Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development

Artist's impressions of Thales CVF concepts circa 2003.
 

Attachments

  • cvf-thales-2003-image228.jpg
    cvf-thales-2003-image228.jpg
    85.1 KB · Views: 136
  • cvf-thales-pic1.jpg
    cvf-thales-pic1.jpg
    79.6 KB · Views: 152
  • SHIP_CVF_Concept_lg.jpg
    SHIP_CVF_Concept_lg.jpg
    174.4 KB · Views: 129
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.

cvfinvestwarship97inter.png
EDIT: Images can now be found in posts 205 & 206 (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...lass-cvf-development.10673/page-6#post-368915).
cvf2.png

cvf3.png

cvf4.png
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

Great pictures, and on the other threads. Thanks for uploading.
 
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?
 
Thank you very much for posting those sir and especially at such a high resolution!!!
 
hole in the ground said:
edit:
also, figure 25 why have so many lifts? and why are they all so small?
Click to expand...

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

  • lift.gif
    lift.gif
    44.6 KB · Views: 900
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Well, I just tried to show, that the lift isn't really too small.
Interesting to me, that there's again an "Alaskan Highway".
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Am I wrong, or was HMS Hermes the only RN carrier, which actually had a deck-edge lift ?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Further there is nothing in this study that suggests fore and aft spotting on deck edge elevators.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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)​
Click to expand...


Models of Royal Navy future Carrier & RFA Tanker simulate Replenishment At Sea

Two highly-accurate one-tonne scale models of HMS Queen Elizabeth and future tanker RFA Tidespring have been tested in Europe’s largest indoor water tank in Gosport to determine how the two ships can sail safely in company. Key to any future operations by the carrier – the largest warship ever...
www.navyrecognition.com www.navyrecognition.com
 
Via the UK Armed Forces Commentary blog:

cv8x.jpg

Concept Art showing the hangar of the CVF carriers​

29580a7af86f49a3ac5e3b9fa159e526-417x313.jpg

Model trials of MARS Fleet Tanker and QE-class carrier, showing the RAS Masts and the two receiving bays on the carrier.​

RAS+stations+with+CVF.jpg

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.​
 
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.
Click to expand...

Source:
 

Attachments

  • cvfdpa.jpg
    cvfdpa.jpg
    27.7 KB · Views: 1,096
HMS Queen Elizabeth, its named in honour not after her Majesty
 
Geoff_B said:
HMS Queen Elizabeth, its named in honour not after her Majesty
Click to expand...

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?
 
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...
 
J.A.W. said:
So is she Queen Elizabeth II.? Or Q.E. - no number?
Click to expand...
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
 
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?
Click to expand...


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
 
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?
 
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.)
 
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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'..
 
J.A.W. said:
Scuttled in H.K. - due to 'dubious' financial doings, or so the story goes..
Click to expand...


Did you even bother to read the previous post?
 
GTX said:
J.A.W. said:
Scuttled in H.K. - due to 'dubious' financial doings, or so the story goes..
Click to expand...


Did you even bother to read the previous post?
Click to expand...

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?
 
:eek: As JohnR's post makes quite clear there was no scuttling.
 
GTX said:
:eek: As JohnR's post makes quite clear there was no scuttling.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom