• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,397
Reaction score
278
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.




 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
34
Hood said:
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.
 

hole in the ground

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
239
Reaction score
0
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?
 

CliffyB

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Thank you very much for posting those sir and especially at such a high resolution!!!
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,048
Reaction score
291
hole in the ground said:
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 ?
 

Attachments

royabulgaf

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
425
Reaction score
8
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.
 

Thorvic

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
601
Reaction score
11
royabulgaf said:
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.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
34
Jemiba said:
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.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,048
Reaction score
291
Well, I just tried to show, that the lift isn't really too small.
Interesting to me, that there's again an "Alaskan Highway".
 

RLBH

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
221
Reaction score
26
Abraham Gubler said:
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.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,048
Reaction score
291
Am I wrong, or was HMS Hermes the only RN carrier, which actually had a deck-edge lift ?
 

CliffyB

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
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.
 

pf matthews

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
115
Reaction score
19
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.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
34
RLBH said:
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.
 

RLBH

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
221
Reaction score
26
Abraham Gubler said:
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.
 

CliffyB

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
pf matthews said:
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.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,186
Reaction score
294
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/01/friday-fun-royal-navy-denies-c.html
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,186
Reaction score
294
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1OmgFiRMWU&feature=player_embedded​
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)

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=933​
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,186
Reaction score
294
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.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
236
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
An early concept design from the UK Defence Procurement Agency of a CVF configured to operate STOVL aircraft.

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
 

Attachments

Mr London 24/7

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
376
Reaction score
4
High brow 2010 CAG study from Phoenix:

http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/DOCS/PTTQECOFAWG.pdf

http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/aboutptt/
 

pathology_doc

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
861
Reaction score
52
"I christen this ship... the HMS Me. God bless her and all who sail in her." ;D
 

J.A.W.

"Keep on Truckin'.."
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
662
Reaction score
1
So is she Queen Elizabeth II.? Or Q.E. - no number?
 

Thorvic

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
601
Reaction score
11
HMS Queen Elizabeth, its named in honour not after her Majesty
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,701
Reaction score
39
Geoff_B said:
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?
 

J.A.W.

"Keep on Truckin'.."
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
662
Reaction score
1
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...
 

JohnR

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
353
Reaction score
3
J.A.W. said:
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
 

RP1

I see the truth in it.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
441
Reaction score
2
Website
rp-one.net
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
 

J.A.W.

"Keep on Truckin'.."
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
662
Reaction score
1
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?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,320
Reaction score
184
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.)
 

JohnR

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
353
Reaction score
3
J.A.W. said:
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
 

J.A.W.

"Keep on Truckin'.."
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
662
Reaction score
1
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'..
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,706
Reaction score
63
Website
beyondthesprues.com
J.A.W. said:
Scuttled in H.K. - due to 'dubious' financial doings, or so the story goes..

Did you even bother to read the previous post?
 

J.A.W.

"Keep on Truckin'.."
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
662
Reaction score
1
GTX said:
J.A.W. said:
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?
 

J.A.W.

"Keep on Truckin'.."
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
662
Reaction score
1
GTX said:
:eek: 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.
 
Top