Future Carrier (Including Costs)
SHE looks fantastic and I daresay similar things were said when the RN introduced other innovations such as the steam catapult, angled flight deck, mirror landing aids and the ski jump.
Having two islands provides redundancy (duplicate functionality at a pinch), more efficient access routes and a hugely reduced requirement for bulky horizontal ventilation and heat susceptible exhaust trunking among other benefits.
Advantages of the two island configuration on the Royal Navy carriers
Instead of a traditional single island, a current ship design has two smaller islands. The forward island is for ship control functions and the aft (FLYCO) island is for flying control.
Advantages of the two island configuration are increased flight deck area, reduced air turbulence over the flight deck and increased flexibility of space allocation in the lower decks. The flight control centre in the aft island is in the optimum position for control of the critical aircraft approach and deck landings.
Instead of a traditional single island, a current ship design has two smaller islands. The forward island is for ship control functions and the aft (FLYCO) island is for flying control.
Advantages of the two island configuration are increased flight deck area, reduced air turbulence over the flight deck and increased flexibility of space allocation in the lower decks. The flight control centre in the aft island is in the optimum position for control of the critical aircraft approach and deck landings.
Two islands!?
Having two islands provides redundancy (duplicate functionality at a pinch), more efficient access routes and a hugely reduced requirement for bulky horizontal ventilation and heat susceptible exhaust trunking among other benefits.
I have always thought that the 2 island concept was one of the dafter ideas in a pretty daft overall concept. Clearly the brainchild of someone with little or no knowledge of naval aviation. All the FAA's long experience has shown that aviation and ship matters have to be integrated. Carriers are not "floating airfields". They are ships with a weapon system, and management of the two aspects are interlinked at every level, from manning (sorry, HR) through to ship handling. A simple and not predictable example: in HMS Eagle's first commission, they had the bright idea of having two wardrooms, one for the Air Group and the other for ship's company officers. This led to disastrous morale breakdown, and was dropped immediately in Ark and later in Eagle.
At a more operational level, anyone who has ever worked on the bridge of a carrier will know that there has to be a constant face-to-face dialogue between Cdr (Air), the Captain, the Navigating Officer and the Ops Officer, generally conducted around the Captain's chair, to resolve the inevitably conflicting demands of the Flypro (wind over deck, aircraft movements etc), navigation (ship safety, colregs etc) and tactical command (e.g. screen management). Conduct of negotiations with the parties in two entirely separate parts of the ship will be indescribably difficult. I know someone will say "Oh but they'll have excellent (Windows XP driven!) teleconferencing facilities", but that don't answer. How, over a video link can you stab your finger at a paragraph in a signal and say "But, sir, in Diamond's signal she says that ..."?
Poor Capt Kyd and his team.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twin islands - I always thought (in moments of levity) that maybe it was becasue they had two design teams originally (BAe & VT systems) and they put the islands in different places on the deck.................... the compromise solution was to keep both.........
IIRC something like that happened with the design of the Moskva hotel in Moscow under J V Stalin.......................
PS how do two islands REDUCE air turbulance? Sure they are smaller but there must be more interference in the flow with two???
IIRC something like that happened with the design of the Moskva hotel in Moscow under J V Stalin.......................
PS how do two islands REDUCE air turbulance? Sure they are smaller but there must be more interference in the flow with two???
So incoming missiles just have to aim between the two islands if there is no cross painted in the middle of the deck?
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: RPVI
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ten years ago? Strikes me that those in power still don't have a scooby even now....
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: RPVI
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fore and aft island concept was lifted directly from the Italians. It anticipates the very real possibility of having to rapidly transit from full speed ahead to full speed reverse.
Typically this capability would come into it own when the political masters demand an instant reversal of policy without suffering the indignity of being seen to do a U-turn.
For much the same reason I understand that the ships are being fitted with an enhanced turning capability.
This is required in order that the ship can match the performance of its political masters. That is to say it can sail round in ever decreasing circles until it eventually disappears up its own a**e.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed - but I have lived through 15 "Administrations" in the UK
Only two PM's were really first rate - Attlee & Thatcher - and even they had their off days
And some (Eden, Brown, May) have been really dreadful.............
Only two PM's were really first rate - Attlee & Thatcher - and even they had their off days
And some (Eden, Brown, May) have been really dreadful.............
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Round objects! Redundancy in what, pray? Is the idea that the aft island can act as some sort of ECP? Of course it can't, any more than the forrard island can manage the Flyco and ACR business.
I have always thought that the 2 island concept was one of the dafter ideas in a pretty daft overall concept. Clearly the brainchild of someone with little or no knowledge of naval aviation. All the FAA's long experience has shown that aviation and ship matters have to be integrated. Carriers are not "floating airfields". They are ships with a weapon system, and management of the two aspects are interlinked at every level, from manning (sorry, HR) through to ship handling. A simple and not predictable example: in HMS Eagle's first commission, they had the bright idea of having two wardrooms, one for the Air Group and the other for ship's company officers. This led to disastrous morale breakdown, and was dropped immediately in Ark and later in Eagle.
At a more operational level, anyone who has ever worked on the bridge of a carrier will know that there has to be a constant face-to-face dialogue between Cdr (Air), the Captain, the Navigating Officer and the Ops Officer, generally conducted around the Captain's chair, to resolve the inevitably conflicting demands of the Flypro (wind over deck, aircraft movements etc), navigation (ship safety, colregs etc) and tactical command (e.g. screen management). Conduct of negotiations with the parties in two entirely separate parts of the ship will be indescribably difficult. I know someone will say "Oh but they'll have excellent (Windows XP driven!) teleconferencing facilities", but that don't answer. How, over a video link can you stab your finger at a paragraph in a signal and say "But, sir, in Diamond's signal she says that ..."?
Poor Capt Kyd and his team.
I have always thought that the 2 island concept was one of the dafter ideas in a pretty daft overall concept. Clearly the brainchild of someone with little or no knowledge of naval aviation. All the FAA's long experience has shown that aviation and ship matters have to be integrated. Carriers are not "floating airfields". They are ships with a weapon system, and management of the two aspects are interlinked at every level, from manning (sorry, HR) through to ship handling. A simple and not predictable example: in HMS Eagle's first commission, they had the bright idea of having two wardrooms, one for the Air Group and the other for ship's company officers. This led to disastrous morale breakdown, and was dropped immediately in Ark and later in Eagle.
At a more operational level, anyone who has ever worked on the bridge of a carrier will know that there has to be a constant face-to-face dialogue between Cdr (Air), the Captain, the Navigating Officer and the Ops Officer, generally conducted around the Captain's chair, to resolve the inevitably conflicting demands of the Flypro (wind over deck, aircraft movements etc), navigation (ship safety, colregs etc) and tactical command (e.g. screen management). Conduct of negotiations with the parties in two entirely separate parts of the ship will be indescribably difficult. I know someone will say "Oh but they'll have excellent (Windows XP driven!) teleconferencing facilities", but that don't answer. How, over a video link can you stab your finger at a paragraph in a signal and say "But, sir, in Diamond's signal she says that ..."?
Poor Capt Kyd and his team.
Get the need for animated discussion, but every war canoe I served on had an ops room away from the bridge. Skipper and PWO boss flip as required. Surely Cdr Air does not drive the flight deck himself, so will flip between towers based on the need. So I am sure finger pointing at the signal (on any tablet I assume :-)) will still happen.
Personally I am way away from the RN now, but "assume" your concerns have been well considered.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,565
Likes: 0
Received 50 Likes
on
44 Posts
Plenty o'studies of those TWin peaKs with CFD analysis PDFs all over - here is one.
The Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers: Airwake Modelling and Validation for ASTOVL Flight Simulation
https://tinyurl.com/y7afq9k8 (PDF 1.8Mb)
OR
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...Simulation.pdf (1.8Mb)
The Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers: Airwake Modelling and Validation for ASTOVL Flight Simulation
https://tinyurl.com/y7afq9k8 (PDF 1.8Mb)
OR
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...Simulation.pdf (1.8Mb)
The two islands are a reflection of the command structure.
The forward island will be run by the Navy to control the ship.
The rear island will be run by the RAF who have pretty much taken over naval aviation.
More seriously, the two islands permit the lifts to be located out of the take-off strip, so a jammed lift will not prevent running take-offs.
The forward island will be run by the Navy to control the ship.
The rear island will be run by the RAF who have pretty much taken over naval aviation.
More seriously, the two islands permit the lifts to be located out of the take-off strip, so a jammed lift will not prevent running take-offs.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maj Gen Konashenkov said Mr Fallon's "exalted statements" about HMS Queen Elizabeth "demonstrate a clear lack of knowledge of naval science".
"Unlike the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, fitted with air-defence, anti-submarine and, most importantly, Granit anti-ship missile systems, the British aircraft carrier is just a convenient, large maritime target," he said.
"Unlike the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, fitted with air-defence, anti-submarine and, most importantly, Granit anti-ship missile systems, the British aircraft carrier is just a convenient, large maritime target," he said.
Could one of you experts perhaps tell me how you can confidently protect such a high value target from a Surface-to-Surface long or intermediate range (possibly Nuc. from an emerging nation in the coming years ) ballistic missile coming down from above at terminal velocity?
Last edited by Haraka; 29th Jun 2017 at 18:04.
Could one of you experts perhaps tell me how you can confidently protect such a high value target from a Surface-to-Surface long or intermediate range (possibly Nuc. from an emerging nation in the coming years ) ballistic missile coming down from above at terminal velocity?