nice find fredymac, now the Queen Elizabeth is now a proper Warship since they have handled ordnance.   B)

I wish I could believe that.

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 867
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development
« Reply #187 on: December 10, 2018, 06:18:59 am »
The aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth has returned home to Portsmouth after successfully finishing her sea trials of the US.

The video below is from the Royal Navy's You Tube channel.