PDA

View Full Version : HMS Queen Elizabeth



gunnut
02 Dec 15,, 07:37
Guess what I saw on my drive through Scotland?

TopHatter
02 Dec 15,, 17:32
Guess what I saw on my drive through Scotland?

Can't wait to see her on the high seas!

surfgun
02 Dec 15,, 18:15
Hopefully, she and her sister ship POW have long service lives and don't end up 'paid off' or sold off before their time.

dundonrl
07 Dec 15,, 04:42
be nice if the HMS Prince of Wales is a CATOBAR carrier, will make her much more "useful" in the real world..

DonBelt
07 Dec 15,, 05:09
I believe all plans of CATOBAR have been abandoned at this point due to cost and time constraints. ( https://fullfact.org/articles/how_do_you_solve_a_problem_like_an_expensive_aircr aft_carrier-27178) I am curious as to why the have separated the flight ops and ship's navigation into two different island superstructures. It seems like a waste of deck space unless something else in the ship's structure dictated it.

surfgun
07 Dec 15,, 13:13
One story I heard that they were blaming the gas turbine locations for the ducting, each island has an exhaust funnel.

JRT
07 Dec 15,, 23:09
I am curious as to why the have separated the flight ops and ship's navigation into two different island superstructures. It seems like a waste of deck space unless something else in the ship's structure dictated it.

adding illustration to go with your comment:

(not much deck space)

40600

jlvfr
07 Dec 15,, 23:46
I assume the flight ops tower is the one aft? The other one can't see both elevators.

TopHatter
08 Dec 15,, 00:01
I am curious as to why the have separated the flight ops and ship's navigation into two different island superstructures.

I assume the flight ops tower is the one aft? The other one can't see both elevators.

Jlvr, correct.

I guess you could call it design and intended use philosophies.

The reason for 2 islands, flight ops and conn, is to maximize the utility of both.

Charles de Gaulle has hers quite a ways forward, which is excellent for navigation.

The USN carrier islands, trying to maximize flight deck control, have been marching steadily aft, class after class.
The USN carriers are hauling around the largest airgroups by far, so flight deck control for high sortie generation is paramount

(The Ford-class has taken this to the logical extreme of course)

DonBelt
08 Dec 15,, 03:04
It looks like it has a lot of deck space, especially when you look from overhead- but you can never have too much deck space.

Fastam
08 Dec 15,, 04:40
Is it just me, or does that picture also show the majority of the UKs sub fleet tied up?

jlvfr
08 Dec 15,, 11:40
Modern western subs are sooo hard to ID...

surfgun
08 Dec 15,, 12:32
I think four of the subs are decommissioned boomers (Resolution Class).

TopHatter
08 Dec 15,, 17:08
I think four of the subs are decommissioned boomers (Resolution Class).

Correct, and the other three on the left are Dreadnought, Churchill and Swiftsure

TopHatter
08 Dec 15,, 17:09
A nice comparison between Queen Elizabeth and Illustrious

40606

Tin Man
25 Feb 16,, 19:53
In terms of flight deck space, I think only the Nimitz and new Ford class have more real estate that the CVF.
The air wing could be very lonely :P
41067

JA Boomer
26 Feb 16,, 06:02
In terms of flight deck space, I think only the Nimitz and new Ford class have more real estate that the CVF.
The air wing could be very lonely :P


Won't be that bad, what does a US carrier deploy with these days .. about 53 fix-wing aircraft plus Seahawks?

jlvfr
26 Feb 16,, 11:30
Won't be that bad, what does a US carrier deploy with these days .. about 53 fix-wing aircraft plus Seahawks?

Carefull with those comparisons. The UK CV is designed for STOVL opps; has no wires or catapults. This immediatly transforms the deck design.

surfgun
26 Feb 16,, 13:44
It sounds like these QE's will regularly deploy with about 20 aircraft total! That is unless the USMC sends a tag along air group of F-35b's and V-22's.

chanjyj
28 Feb 16,, 07:49
A nice comparison between Queen Elizabeth and Illustrious

40606

Yeah, and then they go ditch CATOBAR...

jlvfr
28 Feb 16,, 12:18
Yeah, and then they go ditch CATOBAR...

It was too expensive, changing the ship- Notice the deck doesn't have any angled area. Which would mean redesigning not just the CATOBAR areas, but also, at least, the entire port side of the deck. And it's supports.

surfgun
28 Feb 16,, 14:23
The QE was designed for an angled deck.

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/p/future-force-2020-carrier-vessel-future.html?m=1

jlvfr
28 Feb 16,, 16:21
The QE was designed for an angled deck.

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/p/future-force-2020-carrier-vessel-future.html?m=1

OooO! So, they just paint it over? Ok...

Gun Grape
28 Feb 16,, 17:51
I still don't get this thing the Royal Navy has for the ski jump.

F-8Bs and F-35Bs have more than enough space to take off, fully loaded, on a Wasp/America Class LHD.

All the ramp does is take up valuable deck space.

jlvfr
28 Feb 16,, 18:23
I still don't get this thing the Royal Navy has for the ski jump.

F-8Bs and F-35Bs have more than enough space to take off, fully loaded, on a Wasp/America Class LHD.

All the ramp does is take up valuable deck space.

Fully? You sure? But how much fuel do they burn doing that?

Gun Grape
28 Feb 16,, 18:51
Fully? You sure? But how much fuel do they burn doing that?

Not enough to justify the wasted deck space from a ramp.

jlvfr
28 Feb 16,, 19:02
Not enough to justify the wasted deck space from a ramp.

One point: for the USMC will be just 1 more support option. For the Rn it will be their only asset. So they will have to get every scrap of performance out of it. Since they chose the STOVL option, they'll need the ramp.

surfgun
14 Jul 17,, 00:51
QE at sea and underway.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-ggXhn_uNog

Dazed
15 Jul 17,, 02:16
Fully? You sure? But how much fuel do they burn doing that?

Upsloping runways require more fuel and longer ground roll for any aircraft. I tried to find why the ski ramp is better. Combined with a head wind you can get a shorter ground roll but ditto for a level runway. I think the real benefit is when the aircraft leaves the ramp it will be in the proper climb profile and you have a lot more freeboard if you have unload the nose to accelerate. I didn't look that hard.

The Navy ramp located at NAS Patuxent River was the sight of the first F-35B ski jump take off . Marines have done exchange duty with RN Squadrons, yet they haven't clamored for the ramps.

bfng3569
14 Aug 17,, 17:50
http://www.businessinsider.com/drone-lands-on-hms-queen-elizabeth-aircraft-carrier-unnoticed-2017-8

An amateur drone pilot managed to land on the new Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier completely unnoticed

An amateur drone pilot landed on Britain's new Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier without anybody noticing.

The pilot, who has not been publicly identified, recorded video of the huge warship while it was docked in Invergordon in the Scottish Highlands last month.

He then landed his vehicle — a DJI Phantom — on the deck and took numerous photographs of the apparently abandoned aircraft.

The pilot posted the footage on a local drone photography Facebook group, Black Isle Images, on Friday morning. Here it is:


Photographs of the flight deck taken while the drone was landed were also featured by media outlets including the BBC and MailOnline.

He claims to have landed on the ship accidentally due to unexpected high winds that triggered an automatic landing function in his drone.

In an interview with the BBC, the pilot said there was nothing stopping him dropping explosives on the ship, and that the ease of his landing exposed a major security risk.

He said: "I could have carried two kilos of Semtex and left it on the deck."

He continued: "I would say my mistake should open their eyes to a glaring gap in security. This was a bit of tomfoolery but it could have been something terrible, not just for the ship and its crew but for the people of Invergordon."

Business Insider has contacted the pilot for comment.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman told the BBC said that the military has "stepped up our security measures" in light of the incident, which is being investigated by the police.

The Queen Elizabeth is currently sailing south from Scotland to Portsmouth. The ship's Twitter account posted this morning that it was in the Firth of Clyde, near Glasgow:

Toby
23 Sep 17,, 17:14
Another vid of HMS QE2


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53cCrHz6tjY

jlvfr
23 Sep 17,, 18:27
Another vid of HMS QE2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53cCrHz6tjY
"in action"... really?...

Toby
23 Sep 17,, 18:45
"in action"... really?...Poor choice of words.....As far as I know she's still on sea trials...No F35's have landed on her yet.

kato
23 Sep 17,, 19:36
No F35's have landed on her yet.
Given there are no F35 in the UK that's not exactly a surprise.

(the RAF's introduction squadron with currently 9 aircraft - according to the RAF, other sources claim 10... - is stationed in the USA)

Will be interesting whether there'll be any British F35 flying from QE2 before Brexit actually.

Toby
23 Sep 17,, 19:50
Given there are no F35 in the UK that's not exactly a surprise.

(the RAF's introduction squadron with currently 9 aircraft - according to the RAF, other sources claim 10... - is stationed in the USA)

Will be interesting whether there'll be any British F35 flying from QE2 before Brexit actually.And the prisoners are running the Prisons, the hospitals are about to run out of electricity.....

QE2 isn't exactly landlocked. Which is why we built her.

surfgun
24 Sep 17,, 01:27
She is the QE. Not QE2.

kato
24 Sep 17,, 06:46
Factually there was a HMS Queen Elizabeth before, hence why QE2.

Let's just call her R08.

Toby
24 Sep 17,, 09:33
Took ya long enuf

I'll call her what I want..I'm paying for it!! lol

Gun Grape
24 Sep 17,, 19:26
Call her what you wish, But

This is the Queen Elizabeth

44637

This is the Queen Elizabeth 2

44638

kato
24 Sep 17,, 19:37
You were saying?

44639

And yes, people did complain that Cunard didn't call her QE3.

surfgun
24 Sep 17,, 20:18
They should paint an angled deck line on her deck so that Carrier aircraft could line up and do some touch and go's.

Toby
24 Sep 17,, 23:08
Call her what you wish, Bu

This is the Queen Elizabeth 2

44638Nice lines!

Toby
24 Sep 17,, 23:10
You were saying?

44639

And yes, people did complain that Cunard didn't call her QE3.
Looks like a money making sack of sh-t!

blidgepump
25 Sep 17,, 04:38
A nice comparison between Queen Elizabeth and Illustrious

40606

The comparison noted... but still one "wild looking flat top".

Toby
25 Sep 17,, 23:07
QE2 as in two towers...makes perfect sense you're smashed

snapper
25 Sep 17,, 23:27
It is NOT QE2, just QE. Unlike Cunard and Yanks the RN does add a number after a ship named for a former or we would have had Ark Royal 4 etc... Her Majesty the Queen may go down in history as QE2 but she remains Queen Elizabeth.

Toby
26 Sep 17,, 07:33
How about LIZ2?

TopHatter
26 Sep 17,, 12:44
Unlike Cunard and Yanks the RN does add a number after a ship named for a former or we would have had Ark Royal 4 etc...

That...doesn't make any sense. Neither the US nor the RN adds a number after a ship named for a previous vessel.

tbm3fan
26 Sep 17,, 16:43
How about Queenie and be done with it besides the ship's name will be whatever the sailors nickname it.

kato
26 Sep 17,, 17:53
"Lilibet".

Toby
26 Sep 17,, 19:44
I wonder why they named her 'Queen Elizabeth' ...are we now harking back to Tudor times and about to start plundering again??

and I must say the Use of 'Prince of Wales' would have me slightly perturbed if I were say French! ......hmmm I smell menace on the horizon!

jlvfr
26 Sep 17,, 20:37
I wonder why they named her 'Queen Elizabeth' ...are we now harking back to Tudor times and about to start plundering again??

and I must say the Use of 'Prince of Wales' would have me slightly perturbed if I were say French! ......hmmm I smell menace on the horizon!

It's ridiculous, tbh. They "killed" the old carrier names and gave these battleship names. Why!??!

Toby
26 Sep 17,, 20:50
It ' ll be Some jobsworth sat behind a desk , playing around with his coloured pencils behind all this ......

and if the unthinkable happened as it has so many times before.....its bad enough, but naming it after your head of state?? ...Nah not for me....I find it all very strange and indulgent!

tbm3fan
26 Sep 17,, 23:00
It ' ll be Some jobsworth sat behind a desk , playing around with his coloured pencils behind all this ......

and if the unthinkable happened as it has so many times before.....its bad enough, but naming it after your head of state?? ...Nah not for me....I find it all very strange and indulgent!

The Illustrious Class had great names however I do believe the powers that be are trying to keep up with the colonies.

Toby
26 Sep 17,, 23:05
The Illustrious Class had great names however I do believe the powers that be are trying to keep up with the colonies.Yeh, exactly what Jlvfr was aiming at..... good names for carriers . I agree! No way we can afford to keep up with the US...that would be a silly pipe dream..All we can hope to do is make a sizable contribution. As the US knows full well , A carrier can be placed anywhere and carry with it our name and what we stand for. Not sure of the logic behind the size as we were previously sold the invincible class on the merit that if they were sunk it was a lot less hitting the sea floor...but hey ho!

tbm3fan
26 Sep 17,, 23:50
Well what I meant was Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales as compared to the George Bush and Gerald Ford in as far as naming.

We used to have great names like Yorktown and Lexington...

Toby
27 Sep 17,, 06:43
Well what I meant was Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales as compared to the George Bush and Gerald Ford in as far as naming.

We used to have great names like Yorktown and Lexington...
Ah ok...see your point....I can understand names like Hood or Nelson or Nimitz etc.. but head of state on a warship looks like an ego trip to me.

JCT
27 Sep 17,, 14:53
Like naming a carrier after Carl Vinson and John Murtha (spit). I understand that CV did a lot for the Navy, but naming a carrier after him?

And John Murtha? He's only on an LPD, but come on! The rest of the class is named after US cities.

Dazed
27 Sep 17,, 17:22
Ah ok...see your point....I can understand names like Hood or Nelson or Nimitz etc.. but head of state on a warship looks like an ego trip to me.

Well Bush was a naval aviator and flew off carriers in WWII and Ford also served in the Pacific http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,121339,00.html

Toby
27 Sep 17,, 17:48
Well Bush was a naval aviator and flew off carriers in WWII and Ford also served in the Pacific http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,121339,00.htmlBut they weren't Naval or even military strategists...My mate Bob Badland use to be in the Navy ...Glad he didn't go into politics

Toby
27 Sep 17,, 17:50
Like naming a carrier after Carl Vinson and John Murtha (spit). I understand that CV did a lot for the Navy, but naming a carrier after him?

And John Murtha? He's only on an LPD, but come on! The rest of the class is named after US cities.Never heard of em....Cities or states are a good idea

Albany Rifles
27 Sep 17,, 19:03
It's interesting to see the list of names of the USN Essex class from WW 2. Two thiongs become obvious.

1. We were talking some hard losses early in our big deck carriers. Hence the renaming of many of the early in the class.

2. Only two were named for people...the Franklin & the Randolph. However they also both had been the names of previous vessels of the USN.

The remaining honor American battles as well as previous commissioned warships (Bon Hom Richard, Wasp, Yorktown).



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier

jlvfr
27 Sep 17,, 19:38
It's interesting to see the list of names of the USN Essex class from WW 2. Two thiongs become obvious.

1. We were talking some hard losses early in our big deck carriers. Hence the renaming of many of the early in the class.

Wasn't the Enterprise the only pre-war carrier to survive?

Tom24
27 Sep 17,, 20:09
Wasn't the Enterprise the only pre-war carrier to survive?

USS Saratoga survived. She was expended in the Bikini Atoll atomic bomb tests.

Gun Grape
28 Sep 17,, 00:17
The Ranger also survived. And was sold for scrap after the war

tbm3fan
28 Sep 17,, 02:40
Well Bush was a naval aviator and flew off carriers in WWII and Ford also served in the Pacific http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,121339,00.html

True, but if they are being honored for their military service, and not their office, then they would have been on smaller ships like a DD or a cargo ship. Carter is on a sub.

jlvfr
28 Sep 17,, 08:55
The Ranger also survived. And was sold for scrap after the war

... I was absolutety convinced only the Enterprise had survived... the shame...

blidgepump
29 Sep 17,, 03:56
... I was absolutety convinced only the Enterprise had survived... the shame...

" After Lexington and Saratoga there were 69,000 tons (Washington Naval Treaty)remaining for construction of aircraft carriers, and it was decided that the new ship [Ranger] would displace 13,800 tons, a size that would allow five carriers to be built in the remaining available tonnage. What became Ranger was to be the first purpose-built aircraft carrier of the United States Navy." I did not know that fact about the Ranger!

Dazed
09 Oct 17,, 04:45
They should paint an angled deck line on her deck so that Carrier aircraft could line up and do some touch and go's.

Harrier and 35B go around would be done in the flight phase once the transition to vertical flight begins you are pretty much committed. Fix wing on go around well you have to accelerate to V1 and go which requires distance hence the angled deck. Next time I'm in Beaufort SC I will find that out.

Dazed
09 Oct 17,, 04:52
But they weren't Naval or even military strategists...My mate Bob Badland use to be in the Navy ...Glad he didn't go into politics

Nor was Lincoln. I know this is heresy, but the Navy and Newport News Congressional representatives want the carrier. They most likely care less what it is called and would name it what ever would increase it's chances of getting built..

snapper
09 Oct 17,, 17:59
Seems that due to added costs of the new carriers the RN may lose it's amphibious assault ships (HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark) and the services of some 1000 Royal Marines (Commandos). See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/06/royalnavy-could-lose-beach-landing-ships-next-round-defence/ for example. This is part of what some see as a deeper problem with the UK Defence funding formula which allocates an MoD budget over a 2 to 3 yr period and expects the MoD to 'balance it's books'. This is fine to a point and I am certainly all for balancing the books in theory but not as a means of short term book keeping. Defence procurement does not work that way. The new carriers are supposed to last are supposed to last into the the latter part of the this century and the construction and fitting out costs will probably be greater than a 30yr operating cost for each of the new R08 ships. Similarly the costs of re-acquiring the amphibious assault capability for the RN - not to mention retraining another 1000 Marines - would far outweigh the continued operating costs for these vessels and their trained Officers for another 20yrs. Acquiring such assets is treated by the UK Treasury as a bit like a two to three shopping bill - do not lash out extravagantly above your means etc - whereas some argue it should be seen more as a type of mortgage cost with the entire lifetime costs of a ship or system over it's expected lifetime taken into account more than whether you might incur a deficit to your bank account on a short term basis.

This argument about short shopping costs or long term mortgage costs started with the 2010 SDSR (Strategic Defence and Security Review) which was part of the Cameron Governments way of cutting costs and their aim to balance the budget. A noble and doubtless wise idea to balance the budget and pay down the debt etc which I certainly support. The problem is with losing long term defence assets - or in planning their acquisition and design - is that it should be seen over a lifetime cost not a yearly budget. These problems also hampered the R08 development as I recall. There were originally (according to the records) supposed to be three new carriers - one was for the Frogs (a replacement for the CdG which is barely operable) and it was to be an Anglo French project. The Frogs backed out due to design specifications that they wanted compared to the RN. One hilarious (or it would be if it were not sad) argument between the French and British requirements concerned Officers quarters. It seems that on French naval vessel the Officers sleep and eat in the same circumstances and areas as the crew whereas the RN tradition is for a separation of quarters and dining facilities. The three carriers were originally planned to have nuclear power sources and the steam catapults such a design would allow and thus no need for the F-35B STOVL variant. When the Frogs dropped out over the design specifications - including the insane Officers accommodation issue - costs per 'unit' as it were rose; it is expensive to design and build one house specifically but building additional houses with the same design and materials lowers the cost of each construction as a cumulative 'project cost' as it were, the costs of a third carrier would have been divided by three. So when the 'cost per unit' increased according the 2010 SDSR the MoD had to 'balance its books' almost on a daily basis, the Frogs laughed and said "Non", the nuclear power/steam catapult original plan (the Frogs were to make the nuclear engine) went out to lower costs and short term balance the books as the Treasury demanded. Problem is raises costs as well; instead of being in with the French and having steam and nuclear you need a STOVL variant aircraft, re-design the whole damn thing and now it seems because the books will not balance next year lose amphibious assault capability and 1000 Marines (I have a friend who is a Marine so am not entirely unbiased in this). But this again is short term book balancing as opposed to service life security value and overall lifetime costs. Additionally the costs of re-acquiring such long term assets should be considered. The real problem is of course that short term budget balancing increases actual longer terms costs and so it is a self defeating policy.

I understand the problem did not originally start with the 2010 SDSR and that is has been a perennial problem for the 'senior service' and the MoD in general. In July I visited HMS Duncan in Odessa - it was big news in Ukraine and flags were out in Odessa, special British menus and nights in the bars etc... Seems the engines on the Type 45 are almost un-accessible without cutting the hull open. This again I was told to design changes to cut costs but again of course actually acts in reverse; repairs or modifications to the engine require dry dock and cutting the hull open which again lowers the overall service value for the ship as an operational asset. Thus while some short term fix is planned to the Type 45 overheating problem a real fix would require a whole redesign to make the engines accessible and repairable without the need for a dry dock and enhancing it's operational value. Of course it is not only Britain that suffers from this 'short termism'/'balance the books daily' problem and I am not saying it is a uniquely British or RN problem - I know we suffer the same shortsightedness as well as additional corruption problems in Ukraine and have similar arguments. Here though the long term view is more easily accepted due to due current hostilities. I hope the fight in the UK for the 'long term view' as it might be called can be won this time in regard to HMS Albion and Bulwark. The Brits need to know the prestige of the RN worldwide - it is a national asset not a fast food takeaway and it's budgeting be treated as such. Just my opinion.

blidgepump
10 Oct 17,, 04:17
Quote: "One hilarious (or it would be if it were not sad) argument between the French and British requirements concerned Officers quarters. It seems that on French naval vessel the Officers sleep and eat in the same circumstances and areas as the crew whereas the RN tradition is for a separation of quarters and dining facilities."

Okay, okay... before this gets out of hand I just wanted to say that I was never aware that the French naval officers berth with the enlisted sailors..... Does it lead to a breakdown in military order? [ The things you learn on the WAB]

Toby
05 Nov 17,, 13:51
. Seems the engines on the Type 45 are almost un-accessible without cutting the hull open. This again I was told to design changes to cut costs but again of course actually acts in reverse; repairs or modifications to the engine require dry dock and cutting the hull open which again lowers the overall service value for the ship as an operational asset. Thus while some short term fix is planned to the Type 45 overheating problem a real fix would require a whole redesign to make the engines accessible and repairable without the need for a dry dock and enhancing it's operational value. Of course it is not only Britain that suffers from this 'short termism'/'balance the books daily' problem and I am not saying it is a uniquely British or RN problem - I know we suffer the same shortsightedness as well as additional corruption problems in Ukraine and have similar arguments. Here though the long term view is more easily accepted due to due current hostilities. I hope the fight in the UK for the 'long term view' as it might be called can be won this time in regard to HMS Albion and Bulwark. The Brits need to know the prestige of the RN worldwide - it is a national asset not a fast food takeaway and it's budgeting be treated as such. Just my opinion.Its a problem that doesn't just effect Warships... Unfortunately we live in an age where design engineers come from universities with all the knowledge in the world but with no common sense, ask any Engineer / Technician / Mechanic what his biggest beef is with machinery and its usually accessibility. All design engineers should complete some form on the job training to increase their awareness of 'What if scenarios' Thereby minimising downtime. Quite staggering the Navy didn't spot this in the design phase of these ships. Engine removal and replacement has been quite common in other warships over the years...

Toby
05 Nov 17,, 14:00
" After Lexington and Saratoga there were 69,000 tons (Washington Naval Treaty)remaining for construction of aircraft carriers, and it was decided that the new ship [Ranger] would displace 13,800 tons, a size that would allow five carriers to be built in the remaining available tonnage. What became Ranger was to be the first purpose-built aircraft carrier of the United States Navy." I did not know that fact about the Ranger!

RN's first was HMS Hermes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hermes_(95))

snapper
07 Dec 17,, 21:08
So is it true that HMS QE "entered service" today without aircraft? Is it real?

TopHatter
07 Dec 17,, 21:17
So is it true that HMS QE "entered service" today without aircraft? Is it real?

Correct, her fixed-wing complement (F-35B's) are not yet ready. So, they'll work up the ship's company and probably do helo ops until then.

Plenty to do even without the F-35's

Gun Grape
08 Dec 17,, 01:16
So is it true that HMS QE "entered service" today without aircraft? Is it real?

She won't even have British aircraft on her first deployment in 2021. The USMC will embark a squadron of F-35sso that she can have some planes present.

http://www.janes.com/article/66308/fallon-confirms-usmc-f-35s-to-join-maiden-deployment-of-hms-queen-elizabeth


The UK defence secretary confirmed on 15 December previously revealed plans to have the US Marine Corps (USMC) embark aboard the Royal Navy's new Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier on its maiden operational deployment in 2021.

The announcement was made by Michael Fallon during a meeting in London with his US counterpart, Ashton Carter, and confirms plans already divulged by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) and US Department of Defense (DOD) to have the USMC operate its Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) on the carrier alongside those fielded by the Royal Navy (RN) and Royal Air Force (RAF).

"As Britain's pre-eminent operational partner, including in our current fight against [the Islamic State], the interoperability of British and American forces is crucial," Fallon said. "Having British and US F-35s alongside each other aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth on its first operational tour will further cement our close defence ties as Britain steps up internationally."

In July 2015 the USMC was the first F-35 operator to announce initial operating capability (IOC), and with deliveries progressing and squadrons being stood up the service is already advanced in ship trials of the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft aboard its own Wasp- and America-class amphibious assault vessels. In contrast, the UK has received just seven aircraft to date (of which four are training/test assets), and will not formally stand up its first operating unit or embark on ship trials until 2018.

With the USMC being a few years ahead of the UK in respect to standing up its F-35B capabilities, the arrival of the service aboard Queen Elizabeth will help 'de-risk' the ship for the RN by providing not only the know-how of flying this new aircraft type from the new aircraft carrier, but also by providing the JSF numbers needed while the RN and RAF continue to build up their own joint inventory.

correction: She will have British Helos on the first deployment. Maybe a few F-35s. The UK wont have enough F-35s to deploy 24 aircraft until 2024
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/yes-hms-queen-elizabeth-aircraft/

Gun Grape
08 Dec 17,, 01:19
Except for "Pride", Why the UK didn't buy a America class LHA. A far more capable ship and at less cost.

surfgun
08 Dec 17,, 03:00
Gungrape, I thought you did not think much of America Class since it does not have a well deck? Or am I mistaken? or are you referring to the next flight of the America Class LHA 8 Type?
Regardless the QE has the speed edge over the America Class. So it can try to keep up with slower European destroyers.

Gun Grape
08 Dec 17,, 19:27
I don't like the the America (LHA 6) class for a MEU. Loss of the well deck may help the ACE but the GCE and the CSSE suffer.

However, it seems like a good fit for the Brits. They want a aircraft carrier and have no need to launch LCAC/LCMs from it.

I don't think the few knots of top end speed makes a difference. In 7 Med Floats, I can think of only twice that we ran at max speed. And even then only for a few hours.

They want a max capability of 24 F-35s. The USMC already has a load plan for 22.

http://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/foundry/image/?q=70&w=1440&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimedotcom.files.wordpress.com%2 F2017%2F03%2Fmnsma1.jpg%3Fquality%3D85

Watching f-35s taking off on the America they start their roll on the number 4 spot. Everything up to the port elevator could be used to park more F-35s or helos.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlDlitETHyA

tbm3fan
08 Dec 17,, 23:46
Ok, now that I have seen one take off I have a question. The cover over the fan can withstand what level of air pressure against it before it would collapse backwards? Not to mention the level of force needed to bring it back down against that air pressure.

Dazed
09 Dec 17,, 05:44
Ok, now that I have seen one take off I have a question. The cover over the fan can withstand what level of air pressure against it before it would collapse backwards? Not to mention the level of force needed to bring it back down against that air pressure.

It's the lift fan cover. it the section of the aircraft that produces something like 20000 lbs of vertical thrust the air of is being sucked down. It's more likely to close than stick open. The design speed of the door is probably well above normal operating limits. From what I read the door is only open during the vertical and transition stage of flight and of course PR photos.

Dazed
09 Dec 17,, 17:46
If the cover was stuck open. My WAG fly until you are at recovery weight and land.

Toby
13 Dec 17,, 18:32
So is it true that HMS QE "entered service" today without aircraft? Is it real? She was commissioned into the Royal Navy on 7 December 2017. In January 2018, Queen Elizabeth will sail to undergo her initial Operational Sea Training, before being taken into the North Atlantic for the first time for heavy weather trials and helicopter certification operations, before further work to make the ship ready to operate fixed-wing aircraft. In the latter half of 2018, Queen Elizabeth will sail for the United States where flying trials of the F-35B will begin. A "full operational capability" will be declared in 2020.... and yes very real!

Toby
13 Dec 17,, 18:40
Except for "Pride", Why the UK didn't buy a America class LHA. A far more capable ship and at less cost.Because we want to maintain our ship building capability and keep British people employed in British ship yards, which in turn helps the local economy. American shipyards get a big enough subsidy as it is.

Dazed
21 Dec 17,, 20:52
Harrier and 35B go around would be done in the flight phase once the transition to vertical flight begins you are pretty much committed. Fix wing on go around well you have to accelerate to V1 and go which requires distance hence the angled deck. Next time I'm in Beaufort SC I will find that out.

Looks like they are going to roll on. Roll straight and rig the barrier. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13233/f-35b-pilots-will-make-rolling-landings-like-this-to-board-royal-navy-carriers

Toby
29 Dec 17,, 12:56
Looks like they are going to roll on. Roll straight and rig the barrier. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13233/f-35b-pilots-will-make-rolling-landings-like-this-to-board-royal-navy-carriers

Good info thanks

Toby
29 Dec 17,, 12:57
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txQKrE83Do0

blidgepump
29 Dec 17,, 14:32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txQKrE83Do0

The CGI used in this video is not disappointing to a "landlocked" kid on the Great Plains.
A jump ramp design designed on this new breed of CV has yet to be fully understood but I trust the future naval / air arm of the service has a "plan".

Toby
29 Dec 17,, 15:21
The CGI used in this video is not disappointing to a "landlocked" kid on the Great Plains.
lol, I thought the same thing...why do they bother???


A jump ramp design designed on this new breed of CV has yet to be fully understood but I trust the future naval / air arm of the service has a "plan".From the outset the MOD specified a Carrier capable of operating STOVL aircraft. At one point were in two minds as to continue or not due to cost of the STOVL variant. Those costs have now been clarified and so work continued without a Catapult system on the carrier. After reading Dazed last post, This does answer in large part your question. The carrier is designed for the F35B, because of what the F35B brings into the game. It can land at approx 60 miles an hour allowing excess fuel and weapons system not to be jettisoned. In other words its saving money.

Gun Grape
29 Dec 17,, 22:40
Now if you guys will buy some V-22 tanker variant. You can have a mini carrier with some legs.

Getting rid of the ramp would give you more versatility/flexibility. But old habits are hard to break

45085

jlvfr
29 Dec 17,, 22:47
Now if you guys will buy some V-22 tanker variant. You can have a mini carrier with some legs.

Getting rid of the ramp would give you more versatility/flexibility. But old habits are hard to break



I haven't seen any references to any tanking capability in the RN's carriers... any word on budy-tanking capability for the F-35?

Gun Grape
29 Dec 17,, 23:03
The Brits were suppose to fund a feasibility study on that in 2011. Haven't seen anything since. The US wasn't/isn't interested in the capability so no funding from us. Its Brit specific.
The US plan is to use F-18s and V-22s.

They need something. Not just for added range, but safety in case of a fouled deck.

The RN has no tanking or AEW capability. The RAF doesn't have any that are shipborne capable

jlvfr
29 Dec 17,, 23:10
The Brits were suppose to fund a feasibility study on that in 2011. Haven't seen anything since. The US wasn't/isn't interested in the capability so no funding from us. Its Brit specific.
The US plan is to use F-18s and V-22s.

They need something. Not just for added range, but safety in case of a fouled deck.

The RN has no tanking or AEW capability. The RAF doesn't have any that are shipborne capable

RN is using a version of the Merlin helo for AEW, like the Sea King did in the old Invencible-class. Read an article on it a couple of weeks ago; ofc it doesn't have the range + speed of a E-2C or a V-22 variant, but still looks quite capable. As for refueling, if Japan does get the B version for the carriers, maybe they'll be interested...

Toby
29 Dec 17,, 23:18
Now if you guys will buy some V-22 tanker variant. You can have a mini carrier with some legs.

Getting rid of the ramp would give you more versatility/flexibility. But old habits are hard to break

45085and create less room and yeh lets revert to old tech that we invented in the first place like the steam catapult..lets build a floating museum!!

Gun Grape
29 Dec 17,, 23:22
Japanese already have V-22s. Buying 17 of them. First one rolled out in Sept.

45086

45087

Gun Grape
29 Dec 17,, 23:25
and create less room and yeh lets revert to old tech that we invented in the first place like the steam catapult..lets build a museum!!

or go with EM catapults like the US Navy.

But the point is that the VSTOL version doesn't need either.

Both would be a waste of better used space

Toby
29 Dec 17,, 23:44
or go with EM catapults like the US Navy.

But the point is that the VSTOL version doesn't need either.

Both would be a waste of better used space

Ah but our carriers are not as long because we don't have an arrestor wire or a steam catapult ( which would lose us more space)
Short landing , short take off ...fully automated weapon loading system reducing need for more crew..thus allowing us to use the ship as a commando carrier as well...you're playing catch up here guys. Value for money! something we live by mostly these days. Which you have to when you don't have more than half the world defence budget to spend on your military...

Gun Grape
30 Dec 17,, 00:15
Not playing catch-up. We've had LHA/LHDs for over 40 years. We just don't call them aircraft carriers.

Right now we have 9 of them. All more capable than the QE.

Toby
30 Dec 17,, 00:17
Not playing catch-up. We've had LHA/LHDs for over 40 years. We just don't call them aircraft carriers.

Right now we have 9 of them. All more capable than the QE.

Humbug!! ;-) and I should think they are....The QE isn't in service yet...Funny but you guys had the same dismissive tone about the harrier prior to the falklands conflict. We had to shoot down a shit load of mirages before you caught on..

Gun Grape
30 Dec 17,, 00:37
Humbug!! ;-) and I should think they are....The QE isn't in service yet...Funny but you guys had the same dismissive tone about the harrier prior to the falklands conflict. We had to shoot down a shit load of mirages before you caught on..

?????

USMC was flying Harriers in 1971. (edit- first deployed on LPH in 1974 USS Tripoli)

12 years before the Falklands.

LHDs are more capable and better defended that the QE will be once in service. Not counting her first cruise where she will be used as a USMC LHD (embarking a USMC squadron) but once you guys get your own planes to use on her. ;)

jlvfr
30 Dec 17,, 00:49
Irrelevant discussion, anyway. The UK mated it's carrier design to the F-35's VTOL ability. Period. To redesign for conventional aircraft (the idea was floated mid construction) would increase the cost horrendeously, and delay service entry even longer. For better or worse, the F-35 is it, for the UK. And, in this case, I think the UK's experience with the Invencible trumps the US' with the USMC's "carriers". Don't forget the primary use for the Invencibles was for the Harriers, so the loss of space from the ramp was aceptable, because of the range/payload offset; whereas the USMC is, afaik, helis' first, so they maximize the number of helo pads. The same applies to the new carriers.

In terms of UK carrier design, the 2 separate islands is what always makes me go "wth..."

Toby
30 Dec 17,, 01:00
?????

USMC was flying Harriers in 1971. (edit- first deployed on LPH in 1974 USS Tripoli)

12 years before the Falklands.

LHDs are more capable and better defended that the QE will be once in service. Not counting her first cruise where she will be used as a USMC LHD (embarking a USMC squadron) but once you guys get your own planes to use on her. ;)You only bought them because you had run out of ideas on what to spend the defense budget on...And hey, WOW look at this new plane that goes up and down ...not sure what else it does but hey lets buy a hundred...just joking!....To be serious for a minute because yes strangely enough Toby ist thou takin tha piss! I think the Harrier and the sidewinder (one British and one American)were the thing that made it work perfectly and what I'm aiming at in jest is we can't afford what you guys have, so yeh why did we build these hulks...I guess we'll find out at some point, because at the moment I don't get it either!

Toby
30 Dec 17,, 01:04
Irrelevant discussion, = Humbug! All the best everybody!

Gun Grape
30 Dec 17,, 06:06
You only bought them because you had run out of ideas on what to spend the defense budget on...And hey, WOW look at this new plane that goes up and down ...not sure what else it does but hey lets buy a hundred...just joking!....

For a while we used them as Lawn Darts.

Gun Grape
30 Dec 17,, 07:03
Irrelevant discussion, anyway. The UK mated it's carrier design to the F-35's VTOL ability. Period. To redesign for conventional aircraft (the idea was floated mid construction) would increase the cost horrendeously, and delay service entry even longer. For better or worse, the F-35 is it, for the UK. And, in this case, I think the UK's experience with the Invencible trumps the US' with the USMC's "carriers". Don't forget the primary use for the Invencibles was for the Harriers, so the loss of space from the ramp was aceptable, because of the range/payload offset; whereas the USMC is, afaik, helis' first, so they maximize the number of helo pads. The same applies to the new carriers.

In terms of UK carrier design, the 2 separate islands is what always makes me go "wth..."

Disagree,

The QE has a commando mission and according to the RN will normally deploy with about the same mix as a LHD of helos and 12 F-35s.

The Invincible class were designed as helo ASW platforms. At a little over 680ft of flight deck. With the cancellation of the RNs Carrier Renewal Program they were thrust into the CV role.

That short of a flight deck and the under powered Harrier of the 70s, they needed a ski jump. It was a work around that stuck

Just like the Iwo Jima class. The US decided not to embark harriers on the Iwo's after a few experimental deployments. The Tarawas didn't normally deploy Harriers in the beginning either but were modified for them once the 8-B came on line.

The Wasp class were specifically designed around Harrier ops and had always been designed to be mini Harrier Carriers (Surface Control Ship under a different name). They have proven that concept at least on 4 different occasions.

I get the 2 Islands. One for navigation and one for PriFly. Each one covers stack space. Leave the middle out and you get more deck space and seperate the 2 missions so that one missile hit to the superstructure doesn't wipe out both capabilities

jlvfr
30 Dec 17,, 13:10
Just like the Iwo Jima class. The US decided not to embark harriers on the Iwo's after a few experimental deployments. The Tarawas didn't normally deploy Harriers in the beginning either but were modified for them once the 8-B came on line.

The Wasp class were specifically designed around Harrier ops and had always been designed to be mini Harrier Carriers (Surface Control Ship under a different name). They have proven that concept at least on 4 different occasions.


Yeah but in both cases they trust the USN for primary air defence, hence no big hurry in getting planes up and out. That can't happen with the RN. Which brings up the need to waste as little fuel on takeoff.



I get the 2 Islands. One for navigation and one for PriFly. Each one covers stack space. Leave the middle out and you get more deck space and seperate the 2 missions so that one missile hit to the superstructure doesn't wipe out both capabilities

I know why they did it. But it leaves coordination between the two teams entirely dependant on intercom. And I can't help thinking that the US, with far more experience in carrier construction, never built anything like this.

Toby
30 Dec 17,, 16:46
The RN has no tanking or AEW capability. The RAF doesn't have any that are shipborne capableDoes this answer your AEW question?http://www.janes.com/article/67041/uk-orders-crowsnest-helicopter-radar-systems..

AS for the tanking question how about the much rumoured Drone tanker??

jlvfr
30 Dec 17,, 18:06
Does this answer your AEW question?http://www.janes.com/article/67041/uk-orders-crowsnest-helicopter-radar-systems..

AS for the tanking question how about the much rumoured Drone tanker??

Doesn't that require arrestor cables+catapult?

Gun Grape
30 Dec 17,, 18:45
Yeah but in both cases they trust the USN for primary air defence, hence no big hurry in getting planes up and out. That can't happen with the RN. Which brings up the need to waste as little fuel on takeoff.

If by "Trust the USN for primary AD" you mean the 1 DDg thats attached to ESG, then they are less covered than a RN task force. ESGs are not tied to a CV. Only on a few occasions will you be in the area to enjoy their air cover.

Short take off without a ramp does not bur more fuel than short takeoff with a ramp.




I know why they did it. But it leaves coordination between the two teams entirely dependant on intercom. And I can't help thinking that the US, with far more experience in carrier construction, never built anything like this.

How do you think they talk on a 1 island ship? Intercom. They are not co-located

Gun Grape
30 Dec 17,, 18:50
Does this answer your AEW question?http://www.janes.com/article/67041/uk-orders-crowsnest-helicopter-radar-systems..

AS for the tanking question how about the much rumoured Drone tanker??

Thanks for the link.

The drone requires a CATOBAR ship. Thats why the Corps are going to a MV-22 Tanker. And the cool thing is that its a palletized load. So the Osprey can be used for other task if/when needed.

jlvfr
30 Dec 17,, 19:26
If by "Trust the USN for primary AD" you mean the 1 DDg thats attached to ESG, then they are less covered than a RN task force. ESGs are not tied to a CV. Only on a few occasions will you be in the area to enjoy their air cover.


I was thinking of the CVN that would be covering them...



How do you think they talk on a 1 island ship? Intercom. They are not co-located

Yes, but if the intercom fails, then what? In a single island, all you have to do is go up or down some stairs, or even open a door and pass notes or shout...

Toby
31 Dec 17,, 00:08
Doesn't that require arrestor cables+catapult?Nah ..Helos are ok without :-)

Toby
31 Dec 17,, 00:10
For a while we used them as Lawn Darts.lol The sidewinder or the harrier?

Toby
31 Dec 17,, 00:23
The tanker question is legit and I reckon the silence from MOD is in part because a particular project is in development phase and I reckon its unmanned..its a question which very righty RN have to answer.

Gun Grape
31 Dec 17,, 03:22
lol The sidewinder or the harrier?

Unfortunately, The Harrier. The 8As specifically. They worked the bugs out in the B model

They had the nickname "Carolina Lawn Dart" because of the number of accidents.

The wives at MCAS Cherry Point called them "The Black Widow" . Most accidents happened while in the hover mode while landing. The plane would flip onto its back. No way to escape that.

The first few years we had the Harriers, all the pilots were high hour, former test pilots. Keep accidents low so Congress would buy planes for the Corps. Remember this was one of the few "Not made here" planes ever in US service (Canberra being the other one) and many in Congress, and the Defense industry were against the plane.

Once new, less experienced pilots started going to the squadrons, they crashed on a regular basis.

jlvfr
31 Dec 17,, 10:46
Nah ..Helos are ok without :-)

The drone...

Toby
31 Dec 17,, 11:46
Doesn't that require arrestor cables+catapult?Not seen anything concrete on that...HMG have been pushed on this and have yet failed to respond....

Toby
31 Dec 17,, 11:53
The drone...
lol, sorry I can't help myself

Toby
31 Dec 17,, 12:01
Unfortunately, The Harrier. The 8As specifically. They worked the bugs out in the B model

They had the nickname "Carolina Lawn Dart" because of the number of accidents.

The wives at MCAS Cherry Point called them "The Black Widow" . Most accidents happened while in the hover mode while landing. The plane would flip onto its back. No way to escape that.

The first few years we had the Harriers, all the pilots were high hour, former test pilots. Keep accidents low so Congress would buy planes for the Corps. Remember this was one of the few "Not made here" planes ever in US service (Canberra being the other one) and many in Congress, and the Defense industry were against the plane.

Once new, less experienced pilots started going to the squadrons, they crashed on a regular basis.I remember hearing some time back, Probably around 82 that the US were not sold on this aircraft...which would tally with your comment. I remember watching test films and the narrator explaining how this tech was groundbreaking in I think it was 69 that the first prototype was tested, need some help on that date. But I hear you! It was explained to me that the Falklands war was its proving ground...luckily we had the sidewinder also from the US...we'd have been screwed without em, operating at that distance.

Gun Grape
31 Dec 17,, 18:54
I was thinking of the CVN that would be covering them...

During 90% of operations the ESG is separated from the CSG. Only during the big operations (Desert Storm/Iraqi Freedom) has the Amphibs been under the carrier airwing umbrella.

Core ops,( NEO, Embassy reinforcement,.....) we are on our own.




Yes, but if the intercom fails, then what? In a single island, all you have to do is go up or down some stairs, or even open a door and pass notes or shout...

What? You want to violate Material Condition Zebra!!!!

When the intercom fails, you still have sound powered phones and hand held radios

Toby
01 Jan 18,, 16:11
During 90% of operations the ESG is separated from the CSG. Only during the big operations (Desert Storm/Iraqi Freedom) has the Amphibs been under the carrier airwing umbrella.

Core ops,( NEO, Embassy reinforcement,.....) we are on our own.
In that case you must using more than one assault ship. Looks like you guys use the entire flight deck when deploying F35B's or Harriers which gives not much room for helos

surfgun
01 Jan 18,, 18:10
The aircraft are parked on the starboard side. The port side is used for flight ops.

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/171024-N-XN518-233.JPG

Toby
01 Jan 18,, 18:56
The aircraft are parked on the starboard side. The port side is used for flight ops.

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/171024-N-XN518-233.JPG Forgive me I'm trying to understand why the RN would be better off with an assault carrier rather than the QE. Ok, So a Marine Corp assault ship can conduct F35B and helo operation simultaneously? I'm looking at the deck space (fantastic pic) and it looks busy. similar to our old Invincible class just bigger

surfgun
01 Jan 18,, 19:14
I am of the opinion that these flight decks should be widened. The USN has not attempted to squeeze these ships through an old Panama Canal lock for 15 years. Plus the new locks will allow a wider ship anyway.

Toby
01 Jan 18,, 19:37
I am of the opinion that these flight decks should be widened. The USN has not attempted to squeeze these ships through an old Panama Canal lock for 15 years. Plus the new locks will allow a wider ship anyway.Thats an Important point.

Back on the ski jump 'The U.S. Air Force has examined the use of ski-jumps on land to enable short-field takeoffs. This was seen as "a possible solution to the runway denial problem in Europe" during the Cold War. When a ski-jump with a 9 degree exit angle is used, the takeoff roll of an F/A-18 Hornet can be cut in half.'

Dazed
01 Jan 18,, 19:38
In that case you must using more than one assault ship. Looks like you guys use the entire flight deck when deploying F35B's or Harriers which gives not much room for helos

F-35 cruises somewhere in the transonic range, V-22 cruises 241 kts, Helicopters cruise around 150Kts. You waste the most lethal weapon of all in aerial warfare jet fue,l if you try to launch all at the same time.

Toby
01 Jan 18,, 20:13
F-35 cruises somewhere in the transonic range, V-22 cruises 241 kts, Helicopters cruise around 150Kts. You waste the most lethal weapon of all in aerial warfare jet fue,l if you try to launch all at the same time.
Right so in a scenario where the marines are being deployed by sea and air... that's the flight deck out of bounds for the F35B, you'd need 2 assault ships ?

Dazed
01 Jan 18,, 20:21
Thats an Important point.

Back on the ski jump The U.S. Air Force has examined the use of ski-jumps on land to enable short-field takeoffs. This was seen as "a possible solution to the runway denial problem in Europe" during the Cold War. When a ski-jump with a 9 degree exit angle is used, the takeoff roll of an F/A-18 Hornet can be cut in half.

Yes you can get off shorter and slower, but if you lose the engine in a twin engine F-18, F-15 you are below the minimum engine inoperative speed. Below this airspeed you lose lateral/directional control. Lets say you have a couple extra kts for momma and the children and you can generate sufficient control force, your climb performance is a negative value. The climb rate coming off the ramp what I have read is around a 1000/min. Awesome for a 1980's C-172 for a jet that's can't fly straight and level performance . You are now low and slow and have to accelerate . Navy/USMC think it is better h have airspeed/performance/control ability and less air than a shorter t/o roll and more air under the aircraft. The only way to accelerate is to lower the nose.

The MEU I believe has the fixed wing air assets become shore based if everything goes to plan. The globe is full of runways a mile to two miles long especially along the coast line and when you factor in roads even more.

Toby
01 Jan 18,, 20:35
Yes you can get off shorter and slower, but if you lose the engine in a twin engine F-18, F-15 you are below the minimum engine inoperative speed. Below this airspeed you lose lateral/directional control. Lets say you have a couple extra kts for momma and the children and you can generate sufficient control force, your climb performance is a negative value. The climb rate coming off the ramp what I have read is around a 1000/min. Awesome for a 1980's C-172 for a jet that's can't fly straight and level performance . You are now low and slow and have to accelerate . Navy/USMC think it is better h have airspeed/performance/control ability and less air than a shorter t/o roll and more air under the aircraft. The only way to accelerate is to lower the nose.

The MEU I believe has the fixed wing air assets become shore based if everything goes to plan. The globe is full of runways a mile to two miles long especially along the coast line and when you factor in roads even more. So in effect what the MOD/RN have specified with the QE is a large carrier with a short take off area allowing helo's to operate as well? coz thats what it looks like to me. Which is a budgeted remedy and very British (I almost said Yorkshire but Oracle would accuse me of being racist again) ..lol

Dazed
01 Jan 18,, 20:37
Right so in a scenario where the marines are being deployed by sea and air... that's the flight deck out of bounds for the F35B, you'd need 2 assault ships ?

Just like in Korea (props/jets) to the present day you just schedule and move air craft. http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.displayPlatform&key=E44E67E0-DDF7-42C4-A6DB-DE9BB6BA5111 http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?
fuseaction=home.displayPlatform&key=CEFE3916-6E7E-4A62-A346-2E09C6EEB431

Dissimilar aircraft operations happen all the time

Dazed
01 Jan 18,, 20:46
So in effect what the MOD/RN have specified with the QE is a large carrier with a short take off area allowing helo's to operate as well? coz thats what it looks like to me. Which is a budgeted remedy and very British (I almost said Yorkshire but Oracle would accuse me of being racist again) ..lol

That how the UK choose to deal with it. Navy/USMC think it is better to have airspeed/performance/control ability and less air than a shorter t/o roll and more air under the aircraft. If you dribble on to the freeway at 35 mph/56km and the traffic is moving at 80mph/129km you don't take your foot off the gas and decrease fuel consumption

When your helicopters perform a running t/o, I don't think they use the ramp but rather the whole flight deck.

Toby
01 Jan 18,, 20:51
Just like in Korea (props/jets) to the present day you just schedule and move air craft. http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.displayPlatform&key=E44E67E0-DDF7-42C4-A6DB-DE9BB6BA5111 http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?
fuseaction=home.displayPlatform&key=CEFE3916-6E7E-4A62-A346-2E09C6EEB431

Dissimilar aircraft operations happen all the timeRight so we have one assault ship in a very hostile environment...How can you have F35B's operating at the same time as helo's on that size and type of flight deck. It doesn't look practical in that scenario. In a low intensity situation I get it. But otherwise you'd need a bigger carrier or another assault ship (marine corp)

Toby
01 Jan 18,, 20:59
That how the UK choose to deal with it. Navy/USMC think it is better to have airspeed/performance/control ability and less air than a shorter t/o roll and more air under the aircraft. If you dribble on to the freeway at 35 mph/56km and the traffic is moving at 80mph/129km you don't take your foot off the gas and decrease fuel consumption

When your helicopters perform a running t/o, I don't think they use the ramp but rather the whole flight deck.This all sounds like budget constraints to me from the MOD

Dazed
01 Jan 18,, 21:14
Right so we have one assault ship in a very hostile environment...How can you have F35B's operating at the same time as helo's on that size and type of flight deck. It doesn't look practical in that scenario. In a low intensity situation I get it. But otherwise you'd need a bigger carrier or another assault ship (marine corp)
Well with no ski ramp you have more area to arm fuel park and move air craft. Oh and the F-35 operate well above the v-22, helicopters envelope fuel economy and all. What they can't perform ops in a contested environment. I know we American are a simple some time pragmatic people they move aircraft. Like MH-53 and V-22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRmhJbu8rLU . The take off roll of all these aircraft don't take that long, but arming fueling etc do. The USN feels that the space not wasted on a ramp can be used for those activities.

The RN is going for roll on landings with the F-35. that is going to cut into the available operating area on the QE. Vertical landing uses a lot less real estate but it cuts into endurance and bring back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhnUv5Axbuo

I am just civilian but I imagine as all of the above. They launch the Helo first followed by the V-22 wait and than launch the f-35's

Dazed
01 Jan 18,, 21:20
This all sounds like budget constraints to me from the MOD

Well the RN invented the angle deck, steam catapult and the big one the Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System. The ski ramp is in their doctrine and to change that would be expensive also isn't a response to abandoning the catobar late in the program.

Toby
01 Jan 18,, 21:39
Well with no ski ramp you have more area to arm fuel park and move air craft. Oh and the F-35 operate well above the v-22, helicopters envelope fuel economy and all. What they can't perform ops in a contested environment. I know we American are a simple some time pragmatic people they move aircraft. Like MH-53 and V-22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRmhJbu8rLU . The take off roll of all these aircraft don't take that long, but arming fueling etc do. The USN feels that the space not wasted on a ramp can be used for those activities.

The RN is going for roll on landings with the F-35. that is going to cut into the available operating area on the QE. Vertical landing uses a lot less real estate but it cuts into endurance and bring back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhnUv5Axbuo

I am just civilian but I imagine as all of the above. They launch the Helo first followed by the V-22 wait and than launch the f-35's
All good info...I'm just wondering how you launch Helos as well as F35B's in a volatile environment from one Assault ship and not create unnecessary risks. I understand the limitations and the advantages of a Ski jump and the slow speed landing that you posted about and that was great info that no news program has told us about here in the UK. The other thing I realise is that the design of the America class of Assault ship is in flux because of the differing demands of this class of ship. Its meant to be an amphibious assault ship and yet the marine corp want the F35B...which is creating all kinds of problems with flight deck etc

JA Boomer
02 Feb 18,, 17:58
What's the thought process behind the two islands...?

jlvfr
02 Feb 18,, 18:08
What's the thought process behind the two islands...?

Front island focus on operating the ship, rear island focus on flight ops.

surfgun
02 Feb 18,, 19:03
Each island also stores an exhaust stack.

Toby
02 Feb 18,, 19:31
The primary reason for having twin islands as surf gun has said was to space out the funnels There are also additional benefits to having separate islands rather than a single large island,
1. The two towers reduce the upset air behind the ship for approaching aircraft.
2. Having these two functions in two separate structures allows FlyCo to have an uninterrupted view of the entire working flight deck, much like the Control Tower of an airfield.
3. Reduced wind turbulence
4. Freed up deck space

JA Boomer
02 Feb 18,, 20:05
Thanks guys, makes some sense.

Gun Grape
04 Feb 18,, 19:35
All good info...I'm just wondering how you launch Helos as well as F35B's in a volatile environment from one Assault ship and not create unnecessary risks. I understand the limitations and the advantages of a Ski jump and the slow speed landing that you posted about and that was great info that no news program has told us about here in the UK. The other thing I realise is that the design of the America class of Assault ship is in flux because of the differing demands of this class of ship. Its meant to be an amphibious assault ship and yet the marine corp want the F35B...which is creating all kinds of problems with flight deck etc

The same way the QE will do it. Only faster, because the America has more deck spots for helos and an uncluttered flight deck. You don't run fixed wing and helo ops concurrent. Even on a Nimitz class carrier. Not because of deck space/layout, but because of the different wind currents generated by the planes/helos.

The problems with the flight deck are heat related. The 35 exhaust is hotter than the AV-8s. But by doing a vertical landing I can get more planes on deck in a shorter amount of time than doing a rolling landing. Faster turn around time

Toby
04 Feb 18,, 22:10
The same way the QE will do it. Only faster, because the America has more deck spots for helos and an uncluttered flight deck. You don't run fixed wing and helo ops concurrent. Even on a Nimitz class carrier. Not because of deck space/layout, but because of the different wind currents generated by the planes/helos.

The problems with the flight deck are heat related. The 35 exhaust is hotter than the AV-8s. But by doing a vertical landing I can get more planes on deck in a shorter amount of time than doing a rolling landing. Faster turn around time

My reading on the America is that greater emphasis has been put on the flight deck at the cost of the amphibious component which is raising questions about design. Trying to read in between the lines here but it sounds like the Tech is pushing the designers (both UK and US) into a suck it and see dilemma..it sounds like a very fluid environment in terms of design.

Gun Grape
04 Feb 18,, 23:40
Yes they dropped the well deck. At the time the amphib fleet was suppose to get bigger. That ain't happening so the follow on ships have their well deck restored.

But.... The big deck rarely carried a infantry unit assigned for the boats. They still carry the helo company. What lost a place was the Arty battery, CAAP/LAR (dating myself) and the mobile/forward BLT command post. The CAAP/BLT forward preboated in the LCAC

The rest was BLT HQ/Service support rolling stock. All of the follow on stuff. That loss requires adding another San Antonio class to the ESG.

back in the days when we used the Iwo class helo ships the ARG had 5 ships. When the Tarawas came on board we lost the 2 LSTs but gained space on the LHD/LHA.

(rant) what happened is we had a airdale as CMC and he wanted his own A/C carriers to command. Yes a Marine can be the ESG Commander. Forgot that the purpose of the wing is to support the landing force. Damn Pogue


Edit- Acronyms that some may not know
CAAP Combined Anti-Armor Platoon. Humvees with TOWs and the tow version of the LAV.
LAR- Light Armor Recon. LAVs with infantry scouts
BLT- Battalion Landing Team An Infantry Battalion, reinforced with all the fixing. Arty/Tanks/LAVs/Recon and others.

Toby
05 Feb 18,, 00:20
Yes they dropped the well deck. At the time the amphib fleet was suppose to get bigger. That ain't happening so the follow on ships have their well deck restored.

But.... The big deck rarely carried a infantry unit assigned for the boats. They still carry the helo company. What lost a place was the Arty battery, CAAP/LAR (dating myself) and the mobile/forward BLT command post. The CAAP/BLT forward preboated in the LCAC

The rest was BLT HQ/Service support rolling stock. All of the follow on stuff. That loss requires adding another San Antonio class to the ESG.

back in the days when we used the Iwo class helo ships the ARG had 5 ships. When the Tarawas came on board we lost the 2 LSTs but gained space on the LHD/LHA.

(rant) what happened is we had a airdale as CMC and he wanted his own A/C carriers to command. Yes a Marine can be the ESG Commander. Forgot that the purpose of the wing is to support the landing force. Damn Pogue


Edit- Acronyms that some may not know
CAAP Combined Anti-Armor Platoon. Humvees with TOWs and the tow version of the LAV.
LAR- Light Armor Recon. LAVs with infantry scouts
BLT- Battalion Landing Team An Infantry Battalion, reinforced with all the fixing. Arty/Tanks/LAVs/Recon and others.

Thats great info thanks... Glad you explained the abbreviations.... BLT is a sandwich here lol

JCT
05 Feb 18,, 16:03
(rant) what happened is we had a airdale as cmc and he wanted his own a/c carriers to command. Yes a marine can be the esg commander. Forgot that the purpose of the wing is to support the landing force. Damn pogue


lol!

JA Boomer
06 Feb 18,, 17:24
Completely unrelated. I re-watched The Final Countdown on the weekend. Great movie. They did a wonderful job of utilizing almost every aircraft in the 1980 air wing! It's too bad current air wings are so vanilla.

surfgun
06 Feb 18,, 18:16
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1SwgU42XSpw
Nice cinematography.

Albany Rifles
06 Feb 18,, 20:58
Yes they dropped the well deck. At the time the amphib fleet was suppose to get bigger. That ain't happening so the follow on ships have their well deck restored.

But.... The big deck rarely carried a infantry unit assigned for the boats. They still carry the helo company. What lost a place was the Arty battery, CAAP/LAR (dating myself) and the mobile/forward BLT command post. The CAAP/BLT forward preboated in the LCAC

The rest was BLT HQ/Service support rolling stock. All of the follow on stuff. That loss requires adding another San Antonio class to the ESG.

back in the days when we used the Iwo class helo ships the ARG had 5 ships. When the Tarawas came on board we lost the 2 LSTs but gained space on the LHD/LHA.

(rant) what happened is we had a airdale as CMC and he wanted his own A/C carriers to command. Yes a Marine can be the ESG Commander. Forgot that the purpose of the wing is to support the landing force. Damn Pogue


Edit- Acronyms that some may not know
CAAP Combined Anti-Armor Platoon. Humvees with TOWs and the tow version of the LAV.
LAR- Light Armor Recon. LAVs with infantry scouts
BLT- Battalion Landing Team An Infantry Battalion, reinforced with all the fixing. Arty/Tanks/LAVs/Recon and others.

I'm sorry Gunny (no I'm not) but reading the above I am reminded of this scene from one of my favorites



https://youtu.be/RrZlWw8Di10

tbm3fan
06 Feb 18,, 22:39
I'm sorry Gunny (no I'm not) but reading the above I am reminded of this scene from one of my favorites

]

LOL, I agree after reading that yesterday. On the weekend I was reading one of my journals and an author threw out a new one at me that wasn't on my list which might have GG beat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_optometric_abbreviations

Gun Grape
07 Feb 18,, 02:49
I'm sorry Gunny (no I'm not) but reading the above I am reminded of this scene from one of my favorites

That reminds me of the time I was skating in the BOC. The AP had already pushed forward. The BC decided to call a School Circle so He could give a POI on SIMO with us as the Master Station and the AP as the Flank . They had no survey because the PC forgot to Z-VEL their PADS enroute to the new Pos.

After getting Comms, They tried to get the Hasty done but the Check angle blew out above 2Mil. I think the PC didn't go Hands off after TIP. Then it got too dark and the PC wasn't up on his Astro So the BC instead had the Chief of Smoke do a hip pocket on doing a Hasty using a circle with the P-2 reticle utilizing the Polaris Kochab Method. Then we CSMOed. On the way, we practiced 2 HIP Shoots. One using a M-2 and SAM. The Next we AP-BAFed off a DAP. Long night. By the time we fire capped the Shirt was popping the lids of the VatCans for some morning Hot-Wets.

I'm sure you remember those days. You know before you Pogued out :)

tbm3fan
07 Feb 18,, 03:17
All I can say is...

https://youtu.be/jjaqrPpdQYc

Gun Grape
07 Feb 18,, 03:33
Nah, You could do the same thing using words from your profession.

I'm just using Arty speak. There are probably 3-4 of us on the board that conversed like that back in the day.

S-2 ,Arty Eng and me All from the King of Battle (Artillery). And AR who did a tour with the Transvestites of Battle (Mortars). Called that because they come from the Infantry (Queen of battle) and try to act like the King.


Yes I'm picking on AR.

tbm3fan
07 Feb 18,, 05:07
Nah, as I couldn't match your cameo in that video...

Albany Rifles
07 Feb 18,, 15:45
Nah, You could do the same thing using words from your profession.

I'm just using Arty speak. There are probably 3-4 of us on the board that conversed like that back in the day.

S-2 ,Arty Eng and me All from the King of Battle (Artillery). And AR who did a tour with the Transvestites of Battle (Mortars). Called that because they come from the Infantry (Queen of battle) and try to act like the King.


Yes I'm picking on AR.


No pogue like an old pogue.

And Transvestites of Battle....that all ya got?