HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
Hooli said:
V8 Fettler said:
It appears that the decrepit Ark (Buccs) struggled across the Atlantic for about 1500 nautical miles at 27 knots before launching two Buccs at extreme range to save the day in Belize (1972). It's bizarre that the QE will be slower than the decrepit Ark, also that the QE will have to engage the enemy more closely before launching aircraft. So much for progress.
This thread has forced me to invest £2.48 in a copy of "Phoenix Squadron".
Well worth the money, it's a damned good read.This thread has forced me to invest £2.48 in a copy of "Phoenix Squadron".
On the way down Ark Royal's engineroom chaps converted a few jet fuel tanks on board into water tanks to get double the flow to the boilers as the existing water supply was absolutely on it's limit to produce 27kts.
hidetheelephants said:
Hooli said:
V8 Fettler said:
It appears that the decrepit Ark (Buccs) struggled across the Atlantic for about 1500 nautical miles at 27 knots before launching two Buccs at extreme range to save the day in Belize (1972). It's bizarre that the QE will be slower than the decrepit Ark, also that the QE will have to engage the enemy more closely before launching aircraft. So much for progress.
This thread has forced me to invest £2.48 in a copy of "Phoenix Squadron".
Well worth the money, it's a damned good read.This thread has forced me to invest £2.48 in a copy of "Phoenix Squadron".
On the way down Ark Royal's engineroom chaps converted a few jet fuel tanks on board into water tanks to get double the flow to the boilers as the existing water supply was absolutely on it's limit to produce 27kts.
Does that make sense? or do I need to go flicking through the book to find out what I read?
The basic steam cycle is boiler>turbine>condenser>boiler; make-up water is needed to compensate for steam leaks and catapult use as a lot is lost from there. I'm not even sure if water recovered from catapults is reusable as there's a lot of lubricant that needs removing before reuse. That said while steaming along I'm struggling to work out what extra tankage would be used for; if there was a condenser failure water consumption would skyrocket and efficiency and speed would reduce, perhaps that's what was going on.
It's been a while since I read it but I recall that they did have to make a decision to fill fuel tanks with water for ballast/stability purposes. They had to skip a refuelling rendezvous and the fuel consumption was obviously higher with the sustained high speed so they were running pretty light towards the end. The issue was if they filled the tanks with water then the tanks (and/or the water) would be need a deep clean before they could be used for fuel again, which would cut their max range in the meantime.
Water for the boiler may have been an issue too but that's the bit that sticks in my mind.
Water for the boiler may have been an issue too but that's the bit that sticks in my mind.
hidetheelephants said:
V8 Fettler said:
It appears that the decrepit Ark (Buccs) struggled across the Atlantic for about 1500 nautical miles at 27 knots before launching two Buccs at extreme range to save the day in Belize (1972). It's bizarre that the QE will be slower than the decrepit Ark, also that the QE will have to engage the enemy more closely before launching aircraft. So much for progress.
This thread has forced me to invest £2.48 in a copy of "Phoenix Squadron".
Will the American carriers wait for the QE during NATO combined manoeuvres?
That was a flag waving exercise; aircraft carriers travel in carrier battle groups which move at the speed of the slowest unit, in the RN's case that's RFA Wave Knight that can do 18 knots or the new Tide class which are on order from S Korea and will do ~26 knots. For the hypothetical flag waver over Belize QE has bigger issues than only doing 28 knots(that makes her take 53.5 hours to do 1500nm rather than the theoretical 47 hours of Ark); the F35 has sod all range compared to the Buccaneer and as far as I've read no buddying capability as the MoD isn't paying for it, so the 1500nm would need to be extended to 2500nm and an extra day and half's steaming.This thread has forced me to invest £2.48 in a copy of "Phoenix Squadron".
Will the American carriers wait for the QE during NATO combined manoeuvres?
Edit to add: the account of this event in HMS Ark Royal describes the Ark detatching from her group and increasing speed to 26 knots and launching Buccaneers from 1300 miles away. Needless to say F35 won't be doing this.
Am currently researching the speed of Fast Carrier Task Forces through the decades. 18 knots would be dangerous where an enemy threat exists.
It'd take too long to type 
Found the bit about the water tanks etc. The distillation plant only produced 500tonnes of water per day & the boilers used virtually all of it at speed. So they doubled the tankage to hold distilled water by using an aviation fuel tank incase of distillation plant issues.
Found the bit about the water tanks etc. The distillation plant only produced 500tonnes of water per day & the boilers used virtually all of it at speed. So they doubled the tankage to hold distilled water by using an aviation fuel tank incase of distillation plant issues.
V8 Fettler said:
Hells Bells!! "1300 nautical miles to target, launch the Buccaneers." Assuming the Buccs flew back to the Ark then that must have been calculated on a range of approx 3,000 nautical miles, albeit perhaps refuelling in flight.
Bucc's combat radius was in the region of 1000 miles, so launching 1300 out probably wasn't too big a deal. Not sure if the 1000 mile radius was on internal fuel only or internal + aux tanks. If internal only, then 1300 mile radius might have been extreme radius with aux tank fit. Not sure on that though.Even if 1000 on int + aux tanks, it could still AAR with another Bucc using the buddy pack system to have got back to the Ark.
The Banana jet was a great aircraft, and in most ways was still superior to the aircraft that replaced it in the RAF, let alone what it gave the RN in it's original role as a carrier a/c.
MiniMan64 said:
There seems to be a far amount of negativity towards what will be the finished QE product on here.
If what we're going to get delivered isn't the right solution/outcome/product then what would have been the best solution to new carriers for the UK?
Submarines and Corvettes, the corvettes for the drug, anti piracy roles also to frighten the ex colonials; submarines for the real fighting.If what we're going to get delivered isn't the right solution/outcome/product then what would have been the best solution to new carriers for the UK?
Hooli said:
It'd take too long to type
Found the bit about the water tanks etc. The distillation plant only produced 500tonnes of water per day & the boilers used virtually all of it at speed. So they doubled the tankage to hold distilled water by using an aviation fuel tank incase of distillation plant issues.
The steam system must have had more holes than a block of Emmental; that's a ridiculous level of water consumption.Found the bit about the water tanks etc. The distillation plant only produced 500tonnes of water per day & the boilers used virtually all of it at speed. So they doubled the tankage to hold distilled water by using an aviation fuel tank incase of distillation plant issues.
On the subject of speed, yes she is a bit limited on the top end but their are benefits to the compromise.
Good fuel economy, each CVF burns the same fuel as the previous invincible class despite being 3 times the mass and 6 times (if memory serves) the sortie generation. The invincible was powered by essentially a Concorde and 8 diesel trains. Not cheap.
Cheap running, reduced maintenance and cheap fuels are pretty much the only way the RN was ever going to keep two carriers, a 35+ nuclear carrier would be awesome but it would have meant we would only have had one of them.
Walk softly, while far from stealthy as they are 65,000t lumps of metal after all, with efficient cruising and all electric drive they should be quiet. Anecdotally there has been stories that the Invincible and other more highly strung 30knot+ boiler powered carriers are Torpedo magnets screaming their positions to any sub happy to listen.
It's not really needed anymore. What's a 3knot difference going to make against a mach 3 sea skimming carrier killer missile? none. Any help against a modern 60knot+ Torpedo? Nope. Will it help the Dave-B's take off? Not really they only need half the deck length to do that happily anyway. Help in anti-ship combat? Maybe but that's why out running your support fleet is a dumb idea.
Cruising speed is the important number and that's decided by hull form, prop pitch/size and rpm and features like a CFD shaped transom flap. Providing it isn't a short range dash to carry out actions against the SNP then with a good cruise speed and a 10000nmi range the CVF will get on station about the same time as it's slightly quicker but shorter legged predecessors.
There is facilities on board for an additional diesel generator as future power requirements are expected to increase but I don't think that will have any effect on ships speed, it may actually decrease some as she gets heavier with time and the hull picks up dings, muck and possibly bolt on bits. I did once read about extending the bulbous bow to gain an extra knot and improve the flow dynamics but that would cost far too much and may cause wave interference under some circumstances.
Good fuel economy, each CVF burns the same fuel as the previous invincible class despite being 3 times the mass and 6 times (if memory serves) the sortie generation. The invincible was powered by essentially a Concorde and 8 diesel trains. Not cheap.
Cheap running, reduced maintenance and cheap fuels are pretty much the only way the RN was ever going to keep two carriers, a 35+ nuclear carrier would be awesome but it would have meant we would only have had one of them.
Walk softly, while far from stealthy as they are 65,000t lumps of metal after all, with efficient cruising and all electric drive they should be quiet. Anecdotally there has been stories that the Invincible and other more highly strung 30knot+ boiler powered carriers are Torpedo magnets screaming their positions to any sub happy to listen.
It's not really needed anymore. What's a 3knot difference going to make against a mach 3 sea skimming carrier killer missile? none. Any help against a modern 60knot+ Torpedo? Nope. Will it help the Dave-B's take off? Not really they only need half the deck length to do that happily anyway. Help in anti-ship combat? Maybe but that's why out running your support fleet is a dumb idea.
Cruising speed is the important number and that's decided by hull form, prop pitch/size and rpm and features like a CFD shaped transom flap. Providing it isn't a short range dash to carry out actions against the SNP then with a good cruise speed and a 10000nmi range the CVF will get on station about the same time as it's slightly quicker but shorter legged predecessors.
There is facilities on board for an additional diesel generator as future power requirements are expected to increase but I don't think that will have any effect on ships speed, it may actually decrease some as she gets heavier with time and the hull picks up dings, muck and possibly bolt on bits. I did once read about extending the bulbous bow to gain an extra knot and improve the flow dynamics but that would cost far too much and may cause wave interference under some circumstances.
Speed is important. At 35 knots, it's unlikely that the Enemy of the Day will possess surface vessels or submarines that can overhaul and thus achieve a firing solution. At 25 knots this becomes increasingly likely. 18 knots is a sitting duck
It's ludicrous to make direct comparisons between a carrier that was initially designed during World War 2 and a carrier which is yet to be launched, but it is startling to consider that a carrier initially designed in WW2 could outrun and outreach the QE.
It appears that the primary purpose of the QE is to act as a floating airfield in the Red Sea or similar. Have the designers not considered that the current Enemy of the Day may not be the Enemy of the Day in twenty years time?
A better solution would be three off 35 knot carriers, perhaps 55,000 tonnes each, carrying Super Buccaneers and some sort of air superiority fighter. Names? Ark Royal, Warspite and Rodney.
It's ludicrous to make direct comparisons between a carrier that was initially designed during World War 2 and a carrier which is yet to be launched, but it is startling to consider that a carrier initially designed in WW2 could outrun and outreach the QE.
It appears that the primary purpose of the QE is to act as a floating airfield in the Red Sea or similar. Have the designers not considered that the current Enemy of the Day may not be the Enemy of the Day in twenty years time?
A better solution would be three off 35 knot carriers, perhaps 55,000 tonnes each, carrying Super Buccaneers and some sort of air superiority fighter. Names? Ark Royal, Warspite and Rodney.
V8 Fettler said:
A better solution would be three off 35 knot carriers, perhaps 55,000 tonnes each, carrying Super Buccaneers and some sort of air superiority fighter. Names? Ark Royal, Warspite and Rodney.
An even better solution would be 5 nuclear 50 knots carriers carrying 100 f-22's. But alas we have to live in a reality where the UK is a tiny nation and the only way of getting two carriers was to make them as cheap to run as their 20,000kt predecessors. A 10,000nm range at an estimated 15 knots is pretty decent, the only ww2 rivals I know of were the converted 'light fleet escort' carriers or the 'Combustible, Vulnerable, and Expendable' class.
V8 Fettler said:
A better solution would be three off 35 knot carriers, perhaps 55,000 tonnes each, carrying Super Buccaneers and some sort of air superiority fighter. Names? Ark Royal, Warspite and Rodney.
The problem is you run up against the rules of shipbuilding; for a given load making your big grey war canoe do 35 knots instead of 28 means it needs more waterline and more horsepower, or more draft and more horsepower. All options mean a bigger hull and a bigger hull mean bigger drydocks and quays, all of which need paying for. QE is already squeezing more or less as much ship into existing facilities as possible, bigger means a much bigger bill.Godalmighty83 said:
V8 Fettler said:
A better solution would be three off 35 knot carriers, perhaps 55,000 tonnes each, carrying Super Buccaneers and some sort of air superiority fighter. Names? Ark Royal, Warspite and Rodney.
An even better solution would be 5 nuclear 50 knots carriers carrying 100 f-22's. But alas we have to live in a reality where the UK is a tiny nation and the only way of getting two carriers was to make them as cheap to run as their 20,000kt predecessors. A 10,000nm range at an estimated 15 knots is pretty decent, the only ww2 rivals I know of were the converted 'light fleet escort' carriers or the 'Combustible, Vulnerable, and Expendable' class.
You're clearly struggling when you refer to WW2 vessels as "rivals" to the QE.
hidetheelephants said:
V8 Fettler said:
A better solution would be three off 35 knot carriers, perhaps 55,000 tonnes each, carrying Super Buccaneers and some sort of air superiority fighter. Names? Ark Royal, Warspite and Rodney.
The problem is you run up against the rules of shipbuilding; for a given load making your big grey war canoe do 35 knots instead of 28 means it needs more waterline and more horsepower, or more draft and more horsepower. All options mean a bigger hull and a bigger hull mean bigger drydocks and quays, all of which need paying for. QE is already squeezing more or less as much ship into existing facilities as possible, bigger means a much bigger bill.Why is my tax money being spent on aircraft carriers that can only try and avoid the Enemy of the Day at 25 knots?
To put 25 knots into context, the previous, previous, previous Ark could manage 30 knots plus, the initial design for which commenced over eighty years ago.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff