Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
"Many have wondered why HMS Queen Elizabeth has two ‘islands’. Here we consider why she is the first aircraft carrier in the world to adopt this unique arrangement and the benefits it brings.
Redundancy and separation can be good
In a moment of inspiration back in 2001, an RN officer serving with the Thales CVF design team developing initial concepts for what became the Queen Elizabeth Class, hit upon the idea of separate islands. There are several advantages to this design but the most compelling reason for the twin islands is to space out the funnels, allowing greater separation between the engines below. QEC has duplicated main and secondary machinery in two complexes with independent uptakes and downtakes in each of the two islands. The separation provides a measure of redundancy, it increases the chances one propulsion system will remain operational in the event of action damage to the other. Gas turbine engines (situated in the sponsons directly below each island of the QEC) by their nature require larger funnels and downtakes than the diesel engines (in the bottom of the ship). The twin island design helps minimise their impact on the internal layout.
In a conventional single-island carrier design, either you have to have a very long island (like the Invincible class) which reduces flight deck space or, the exhaust trunkings have to be channelled up into a smaller space. There are limits to the angles this pipework may take which can affect the space available for the hangar. The uptakes can also create vulnerabilities, the third HMS Ark Royal was lost to a single torpedo hit in 1941, partly due to progressive engine room flooding through funnel uptakes...."
Redundancy and separation can be good
In a moment of inspiration back in 2001, an RN officer serving with the Thales CVF design team developing initial concepts for what became the Queen Elizabeth Class, hit upon the idea of separate islands. There are several advantages to this design but the most compelling reason for the twin islands is to space out the funnels, allowing greater separation between the engines below. QEC has duplicated main and secondary machinery in two complexes with independent uptakes and downtakes in each of the two islands. The separation provides a measure of redundancy, it increases the chances one propulsion system will remain operational in the event of action damage to the other. Gas turbine engines (situated in the sponsons directly below each island of the QEC) by their nature require larger funnels and downtakes than the diesel engines (in the bottom of the ship). The twin island design helps minimise their impact on the internal layout.
In a conventional single-island carrier design, either you have to have a very long island (like the Invincible class) which reduces flight deck space or, the exhaust trunkings have to be channelled up into a smaller space. There are limits to the angles this pipework may take which can affect the space available for the hangar. The uptakes can also create vulnerabilities, the third HMS Ark Royal was lost to a single torpedo hit in 1941, partly due to progressive engine room flooding through funnel uptakes...."
How many hidden, lethal and modern submarines [missile or hunter-killer] could I buy instead of two QE carriers fully crewed and equipped with aircraft?
Or, what are the carriers for?
Or, what are the carriers for?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
'langleybaston' is it too much trouble to go back a few pages and read the info and links to info at this URL? http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post9861283 I'm too weary and not that interested meself.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Info about the upcoming F-35B/QE trials off East Coast USofA along with more info about Warton sim of CVF/FlyCo/SRVLs and UncleTomCobbley and all....
UK F-35B - on final approach to QEC 18 Aug 2017 Tim Robinson
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/uk-...proach-to-qec/
UK F-35B - on final approach to QEC 18 Aug 2017 Tim Robinson
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/uk-...proach-to-qec/
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"They didn't have angled decks, steam catapults, or deck landing sights until the RN invented them either."
Which of those are installed on the QE's?
Seems we now think they're not necessary.............. (gets hat & coat)
Which of those are installed on the QE's?
Seems we now think they're not necessary.............. (gets hat & coat)
'langleybaston' is it too much trouble to go back a few pages and read the info and links to info at this URL? http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post9861283 I'm too weary and not that interested meself.
Not so disinterested as to inhibit comment, seemingly.
Never mind, but I have not had an answer to my question.
But you can't hold a decent cocktail party on a submarine.......
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Ahh there is the rub. My answer was to the last of your TWO questions "what are the carriers for?" Whilst inherent weariness about NON AVIATION related topics such as the FIRST question "How many hidden, lethal and modern submarines [missile or hunter-killer] could I buy instead of two QE carriers fully crewed and equipped with aircraft?" inhibits my answer STILL.
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 20th Aug 2017 at 16:17. Reason: add JPG
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'd get about 5 or 6 ish attack boats depending on where you shop.
The Astute costs about £1.5 bn per boat but without a VLS capability is not a great choice for lobbing lumps of explosive long way as one might expect the F-35 to do. If you look to the US Virginia class with VLS they are coming in at about £2.2 bn each ish.
Or slightly less than 2 UK Dreadnaught class (projected at £7.75 bn each with planned contingency to rise to £10.25 bn each)
Of course good though submarines are (and we should have more) they're not a lot of use at air superiority, overland ISTAR or showing flags or cocktail parties or moving marines or disaster relief or ....
There's a fairly good attempt to answer a similar question here. I have a feeling from your tone that even trying to answer it may be p*ssing into the wind, but hey: https://fightingsailor.wordpress.com...he-already-is/
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Kobol or New Caprica
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
but without a VLS capability is not a great choice for lobbing lumps of explosive long way as one might expect the F-35 to do
To achieve these ends the Queen Elizabeth Class ships and their task groups will perform a wide variety of tasks: Carrier Strike, Humanitarian Relief, Non-Combatant Evacuation, Maritime Security, Diplomacy, Promotion of Trade and sometimes, just by being in the right place at the right time, they will deliver a clear statement of intent. This is what HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH did on Wednesday.
As a statement of intent it says 'We've built it and it floats' - everything else is aspirational and 2023 is a long way off even if everything goes according to plan, on time and as promised.
On the contrary, I am grateful for all the replies.
Apparently I had better get on with the idea of the carriers!
Apparently I had better get on with the idea of the carriers!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"a wide variety of tasks: Carrier Strike, Humanitarian Relief, Non-Combatant Evacuation, Maritime Security, Diplomacy, Promotion of Trade and sometimes, just by being in the right place at the right time,"
Of course the QE's can do all of these things (tho' I'd love to know on what basis we think UK politicians will be able to position them to the right place at the right time ,...) AND they are BIG & VISIBLE - which is important if you'r engaged in gun-boat diplomacy - but maybe not so good in a hot war ....
The point is that everything except Carrier Strike could be handled by cheaper vessels and we could order more of them - say a couple more T45's, 4 more T26's and replacements for Ocean etc
We're in great danger of skewing the RN into one surface role only - the Carrier Strike Group - which will take most of the £££, most of the crews and most of the other surface assets (and some of the SSN capability) to protect/support it
Of course the QE's can do all of these things (tho' I'd love to know on what basis we think UK politicians will be able to position them to the right place at the right time ,...) AND they are BIG & VISIBLE - which is important if you'r engaged in gun-boat diplomacy - but maybe not so good in a hot war ....
The point is that everything except Carrier Strike could be handled by cheaper vessels and we could order more of them - say a couple more T45's, 4 more T26's and replacements for Ocean etc
We're in great danger of skewing the RN into one surface role only - the Carrier Strike Group - which will take most of the £££, most of the crews and most of the other surface assets (and some of the SSN capability) to protect/support it
Originally Posted by RN website 13 Dec 2013
...Destroyer Daring – in the second half of her high-profile global deployment – spent around ten days providing support to some 10,000 people in isolated and devastated communities on islands around the Visayan Sea which the typhoon struck head-on.
When she was done and continued on to the Far East on the remainder of her deployment, HMS Illustrious stepped in after a 6,000-mile dash from the Horn of Africa. The Portsmouth-based carrier spent a fortnight moving around Filipino islands, helping an estimated 40,000 souls in the process...
When she was done and continued on to the Far East on the remainder of her deployment, HMS Illustrious stepped in after a 6,000-mile dash from the Horn of Africa. The Portsmouth-based carrier spent a fortnight moving around Filipino islands, helping an estimated 40,000 souls in the process...
I think the answer may turn on the role of the carriers as the UK's conventional strategic deterrent. Which will undoubtedly divide opinion, especially on here.
They make a statement about the size and nature of the stick we carry, and of potential to act. Escorts can turn up and defend themselves and assets near them, but are comparatively limited in terms of the military effect they can deliver and in some scenarios are reliant on air support.
Most (and hopefully all) of the time the carriers will be in the peacetime diplomacy space. And whatever your personal feelings on the issue, they do have an impact that arguably goes beyond what they can actually do - witness the impact of the wheezy old Khuznetsov. And when push does come to shove, they can deliver a very substantial capability.
I don't dispute the concern around escort numbers. But what I don't agree is that the UK would be in a better place if it didn't have the carriers. They are an immensely powerful and influential stick, not least in peacetime, in a way that no amount of escorts could ever be.
They make a statement about the size and nature of the stick we carry, and of potential to act. Escorts can turn up and defend themselves and assets near them, but are comparatively limited in terms of the military effect they can deliver and in some scenarios are reliant on air support.
Most (and hopefully all) of the time the carriers will be in the peacetime diplomacy space. And whatever your personal feelings on the issue, they do have an impact that arguably goes beyond what they can actually do - witness the impact of the wheezy old Khuznetsov. And when push does come to shove, they can deliver a very substantial capability.
I don't dispute the concern around escort numbers. But what I don't agree is that the UK would be in a better place if it didn't have the carriers. They are an immensely powerful and influential stick, not least in peacetime, in a way that no amount of escorts could ever be.
