Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development

What a state our country is in. Something this spectacular and worthy of a teensy, tiny, little bit of pride actually occurs, and there are people who are paid to write that junk.
 
"Can warship computers get hacked?

Computers don’t get hacked from nowhere",

Say's it all really, such poor use of the English language from a so called professional user of the language.
 
Quite an impressive ship, it is a crying shame such big thing can't have freakkin' catapults, really.
 
Couple of new pics.
 

Attachments

  • Queen Elizabeth_1.jpg
    Queen Elizabeth_1.jpg
    127.2 KB · Views: 520
  • Queen Elizabeth_2.jpg
    Queen Elizabeth_2.jpg
    84.9 KB · Views: 517
I'm sure this has been discussed at length somewhere, but what drove the decision toward twin islands? Visibility fore and aft?
 
_Del_ said:
I'm sure this has been discussed at length somewhere, but what drove the decision toward twin islands? Visibility fore and aft?
Click to expand...

Never understood that one either. It's not as though US carriers have a problem tying up to the pier.
 
It was to separate the Gas turbines, They would either have a long island like Invincible which would put the deck lifts fore and aft of the island as per the New Indian Carrier and would may the Island and the propulsion below it a single core target. Gas turbines need fuel and lots of air and lots of exhaust capacity which results in large funnels. The separate islands Thales came up with each have the gas turbine below in the sponson the drive train is actually electrical and buried in the ship so there is no bulk trunking restricting the hanger space. The separate islands offer a split target and some system redundancy so either can run the ship if the other and its turbine are damaged. It also acts as protection for each deck lift as Stovl carriers are expected to work in rougher waters than a CATOBAR carrier would like.
 
Interesting. I hadn't paid much attention. I didn't know they had gone to an electrical drive.
 
On my way south from Aberdeen today, I was surprised to see the QE sitting in the Firth among the tankers and idle semi-subs. Unfortunately I only had my phone with me. I've been watching it take shape as I traveled back and forth to Aberdeen, so it's nice to see it at sea at last. Oddly enough there was a Merlin HC.4 at Aberdeen Airport when I came in.

Chris
 

Attachments

  • QE_01.png
    QE_01.png
    434.3 KB · Views: 311
Yeap it was pretty evident it would happen when CVN-77 docked in the Solent ahead of NATO exercises off Scotland, where the HMS Queen Elizabeth is on contractors sea trials, it was always going to be an ideal phot opportunity for both Navies
 
Flyaway said:
Amateur Drone Lands on the U.K.'s New Aircraft Carrier, No One Even Notices

The drone went undetected and the Royal Navy didn't seem to care.
Click to expand...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a27747/drone-uk-aircraft-carrier/
Click to expand...

Why should they? The images it could record are the same that could be found on the net, if it would be an attack drone that small amount of explosive would do minimal harm to the ship (except if detonating near the radars) though modern radars are weather proof so small explosive can't really do much harm in my opinion.
 
Saw her for the first time last week.

We were visiting the RN Submarine museum in Gosport, and whilst putting my eye to one of the attack periscopes on display, she hove into view! So the first time I saw her was through a submarine periscope ;D
 
Just to remind everyone who happens to live in the United Kingdom, there will be a special three part program on the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier starting tonight on BBC One at 20:00 - 21:00 BST.
 
This probably won't last due to copyright.

EDIT: Forgot to mention you should skip to 5:15 mark to get to the right video. The preceding material is totally unrelated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnST6v6I_eA
 
TomS said:
It's real:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/09/hms-queen-elizabeth-teams-uss-george-hw-bush-exercises-scotland/
Click to expand...

Many pics. "CVN-77 and Queen Elizabeth"
 

Attachments

  • HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-and-USS-George-H_W_-Bush.jpg
    HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-and-USS-George-H_W_-Bush.jpg
    202.9 KB · Views: 196
  • USS_George_H_W__Bush.jpg
    USS_George_H_W__Bush.jpg
    664.6 KB · Views: 190
I wonder if the new magnetic catapult system might work with those. Seeing as someone made certain that steam types were impossible.
 
Foo Fighter said:
I wonder if the new magnetic catapult system might work with those. Seeing as someone made certain that steam types were impossible.
Click to expand...

That was the plan at one point (I didn't think steam ever was seriously considered, though I know some outside observers suggested a dedicated donkey boiler might be possible). I think even the EMALS option is gone now, with no spaces to install it.
 
Neither QE or PoW will have catapaults, pretty much a textbook penny wise and pound foolish move. They cannot cross operate with French, USN, or Indian carrier aircraft, no fixed wing COD, AEW, or ASW aircraft, and for tactical aircraft limited to the F35B for all eternity. Instead of a smaller Nimitz, you have a bigger Garibaldi.
 
There is room for the military to say what they want and stick to it.
 
royabulgaf said:
Neither QE or PoW will have catapaults, pretty much a textbook penny wise and pound foolish move. They cannot cross operate with French, USN, or Indian carrier aircraft, no fixed wing COD, AEW, or ASW aircraft, and for tactical aircraft limited to the F35B for all eternity. Instead of a smaller Nimitz, you have a bigger Garibaldi.
Click to expand...


So I take it you haven't noticed yet that the Viking retired some time ago so there are no fixed wing ASW carrier aircraft anymore, or that the USN has selected the Osprey to replace the Greyhound.
 
So, a potential drone awacs type should not be possible? The more capable conventional carrier version of the F-35 should be missed out on? Only vtol and rotary wing aircraft for the life of the ships, which could be considerable? Where is the advantage in that scenario?
 
Geoff_B said:
royabulgaf said:
Neither QE or PoW will have catapaults, pretty much a textbook penny wise and pound foolish move. They cannot cross operate with French, USN, or Indian carrier aircraft, no fixed wing COD, AEW, or ASW aircraft, and for tactical aircraft limited to the F35B for all eternity. Instead of a smaller Nimitz, you have a bigger Garibaldi.
Click to expand...


So I take it you haven't noticed yet that the Viking retired some time ago so there are no fixed wing ASW carrier aircraft anymore, or that the USN has selected the Osprey to replace the Greyhound.
Click to expand...
Valid points, though the UK has not thus far done more than gaze longingly at the V-22. I think it's fair to point out that the ramp is limiting in some ways, and that they have cut themselves off from the ability to, say, buy E-2 or MQ-25 off the shelf. And they will have to learn to love the USMC as well as Spanish and Italian navies. I don't think it's the end of the world, and although it's not the decision I would have recommended in their place I can understand their reasoning.
 
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.
 
Hood said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom