HMS Queen Elizabeth

HMS Queen Elizabeth

Author
Discussion

98elise

18,828 posts

125 months

Monday 4th January
quotequote all
LotusOmega375D said:
I can’t think of anywhere else we might need to defend with such a remote location. Surely we have our own or close ally airbases within a reasonable distance of any potential adversary, if needed for AEW purposes?
The middle of the sea is quite remote. Also you cannot always rely on your allies. Even hosting a foreign warship alongside in peacetime can be controversial.

Ark Royal in Hamburg...



ecsrobin

12,658 posts

129 months

Monday 4th January
quotequote all
hidetheelephants said:
LotusOmega375D said:
Couldn’t an E-3 or E-7 operate out of the Falklands if things started getting frisky again?
A Cessna 152 could operate out of the Falklands in complete safety and achieve air supremacy as the argentine airforce are barely capable of putting an aircraft aloft, never mind carry out offensive operations or the AAR needed to reach the islands.
Just had a check as I thought they had the P3B Orion but it seems they’re out of service and an attempt to buy the P3C from America never got the budget signed off.

Do they even have any serviceable vessels these days?

Seight_Returns

1,431 posts

165 months

Monday 4th January
quotequote all
Maybe so - but the whole point of the UK Carrier Strike program is that we could, if necessary, deploy a fully sovereign UK carrier strike group on an out of area deployment without help, permission or support from anyone else. That's a powerful foreign policy and deterrence tool even if it's never actually done in anger. Making even just one part of this capability dependent upon one of our allies makes this a much smaller big stick to carry whilst walking softly.

CSG21 later this year is intended to prove just that capability - and will deploy deploy to the Med, Gulf and Pacific and put the Strike Group in the faces of the protagonists in those places - seemingly without Crowsnest IOC. I'm sure that the Iranians and Chinese won't actually attack the CSG - but they'll relish the prospect of playing games and embarrassing us if we turn up in their back yards without even an IOC AEW capability.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/06/royal...

Edited by Seight_Returns on Monday 4th January 12:32

Skyrocket21

142 posts

6 months

Tuesday 26th January
quotequote all
Why can't the eurofighter Typhoon perform this maneuver on the new carriers? This Mig 29k is taking off from a ramp on a shorter carrier runway, is the Typhoon capable of the same? The Mig29k has a lower thrust / weight ration 0.96 compared to the Typhoons 1.15 because the Tiffy is much lighter, but they're almost equal on thrust at 2x 20,000 lbf of thrust on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMcqV_Pjorc

Teddy Lop

4,662 posts

31 months

Tuesday 26th January
quotequote all
Skyrocket21 said:
Why can't the eurofighter Typhoon perform this maneuver on the new carriers? This Mig 29k is taking off from a ramp on a shorter carrier runway, is the Typhoon capable of the same? The Mig29k has a lower thrust / weight ration 0.96 compared to the Typhoons 1.15 because the Tiffy is much lighter, but they're almost equal on thrust at 2x 20,000 lbf of thrust on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMcqV_Pjorc
what kind of fuel and weapons payload can those jets carry on a ski jump takeoff compared to a VSTOL?

Evanivitch

8,666 posts

86 months

Tuesday 26th January
quotequote all
Skyrocket21 said:
Why can't the eurofighter Typhoon perform this maneuver on the new carriers? This Mig 29k is taking off from a ramp on a shorter carrier runway, is the Typhoon capable of the same? The Mig29k has a lower thrust / weight ration 0.96 compared to the Typhoons 1.15 because the Tiffy is much lighter, but they're almost equal on thrust at 2x 20,000 lbf of thrust on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMcqV_Pjorc
Taking off isn't usually the toughest part of carrier operations. So I imagine a EF could do it with a good headwind and ballsy pilot.

But landing would require many modifications, likely involving complete redesign of the undercarriage.

Boom78

240 posts

12 months

Tuesday 26th January
quotequote all
Skyrocket21 said:
Why can't the eurofighter Typhoon perform this maneuver on the new carriers? This Mig 29k is taking off from a ramp on a shorter carrier runway, is the Typhoon capable of the same? The Mig29k has a lower thrust / weight ration 0.96 compared to the Typhoons 1.15 because the Tiffy is much lighter, but they're almost equal on thrust at 2x 20,000 lbf of thrust on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMcqV_Pjorc
Why would any country in the world with stealth 5th gen supercomputer F35b, associated tech and modern super carriers/carrier group want 20-30 year old Cold War designed massive jets as cover or strike force?

El stovey

37,943 posts

227 months

Tuesday 26th January
quotequote all
ecsrobin said:
Some interesting changes there with thrust vectoring and leading edge devices plus fuel tanks.

RizzoTheRat

20,489 posts

156 months

Wednesday 27th January
quotequote all
Teddy Lop said:
what kind of fuel and weapons payload can those jets carry on a ski jump takeoff compared to a VSTOL?
I believe they do buddy tanking with the Mig29 (as the USN do with the F/A-18), so launch with minimal fuel and take on fuel from another aircraft that took off with maximum fuel and no (self defence only?) weapons.

saaby93

27,958 posts

142 months

Wednesday 27th January
quotequote all
Skyrocket21 said:
Why can't the eurofighter Typhoon perform this maneuver on the new carriers? This Mig 29k is taking off from a ramp on a shorter carrier runway, is the Typhoon capable of the same? The Mig29k has a lower thrust / weight ration 0.96 compared to the Typhoons 1.15 because the Tiffy is much lighter, but they're almost equal on thrust at 2x 20,000 lbf of thrust on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMcqV_Pjorc
Also why dont they begin that from the back end of the ship?

Mave

6,614 posts

179 months

Wednesday 27th January
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Taking off isn't usually the toughest part of carrier operations. So I imagine a EF could do it with a good headwind and ballsy pilot.

But landing would require many modifications, likely involving complete redesign of the undercarriage.
Yep. Theres a lot more to operating an aircraft of a carrier than thrust / weight ratio.

Cold

10,778 posts

54 months

Wednesday 27th January
quotequote all
This afternoon, HMS Queen Elizabeth took over the role of fleet flagship from HMS Albion.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activ...

Ayahuasca

26,414 posts

243 months

Thursday 28th January
quotequote all
El stovey said:
ecsrobin said:
Some interesting changes there with thrust vectoring and leading edge devices plus fuel tanks.
Is the new Indian carrier cat and trap ?

LotusOmega375D

5,347 posts

117 months

Thursday 28th January
quotequote all
It’s a ski jump launch with arrestor wire landing. MIG 29K certainly, Rafale a possibility but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Edit: just read that F/A18 is also a possibility, or they might hang on to MIG 29K until a possible indigenous 2 engined Jet takes over in 2030s (don’t hold your breath). Obviously ski jump take-off only is not what Rafale or F/A 18 were designed for. Also Rafale too big for current lift mechanisms, which would need modifications.

Edited by LotusOmega375D on Thursday 28th January 08:41

Ash_

5,019 posts

154 months

Thursday 28th January
quotequote all
LotusOmega375D said:
It’s a ski jump launch with arrestor wire landing. MIG 29K certainly, Rafale a possibility but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Edit: just read that F/A18 is also a possibility, or they might hang on to MIG 29K until a possible indigenous 2 engined Jet takes over in 2030s (don’t hold your breath). Obviously ski jump take-off only is not what Rafale or F/A 18 were designed for. Also Rafale too big for current lift mechanisms, which would need modifications.

Edited by LotusOmega375D on Thursday 28th January 08:41
Reading the article above if they opt for Marinised Typhoon, then it'll be indigenously built, which may be enough to swing it. Personally I expect they'll stick with MiG-29K, they already have them and they're cheap. Rafale and F/A-18 are probably no goes for the reasons you mention.

LotusOmega375D

5,347 posts

117 months

Thursday 28th January
quotequote all
There was another long-running thread about Rafale etc for the IAF. The deal for a bulk numbers order broke down over the Indian Government’s demand that Dassault must provide a guarantee/warranty even for the 108 Indian (HAL) assembled aircraft. Dassault was also unhappy with some transfer of technology issues. So what was going to be a huge order for at least 126 Rafales, eventually only resulted in an order for the first 36 French built machines, now being supplied.

Boom78

240 posts

12 months

Thursday 28th January
quotequote all
The IAF does seem to have an eclectic way of purchasing planes, they don’t seem to care where they come from or seem to have a standardised approach with lots of cross over with some planes even fulfilling the same role. Not exactly efficient and most cost a fortune operating such a wide cast of equipment.

Evanivitch

8,666 posts

86 months

Thursday 28th January
quotequote all
saaby93 said:
Also why dont they begin that from the back end of the ship?
There's only so fast you want to hit that ramp!

RizzoTheRat

20,489 posts

156 months

Thursday 28th January
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
saaby93 said:
Also why dont they begin that from the back end of the ship?
There's only so fast you want to hit that ramp!
Looked like he didn't have much payload on, do they vary the start point based on weight to aim to hit the ramp at a target speed?