HMS Queen Elizabeth

[jlvfr]

The QE was designed for an angled deck.

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogs...uture.html?m=1

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

[surfgun]

The QE was designed for an angled deck.

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogs...uture.html?m=1

[jlvfr]

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.

[chanjyj]

A nice comparison between Queen Elizabeth and Illustrious

[ATTACH]40606[/ATTACH]

Yeah, and then they go ditch CATOBAR...

[surfgun]

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.

[jlvfr]

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.

[JA Boomer]

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?

[Tin Man]

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

[TopHatter]

A nice comparison between Queen Elizabeth and Illustrious

[TopHatter]

I think four of the subs are decommissioned boomers (Resolution Class).

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

[surfgun]

I think four of the subs are decommissioned boomers (Resolution Class).

[jlvfr]

Modern western subs are sooo hard to ID...

[Fastam]

Is it just me, or does that picture also show the majority of the UKs sub fleet tied up?

[DonBelt]

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.

[TopHatter]

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)