Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development

As Clauswitz said, war is politics by other means and of course the most famous British General went on to be PM!

The Senior officer cohort has a lot to answer for. Revolving door postings and all about OJARs.

It is very unlikely to ever answer for it, not least as it succeeded in shifting the blame to the civvy politicians. Meanwhile they sit in very comfortable retirement. “Serve to Lead” I was taught - I realise now how naieve I was (and still am) to believe it.
 
uk 75 said:
Senior military men have been responsible for political decisions since the Falklands.
Had the Royal Navy been honest with Mrs Thatcher and told her that due to John Nott and his predecessors the Navy was geared to operations in NATO and not for expeditionary warfare further afield. The Falklands was a nasty war with severe casualties, many of whom live with their injuries today. It could have ended badly if Argentine aircraft had refuzed bombs and been more effective at targeting vulnerable ships.
I am not saying that Mrs Thatcher should not have tried to retake them but that the price should have been explained more clearly to Parliament and people.
Sadly, this gung ho attitude from senior officers was repeated in Iraq and Afghanistan. Politicians tend to believe the uniformed chap who tells them the job can be done. It was these chaps not Gordon Brown who sent their men to war in snatch Land Rovers. More honourable men would have told politicians that they could not let their men operate in such kit.
Today, unlike in the1970s and earlier, most politicians or civilians (like me) have not served in the forces, still less fought in a war. We rely on the senior officers to speak truth to power. But in fact we have to hear the facts from their personnel.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the RN said this can be done, Thatcher did listen and did take the cost on the chin. I’m as equally critical of the “take the leash off us” military mindset as if just going postal will achieve what is ultimately a political objective. The military work for the civvies and the moment we think we are our own thing we are out of control. Of course Blair and subsequent took that to extremes with no clear aims and just endless risk averse decisions that had nothing to do with acheiving anything and all to do with next days headline/their political career.
 
Archibald said:
That is brilliant news Forest Green, it has been a long time coming for the Royal Navy.
Click to expand...

November 1978 ?
Click to expand...

You are right about the 1978 date Archibald, I had forgotten about the cancellation of the then new CVA-01 Queen Elizabeth super carrier, I always had thought that the Illustrious class (the Harrier carriers) were a stand in class until the Labour government in 1997 published it's Strategic Defence Review which effectively ordered the two new current Queen Elizabeth class carriers.
 
The flood is the second to affect the ship in five months , It’s understood the leak has come from a pipe onboard the ship and not a breach of Prince of Wales’s hull.

www.portsmouth.co.uk

Royal Navy's £3.2bn aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales hit by fresh flood

SAILORS onboard Britain’s newest £3.2bn aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales have been battling a significant flood on the warship.
www.portsmouth.co.uk www.portsmouth.co.uk
 
aonestudio said:
The flood is the second to affect the ship in five months , It’s understood the leak has come from a pipe onboard the ship and not a breach of Prince of Wales’s hull.

www.portsmouth.co.uk

Royal Navy's £3.2bn aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales hit by fresh flood

SAILORS onboard Britain’s newest £3.2bn aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales have been battling a significant flood on the warship.
www.portsmouth.co.uk www.portsmouth.co.uk
Click to expand...

That is now the second carrier to have suffered a leak after the Queen Elizabeth herself suffered a leak early on during the sea going trials the whole incident was recorded for a documentary which was subsequently broadcast on tv. Hope that the leak was repaired, and the flood dealt with.
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Royal Navy eyes 'catapult system' to launch drones and jets from aircraft carriers

Experts warn 'Plan B' launch and recovery systems needed for F-35
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
There's a pay wall for me. Is this a catapult to launch F-35Cs, what does it mean by Plan B?

Ah found another similar article here.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

MoD looking at ‘cats and traps’ to launch uncrewed aircraft at sea

The MoD is looking to assess the availability of electromagnetic catapult and arrestor wire systems for the launch and recovery of air vehicles at sea.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk
 
Last edited:
Thanks. That firewall is a pain. Half the time it is malfunctioning and blocking articles or previews that should be free. Sometimes it even blocks the main page!

EDIT: Ack, meant to say paywall!
 
Last edited:
“Potential arrestor solutions ideally should offer:
a. Max trap 47000lbs / 21318Kg
b. Min trap 11000lbs / 5000Kg
c. Energy damping method
d. Potential for energy reclamation

Potential catapult solutions ideally should offer:
a. Max launch weight 55000lbs / 24949Kg
b. Electrical power input required against launch cycle time.”
Click to expand...
That's a meaty system for UAVs.
Even Taranis only topped out at 18,000lbs, though admittedly MQ-25 is probably something like 40,000lb MTOW.
 
Something bigger and beefier perhaps?
F35C is a non-starter unless a lot more money is forthcoming.
But certainly heavier UCAV options are available on paper.
 
Hmmmm..... couldn't you just post a bit of that?
Yet another subscription for just a short time and then what?

Anyway I did wonder about South Korea's CV design, as it did seem to show some CVF features.

Will.be interesting to watch.
 
Sorry, that bloody paywall again.

Technology from the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers is being offered to South Korea as the country beefs up its military.

Advanced systems and designs developed by the “carrier alliance” of Babcock, BAE Systems and Thales to deliver the UK’s two Queen Elizabeth-class vessels could be
exported to the south-east Asian nation as the UK steps up efforts to reap the financial benefits of constructing the 65,000-tonne ships. The two ships will cost taxpayers about £6.5bn.

Industry sources said officials from the Department for International Trade have begun informal discussions with Korean counterparts about areas of technology the country could be interested in. Any deal would have to meet strict controls designed to protect UK national security.

However, in January Defence Secretary Ben Wallace spoke with his Seoul counterpart about closer co-operation on military matters.

In 2019, Korea announced a 290 trillion won (£180bn) defence spending spree over five years that included adding an aircraft carrier capable of handling F-35B jets, though it envisaged a smaller vessel than the Queen Elizabeth class, which also operates advanced fighter jets.

The Royal Navy carriers have pioneered automated systems which reduce the number of crew they need, making them more efficient.


One such invention is a highly mechanised weapons handling system, which lifts bombs and missiles from arsenals deep inside the ship up to the flight deck.
Developments like this mean the Queen Elizabeth and her sister ship Prince of Wales have crews of just 700 to operate them, rising to 1,600 when the air wing is included.

By comparison, the US Nimitz-class carriers require 3,000 sailors to get under way and a further 1,800 to operate their aircraft.
Peter Sandeman, director of analyst group Navy Lookout, said: “A proposal has been floating around of a scaled-down carrier using the twin-island design from the Queen Elizabeth.

“The new technology in the Navy’s new carriers, like the ammunition handling, aircraft lifts, the electric power system, is what Korea is interested in as that’s the really hard stuff.”

Exporting carrier technology would be a further boost for the UK, after BAE secured deals with Australia and Canada for their navies to build new frigates based on the Type 26 ships currently under construction at the company’s Scottish shipyards.

Mr Sandeman added: “There’s definitely a small-scale revival going on in the UK’s naval industry.”

A Government spokesperson said: “The United Kingdom and South Korea have an important defence and security relationship. Our Indo-Pacific tilt will provide further areas for cooperation.”
Click to expand...
 
British Q.E as a lower end alternative to Nimitz / Ford for wannabee carrier powers... interesting. Make sense, they are larger than CdG but also non nuclear, and smaller that Fords.
It also kind of "balance" the Russian - China - India carrier rebuild / new build of the past two decades.
Basically - a viable alternative for countries not friend with China or Russia but also unable to afford such a huge ship as the Ford, plus nuclear power well known issues.

GB may have found itself an enviable niche there...

EDIT: Imagine, if Q.E pulls a Colossus / Majestic again, in the 21th Century... :D Or if it succeeds where the CVV failed 5 decades ago - again, low-end alternative to the USN supercarriers.
 
Last edited:
Hood said:
Well it looks like they want various bits and peices of kit. Its not as sexy as building a whole ship but its good news for the suppliers and the lower end of the supply chain - orders like this keeps them going.
Click to expand...
It South Korea, they can build ships, it's the design and fitting out an Aircraft Carrier they are looking at and whats being touted, so should be interesting to see the results.
 
Well the SDSR renewed the commitment to both QNLZ class carriers and despite stories being banded about the F-35B will continue to grow beyond the current 48 aircraft which indicates the possibility of being able to field the full airwing on both carriers 'On Paper' I mean of course the 2 squadrons on each or 3 on one with a number in the training deep service/reserve.
 
Some more news:

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Video shows British carrier jets launching into combat

Footage shows F-35Bs launching from the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth to conduct combat operations against Islamic State.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

MoD confirm aircraft carriers may be fitted with catapults

The Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers might be fitted with catapults 'in the coming years'.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

The attachment below also shows possible configurations (which I assume are speculative) of possible layouts for the catapult and arrestor gear on the QE-class, sourced from @royalnavyphoto on Instagram.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2021-04-17-08-17-19.png
    Screenshot_2021-04-17-08-17-19.png
    431.8 KB · Views: 148
Wyvern said:
Some more news:

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Video shows British carrier jets launching into combat

Footage shows F-35Bs launching from the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth to conduct combat operations against Islamic State.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

MoD confirm aircraft carriers may be fitted with catapults

The Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers might be fitted with catapults 'in the coming years'.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

The attachment below also shows possible configurations (which I assume are speculative) of possible layouts for the catapult and arrestor gear on the QE-class, sourced from @royalnavyphoto on Instagram.
Click to expand...

I would have liked the carrier’s to have had catapults from the start instead of being STOVL, but we were lacking the experience of operating from conventional cat and trap carriers since the Ark Royal 4 was retired in the late Seventies. :(
 
Wyvern said:
Some more news:

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Video shows British carrier jets launching into combat

Footage shows F-35Bs launching from the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth to conduct combat operations against Islamic State.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

MoD confirm aircraft carriers may be fitted with catapults

The Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers might be fitted with catapults 'in the coming years'.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

The attachment below also shows possible configurations (which I assume are speculative) of possible layouts for the catapult and arrestor gear on the QE-class, sourced from @royalnavyphoto on Instagram.
Click to expand...
at this point, if they are going to renovate the deck for a catapult..
they might as well go for a full blown EMALS, so they can launch an E-2 and finally solve the AWACs issue, while the F-35Bs continue to use the ski jump.
or go all the way with 2 or 3 catapults
 
Wyvern said:
The RN has stated that catapults will be fitted to allow for the carriage of the Vixen AEW and Tanker drones. It would be nice to see the E-2 in RN colours though, after almost fifty years since it was first proposed.
Click to expand...

Same here Wyvern, is there any pictures available about the Vixen AEW? This is the first time I have heard about it.
 
FighterJock said:
Wyvern said:
The RN has stated that catapults will be fitted to allow for the carriage of the Vixen AEW and Tanker drones. It would be nice to see the E-2 in RN colours though, after almost fifty years since it was first proposed.
Click to expand...

Same here Wyvern, is there any pictures available about the Vixen AEW? This is the first time I have heard about it.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, I do not know whether the images that are running around the internet are just concepts or whether they have been released from official sources.

Here are but a few images of the ones that are on the internet. Details regarding the program are rather scanty, and most of what I've seen is speculation. I am also unsure as to whether this type is related to the Project Mosquito drone that is also under development. Roles for this type aren't limited to just being a tanker, it can also be used as a strike and electronic warfare platform.

I will have to read further into this topic to provide more information.

There is quite a wealth of information available here:
 

Attachments

  • Project Vixen.jpg
    Project Vixen.jpg
    44.5 KB · Views: 68
  • Project Vixen with F-35.jpg
    Project Vixen with F-35.jpg
    83.9 KB · Views: 49
  • Project Vixen with QE.jpg
    Project Vixen with QE.jpg
    149 KB · Views: 77
FighterJock said:
Wyvern said:
The RN has stated that catapults will be fitted to allow for the carriage of the Vixen AEW and Tanker drones. It would be nice to see the E-2 in RN colours though, after almost fifty years since it was first proposed.
Click to expand...

Same here Wyvern, is there any pictures available about the Vixen AEW? This is the first time I have heard about it.
Click to expand...
same here..
i looked it up and it seems to be a typical drone size..
i wonder how much coverage it provides compared to say, an E-2 or a Merlin
I assume the data crunching will be done on the ship or something. i wonder about latency issues

-edit-
just noticed Wyverns new post

when it comes to STOVL vs CATOBAR..
there was this old report from the UK that did an examination of it
based on the Falklands experience.
It basically summarized that the issue wasnt the VTOL jets or conventional ones
but size. The invincible was too small and could not carry AEW which led to the Argentine sneak attacks.
They surmised that a STOVL carrier could be effective if it was larger and had some kind of AEW asset.

perhaps their idea will finally come into fruition if the QE finally gets their AEW!
i understand STOVL aircraft might have some handicap in range, payload, and are more expensive to purchase
but pilot training and retention in the long term is likely cheaper.
 
Last edited:
The plan was to rely on RAF AEW coverage from Nimord AEW.3, the RN hadn't quite envisioned heading down to the opposite end of the earth to fight a war.
Seaking AEW studies had been done as early as 1969, so it didn't take long to lash-up the Seaking AEW and then formalise a productionised kit.
Today its up to Crowsnest to provide the AEW coverage. A UAV like Vixen could have a superior radar (unless the MoD bungs those Searchwater sets into a third airframe!), better ceiling and endurance for superior coverage but data processing will have to be done aboard ship.

Whatever launch/retrieval method is decided on, the main issue is going to be making sure that F-35 ski-jump launch and roller landings are not interrupted or hampered.
 
I think it's a wrong idea. Given that a catapult would be only used for T.O of a sized down airframe, the problem is not the lack of a catapult but the lack of thrust on the said airframe.
Hence an alternative T.O mean is necessary to comply to the mission more efficiently. That is has to be an embedded dedicated propulsion set or a dedicated configurable vehicle (a lifter*) remains an iterative choice.

A single catapult is an option on a commercial ship that does not need redundancy. What happens on the QE when the emal is down for maintenance or from the result of a sophisticated cyber attack or a direct hit?

In any way, IMOHO, the necessity to fit an emal for the single purpose of launching some heavy drones is illogical.


*A "Lifter" would be an electrically charged winged (or not) vehicle for example that would have a power to weight ratio of a single high digit able to provide the necessary speed for the UAV to use the ramp on a classical STOL sheme, detach at a relative proximity from the carrier, circle and land back (probably vertically at first and then via an arrested landing).
The launched UAV would land back via an arrested landing using the benefits of a lower mass at the end of the mission to make for the lack of power during approach or go around.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom