Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
stevewinn

HMSQueen Elizabeth to sail for the first time

154 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Navy's largest ever ship HMS Queen Elizabeth set's sail for the first time

The Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier has left port for the first time.

HMS Queen Elizabeth - one of two new carriers being built at Rosyth dockyard in Fife at a cost of more than £6bn - is to begin sea trials.

It is the largest warship ever built for the Royal Navy.

The flight deck alone is the size of three football pitches.

The ship is now waiting for low tide to go under the Forth bridges.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-40402153

 

Edited by Saru
Images removed due to copyright; added source - please always include a source link when quoting news stories
8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

And if you look here  http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/shipid:4585861/zoom:13, you can see just where she is right now. In the Firth of Forth just outside Rosyth. 

Apparently she'll attempt the passing of the bridges at 23:30 and the open sea beyond.

 

Edited by stevewinn
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Apparently she'll attempt the passing of the bridges at 23:30 and the open sea beyond.

 

I like the word "attempt".  Presumably they'll have a boat on standby to pick up the radar antenna if they don't quite make it. :blush:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 


Big Lizzie squeezes under the Forth Bridge but sails straight into a cyber attack storm: Britain's biggest warship relies on vulnerable Windows XP despite Navy boasting of NASA standard security

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4640214/HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-maiden-voyage.html

 


 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) sea trials with escort; Type 23 HMS Sutherland (F81) off coast of Scotland.

She passed the Bridges with ease late last night.

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now all we need is a total of 4 of them

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how she will look when she enters Portsmouth end of the year. It's only 20mins from my home so will get some pics:tsu:

 

hms-queen-elizabeth-portsmouth-harbour-large.jpg

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2017 at 4:19 AM, seeder said:

Big Lizzie squeezes under the Forth Bridge but sails straight into a cyber attack storm: Britain's biggest warship relies on vulnerable Windows XP despite Navy boasting of NASA standard security

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4640214/HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-maiden-voyage.html

That's not true. HMS Queen Elizabeth will use BAE's Shared Infrastructure and combat system, and when fully operational will not use Windows XP.

The error by the journalist seems to stem from a picture/video on board the carrier where contractors / engineers where using Windows XP during the fitting out process.

Though the Royal Navy have used Windows 2000 and XP. which are stable platforms and modified for use by UK military forces. quite how a Naval Ship at sea would become vulnerable to a Cyber attack via the internet is questionable. But HMS Queen Elizabeth will not use Windows XP.

BAE Statement; (15 months ago)

The Queen Elizabeth class will also be the first ships to be built with a BAE Systems designed, new state-of-the-art operating system called Shared Infrastructure, which will be rolled out across the Royal Navy’s surface fleet over the next ten years. Shared Infrastructure revolutionises the way ships operate by using virtual technologies to host and integrate the sensors, weapons and management systems that complex warships require. By replacing multiple large consoles dedicated to specific tasks with a single hardware solution, the amount of spares which are required to be carried onboard is reduced, significantly decreasing through-life costs.”

Jennifer Osbaldestin, Combat Systems Director at BAE Systems Naval Ships, said:

“Installing the Shared Infrastructure equipment on board HMS OCEAN introduces a more efficient way of housing the ship’s systems. By operating on a single interface, systems can be upgraded as and when required, and capabilities deployed efficiently, ensuring the Royal Navy is best placed to respond to evolving threats. This is a fantastic achievement for the teams involved and there is a real sense of excitement as we move into the next phase of installing the technology on board one of the Royal Navy’s Landing Platform Dock ships, HMS ALBION, next year.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HMS Iron Duke a type 23 Frigate as teamed up with HMS Sutherland also a type 23, in helping protect the carrier from Russian interests (Submarine) as we know at least one is in the neighbourhood. video two below.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, stevewinn said:

That's not true. HMS Queen Elizabeth will use BAE's Shared Infrastructure and combat system, and when fully operational will not use Windows XP.

The error by the journalist seems to stem from a picture/video on board the carrier where contractors / engineers where using Windows XP during the fitting out process.

Though the Royal Navy have used Windows 2000 and XP. which are stable platforms and modified for use by UK military forces. quite how a Naval Ship at sea would become vulnerable to a Cyber attack via the internet is questionable. But HMS Queen Elizabeth will not use Windows XP.

BAE Statement; (15 months ago)

The Queen Elizabeth class will also be the first ships to be built with a BAE Systems designed, new state-of-the-art operating system called Shared Infrastructure, which will be rolled out across the Royal Navy’s surface fleet over the next ten years. Shared Infrastructure revolutionises the way ships operate by using virtual technologies to host and integrate the sensors, weapons and management systems that complex warships require. By replacing multiple large consoles dedicated to specific tasks with a single hardware solution, the amount of spares which are required to be carried onboard is reduced, significantly decreasing through-life costs.”

Jennifer Osbaldestin, Combat Systems Director at BAE Systems Naval Ships, said:

“Installing the Shared Infrastructure equipment on board HMS OCEAN introduces a more efficient way of housing the ship’s systems. By operating on a single interface, systems can be upgraded as and when required, and capabilities deployed efficiently, ensuring the Royal Navy is best placed to respond to evolving threats. This is a fantastic achievement for the teams involved and there is a real sense of excitement as we move into the next phase of installing the technology on board one of the Royal Navy’s Landing Platform Dock ships, HMS ALBION, next year.”

I can confirm that BAE has its own programming develop teams and thats its OS is in-house not off the shelf.

There are however concerns over many of the chips in its electronics having been made in China. We dont really not what is inside them and it is feasible the Chinese could sneak in extra transistors to give them intelligence or allow them to hack a vessel (or fighter jets too).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ye gods... it's HUGE ... :o 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2017 at 0:09 PM, RoofGardener said:

Ye gods... it's HUGE ... :o 

Those two island superstructures look weird to me, what's up with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/06/2017 at 3:30 AM, AnchorSteam said:

Those two island superstructures look weird to me, what's up with that?

Royal Navy have a long History of Carrier aviation, (109 years) and with that carrier innovation. The twin Islands is a continuation of that innovation and design.

The design offers better survivability, as a result of the separation and distribution of power generation machinery throughout each ship. the exhaust ducting in each island, The twin islands separates the running of the ship from the flying operations resulting in greater visibility of flying operations.

Its a well thought out design, everything from deck spotting, handling, parking, minimising aircraft moves between recovery and next launch, there is also a Highly Mechanised Weapon Handling System which enables the crew to operate a vessel with fewer numbers,  total crew of 679, only increasing to the full complement of 1,600 when the air elements are embarked. 110 sorties 24 hr.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The ship is an amazing example of British engineering that very few countries can replicate. Together with only the Americans and French this technology is hard to produce on this scale. But i have a few issues with the design.

The two Island command structures; thou practical and modular, does not add to the aesthetics of the ship which is unfortunate since the U.S. and French ships are on the sexy side. The ship is limited in operation and interoperability, it doesn't have a catapult. Meaning that only F-35B's can use the ship. Which is a pity since F-18E/F's and Rafales have longer legs and more firepower. This in turn will limit sorti numbers and operational missions and increase costs. AWACS will have to be helicopter mounted instead of the more effective plane mounted hawkeye's that the Americans and French use. Air to air refuelling off the carrier platform is gonna be a major problem, limiting the range of the carrier based fighter. 

All in all the ship building costs have been kept low and it will show in operations. On the plus side i expect that British industry will see many exports of this ship to second tier powers wanting a practical, affordable and reliable aircraft carrier lite. Germany, Canada, Australia, Korea would find this design attractive.

Maybe thats the whole point in this class of aircraft carrier... generating new naval export business.

 

Edited by Captain Risky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't care less what it looks like, but the total lack of catapults on such a large ship is peculiar. 

 

However... the Hawkey is a mini-awacs, are you thinking of the Viking?

For ASW, Helos are not bad at all. They are also useful for other missions, such as SAR and Liason, without much fuss & bother. Just leave the torpedoes behind and go. 

 

Heh, definitly a British ship, did you see that surveillance Cam on the railing? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...the Hawkeye is a awac and the Viking an anti submarine hunter/ airbourne refueler cargo hauler that has since been retired and sorely missed. Maybe the British are waiting for a tilt rotor platform to perform ASW and AWAC duties in the future and don't see the reason in having a catapult. Either way the carrier is dependent on only one fighter type that has a small range and can carry limited weapons. 

Another issue is that it's conventional powered. Limiting range and increasing the price to power it but ideal for export. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

Another issue is that it's conventional powered. Limiting range and increasing the price to power it but ideal for export. 

Increasing the price? Surely a nuclear installation (which there's never been in an RN surface ship) would increase the cost tremendously. Plus some countries (friendly ones), such as a relatively near neighbour of yours, that have issues about allowing nuclear powered ships in their waters.;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

7 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

On the plus side i expect that British industry will see many exports of this ship to second tier powers wanting a practical, affordable and reliable aircraft carrier lite.

That's a nice double backhanded complement there. 

Edited by Manfred von Dreidecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2017 at 8:45 PM, keithisco said:

This is how she will look when she enters Portsmouth end of the year. It's only 20mins from my home so will get some pics:tsu:

 

hms-queen-elizabeth-portsmouth-harbour-large.jpg

Where you live?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

12 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

The ship is an amazing example of British engineering that very few countries can replicate. Together with only the Americans and French this technology is hard to produce on this scale. But i have a few issues with the design.

The two Island command structures; thou practical and modular, does not add to the aesthetics of the ship which is unfortunate since the U.S. and French ships are on the sexy side. The ship is limited in operation and interoperability, it doesn't have a catapult. Meaning that only F-35B's can use the ship. Which is a pity since F-18E/F's and Rafales have longer legs and more firepower. This in turn will limit sorti numbers and operational missions and increase costs. AWACS will have to be helicopter mounted instead of the more effective plane mounted hawkeye's that the Americans and French use. Air to air refuelling off the carrier platform is gonna be a major problem, limiting the range of the carrier based fighter. 

All in all the ship building costs have been kept low and it will show in operations. On the plus side i expect that British industry will see many exports of this ship to second tier powers wanting a practical, affordable and reliable aircraft carrier lite. Germany, Canada, Australia, Korea would find this design attractive.

Maybe thats the whole point in this class of aircraft carrier... generating new naval export business.

 

The few issues you have, you don't think the design is sexy, When things start going flash bang wallop,  I think the matelots on board will be more interested with the increased survivability the design affords.

The Ship has been designed to the Royal Navy's operational requirements, how you can say its going to be limited operationally is bizarre. the Carrier is built with the F35B in mind. The Government as a tier one partner in the F35 programme was never going to purchase older F18's or French Rafales. We are talking about Fifth Generation fighter Stealth tech.

Sortie rates for QE is 110 24hr. as designed. As for the crowsnest. The MV22 Osprey was looked at and trialled, being unpressurised It was found the benefits where limited, including the airborne refuelling where not cost beneficial. a cost of £1Billion for additional training crew, Maintenance, logs etc... Also for every MV22 you lose two F35B's The Crowsnest Merlin had more benefits.

Worlds second largest carrier, designed with the latest, most advance high tech fighter F35 at its core, a range of 10,000 nm, (could reach Australia without refuelling) it allows the UK to touch 96% of the countries in the world at a time and place of our choosing. Nothing signals to the world the intent like a super carrier.

The design for export, I doubt very much we'll see the design exported, The only country would be the US, as they are looking at 5 new Carriers for the F35B. and they could purchase/build 2. 1/2 QE Class for the price of one Ford Class. outside of the USA I do wonder which countries could afford a 70,000 tonne carrier and the associated costs. We've seen when we've entered into programmes with European allies when the Royal Navy wants highend war fighting and survivability vessels the cost balloons and our European allies drop out of the programmes or we go our own way and they continue to build lesser cheaper vessels.

As for Canada and Australia both are having problems in procurement. Both should join the UK on the Type26. neither could afford or indeed run a QE class carrier. Australia's limit is that of 28,000 tonne Canberra class LHD, as seen with their newly acquired Spanish build Canberra class. which i believe are in dry dock with delivery faults.

Australia might be in the market for Nuclear powered Subs, we have the deadliest and most advanced sub around the Astute class. in real life war games with the US navy, the Astute class ran 1,004 scenarios, was detected 3 times and sunk once setting a new record. But these are highend boats and many cannot afford to operate them and purchase lesser versions.

UK-aircraft-carriers-size-comparison.jpg

 

 

Edited by stevewinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, stevewinn said:

The few issues you have, you don't think the design is sexy, When things start going flash bang wallop,  I think the matelots on board will be more interested with the increased survivability the design affords.

The Ship has been designed to the Royal Navy's operational requirements, how you can say its going to be limited operationally is bizarre. the Carrier is built with the F35B in mind. The Government as a tier one partner in the F35 programme was never going to purchase older F18's or French Rafales. We are talking about Fifth Generation fighter Stealth tech.

Sortie rates for QE is 110 24hr. as designed. As for the crowsnest. The MV22 Osprey was looked at and trialled, being unpressurised It was found the benefits where limited, including the airborne refuelling where not cost beneficial. a cost of £1Billion for additional training crew, Maintenance, logs etc... Also for every MV22 you lose two F35B's The Crowsnest Merlin had more benefits.

Worlds second largest carrier, designed with the latest, most advance high tech fighter F35 at its core, a range of 10,000 nm, (could reach Australia without refuelling) it allows the UK to touch 96% of the countries in the world at a time and place of our choosing. Nothing signals to the world the intent like a super carrier.

The design for export, I doubt very much we'll see the design exported, The only country would be the US, as they are looking at 5 new Carriers for the F35B. and they could purchase/build 2. 1/2 QE Class for the price of one Ford Class. outside of the USA I do wonder which countries could afford a 70,000 tonne carrier and the associated costs. We've seen when we've entered into programmes with European allies when the Royal Navy wants highend war fighting and survivability vessels the cost balloons and our European allies drop out of the programmes or we go our own way and they continue to build lesser cheaper vessels.

As for Canada and Australia both are having problems in procurement. Both should join the UK on the Type26. neither could afford or indeed run a QE class carrier. Australia's limit is that of 28,000 tonne Canberra class LHD, as seen with their newly acquired Spanish build Canberra class. which i believe are in dry dock with delivery faults.

Australia might be in the market for Nuclear powered Subs, we have the deadliest and most advanced sub around the Astute class. in real life war games with the US navy, the Astute class ran 1,004 scenarios, was detected 3 times and sunk once setting a new record. But these are highend boats and many cannot afford to operate them and purchase lesser versions.

UK-aircraft-carriers-size-comparison.jpg

 

 

Tonnes? <_< 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's amazing the difference in crew sizes between US and UK ships. It highlights the difference in work culture between the UK and US. In the UK someone is often expected to carry out multiple roles. In the US you'd have one person to do each task.

I don't think the lack of a catapult is going to be an issue in future. This carrier is designed to last 50 years. By then we're likely to see more VTOL aircraft and drones with catapults becoming a bit obsolete.

Edited by Finity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's amazing the difference in crew sizes between US and UK ships.

I think that reflects smaller air crew, air wing alone on Nimitz class is about 1500

Possibly less complex due to conventional vs. nuclear power, maybe in other ways as well, could also be heavier reliance on automation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.