Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

HMSQueen Elizabeth to sail for the first time


stevewinn

Recommended Posts

What an awesome sight. Thanks for posting those links SteveWinn :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was completely packed, also there was a jet fly past along with the  helicopters

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do I uoad pictures onto here from a phone?

Edited by Mr.United_Nations
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/08/2017 at 11:06 AM, stevewinn said:

and yet,

HMS QE Class deck space 4.2 Acres. Cost $4.1 Billion.

Nimitz Class deck space 4.5 Acres. Cost $8.1 Billion.

Ford Class deck space 4.5 Acres. Cost $10.4 Billion.

Not doing bad for the money, Obviously US Carriers cats n traps plus nuclear propulsion. 

1459236005241096448.jpg

HMS Queen Elizabeth as current and with cats n' traps.

As people will see still the same deck space. Possibility could be retro fitted with Cats n' Traps at their mid-life refit - as the F35B will be leaving service at that time. 

1c3c548363be0cf1fe63c82f3d8f5fdc.jpg

I doubt Cats n'  traps will ever be required.  They were considered so it would make the carrier compatible with other NATO forces.  The Royal Navy favour STOVL and have learned a lot from the Harrier days.  The Ski ramp and long runway is rumoured to vastly increase the range (which it did for the Harrier) which is based on a flat take off and vertical landing.  In addition the F35B will be able to carry drop tanks on its wings that would be jettisoned on longer missions before it needed to keep a minimal radar signature.

Failure or damage to a Cat or trap can disable a carrier.  Something the STOVL doesn't suffer from.  The F35B can also take off fully laden vertically which is not widely known, probably because the press want you to think the brilliant but outdated Harrier should be on this carriers flight decks. This carrier will eventually be used for unmanned aircraft which do not need Cats n' Traps.

They will continue to knock the F35b until in service, even though in war games it notched up 135 kills on F15's and F16's for 7 loses in a high danger environment. It is also worth mentioning that the F35B has a greater combat range than the F18's that are currently the mainstay of American carriers at the moment.

 

Edited by skookum
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, skookum said:

I doubt Cats n'  traps will ever be required.  They were considered so it would make the carrier compatible with other NATO forces.  The Royal Navy favour STOVL and have learned a lot from the Harrier days.  The Ski ramp and long runway is rumoured to vastly increase the range (which it did for the Harrier) which is based on a flat take off and vertical landing.  In addition the F35B will be able to carry drop tanks on its wings that would be jettisoned on longer missions before it needed to keep a minimal radar signature.

Failure or damage to a Cat or trap can disable a carrier.  Something the STOVL doesn't suffer from.  The F35B can also take off fully laden vertically which is not widely known, probably because the press want you to think the brilliant but outdated Harrier should be on this carriers flight decks. This carrier will eventually be used for unmanned aircraft which do not need Cats n' Traps.

They will continue to knock the F35b until in service, even though in war games it notched up 135 kills on F15's and F16's for 7 loses in a high danger environment. It is also worth mentioning that the F35B has a greater combat range than the F18's that are currently the mainstay of American carriers at the moment.

 

Its like preaching to the converted when i say this because you'll already be aware, so its more like adding to your post, the original plan or design was for CATOBAR, so the ships naval architecture design was around that, when costs started to spiral because of Government delays IE:Labour stalling the signing of the contract, so to cut costs they decided scrap the CATOBAR design and go down the old route of Ski jump as you say it worked so well with the Harriers. But then the Government halfway through the build looked once again at the original design of CATOBAR, by this time to change back would have an extra cost of £2 Billion pounds and delayed the in service date by a further two years. plus the training involved for such operation would have taken somewhere in the region of an additional 5 to 10 years. depending on what help we'd have received from the US.

So, it was decided the retrofit would be to costly and the later in service date of the carrier was unacceptable, plus the cost of training crew was or still is £50,000 per pilot CATOBAR versus £30,000 on the current STOVL version. the amount of flying hours escapes me, plus its easier to land (learn)on STOVL, hence RAF Pilots will be used to supplement Naval pilots.

CATOBAR would have been my first choice, but STOVL is more than acceptable and is in line with the US Marine Corps, and i'd argue the requirements made of the Royal Navy is the same as the US Marines, Amphibious capability.

.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2017 at 4:06 AM, stevewinn said:

and yet,

HMS QE Class deck space 4.2 Acres. Cost $4.1 Billion.

Nimitz Class deck space 4.5 Acres. Cost $8.1 Billion.

Ford Class deck space 4.5 Acres. Cost $10.4 Billion.

Not doing bad for the money, Obviously US Carriers cats n traps plus nuclear propulsion.

I heard the Titanic wasn't bad for the money either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Its like preaching to the converted when i say this because you'll already be aware, so its more like adding to your post, the original plan or design was for CATOBAR, so the ships naval architecture design was around that, when costs started to spiral because of Government delays IE:Labour stalling the signing of the contract, so to cut costs they decided scrap the CATOBAR design and go down the old route of Ski jump as you say it worked so well with the Harriers. But then the Government halfway through the build looked once again at the original design of CATOBAR, by this time to change back would have an extra cost of £2 Billion pounds and delayed the in service date by a further two years. plus the training involved for such operation would have taken somewhere in the region of an additional 5 to 10 years. depending on what help we'd have received from the US.

So, it was decided the retrofit would be to costly and the later in service date of the carrier was unacceptable, plus the cost of training crew was or still is £50,000 per pilot CATOBAR versus £30,000 on the current STOVL version. the amount of flying hours escapes me, plus its easier to land (learn)on STOVL, hence RAF Pilots will be used to supplement Naval pilots.

CATOBAR would have been my first choice, but STOVL is more than acceptable and is in line with the US Marine Corps, and i'd argue the requirements made of the Royal Navy is the same as the US Marines, Amphibious capability.

.

 

 

The F35 was always designed as a STOVL, Boeing and Lockheed fought it out on a STOVL requirement.  The A and C variants have had to be reworked around the B.

The versatility of the B variant makes it a winner in my mind.  It is also far cheaper than the CATOBAR. In theory it could operate from short airfields or even roadways if a conflict ever required it.

Edited by skookum
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, skookum said:

The F35 was always designed as a STOVL, Boeing and Lockheed fought it out on a STOVL requirement.  The A and C variants have had to be reworked around the B.

The versatility of the B variant makes it a winner in my mind.  It is also far cheaper than the CATOBAR. In theory it could operate from short airfields or even roadways if a conflict ever required it.

I didn't know the F35 was designed first and foremost for short take off, followed by the A's and C's.

We need an additional button on this forum along side the 'Like' called 'informative' or 'interesting'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, stevewinn said:

I didn't know the F35 was designed first and foremost for short take off, followed by the A's and C's.

We need an additional button on this forum along side the 'Like' called 'informative' or 'interesting'

Yes I watched a documentary on it on a US channel.  The Boeing STOVL was very good but they had to strip it to a minimum when the Lockheed surpassed even their designers expectations.

The F35B surpassed all tests given.  The Boeing X35 did very well but consistently was unable to complete the Vertical landing.

Sadly it was a winner takes all contract and Boeing fell at the STOVL requirement.

Interestingly that the F35B on the Queen Elizabeth carriers will not be conducting vertical landings but short landings on the long runway.  The range will be vastly increased.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, skookum said:

Yes I watched a documentary on it on a US channel.  The Boeing STOVL was very good but they had to strip it to a minimum when the Lockheed surpassed even their designers expectations.

The F35B surpassed all tests given.  The Boeing X35 did very well but consistently was unable to complete the Vertical landing.

Sadly it was a winner takes all contract and Boeing fell at the STOVL requirement.

Interestingly that the F35B on the Queen Elizabeth carriers will not be conducting vertical landings but short landings on the long runway.  The range will be vastly increased.   

Was there any mention on the documentary about the British attempt at Stealth aircraft, called Replica; We abandoned it for the F35, but carried over technology.  video of the test model for radar signature.

I copied this below, out of fear of being accused of plagiarism, is from Twitter feed save the Royal Navy.
 

Quote

 

Its interesting on the range of the F35B. because this is an area where its criticised. yet... The F-35B has a publicly declared combat radius on internal fuel of 450 nmi (518 mi, 833 km). So lets compare it to some other fighter/attack aircraft and their publicly declared combat radius on internal fuel only.

The F-35B has a publicly declared combat radius on internal fuel of 450 nmi (518 mi, 833 km).

the Harrier GR7/9, had a combat radius on internal fuel of 300 nmi (345 mi, 555 km). Some 33.3% less range than the F-35B.

The Last CATOBAR carrier aircraft operated by the Royal Navy, the McDonnell Douglas Phantom FG.1 (F-4 Phantom II) which had a combat radius on internal fuel of 400 nmi (460mi, 740 km). Thats still 11.1% less range than the F-35B.

F/A-18C/D used by USN and others. This has a combat radius on internal fuel of 367 nmi (423 mi, 680 km). Thats 18.4% less range than the F-35B.

lets compare it to the newer F/A-18E/F Super Hornet used by USN as the spear head of its current carrier fleets. This has a combat radius on internal fuel of 390 nmi (449 mi, 722 km). Thats 13.3% less range than the F-35B.

NATO's favorite and most widely used, the F-16C Block 50? Well this has a combat radius on internal fuel of just 295 nmi (340 mi, 546 km). Thats 34.4% less range than the F-35B.

So the F-35B has a longer range than the most recent combat aircraft operated by the royal navy as well as the last "conventional" CATOBAR aircraft operated by the Royal Navy. It has a longer range on internal fuel than the F/A-18C/D, the newer F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the ubiquitous F-16. Yet these facts never seem to matter to its critics, after all the critics just 'know' that a STOVL aircraft cant match a "conventional" aircraft. Well the critics are half right at least, as in the case of these aircraft, its no match at all.

 

It's strange that faced with these facts people still knock the aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Was there any mention on the documentary about the British attempt at Stealth aircraft, called Replica; We abandoned it for the F35, but carried over technology.  video of the test model for radar signature.

I copied this below, out of fear of being accused of plagiarism, is from Twitter feed save the Royal Navy.
 

It's strange that faced with these facts people still knock the aircraft.

The RAF F35B will almost undoubtedly have a combat radius 100NM+ further with the use of the ski ramp and long flight deck which makes vertical landings (very fuel consuming) unnecessary. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, skookum said:

The RAF F35B will almost undoubtedly have a combat radius 100NM+ further with the use of the ski ramp and long flight deck which makes vertical landings (very fuel consuming) unnecessary. 

Because were discussing the F35B, i've been looking around and reading versus pieces including other forums, i thought this was interesting in response to the "carrier has got no planes" - the prototype Harrier first flew in 1967, HMS Invincible was launched in 1977, the Navy took delivery of the first Sea Harrier in 1980 and the first Sea Harrier squadron joined Invincible in January 1981, just one year before the Falklands conflict and 14 years after the Harrier first flew.

Edited by stevewinn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/08/2017 at 8:35 PM, stevewinn said:

Because were discussing the F35B, i've been looking around and reading versus pieces including other forums, i thought this was interesting in response to the "carrier has got no planes" - the prototype Harrier first flew in 1967, HMS Invincible was launched in 1977, the Navy took delivery of the first Sea Harrier in 1980 and the first Sea Harrier squadron joined Invincible in January 1981, just one year before the Falklands conflict and 14 years after the Harrier first flew.

Quite often Invincible and Ark Royal sailed without fighters.  I remember hearing when Iraq kicked off Ark Royal had to pick up Harriers from Gibraltar and even then the complement was about 6 to 8 aircraft.  

The arm chair Generals fail to remember this.  They would have an non-sea trialled vessel go out with a few Harriers.

Also worth mentioning that when the Falklands kicked off Invincible sailed a good way there before negotiations with the Americans got us a shipment of Sidewinder missiles.  Without them the Harriers would have been useless and the Americans were reluctant to supply as they didn't want to get involved.

The good old days of Ark Royal and Invincible were quite chaotic, fair play to their excellent crews who made the most of a very bad situation.  

I would like to think we will do it right this time and be commissioned only when ready.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a last thought I am not knocking the Royal Navy or the superb performance of the Harriers and the pilots and crew.  

But the fact remains that the Harrier had the advantage by the AM9 Sidewinder missile.  The F35B will give the Royal Navy back the advantage they deserve. I simply cant understand why anyone would want anything less.  The Harrier was a superb aircraft capable of firing the American AM9.  The F35B is an amazing aircraft developed with the UK which will fire the most advanced ordinance.

Or we could go to China or Russia and get ourselves involved in some untested fighters with a major part supply problems if hostilities arouse.  Just for the record French Mirages were run rings round by Harriers with AM9 and now retired so what is a realistic option for the Royal Navy other than the F35B? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skookum said:

Just a last thought I am not knocking the Royal Navy or the superb performance of the Harriers and the pilots and crew.  

But the fact remains that the Harrier had the advantage by the AM9 Sidewinder missile.  The F35B will give the Royal Navy back the advantage they deserve. I simply cant understand why anyone would want anything less.  The Harrier was a superb aircraft capable of firing the American AM9.  The F35B is an amazing aircraft developed with the UK which will fire the most advanced ordinance.

Or we could go to China or Russia and get ourselves involved in some untested fighters with a major part supply problems if hostilities arouse.  Just for the record French Mirages were run rings round by Harriers with AM9 and now retired so what is a realistic option for the Royal Navy other than the F35B? 

True, - There is no other option for the Royal Navy, the F35B was it, The next 25+ years are based around a Carrier strike force of the Queen Elizabeth class Carriers and F35B. Type 45 Destroyers, Type 26 Frigate and Type 31 Frigate, and not forgetting the Astute class submarine. That is a formidable force second to none. ship for ship boat for boat.

I like this picture of 'Lizzy' the size comparison of the buildings and ship.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHWfdL6XkAAm0Xh.jpg:large

04-08-2017-lightning-ii-in-flight-thumb-

04-08-2017-lightning-ii-in-flight-thumb-

Edited by stevewinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add to Skookum's comment: during the Falklands War, the Harriers had only a very rudimentary air-to-air radar,  (the much reviled Blue Box), and relied heavily on ships radars to get them close to the Argentinian attack planes, and then visual sighting for actual attack. 

The Harriers where designed for close infantry support, dropping bombs on enemy positions, or strafing them. The Sea Harrier had a similar mission, but launched from offshore aircraft carriers. At no point was it intended for anti-aircraft or anti-shipping operations. (though it COULD perform those duties... in a limited fashion.)

The F35, on the other hand, can do LOTS. 

But the Eurofighter Typhoon would have been better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

The Sea Harrier had a similar mission, but launched from offshore aircraft carriers. At no point was it intended for anti-aircraft or anti-shipping operations.

The Sea Harrier was designed as a fighter, that's what it was for. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so, MvD. After all, what would be the value of a subsonic fighter with no radar or missiles ? (which was what the Harrier was at the point of design, and original production). And why build it with bomb racks ? 

I was under the impression that it was intended for ground attack ? The value of it was that it could 'pop up' from an improvised landing site (or even a field), undertake ground support missions, and then disappear before the enemy had time to vector in its fighters ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you conflating the Harrier GR3 (the RAF version) and the Sea Harrier (the Naval version)? The Sea harrier was definitely designed as a fighter.  The British Aerospace Sea Harrier is a naval short take-off and vertical landing/vertical take-off and landing jet fighter, reconnaissance and attack aircraft; the second member of the Harrier Jump Jet family developed. It first entered service with the Royal Navy in April 1980 as the Sea Harrier FRS1 and became informally known as the "Shar".[2] Unusual in an era in which most naval and land-based air superiority fighters were large and supersonic, the principal role of the subsonic Sea Harrier was to provide air defence of Royal Navy task groups, centred around the aircraft carriers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Are you conflating the Harrier GR3 (the RAF version) and the Sea Harrier (the Naval version)? The Sea harrier was definitely designed as a fighter.  The British Aerospace Sea Harrier is a naval short take-off and vertical landing/vertical take-off and landing jet fighter, reconnaissance and attack aircraft; the second member of the Harrier Jump Jet family developed. It first entered service with the Royal Navy in April 1980 as the Sea Harrier FRS1 and became informally known as the "Shar".[2] Unusual in an era in which most naval and land-based air superiority fighters were large and supersonic, the principal role of the subsonic Sea Harrier was to provide air defence of Royal Navy task groups, centred around the aircraft carriers.

the harrier was too slow and too small to be a match for the dedicated fighters of its time. It was meant for support and to be operated from outta the way difficult environments. more of a scout. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

the harrier was too slow and too small to be a match for the dedicated fighters of its time. It was meant for support and to be operated from outta the way difficult environments. more of a scout. 

Tell that to the Fuerza Aerea Argentina. Super-duper supersonic speed and ultra-long range missiles are probably overrated, the kind of combat environment where it might be possible to use that to their full advantage is rally very very rare, and in fact has probably never been encountered in any real conflict there's been since WWII.

But then, I know it's your policy to do down the Old Country at every chance you get. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Are you conflating the Harrier GR3 (the RAF version) and the Sea Harrier (the Naval version)? The Sea harrier was definitely designed as a fighter.  The British Aerospace Sea Harrier is a naval short take-off and vertical landing/vertical take-off and landing jet fighter, reconnaissance and attack aircraft; the second member of the Harrier Jump Jet family developed. It first entered service with the Royal Navy in April 1980 as the Sea Harrier FRS1 and became informally known as the "Shar".[2] Unusual in an era in which most naval and land-based air superiority fighters were large and supersonic, the principal role of the subsonic Sea Harrier was to provide air defence of Royal Navy task groups, centred around the aircraft carriers.

I would never DARE dabble with conflation with the Royal Air Force. (or the Fleet Air Arm). They would come round to my roofgarden and pummel me with baseball bats. 

MvD, I maintain that BOTH Harriers where close-ground-support aircraft, and NOT "fighters". Both had Sidewinder missiles, but only TWO, which would be consistent with self-defence, not ariel combat. And the Sea Harrier carried bombs and rockets... a slightly unusual payload for a "fighter" ? 

Consider the comparisons: it went into service  in 1980. The only other SUBSONIC jet aircraft at the time where The A4 Skyhawk, the A10 Thunderbolt, the Grumman A6 intruder, and the Shukoi Su25 Frogfoot. All of these have similar weapons types to the Sea Harrier, and all where ground-attack aircraft. 

The Sea Harrier was massively inferior to the jet fighters of their time, in pretty much every regard, when considered as an air-defense or air-superiority platform. Which begs an interesting question. 

The F35C is VASTLY superior to the Harrier in every respect, as you would expect from an aircraft that is 50 years 'younger', with a 50-year edge on design and development. 

HOWEVER... in comparative terms..... 

Is the F35 an improvement - compared to its modern competitors - above what the Harrier was to IT'S contemporary competitors ? 

 

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.