Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Arfah]

The Govt must be patting themselves on the back today. They've buried the bad news amongst all the hype about public sector strikes.

Hardly any mention in the printed media about the decision to revert to the 'B' or the wasted £250,000,000 it is rumoured has been wasted. No mention of the Airtanker £150,000,000 cost per aircraft debacle either.

Well done to them !

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

The Govt must be patting themselves on the back today. They've buried the bad news amongst all the hype about public sector strikes.

Hardly any mention in the printed media about the decision to revert to the 'B' or the wasted £250,000,000 it is rumoured has been wasted. No mention of the Airtanker £150,000,000 cost per aircraft debacle either.

Well done to them !

You have to dig deep for many stories on this today, Guardian online is only showing in the Defense and Security Blog, and The Times carries it on page 16 with no mention of how much it cost the Americans with a Ford Class carrier to install EMALS. Heard yesterday that it cost some $600m for it to be installed on the first Ford Class carrier. Hardly £2bn is it ?


One thing that is mentioned in the times is the Public Accounts Committee will be seeking answers from the MOD and Hammond - Good Luck with that one !

[jonas]

The Govt must be patting themselves on the back today. They've buried the bad news amongst all the hype about public sector strikes.

Hardly any mention in the printed media about the decision to revert to the 'B' or the wasted £250,000,000 it is rumoured has been wasted. No mention of the Airtanker £150,000,000 cost per aircraft debacle either.

Well done to them !

From all the reports I have read,the cost of reverting is £100m not £250m.!

Also remember which government signed the PFI contract with Airtanker !

[ZiggyMac]

That £250m comes from the fact that a "Rolling Vertical Take Off Capability' has been added to the design....which was originally rejected by Labour.

Anyone care to shed some light on what extra that brings to the carrier...increased sortie rate???

[danim]

have you read the acrticle in todays telegraph from David Richards

Military command is about taking difficult decisions in changing and challenging circumstances. Over the 40 years I have had the honour to serve in the Armed Forces, I have consistently found that such decisions demand both vision and courage. The change of course over our carrier programme announced this week certainly required both. It was not easy, but it is right. It is worth explaining why I, and my fellow military chiefs, proposed this move. Carriers are expensive – there is no way around that. But they offer a capability that few can match: an independent, flexible, sovereign base, not tied to other countries’ wishes, that can operate around the world.By choosing the Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) model of the Joint Strike Fighter over the Carrier Variant that we had previously ordered for our two new aircraft carriers, the UK is significantly shortening the time it will take to deploy our maritime air power. For me, this is the key factor. We are getting an exceptional military tool that is capable of projecting power, deterring our enemies and supporting our friends. In an uncertain world, this is a capability that I know we all wish to have sooner rather than later.

It is worth understanding why this change is necessary. Two years ago, we looked at the facts we had, and made our decisions. They were right at the time, and based on the best information available. But since the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), some important things have changed.

The more cutting-edge aspects of the carrier jet programme proved very difficult to cost accurately. What we were told in 2010 has changed. We had an opportunity to put this right, and it has been taken. Contrary to the criticism levelled at the Ministry of Defence in the past, when the facts changed, our decisions did too.

The reasons why it was right to do this are clear. First, the improvements to the STOVL aircraft since the SDSR are impressive. Once a troubled project on probation, it has now demonstrated its capabilities, flying more than 900 hours. This reduces the danger of complications and cost increases that we feared in 2010.

Also from the DMC newsletter

Joint Strike Fighter decisionThere has been widespread media coverage of yesterday's announcement by Defence Secretary Philip Hammond that the MOD will deliver Carrier Strike capability with the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, instead of the Carrier Variant.
Mr Hammond said: "The 2010 SDSR [Strategic Defence and Security Review] decision on carriers was right at the time, but the facts have changed and therefore so too must our approach. This government will not blindly pursue projects and ignore cost growth and delays.
"Carrier Strike with 'cats and traps' using the Carrier Variant jet no longer represents the best way of delivering Carrier Strike and I am not prepared to tolerate a three-year further delay to reintroducing our Carrier Strike capability.
"This announcement means we remain on course to deliver Carrier Strike in 2020 as a key part of our Future Force 2020."
Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir David Richards, said: "Our Armed Forces have a successful history of operating short take-off and vertical landing aircraft and our pilots are already flying trials in this variant of the Joint Strike Fighter alongside our US allies.
"These stealth aircraft will be the most advanced fast jets our Armed Forces have ever operated and I know they will do so with the greatest skill and professionalism."
Explaining the costs incurred by switching from the Carrier Variant to the STOVL variant, Mr Hammond told the House of Commons that between £40m and £50m has been spent on 'cats and traps' design and planning work.
He also said the MOD will face some exit costs which are still being negotiated, plus the cost of installing take-off ramps on the two aircraft carriers. Therefore, the estimated total figure for the costs incurred is up to £100m.

[cockneyjock1974]

Hi Danim they've taken that from the MOD website, it's actually a very good read and nice to hear the military point of view instead of politico's.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...Capability.htm

[cockneyjock1974]

That £250m comes from the fact that a "Rolling Vertical Take Off Capability' has been added to the design....which was originally rejected by Labour.

Anyone care to shed some light on what extra that brings to the carrier...increased sortie rate???

I've just had a sudden thought, does SRVL lessen the risk of deck damage, as opposed to VL. I know that the main point of it is weapons bring back but I wonder if it's an added bonus as well.

[jonas]

That £250m comes from the fact that a "Rolling Vertical Take Off Capability' has been added to the design....which was originally rejected by Labour.

Anyone care to shed some light on what extra that brings to the carrier...increased sortie rate???

Sorry,but you seem to be confused as to the operation of STOVL, They can take off in the vertical mode but due to weight factors including fuel onboard,they can carry very little weapons package. Hence they normaly take off in the rolling mode,that is why they have the ski jump.

What they were experimenting with before the Ark was scrapped was a 'short rolling landing' as opposed to a vertical landing,this enables them to bring back a larger packet of weapons that they have not used,as with a vertical landing they would have to jettison some of these weapons to enable a safe landing.

The design of QE has nothing to do with this operation.

[cyrilranch]

That £250m comes from the fact that a "Rolling Vertical Take Off Capability' has been added to the design....which was originally rejected by Labour.

Anyone care to shed some light on what extra that brings to the carrier...increased sortie rate???

t
this explains better taken from http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogs...rch/label/F35B

Vertical Bring Back weight requirement (the weight of a minimum fuel quantity and other
necessary payload needed to safely recover the aircraft on the ship after an operational mission, plus a representative weapons payload) is for 5000 pounds (at least it should be, might have been reduced), of which up to 1700 are made up by fuel. This vital requirement is still at very real risk. There's just 230 to 370 pounds of margin for weight growth in the next five years before the "not to exceed value" for empty weight is reached and surpassed.
Even if the requirement is met, there is not enough bring back weight margin to return to the carrier with unexpended Storm Shadow missiles ( 2870 pounds each) and even Ship Borne Rolling Vertical Landing might not solve the problem.
Someone has already suggested that Storm Shadow will not be launched by shipborne F35Bs. If it proves true, well. Better if i do not say what i just thought, it is rude.

Regarding Ship Borne Rolling Vertical Landing, it is a UK idea, which is to turn a vertical landing into almost a CATOBAR landing, but without cables. Trials have been made with a modified Qinetiq Harrier on Charles De Gaulle and Illustrious, and the activity, which was stopped in 2010 following the switch to F35C, has cost several tens of millions.
It will have to be resumed if the F35B returns to be the preferred solution.

The SRVL approach exploits the ability of the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B to use vectored thrust to slow the speed of the aircraft while still gaining the benefit of wing-borne lift, by landing with a deck run. This offers a significant increase in "bring-back" payload compared with a vertical recovery and is likely to reduce stress on the single-engined aircraft's propulsion system.
However, deck operations become more complex and a landing runway is needed, instead of a landing spot, so much so that SRVL might require an angled deck, just as CATOBAR technique.
Pilot and deck crew training regimes would have to change, and even F35 flight control laws might have to be adjusted.
A "Bedford Array" visual aid system had to be developed and tested to guide the pilots in this new kind of approach, particularly in rough seas. And you know who liked the idea? The US Navy, which is building on it for its CATOBAR carriers. Once more, a great british idea in the naval aviation field will be exploited in the right way not by Britain, but by the americans. Read this to see how fast the idea is catching on with the CATOBAR pilots of the USN.

Vertical Bring Back Weight is an issue so big that already in 2004/5 the USMC "adopted" the SRVL concept, and sponsored the british activity in this direction, to feed the data into the F35 programme.

When SRVL activities were ongoing, this very significant brief was given, and the awesome website Navy Matters still reports it:

Using SRVL F-35B aircraft would approach the carrier from astern at about 60 knots indicated air speed, 35 knots relative assuming 25 knots wind over deck (the maximum speed of a CVF will be 25 knots, so 25kts WOD is achievable even in dead calm) on a steep 5-6 degree glide path. Touch down would be about 150 feet from the stern with a stopping distance of 300 to 400 feet depending on conditions (wet flight deck, pitching ships etc). That would leave around 300 feet of flight deck for margin or even "bolters". [Note: 400 + 150 + 300 = 850 feet. THE WHOLE DECK IS COMMITTED TO THE LANDING. What about any other flying activity????]

The SRVL technique has a significant impact on ship designs and aviation operations, Commander Tony Ray told a conference in February 2008: "We expect to trade some STOVL flexibility for increased bring-back and fuel. We have to .. check for for relevant CV criteria that apply to slower SRVL operations. For example flightpath control will be a far more important flight criteria for SRVL than it has been for STOVL. It is a CV trait creeping in".

So, the "training gap" between STOVL and CATOBAR further reduces, and deck operations are as affected by SRVL than by an arrested landing.
Or wait, that's actually worse than on a CATOBAR vessel.
Without an angled deck for SRVL, and having to rely only on the plane's brakes, in order to accommodate a bolter, the whole deck, from ski jump to stern, will have to be free and committed to the landing of the "heavy" F35B.

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

Looks like the telegraph has certainly had a right old pop at this decision.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/t...ll-at-sea.html


Looking down at some of the comments though, one believes that the QE class were originally meant to be some 85,000t and in Catobar configuration. My own belief is that it was STOVL with the option at first major refit to move across to catobar, but never 85,000. We would never have built that without the nuclear option and that was dismissed at a very early stage as being too expensive - have we not heard that a few times in the last day or so???

Anyone care to add to that?

[ZiggyMac]

Sorry,but you seem to be confused as to the operation of STOVL, They can take off in the vertical mode but due to weight factors including fuel onboard,they can carry very little weapons package. Hence they normaly take off in the rolling mode,that is why they have the ski jump.

I'm just going by what Hammond said in a Newsnight interview last night, watch it on Iplayer for yourself (assuming your in the UK of course)

[CatpainSlackbladder]

Anyone care to add to that?

Yes, those who write in comments sections are generally about as informed on the subject as a slug.

Ignore whatever the DT or Guardian say. Con Coughlin generally says the opposite to whatever is true and it was the Guardians defence correspondent who came up with the infamous 'cats and flaps'.

I'm just going by what Hammond said in a Newsnight interview last night, watch it on Iplayer for yourself (assuming your in the UK of course)

I think you yourself have misposted what you meant to say. You're posting about a rolling take off, Hammond mentioned a Rolling landing

[cockneyjock1974]

Is it time then for a new designation for the carriers from STOVL to maybe something like STOSRL or SRTOSRL

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

[QUOTE=CatpainSlackbladder;6169860]Yes, those who write in comments sections are generally about as informed on the subject as a slug.

Ignore whatever the DT or Guardian say. Con Coughlin generally says the opposite to whatever is true and it was the Guardians defence correspondent who came up with the infamous 'cats and flaps'.


I must admit that i personally had never heard of a 85,000t two ship class been considered for the RN as that would have required a nuclear fueling option and if i recall that option was dismissed pretty much straight away. Thanks for the clarification Captain !

[Eoin666]

........ it kills any chance of the RN getting proper AEW as well.....

Boeing is pushing an AEW version of the V22

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm