Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Geoff_B]

Those other bits of metalwork look like bits for the takeoff ramp may be?

Nope those have yet to be ordered, that will be a piece of one of PoW's blocks lower hull, they create them in small sections where they can be welded, turned over welded again and then moved to assembly on the actual blocks, the video footage of LB02 last week when the switch was in the news before being confirmed panned to the right to show the bits of PoW being created upside down.

[CVerrier]

I've noted comments about 'burning or buckling' deck plates; surely one of the prime design features of the 35B, is that it sits down and rises on a blast of cold air from its Rolls Royce hover fan, which must be a big improvement on the Harrier?

The front nozzles on the Harrier were cold air from the front (LP) compressor, the rear nozzles were hot (Wikipedia says 650C)

I did see an article that indicated the F35 hot nozzle was about 600C, so not much in it. Things get a lot hotter with afterburner (not something the Harrier had to worry itself about), but I'm pretty sure you don't use afterburner in a hover!

[Geoff_B]

Re the SRVL, apparenly studies continued after the 2010 switch as we had already paid for it, so thay will be using that information to configure the lighting on the rear deck of the QEC class to cater for SRVL. As for the Angled deck there is no need as the format of the carrier allows the axial deck to be kept clear as the sponsons allow for plentiful deck parking and VTOL operations. Should an aircraft fail to brake it can bolt and make use of the skijump to regain lift.

Re the Forth Bridge. The completed height of the QEC class is 47m and they have configured the becon mast to be on hydraulics so it can the retracted when required, so yes it does have clearance to get under the existing bridges and the new one being built.

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

I notice from the 'latest designs' on the QEC Wikipedia page that a single Blast deflector is in operation whilst in STOVL config. Is this still a design consideration?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_E...rcraft_carrier



Thanks.

[exdabtoe]

Do we have any update on Converteam's EMCAT design?

[cockneyjock1974]

Do we have any update on Converteam's EMCAT design?

Here u go!

http://www.converteam.com/majic/page...-Catapult.html

[exdabtoe]

Here u go!

http://www.converteam.com/majic/page...-Catapult.html

Thanks CJ. I was wondering whether EMCAT was likely to be less bulky and possibly cheaper than EMALS

[cyrilranch]

The Video of LB05 shipping out is now on the ACA site
http://www.1blueharbour.com/aircraft...ighlight_1.php

[cockneyjock1974]

Considerably cheaper to the tune of 144 millions I think it was, I think it's fair to say we will see EMCAT on T26's and possibly as a bolt on to the CVF's but that's my wild theories. I envisage some sort of collapsible arm that swings out from the side of the deck but on a much smaller scale than EMALS and only for light UAV's.

There was a marine architect on another forum who does naval design in the UK, who believes that the 2 billion costs for Catobar are realistic. He states that the physical equipment and installation of it are the cheap part. It's what goes on under the deck that is the costly part, cabling, trunking etc. if he is to be believed then it seems to me that the CVF's certainly aren't future proofed and easily adaptable. This to me is quite the worry if Mr B gets canned.

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

Considerably cheaper to the tune of 144 millions I think it was, I think it's fair to say we will see EMCAT on T26's and possibly as a bolt on to the CVF's but that's my wild theories. I envisage some sort of collapsible arm that swings out from the side of the deck but on a much smaller scale than EMALS and only for light UAV's.

There was a marine architect on another forum who does naval design in the UK, who believes that the 2 billion costs for Catobar are realistic. He states that the physical equipment and installation of it are the cheap part. It's what goes on under the deck that is the costly part, cabling, trunking etc. if he is to be believed then it seems to me that the CVF's certainly aren't future proofed and easily adaptable. This to me is quite the worry if Mr B gets canned.

Unless we get another U U Turn, then its a dead duck I'm afraid. Although after reading the following story over the weekend again, wouldn't surprise me if we did !


http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...dget-disaster/


Just one point CJ, I thought we were all lead to believe that trunking was actually been installed, is not the case regardless of config. Not trying to poke the hornets nest Jonas (pardon the pun) just seeking clarification.


Thanks

[cyrilranch]

Considerably cheaper to the tune of 144 millions I think it was, I think it's fair to say we will see EMCAT on T26's and possibly as a bolt on to the CVF's but that's my wild theories. I envisage some sort of collapsible arm that swings out from the side of the deck but on a much smaller scale than EMALS and only for light UAV's.

There was a marine architect on another forum who does naval design in the UK, who believes that the 2 billion costs for Catobar are realistic. He states that the physical equipment and installation of it are the cheap part. It's what goes on under the deck that is the costly part, cabling, trunking etc. if he is to be believed then it seems to me that the CVF's certainly aren't future proofed and easily adaptable. This to me is quite the worry if Mr B gets canned.

I think when QE comes in for her first refit she will get a CAT of some sort for UAV launches weather it will be big enough to launch a X45(UCAS) is another case.

[cockneyjock1974]

Unless we get another U U Turn, then its a dead duck I'm afraid. Although after reading the following story over the weekend again, wouldn't surprise me if we did !


http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...dget-disaster/


Just one point CJ, I thought we were all lead to believe that trunking was actually been installed, is not the case regardless of config. Not trying to poke the hornets nest Jonas (pardon the pun) just seeking clarification.


Thanks

Well exactly my point QEC, it's supposed to be ready to be converted, the thing is its one guys statement on a forum, so who knows mate.

@Cyralranch would prefer a marinised Taranis myself but X47 will do for me if it's possible.

[Naval Oldie]

I've just watched the Secretary of State announce that the MoD's Equipment Budget for the next 12 years is not only in balance but that he has built in a contingency of about £1Bn per year. Clearly the switch from fitting cats and traps has contributed to that contingency fund but I know which I would have preferred. Given the stated cost of running two carriers over just one as an extra £60M per year, one would like to think that this will be top of the list for SDSR 2015 and if the unit cost of T26s can be kept relatively low lets also hope that we can see an increase in frigate and destroyer numbers over the current inadequate 19.

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

Well exactly my point QEC, it's supposed to be ready to be converted, the thing is its one guys statement on a forum, so who knows mate.

@Cyralranch would prefer a marinised Taranis myself but X47 will do for me if it's possible.

I'm not convinced at all CJ by this budget balancing act at all, and i still think there is any chapter to run here over the config of the QE class. If trunking is built in, great we're future proof and more importantly, if the Dave B does get canned, then at least we've not built two gigantic helicopter carriers and could use Superbugs. If we haven't then get ready for the finger pointing and political manoeuvring!


Let's hope there are no more annoucements from the US, especially the Pentagon about the F35 concerning more delays or our lot will look like right idiots !

[Geoff_B]

I think the configured for conversion is a red herring, you can clearly see on upper block 02 sections at Cammel Llaird that there is no channel for a potential catapult nor the truncking associated with it. What they will have done is ensure they haven't located or truncked any ship critial systems in the locations where possible catapult and arrestor gear would be located should the ship be converted.