HMS Queen Elizabeth

[Gun Grape]

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]

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]

The aircraft are parked on the starboard side. The port side is used for flight ops.

http://www.navy.mil/management/photo...-XN518-233.JPG

[Toby]

The aircraft are parked on the starboard side. The port side is used for flight ops.

http://www.navy.mil/management/photo...-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...B-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]

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]

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

Dissimilar aircraft operations happen all the time

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)

[Toby]

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]

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