HMS Queen Elizabeth

[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

[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.

[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]

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?

[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

[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.

[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...

[Toby]

Doesn't that require arrestor cables+catapult?

Nah ..Helos are ok without :-)

[Toby]

For a while we used them as Lawn Darts.

lol The sidewinder or the harrier?

[Toby]

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]

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]

Nah ..Helos are ok without :-)

The drone...

[Toby]

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]

The drone...

lol, sorry I can't help myself

[Toby]

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.