Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development

Attachments

  • cvf-989575669f.jpg
    cvf-989575669f.jpg
    114.4 KB · Views: 2,034

Attachments

  • cvf07big.jpg
    cvf07big.jpg
    127.6 KB · Views: 979
  • cvf-image227.jpg
    cvf-image227.jpg
    100.2 KB · Views: 931
  • cvf-989575755f.jpg
    cvf-989575755f.jpg
    89.7 KB · Views: 1,690
  • cvf-989574481f.jpg
    cvf-989574481f.jpg
    64.9 KB · Views: 1,771
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
 

Attachments

  • A conventional CTOL variant being studied by BAE in 2001..jpg
    A conventional CTOL variant being studied by BAE in 2001..jpg
    59.8 KB · Views: 341
  • ctol cvf.jpg
    ctol cvf.jpg
    46.8 KB · Views: 433
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.
 
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.
 
uk 75 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
zen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Amusing story on CdeG

 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Trident said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Triton said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
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...
 
Jemiba said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 

Attachments

  • QE_CATOBAR.JPG
    QE_CATOBAR.JPG
    37 KB · Views: 1,181
Abraham Gubler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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" ?

.
 
phil gollin said:
.

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" ?

.
Click to expand...

Good question.
 
phil gollin said:
.

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.
Click to expand...
 
Thorvic said:
.....but that won't be known till the F-35C undergoes proper sea trials later in the decade.
Click to expand...

If it gets that far, the way things are going. :(
 

Attachments

  • CVF_Thales_Oct04_6.jpg
    CVF_Thales_Oct04_6.jpg
    150.2 KB · Views: 279
  • CVF_Thales_Oct04_5.jpg
    CVF_Thales_Oct04_5.jpg
    160 KB · Views: 258
  • CVF_Thales_Oct04_4.jpg
    CVF_Thales_Oct04_4.jpg
    150.7 KB · Views: 276
  • CVF_Thales_Oct04_3.jpg
    CVF_Thales_Oct04_3.jpg
    152.6 KB · Views: 724
  • CVF_Thales_Oct04_2.jpg
    CVF_Thales_Oct04_2.jpg
    172.1 KB · Views: 1,069
  • CVF_Thales_Oct04_1.jpg
    CVF_Thales_Oct04_1.jpg
    202.1 KB · Views: 1,094
Artist's impressions of Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier in original STOVL configuration.

Source:

Militaryphotos.net

www.militaryphotos.net www.militaryphotos.net
 

Attachments

  • zz020309aircraftgraphic.jpg
    zz020309aircraftgraphic.jpg
    235.9 KB · Views: 496
  • cvfstovlcutaway.jpg
    cvfstovlcutaway.jpg
    133.8 KB · Views: 387
  • cvfstovl1high.jpg
    cvfstovl1high.jpg
    987.5 KB · Views: 253
  • carrier3.jpg
    carrier3.jpg
    188.7 KB · Views: 273
  • Queen Elizabeth class.jpg
    Queen Elizabeth class.jpg
    156.1 KB · Views: 274
  • CVF-2.jpg
    CVF-2.jpg
    287.8 KB · Views: 226
  • cvf3.jpg
    cvf3.jpg
    89.3 KB · Views: 213
Artist's impressions of Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier in original STOVL configuration.

Source:

Militaryphotos.net

www.militaryphotos.net www.militaryphotos.net
 

Attachments

  • cvf07071.jpg
    cvf07071.jpg
    82.4 KB · Views: 260
  • cv8x.jpg
    cv8x.jpg
    75.8 KB · Views: 250
  • cv6.jpg
    cv6.jpg
    90.5 KB · Views: 209
  • cv3i.jpg
    cv3i.jpg
    71.7 KB · Views: 256
  • cv1.jpg
    cv1.jpg
    130 KB · Views: 297
  • carrier620090707172126.jpg
    carrier620090707172126.jpg
    116.1 KB · Views: 258
Artist's impressions of Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier in original STOVL configuration.

Source:

Militaryphotos.net

www.militaryphotos.net www.militaryphotos.net
 

Attachments

  • hv9ax4.jpg
    hv9ax4.jpg
    46.9 KB · Views: 225
  • QueenElizabeth-class.jpg
    QueenElizabeth-class.jpg
    864.3 KB · Views: 200
  • prince of wales.jpg
    prince of wales.jpg
    208 KB · Views: 206
  • cvf2.jpg
    cvf2.jpg
    146.2 KB · Views: 185
  • cvf4.jpg
    cvf4.jpg
    148.4 KB · Views: 185

Attachments

  • hms1.jpg
    hms1.jpg
    344.1 KB · Views: 328
  • hms2.jpg
    hms2.jpg
    403.1 KB · Views: 345
  • image00120070810093405.jpg
    image00120070810093405.jpg
    50.3 KB · Views: 246
  • image00120070810094953.jpg
    image00120070810094953.jpg
    44.5 KB · Views: 157
  • HMSQueenElizabeth.jpg
    HMSQueenElizabeth.jpg
    230.3 KB · Views: 390
  • CVF_HMSQEgraphicScreen.gif
    CVF_HMSQEgraphicScreen.gif
    317 KB · Views: 582

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom