Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development

[fredymac]

Arrival in Mayport Naval Station (Jacksonville, Florida).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx5C5EyJtFU

 

[Archibald]

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.

 

[thefrecklepuny]

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.

 

[Hood]

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.

 

[harrier]

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.

 

[Archibald]

Thank you both. It makes more sense to me now.

 

[fredymac]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9JmWak3j34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4b7t-ua-yU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd5b7T9gJdY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfrbLEDXjyk

 

[sferrin]

Jeez that nose gear flexes like it's made out of rubber.

 

[Archibald]

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'

 

[Thorvic]

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.

 

[TomcatViP]

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).

 

[malipa]

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.

 

[fredymac]

Interesting view of landing from "flyco" or "pri-fly" for US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfI1Rhd95A0

 

[TomS]

That's just unnatural looking!

 

[harrier]

Night trials.

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

 

[mrmalaya]

What a great image though.

 

[FighterJock]

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)

 

[phil gollin]

.

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.

.

 

[fredymac]

Brief glimpse of night ops at 3:10 mark (but not of a landing).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eE_ahJlvtI

 

[fredymac]

First rolling/vertical landing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP0rUkDz_Fg

 

[SteveO]

Nice video of the RV landing. Looks like a MK3 or 4 Merlin at the end of the video acting as plane guard.

 

[Boxman]

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?

 

[Thorvic]

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.

 

[fredymac]

F-35B test summary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAQIQdswit8

 

[fredymac]

Bomb transport and assembly procedures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8p1gUL6Yas

 

[FighterJock]

Nice find fredymac, now the Queen Elizabeth is now a proper Warship since they have handled ordnance. B)

 

[Foo Fighter]

Nice find fredymac, now the Queen Elizabeth is now a proper Warship since they have handled ordnance. B)

I wish I could believe that.

 

[FighterJock]

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVYTEYo8OPo

 

[Flyaway]

HMS Queen Elizabeth to be committed to NATO

The Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, will be made available to NATO under the alliance's Readiness Initiative when it becomes operational in 2021, outgoing prime minister Theresa May announced on 4 June. "NATO will soon be able to call on the UK's Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers and F-35 fighter jets to help tackle threats around the world," she said.

This was preceded on 3 June by a British Army announcement on its website that one of its WAH-64 Apache AH1 attack helicopters landed on HMS Queen Elizabeth on 3 June.
The landing of the helicopter, from 656 Squadron Army Air Corps, kicked off three days of platform ship integration testing (PSIT) and evaluation under the UK's Joint Helicopter Command. This will assess the compatibility of the attack helicopter with Queen Elizabeth 's operating systems, including moving it on the flight deck and hangars, maintenance and arming, and using the aircraft lifts.

 

[FighterJock]

The Royal Navy aircraft carrier the Prince of Wales has now left the Rosyth naval base and is now sailing on the River Forth ahead of sea trials.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49727151

 

[FighterJock]

The Prince of Wales aircraft carrier has now set sail under the three Forth Bridges of the River Forth to begin the initial sea trials.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-49789924

 

[Nick]

The first aircraft has landed on HMS Prince of Wales whilst underway. It was a Merlin Mk.2 helicopter that made several practice landings.

HMS Prince Of Wales: Merlin Becomes First Aircraft To Land On Carrier

The Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier is conducting sea trials off the Scottish coast, after leaving Rosyth dockyard last week.

www.forces.net

 

[fredymac]

British F-35s arrive on Queen Elizabeth

 

[fredymac]

 

[fredymac]

 

[Richard N]

 

[uk 75]

It is worth remembering that when the Labour Government (yes a LABOUR Government) ordered these ships, it was in the context of wars of "intervention", the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan. Essentially what we needed for this was two or three WASP LHDs but as ever supporting British Industry of various kinds was the main driver for the programme.
In the absence of Nuclear power (and the Charles De Gaulle showed the risks of doing this on the cheap) a ship powered by gas turbines and electric drive was going to have to dispense with catapults (CVA01 would have been steam boilered in a largely gas turbine fleet).
I tend to accept the view (HM Treasury) that aircraft carriers in a worthwhile form are just too expensive to operate and that the money is better spent elsewhere. But as ever the RN has had to make the best of a bad job. The good news is that the ships are big enough to take all sorts of future modifications (even catapults if electric powered ones come good). The bad news is that they have sucked money from the escort ship and SSN programmes which are arguably of far more use to us and NATO.

 

[phil gollin]

No. The ships were designed to be convertible, either with EMALS, or (more likely because of cost) steam catapult with a steam boiler worked into the ship.

 

[RLBH]

It's worth noting that provision was made in the design to fit steam catapults and arrester gear. Space is reserved in the design for auxiliary boilers and steam accumulators, as well as the catapult tracks.

As a result of the 2010 decision to convert one ship with EMALS, sufficient engineering design work was done to confirm that doing so would be ludicrously expensive. Fitting arrester gear wasn't the issue, they proposed to fit what had originally been provided for, and it fitted perfectly.

EMALS, however, is a very different proposition from steam catapults, and making it fit would have required a lot of work. Which is why the change was (perhaps fortunately) killed. Had the design progressed with steam catapults, rather than EMALS, there's a good chance that fitting it would have been viable.

The 2002 decision to go with STOVL was based on an assumption that the ships would enter service in 2015 and 2018, and operate Harriers until such time as the F-35B came along. Between early retirement of the Harrier force, and the late delivery of the ships compared to the original schedule, this plan sounded better on paper than it looks in hindsight.

 

[kaiserd]

It is worth remembering that when the Labour Government (yes a LABOUR Government) ordered these ships, it was in the context of wars of "intervention", the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan. Essentially what we needed for this was two or three WASP LHDs but as ever supporting British Industry of various kinds was the main driver for the programme.
In the absence of Nuclear power (and the Charles De Gaulle showed the risks of doing this on the cheap) a ship powered by gas turbines and electric drive was going to have to dispense with catapults (CVA01 would have been steam boilered in a largely gas turbine fleet).
I tend to accept the view (HM Treasury) that aircraft carriers in a worthwhile form are just too expensive to operate and that the money is better spent elsewhere. But as ever the RN has had to make the best of a bad job. The good news is that the ships are big enough to take all sorts of future modifications (even catapults if electric powered ones come good). The bad news is that they have sucked money from the escort ship and SSN programmes which are arguably of far more use to us and NATO.

Sorry but that’s a bit of an absurd comment.
The thing about the latest UK carriers is that they were always intend for and largely designed around the F-35B of which the UK were critical partners in creating.
The new UK carriers were not intended to have catapults but designed to be flexible enough to potentially incorporate them at a later date (presumably it was more future electromagnetic catapults rather than any steam catapults that they had in mind).
Comparisons with CAV01 re: catapults is hence not really comparing like to like or of any particular relevance.
They new British carriers are clearly different beasts then say the US America class ships, with the UK carriers being substantially larger and heavier with more emphasis of being true strike carriers (depth of stores, etc.).
Hence the lack of catapults wasn’t primary driven by the Treasury and what ever else you might say about these carriers they are not somehow rendered not worthwhile by their absence.