HMS Queen Elizabeth

[Toby]

Doesn't that require arrestor cables+catapult?

Nah ..Helos are ok without :-)

[jlvfr]

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...

[Gun Grape]

Does this answer your AEW question?http://www.janes.com/article/67041/u...-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.

[Gun Grape]

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

[jlvfr]

Does this answer your AEW question?http://www.janes.com/article/67041/u...-radar-systems..

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

Doesn't that require arrestor cables+catapult?

[Toby]

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

Does this answer your AEW question?http://www.janes.com/article/67041/u...-radar-systems..

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

[jlvfr]

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.

[Gun Grape]

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

[Gun Grape]

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.

[Toby]

Irrelevant discussion,

= Humbug! All the best everybody!

[Toby]

?????

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!

[jlvfr]

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..."

[Gun Grape]

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. ;)

[Toby]

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]

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.