HMS Queen Elizabeth

[MartG]

Kccv23highliftcam said:

The AWACS detection range R is the minimum of either the radar Line Of Sight distance or the sensitivity limit.

For example, if an AWACS is flying at 30,000' altitude and is searching for a penetrator flying at 200' altitude, the maximum radar LOS (for
4/3rds earth radius refraction) between the two vehicles is:

Radar LOS = 1.23 {(30,000)1/2+ (200)1/2} = 230 NM.

However.

Crowsnest chopper flying at half that altitude gives 177.72 miles against a 3m sea skimmer.....

None of which takes into account sea state/clutter, ecm or "stealth"..

Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Sunday 22 April 09:51

This is an argument I made about the range of the Sampson radar fitted to the T45 - no-one seemed to understand that its 400km range is only achieved when a target is above its horizon, which isn't all that far away when the antenna is only 30m up

[Kccv23highliftcam]

MartG said:

Kccv23highliftcam said:

The AWACS detection range R is the minimum of either the radar Line Of Sight distance or the sensitivity limit.

For example, if an AWACS is flying at 30,000' altitude and is searching for a penetrator flying at 200' altitude, the maximum radar LOS (for
4/3rds earth radius refraction) between the two vehicles is:

Radar LOS = 1.23 {(30,000)1/2+ (200)1/2} = 230 NM.

However.

Crowsnest chopper flying at half that altitude gives 177.72 miles against a 3m sea skimmer.....

None of which takes into account sea state/clutter, ecm or "stealth"..

Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Sunday 22 April 09:51

This is an argument I made about the range of the Sampson radar fitted to the T45 - no-one seemed to understand that its 400km range is only achieved when a target is above its horizon, which isn't all that far away when the antenna is only 30m up

It can however track hundreds of "orange sized" targets 10 miles away...

I read that from the BAe internal news site "some" years ago.

[ecsrobin]

Kccv23highliftcam said:

MartG said:

Kccv23highliftcam said:

The AWACS detection range R is the minimum of either the radar Line Of Sight distance or the sensitivity limit.

For example, if an AWACS is flying at 30,000' altitude and is searching for a penetrator flying at 200' altitude, the maximum radar LOS (for
4/3rds earth radius refraction) between the two vehicles is:

Radar LOS = 1.23 {(30,000)1/2+ (200)1/2} = 230 NM.

However.

Crowsnest chopper flying at half that altitude gives 177.72 miles against a 3m sea skimmer.....

None of which takes into account sea state/clutter, ecm or "stealth"..

Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Sunday 22 April 09:51

This is an argument I made about the range of the Sampson radar fitted to the T45 - no-one seemed to understand that its 400km range is only achieved when a target is above its horizon, which isn't all that far away when the antenna is only 30m up

It can however track hundreds of "orange sized" targets 10 miles away...

I read that from the BAe internal news site "some" years ago.

Surely this is an issue with all vessels though at not just British ones. I’m guessing you have the solutions? And what range did they quote it’s predecessor? Are they just stating facts for the common man to understand it?

[donutsina911]

MartG said:

This is an argument I made about the range of the Sampson radar fitted to the T45 - no-one seemed to understand that its 400km range is only achieved when a target is above its horizon, which isn't all that far away when the antenna is only 30m up

The PAAMS system 'range' is derived from the S1850M long range radar. In broad and open source terms, the S1850 will pick out an E3 Sentry on a cruise at about 400km and a skimmer at about 50km. This assumes that it's working in isolation and not part of a networked area defence which would be beyond rare.

50km for a mach 3 anti ship missile gives the Command a little under a minute to get Sampson (fire control component) tee'd up, the ship positioned for Phalanx, chaff and off board decoy deployment and to make the 'brace brace brace' pipe. For a well worked up ship, a minute is theoretically plenty. The party tricks of Sampson are nothing to do with a 400km headline range and largely to do with the final minute or so.

Add Crowsnest in to the mix and you're tripling the time available to get your st in one sock - organic AEW from the baggers will always lose on absolute coverage/range and make up some of this with operating costs and availability etc. 250nm range of E3 v's 150nm of the baggers may well be the difference between having the time to vector CAP jets, but we've cut our cloth on this one.

[andy97]

donutsina911 said:

The PAAMS system 'range' is derived from the S1850M long range radar. In broad and open source terms, the S1850 will pick out an E3 Sentry on a cruise at about 400km and a skimmer at about 50km. This assumes that it's working in isolation and not part of a networked area defence which would be beyond rare.

50km for a mach 3 anti ship missile gives the Command a little under a minute to get Sampson (fire control component) tee'd up, the ship positioned for Phalanx, chaff and off board decoy deployment and to make the 'brace brace brace' pipe. For a well worked up ship, a minute is theoretically plenty. The party tricks of Sampson are nothing to do with a 400km headline range and largely to do with the final minute or so.

Add Crowsnest in to the mix and you're tripling the time available to get your st in one sock - organic AEW from the baggers will always lose on absolute coverage/range and make up some of this with operating costs and availability etc. 250nm range of E3 v's 150nm of the baggers may well be the difference between having the time to vector CAP jets, but we've cut our cloth on this one.

Pity we can't help mitigate the range disadvantage of Crowsnest by having far more "baggers" distributed around the fleet.

[Phud]

The view on long range long patrol baggers is airships.

QE could do those

However baggers were a rushed short stop around the Falklands time... nothing like a stop gap filler :-)

[mattyn1]

Phud said:

The view on long range long patrol baggers is airships.

QE could do those

However baggers were a rushed short stop around the Falklands time... nothing like a stop gap filler :-)

The bagger of today is a completely different beast to that of 1982. Think the old ping pong game graphics to PS4.

[Phud]

mattyn1 said:

The bagger of today is a completely different beast to that of 1982. Think the old ping pong game graphics to PS4.

They are still seakings with a colostomy bag

ex pinger here

[mattyn1]

Phud said:

They are still seakings with a colostomy bag

ex pinger here

It’s where the crew store their luggage!

Pinger - filth..... how long ago? I don’t recognise the name ...:. I have served all 849 Sqns and Flights! Left Cu last year.

[Phud]

left '96.

Not your fault, someone has to do it.

Even worse I did passive too, no ping listen, just listen for russian farts

[Simpo Two]

On BBC2 now - 'HMS Queen Elizabeth embarks on dangerous sea trials in the North Sea'.

Dangerous? Who writes this st?

[jmorgan]

Putin only needs lobster pots.......



Edit. Not lobster pots.

Edited by jmorgan on Sunday 22 April 20:54

[anonymous-user]

Does a ship of this size (and cost) really not have real time vibration measurement in it's drivetrain? (or were the camera's just not showing that bit, as salty-seadog engineers with their ears stuck to bulkheads looks much more telly friendly?)

[essayer]

So when they identify stuff that isn’t quite right and change it, “the junior mess was too small” etc
Do they replicate the change in PoW immediately? Or are the ships sufficiently different that they are assessed individually?

[Wildcat45]

essayer said:

So when they identify stuff that isn’t quite right and change it, “the junior mess was too small” etc
Do they replicate the change in PoW immediately? Or are the ships sufficiently different that they are assessed individually?

It's going to depend on the modification how far into build the ship is, the urgency of the mod and the cost.

Take for example the previous generation carriers, the Invincible Class. On sea trials the first ship Invincible kept dragging her anchors. They weren't up to the job so beefier ones were installed and her bow modified. Illustrious which was afloat but incomplete had her anchors modified. Ark Royal was built with the modification in place.

When the Type 45 was in the embryonic stage of design it was going to be part of a European class of ships - French and Italian - called Horizon. The UK pulled out of the program and went its own way. The Type 45 and Horizon are if you like "cousins'. Not the same but similar.

Type 45s unusually have two wardrooms (Officers mess). One is a r and r space with TV and a small bar. Over the passage and a bit aft there's the second space which is used as a dining room. It's a hang over from Horizon where the French specified two wardrooms, one for senior officers and the other for juniors.

Evidently at the time the UK pulled out of Horizon it was not possible or cost effective to reconfigure the arrangements in that part of the ship.

I imagine there will be lots of detail changes in POW. Little things like where a junction box is positioned or the number of sinks in the heads. As the ships get older they will pick up their own modifications which may or may not be added to the other one.

That said, they are doing many things differently within the new carriers. They really are a departure from the past.

To add:

RN ships certainly used to be built in batches of the same class. Each batch incorporated improvements or different kit.

Take the Type 22 Frigate:

4 Batch 1 ships were built. The next two were batch 2 - a longer Hull and better sonar. There was one ship built with different engines Batch 2 A I suppose you might call it. Then three more came along with more modifications - command systems, fire control radars, bigger flight decks Batch 2 B if you like. Then 4 final ships were built with different engines, a gun, different missiles and other changes. These were known as Batch 3. So while the general lay out of the first and final 14th ship may have been similar, they were very different ships.

Sadly we don't build batches of aircraft carriers these days, but Ark Royal (The third Invincible) was so modified from the other two in build that she was effectively a Batch 2 Invincible. She got modifications in build many of which were made to the other two during lengthy refits.

Edited by Wildcat45 on Monday 23 April 18:36

Edited by Wildcat45 on Monday 23 April 19:16

[AshVX220]

A little bit of info to the above, all 6 T45's are unique, there are no two the same in the entire class. Due to the subtle changes and mods that took place during the project.

[Wildcat45]

AshVX220 said:

A little bit of info to the above, all 6 T45's are unique, there are no two the same in the entire class. Due to the subtle changes and mods that took place during the project.

I think the last three are technically Batch 2 because of he changes. Is that right?

[Halmyre]

essayer said:

So when they identify stuff that isn’t quite right and change it, “the junior mess was too small” etc
Do they replicate the change in PoW immediately? Or are the ships sufficiently different that they are assessed individually?

I've heard PoW's build was faster than QE's because of the lessons learned during the first build, presumably there will also be some differences in the detail. I think even the various blocks that the ships are built from aren't absolutely identical because again they learned from the earlier build process.

[donutsina911]

Halmyre said:

I've heard PoW's build was faster than QE's because of the lessons learned during the first build, presumably there will also be some differences in the detail. I think even the various blocks that the ships are built from aren't absolutely identical because again they learned from the earlier build process.

The first bit of this is definitely true. Internally, PoW has been given a slightly more amphibious slant to her older sister - how much of this is retrofitted back to Queen Elizabeth is TBD. Guess it'll depend on how often the two deploy simultaneously, the emphasis on non-fast jet elements of carrier strike and if the bootnecks survive a death by a thousand cuts..

[LotusOmega375D]

I have been enjoying the BBC programmes, which seem to be refreshingly disarming and not just PR spin. One thing I notice is the relative tranquility of it all. I expect it will be quite a shock to the senses for all on board when F35s eventually start landing and taking-off. I can't imagine there would be many corners of the ship that will escape the noise.