How to make the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers the best in the world.

[JmartinG1226]

Much has been said about the drawbacks of the stovl design for the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers. While some of it may be valid. We are now entering the golden age of vtol, electronics, radar, engine, stealth and weapon technology. With the right funding these ships can be future-proofed for the next 60 years. And what was once seen as a compromise solution of stovl can be finally seen as the most efficient/effective way to go about carrier strike.

 

[JmartinG1226]

the first glaring capability gap between the QE class and the ford class is the over dependance on helicopters. Aircraft such as Merlin and wildcat have too short a range, too low a service ceiling, too slow, and too short a loiter time. A modern aircraft carrier needs state of the art AEW&C aircraft like the E-2D. COD aircraft like the C-2. Electronic warfare aircraft like the E/A-18. Tanker aircraft like the KA-6. As well as ASW/CSAR that are more commonly filled by helicopters today.

 

[Foo Fighter]

There have been several discussions from the Navy that they could fit smaller cats but that would be for UAV. Having said that there is no reason a UAV cannot perform the overwatch of the CBG

 

[Archibald]

65000-75000 tons seems to be a soft spot and good tonnage for carriers: Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, Kennedy, Kuznetsov, Liaoning, Q.E, CVF, CVV, PANG...

I often think the French take at the Q.E (CVF or PA2) was the right way to go - by this I mean a CATOBAR Q.E.
While USN staunchly refused CVV as a less capable, and not-much-cheaper alternative to the supercarriers; the Chinese, Anglo-French and Russians had / have no such qualms.
In the end the Chinese are doing it, post Liaoning...

 

[F.L.]

 

[F.L.]

I've never understood why the British chose to build their aircraft carrier in S/VTOL configuration. Normally, the advantage of VTOL is the ability to operate aircraft from small ships (Principe de Asturias/Chakri Naruebet, Invicible, Tarawa LHD...) & without the complications associated with catapults.
But the two Queen Elizabeth class ships are no small vessels !
They could well have been built in STOBAR configuration before EMAL catapults had been developed.
This would have made it possible to use F-35Cs and avoid the problems associated with the F-35B.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

I've never understood why the British chose to build their aircraft carrier in S/VTOL configuration. Normally, the advantage of VTOL is the ability to operate aircraft from small ships (Principe de Asturias/Chakri Naruebet, Invicible, Tarawa LHD...) & without the complications associated with catapults.
But the two Queen Elizabeth class ships are no small vessels !
They could well have been built in STOBAR configuration before EMAL catapults had been developed.
This would have made it possible to use F-35Cs and avoid the problems associated with the F-35B.

Easier to train pilots for rolling STOVL than CATOBAR operations.

The ship's size is dictated by the size of the airwing, and fuel and ordnance to keep it going. None of the examples you listed are strike carriers with large airwings with significant ordnance and fuel consumption rates, however the Queen Elizabeth class are.

 

[F.L.]

The ship's size is dictated by the size of the airwing, and fuel and ordnance to keep it going. None of the examples you listed are strike carriers with large airwings with significant ordnance and fuel consumption rates, however the Queen Elizabeth class are.

What I mean is that, if you have a big ship (to have a big air wing), there's no point in using S/VTOLs, which are more likely to be used on small aircraft carriers where they're more expensive.
The S/VTOL formula normally avoids the need to build large, expensive vessels.

Easier to train pilots for rolling STOVL than CATOBAR operations.

Not sure.

 

[Dilandu]

I've never understood why the British chose to build their aircraft carrier in S/VTOL configuration. Normally, the advantage of VTOL is the ability to operate aircraft from small ships (Principe de Asturias/Chakri Naruebet, Invicible, Tarawa LHD...) & without the complications associated with catapults.

Because ski-jump S/VTOL carriers are much cheaper in terms of maintenance, and pilot's training is simpler.

 

[helmutkohl]

Generally speaking the benefits of STOVL carriers
- Easier to train pilots and qualify them. This is a huge issue due to the ongoing pilot shortages in the world, but especially the UK
- On the one hand, STOVL aircraft are more complicated than conventional jets. But on the other hand, the airframe also has less stress from the stresses of CATOBAR landing and take offs
- Easier to maintain
- Less demand for electricity
- Potentially, higher sortie rates

The main issue for the QE is having a better AEW aircraft. I would have hoped that the an AEW V-22 would be an improvement over the Merlin but seems like its development is at a dead end

 

[WatcherZero]

The main reason was energy generation for the catapults, this was before EMALs and would have required a massive diesel fired steam raising plant to be included which would have compromised range and cargo capacity. The deck below the flight deck was left empty to allow for the installation of catapults in future if desired however. Since the start of the century energy generation has come along (as well as EMALs being near-perfected) so they are considering fitting some smaller electrical powered catapults for large and small drones.

In terms of AEW after Crowsnest it looks like they are going for a drone AWAC circa 2029/30, though with the increasing range of missiles manned AWAC's are looking particularly vulnerable in the near future in peer to peer engagements.

 

[BlackBat242]

The main reason was energy generation for the catapults, this was before EMALs and would have required a massive diesel fired steam raising plant to be included which would have compromised range and cargo capacity. The deck below the flight deck was left empty to allow for the installation of catapults in future if desired however. Since the start of the century energy generation has come along (as well as EMALs being near-perfected) so they are considering fitting some smaller electrical powered catapults for large and small drones.

In terms of AEW after Crowsnest it looks like they are going for a drone AWAC circa 2029/30, though with the increasing range of missiles manned AWAC's are looking particularly vulnerable in the near future in peer to peer engagements.

That was sort of the original plan... "provisions for conversion to catapult/arresting gear at mid-life refit". As catapult & arresting gear equipment would only use up a part of the gallery deck, much was planned to be used from the start.

The problem was that space aboard ANY military vessel, no matter how large, is a precious commodity, so all of those spaces were used for things... which was not considered to be a problem, as "midlife refit" is a complex and extensive process, involving removing equipment and installing newer (usually smaller with fewer operators/maintainers) equipment etc... so they were expecting to be able to re-arrange things to fit in catapults etc then.


One significant reason for making them STOVL was that even the smaller Invincible class were able to operate their Harriers in sea states and weather conditions that shut down flight ops aboard USN supercarriers... meaning that the larger QEs would be even better in this respect, being able to fly their aircraft (and thus be militarily useful) when CTOL CVNs (both USN and MN) were stood down from flight ops.

There really is an advantage in being able to "stop, then land"! Especially when you can do so on the part of the flight deck that is moving least (the middle) - aircraft coming in to take an arrested landing have to touch down near the stern, which is moving vertically, horizontally, rolling, and yawing - and drop your hook to catch one of a few wires... while moving forward at 130+ knots.

 

[helmutkohl]

One significant reason for making them STOVL was that even the smaller Invincible class were able to operate their Harriers in sea states and weather conditions that shut down flight ops aboard USN supercarriers... meaning that the larger QEs would be even better in this respect, being able to fly their aircraft (and thus be militarily useful) when CTOL CVNs (both USN and MN) were stood down from flight ops.

There really is an advantage in being able to "stop, then land"! Especially when you can do so on the part of the flight deck that is moving least (the middle) - aircraft coming in to take an arrested landing have to touch down near the stern, which is moving vertically, horizontally, rolling, and yawing - and drop your hook to catch one of a few wires... while moving forward at 130+ knots.

also worth mentioning that studies on the effectiveness of the smaller harrier carriers (usually in relation to the Falklands war) often concluded that the main issue wasn't that the aircraft were stovl, but that the air wing/carriers were too small.

QE is the first decently sized carrier that carries primarily STOVL aircraft. So it will be interesting to see how it performs compared to STOBAR and CATOBAR.