Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers

[madjackmcmad]

I agree though (particularly if that cost is correct) I think only one will be fitted out as things stand. The 2nd will be built, but its anyones guess as to its eventual fate. It may eventually see service after a long hiatus. Look at the former HMS Hermes that served in the Falklands, that was laid down in 1944 but took 15 years to enter service.

[Matthieu]

Originally Posted by Mark76

4 QEII class carriers!?

Britannia rules the waves, indeed

Nope just 2 catapults per carriers, like on the Charles de Gaulle. You can see them in the renders of the CATOBAR version.

To compare, the American aircraft carriers have 4 catapults each.

Render of a Nimitz: 4 catapults

[Matthieu]

Anyway, on the aircraft issues, more delays of the F-35 were announced. 1 more year for the A and C versions, and 3 for the B version.

[RobitTV]

Will both of These carriers Still go ahead?

[Manchester Planner]

Yes.

[I see no ships]

No, the Government have been specific that we will have a carrier strike capability based on 2 carriers, of which one will be permanently active, the other at extended readiness.

That cannot be achieved unless both carriers are fitted with the full kit.

Carrier Strike
Our carrier strike capability will be based around a single operational carrier, with a second planned to be kept at extended readiness. This leaves open options to rotate them, to ensure a continuous UK carrier strike capability; or to regenerate more quickly a two carrier strike capability.

They list the alternative as doing away with the second carrier altogether... which, again, the Government have specifically stated is not the preferred option.

http://download.cabinetoffice.gov.uk...royal-navy.pdf

[I see no ships]

Originally Posted by AdmiralAnthony

Think you mean the port cat.

No I did mean stbd, given it's intusion onto the runway area, making simultaneous launch/recovery a little tricky!

[Manchester Planner]

Has the agreement with France totally passed you by?

We have a carrier with catobar, so do they. The British and French vessels are scheduled (refit wise, etc) so that the UK-France Alliance has one available at any time.

That's not to say that both the PoW and the QE will both have catobar fitted, but it is possible just one will and at the same time we can get away with it thanks to the new agreement.

[madjackmcmad]

Originally Posted by I see no ships

That cannot be achieved unless both carriers are fitted with the full kit.

I fully accept that premise, but the government have made no such decision on the cats yet.

From Hansard, Nov 4th Nick Harvey answering questions in parliament.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) wanted to know whether we had had discussions with the French or the Americans about their potential use of a carrier fitted with "cats and traps". Yes, of course we have; we have had lengthy discussions with both of them. He also asked whether the second carrier would have "cats and traps" fitted. We can decide that at any point in the future; we have left ourselves the flexibility to do that.

So, no decision has been taken yet.

[Matthieu]

Another issue you'll face if you still go with F-35B and STOVL is that two days ago another 3 years delay was announced for this version.

[JackSwan]

two catapults per ship? hey, we'll be able to launch the entire ship's complement of f35s simultaneously!

[Matthieu]

Maybe I'm just saying something stupid, but you can see them in front of the two planes ready to take off

http://i64.servimg.com/u/f64/12/44/77/64/qecato10.jpg

[desertswo]

Originally Posted by I see no ships

No I did mean stbd, given it's intusion onto the runway area, making simultaneous launch/recovery a little tricky!

If the artist's rendering is correct, there appears to be room for simultaneous traps and shoots; even with airplanes catching the four wire (which is considered a poor show among American naval aviators). However that is not the preferred way to do business. Instead, in what is referred to as "cyclic ops," aircraft are launched in groups, sometimes as many as 20 at a time, and then recovered in groups as well. That way, possible accidents attendant to a landing airplane "busting the foul line" are significantly reduced.

[I see no ships]

Thanks for your reply. What would be the situation wrt bolters?

[desertswo]

Originally Posted by I see no ships

Thanks for your reply. What would be the situation wrt bolters?

Bolters are an issue regardless of whether the ship is engaged in cyclic ops or simultaneous launch and recovery of aircraft. “Simultaneous” doesn’t mean literally shooting and trapping the same instant; rather, an airplane is launched, the Jet Blast Deflector (JBD) lowers, an airplane is trapped and moved beyond the foul line, another airplane is moved onto the cat, the JBD raises, the airplane is launched, and so on for as long as crew rest and safety of flight can be maintained. It is a highly stylized and well rehearsed ballet, and a place where accidents can be catastrophic. Unless they’ve ever served in a CV, most people don't realize that the hangar bay is not a place frequented by "full up" aircraft, and only a few airplanes, derisively known as “hangar queens” are ever found there. I vividly recall one Tomcat that never budged from its spot in the hangar bay for nine months during my first trip across the pond; that is, not until our return to San Diego when it magically “got well” and was able to join its friends in the traditional “fly off” that occurs three days before the ship itself arrives at its home port. Those of us who made our living “driving” ships, and were there for the whole ride, thought it was interesting how that always managed to happen.

Anyway, fully operational aircraft are chocked and chained topside on the flight deck outboard of the foul lines where routine maintenance (including fresh water wash downs; very important in a salt spray environment), minor repairs, fueling and arming them is performed. Because of these crowded conditions, aircraft are constantly on the move, even if not being flown, to allow for various “evolutions” to occur; so “yellow gear” are constantly being affixed to airplanes to tow them hither and yon at the direction of the Flight Deck Officer and his crew. Interestingly, all this movement becomes an issue for the ship’s engineers as a fully loaded airplane the size of an F/A-18 positioned out on the angle can cause the ship to list upwards of one degree to port. Put two out there and you start to have a real problem, not so much with ship’s stability, but with the ability to easily move other airplanes on a flight deck that gets slippery with rain or salt spray. So the engineers are often pumping and flooding voids in the hull to counteract any list put on by aircraft movement.

Regardless, with conditions this crowded, any out of the ordinary situation that puts aircraft in an uncontrolled foray across that foul line is automatically a worst case scenario. The most infamous of these in the modern era was the accident aboard USS Nimitz in 1981 when an EA-6B Prowler (the electronics counter-measure variant of the A-6 Intruder) busted the foul line destroying three other aircraft, injuring 39 and killing 14. One of the interesting outcomes of that accident was that during the autopsies of the dead, THC was found in the blood of almost everyone involved. That resulted in first the Navy, and then the entire Department of Defense instituting random urinalysis throughout the force. As an anecdotal observation, that simple expedient resulted in a drastic, and much welcomed decline in the number of people receiving non-judicial punishment and courts martial for drug related offenses. Anyway, I went a long way around the barn to answer your question, but I hope I did.

[John Robinson]

Very interesting, Desertswo. Thanks.

[desertswo]

Originally Posted by John Robinson

Very interesting, Desertswo. Thanks.

You are quite welcome Sir!

-Captain Mike Eagen, USN(Ret)

[RobitTV]

As the world mourns the loss of HMS Ark Royal, the first of the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers is taking shape in Portsmouth.

BAE Systems workers in the city's base are busy constructing parts of the huge ship, which will be finally assembled at Firth of Forth at Rosyth Royal Dockyard, Scotland.

Link to Article

Picture:

[desertpunk]

Looks great! It's tough to find shots of the USS Gerald Ford atm so this makes me happy.

[blahblah]

Originally Posted by desertpunk

Looks great! It's tough to find shots of the USS Gerald Ford atm so this makes me happy.

I know - That's the only recent image of Big Beth on the net and that image is as big as it comes. The rest of the images floating around are at least 12 months old.

Anyone would think that Grumman & Aircraft Carrier Alliance are wanting to keep details of their respective constructions classified for some reason!

Also, I seem to remember reading somewhere but cannot now find anything on it now which said that some ceremonial bits of the USS Gerald R Ford were made at Babcock Rosyth, and the same ceremonial bit of HMS Queen Elizabeth was made at Newport News?