Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development

Electrical Jato = dedicated lift engine or Lifter (=flying e-jato pack). Jato induce hazard in the carrier environment (it was not a suitable long term solution at the early years of jet carrier aviation).
 
Last edited:
A recoverable electrostatic lifter pod or something along those lines, you mean?
 
Yes or a more sophisticated small light airframe that you strap ontop of an UAV to make for the lack of power for a successful ramp takeoff (lift plus propulsion). Once the airframe has reached enough speed the strap-on vehicle detach and land back autonomously or under the guidance of an rpv pilot.

With electrostatic discharge, you can have a lot of power for 1 min at least in something so light that the combination of vehicles could have a power to weight ratio superior to one relatively easily.

The advantages are that you don't have to install a complex catapult (but an arrested system) and use the carrier electrical system as a power source.
There is no bulky, heavy and flammable batteries (to keep weight down and safety high) and the simplicity of the design make it an attritable asset while still providing an ideal level of safety for deck crew (no chemical reaction).
 
Last edited:
Not really practical from a logistics or operational point of view, I would say.
 
I know its easy to be Captain Hindsight, but did the Royal Navy or the MoD never consider that UAVs would become capable of tanking and AEW roles and even UCAV loyal wingmen during the expected life of the carriers?
That the MQ-25 may have come sooner than expected, is probably no excuse for scrabbling around for ad hoc measures stuck on with gaffer tape on what are brand-new ships.
 
I believe it had been looked at different times by the RN and associated agencies during development, and basically filed and forgotten by the civilian procurement officials running things each time.
 
They should definitely have full CATOBAR ability, going off half cock is pointless and fails to address the inevitable increase in size of autonomous aircraft. EMALS strikes as the only feasible option but three cats would give an increase in functionality worthy of the investment.
 
TomcatViP said:
On Saturday, officials from Japan, Britain and the United States welcomed the carrier at a dock at the U.S. Navy’s Yokosuka base. The Royal Navy band on board responded by performing music with bagpipes.

The port call by the carrier strike group is said to be the largest in the history of Japan-Britain relations, according to the British government.

British Ambassador to Japan Julia Longbottom emphasized the significance of its visit, saying, “We believe this visit marks the elevation of our defense and security relationship to a new level.”
Click to expand...

www.express.co.uk

HMS Queen Elizabeth takes Japan relations to ‘whole new level’

THE HMS Queen Elizabeth has made its first port call in Japan today, marking a historic turning point in the relations between the UK and the land of the rising sun.
www.express.co.uk www.express.co.uk

Click to expand...
Active duty in this thread.
 
www.navalnews.com

UK explores cats and traps retrofit to QEC aircraft carriers - Naval News

Project Ark Royal: The Royal Navy is studying the introduction of catapults on board its two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com



Project Ark Royal​


“……The first step would be to increase the available length for the unassisted launch of uncrewed air systems. “This November we will [launch] a Mojave [STOL] aircraft off the angle of the flight deck off the US east coast,” said Col Kelly. “This aircraft can take off in 300 ft of runway so enough for the trial [but] we have already undertaken design work to add sponsons and make a full run of 700 ft available.”

The next stage would be to introduce a recovery system into the QEC design. It is anticipated that the large fixed-wing UAS envisaged under FMAF – a persistent capability known as Vixen – would depend on some form of arrestment for recovery.

A final step would be to add an assisted launch system. “Adding catapults would allow us to operate the heaviest aircraft you can imagine,” said Col Kelly.
......”

:oops: :oops::oops:

Project-Ark-Royal-QEC.jpg
 
Last edited:
An interesting development Raptor82, I had previously thought that the aircraft carriers had the capability to launch CTOL aircraft removed when they went STOVL it now looks like they hadn't which is good news for the future.
 
To me, the decision to switch the Queen Elizabeth-class to EMALS and arrestor wires and to acquire F-35C instead of F-35B was one of the few sensible ones made by the Cameron government. Unfortunately, they cancelled this decision and now we have this farce. "Penny wise, pounds foolish!" and "Built for but not with." seem to strike again. I do wonder if the QE and PoW will eventually end up fitted with two full 90 m EMALS (one on starboard side in the bow to allow the retention of the ski jump for the F-35B and the other one on the angled deck) and four arrestor wires. At least they could then operate E-2Ds and possible tankers, if the FAA ever ends up acquiring any alongside the current air wing.
 
Last edited:
It was the then Government of the day that decided against CTOL, if they had gone CTOL from the off then we could have had the F-35C which had more range and better weapons carrying capability than the STOVL F-35B. :mad:
 
FighterJock said:
It was the then Government of the day that decided against CTOL, if they had gone CTOL from the off then we could have had the F-35C which had more range and better weapons carrying capability than the STOVL F-35B. :mad:
Click to expand...
Indeed, the original decision for STOVL was by the Blair/Brown governments, but I do wonder why the Cameron government decided to revert to STOVL after first making the decision to switch to CATOBAR. I wonder if it was related to Britain having a larger workshare in the B model of the F-35 than in the C model and the B model being under threat of cancellation.
 
I did not know that about the larger work share of the B model of the F-35? The then Labour government should have gone for the CTOL F-35C from the start when they were deciding what fighter to go with back in 1997, looks like a lot of governmental messing around I think. In the end they should have let the navy chose what fighter they wanted.
 
The logic of F35 has killed off separate FAA aircraft and in imitation of Harrier ops, surge figures for CVF were written around a major suplement of RAF aircraft.....as in the majority.

FAA lost Shar, muddled onwards in RAF owned Harrier IIs....for a minor saving.
At that point the decision was 'de facto' taken, Navy flies Airforce jets. CATOBAR pointless.

As a result the option of CATOBAR means separate RN funding FAA aircraft (F35-C and Hawkeye). Massively separate training for 'cat and trap' ops and all funded out of RN allocation. Plus no RAF surge. It's frankly either or, not both on a crowded flight deck.

So Fox trying to turn that ship around hit reality hard.

STOVL means shared (RAF paying most of it) training and spares. Merlin AEW shares training and spares with wider Merlin fleet.
So cheaper to ride on the RAF back and no RAF ability to refuse surge in wartime.

UCAS systems are not much worse than 1940s aircraft. At worse 1950s jets in terms if weights, TO&L requirements etc..Nowhere near in the league of big heavy F35-C Type aircraft.
 
FighterJock said:
I did not know that about the larger work share of the B model of the F-35? The then Labour government should have gone for the CTOL F-35C from the start when they were deciding what fighter to go with back in 1997, looks like a lot of governmental messing around I think. In the end they should have let the navy chose what fighter they wanted.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the bad wording, it was just speculation on my part based on the UK having more relevant experience on developing STOVL fighters than CATOBAR fighters. The official reason for the U-turn was the price of the switch to CATOBAR being about 2 billion pounds per ship, with the price of the equipment being less than 25 % thereof, which has always seemed a suspiciously astronomical sum to me.
 
FighterJock said:
It was the then Government of the day that decided against CTOL, if they had gone CTOL from the off then we could have had the F-35C which had more range and better weapons carrying capability than the STOVL F-35B. :mad:
Click to expand...
And tread on RAF toes for Tornado replacement. Sucking precious funds away.
 
I recollect an argument from an Airforce Monthly or Air International article at the time switch back to STOVL was that a CTOL F-35C force would end up needing much more training and resources (and aircraft numbers) for pilots (and other relevant crew) to maintain their carrier landing currency/ certification (versus what was required for the F-35B) that they would never be available for anything other than operation from carriers or prep for operating from carriers (while a significant part of the F-35B force would be available for more typical RAF-style deployments). That being much easier to operate from carriers and the resulting much lower training requirements would boost F-35B availability for actual operational taskings versus what the F-35C could realistically achieve. Plus the F-35B would be able to operate in a wider range of sea states than the F-35C (a not insignificant potential factor if you are mainly operating in the Atlantic or similarly typicaly more stormy seas/ oceans) and build on the RNs experience in operating STOVL fighter jets from carrier decks.

From memory the article also mentions the more typically raised aspects like costs and technical risks associated with adding catapults into the carriers.
I haven’t seen that article for a very long time and I haven’t been able to locate it.
Hence not about to die on a hill for its arguments but thought its points a potentially useful alternative view to some of the arguments above.
 
I seem to remember reading that article too kaiserd, I must have got rid of the magazine as I cannot find it either. How annoying.
 
FighterJock said:
An interesting development Raptor82, I had previously thought that the aircraft carriers had the capability to launch CTOL aircraft removed when they went STOVL it now looks like they hadn't which is good news for the future.
Click to expand...
You mean CATOBAR not CTOL, unless talking about Habakkuk. ;)

Also, launching drones is not the same as launching aircraft CATOBAR aircraft.
 
FighterJock said:
An interesting development Raptor82, I had previously thought that the aircraft carriers had the capability to launch CTOL aircraft removed when they went STOVL it now looks like they hadn't which is good news for the future.
Click to expand...
Any deck of sufficient size can operate small CTOL drones, nothing was added or taken away from the QECs regarding that. The plan to complete them with full CATOBAR suite was killed, and now they're talking about adding back a "light" form of that for supporting drones (and maybe eventually crewed aircraft).
 
That is what I eventually what I want to see Moose, a navalised variant of the GCAP/Tempest sixth generation fighter. :cool:
 
I wouldn't say no chance, it would require a major refit away from the current configuration. And a major variant of GCAP optimized for naval use. Unlikely? Yes, very.
 
Topi said:
FighterJock said:
I did not know that about the larger work share of the B model of the F-35? The then Labour government should have gone for the CTOL F-35C from the start when they were deciding what fighter to go with back in 1997, looks like a lot of governmental messing around I think. In the end they should have let the navy chose what fighter they wanted.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the bad wording, it was just speculation on my part based on the UK having more relevant experience on developing STOVL fighters than CATOBAR fighters. The official reason for the U-turn was the price of the switch to CATOBAR being about 2 billion pounds per ship, with the price of the equipment being less than 25 % thereof, which has always seemed a suspiciously astronomical sum to me.
Click to expand...
In the aftermath of the reversion decision, the reasons for much of the cost was revealed... the so-called "capability to be converted to CTOL" was always tied to a mid-life modernization scenario... where the spaces that would be required for the CTOL equipment could be emptied of the equipment etc that were in them (what, you thought they would leave a lot of internal volume empty for the first half of the ship's life? Stupid!) and that equipment relocated elsewhere as part of a wholesale updating of the ship's equipment outfit.

Now the plan was to do that before the ship was even launched... meaning an immediate pause in construction while the design was reworked for all those changes... and since the entire ship design was set due to the "block build" construction process (as all blocks had to fit seamlessly with previously-built ones including all wiring, piping, etc) the entire design would have to be reworked. After all, relocating equipment means re-routing wiring, piping, etc.

And since the expected reduction in equipment size that was expected after 20 years would now NOT have happened, that meant that it was likely that there would be a reduction in hangar size, increase in sponson volume (and thus changes in stability etc) or the like (to provide somewhere for the equipment etc to be moved to) to take into account as well.

Note that this picture was taken in December 2011 - 14 months after the decision to move to CTOL was announced and 5 months BEFORE the reversion to STOL was announced. Much of this work was, therefore, done to the old design and would need to be reworked - adding more cost!


HMS QE under build 12-2011.JPG
 
And then, there was, of course, the typical accounting inflation that is required by UK procurement rules.

Those rules require all sorts of ancillary costs to be rolled into the total... thus the cost for the change included the cost of providing aircraft for recovery tanking, the increased cost of the desired AEW aircraft (E-2D) vs Merlin AEW, the added life-cycle costs of the extra training and maintenance required by the catapults and arresting gear (including added aircrew training costs), and so on.
 
raptor82 said:
www.navalnews.com

UK explores cats and traps retrofit to QEC aircraft carriers - Naval News

Project Ark Royal: The Royal Navy is studying the introduction of catapults on board its two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

Project Ark Royal​

View attachment 700668
Click to expand...

Nice pic... here's a comparison to the CATOBAR variant (French CVF / PA2)... interesting to note that CVF won't have a full angle deck edge forward, which may be a problem for recovery of fast jets with longer runouts than UAVs.

Note - Drawing's scale is 1m = 4px. I've corrected the QE's proportions as its width was a little too narrow compared to actuals (the original picture must have been squished).

P.S. Thanks to Armen56 at www.air-defense.net/forum for the very rare scale drawing of CVF FR... I believe this has never before been published online!

CVF_vs_PA2_1m_=_4px.png
 

Attachments

  • CVF vs PA2 1m = 4px.png
    CVF vs PA2 1m = 4px.png
    718.1 KB · Views: 205
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom