Thread: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

  1. #2386

    Default

    Magnificient, On RAF infiltration into the operation of the new Carriers the lessons learned before the Second World Wae were, sadly, too late and we entered into that conflict with superb carriers ( Ark Royal, Illustious etc. ) but flying the Swordfish !! The RAF had the Hurricane and the Spitfire. Many Posts ago I drew attention to the 'Inskip Award' which was the result of a belatted realisation by the then Government that the RAF were ( obviously ) concerned primarily with their service and the needs of the naval air arm were secondary.

    On the size of the Cammell Laird CB02's they are three decks high against the A&P Tyne CB03's which were two decks. This is because LB03 was one deck higher than LB02. I think this is due to the height of Govan as against Portsmouth. This also manifests itself in the height of the forward island were, according to the graphics, will be shipped with the top of the forward mast missing. This will ( with radar ) be added in Rosyth.

    On a different topic the hanger diagram also shows the position of the ships boats. They appear to be three workboats and two Ribs.

  2. #2387
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    318

    Default

    Now thats just teasing Mag, any chance of a scan
    Sorry - there wasn't enough material of interest in hte issue to justify the cover price here in Canada so I didn't bring it home.


    I really, really, really hope this is true.
    So do we all, but I would not assume from this statement that a decision has been taken in this regard; seems like some inaccurate reporting to me. What is clear is that the RN is going to proceed with CATOBAR for the second ship, and the Admiral's visit to the STENNIS and the embedded FAA pilot are two pieces of a plan to begin regeneration of that capability. What is not yet clear is whether or not the first ship will be refitted for CATOBAR operations. What is becoming clear is that there has been a shift on the part of government toward retention of the first ship, and if possible, conversion to CATOBAR at some point in the future.


    Magnificient, On RAF infiltration into the operation of the new Carriers the lessons learned before the Second World Wae were, sadly, too late and we entered into that conflict with superb carriers ( Ark Royal, Illustious etc. ) but flying the Swordfish !! The RAF had the Hurricane and the Spitfire. Many Posts ago I drew attention to the 'Inskip Award' which was the result of a belatted realisation by the then Government that the RAF were ( obviously ) concerned primarily with their service and the needs of the naval air arm were secondary.
    One thing I forgot to mention which I saw in the article was a reference to efforts by the RAF to downplay the contribution of FNS CHARLES DE GAULLE and her air wing in the Libya campaign, and to promote the success of the RAF's land-based air operations. That would seem to have been negated by the excellent reviews of the French carrier's performance (high 90s % availability of Rafales on board) and the Commons Defence Committee report cited in this thread a few pages back which highlighted the very high cost of the land-based air operations, the success of HMS OCEAN with her Apaches, and the notable absence of HMS ARK ROYAL.

  3. #2388
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    south east england
    Posts
    416

    Default

    On a different topic the hanger diagram also shows the position of the ships boats. They appear to be three workboats and two Ribs.[/QUOTE]


    hi guys

    Good spot about the ribs! i was too busy looking at the hanger space to notice.

  4. #2389
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    south east england
    Posts
    416

    Default

    I cant remember if this has already been posted but...
    Attachments Pending Approval Attachments Pending Approval

  5. #2390
    Senior Member SDL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brentwood, England
    Posts
    3,701

    Default

    IIRC, that's been around since the early stages of the carrier project hasn't it?

  6. #2391

    Default

    Guys,

    I am mucho impressed by the ACA Media chief, John Fyall, who I emailed earlier today ( Sunday !!! ) to ask if there was 'any reason' for the Portsmouth 'Weekly Cameras' being deleted back to early January. He has replied ... ' No, I need to speak to the internet provider on this, thanks for flagging it up. He also added ' ...In Good News you should soon be able to access new timer lapse images from the Rosyth assembly site soon. Keep a lookout over the next week.

    He really does try and provide the paying public with a valuable service !!!

  7. #2392
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    south east england
    Posts
    416

    Default

    I think so SDL,i was looking at some old pictures on my laptop,sorry.

    SuperCarrierFan,it would be good to see some timelapse pictures of the assembly, tar

  8. #2393

    Default

    [QUOTE=SuperCarrierFan;6051868]Guys,

    I am mucho impressed by the ACA Media chief, John Fyall, who I emailed earlier today ( Sunday !!! ) to ask if there was 'any reason' for the Portsmouth 'Weekly Cameras' being deleted back to early January. He has replied ... ' No, I need to speak to the internet provider on this, thanks for flagging it up. He also added ' ...In Good News you should soon be able to access new timer lapse images from the Rosyth assembly site soon. Keep a lookout over the next week.

    That is good news SuperCarrierFan. I had raised the matter about the Rosyth timelapse with John Fyall just after he took up his appointment although the view from the front of the dry dock would have been fairly limited during Cycle A with LB03 sat at the southern end of the dock. Cycle B is a different matter as all the action will be taking place at the front of the dry dock just in front of the existing camera. Hopefully the internet provider will set up a similar camera ar the rear of the dry dock for Cycle C.

    LB03 emerged from the construction hall about 3 weeks before leaving Govan and it took about 3 weeks to off load the block and float it into the dry dock.
    If LB02 is due to float into the dry dock on 22 June it is required to be in Rosyth at the start of the month which means that the block should emerge from the construction hall at the beginning of May to allow time for loading on and securing to the barge followed by transporting to Rosyth. This means that LB05 will need to be out of the construction hall by the last week in April to make way for LB02's progress. In other words we only have 7 weeks to wait at the most for the next major development; that assumes of course that the Centre Blocks are transported to Rosyth after LB02, if before then things could hot up in the next month.

  9. #2394
    Member Lawndart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Widnes, Cheshire, UK.
    Posts
    601

    Default

    One thing I've been thinking about regarding the Queen Elizabeth class ship's are their defensive armament, given that the Phalanxes as I've seen pictured seem to have rather limited arcs of fire, particularly in the aft starboard quarter. Plus the fact that the evolving nature of the missile threat, particularly from newer generation anti ship missiles that are broadly speaking, becoming supersonic such as Kh-22 Sunburn, BrahMos etc. Phalanx however was developed at a time when the missile threat was mostly subsonic, from the likes of Exocet, Harpoon etc., meaning that Phalanx is no longer as potent a defence as it once was. Thus, getting to the point of my rather rambling post is the idea that I've been mulling over is that of "containerising" CAMM-M or 'Sea Ceptor', given that it's a cold launch missile meaning there doesn't need to be any accommodation for the missile's exhaust in the launch unit, and that CAMM is also a networked weapon, meaning the launch platform doesn't need it's own search and track radar to engage, it can use offboard censors to cue the missile onto target, where the missile's active seeker will take over the engagement.

    I understand a similar concept was attempted with the Sea Wolf, but abandoned on cost grounds in the 80's, but I believe with CAMM-M's advantages over Sea Wolf, principally in the lack of a need for it's own radar, then it could work, and could provide a means of upgrading a vessel's self defensive fire power cheaply, meaning that perhaps vessels such as RFA support vessels that have in the past needed protection by the warships they support can actually defend themselves, and as part of a task group, contibute toward the protection of the force as whole.

  10. #2395
    Member suricata's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lawndart View Post
    One thing I've been thinking about regarding the Queen Elizabeth class ship's are their defensive armament, given that the Phalanxes as I've seen pictured seem to have rather limited arcs of fire, particularly in the aft starboard quarter. Plus the fact that the evolving nature of the missile threat, particularly from newer generation anti ship missiles that are broadly speaking, becoming supersonic such as Kh-22 Sunburn, BrahMos etc. Phalanx however was developed at a time when the missile threat was mostly subsonic, from the likes of Exocet, Harpoon etc., meaning that Phalanx is no longer as potent a defence as it once was. Thus, getting to the point of my rather rambling post is the idea that I've been mulling over is that of "containerising" CAMM-M or 'Sea Ceptor', given that it's a cold launch missile meaning there doesn't need to be any accommodation for the missile's exhaust in the launch unit, and that CAMM is also a networked weapon, meaning the launch platform doesn't need it's own search and track radar to engage, it can use offboard censors to cue the missile onto target, where the missile's active seeker will take over the engagement.

    I understand a similar concept was attempted with the Sea Wolf, but abandoned on cost grounds in the 80's, but I believe with CAMM-M's advantages over Sea Wolf, principally in the lack of a need for it's own radar, then it could work, and could provide a means of upgrading a vessel's self defensive fire power cheaply, meaning that perhaps vessels such as RFA support vessels that have in the past needed protection by the warships they support can actually defend themselves, and as part of a task group, contibute toward the protection of the force as whole.
    I raised this a few pages back. I really think they need to consider using Searam instead of Phalanx for CIWS due to the nature of modern missle development, by the time a supersonic missle is in range of the phalanx, its intertia alone will mean it's debri will hit the ship even if the phalanx does manage to hit it! Also that debri is gonna be going pretty damn fast and will most likely cause significant damage to any aircraft or personal on deck.

  11. #2396
    Faulty Charisma Chip
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by suricata View Post
    I raised this a few pages back. I really think they need to consider using Searam instead of Phalanx for CIWS due to the nature of modern missle development, by the time a supersonic missle is in range of the phalanx, its intertia alone will mean it's debri will hit the ship even if the phalanx does manage to hit it! Also that debri is gonna be going pretty damn fast and will most likely cause significant damage to any aircraft or personal on deck.
    Why would you want to use SeaRam as opposed to CAMM(M), in the first place SeaRam is an 80's design although not in service until the early 90's,whereas CAMM is 90% new system although based on ASRAAM.

    CAMM is faster,Mach 3 as opposed to Mach 2 for SeaRAM. It has a far greater range 25km as opposed to 9km,is soft launched as stated as opposed to hot launch,and it's software is 75% based on the Sea Viper system used on T45,thus precluding expensive development costs.

    It is also hopefully be going to replace rapier,therefore giving commonality hence again cheaper to buy and maintain.

    It also has a good chance in the export market,and also keeps technical expertise and development within the European sphere.

    Personaly I see buying it as a no brainer,and due to its design would fit easily and in decent numbers on CVF.

  12. #2397
    Member exdabtoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Humber
    Posts
    132

    Default

    According to today's Telegraph, the unit cost of a F35 to the UK, currently stands at, $90,000,000 (£57 million). This would make the F/A 18 an increasingly attractive alternative. However, Lockheed Martin are at pains to point out that: "The F35 was developed with our principal industrial partners, Northrop Grummand and BAE Systems"; and as BAE runs through the whole CVF contract like the letters in a stick of seaside rock, there would be a lot of political lobbying before an alternative was considered.

  13. #2398
    Senior Member Jdam1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,204

    Default

    [*******#222222][FONT=Verdana]Isn’t that the same price we paid for the Typhoon?

    Any way the UK is getting a good work load out of the F-35, we are getting a very capable carrier variant out of it and most importantly we have already put a lot of money into the project, it’s VERY likely we have gotten to the point were buying the F-18 would be just as expensive.

    Also does 1 F-18 = 1 F-35 or would we need to buy more of them to have the same capability?[/FONT][/COLOR]

  14. #2399
    Senior Member USS Alabama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Lower Alabama USA
    Posts
    2,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidj322 View Post
    Just read this on tha Royal navy web site-

    "Her Majesty’s Ships Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, currently under construction, will be the largest warships ever to fly the White Ensign – and signal a return to traditional carrier operations.
    Unlike the current generation of Invincible-class carriers, the sisters use catapults and arrestor gear (‘cats and traps’ in Fleet Air Arm parlance) to launch and land aircraft, rather than ski ramps and vertical landings as embodied by the Harrier jump jet".


    Link to full story below.
    http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and...09-1SL-Stennis

    "LOthAR"




    ROTFLMAO!!!!!


  15. #2400
    Member Monty1985's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    81

    Default

    According to today's Telegraph, the unit cost of a F35 to the UK, currently stands at, $90,000,000 (£57 million). This would make the F/A 18 an increasingly attractive alternative. However, Lockheed Martin are at pains to point out that: "The F35 was developed with our principal industrial partners, Northrop Grummand and BAE Systems"; and as BAE runs through the whole CVF contract like the letters in a stick of seaside rock, there would be a lot of political lobbying before an alternative was considered.
    Either way BAE would still get something out of it, they have their fingers in each and every pie going these days regardless of if they supply the plane themselves or if we buy from LM & Boeing. You could argue that the deal for the F-35C would make BAE the larger profit, however I'm sure they would find a way of ramping up the costs if we did change our minds.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •