HMS Queen Elizabeth

[aeropilot]

-crookedtail- said:

Probably been answered many times before but why to the RN insist on using the ski ramp rather than the catapult system that everyone else refers. Doesn't that limit the type of aircraft that can use it, so for example the french couldn't fly their planes from it?

Seems a bit silly from a simpleton like me!!

Politics....simple as.

Both Govt and inter-service politics never make for sound rational decisions.

[Dr Jekyll]

-crookedtail- said:

Probably been answered many times before but why to the RN insist on using the ski ramp rather than the catapult system that everyone else refers. Doesn't that limit the type of aircraft that can use it, so for example the french couldn't fly their planes from it?

Seems a bit silly from a simpleton like me!!

There was initially a question mark over the practicalities of fitting a catapult system suitable for modern aircraft to a non nuclear powered carrier. Since the govt was already thinking in terms of a VSTOL aircraft it seemed an unnecessary expense in any case.

The ship was designed with the facility to add a catapult once the technology was available and at one point it looked like it was, so there a brief intention to buy the F35C (catapult carrier version) instead of the F35B (VSTOL version). Then they decided it was all too difficult and switched back to ski jump and F35B.

[Eric Mc]

-crookedtail- said:

Probably been answered many times before but why to the RN insist on using the ski ramp rather than the catapult system that everyone else refers. Doesn't that limit the type of aircraft that can use it, so for example the french couldn't fly their planes from it?

Seems a bit silly from a simpleton like me!!

They changed their mind twice on this project -

Initially they wanted VTOL F-35s and no catapult/arresting gear
They then changed their mind and opted for Trap and Cat and conventional aircraft
They then changed their minds again back to the original idea

The basics are -

Trap and Cat - cheaper aircraft/expensive ship
VTOL carrier - cheaper ship/expensive aircraft


Of course, continuous mind changing ensures expensive everything.

[XJ Flyer]

Dr Jekyll said:

-crookedtail- said:

Probably been answered many times before but why to the RN insist on using the ski ramp rather than the catapult system that everyone else refers. Doesn't that limit the type of aircraft that can use it, so for example the french couldn't fly their planes from it?

Seems a bit silly from a simpleton like me!!

There was initially a question mark over the practicalities of fitting a catapult system suitable for modern aircraft to a non nuclear powered carrier. Since the govt was already thinking in terms of a VSTOL aircraft it seemed an unnecessary expense in any case.

The ship was designed with the facility to add a catapult once the technology was available and at one point it looked like it was, so there a brief intention to buy the F35C (catapult carrier version) instead of the F35B (VSTOL version). Then they decided it was all too difficult and switched back to ski jump and F35B.

Assuming that we could make steam catapults work on the Eagle and Ark Royal which were up to the job of getting something as heavy as the Phantom off the deck then what's the problem now.Other than saving money which we don't have because we're throwing it away in the form of the foreign aid scam which is the EU and global free market economy.In either case it's obvious that the single engined F35 is a retrograde cheap rate alternative to older twin engined designs like the Phantom,F14 and F18.The answer in this case was obvious in that we should have ordered the ships from the states built to US spec and equipped with F18's or preferably an updated version of the F14.It's then just a question of either put up the required cash or get used to the idea that both the US and UK economies will defeat their own respective countries before an outside power does.

[TTmonkey]

Dr Jekyll said:

TTmonkey said:

Their assurance that this vessel will rule the waves for the next 50 years is laughable.

The rate of change for technology in warfare will make this thing obsolete, unusable and vulnerable within 20 years in my opinion. Stealth technology, drone attack, even cyber vulnerability will mean it won't ever be used as loss of such a capital asset would be unthinkable.

Pretty pointless in my view.

Nobody is saying it will 'rule the waves' for the next 50 years. Just that it is expected to stay in service that long.

Look at Hermes. Laid down during WW2, launched in 1953, still in service with the Indian navy for a few years yet. There's been some pretty big changes in technology in that period.

That's the point though isn't it....? It's being justified as a ship that will still be in service in 50 years so the cost is spread out over that period. Except we'll have sold it to some third world country for the price of a Range Rover Sport in about 20 years.

Or it will be a reef somewhere.

We'll have no use for it in 20 odd years time. Just like we have no use for main battle tanks now.

[aeropilot]

XJ Flyer said:

Dr Jekyll said:

-crookedtail- said:

Probably been answered many times before but why to the RN insist on using the ski ramp rather than the catapult system that everyone else refers. Doesn't that limit the type of aircraft that can use it, so for example the french couldn't fly their planes from it?

Seems a bit silly from a simpleton like me!!

There was initially a question mark over the practicalities of fitting a catapult system suitable for modern aircraft to a non nuclear powered carrier. Since the govt was already thinking in terms of a VSTOL aircraft it seemed an unnecessary expense in any case.

The ship was designed with the facility to add a catapult once the technology was available and at one point it looked like it was, so there a brief intention to buy the F35C (catapult carrier version) instead of the F35B (VSTOL version). Then they decided it was all too difficult and switched back to ski jump and F35B.

Assuming that we could make steam catapults work on the Eagle and Ark Royal which were up to the job of getting something as heavy as the Phantom off the deck then what's the problem now.

Steam. Or rather the lack of any means to create it on a modern build warship, or rather, there was no method of steam generation allowed for in the design of the two new carriers. Also, the RN has long since lost the trade skills needed to operate and maintain steam generators.

The cat n trap system used would have been the US electric system being fitted to the new generation of US carriers being built. In fact the US had generously allowed the 2nd production set of this system to be diverted to the UK for our use when we decided to go for cat n trap.
However, politics got in the way and we U-turned and we went back to Dave-B on the supposed grounds of cost, which no-one seems to be able to work out why it was so expensive - not least the yanks, and some working on the project here in the UK.
Again, a big price was quoted by Govt as the reason to justify a political based decision.

[XJ Flyer]

TTmonkey said:

Dr Jekyll said:

TTmonkey said:

Their assurance that this vessel will rule the waves for the next 50 years is laughable.

The rate of change for technology in warfare will make this thing obsolete, unusable and vulnerable within 20 years in my opinion. Stealth technology, drone attack, even cyber vulnerability will mean it won't ever be used as loss of such a capital asset would be unthinkable.

Pretty pointless in my view.

Nobody is saying it will 'rule the waves' for the next 50 years. Just that it is expected to stay in service that long.

Look at Hermes. Laid down during WW2, launched in 1953, still in service with the Indian navy for a few years yet. There's been some pretty big changes in technology in that period.

That's the point though isn't it....? It's being justified as a ship that will still be in service in 50 years so the cost is spread out over that period. Except we'll have sold it to some third world country for the price of a Range Rover Sport in about 20 years.

Or it will be a reef somewhere.

We'll have no use for it in 20 odd years time. Just like we have no use for main battle tanks now.

The issue of tanks is arguable but it's probably better to have plenty of good ones like the Challenger than none if/when you get into a land fight.

As for aircraft as always it's a case of fighters or ground attack/fighters and targets and if you don't have air sueriority/supremacy you lose.With exceptions like the Falklands ( by a very thin margin )proving the rule.

As things stand this country's defence abilities are turning into a cheap rate joke.

[hidetheelephants]

aeropilot said:

[b]Steam. Or rather the lack of any means to create it on a modern build warship, or rather, there was no method of steam generation allowed for in the design of the two new carriers. Also, the RN has long since lost the trade skills needed to operate and maintain steam generators.
[/b]
The cat n trap system used would have been the US electric system being fitted to the new generation of US carriers being built. In fact the US had generously allowed the 2nd production set of this system to be diverted to the UK for our use when we decided to go for cat n trap.
However, politics got in the way and we U-turned and we went back to Dave-B on the supposed grounds of cost, which no-one seems to be able to work out why it was so expensive - not least the yanks, and some working on the project here in the UK.
Again, a big price was quoted by Govt as the reason to justify a political based decision.

Her majesty's bubbleheads will be black affronted to learn of your ignorance; what do you think is driving all those sleek black bringers of death?

The installation cost argument against cats was so flimsy you could see through it, especially when the lower cost of the aircraft is accounted for; the main cost penalty is in needing twice as many people to run the flightdeck and maintain the catapult and arrester gear(>150 as opposed to ~80 for F35B operations).

[aeropilot]

hidetheelephants said:

aeropilot said:

[b]Steam. Or rather the lack of any means to create it on a modern build warship, or rather, there was no method of steam generation allowed for in the design of the two new carriers. Also, the RN has long since lost the trade skills needed to operate and maintain steam generators.
[/b]
The cat n trap system used would have been the US electric system being fitted to the new generation of US carriers being built. In fact the US had generously allowed the 2nd production set of this system to be diverted to the UK for our use when we decided to go for cat n trap.
However, politics got in the way and we U-turned and we went back to Dave-B on the supposed grounds of cost, which no-one seems to be able to work out why it was so expensive - not least the yanks, and some working on the project here in the UK.
Again, a big price was quoted by Govt as the reason to justify a political based decision.

Her majesty's bubbleheads will be black affronted to learn of your ignorance; what do you think is driving all those sleek black bringers of death?

Pardon......?

[MartG]

Eric Mc said:

They changed their mind twice on this project -

Initially they wanted VTOL F-35s and no catapult/arresting gear
They then changed their mind and opted for Trap and Cat and conventional aircraft
They then changed their minds again back to the original idea

The basics are -

Trap and Cat - cheaper aircraft/expensive ship
VTOL carrier - cheaper ship/expensive aircraft


Of course, continuous mind changing ensures expensive everything.

Not to mention the cat & trap option allows longer ranged aircraft, generally carrying heavier payloads ( even the F-35C can go 50% further than the -B ), and more varied aircraft including a proper AEW one like the E-2 Hawkeye

[T66ORA]

aeropilot said:

hidetheelephants said:

aeropilot said:

[b]Steam. Or rather the lack of any means to create it on a modern build warship, or rather, there was no method of steam generation allowed for in the design of the two new carriers. Also, the RN has long since lost the trade skills needed to operate and maintain steam generators.
[/b]
The cat n trap system used would have been the US electric system being fitted to the new generation of US carriers being built. In fact the US had generously allowed the 2nd production set of this system to be diverted to the UK for our use when we decided to go for cat n trap.
However, politics got in the way and we U-turned and we went back to Dave-B on the supposed grounds of cost, which no-one seems to be able to work out why it was so expensive - not least the yanks, and some working on the project here in the UK.
Again, a big price was quoted by Govt as the reason to justify a political based decision.

Her majesty's bubbleheads will be black affronted to learn of your ignorance; what do you think is driving all those sleek black bringers of death?

Pardon......?

He means your wrong basically.

All the Submariners are steam trained, so we do still have the basics skills.
The difference in knowledge between Boiler room and "donk shop" stokers in nil.

We still have auxiliary boilers,(Donkey) in service, but the steam needed to run/drive catapults had to be superheated to get the required pressure IIRC.

I wasn`t aware that Submarines were called boats

[XJ Flyer]

MartG said:

Eric Mc said:

They changed their mind twice on this project -

Initially they wanted VTOL F-35s and no catapult/arresting gear
They then changed their mind and opted for Trap and Cat and conventional aircraft
They then changed their minds again back to the original idea

The basics are -

Trap and Cat - cheaper aircraft/expensive ship
VTOL carrier - cheaper ship/expensive aircraft


Of course, continuous mind changing ensures expensive everything.

Not to mention the cat & trap option allows longer ranged aircraft, generally carrying heavier payloads ( even the F-35C can go 50% further than the -B ), and more varied aircraft including a proper AEW one like the E-2 Hawkeye

Basically the difference is that instead of being able to use faster better twin engined aircraft with F14-18 levels of performance.We pay more for inferior single engined aircraft to get VSTOL ability.To save the money involved in fitting/running something as simple as catapults which the cheaper but superior aircraft need to get off the deck.Maybe our government is actually working for the Russians and the Chinese etc.

[IanMorewood]

Simple answer is that the MOD bought a ship that can't really do what it's needed to do properly and to exacerbate this they also bought an unproven unbuilt aircraft to work off that ship. If the plane can't be made to work properly then the ship is seriously compromised and the whole effort will pretty much have bankrupted the navy in the meanwhile.

The French have proven that a medium size CVN works especially when tied up with a modern fourth generation fixed wing group and we should have followed a similar route. Had the QE class followed this formulae we would have a pair of active carriers in the RN by now and we could perhaps have sold three or four others to the French, Italians, Spainish, Japnese, Taiwanese and Indians further reducing the build cost per unit. This solution would also have opened up the use many different aircraft types.

[Simpo Two]

IanMorewood said:

Simple answer is that the MOD bought a ship that can't really do what it's needed to do properly and to exacerbate this they also bought an unproven unbuilt aircraft to work off that ship. If the plane can't be made to work properly then the ship is seriously compromised and the whole effort will pretty much have bankrupted the navy in the meanwhile.

It is odd that the military is ultimately run by a bunch of second-rate history graduates called politcians who wouldn't know which end of a gun the bullet comes out of, but I think that is what makes us a democracy and not a dictatorship. Or protects us from falling victim to a military coup, or summink. Anyway, the theory is that having idiots in charge stops worse things from happening...

[XJ Flyer]

IanMorewood said:

Simple answer is that the MOD bought a ship that can't really do what it's needed to do properly and to exacerbate this they also bought an unproven unbuilt aircraft to work off that ship. If the plane can't be made to work properly then the ship is seriously compromised

The fact is,just like the Harrier,the plane could never be made to 'work properly' in the form of the air superiority role anyway, unlike the Phantom and F14 in their day,because it hasn't got enough engines to start with.Therefore given a decent opposition armed with the right aircraft the Navy's air cover and/or projected air superiority power,which is the job of any carrier force,is simply toast.

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29K

Having said that the Chinese seem to be working along the lines of twin engine air superiority together with non Cat STOL launch ramp cabability.

www.liveleak.com/view?i=714_1363212888

[maffski]

hidetheelephants said:

The installation cost argument against cats was so flimsy you could see through it

The argument was completely watertight. The only people allowed to make the changes are Carrier Alliance, and no conditions were written into the contract regarding change costs, so the price they gave was so high it would have been cheaper to scrap the carrier and start again.

[XJ Flyer]

maffski said:

hidetheelephants said:

The installation cost argument against cats was so flimsy you could see through it

The argument was completely watertight. The only people allowed to make the changes are Carrier Alliance, and no conditions were written into the contract regarding change costs, so the price they gave was so high it would have been cheaper to scrap the carrier and start again.

There would have been no need for any 'changes' if the design brief was always for Catapult capability from day 1.

Which still leaves the question why are they working with a design brief for just a single engined carrier 'strike fighter' either with or without catapult capability.Being that such capability is all about allowing for the full range of air superiority and large aircraft launch capability.

While it's also obviously possible to have twin engine capability together with STOL capability with no need for Catapult capability anyway.The whole issue seems like a deliberate policy of reducing western defence capability v it's usually accepted potential opposition.

[silverfoxcc]

Is this the first Navy ship that has the prefix HMS as part of the name on the ship?

IIRC all the ships i have ever been on just had the name, usually Brass letters on a wooden base non the superstructure on the Quaterdeck , or on the hull at or near the stern.

[MartG]

doogz said:

What does the number of engines have to do with anything?

Operating from a carrier, over water, it's nice to have a second engine if one has a problem

[Dr Jekyll]

MartG said:

Operating from a carrier, over water, it's nice to have a second engine if one has a problem

It's nice irrespective of what you're operating over. The question was why being twin engined is necessary for effective air superiority. The F16 does OK.