UK's Largest Aircraft Carrier to Be Unveiled Next Month

UK's Largest Aircraft Carrier to Be Unveiled Next Month

A new aircraft carrier — the largest warship ever constructed for the United Kingdom's Royal Navy — will be officially named in a special ceremony on July 4.

Queen Elizabeth II will be on hand to christen the aircraft carrier, which will be named in her honor, according to the U.K.'s Ministry of Defence.

HMS Queen Elizabeth ushers in a new class of aircraft carrier for the Royal Navy, according to the Ministry of Defence.

"The carriers will be versatile enough to be used across the full spectrum of military activity from war fighting to providing humanitarian aid and disaster relief," defense officials said in a statement.

The new Queen Elizabeth-class (QE-class) warships will each weigh 71,650 tons and will be capable of deploying the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II jets, which are designed to take off from short runways and land vertically. To date, the British Ministry of Defence has committed to purchasing 138 F-35 jets, according to Lockheed Martin Corp., the plane's lead contractor.





Frankly I thought the UK was getting out of the Navy business, but this looks like a real top of the line aircraft carrier.

 

Yeah the carriers are the best in the world. With a small crew and cheap to run because of it. They shouldn't really have cost more than £2 billion because of their good design and fitting. However because of funding problems in the recession the work had to be slowed down meaning they will cost like like £3 billion each. Leaving less money for aircraft, escorts and training.

This is what the will likely endup with by 2030.
2 QE class carriers.
6 Updated Type 45 destroyers.
13 Type 26 ASW/Land attack frigates.
12 Modular corvettes with the main role of minesweepers.
7 Astute class submarines.
4 Tide class at sea replenishment ships.

 

I would rather the UK build its navy around Britain's needs rather than NATO joint operations with the US. Which is why these carriers would built they can carry a larger force of aircraft and have greater sortie generation to operation with the same capability as the normal airwing on a US carrier. This is according to the former head of the British Navy who the carriers were started under. I do find it rather stupid to build your military around what another nation wants, rather than what you need.

 

I sort of see what you mean since the F-35 is kind of a hodgepodge fighter made to (try) to satisfy almost every Western nation's military needs. On the other hand, NATO is probably Britain's most important defense alliance, so a lot of effort over decades has gone to make sure the military's of the various NATO member's are inter-operable and complement each other. I don't think that's building your military around what some other nation requires, but in a world of limited military budgets, there is more bang from your buck to build up your military that fits within NATO's over all strategy.

 

Not that it matters a whole lot, but what makes the Brit boats the "best in the world"? That would be very hard to qualify, and I should think that it depends very much on the composition of the accompanying task force, as well as the weapons compliment. American ships will very soon have Buck Rogers lasers, and track guns.
Since we can assume that the Brit and US forces will be allied, I guess comparisons mean even less. Any important comparison would be against something that a potential enemy could field. What if Iran comes up with a flying carpet carrier?

 

It isn't so much the F-35 both carrier varients will be better than the Rafale or F/A-18. It is more the AEW helicopter I have a problem with, and the use of army Lynx and Chinook's for transport. We are getting rid of the Sea Kings because they are old and not replacing them with another helicopter to fit that role. We will have a cap between the Merlin ASW/AEW aircraft and the Chinook.

I just think the UK should have its own independent military strategy, rather than the Americans we need the Americans. Because to be frank we no longer need you and haven't for 25 years. Yet you are still here with many military bases and large amount of influence over UK defence policy. I can understand the training, experience and technology transfer benefit to Britain of this. However I am tired of spunging of the US, I want Britain to do what is needed itself. If we build 2 large carriers to operate with the US, when we could be 3 small ASW carriers for our needs which would be a third of the price I don't see that as getting more bang for my pound, so to speak. We could have built 6 more Type 45's with the saving of £4 billion and built 3 more Type 26's. I would could have built less replenishment ships with Norway aswell, but we needed the larger option for long-range operations in support of the carriers.

Currently I am very worried about how Britain would cope with an operation against the Russian navy in the Norwegian sea or North Sea. Our carriers aren't fast enough to track their submarines, our destroyers have a weak ASW capability compared to the Type 42's or Type 23's. I also worry about the UK's ability to operate with the Norwegians and Danish against the Russians, we are spending far to much of that budget on operations with the US or training in other parts of the world.

 

Its smaller, slower and carries far fewer aircraft than the new US Ford carriers. It is also bankrupting the UK military to the point that its effecting how they spend their limited resources. Honestly the carrier stuff should be left to the US and the UK could spend all that money on more useful things like submarines and destroyers which would server them much better and not cost nearly as much to deploy and maintain.

Regarding the F35 fighter that is going to go down in history as one of the stupidest aircraft purchases ever probably even beating out the ill designed F4 Phantom.

 

I mean the ship is better designed and fitted out than any other carrier. Mainly because of its all electronic system and twin island design, it will be very cheap to run with a small crew. Even compared to the new US carriers. Of course a US strike groups and airwing is better.

 

Sure the UK can build a large very good carrier, but can it get the airwing and escorts needed to protect it, then get them training together. I don't think we have the budget for it.

 

What exactly makes them "best in the world"? They had pretty meh aircraft group for the ship of that size. Charles de Gaulle can carry the same aircraft group in just 1/2 size of Queen Elisabeth.

Not to mention lack of catapult.

 

The ships because it is newer is better designed than any carrier before it. I am basically saying it is cheaper to run for its size than any other carrier. The QE class can operate 32-40 aircraft, the Char;es de Gaulle can only operate 24. It can carry 40 aircraft, the QE class can carry 55 aircraft.

Because the QE doesn't have a catapult it also has increase sortie generation over a CATOBAR carrier the same size.

 

No catapults = limited aircraft performance.

Aircraft are what aircraft carriers are all about.

 

They are our allies, so it's fine by me. I consider this good news on the level of global geo-politics.

- - - Updated - - -

You wouldn't need them with the F-35 which is what will be be stationed on this carrier.

 

Taxcutter says:
To execute a ski jump takeoff, even the F-35 has to take off light. That means limited ordnance and they'd have to hit a tanker right after takeoff.

The small air wings of the QE would be further diminished by having to eat up a third of the air wing with buddy store tankers.

Of all people, Herk. You should know about takeoff weights and runway requirements.

 

I don't know the operating limits of the F-35B beyond it's proposed V/STOL capabilities. I don't think anyone on here would know as it's classified. You're claiming to have this data?

Other helicopter types such as the Chinook, Wildcat and Apache will be approved at some stage, as the British military will be using the carriers for joint air and littoral maneuver operations.

 

As I said in other occasions it was inconceivable that the Royal Navy had no battle carriers in active service [and this will be the situation until 2017!].

Finally the QE Class carrier is producing some dates of end of works [there were tons of doubts regarding timing, due to arising costs].

Regarding the name, well ... my romantic soul has got no doubts, the vessel has to carry the legendary name of HMS Ark Royal.

 

I don't think he has got data [and if he has got, he has not to publish them on a public forum, but also he has not to make any reference, even indirect, to the reality of such data, this was for clearance].

From public information, we can infer that the QE Class carrier will be absolutely suitable for F35-B deployment: the F35 project has got a factory also in Italy and we assembly the planes ... with the purpose [in the version B] to embark them on the Cavour carrier which is more little than the QE Class British carrier ...

 

Yes I agree very much with that.

However CATOBAR carriers cost more money and would need to be nuclear powered. So is the US government going to allow the UK to use one of its new nuclear power plants and going to give the UK access to US dry docks for fitting and refueling? I don't think so in a billion years. We could have waited until the US was willing to give up their new electronic launching system, however I wouldn't hold my breath on your politicians allowing the UK that technology either. This is the best the UK could do with the help and technology the US was willing to offer. The Astute class submarine and Type 45 destroyers are no different, they could be better than they are with greater US technology transfer. So if you want the UK to have better capabilities give it more stuff or allow the UK to build its own capabilities independently and compete with the US. However those options aren't in the US interest.

 

The first carriers will be called HMS Queen Elizabeth, the second HMS Prince of Wales, a third carrier would likely be called HMS Duke of York. After that I don't know. However I do think British ship names are the best. Just to anoy the Americans and Russians.

 

Cheaper to run=/=better designed.

The primary purpose of any piece of equipment is to meet military demands, it doesn't matter if it is cheap to operate if it is not as capable as it should be.

Not that i don't like two superstructure design and a small crew.

It can operate all it's aircraft group as far as i am concerned. Still more effective per ton of displacement. Moreover, it is nuclear-powerd, which gives it a significant advantage.

Perhaps, but F-35 is not known for having low wingload and long range, so it is likely to be limited with ordinance it can carry. The aircraft was designed by the Americans and mostly for American needs. It might fit onto 100 000 ton aircraft carrier with catapult, but I doubt it can be fully used from 70 000 ton STOBAR carrier.

 

Taxcutter says:
C'mon, dude. It's just engineering fundamentals, not voodoo. No way shape or form does a V/STOL plane match the combat performance envelope of either a long-runway land plane or a catapulted carrier plane. The catapult is what keeps the F/A-18 evergreen.

Carrier planes have to make some design compromises for carrier operations. V/STOL planes have to make even bigger compromises.

Historical analogy:
The Fw-190A and the F4U Corsair used engines that were nearly identical in performance. Both were very heavily armed and armored by the standards of the day, so logically they should have had the same flight envelope.

But they didn't.

The Corsair had to have landing gear study enough to take being repeatedly crashed into a flight deck. It had to have a taillhook for carrier recoveries. The Corsair was a bird for the vast reaches of the Pacific and had enough tankage to have triple the range of the Fw-190A.

The Fw-190A was a land-only airplane and required a fairly standard runaway.

As a result the Corsair was fifteen knots slower than the Fw-190A. That's a huge disadvantage in air combat. Fortunately, the two never tangled.


Another factor - the pilot. A V/STOL plane requires the pilot to be very proficient at V/STOL procedures. This is much harder than even carrier operations (piloting for the truly insane). The accident rate for AV-8 V/STOL planes is several times that of any other carrier plane. In fact with Cat IIIb autopilots even carrier landings are automatic. Cat III has been around since the late 1980s and the bugs have been worked out. there is currently no automation available for V/STOL.


The tiny air wing of less-capable aircraft mean the Queen Elizabeth class simply cannot operate within range of Russian or Chinese land-based planes. Further the Chinese have launched a carrier that will be fitted out with four catapults. The QEs will have to stay clear of these as well. the ocean of the QEs is a lot smaller than the ocean of Nimitz and Gerald Ford class carriers.

Generously, the Queen Elizabeth is a helicopter carrier with a few V/STOL planes attached. A good limited-duty ship.

 

With tanker aircraft, the range would be virtually limitless; the only factor that would be considered limiting time in the air is pilot fatigue since these are manned systems. The bigger concern is that the F-35 is not living up to expectations. You don't need a 70,000 ton carrier for strictly helicopter operations, this boat was designed with V/STOL in mind, it's long to accommodate fixed wing operations as well.

 

Who would send a carrier into the North Sea, Batlic sea or Norwegian sea against the Russians. It would be a sitting duck for Russian submarine, corvettes, bombers and missile escorts. No for operations around Britain we need fast helicopter carriers like the Japanese have and are building. I would even much rather have 3 updated Invincible class light carriers. Of course that is just thinking about wars, most things the military has have nothing to do with it. The QE class will be a much greater aid and amphibious platform then even the US LHA America class ships. Who the same limited carrier capabilities, in reality the QE class is a bigger LHA. That is how Americans should think about it. The main combat role will be air support missions like those in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, this is what it was built for. Rather a case of fighting the last war if ever there was one.

When is the UK going to be in the India Ocean or East China sea taking on a Chinese carrier? Even so the British have more experience, training and technology currently.

 

Taxcutter says:
Appearances can be deceiving.

The HMS Hood was not a battleship. But it looked like one and people who should have known better sent it out against a real battleship. Since they have real aircraft carriers, the US does not need to send LHAs out to do a CVN's job. But if all you have is a glorified LHA...

 

I take your point. However fleet on fleet engagements aren't the same as ship on ship engagement. Also we know why they sent the Hood because it could keep pace with the faster Bismarck and had a well trained crew. The Lion's or KGV's would have been better. The best battleships we had the Rodney and Nelson could have had ring ran round them.

The main problem the UK has isn't just the carriers and their less capable aircraft, but also the lack of escorts. We need more ships destroyers, frigates, submarines.