The go ahead given for RN carriers P of W and QE.

[chuck]

Is this carrier going to be incapable of operating anything other than STOL aircraft? What is to guarantee that Britain will have access to any next generation STOL aircraft once F-35 becomes obsolete? Or indeed there will be any next generation STOL aircraft at all?

F-35, by all honesty, does not push the envelope hard in many combat effectiveness related directions. Right off the bat it can not compete with many existing tactical aircraft in agility. So it seems to me that F-35's tenure as front line combat aircraft capable of competing with all comers will not be a particularly lengthy one. It might continue for some time in the bomb truck role, but what about the elite fighter role that is required if these ships were to have any pretense of independent operations capability beyond being a strict adjunct to US CVBG? What happens in the year 2035, when these ships would in all likelihood still have another 20 years of hull life remaining?

[Werner]

The design has allowances for a catapult and arresting gear, although they will not initially be fit, and the ski ramp will be installed instead. It is not a structural feature of the deck, but an "add on" like Hermes.

[ModelMonkey]

We must admit that QE and PoW moving forward is exciting news for the Royal Navy.

[Dave Wooley]

We must admit that QE and PoW moving forward is exciting news for the Royal Navy.

Yes I agree and perhaps these 64000ton carriers will see a re-birth of the Fleet Air Arm in the classic sense and not a re-hash of the present arrangement of using RAF GR-9s . Now the question of airborne early-warning . These carriers are going to need E2Cs .That will be next on the RNs shoping list .
Dave Wooley

[Dave Wooley]

More pictures of the concept model which is not that far
away from what has been accepted. The project should
keep the ship yards busy for quite some time . Plus the
knock on effect for sub-contact work in other yards.


Dave

[Foeth]

I suppose they have their reasons to abandon the angled flightdeck, even if the fighters have VTOL capability. And I hope that those Phalanxes are actually Goalkeepers....

[Walt]

This new design looks like a STOL/VTOL platform.. Without major mods the F-18 will not be at home on this flight deck for sure.. Take offs maybe but landings eeeeek!

[Guest]

I suppose they have their reasons to abandon the angled flightdeck, even if the fighters have VTOL capability. And I hope that those Phalanxes are actually Goalkeepers....

Otherwise they must be new, miniaturized Phalanxes for they certainly look out of scale.

[Dave Wooley]

This new design looks like a STOL/VTOL platform.. Without major mods the F-18 will not be at home on this flight deck for sure.. Take offs maybe but landings eeeeek!

At nearly 300m in length it should be ok for Rafale's ? { The Charles de Gaulle is 261m } The through deck Gorshkov for the Indian navy is 273m
Dave Wooley

[MartinL]

From the Royal Navy site, catapult and arester hook layout

[Werner]

I presume rather than wasting space with Hawkeyes, the RN will rely on land-based J-STARS or AWACS. The Screwtop will never leave this flight deck without a catapult and arrester gear, anyway.

This seems to be a Herculean effort to get a fraction of the capability of USS Constellation and USS John F. Kennedy, in any event.

[NAVMACS_V2]

I don't understand why they would still use a rolling takeoff for aircraft when the advantages of catapult launching has been proven conclusively over the last sixty years. Catapult launching allows aircraft to carry a heavier weapons load and ties up far less deck space than a rolling takeoff. World War II carriers were sized by how much space was required for a rolling takeoff while spotting the strike on the main deck. Catapults allowed escort carriers to launch fighters and bombers with a fraction of the total deck space.

Didn't the Falklands War demonstrate the limitations of STOL/VTOL carrier technology?

[Werner]

I don't understand why they would still use a rolling takeoff for aircraft when the advantages of catapult launching has been proven conclusively over the last sixty years. Catapult launching allows aircraft to carry a heavier weapons load and ties up far less deck space than a rolling takeoff. World War II carriers were sized by how much space was required for a rolling takeoff while spotting the strike on the main deck. Catapults allowed escort carriers to launch fighters and bombers with a fraction of the total deck space.

Didn't the Falklands War demonstrate the limitations of STOL/VTOL carrier technology?

These are simply technologies "lost" in the RN. They want to accumulate experience in large flight deck operations before they convert to the USN/French method. It is quicker for them (or the USSR) to accumulate "successes" to show to lawmakers with the ramp than with the unknown catapult, even though they invented it.

It is likely they will employ the future USN electric catapult; it makes sense to let the USN pay for development and teething on USS Gerald Ford, where it will be first installed, than invest in the older technology.

Vectored thrust jets make the lack of catapults and arrester gear less decisive than you might think.

[Werner]

As regards Hawkeyes, they may also be waiting for the USN replacement aircraft which is to be based on a "joint common airframe" with the USAF. The new plane would be a jet and probably greatly simplify the RN learning curve.

As we know from discussions here a few years ago, the USN was prepared to offer the British a retired supercarrier for essentially nothing in cash and $150 million in annual upkeep.

The fact that they are proceeding to develop these expensive ships is living proof of what someone said above; these ships are foremost a jobs program.

[phil gollin]

First, - the best site for the Queen Elizabeths is this :-

http://frn.beedall.com/cvfmain.htm

This gives (and has given for years, the whole convoluted saga. If you want to see officialdom at its worst read that - it will have you crying.

The two Islands were chosen for two main reason one, they increase the available deck space over an equivalent single island and two, it gives the required separation for the radars. There are also factors associated with the spacing of the main gas turbines (carried above waterline) and their uptakes.

The ships, as has been stated, are designed to be convertible between "ordinary" cat and trap/angled deck and V/STOL operation.

As for the superiority of either. These have been designed as "strike" carriers. Their main mission is the deployment of land attack missions. The various studies show that the V/STOL type ship can generate both more missions on a continuous basis and faster turnarounds/take-offs/landings. This may seem odd, but it basically comes down to two issues. V/STOL aircraft are much more easily handled and despatched/received and the mission is one where the aircraft fly-off attack and come back with no flight re-fuelling. With these parameters then V/STOL wins hands down.

HOWEVER, no one claims that a V/STOL would be better if one looked for major re-fuelling requirements or specialised attack missions. The advantage to V/STOL version is a specific one associated with its main mission - NOT overall flexibility or other missions.

AEW is the main bone of contention with the V/STOL version being presently intended to use helicopter based AEW (good but limited range due to height limitations).

Another, indeed sometimes claimed as the main reason for the need for the ships to be convertible, is the probable future need to operate UAVs from the ships.

But it is best to read the proper web-site than my ramblings.

[Dave Wooley]

I was unaware that the MOD were considering a cut down TSR2 strike varient for the cancelled CVA-01 project . That would have been interesting considering that the TSR-2 was considered to be one of the best strike aircraft of its day and more advanced than the equivalent F111.
Dave Wooley

[Laurence Batchelor]

Didn't the Falklands War demonstrate the limitations of STOL/VTOL carrier technology?

Not to my knowledge "I counted 12 Sea Harriers out and 12 returned" being a famous BBC correspoundants quote.
Furthermore the Sea Harrier shot down 21 aircraft in air-to-air combat with no losses.

In effect it was their finest honour and largely dictated confidence in the STOL/VTOL concept. There's nothing like combat experience and proven capability to help somethings credibility.
I agree though Ark Royal IV stationed off the Falklands with her full 1970s airwing would have proven far more effective.

For example, the sea harriers failed to establish complete air superiority and prevent Argentine attacks during day or night, nor could they stop the daily flights of C-130 Hercules transports to the islands.
But then again they were kept back for air defence and only the GR3 types generally were used on bombing missions.

[Laurence Batchelor]

As we know from discussions here a few years ago, the USN was prepared to offer the British a retired supercarrier for essentially nothing in cash and $150 million in annual upkeep.

The fact that they are proceeding to develop these expensive ships is living proof of what someone said above; these ships are foremost a jobs program.

Well yes and also politically we don't wish to have 'hand me downs'
However flattered we are!
We have to build our own warships for jobs, but also it's 'keeping up with the Jones' aka NATO partners such as the Dutch and the French.
There is also the question of skills, we have some of the finest engineers, universities and technical colleges in the world, to keep those boffins happy they have to have something to work on.

[Laurence Batchelor]

I was unaware that the MOD were considering a cut down TSR2 strike varient for the cancelled CVA-01 project . That would have been interesting considering that the TSR-2 was considered to be one of the best strike aircraft of its day and more advanced than the equivalent F111.
Dave Wooley

The TSR2 was 20 years ahead of its time and truely a world beater.
Of course it was all british, apart from some of its electronics.
Many of the systems were again reused on the Tornado's.
Also the Tornado coming along time after were slightly less capable.
ohhh if only, if only we had, damn you Labour government!
They would still be in service today with the RAF.
The F111 and Phantom were also both backwards steps meant to fill the void.

In the Fleet Air Arm terms we have to Mountbatten to thank for saying to the Aussies you can have 10 buccaneer's for the price of 1 TSR-2.
If we had gone through with the CVA-01 and a navalised TSR-2 I doubt the Falklands would have ever ocurred.

[jjb]

Just a few points;

-of course the project is linked to political considerations over employment and pork barrel help to companies like BAE and VT, or JV or whatever the new merged ship building company will be called, it would be naive to deny that. However, that is true of nearly all government capital expenditure in most countries and does not invalidate the decision to choose to design and build these ships in any way.

-the STOVL consideration does have very real advantages, as do catapult take off/arrested landing, which is better depends on what the designs are intended for. The decision to go STOVL with capability to upgrade later was pretty sensible IMO, it is not just about the RN being conservative (in fact you could argue that the opposite is true, especially in marine engineering) or politicians being risk averse.

-the USN carrier offer was never serious from a British perspective. Yes, maybe the US would have leased us a carrier at low cost or sold us it, but where would the crew come from? Or the aircraft? A USN super carriers crewing requirements would be prohibitive to the USN, as would investing in a new air group of F18's (assuming we went with a US type, which would be the only sensible course if trying to do the carrier on the cheap with a USN surplus hull). Also, it doesn't answer the long term requirement, by the time the RN worked up enough expertise and got the air group ready for ops just how much life would the hull have left?

-the AEW requirement is the real point of debate. Northrop Grumman have claimed that the E2 is capable of STOL operations using a ski jump and no catapult. However it looks like the real choice is between another helicopter based platform (most likely AW101, although others could be considered), or a V22 based platform. There is also a strong possibility that at least part of the requirement may be UAV based.