HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
Ayahuasca said:
El stovey said:
TTmonkey said:
You'd build and deploy and air craft carrier to launch drone attacks?
That's a classic.
Why wouldn't you launch drones from an aircraft carrier? That's a classic.
The large easy to hit carrier itself is possibly going to be too easy to take out by more and more advanced hypersonic missiles turning them into long range drone platforms and even drone factories seems a great long term solution.
El stovey said:
Ayahuasca said:
El stovey said:
TTmonkey said:
You'd build and deploy and air craft carrier to launch drone attacks?
That's a classic.
Why wouldn't you launch drones from an aircraft carrier? That's a classic.
The large easy to hit carrier itself is possibly going to be too easy to take out by more and more advanced hypersonic missiles turning them into long range drone platforms and even drone factories seems a great long term solution.
El stovey said:
TTmonkey said:
You'd build and deploy and air craft carrier to launch drone attacks?
That's a classic.
Why wouldn't you launch drones from an aircraft carrier? That's a classic.
But once you've got a big ship, of course using it for drones makes sense.
paulrockliffe said:
El stovey said:
TTmonkey said:
You'd build and deploy and air craft carrier to launch drone attacks?
That's a classic.
Why wouldn't you launch drones from an aircraft carrier? That's a classic.
But once you've got a big ship, of course using it for drones makes sense.
Future drones will be like fighter aircraft now with big fuel tanks and loads of weapons so will need an aircraft carrier. There may also be loads of smaller drones that communicate with each other in a swarm but still will need a large launch area due to the huge number required in the swarm.
The large aircraft carrier also offers the possibly to manufacture drones on board in the hangars perhaps even using 3D printers.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 27th June 13:06
MartG said:
ralphrj said:
Nanook said:
DMN said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
But not before BAE was given another fistful of tax payers cash.Do you do all that extra work for free?
ACA said:
we put a ski jump on top here, or we put cat and traps here, here and here. If we don't put the cats there we either leave lots of empty space, or fill it with stuff. Which do you want? [/quote=ACA]It got filled with stuff. Considering its 'an untested' plane, the oncept cat design is close to as much of a risk.
On the drone side of things, some of them (reaper/predator) are big enough they need a full runway to take off. They won't just launch from any ship.
On the drone side of things, some of them (reaper/predator) are big enough they need a full runway to take off. They won't just launch from any ship.
aeropilot said:
The absurdity of the situation is that there is the very real possibility that the RAF might be forced to buy the F-35C to operate from land....as the -B isn't the Tornado replacement that is needed in the wake of there being no 'replacement' of that in the pipeline........
why wouldn't they buy the F-35A?paulrockliffe said:
Think you're missing the point. The reason the aircraft carrier is so big and expensive is so that it can carry aircrafts. You can launch drones from any old ship, so if you were designing for that use you would have built 20 smaller ships, not one massive lump.
Are you really going to launch a 10 tonne fixed wing aircraft off a frigate helo pad?Nanook said:
Why would anyone buy the "C" to operate from land?
What else is there.....?F-35A which is the logical choice, can't be air-refuelled from the nice shiney new Voyager tanker fleet that is on a PFI contract as conversion to boom fit would likely be ruinously expensive, given the owners option under the PFI contract to let out the fleet for commercial purposes...?
IIRC, BAe have ended production of the two-seat Typhoons, so option of a Strike Eagle style version of the Tiffie for Tonka replacement is likely a non-starter, even if the Typhoon could do that?
With development timescales now in the double decade for a new aircraft.........a Tornado replacement needs to be almost at test flying stage now......
Nanook said:
And what do you think it should cost to fit 2 huge steam boilers into the empty spaces left in the bottom of a ship that's already built, along with all the wiring, piping, systems, electronics, etc. required to make it all work, as well as ripping out large chunks of flight deck and the spaces below to install the arrestor system and catapults?
It was never going to be a steam system anyway, but EMALS. Given the original design brief (IIRC?) was for the design of the ship to be convertible to cat n trap, then the space should have been there in the design? If not then, then fair enough, again design brief changed. As to cost, well, even the people that designed the EMALS were staggered at the projected cost compared to what they even said they could do it for?Nanook said:
A new government or new Defence minister is put into place and wants to exert his/her/their authority, and change the specs/requirements. Then complain when it's not free. It's happened long before the QEC, and it's happening again now on other projects. The only surprise is that people are surprised by it!
Indeed.Govt are still living in the immediate post-war years when development timescales for this sort of stuff was not much more than the lifetime of one Govt (two at the most) but we're talking 4 or more now, and they just don't understand the implications of their self-interest decisions.
Hey ho.........
The X47 has successfully operated from a carrier (launch and landing). It had a 62' wingspan and a maximum take-off weight of 20 tonnes or so.
The world being what it is I think we should concentrate on domestic weapons development programmes - a carrier-capable Taranis would be a better bet than F35 at this point I think.
The world being what it is I think we should concentrate on domestic weapons development programmes - a carrier-capable Taranis would be a better bet than F35 at this point I think.
Mave said:
paulrockliffe said:
Think you're missing the point. The reason the aircraft carrier is so big and expensive is so that it can carry aircrafts. You can launch drones from any old ship, so if you were designing for that use you would have built 20 smaller ships, not one massive lump.
Are you really going to launch a 10 tonne fixed wing aircraft off a frigate helo pad?
[url]
Big boys drones will need a carrier.
These are the kind of things the Queen Elizabeth WOULD end up with but the UK carriers will be even more isolated as their decks are unsuitable for CATOBAR drone launches (like the US and France) and VSTOL UAVs are going to now be hugely complex and expensive and unlikely to be needed or developed by anyone except the UK.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 27th June 14:15
paulrockliffe said:
Think you're missing the point. The reason the aircraft carrier is so big and expensive is so that it can carry aircrafts. You can launch drones from any old ship, so if you were designing for that use you would have built 20 smaller ships, not one massive lump.
This is the Global Hawk "drone". It's bigger than quite a few manned aircraft.
Don't assume "drones" are little buzzy things that are similar to what you might see being flown down the local park.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff