Register here

Author Topic: Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development  (Read 71935 times)

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 832
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: 665
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: 2047
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: 832
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: 2047
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: 776
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: 7891
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: 592
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: 141
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 canīt remember which officer that was but it was in an interview in a issue of FlugRevue.