Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Age: 40
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
''Will vertical landing planes be able to make low visibility approaches and landings?''
Yes, infact historically VTOL aircraft have operated in condition windows wider then that of Cat aircraft. The CVF is ideally suited for 24/7 all weather operations.
Yes, infact historically VTOL aircraft have operated in condition windows wider then that of Cat aircraft. The CVF is ideally suited for 24/7 all weather operations.
Originally Posted by glendalegoon
Buddy refuelers? Doing things like that is a precaution. Just like plane guard destroyers or copters ready to pluck pilots from the sea. You can certainly land planes without buddy refuelers.
Originally Posted by glendalegoon
Will vertical landing planes be able to make low visibility approaches and landings?
Specifically, a V/STOL aircraft’s effectiveness while afloat is a function of its efficiencies generated by the following factors inherent to V/STOL operations at sea:
In the past, there was seldom a mention of instrument or night recoveries with respect to the Harrier. That is not because these recoveries were not executed early in the aircraft’s development; on the contrary, history is replete with examples of Harriers recovering in weather conditions that would have normally grounded CTOL aircraft. This fact is best described by a passage from V/STOL in the Roaring Forties, dealing with the RN’s experiences during the Falkland War of 1982:
1. The ability to maintain a continuous ready deck
2. More unconstrained use of available aircraft flight time
3. Better utilization of available deck space
4. The ship’s maneuvers are more independent of wind on deck (WOD)
5. Faster launch and recovery rates
6. Faster aircraft turnarounds due to reduced respot requirements
7. Greater residual capacity to continue flight operations even if the ship receives battle damage
8. Greater freedom to adjust air plans during execution in responding to contingencies
These factors, when exploited correctly, produce greater strike effectiveness for V/STOL aircraft at shorter ranges, and remain on par with conventional take-off or landing (CTOL) aircraft at longer ranges...2. More unconstrained use of available aircraft flight time
3. Better utilization of available deck space
4. The ship’s maneuvers are more independent of wind on deck (WOD)
5. Faster launch and recovery rates
6. Faster aircraft turnarounds due to reduced respot requirements
7. Greater residual capacity to continue flight operations even if the ship receives battle damage
8. Greater freedom to adjust air plans during execution in responding to contingencies
In the past, there was seldom a mention of instrument or night recoveries with respect to the Harrier. That is not because these recoveries were not executed early in the aircraft’s development; on the contrary, history is replete with examples of Harriers recovering in weather conditions that would have normally grounded CTOL aircraft. This fact is best described by a passage from V/STOL in the Roaring Forties, dealing with the RN’s experiences during the Falkland War of 1982:
"For much of the task force’s time in the South Atlantic, the weather was almost a second adversary. It was not without good reason, in the heyday of the sailing ship, that these ports of the southern ocean became known as the roaring forties. The flight decks of the carriers were moving vertically at times through 30 feet and the weather produced cloud bases typically [down to] 200 feet and often down to 100 feet during flying operations. Visibility was typically ½ nautical mile and often much less. One Harrier recovered to the deck of HMS Hermes in horizontal visibility of 50 meters [on] one notable occasion. The time-honoured carrier trick of dropping flares at intervals into the ship’s wake was used, but it was the Sea Harrier’s facility to approach the ship using its internal approach aid and Blue Fox radar at part jetborne [slow] closing speeds of a few tens of knots which primarily provided the safety and hence the success in bad weather recovery.
No conventional fixed-wing naval aircraft could have operated with adequate safety in such conditions, thus supporting the claim that the greatest military contribution made by the V/STOL and STOVL aircraft is in the vertical landing phase of operation. In the Harrier, this phase is made safer, easier and more flexible than in any other combat aircraft."...
No conventional fixed-wing naval aircraft could have operated with adequate safety in such conditions, thus supporting the claim that the greatest military contribution made by the V/STOL and STOVL aircraft is in the vertical landing phase of operation. In the Harrier, this phase is made safer, easier and more flexible than in any other combat aircraft."...
I have no military experience and I have not read every page of this thread, but that only puts me in the same boat as most of the 60 million people who have paid to build and will pay to operate these carriers. From this perspective, then, they look pretty bad.
I appreciate that they are considerably cheaper - about two thirds the cost, depending who you ask - than a Gerald R. Ford class, but that doesn't make much sense when we consider that they carry only about one third the aircraft, lack the benefits of nuclear power, have vastly less ability to actually sustain sorties, and lack catapults, so they can't launch refuelling or radar aircraft or in fact anything other than helicopters or the F-35.
And that's before we even consider the choice to go for the STOVL version of the F-35, which is more expensive and less capable in more or less every possible way.
The upshot of all this is that we go from having small, relatively affordable mini-carriers with twelve aircraft and helicopter-based early warning radar, to a huge, barely-affordable sort-of-fleet-carrier with, er, exactly the same capability. Only not even that, because we'll have one rather than two or three, so even that small capability will be available only part of the time.
From out here in civilian-land it looks like the QE class should make the UK an international military laughing stock. Presumably that impression is wrong. I hope it is wrong.
P
I appreciate that they are considerably cheaper - about two thirds the cost, depending who you ask - than a Gerald R. Ford class, but that doesn't make much sense when we consider that they carry only about one third the aircraft, lack the benefits of nuclear power, have vastly less ability to actually sustain sorties, and lack catapults, so they can't launch refuelling or radar aircraft or in fact anything other than helicopters or the F-35.
And that's before we even consider the choice to go for the STOVL version of the F-35, which is more expensive and less capable in more or less every possible way.
The upshot of all this is that we go from having small, relatively affordable mini-carriers with twelve aircraft and helicopter-based early warning radar, to a huge, barely-affordable sort-of-fleet-carrier with, er, exactly the same capability. Only not even that, because we'll have one rather than two or three, so even that small capability will be available only part of the time.
From out here in civilian-land it looks like the QE class should make the UK an international military laughing stock. Presumably that impression is wrong. I hope it is wrong.
P
Originally Posted by Phil R
I have no military experience and I have not read every page of this thread, but that only puts me in the same boat as most of the 60 million people who have paid to build and will pay to operate these carriers...
A QEC carrier will cost significantly less than a third of a Ford CVN to build and have a typical complement (by far the most expensive bit over her 50 year-life) including air group of 1,200 vs 4,660 for the Ford. Imagine the difference in wage bill and extras.
The number of aircraft carried is relevant but not as important as the sortie generation rate which is much higher than can be achieved with CTOL aircraft. Even so, the QEC should eventually have a surge capability of up to 48 RN & RAF F-35Bs when circumstances demand. She will be massively more capable than the Invincible class.
Unless we go head-to-head with the USA, how is the 5th Generation F-35B lacking in capability? It is a step change from anything that we or anyone else has.
While not perfect, the QEC will have a helicopter-borne AEW capability. If only we'd had it during the Falklands campaign.
Nuclear propulsion would probably double the overall bill, not only of production but also for maintenance, skilled personnel and decommissioning costs. As it is, her podded propulsion system based on Rolls-Royce's integrated electric propulsion (IEP) system is tried and tested.
Up to 48
how is the 5th Generation F-35B lacking in capability
Might as well have stuck with harrier, no?
P
The Times today had a big double page spread on the ship, with the usual statistics on how many double decker buses long it was, as high as Niagara falls etc.
Peter Brookes the cartoonist went one better, and included the statistics that at 280 metres, she is as long as three football pitches, 25 London buses and 46 white elephants!
Peter Brookes the cartoonist went one better, and included the statistics that at 280 metres, she is as long as three football pitches, 25 London buses and 46 white elephants!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
she is as long as three football pitches
Particularly as I have no concept, or interest, in the size of a feetball pitch.
!Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lets talk about the ship
a good 10 knots slower than a nimitz class. A good 10 knots slower...maybe more!
range, not very far without refueling, sink the oiler and it is time to break out the oars!
And yes, you can land in bad wx, but reduced range, payload and only ONE engine on the F35 (all versions).
(the US will keep a mix of hornets and F35s_for awhile )_
Call it a commando carrier, a helo pad with limited fixed wing stovl, but don't call it a carrier.
Wondering how carrier onboard delivery will be handled. Will they use copters? Or maybe an F35 with a cargo pod. ;-)
Really, why not compare it to USS Essex, not USS Nimitz?
a good 10 knots slower than a nimitz class. A good 10 knots slower...maybe more!
range, not very far without refueling, sink the oiler and it is time to break out the oars!
And yes, you can land in bad wx, but reduced range, payload and only ONE engine on the F35 (all versions).
(the US will keep a mix of hornets and F35s_for awhile )_
Call it a commando carrier, a helo pad with limited fixed wing stovl, but don't call it a carrier.
Wondering how carrier onboard delivery will be handled. Will they use copters? Or maybe an F35 with a cargo pod. ;-)
Really, why not compare it to USS Essex, not USS Nimitz?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much made of the lean crew.
Probabley ok for day to day ops. Not sure about fire/ damage control. Especially post attack.
All arms protection of the ship against small fast boats.
Also preparing the ship for cocktail parties.
Probabley ok for day to day ops. Not sure about fire/ damage control. Especially post attack.
All arms protection of the ship against small fast boats.
Also preparing the ship for cocktail parties.
Glad rag - may I suggest you check date and context of posts and engage brain before opening mouth? You and Courtney may also wish to consider whether choosing to reduce FE@R in one very heavily committed force while largely (at the time) preserving it in another somewhat less heavily tasked force is compatible with "Joint" behaviour. Particularly when the consequence could be predicted by any who wished to see it.
FODPlod - QE & POW have a conventional propulsion system, not "podded". When you do shock and whipping analysis, two relatively heavy point loads at one end of the ship don't work overly well.
Glendalegoon - I rather think you'll find your CVN are followed by fleet oilers as well for exactly the same reason as ours will be. I suspect you've been reading a bit too much of Mr Clancy in your assessment of CVN as well.
What we have in QEC is something that is broadly analogous to USS Midway in terms of potential. There are limitations - a more capable AEW and organic tanking capability would be nice to have, but they don't render the ship helpless. As others have noted, being able to run that sort of capability on under 2000 bodies (only 700 to actually run the ship) is a significant cost benefit. Those who know what the aviation arrangements are like, know how much more efficient they'll be to operate than anything else we've ever had.
It is unfortunate that those who have fixated on the size of the ship have actually caused significant amounts of the cost, just in the sheer inertia generated in fighting them through the approvals process.
FODPlod - QE & POW have a conventional propulsion system, not "podded". When you do shock and whipping analysis, two relatively heavy point loads at one end of the ship don't work overly well.
Glendalegoon - I rather think you'll find your CVN are followed by fleet oilers as well for exactly the same reason as ours will be. I suspect you've been reading a bit too much of Mr Clancy in your assessment of CVN as well.
What we have in QEC is something that is broadly analogous to USS Midway in terms of potential. There are limitations - a more capable AEW and organic tanking capability would be nice to have, but they don't render the ship helpless. As others have noted, being able to run that sort of capability on under 2000 bodies (only 700 to actually run the ship) is a significant cost benefit. Those who know what the aviation arrangements are like, know how much more efficient they'll be to operate than anything else we've ever had.
It is unfortunate that those who have fixated on the size of the ship have actually caused significant amounts of the cost, just in the sheer inertia generated in fighting them through the approvals process.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
...range, not very far without refueling, sink the oiler and it is time to break out the oars!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: North East England
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of interesting posts here on the QEC class and the use they will be.
HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH: Welcome To The Warship That Nearly Never Was | danentwisle.com
And is she worth the money?
HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH: Is She Worth The Money? And What Use Will She Be? | danentwisle.com
HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH: Welcome To The Warship That Nearly Never Was | danentwisle.com
And is she worth the money?
HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH: Is She Worth The Money? And What Use Will She Be? | danentwisle.com
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a nuclear carrier, carries quite a bit of jet fuel as it doesn't have to have huge tanks for its own use. so resupply, while important is not quite as important now is it?
phony tony makes a FINE point about damage control. Min crew, min extra crew for damage control, or humanitarian aid. And with fewer crew, less of a hospital on board.
I do think having little guns to shoot at ''fast boats" is a good idea though.
and no one comments about COD
PS, I don't read Tom Clancy, at least after "Red Storm Rising".
So, we will wait for another six years and see how the QE works out. And there will always be a question about whether we are talking about a passenger ship or a commando carrier.
phony tony makes a FINE point about damage control. Min crew, min extra crew for damage control, or humanitarian aid. And with fewer crew, less of a hospital on board.
I do think having little guns to shoot at ''fast boats" is a good idea though.
and no one comments about COD
PS, I don't read Tom Clancy, at least after "Red Storm Rising".
So, we will wait for another six years and see how the QE works out. And there will always be a question about whether we are talking about a passenger ship or a commando carrier.
a nuclear carrier, carries quite a bit of jet fuel as it doesn't have to have huge tanks for its own use. so resupply, while important is not quite as important now is it?
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not a boffin
correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an F35B flown by the British just as thirsty as an F35B flown by the USMC?
Or have you found a way around it with imperial gallons?
so, you are telling us all that your little carrier which needs its own gas will carry MORE jet fuel than a big carrier that is nuclear powered.
you do the math. per sortie because you guys seem to like it that way.
correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an F35B flown by the British just as thirsty as an F35B flown by the USMC?
Or have you found a way around it with imperial gallons?
so, you are telling us all that your little carrier which needs its own gas will carry MORE jet fuel than a big carrier that is nuclear powered.
you do the math. per sortie because you guys seem to like it that way.