|
Originally Posted by glendalegoon
(Post 8550407)
Will vertical landing planes be able to make low visibility approaches and landings?
Sorry. The QE will be a nice little carrier for a few stovl planes and copters. But by no means would it be a fleet carrier in anyone's book. Just seems a shame for the country that invented the angled flight deck and steam catapults should settle for a nice little boat. As for a 'nice little carrier' you forget that the QE class was designed to have an angled deck and catapults, if the politicians were willing to pay for them (IIRC the original plan back in the late 90s was to consider them as a mid-life update). the fact they have a STOVL set up is a political one. |
Glendalegoon,
I might be able to help here. To your second question: will vertical landing planes be able to make low visibility landings and approaches? Answer: Yes. Next? Best regards as ever to those who will regenerate UK maritime aviation, whatever their cloth and whatever their experience, Engines |
''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. |
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: 1. The ability to maintain a continuous ready deck 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."... |
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 |
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! |
she is as long as three football pitches Particularly as I have no concept, or interest, in the size of a feetball pitch. |
I wonder how many white elephants long it is?
|
But how big is that in comparison with Wales?
|
Wander00 old chap ... a bit insignificant as Wales is 8,015 square miles in surface area :E
|
Phil R has the correct assessment in his last two posts:uhoh:!
OAP |
CS - it must be "London busses" then!
|
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? |
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. |
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. |
...range, not very far without refueling, sink the oiler and it is time to break out the oars! |
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 |
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. |
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? |
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. |
I wonder how many white elephants long it is? I audibly groaned when that was included on a piece during BBC news yesterday. Particularly as I have no concept, or interest, in the size of a feetball pitch. Btw feetball? - wasn't that in some novel by Compton MacKenzie? |
What's that in Rugby pitches, then?
|
Don't do rugbyfeetball either.
Too much running, sweating, and naked baths. Naked baths are ok, but only with 10 ladies to one man. |
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. Size isn't everything, it only takes one torpedo to sink a carrier, nuclear powered or not.. |
Glendalegoon
Don't seem to recall USMC F35B being part of the question. Your contention was that a CVN wouldn't need as frequent refuellings and I asked you to do the maths on how often your CVN RAS'd AVCAT (or UNREP JP5 if you're struggling with UK terminology). Seems you don't know your numbers. JP5 bunker capacity of CVN? Average sorties per day of a 50 TACAIR CAG? Average JP5 consumption per sortie? Of course, we're not comparing like with like because QE is more like the Midway in her sortie generation capacity, but then no-one ever claimed she was capable of taking 90+ cabs aboard and being a CVN. Point is - you'll empty the JP5/F44 bunkers in similar time, kettle or no kettle. Nutloose - the Trents and diesels will be burning F76. Trials have shown it takes more than one torpedo to sink that size of ship. |
not a boggin
tell me how many gallons (US) JP5 that the QE has. typically a nimits class has 3 million to start. go. oh and please don't count fuel req'd to run the carrier itself |
That will still be classified, remember we are talking modern carriers here, not something that was laid down in the 60's
|
A figure of 8600T fuel capacity is often quoted. At 6.8lbs per US gallon for JP5, that's 2.832M gallons (US). But fewer budgies to drink it vs a Nimitz.
|
Previous posters have suggested that the QE class will generate sortie nos at a higher rate per ac than the CVN s. That would therefore increase the amount of fuel needed for the ac. There must be an advantage to nuclear power so my question is why has the QE class not got it? It's not as if we have no experience of such systems. Even the CdeG is nuclear powered so the relative size of the ships is not a factor either.
|
Could one of the reasons CVF is not nuclear powered, is the cost of decommissioning nuclear reactors, besides that to power a CVF a new generation of larger reactors would have to be designed from scratch. Not sure how realistic designing these reactors would be.
|
In my opinion there are massive advantages to nuclear, but the MoD chose not to go that way on the grounds of cost. I suspect there may have been political considerations there too.
|
The main reason is cost. Not just to buy, develop and install, but to run. QECs do not have large crews, they are built around automation. The RN does not have the personnel to man two nuclear powered ships. It is a technology alien to the surface fleet. A whole new set of skills should have to be added to the equation which means more time and more money.
I don't think the French CVN is a good model for how to run a carrier. The fact is that the QEC is a UK defence platform. It isn't a fleet carrier of old, it isn't a CVN it isn't a Commando carrier or a CVS. It can be used in all the above roles and more, but the RN is not going back to the days of Eagle Ark Victorious et al. It is moving forward with two very useful platforms (ships) that will be capable of getting involved in all sorts of operations. Yes they are going to need dieso and avcat. That's why there are some gentlemen in Korea or somewhere hammering some tin into the shape of the new Tide boats. It used to be called the Fleet Train, and I think it is one of the few maritime evolutions the USN pioneered. They are still rather good at it in the USMSC. |
The decision to go non-nuclear was made around 1993-94. Back then we were all scratching our heads as to what to do with the western reactors that were approaching end of life, not to mention the Russian ones.
Surface ship reactor disposals were seen at the time as particularly problematic. We didn't have then (and still don't have now) anywhere to put the reactor compartments in the long-term once removed from the ship, as evidenced by the 7 boats still at Rosyth and the 10 or 11 in Devonport. The US nuclear recycling programme has a large trench on the Hanford reservation where they can store the RCs long-term. United States naval reactors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Their Nuclear Ship Recycling Programme has been a real success, but has cost a lot of money. All of that is before you include the design challenges of putting a reactor in a surface ship. The risk appetite for that was simply not there in the mid-90s and given where we are now, it was the right decision, although ironically the industrial base in terms of skilled people would probably be better off and there would be a little less risk in the PWR3 programme. |
It is somewhat convenient when cost and risk go hand in hand. We didn't go for nuclear because of cost, with a nod to risk. Likewise we didn't go for cats and traps due to cost with a nod to risk. I personally believe that building a nuclear powered cat and trap carrier was, is and always will be beyond British industry. In these cases it's straight forward to price yourself out of the market and watch the risk disappear.
|
A bit of QEC class light relief.
Airfix criticised for not including any aircraft with scale model of HMS Queen Elizabeth | NewsBiscuit |
Going back to practical issues:
The launch of Queen Elizabeth was a great event, but a huge amount of work remains to be done. One issue that will cause headaches (and is already a source of concern to those involved) is that of preparing personnel for fixed wing operations. Whilst this is a hobby horse of mine, I am not alone. WhiteOvies - 25 June 13: The bigger issue is getting everyone else to be ready for a large, busy flight deck. At least there is a team of people looking into this issue and both deckcrew, aircrew and engineers are being appropriately positioned to give them some exposure to this dangerous environment prior to QEC. All we need to see is a signed document from CAS saying that he will embark his jets as soon as the CO indicates his ship is ready in all respects to conduct aviation. The second sentence will indicate that he will disembark them only when the Air Management Organisation is fully up to speed, the Air Group is fulfilling ATO tasking, the Air Weapon supply team have produced weapons to surge capacity and these have been loaded on jets and dropped, the Yellow Coats can marshal, chain and chock a fourship in all weathers, whilst another fourship is taxying for take off. The jets will remain embarked until every Fighter Controller in the fleet has worked a fourship through Red Crown procedures and the JFACCHQ have established resilient comms for a week or two and Flyco have exercised being b#ggered about from dawn to dusk. Repeat all for night ops. When all this is crimped the TG in its entirety will take part in a COMAO based exercise of Neptune Warrior type scope and we'll call it good. The third sentence will indicate that the jets will be back as soon as any of the above notice any degree of skill fade and the process will start again. Bismark - 28 Oct 10: As I am sure has been said elsewhere, the aircraft and pilots just represent the front end of the carrier strike capability. The idiocy of the SDSR decision, which the PM is about to compound in the FR/UK Defence deal (FT Today), is that we risk losing the capability to operate jets off carriers. All of the expertise on the current CVSs will have gone (we are getting rid of the CVSs), the aircrew will have gone (either PVRd, redundant or moved to other aircraft types, the command experience will have gone (as will the met, ATC, FC, deck handlers, planners etc, etc). But what is missing in 2020 is the crews on the ships with any experience of aviation - from the CO downwards....I am sure the MAA will have something to say about that, indeed I wonder whether they are doing anything about it at the moment? I'd put a fair bit of money that the guys who've done exchange tours have not done time in CATCC, Wings / Little F (Air & mini-boss in USN), handlers office or the squadron engineering and logs posts. While they may be adept at doing the mission plan, launch, mission, recovery thing, they are unlikely to have a great understanding of how to spot a deck, arrange aircraft for servicing vice maintenance, weapons prep and bombing up and how all the various departments both in the squadrons and on the ship work to deliver the sortie rate. People thinking just about aircrew and (to some degree) chockheads are missing the point - it's the corporate experience of how to put it all together that is about to be lost. Nor can that be maintained at HMS Siskin - that just gives the basics of handling, not the fine art of pulling it all together. As SDSR says "we need a plan to regenerate the necessary skills"- all I can say is it had better be a f8cking good one, cunning eneough to do more than brush your teeth with! Post SDSR, the idea of embarking foreign jets has been repeatedly dismissed, on the basis there is no need to practice skills that will be needed in future, as the future is not here yet. :( This PDF document on route cause analysis contains an interesting example of analysis of factors involved in consistently hitting as baseball at a certain speed. Can you picture a similar thing for a jet taking off from a carrier, doing the mission and being safely recovered - OOW etc able to put ship on right heading/speed and get wind across deck, MEs flashing up engines, FLYCO managing the deck and airspace and deconflicting jets and helicopters, chockheads moving jets and coping with jet blast (not encountered with helicopters, and the F-35B will produce much more than Sea Harrier/Harrier), and so on (Operations Room personnel, WE maintainers, communicators, etc)? As with most things, the value (and difficulty) is in integration. Aviation is of course a whole ship activity. |
If you believe the UK carriers are vulnerable due to the fact they require oilers every so often then the only answer is a COMPLETELY nuclear powered battle group - including the cruisers, destroyers and frigates that make part of it
Even the USN backed off from that - and all the surface escorts for the CVN's run on oil. So N-power allows the carrier to stay at sea forever but maybe on its own if the oilers are all sunk - is that wise?? I personally think the money should have been spent elsewhere but we'll still have two carriers bigger than anything outside the USA and I'm sure the USN will be happy to see us take over some tasking from their big beasts |
'WE Branch Fanatic' said: [however no JBD required - deleted]
"...chockheads moving jets and coping with jet blast (not encountered with helicopters, and the F-35B will produce so much that CVF will have jet blast deflectors), and so on?" “...In the final analysis, the decision has been taken to delete the JBD from the STOVL CVF design. Cdr Lison explains: "We determined from the CFD modelling that the legacy JBD did not offer adequate protection. Alternative designs were considered which offered some benefit, but two considerations persuaded us to delete the requirement. "First, the nozzle scheduling of the F-35B on take-off has yet to be fully established, and there was a risk that the jet blast would simply 'bounce' over the JBD. Second, the JBD was in a single fixed position on the flight deck, so there was no flexibility with regard to the length of the take-off run."...” |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:40. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.