HMS Queen Elizabeth to exercise with a full deck

[NutLoose]

2 Squadrons of F-35 ( One US Marines) and a full heli complement

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-queen-elizabeth-to-cover-whole-deck-with-aircraft-for-exercise/

[Bill Macgillivray]

There once was a time when, with all due respect, there would have been insufficient space for more than a couple of visiting, non-Brit, aircraft on any of our carriers !! Days long gone, I guess!!

Bill

[Martin the Martian]

USMC F-35s due at Marham this evening, apparently.

[Tashengurt]

USMC F-35s due at Marham this evening, apparently.

I think they arrived yesterday?

[chopper2004]

I think they arrived yesterday?

yes they did here are my photos of Wake Island Avengers first batch arriving in semi good light.

cheers


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x640/f4ed969d_65bb_44bf_81e7_de32cfe3b90a_b8f49a2b8fcf7bc60e55843 d96c250745aca3283.jpeg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x640/be4d9d90_ad84_4e53_b5fd_5ad865bfc417_e9843b0eb0c8de826045866 ed7af5dbcf0aa696e.jpeg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x640/f48248f5_f662_4967_8320_7b4441ef2c68_6aa9bc3bc810ad49973f0c8 eb4dc6afb94dae8ee.jpeg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x640/3018cbeb_b446_4730_9dd7_2f4cc1dac741_8dc12e634211a5cd30b8ae9 49952498e44098c25.jpeg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x640/68f8bc0f_3487_421d_8a50_fc347c755b10_d77282e891f02d282ee5a11 2d26121c90742bebe.jpeg
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x640/4fb3f498_57bd_4eea_856d_9c4d17a7b72d_4a13246c2dd085bb5ffbaaa 3f99fe582da207a87.jpeg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x640/71a5d8b5_49d8_4b16_b0a4_4ce434447983_dd6de9b7acdc3597dbe4d00 384b3c5613dc8b5b1.jpeg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x640/e9033fed_7619_468e_9f47_7f5a9a514e9a_0e807828299aa8bf751e9a7 8538a3a4aea085fe8.jpeg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x640/3560d13f_ed65_46d0_bf74_45bb7804633f_165e59c911cb52ff003ac32 5949b0f3f7c3673be.jpeg

[Not_a_boffin]

Six cabs from 820 NAS embarked Thursday night, ship sails 15:30 Monday.

CU going to be mighty quiet for a bit....

[ORAC]

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/more-crew-hms-queen-elizabeth-test-positive-covid-19-ahead-planned-friday-sailing-2974985

More crew on HMS Queen Elizabeth test positive for Covid-19 ahead of planned Friday sailing

[sandiego89]

Six cabs from 820 NAS embarked Thursday night, ship sails 15:30 Monday.

CU going to be mighty quiet for a bit....

Curious, do you know if 820 landed on the ship while it was pierside? Would have thought they would fly out while the ship was at sea.

[Not_a_boffin]

They landed on while pierside. SOP would be to embark once at sea, but then it's all a tad odd at the minute with C-19 etc. Given she's still alongside (leaving over this weekend) they've had some time to fettle the cabs.

[SLXOwft]

Curious, do you know if 820 landed on the ship while it was pierside? Would have thought they would fly out while the ship was at sea.

Well according to 820's twitter account they are on board and @QNLZ sailing has been delayed due to the strong easterly winds - so, yes. landed on in harbour. (Delay is sensible IMHO - USS Eisenhower was once damaged entering Norfolk when blown into a bulkcarrier which was sitting at anchor). 800 & 801 NASs did it with SHARs:ok: along with multiple Seakings onto much smaller decks.

There are two 824 and four 820 Merlins plus air and ground crew according to Cornwall live.

Trust the RN photographer doesn't mind me pinching this.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1333/820_a422da1ca02c8b19a563e2a006e7d5bf70bbf83d.jpg


(Crossed with N_a_B)

[Fareastdriver]

Tzu-hsi used to run China from behind a curtain.

[ORAC]

Bamboo?............

[woptb]

Being as matelot officers are whacked on the head with mallet to get them to sea,this shouldn’t be at all surprising.

[Mogwi]

In the old days, 'twas not unusual to find a wren behind a curtain.

Oops, sorry.

[Finningley Boy]

I notice some of the American "Leatherneck" F-35s have vivid colour markings. I had resigned myself to the belief, given that all F-35s A, B and C are all done up in various shades of Grey, including service and unit markings, that this kind of freedom of expression was deemed not suitable perhaps for operational reasons?

FB

[Union Jack]

Anything |Navy is odd, its just the way they are, here is another Navy officer drawing the curtains on her career..

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/royal-navy-warship-hms-sutherland-almost-hit-fishing-boat-because-look-out-had-closed-curtains-court-martial-told-2973699?itm_source=parsely-api
So very unlike you to make such a graceless post, Nutty, quite apart from the fact that your comment is totally unconnected to the thread - I'm genuinely surprised at you and seriously suggest you reconsider its inclusion.

Jack

[JENKINS]

Interesting photograph in Telegraph of sailors on deck of carrier as, I imagine, she finally left Portsmouth with a full deck. Barely a second required for assessment of photograph.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Interesting photograph in Telegraph of sailors on deck of carrier as, I imagine, she finally left Portsmouth with a full deck. Barely a second required for assessment of photograph.

Six Merlin HM2 (820 NAS) and Two Merlin HC4.

In the old days, the Invincible class CVS normally operated nine ASW Sea Kings, but one of these was kept at readiness for SAR, and they also had to do things like VERTREP. After 2000, the Sea Kings were replaced by Merlins, with a Sea King doing utility and SAR tasks. These days many of the SAR and utility taskings can be done by embarked Jungly HC4s, leaving the Merlin HM2 to concentrate on ASW. It has a greater range and endurance (five hours) than the old Sea King (about four hours) or indeed other current ASW helicopter types such as the MH-60R or the NH90.

Additionally the carrier will direct the helicopters carried by other task group ships - including more Merlins.

These two snippets from a recent discussion with the Commons' committee may interest you:

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1305858055825952770

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1305851863171031040

[SLXOwft]

Yes, I believe she left around 1600 BST yesterday squeezing through the harbour entrance with six Merlins on deck. So not strictly a full deck but I am sure Procedure Alpha will have been observed.

@ShaunRoster's drone camera video of departure can be seen on his twitter page or @HMSQNLZ


Lightning (IIs) left RAF Marham today Lightning jets take off from RAF Marham to join HMS Queen Elizabeth for major exercise (https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/lightning-jets-take-off-from-raf-marham-to-join-hms-queen-elizabeth-for-major-exercise/)

[JENKINS]

My assessment earlier concerned the uniform and the stance of the 'sailors' photographed.

[Video Mixdown]

My assessment earlier concerned the uniform and the stance of the 'sailors' photographed.
What on earth are you going on about?

[Not_a_boffin]

https://youtu.be/xM6HKXrhUdg

Fourteen jets and a couple of helos on deck and you run out of space fairly quickly. There's a reason she's a biggun.....

[Cat Techie]

Shame it is not an air wing. Of British aircraft. When will we be getting what we wanted to order?

[heights good]

Shame it is not an air wing. Of British aircraft. When will we be getting what we wanted to order?

Some time around Two thousand and never.... :p

[Minnie Burner]

So very unlike you to make such a graceless post, Nutty, quite apart from the fact that your comment is totally unconnected to the thread - I'm genuinely surprised at you and seriously suggest you reconsider its inclusion.

Jack
​​​​​​

Nutty's post is on topic and makes perfect sense, Jack. It's all about whether or not the Navy are playing with a full deck.

[pulse1]

Those Yanks need to guard their aircraft while on a British carrier. I once spent an evening with an ex US Marine Phantom pilot who once landed on a British carrier because of a problem. As you can imagine he was well entertained in a fashion not possible on US ships and, the next morning, found that his aircraft had been suitably drafted into the Royal Navy.

[FODPlod]

So very unlike you to make such a graceless post, Nutty, quite apart from the fact that your comment is totally unconnected to the thread - I'm genuinely surprised at you and seriously suggest you reconsider its inclusion.

Jack

​​​​​​Nutty's post is on topic and makes perfect sense, Jack. It's all about whether or not the Navy are playing with a full deck.

Oh, fair enough.

https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/raf-officer-faces-court-martial-2967101? (https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/raf-officer-faces-court-martial-2967101?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=s harebar)

[NutLoose]

Apologies Jack, just saw your post and agree, a bit of drift there...... so have removed it. :)

[salad-dodger]

Apologies Jack, just saw your post and agree, a bit of drift there...... so have removed it. :)
and a bit of a wimpy reply. He didn’t pull you up for thread drift. He pulled you up for what looked like a pretty weak attempt at humour, describing it as graceless!

[twothree]

Those Yanks need to guard their aircraft while on a British carrier. I once spent an evening with an ex US Marine Phantom pilot who once landed on a British carrier because of a problem. As you can imagine he was well entertained in a fashion not possible on US ships and, the next morning, found that his aircraft had been suitably drafted into the Royal Navy.
You mean this one !

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x530/us_marine_f4_ark_1977_50723ecd037e3caeab197555db8985510fa7f4 81.jpg

[SLXOwft]

All is fair in love and cross decking,

I'm sure someone willl be along shortly with photos of USN altered FG1s. ;) (please)

[gzornenplatz]

I'm sure many will remember 1976 when the USN F4s had 1776 -1976 proudly emblazoned on their fins (vertical stabilisers - OK?)
892's F4s had 876-1976 on theirs. (about the time King Alf started the
Navy, no not 892, Brian)
This was not understood by the cousins.

[West Coast]

All is fair in love and cross decking,

I'm sure someone willl be along shortly with photos of USN altered FG1s. ;) (please)


Ot the Tornado (I think) that left a sleepy desert USAF base in Nevada with some new art on it.

[John Eacott]

All is fair in love and cross decking,

I'm sure someone willl be along shortly with photos of USN altered FG1s. ;) (please)

Here you are :ok:


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x509/xv590_001_r_of_892_nas_from_hms_ark_royal_1978_uss_saratoga_ it_received_colonial_navy_zap_33461abd02b52fff8d3e55b8e3d8d0 6712f7616a.jpg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/726x580/xv590_001_r_of_892_nas_from_hms_ark_royal_1978_uss_saratoga_ received_colonial_navy_zap_5d0896f44617bf0ad5debbabd50a40c63 e1b1bda.jpg

[John Eacott]

You mean this one !

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x530/us_marine_f4_ark_1977_50723ecd037e3caeab197555db8985510fa7f4 81.jpg

One of a series of photos I took, so here's the dit :cool:

We were operating in the Med and cross-decked with USS Forrestal, but like all good things it came to an end and we brought our toys home to Mother and tried sending theirs back. Unfortunately 207 repeatedly went U/S and things became dire as we were due into Grand Harbour where Dom Mintoff, Malta's PM, had declared all things military associated with the USA to be unwelcome. A last attempt to launch 207 failed so it was rapidly dispatched to the lower hangar before we entered harbour.

All was well, and the US Marine crew thoroughly enjoyed the benefits of being on a warship which allowed grown men to consume alcohol. After the usual Cocker's P, visits from local dignitaries, etc, it was deemed safe to bring 207 up from the Buccaneer hangar into the upper hangar where the 892NAS team could work on the snags. Somewhere along the way the odd 892 sticker zaps became a better idea of a complete repaint on the fin.

This became quite handy when ground runs were required, as all USMC markings were covered with brown paper and the tail seemed quite enough to allow runs on deck, noise to Valletta residents notwithstanding.

Came time to leave harbour and the first call was to Flying Stations, launch the VMFA-531 F4 regardless of servicability. Off it went back to Forrestal where Cdr Bill Quirk, CO of 531, was so taken with the zap that he kept it all the way home and launched to lead his squadron with one of the best zaps of its time :ok:

A few more images, including one when I went over to Forrestal to pick up our maintenance guys and return (some) of theirs!



https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1802x1219/us_marine_phantom_rn_colours_04_taxiing_to_cat_bc8eabbb13f59 c80d8a6fc7514559cfaf2de3194.jpg

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1793x1196/us_marine_phantom_rn_colours_05_faf11c461b93336f3a23d97bd6a8 d170cb4d90b9.jpg

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1794x1205/us_marine_phantom_rn_colours_06_onto_waist_cat_aae4ba777160c 626b8b9955c8edc12da021566dc.jpg

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1793x1208/us_marine_phantom_rn_colours_07_off_waist_cat_86f35763010f38 467db4426f7235814675b137fc.jpg


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1828x1213/uss_forrestal_244b957561512fd6cc9c94e5ed263ff5ebc2c2b1.jpg



https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1835x1214/824_sea_king_051_picking_up_cross_deck_party_from_forrestal_ 2bc89b8047720e63dd6a371a213384f6e825fc1e.jpg

[dead_pan]

Great story + pics John! :ok:

[FODPlod]

...and then there were 15 (plus 8 helos).

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/618x802/qnlz_tweet_15_f35bs_24_sep_2020_ce7eca1f62f2ddca1f346e922f6f 6b1f500b3328.jpg

[TBM-Legend]

A CAG of 14 jets plus some helos is not much compared to 60+ cabs on USN or even the old RN. Why are they saying its a big fleet then?

[Video Mixdown]

A CAG of 14 jets plus some helos is not much compared to 60+ cabs on USN or even the old RN. Why are they saying its a big fleet then?
That's not what they're saying at all. They're saying "HMSQNLZ embarked the largest air group of 5th generation fighters yet put to sea anywhere in the world." Are you suggesting it's not true?

[stilton]

One of a series of photos I took, so here's the dit :cool:

We were operating in the Med and cross-decked with USS Forrestal, but like all good things it came to an end and we brought our toys home to Mother and tried sending theirs back. Unfortunately 207 repeatedly went U/S and things became dire as we were due into Grand Harbour where Dom Mintoff, Malta's PM, had declared all things military associated with the USA to be unwelcome. A last attempt to launch 207 failed so it was rapidly dispatched to the lower hangar before we entered harbour.

All was well, and the US Marine crew thoroughly enjoyed the benefits of being on a warship which allowed grown men to consume alcohol. After the usual Cocker's P, visits from local dignitaries, etc, it was deemed safe to bring 207 up from the Buccaneer hangar into the upper hangar where the 892NAS team could work on the snags. Somewhere along the way the odd 892 sticker zaps became a better idea of a complete repaint on the fin.

This became quite handy when ground runs were required, as all USMC markings were covered with brown paper and the tail seemed quite enough to allow runs on deck, noise to Valletta residents notwithstanding.

Came time to leave harbour and the first call was to Flying Stations, launch the VMFA-531 F4 regardless of servicability. Off it went back to Forrestal where Cdr Bill Quirk, CO of 531, was so taken with the zap that he kept it all the way home and launched to lead his squadron with one of the best zaps of its time :ok:

A few more images, including one when I went over to Forrestal to pick up our maintenance guys and return (some) of theirs!



https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1802x1219/us_marine_phantom_rn_colours_04_taxiing_to_cat_bc8eabbb13f59 c80d8a6fc7514559cfaf2de3194.jpg

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1793x1196/us_marine_phantom_rn_colours_05_faf11c461b93336f3a23d97bd6a8 d170cb4d90b9.jpg

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1794x1205/us_marine_phantom_rn_colours_06_onto_waist_cat_aae4ba777160c 626b8b9955c8edc12da021566dc.jpg

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1793x1208/us_marine_phantom_rn_colours_07_off_waist_cat_86f35763010f38 467db4426f7235814675b137fc.jpg


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1828x1213/uss_forrestal_244b957561512fd6cc9c94e5ed263ff5ebc2c2b1.jpg



https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1835x1214/824_sea_king_051_picking_up_cross_deck_party_from_forrestal_ 2bc89b8047720e63dd6a371a213384f6e825fc1e.jpg


There were hangars on two decks ?

[FODPlod]

There were hangars on two decks ?
British Implacable, Audacious and Courageous class aircraft carriers (and possibly others) had both an upper and lower hangar.

[John Eacott]

There were hangars on two decks ?

Technically there were two hangars on four decks, as each hangar took two deck spaces ;)


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1206x1797/ark_royal_upper_hangar_through_aft_lift_well_edit_4ae0f15108 7daad488e93498f449a0f29d71dd77.jpg


Post refit, both Ark and Eagle lower hangars were only served by the forward lift, as the aft third of the hangars were converted for other use. Eagle made excellent use of 4 deck space by converting the lift area into the Wardroom and the hangar space into the Wardroom dining room and between the two was the biggest Wardroom bar ever on a grey funnel liner :ok:

[Obi Wan Russell]

There were hangars on two decks ?
Seeing is believing:
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x736/35742259_2099373587006446_9030720664612372480_n_a21aa504345d d9975e02f364440898372a275185.jpg
Ark Royal R09 upper and lower hangars as seen from the forward lift.

[Compass Call]

'Could I have Buccaneers 4 & 5 out first please chief'. :E

[pasta]

'Could I have Buccaneers 4 & 5 out first please chief'. :E
No problem. You remember those sliding block puzzles you had as a child?

[Imagegear]

Ark Royal R09 upper and lower hangars as seen from the forward lift

Oh dear, memories being rolled back, all those fun days and nights...

IG

[SLXOwft]

Here you are :ok:

Thank you, John. You were of course the main 'someone' my plea was aimed at.:)

Technically there were two hangars on four decks, as each hangar took two deck spaces

If the DWO catches me informing people of such details, even like you in semi-jest, she threatens to order me to spend the middle watch on the sofa.:O

From what I understand the design and size of the hangars of the Audacious class (Eagle and Ark Royal) went through a number of iterations; driven in particular by the need to raise hangar height. I assume from drawings that the need for two hangars, offset from the centreline and not full length(?) was driven by the internal configuration, a design informed by lessons from the sinking of the previous Ark Royal. At the time of their initial design they would have been the largest carriers built, so total size can't have been the issue. I may of course be talking gash. I never saw the inside of either; I was still at school when the Ark was taken out of service and anyway only saw the outside of Eagle (when she was tied up in Pompey after her last commission).

[Not_a_boffin]

It's actually because RN philosophy was until recently to be able to hangar all aircraft, which when they were designed were Fireflies, Sea Furies and so on. Just before aircraft began to grow significantly, not least in height.

The hangar height in that class was about the most that could be included and meet stability requirements, given infrastructure limits on beam.

QEC is the first RN carrier designed with hangar capacity below designed aircraft complement. There is simply not enough volume in any hull to get all aircraft hangared these days

[SLXOwft]

The hangar height in that class was about the most that could be included and meet stability requirements, given infrastructure limits on beam.

N_a_B, thanks - that makes sense. I read that they had to lower the keel depth by 6' to maintain a safe metacentric height.

[David Thompson]

It could be a bit noisy in the North Sea tomorrow , NOTAM for 'High Seas Firing' in place ;

H4092/20: Fireworks/Projectile firing will take place
Q) EGPX/QWMLW/IV/BO/W/000/360/5530N00035W032 (https://notaminfo.com/explain?id=1335230/0)HIGH SEAS FIRING WILL TAKE PLACE IN THE AREA BOUNDED BY
555000N 0011800W - 555000N 0000500E - 552000N 0001700E -
550200N 0004000W - 550200N 0010000W - 555000N 0011800W. FOR INFO VHF
123.3 AND UHF 276.7. 2020-09-0500/AS5LOWER: Surface, UPPER: FL360
FROM: 27 Sep 2020 07:00 GMT (08:00 BST) TO: 27 Sep 2020 09:00 GMT (10:00 BST)

And here is the NOTAM for the exercise itself ;

H3937/20: Exercises will take place
Q) EGTT/QWELW/IV/BO/W/000/660/5430N00100E100 (https://notaminfo.com/explain?id=1331656/0)INCREASED AERIAL ACTIVITY. UP TO 15 FAST JET AND UP TO 8 HEL WILL
OPERATE FM ACFT CARRIER WI 100NM 543000N 0010000E (NORTH SEA).
SQUAWK CODES MODE 3 WI RANGE 1700 - 1727 IN USE. OPS CTC 123.300MHZ
/ 280.850MHZ . 2020-09-0423/AS3LOWER: Surface, UPPER: FL660
FROM: 21 Sep 2020 00:01 GMT (01:01 BST) TO: 03 Oct 2020 23:59 GMT (04 Oct 00:59 BST)

[tdracer]

Out of curiosity, what is the nominal max load of F-35 (and other aircraft) for the QE class carriers?

[SLXOwft]

tdracer - public figures vary, for instance the RN website says up to 40 but I've seen 36 F35-B + 4 Merlins as the eventual 'standard air group' and a maximum of 60+ mixed types and 72 surge capacity. So you pay your money and takes your choice. Others may have a better sourced public domain figure.

[peterperfect]

One of a series of photos I took, so here's the dit :cool:

We were operating in the Med and cross-decked with USS Forrestal, but like all good things it came to an end and we brought our toys home to Mother and tried sending theirs back. Unfortunately 207 repeatedly went U/S and things became dire as we were due into Grand Harbour where Dom Mintoff, Malta's PM, had declared all things military associated with the USA to be unwelcome. A last attempt to launch 207 failed so it was rapidly dispatched to the lower hangar before we entered harbour.

All was well, and the US Marine crew thoroughly enjoyed the benefits of being on a warship which allowed grown men to consume alcohol. After the usual Cocker's P, visits from local dignitaries, etc, it was deemed safe to bring 207 up from the Buccaneer hangar into the upper hangar where the 892NAS team could work on the snags. Somewhere along the way the odd 892 sticker zaps became a better idea of a complete repaint on the fin.

This became quite handy when ground runs were required, as all USMC markings were covered with brown paper and the tail seemed quite enough to allow runs on deck, noise to Valletta residents notwithstanding.

Came time to leave harbour and the first call was to Flying Stations, launch the VMFA-531 F4 regardless of servicability. Off it went back to Forrestal where Cdr Bill Quirk, CO of 531, was so taken with the zap that he kept it all the way home and launched to lead his squadron with one of the best zaps of its time :ok:

A few more images, including one when I went over to Forrestal to pick up our maintenance guys and return (some) of theirs!



https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1802x1219/us_marine_phantom_rn_colours_04_taxiing_to_cat_bc8eabbb13f59 c80d8a6fc7514559cfaf2de3194.jpg

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1793x1196/us_marine_phantom_rn_colours_05_faf11c461b93336f3a23d97bd6a8 d170cb4d90b9.jpg

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1794x1205/us_marine_phantom_rn_colours_06_onto_waist_cat_aae4ba777160c 626b8b9955c8edc12da021566dc.jpg

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1793x1208/us_marine_phantom_rn_colours_07_off_waist_cat_86f35763010f38 467db4426f7235814675b137fc.jpg


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1828x1213/uss_forrestal_244b957561512fd6cc9c94e5ed263ff5ebc2c2b1.jpg



https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1835x1214/824_sea_king_051_picking_up_cross_deck_party_from_forrestal_ 2bc89b8047720e63dd6a371a213384f6e825fc1e.jpg

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1429/mid_35e67039fc86f2772930a884629bd1340f9993fc.jpg
In 1980, 824 NAS definitely helped the USS Midway Battlegroup turn the tide protecting allied oil tankers in the Gulf during the Iran/Iraq conflict ! Well, at least when it came to HDS...

[EESDL]

Yep - it’s a good time not to be flying anywhere near the North Sea - looking forward to hearing about the Hawk recoveries alongside the Coastal fuelled O&G aircraft ;-)
not to mention the girls and guys playing outside of the exercise areas.....good luck one and all!

[stilton]

British Implacable, Audacious and Courageous class aircraft carriers (and possibly others) had both an upper and lower hangar.



Very interesting, did any other carrier Navy’s incorporate that feature ?


Another question, I believe the RN WW2 carriers could have the hangar deck open to the elements at the bow ?


And another


Do the QE class carriers have an emergency barrier installed for a ‘conventional’ landing?


Scenario, an F35 unable to land vertically or use a SRVL due to a failure of the lift fan / vectoring nozzle and / or battle damage

[Obi Wan Russell]

Very interesting, did any other carrier Navy’s incorporate that feature ?
Many Imperial Japanese Navy Carriers were built with two hangar decks, Making The US tendency towards a single hangar deck the odd one rather than the norm.

Another question, I believe the RN WW2 carriers could have the hangar deck open to the elements at the bow ?
Furious, Glorious and Courageous had lower 'flying off decks' which extended over the bows from the upper hangar. The intention being to speed up launching fighters by having them fly directly from the hangar. The Japanese tried this too but by the later 30s these decks fell out of use as aircraft got bigger and needed more space for launch.
And another


Do the QE class carriers have an emergency barrier installed for a ‘conventional’ landing?
No.


Scenario, an F35 unable to land vertically or use a SRVL due to a failure of the lift fan / vectoring nozzle and / or battle damage
In such a scenario the plane would either divert to a shore base for a conventional landing or ditch alongside the carrier.

[stilton]

In such a scenario the plane would either divert to a shore base for a conventional landing or ditch alongside the carrier.


Very interesting on your first reply, starting the take off from ‘inside’ the hangar


That would seem a real advantage if there was sufficient damage on the flight deck to prevent launching aircraft


The USN had a different solution to that problem, on some of their WW2 carriers they had sideways facing catapults installed in openings on their hangar decks


It was a very abrupt launch for the required acceleration as no headwind was available !


While it was demonstrated it doesn’t appear to have been used often


Worth a Google

[West Coast]

Very interesting on your first reply, starting the take off from ‘inside’ the hangar


That would seem a real advantage if there was sufficient damage on the flight deck to prevent launching aircraft


The USN had a different solution to that problem, on some of their WW2 carriers they had sideways facing catapults installed in openings on their hangar decks


It was a very abrupt launch for the required acceleration as no headwind was available !


While it was demonstrated it doesn’t appear to have been used often


Worth a Google


Sure enough.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11821/the-crazy-aircraft-carrier-hangar-catapults-of-world-war-ii

[Video Mixdown]

In such a scenario the plane would either divert to a shore base for a conventional landing or ditch alongside the carrier.
No sane pilot would choose to ditch an F-35 in the open ocean. Assuming the seat was undamaged he/she would eject.

[chopper2004]

No sane pilot would choose to ditch an F-35 in the open ocean. Assuming the seat was undamaged he/she would eject.

With any luck and a big Apple , the immersion suit should work wonders and guessing it’s been RTS considering the many a transatlantic crossing of the F-35B.

god speed.

cheers

[FODPlod]

UK CARRIER STRIKE GROUP ASSEMBLES FOR THE FIRST TIME (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2020/october/05/201005-hms-queen-elizabeth-carrier-strike)

The Royal Navy’s new Carrier Strike Group has assembled for the first time, marking the beginning of a new era of operations. HMS Queen Elizabeth is at the centre of the group which is the start of joint carrier operations between the navy and its NATO allies.
Nine ships, 15 fighter jets, 11 helicopters and 3,000 personnel from the UK, US and the Netherlands are now carrying out exercises in the North Sea. The strike group is the largest and most powerful European-led maritime force in almost 20 years...
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x1000/au200055050_ac9fc3da1dd08119a67754136553241eacc548c9.jpg

[Lyneham Lad]

Link to a short video on the Beeb News website today.
HMS Queen Elizabeth: On board the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-54411984)

For the first time, British and American jets are flying together, as they launch from the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier.

It's the final exercise for HMS Queen Elizabeth, before the carrier sets sail in early 2021 for its first operational deployment.

The BBC's defence correspondent, Jonathan Beale, was invited on board.

[Just a spotter]

So, what’s the chain of command for the US aircraft on the UK carrier?

If mixed deployments are ‘the future’, then in the ‘What if’; once deployed and the US decides to use its assets in a way that the UK doesn’t support, or visa-versa, the UK wishes to use the US aircraft and crews in a way that the US doesn’t. How is that resolved?


JAS

[SLXOwft]

I assume Vladimir Vladimirovich's navy has sent a floating goofers but wondered if his aviation elements have sent any practice intercept opportunities for the F-35Bs yet. If so, I assume photos will follow :)

Glad to see a looker is in charge.:ok:

[Obi Wan Russell]

No sane pilot would choose to ditch an F-35 in the open ocean. Assuming the seat was undamaged he/she would eject.
I did mean eject, but it would be close to the carrier so the plane would ditch alongside . Saves the SAR a long flight to pick him up.

[stilton]

When these UK based F35’s are operated into land bases do they normally land conventionally, vertically or do they ‘mix it up’ to be current with both ?

Or are there other factors determining which to use ?

[Green Flash]

RN pics of QE and others
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-54420134

[Tay Cough]

Looks good.

Apologies for mentioning the elephant in the room but is the RN capable of putting together a task group like that on it's own?

[Bing]

Looks good.

Apologies for mentioning the elephant in the room but is the RN capable of putting together a task group like that on it's own?

There're two non-RN ships in the photo, 1 USN DD and 1 HNLMS FF. So I'd hazard a yes, although next year's deployment is just the RN ships in the photo I believe.

[NutLoose]

All that lot to support 15 jets LOL.

[salad-dodger]

All that lot to support 15 jets LOL.
why?

......................

[Not_a_boffin]

Looks good.

Apologies for mentioning the elephant in the room but is the RN capable of putting together a task group like that on it's own?

Perhaps a more instructive exercise might be to identify which other navies in the world - aside from the RN - could?

I think you'll discover that it's a very short list.

[idle bystander]

All that lot to support 15 jets LOL.
Actually - 15 jets to support that lot.

[FODPlod]

All that lot to support 15 jets LOL.
I think you mean all that lot to dominate a significant part of the planet, over land and sea, above and below water, wherever it is deployed, while deterring any potential foe and providing a range of instantly responsive political and military options for an indefinite period

[thelizardking]

Perhaps a more instructive exercise might be to identify which other navies in the world - aside from the RN - could?

I think you'll discover that it's a very short list.
Basically just our main adversaries then...

And the real elephant is the number of UK jets onboard

[Not_a_boffin]

Basically just our main adversaries then...

And the real elephant is the number of UK jets onboard
UK jets will change in fairly short order.

Do explain which of our main adversaries can do this? I can think of one. Just.

[TURIN]

So, what’s the chain of command for the US aircraft on the UK carrier?

If mixed deployments are ‘the future’, then in the ‘What if’; once deployed and the US decides to use its assets in a way that the UK doesn’t support, or visa-versa, the UK wishes to use the US aircraft and crews in a way that the US doesn’t. How is that resolved?


JAS

According to the full BBC report that was broadcast yesterday, the RN is in command.

[peterperfect]

According to the full BBC report that was broadcast yesterday, the RN is in command.
Concur, but the PR machine wheels still turn in the background. There was a BBC video on TV with a RAF Sqn Ldr being interviewed on the flight deck just before the RN Commander, but his 10 seconds worth disappeared on the TV piece later in the day.

[Asturias56]

9 ships (and probably an SSN as well) for 15 aircraft.....................

[FODPlod]

9 ships (and probably an SSN as well) for 15 aircraft.....................
PPRuNe's anti-carrier lobby is as strident as ever, it seems.

I think you mean all that firepower (which would exist anyway) crowned by 15 of the most advanced strike aircraft in the world.

[Video Mixdown]

9 ships (and probably an SSN as well) for 15 aircraft.....................
A depressingly typical spotter comment from A56. The aircraft (fixed wing & rotary) are there to support the mission of the task group, not the other way round.

[SLXOwft]

Historically speaking one can say that the corporate RN view is that aircraft, fixed wing and rotary, are additional weapons and sensors contributing to a task group's fighting ability. Each vessel is a platform with weapons systems fulfiling a specialist role in the TG. Even in the days of sail there were ships with specific roles e.g. frigates and bomb ketches. The carriers are multi-role platforms which can be fitted with different weapons (and balance thereof) to suit their principal current role. Currently a preponderance of fixed wing over rotary on HMSQNLZ but it could be the other way round if she was operating in a 'Commando Carrier' role in which case the ships comprising the TG would probably differ too.

As this is an aviation forum perhaps a tendancy to see the FJs as the primary weapon platform is understandable. For a landbased airforce everything is naturally centred on the aircraft.

I trust that in these purple days that aircrew and 'those who support the flying and maintain the equipment' are trained to cope well with swapping between these two paradigms.

Just my views of course.

[NutLoose]

Not anti carrier, but come on, 15 jets. So how many does it take to form an effective CAP to protect the fleet, one assumes you need spares on standby on deck to take over when fuel is low etc. Plus say a couple on maintenance... It does not leave much of those 15 jets to be effective. say two in the air on CAP, two on the deck as back up replacements, 2 on maintenance, your down to 9.
BTW just guesstimate figures.

Wasn't the Illustrious a bit of a self licking lollipop, it carried enough SHAR's to protect itself, so the reason the carrier was there was effectively to provide protection for itself?

[Not_a_boffin]

Not anti carrier, but come on, 15 jets. So how many does it take to form an effective CAP to protect the fleet, one assumes you need spares on standby on deck to take over when fuel is low etc. Plus say a couple on maintenance... It does not leave much of those 15 jets to be effective. say two in the air on CAP, two on the deck as back up replacements, 2 on maintenance, your down to 9.
BTW just guesstimate figures.

Wasn't the Illustrious a bit of a self licking lollipop, it carried enough SHAR's to protect itself, so the reason the carrier was there was effectively to provide protection for itself?

Yet strangely, dets of 4-6 aircraft on BALTAP or Shader are somehow seen as perfectly acceptable. How strange.

The fleet does not exist solely to protect the carrier, in the same way that the carrier does not exist solely to protect the fleet. The entity as a whole provides both offensive and defensive capabilities over land and sea and under the water. The fleet can deny use of the sea and littoral land areas (and airspace above it) for the oppo and enable use of the sea for us and allies.

Given that Illustrious was never designed to be a proper aircraft carrier, rather an ASW helicopter carrier that was able to add a few jets, you may begin to discern the reason behind the much bigger QEC. The currently embarked 15 jets could be more than doubled if necessary (albeit subject to the current build-up of of the UK Lightning force which is a strictly temporary effect), something which you couldn't do with the old CVS because she was too small to be a carrier. The huge increase in deck area on QEC also means you can launch and recover more aircraft as a package, hold more aircraft at alert and do it all more efficiently. That ship can operate 30+ jets, plus rotary without breaking sweat and can move around the globe with all supporting people, spares etc, without needing to ask permission.

It's almost as if someone had thought this through.......

[FODPlod]

...Wasn't the Illustrious a bit of a self licking lollipop, it carried enough SHAR's to protect itself, so the reason the carrier was there was effectively to provide protection for itself?

Why so much bitterness? Ask the sailors, soldiers and airmen deployed to the Falklands in 1982 whether they regarded INVINCIBLE, the SHAR-equipped sister ship of ILLUSTRIOUS, as a "self-licking lollipop". ILLUSTRIOUS relieved her on station:

HMS Illustrious (R06) (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/HMS_Illustrious_(R06))

...The war was won before Illustrious could be finished, but she did perform a useful service in the aftermath. Until the RAF airfield on the Falkland Islands was repaired, air defence of the area was the responsibility of the Fleet Air Arm. After Hermes returned to the UK, Invincible remained on station in the South Atlantic until September 1982. To relieve Invincible, the newly completed Illustrious was rapidly deployed, with 809 Naval Air Squadron (Sea Harrier) and 814 Naval Air Squadron (Sea King) embarked. Additionally, a pair of Sea Kings from 824 Naval Air Squadron were attached to the air group, which had been converted to operate in the AEW role. So rapidly was Illustrious deployed that she was commissioned while at sea. Rear Admiral Derek Reffell, Flag Officer, Third Flotilla, commanded the relief task group from Illustrious during this period. After the RAF airfield was repaired, Illustrious returned to the UK for a full shakedown cruise and workup period, and was formally commissioned on 20 March 1983...

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x943/hms_illustrious_usmc_2007_9f0fd78bef190f22cf762214e4dd96d7f6 71d4fb.jpg

Sea Harrier, the forgotten hero that won the war in the Falklands (https://theaviationist.com/2012/05/22/sea-harrier-the-forgotten-hero-that-won-the-war-in-the-falklands-to-be-replaced-by-the-f-35b/).

...The Navy’s SHARs went on to score 20 kills (none of which was achieved using the famous trick of stopping the plane midair by pointing the jet nozzles slightly forward inducing a 2g deceleration) to no loss in air-to-air combat. However, two were lost to ground fire (radar guided 30mm AA and a Roland missile) and a further two were lost to accidents during the conflict. The kill-to-loss ratio does not reflect the skill and braveness of the Argentinean pilots who had to face a truly astonishing fighter, which had remarkable slow flight characteristics, even without the thrust vectoring, and a superior radar...

[WE Branch Fanatic]

ASW was the primary role of the Invincible class, and the reason they carried Sea Harriers to deal with Bears that would have performed a dual role of reece and guidance for Soviet submarine launched missiles.

This is a dated diagram, but still worth considering. Within the area protected by the fighters you have your ASW ships and helicopters, amphibious forces or shipping being escorted, possibly mine warfare forces.Often a carrier will be generating sorties in defence of the task group and other high value assets - which for some reason many commentators seem to forget.


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/400x400/aaw_zones_917308ae8a0bfa17e149226d6263da7800fa4426.jpg

ASW is still a carrier role - the Pingers use dipping sonar in conjunction with towed array equipped frigates.

[Asturias56]

"https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/10/07/russia-reports-successful-test-launch-of-hypersonic-missile/

MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday hailed the successful test launch of a new Zircon hypersonic cruise missile (https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2019/11/27/russia-shows-hypersonic-weapon-to-us-inspectors/) as a “big event” for the country. Speaking to Putin via a video call, Russian General Staff chief Valery Gerasimov said the test launch took place Tuesday from the Admiral Groshkov frigate located in the White Sea, in the north of Russia. President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that Russia has got a strong edge in designing new weapons and that it has become the only country in the world to deploy hypersonic weapons.

The missile successfully hit a target in the Barents Sea, he added. “Equipping our armed forces — the army and the navy — with the latest, truly unparalleled weapon systems will certainly ensure the defense capability of our country in the long term,” said Putin, In 2019, Putin had said the Zircon would be capable of flying at nine times the speed of sound and have a range of 1,000 kilometers (620 miles).

[FODPlod]

Fash ye not. At least our easily-plotted static land bases are safe from sharks with frickin' laser beams! :)

[SLXOwft]

Not just the UK and US governments that recycle "good news" stories then. TASS reported a successful launch of a Tsirkon (aka SS-N-33, 3M22, and Zircon) from the Admiral Gorshkov on 27 February. https://tass.com/defense/1124339"

In accordance with the program of the Tsirkon’s state trials, the Admiral Gorshkov test-launched this missile from the Barents Sea against a ground target at one of military testing ranges of the Northern Urals in early January," one of the sources said.
The other source confirmed this information, noting that "the range of the Tsirkon’s flight exceeded 500 km."
The source also informed that the test-launches of the Tsirkon hypersonic missile from seaborne delivery vehicles would be continued in 2020. "After the program of test-launches from the board of the Admiral Gorshkov is over, these missiles will be test-fired from nuclear-powered submarines," the source commented.

Full name of the ship is Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov - I may be reading too much into the SU reference. Sad to see the great man downgraded from a CV to an FF but as Sergei Georgyevich is reputed to have said "'Better' is the enemy of 'Good Enough'".

Apparently the prototypes were air launched from Tu22s -

[Not_a_boffin]

What's that you say? Ground target? Fixed & easily locatable? Like an airfield - or more precisely the easily identifiable POL, munitions and ops complexes of an airfield?

How terribly vulnerable. What a waste of money. Scrap them forthwith.

[FODPlod]

What's that you say? Ground target? Fixed & easily locatable? Like an airfield - or more precisely the easily identifiable POL, munitions and ops complexes of an airfield?

How terribly vulnerable. What a waste of money. Scrap them forthwith.
But that implies launching covertly from a distant submarine, or a surface platform, or an aircraft beyond usual land-based AD range. Oh, hang on...