Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Thread Starter
It is not all about the jets - the carrier also provides the means for things like task group Anti Submarine Warfare by carrying sufficient helicopters (Merlin HM2 in our case) for 24/7 dipping....
I wonder when HMS Queen Elizabeth will take part in an exercise like Deep Blue? Perhaps the fact that the helicopter acts at a range from the carrier, therefore protecting everything inside that zone is overlooked? When we start doing deployments of a carrier and a LPD this will be a bit more obvious.
She has also carried Junglies and Bootnecks:
The Junglies have also performed a SAR role:
But back to the jets......
F-35 jets leave HMS Queen Elizabeth after 'eclipsing aspirations'
The success of the Westlant 18 deployment – which has also included a very high-profile visit to New York – allows the Portsmouth-based ship to move on to operational trials next year with British-owned F-35s flown by Naval and Air Force aviators based at RAF Marham.
....Captain Nick Cooke Priest, HMS Queen Elizabeth’s new Commanding Officer who was in command for the second phase of this current set of F-35 trials said this autumn’s trials had marked “a significant milestone on the Royal Navy’s journey back to big deck carrier operations.
“The schedule has been busy and challenging and the results have eclipsed the aspiration; this success is largely due to the exceptional relationship that exists between the ship and her embarked staff, and the scientists, engineers and pilots of the F-35 Integrated Test Force, all of whom have shown exceptional professionalism, dedication and drive.”
Lastly - HMS Dragon has been working with the USS Essex and her F-35B in the Middle East
Commander Michael Carter-Quinn, Dragon’s Commanding Officer, said: “Having trained as a fighter controller, and controlled harrier jump jets while serving on board HMS Invincible, it has been a great honour to command HMS Dragon to provide air defence duties to our US Navy colleagues.
“The step change in performance and range of roles the F-35s can provide is impressive, and to be able to work with these aircraft now in preparation for supporting the integration of the Queen Elizabeth-class, Type 45s and F-35s into the carrier strike group is exciting."
I wonder when HMS Queen Elizabeth will take part in an exercise like Deep Blue? Perhaps the fact that the helicopter acts at a range from the carrier, therefore protecting everything inside that zone is overlooked? When we start doing deployments of a carrier and a LPD this will be a bit more obvious.
She has also carried Junglies and Bootnecks:
The Junglies have also performed a SAR role:
But back to the jets......
F-35 jets leave HMS Queen Elizabeth after 'eclipsing aspirations'
The success of the Westlant 18 deployment – which has also included a very high-profile visit to New York – allows the Portsmouth-based ship to move on to operational trials next year with British-owned F-35s flown by Naval and Air Force aviators based at RAF Marham.
....Captain Nick Cooke Priest, HMS Queen Elizabeth’s new Commanding Officer who was in command for the second phase of this current set of F-35 trials said this autumn’s trials had marked “a significant milestone on the Royal Navy’s journey back to big deck carrier operations.
“The schedule has been busy and challenging and the results have eclipsed the aspiration; this success is largely due to the exceptional relationship that exists between the ship and her embarked staff, and the scientists, engineers and pilots of the F-35 Integrated Test Force, all of whom have shown exceptional professionalism, dedication and drive.”
He continued: “This deployment has however delivered far more than the initial integration of fixed wing aircraft with the ship
“It has re-introduced the true value that carrier capabilities bring to the UK and her allies, it has deepened our relationship with our closest ally, demonstrated our nation’s engineering prowess and cemented our commitment to the future as a global navy.”
“It has re-introduced the true value that carrier capabilities bring to the UK and her allies, it has deepened our relationship with our closest ally, demonstrated our nation’s engineering prowess and cemented our commitment to the future as a global navy.”
Lastly - HMS Dragon has been working with the USS Essex and her F-35B in the Middle East
Commander Michael Carter-Quinn, Dragon’s Commanding Officer, said: “Having trained as a fighter controller, and controlled harrier jump jets while serving on board HMS Invincible, it has been a great honour to command HMS Dragon to provide air defence duties to our US Navy colleagues.
“The step change in performance and range of roles the F-35s can provide is impressive, and to be able to work with these aircraft now in preparation for supporting the integration of the Queen Elizabeth-class, Type 45s and F-35s into the carrier strike group is exciting."
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 23rd Nov 2018 at 09:19.
Thread Starter
UK posters may be interested in knowing that BBC2 is showing Britain's Biggest Warship again at 1900 tonight. See here. You might also find it on YouTube.....
Am I being cynical in wondering if it is being shown again to compete with the series set aboard of of the Type 45 destroyers that starts tomorrow night on Channel 5?
Am I being cynical in wondering if it is being shown again to compete with the series set aboard of of the Type 45 destroyers that starts tomorrow night on Channel 5?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 25th Nov 2018 at 17:40.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Britains Biggest Warship Series (Parts 1 to 3 out of 3) I'll guess
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6jyg5j
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6jyg5k
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6jyg5l
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6jyg5j
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6jyg5k
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6jyg5l
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 26th Nov 2018 at 02:19. Reason: frickinFormat
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
JSF programme to proceed with UK-specific land-based carrier trials Gareth Jennings 09 Jul 2012
http://www.janes.com/events/exhibiti...e-proceed.aspx
"...Wilson said the advantage of the 'ski jump' launch method is in the extra time it gives the pilot on take-off. "The real benefit is one of timing. Once airborne you are flying upwards rather than horizontal, and this gives you extra time to think if something should go wrong," he explained. In addition, Wilson noted that the 'ski jump' saves approximately 100 to 150 ft of deck run over the standard 'flat top' carrier deck. "Everything we have seen in modelling is that [the 'ski jump'] is the best way to get this aircraft airborne," he said...."
CVF ski-jump ramp profile optimisation for F-35B http://www.raes.org.uk/pdfs/3324_COLOUR.pdf
Feb 2009 A. Fry, R. Cook and N. Revill, THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL FEBRUARY 2009 VOLUME 113 NO 1140
“...2.2 Principles of the ski jump
The ski jump ramp works by imparting an upward vertical velocity and ballistic profile to the aircraft, providing additional time to accelerate to flying speed whilst ensuring it is on a safe trajectory. This additional time is manifested either in a reduced take-off length for a given weight, or increased weight (i.e. launch performance) for a fixed take-off distance as in a ship based STO....
...4.2 Safe launch metric
At the core of a ski jump performance analysis is the assessment of whether a launch case is achievable or not. The minimum safe launch is defined where the ramp exit speed does not result in any rate of descent during the trajectory until the aircraft has transitioned to fully wing-borne flight.... There are two safe launch criteria derived from legacy STOVL experience that are used on the JSF program, of which the more stressing is adopted: (a) subtracting a margin from the WOD and requiring zero sink rate (known as Operational WOD); and (b) using the full value of WOD but requiring a defined positive rate of climb. Both also require a threshold forward acceleration....”
http://www.janes.com/events/exhibiti...e-proceed.aspx
"...Wilson said the advantage of the 'ski jump' launch method is in the extra time it gives the pilot on take-off. "The real benefit is one of timing. Once airborne you are flying upwards rather than horizontal, and this gives you extra time to think if something should go wrong," he explained. In addition, Wilson noted that the 'ski jump' saves approximately 100 to 150 ft of deck run over the standard 'flat top' carrier deck. "Everything we have seen in modelling is that [the 'ski jump'] is the best way to get this aircraft airborne," he said...."
CVF ski-jump ramp profile optimisation for F-35B http://www.raes.org.uk/pdfs/3324_COLOUR.pdf
Feb 2009 A. Fry, R. Cook and N. Revill, THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL FEBRUARY 2009 VOLUME 113 NO 1140
“...2.2 Principles of the ski jump
The ski jump ramp works by imparting an upward vertical velocity and ballistic profile to the aircraft, providing additional time to accelerate to flying speed whilst ensuring it is on a safe trajectory. This additional time is manifested either in a reduced take-off length for a given weight, or increased weight (i.e. launch performance) for a fixed take-off distance as in a ship based STO....
...4.2 Safe launch metric
At the core of a ski jump performance analysis is the assessment of whether a launch case is achievable or not. The minimum safe launch is defined where the ramp exit speed does not result in any rate of descent during the trajectory until the aircraft has transitioned to fully wing-borne flight.... There are two safe launch criteria derived from legacy STOVL experience that are used on the JSF program, of which the more stressing is adopted: (a) subtracting a margin from the WOD and requiring zero sink rate (known as Operational WOD); and (b) using the full value of WOD but requiring a defined positive rate of climb. Both also require a threshold forward acceleration....”
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 28th Nov 2018 at 21:24. Reason: add quotes
Interesting review of both the QE clas and the Ford's in Conrad Waters new World Naval Review volume.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTO,
At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, putting an aircraft on board ship always involves a weight penalty to whatever a 'realistic' payload is. The RN Commando Helicopter Force is having to manage a fairly significant programme to fit the Merlin with not only a folding tail, but a folding head as well as a modified main landing gear that can actually withstand deck landings. I'd offer the thought that not having these fitted to the aircraft in the first place wasn't exactly 'realistic' from a 'Joint' point of view. Of course, anyone's free to disagree with that thought. On board ship, according to a recent brief from the CHF guys, now that it folds, you can get 4 Merlins into the hangar space occupied by one (non-folding) Chinook. remember, space is always scarce on a carrier, no matter how big it seems.
Best regards as ever to the good folk at CHF getting the Mk4s and their crews and their maintainers up to full 'jungly' standard..
Engines
At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, putting an aircraft on board ship always involves a weight penalty to whatever a 'realistic' payload is. The RN Commando Helicopter Force is having to manage a fairly significant programme to fit the Merlin with not only a folding tail, but a folding head as well as a modified main landing gear that can actually withstand deck landings. I'd offer the thought that not having these fitted to the aircraft in the first place wasn't exactly 'realistic' from a 'Joint' point of view. Of course, anyone's free to disagree with that thought. On board ship, according to a recent brief from the CHF guys, now that it folds, you can get 4 Merlins into the hangar space occupied by one (non-folding) Chinook. remember, space is always scarce on a carrier, no matter how big it seems.
Best regards as ever to the good folk at CHF getting the Mk4s and their crews and their maintainers up to full 'jungly' standard..
Engines
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: avro country
Age: 72
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Britains Biggest Warship Series (Parts 1 to 3 out of 3) I'll guess
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6jyg5j
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6jyg5k
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6jyg5l
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6jyg5j
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6jyg5k
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6jyg5l
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It had nothing to do with nuclear refueling and lots to do with opstempo exacerbated by sequestration funding. Carriers can't stay at sea forever, nor can they remain deployed forever. The carrier needs to return to homeport for maintenance, the ship's crew needs to return to homeport for their families and training, and the airwing needs to disembark for deep aircraft maintenance, crew training, family time, etc. When opstempo requires carriers to remain at sea and/or deployed for longer than planned and the rotation cycles are subsequently disrupted, it's just a matter of time before things stack up and everything starts falling apart. Look at the Navy's Hornet and Super Hornet fleets. There are all kinds of availability issues there and that has less than nothing to do with nuclear refueling. Their rotation/maintenance cycles were disrupted by opstempo and sequestration funding issues.
The Two Major Regional Contingencies force, which was the basis of the original Bush/Cheney "the cold war is over" drawdown, died in the mid to late 90's when Clinton/Panetta accelerated the draw down and steppened the slope. Since then, the size of the Navy has shrunk yet again, significantly, spreading less jam over the same slice of bread.
The US has been left with "one Major Regional Contingency and hope for the rest" or as the eternal optimists call it "One MRC and hold" ... "on yeah, and rely on allies" which is another topic entirely. (Some allies are easier to work with than others ... it all depends on what one is trying to accomplish)
That's the standing capability. (IMO, at best)
The decision to go into Iraq was a surge, and was based on the "this won't take long" fantasy in Rummy and Cheney's fevered imaginations.
It became a sustained effort, and then a sustained surge, of capability that exposed some interesting holes in the underwear. These holes were allegedly to be addressed in the "Recapitalization Program" that General Casey briefed the Congress on in the early 00's.
And then came the 8 years under Obama, and a (not unreasonable) political objective to trim down a defense establishment that had bloated a bit in the previous 8 years, and particularly the previous 5 once Iraq became a thing.
Handled clumsily, at best. The infamous political scrap that turned into "sequester" had some knock on effects.
Trump has been throwing money at some problems: I honestly don't understand what his priorities are. Dealing with a shrunken fleet seems not to be one of them.
We'll see if Secretary Mattis sticks around long enough to stabilize the larger muscle movements. (Trump can't seem to keep anyone on staff for very long; either he tires of them, or they tire of him. That has an impact on any mid to long term planning and programming).
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clinton Administration, why do you ask? Were you really unaware of how deep the cuts went during that 8 year period?
The Two Major Regional Contingencies force, which was the basis of the original Bush/Cheney "the cold war is over" drawdown, died in the mid to late 90's when Clinton/Panetta accelerated the draw down and steppened the slope. Since then, the size of the Navy has shrunk yet again, significantly, spreading less jam over the same slice of bread.
The US has been left with "one Major Regional Contingency and hope for the rest" or as the eternal optimists call it "One MRC and hold" ... "on yeah, and rely on allies" which is another topic entirely. (Some allies are easier to work with than others ... it all depends on what one is trying to accomplish)
That's the standing capability. (IMO, at best)
The decision to go into Iraq was a surge, and was based on the "this won't take long" fantasy in Rummy and Cheney's fevered imaginations.
It became a sustained effort, and then a sustained surge, of capability that exposed some interesting holes in the underwear. These holes were allegedly to be addressed in the "Recapitalization Program" that General Casey briefed the Congress on in the early 00's.
And then came the 8 years under Obama, and a (not unreasonable) political objective to trim down a defense establishment that had bloated a bit in the previous 8 years, and particularly the previous 5 once Iraq became a thing.
Handled clumsily, at best. The infamous political scrap that turned into "sequester" had some knock on effects.
Trump has been throwing money at some problems: I honestly don't understand what his priorities are. Dealing with a shrunken fleet seems not to be one of them.
We'll see if Secretary Mattis sticks around long enough to stabilize the larger muscle movements. (Trump can't seem to keep anyone on staff for very long; either he tires of them, or they tire of him. That has an impact on any mid to long term planning and programming).
The Two Major Regional Contingencies force, which was the basis of the original Bush/Cheney "the cold war is over" drawdown, died in the mid to late 90's when Clinton/Panetta accelerated the draw down and steppened the slope. Since then, the size of the Navy has shrunk yet again, significantly, spreading less jam over the same slice of bread.
The US has been left with "one Major Regional Contingency and hope for the rest" or as the eternal optimists call it "One MRC and hold" ... "on yeah, and rely on allies" which is another topic entirely. (Some allies are easier to work with than others ... it all depends on what one is trying to accomplish)
That's the standing capability. (IMO, at best)
The decision to go into Iraq was a surge, and was based on the "this won't take long" fantasy in Rummy and Cheney's fevered imaginations.
It became a sustained effort, and then a sustained surge, of capability that exposed some interesting holes in the underwear. These holes were allegedly to be addressed in the "Recapitalization Program" that General Casey briefed the Congress on in the early 00's.
And then came the 8 years under Obama, and a (not unreasonable) political objective to trim down a defense establishment that had bloated a bit in the previous 8 years, and particularly the previous 5 once Iraq became a thing.
Handled clumsily, at best. The infamous political scrap that turned into "sequester" had some knock on effects.
Trump has been throwing money at some problems: I honestly don't understand what his priorities are. Dealing with a shrunken fleet seems not to be one of them.
We'll see if Secretary Mattis sticks around long enough to stabilize the larger muscle movements. (Trump can't seem to keep anyone on staff for very long; either he tires of them, or they tire of him. That has an impact on any mid to long term planning and programming).
Thanks for the round up anyway.
Isn't there talk of ordering 2 x Fords at a time? They did that with some of the Nimitz class and saved about US$1 Bn a ship - as well as being able to deliver them a bit faster...............
Thread Starter
I want to post two things:
1. The mighty Sea Harrier is still contributing to the Navy's capabilities:
Doing it at sea is another kettle of fish though. The RN has boxed clever to be able to be safe with F-35B, an altogether noisier and more powerful aircraft.
2. A recent report on the flanks of NATO and how to protect them, suggests carriers, including ours, are going to be important in NATO roles:
1. The mighty Sea Harrier is still contributing to the Navy's capabilities:
Doing it at sea is another kettle of fish though. The RN has boxed clever to be able to be safe with F-35B, an altogether noisier and more powerful aircraft.
2. A recent report on the flanks of NATO and how to protect them, suggests carriers, including ours, are going to be important in NATO roles:
- The UK’s Royal Navy should take the lead in any early effort to counter offensive Russian submarine operations via a multi-national task group centred upon one of the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.
- NATO requires a pro-active strategy to degrade and defend against Moscow’s ship, submarine, air and ground-launched cruise and ballistic missile capability based in and staging out of the Arctic region – a campaign that would require a wartime multi-carrier deployment by the US Navy and the basing of substantial forces in Iceland, the UK and Norway.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 4th Dec 2018 at 21:16.
Secret mission to the Arctic: going Cats d Traps suddenly
Looks like no Rest For The Wicked..
QE has been raked sorry tasked to the Arctic
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-...sport-mission/
quote says “The new carrier was returning from recent trials with F-35 jets but it’s understood that she is being redirected for this mission. The vessel is being deployed to act as an emergency landing option should the cargo aircraft require its usage and the loading of provisions”
I know some will be rubbing their hands with glee cos thinking that magically overnight the QE will have CASTOBAr and can secretly take a C-2COD lol
I suspect anyhow Rudolf be proud to touch his skids in deck...
In all seriousnes if in extreme circumstances emergencies, could our new flagship take on say a troubled F/A-18E/F / EA-18G or even an E-2/C-2 ( probably with a lot of nets and stuff but could not re launch).
cheers
QE has been raked sorry tasked to the Arctic
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-...sport-mission/
quote says “The new carrier was returning from recent trials with F-35 jets but it’s understood that she is being redirected for this mission. The vessel is being deployed to act as an emergency landing option should the cargo aircraft require its usage and the loading of provisions”
I know some will be rubbing their hands with glee cos thinking that magically overnight the QE will have CASTOBAr and can secretly take a C-2COD lol
I suspect anyhow Rudolf be proud to touch his skids in deck...
In all seriousnes if in extreme circumstances emergencies, could our new flagship take on say a troubled F/A-18E/F / EA-18G or even an E-2/C-2 ( probably with a lot of nets and stuff but could not re launch).
cheers
Last edited by chopper2004; 4th Dec 2018 at 21:28.