Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jensy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 31 May 2023, 22:12
Jensy wrote: 31 May 2023, 21:07 My vote would be for Gannet or Sea Gannet after our previous, fixed-wing, single prop, ASW and AEW platform!
Good choice!

As it’s a first for the Royal Navy my vote would be for VAMPIRE in memory of Eric “Winkle” Brown’s first landing of a jet aircraft on a ship when he landed on HMS Ocean on 3rd December
I'd happily support any de Havilland 'V' name from Royal Navy history.

That said, your post has made me think. We could do a lot worse than 'Sea Winkle', for our first carrier-bourne UCAV, in honour of the great man!

It would also follow a proud tradition of FAA aircraft named for seafood.
These users liked the author Jensy for the post:
Poiuytrewq

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1626
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by xav »

Another great story from Combined Naval Event by Richard Scott

The UK Royal Navy is studying the introduction of aircraft launch and recovery systems on board its two Queen Elizabeth-class (QEC) aircraft carriers to ‘open up’ the flight deck to a broader range of crewed and uncrewed air systems.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/cn ... -carriers/
These users liked the author xav for the post (total 2):
JensyAnthony58

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by R686 »

xav wrote: 01 Jun 2023, 14:58 Another great story from Combined Naval Event by Richard Scott

The UK Royal Navy is studying the introduction of aircraft launch and recovery systems on board its two Queen Elizabeth-class (QEC) aircraft carriers to ‘open up’ the flight deck to a broader range of crewed and uncrewed air systems.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/cn ... -carriers/

They should have just put steam CATS on it in the first place
These users liked the author R686 for the post:
Digger22

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Not steam, but EMCAT ! :mrgreen:

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by new guy »

Imagine In the RAF right now where there is the ominous fact that they're going to want to start doing rugged F-35B ops to show its value of STOVL.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by new guy »

RN has many FMAF (Future Maritime Aviation Force) project. UPDATED

. F-35B (Obivious) Sounds for new Tranche and a aimed FOC of 24 jets in a CSG.

. Aircraft carrier modification possibilities being looked into project ARK ROYAL.
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/cn ... -carriers/
“We are looking to move from STOVL to STOL [short takeoff and landing], then to STOBAR [short takeoff but arrested recovery] and then to CATOBAR [catapult assisted takeoff but arrested recovery]. We are looking at a demonstrable progression that spreads out the financial cost and incrementally improves capability.”


Colonel Phil Kelly, Head of Carrier Strike and Maritime Aviation in Royal Navy

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.”
So, a Progression design method. It would be quite interesting to see CSG year over year evolutionary-like improvements.

I like that RN is not being idiotic and taking away the ramp.

Image

also yet more hints of MQ-28 Boeing Australia loyal wing man.

Image

. VAMPIRE. The Qinetiq BANSHEE 80+ has been procured as a threat simulation drone and replacement for the HAWK T1s of disbanded
736 NAS, but this is intended to be the first role only. VAMPIRE is looking at fitting ISR (EO/IR and a small conformal AESA radar)
equipment onto them

. VIXEN. Longer term, a fixed-wing, multirole drone with a large payload is the aim, to contribute to Strike and to hopefully succeed to CROWSNEST in delivering Airborne Early Warning so the overworked MERLINs can go back to doing ASW "only".

. MOJAVE: the latest announcement for 7 months of evaluations with General Atomics' Short Take Off and Landing solutions for large (MQ-9B PROTECTOR class drones) will be exploring just how far you can go in terms of drone sizes and weights WITHOUT needing to modify the ship.
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/cn ... -stol-uas/

. PROTEUS: due to fly in 2025, this uncrewed helicopter being developed by Leonardo at Yeovil will have MTOW of 7000 lbs/3000+ kg with large payload. Again, aim is to contribute to AEW and ASW, supporting manned MERLIN. MCM mission is also looking at using air drones in support.

. PRIMUS: Heavy Lift drone(s), supported by a dedicate NAVYPODS container, with the ability to move loads between ships and ship to shore, to ensure VERTREP tasks / carrier on board delivery and many others that do not quite require a manned helicopter are covered more cheaply.

. PEREGRINE / Flexible Tactical UAS: urgent operational requirement for deployed warships, primarily in the Gulf. Shiebel S100 helicopter with EO/IR and Thales I-Master search radar.
These users liked the author new guy for the post (total 2):
Anthony58SD67

Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jdam »

The time for this was during construction, we were going to build it as CATOBAR in 2010 and we bottled it. You can make the argument it was due to the economic issues at the time or the increase in costs of doing so but all short sighted decisions have consequences and here we are. We have spent nearly 10 years buying the more expensive F-35B and put god knows how much money into crows nest.

It would be a dream come true for us to have 2 CATOBAR carriers but It just feels like we are trying to do it in the most wasteful way possible. You could rightly same i am being too negative here but I can see all the ways this can go wrong, (selling one off in order to get funds to upgrade the other one is my biggest fear) Then there will be years out of the water getting refitted and will breaking it up in a smaller upgrades really make it quicker?

I know its just "Exploring" but we have made our bed with STOVL and now we are living with the consequences and they are not all bad, we have 2 large carriers, the F-35B is a good aircraft, crows nest will eventually work and if the drone trials work with the current configuration then great, if not a full flight deck of F-35's is nothing to turn our noses up at.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by new guy »

Jdam wrote: 01 Jun 2023, 16:45 The time for this was during construction, we were going to build it as CATOBAR in 2010 and we bottled it. You can make the argument it was due to the economic issues at the time or the increase in costs of doing so but all short sighted decisions have consequences and here we are. We have spent nearly 10 years buying the more expensive F-35B and put god knows how much money into crows nest.

It would be a dream come true for us to have 2 CATOBAR carriers but It just feels like we are trying to do it in the most wasteful way possible. You could rightly same i am being too negative here but I can see all the ways this can go wrong, (selling one off in order to get funds to upgrade the other one is my biggest fear) Then there will be years out of the water getting refitted and will breaking it up in a smaller upgrades really make it quicker?

I know its just "Exploring" but we have made our bed with STOVL and now we are living with the consequences and they are not all bad, we have 2 large carriers, the F-35B is a good aircraft, crows nest will eventually work and if the drone trials work with the current configuration then great, if not a full flight deck of F-35's is nothing to turn our noses up at.
I think you're broadly right. but..

1. The kind of EMALS there building is one completely different from the ones planned for PaNG or Gerald r.Ford class. They are designed for aircraft meant to be much lighter compared to F-35C,F-18, e.c.t. Those catapults also have to deal with even larger loads such as C-2, E-2 hawk-eyes, and even FCAS and FAXX.

2. USN is barely operating F-35C. Gerald r.Ford can't even operate them yet. Also F-35C Is still the most expensive variant by a margin

3. While are current plan for FMAF is nothing to be ashamed of, rather proud of, being in top 4 worldwide and probably 50-100% more effective compared to anything below it, it's most apparent weakness is AWACS. Crow nest OSD is 2028-2030. 5-7 years from now. It is also a rubbish solution, with a bad radar, and little effectiveness because it only really operates at 10,000 feet. We need a solution for that.

4. As you said, it's all experimental. If the trials fail, That means it's probably going to be the end of it. If not, we gain capability. Also this evolutionary design is much more politically friendly as its smaller modifications per go. Like: If we add (light) arresting wires, we can operate Vixen, Instead of: Strip the whole deck and replace with a full blown super-carrier grade CATOBAR system.

To summarise Project ark royal should be, and is, about supplementing current non-carrier modifying FMAF. Ramp remains, F-35B could still fly of QEC just as well. Theoretically, need-be we could fly off a Gerald r.Ford class today if need be and the pilots have the skills. Not many physical limitations. Can't do that with a F-35C. That is the power of the B.
These users liked the author new guy for the post:
serge750

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by serge750 »

When the CATOBAR conversion was being looked at weren't they only going to convert one & sell of the other ? I was kinda hoping they would convert one for CATOBAR ( Inc Hawkeye's ) then just have the other as it is now & use as a backup, but it's good they are Xploring the options now that there seems to be focus on the military

Bring Deeps
Donator
Posts: 217
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:06
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Bring Deeps »

It is certainly going to be an interesting few years and only time will tell if the QNLZ class are sufficiently adaptable to the changing technology.

We had bad luck with the armoured carriers of the 1940s which were so difficult to modernise so perhaps we are due a break.

The direction of travel does seem to be towards cheaper, smaller and more numerous UAVs so maybe F35B numbers won't be so critical after all.

If it does come down to numbers I wonder how the hanger will be used. It seems only yesterday that we were obsessing over how many F35s you could fit in. Will it now be racks of UAVs? Can SKB mock up some designs?

At least the HMWH system and magazines should be OK for whatever munitions are required.

All we need now is for China to flex their maritime muscle in a Daily Mail provoking manner to ensure the funding is available.
These users liked the author Bring Deeps for the post:
serge750

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

I thought Vampire was one of the many UAV Projects that RN looking into?

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by new guy »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 01 Jun 2023, 18:39 I thought Vampire was one of the many UAV Projects that RN looking into?
it is.
These users liked the author new guy for the post:
wargame_insomniac

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Why are the RN wasting time and money on this. Launch and recovery gear for UAVs for refuelling , AWACS and Loyal Wingman is fine. But trying change to a full CATOBAR carrier again? There are umpteen other more pressing requirements than that.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by new guy »

tomuk wrote: 01 Jun 2023, 19:26 Why are the RN wasting time and money on this. Launch and recovery gear for UAVs for refuelling , AWACS and Loyal Wingman is fine. But trying change to a full CATOBAR carrier again? There are umpteen other more pressing requirements than that.
1. How do you think they're gonna get AWACS, AAR and Loyal wingman in the air?
2. It isn't a full CATOBAR by any measure. First ramp is retained for F-35B ops, and the whole carrier platform is still optimized for carrier ops. Second, It is more of a "light" CATOBAR for UAV's. The weight differences between what might arise in the final stage for Project ark royal is nothing compared to the systems on USN navy, or PaNG. Because those are completely different beasts from our potential system which is intended to launch relatively light drones whereas theirs has to cope with much heavier F-18, F-35C, C-2 greyhounds, E-2 Hawkeye's, FAXX and FCAS. Which has to cope with the very high end with E-2 and C-2. Very different beasts. Also a lot less complex and a lot cheaper. As for why? Because if we want to have a better FMAF, this is the way.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote: 01 Jun 2023, 19:26 Why are the RN wasting time and money on this. Launch and recovery gear for UAVs for refuelling , AWACS and Loyal Wingman is fine. But trying change to a full CATOBAR carrier again? There are umpteen other more pressing requirements than that.
My initial reaction was that RN must have suddenly found money to burn but then something else crossed my mind.

Could it just be an attempt to solve the headcount and F35 headaches for the best part of a decade by instigating two very deep and protracted refits rather than putting one of the CVFs into extended readiness?

Perhaps I am being a bit cynical but the alterations to the CVFs may actually be cost neutral if the UK effectively only operated a single carrier for a decade plus all other RN vessels could be sufficiently crewed in the meantime.

In simple terms, is this RN’s way of avoiding a massive and highly embarrassing cut?
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
Jensy

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by tomuk »

new guy wrote: 01 Jun 2023, 19:48
tomuk wrote: 01 Jun 2023, 19:26 Why are the RN wasting time and money on this. Launch and recovery gear for UAVs for refuelling , AWACS and Loyal Wingman is fine. But trying change to a full CATOBAR carrier again? There are umpteen other more pressing requirements than that.
1. How do you think they're gonna get AWACS, AAR and Loyal wingman in the air?
As I said launch and recovery gear suitable for upto Loyal Wingman size I've not got a problem with
2. It isn't a full CATOBAR by any measure. First ramp is retained for F-35B ops, and the whole carrier platform is still optimized for carrier ops. Second, It is more of a "light" CATOBAR for UAV's. The weight differences between what might arise in the final stage for Project ark royal is nothing compared to the systems on USN navy, or PaNG. Because those are completely different beasts from our potential system which is intended to launch relatively light drones whereas theirs has to cope with much heavier F-18, F-35C, C-2 greyhounds, E-2 Hawkeye's, FAXX and FCAS. Which has to cope with the very high end with E-2 and C-2. Very different beasts. Also a lot less complex and a lot cheaper. As for why? Because if we want to have a better FMAF, this is the way.
But it is full CATOBAR if you read the article linked. The RN's graphic refers to potential for F18, F35C and Rafale. The Colonel is specifically quoted as CATOBAR as a goal and says that with catapults they will be able to launch the heaviest aircraft.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
Scimitar54

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by abc123 »

serge750 wrote: 01 Jun 2023, 17:53 When the CATOBAR conversion was being looked at weren't they only going to convert one & sell of the other ? I was kinda hoping they would convert one for CATOBAR ( Inc Hawkeye's ) then just have the other as it is now & use as a backup, but it's good they are Xploring the options now that there seems to be focus on the military
Wasn't the price quoted last time they planned to do that about 1 bln. pounds? For PoW only?

If so, I think that you can buy lots of F-35 for 2 bln. pounds, so they will not need to beg USMC to send a few of their own, so that the deck isn't so empty...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by sol »

Good article from NavyLookout

https://www.navylookout.com/the-royal-n ... ion-force/
Funding is far from assured and this would not be realised before the 2030s but the ultimate ambition is to have a highly capable hybrid carrier that can still operate F-35Bs using a ramp but also has two electro-magnetic catapults and arrestor wires. This would allow the operation of large UAS as well as conventional allied fixed-wing aircraft and future-proof the carriers to carry all kinds of future air vehicles. Notably the longer port cat would allow operation of the Boeing MQ-25 Stingray – a dedicated Air-Air Refuelling UAS developed for the US Navy which would hugely increase operating radius of the F-35s.
So lot will depend on funding but also UK is still planing to operate F-35B from the carrier as it will keep ramp.
These users liked the author sol for the post:
new guy

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Fills me with complete confidence that an army colonel is heading this up. :(

Nearly as bad as having a land based RAF in charge of the ship's major weapon system :(

Only in the UK, sigh.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post (total 3):
abc123serge750swoop

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by new guy »

sol wrote: 02 Jun 2023, 14:07 Good article from NavyLookout

https://www.navylookout.com/the-royal-n ... ion-force/
Funding is far from assured and this would not be realised before the 2030s but the ultimate ambition is to have a highly capable hybrid carrier that can still operate F-35Bs using a ramp but also has two electro-magnetic catapults and arrestor wires. This would allow the operation of large UAS as well as conventional allied fixed-wing aircraft and future-proof the carriers to carry all kinds of future air vehicles. Notably the longer port cat would allow operation of the Boeing MQ-25 Stingray – a dedicated Air-Air Refuelling UAS developed for the US Navy which would hugely increase operating radius of the F-35s.
So lot will depend on funding but also UK is still planing to operate F-35B from the carrier as it will keep ramp.
Naturally; This is to supplement F-35B ops and provide a better more enhanced CSG.

jcs1959
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 23 Feb 2017, 17:04
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by jcs1959 »

Just to let you know, Col Kelly in fact a Royal Marine ex Harrier pilot who has been involved with the carrier strike group since the beginning. So no army involvement at all.
These users liked the author jcs1959 for the post (total 3):
TimmymagicRon5Djpowell1984

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Why the original decision would of cost so much was you would have had to pause the ship build for about 2 years to allow engineers to redesign significant portions of the upper blocks while at the same time paying several shipyards for having there workforce sit on there hands until the redesign was completed.

That’s before you realise emals is still not certified with f35 so you would still not of had jets on decks.

To be thinking about this now again shows just how stovepiped not joined up thinking still is not to mention an organisation behaving as though it has an unlimited amount of cash sloshing about the mind boggles!

If they want to have this conversation fine but define exactly where and why this is needed first off. Then as the armed forces are reasonably small it needs to include navy crewing and training, flight training, the future combat jet and unmanned systems, airborne surveillance capabilities, air mobility and rotors wing capabilities and how you leverage economies of scale across the force or is there plan just to rely on others for the difficult bits.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
new guy

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Ron5 wrote: 02 Jun 2023, 14:27 Fills me with complete confidence that an army colonel is heading this up. :(

Nearly as bad as having a land based RAF in charge of the ship's major weapon system :(

Only in the UK, sigh.
Royal Marine former FA2 pilot you daft clot.
These users liked the author RichardIC for the post:
Ron5

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

abc123 wrote: 02 Jun 2023, 13:53 Wasn't the price quoted last time they planned to do that about 1 bln. pounds? For PoW only?
I remember listening to a chap being interviewed about that £1billion figure.

He was a member of the design team & was phoned by an MP wanting data for a forthcoming Parliamentary debate on the carriers. He was asked how much it would cost to revert to CATOBAR.

He had absolutely no idea how much it would cost, but knowing how any figure that he came out with could well end up being described as a "firm quote" (and also knowing that no-one in the ACA really wanted to go down that path), he decided to go high. so if someone did try to hold them to it, they at least wouldn't run out of money part way through.

So, he said, "I thought of a likely figure, then doubled it". The £1billion figure was used in the debate and has now passed into folklaw. Basically, no-one has ever actually costed it properly.
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
Poiuytrewq
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Digger22
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Digger22 »

I'm sure the cost of a different airwing was also added to the guestimate, without taking off the saving of the original airwing. Courtesy of. B Hodges I believe.
I have long argued for a hybrid carrier, with cats n traps on the waist, and retaining the ramp, as we are too heavily invested in Dave's.
I don't think project Ark Royal goes far enough. Unless the reduction in E7 was ro fund a few E-2D.
But we're a long way away from that I think.

Post Reply