RN Aircraft Carriers: Queen Elizabeth Class

[Pelican]

Are the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers too big?

There is a school of thought that says the Queen Elizabeth class carriers are an ‘over-sized vanity project’ and there are regular complaints that RN should have built smaller ships. In this long-read we analyse the context of their development and the case for and against the procurement of large aircraft carriers.

The QEC are the largest ships ever built for the RN, officially their empty displacement is 65,000 tonnes, although some with a trained eye suggest it may be in excess of this figure. Carrying a full load of fuel, aircraft, weapons and people will add a further 10,000 tonnes to these impressive vessels. From a communications perspective, their size has been a mixed blessing. Official publications have tended to highlight their scale, the engineering achievement and even their contribution to increased overall tonnage of the fleet, ahead of their actual utility. But building big has also attracted an army of critics, many advising us we should have gone for a smaller “Invincible plus” concept or given up on carriers entirely. Even more misguided is the idea that we could have saved £billions by investing in smaller and/or more numerous platforms, when in fact the QEC are arguably the best value for money aircraft carriers in the world.

Continues at:
https://www.navylookout.com/are-the-roy ... cnERDPPvwA

[Pelican]

For info the current recent post here may be of interest - http://lewin-of-greenwich-naval-history ... 202#p20202

[Pelican]

Cats, traps and UAS – the Royal Navy considers options for carrier-launched drones

It has emerged that the RN is considering fitting catapults and arrestor gear (cats and traps) to the QEC aircraft carriers to enable the operation of Fixed Wing Unmanned Air Systems. (FWUAS) to complement the F-35B Lightning. Here we examine the implications and the considerable challenges involved.


Overview
In February this year, the MoD issued a Request for Information (RfI) to industry to assess the state of electromagnetic launch and arrestor technology available for fitting to the aircraft carriers. The requirement is for a system capable of launching an aircraft with all-up weight up to 55,000lbs (24,949Kg). This would be inadequate for launching an armed F-35C or F/A-18 Super Hornet (but would be powerful enough to launch the MQ-25 Stingray air-air refuelling UAS). Most importantly, this would enable the operation of a wide range of small-medium sized future UAS. There appears to be an aggressive time schedule, with the RfI demanding a solution that is “sufficiently technically mature to be fitted to a suitable ship from 2023”.

Given the hugely controversial decision to fit cats and traps to the carriers in 2010, followed by a complete reversal of the decision in 2012, it is perhaps surprising to some that the option is under consideration again. The RfI specification has about half the launching power of EMALS originally intended to be fitted to the QEC, and this move should not be seen as the RN reverting to a traditional CATOBAR carrier – its manned aircraft will still land vertically. The costs and delays associated with adding cats and traps to HMS Queen Elizabeth during her initial construction precipitated a return to a more realistic, if less capable, VSTOL solution. Somewhat ironically, given recent developments, the MoD concluded in 2012 that “HMS Queen Elizabeth, if fitted with cats and traps, could not be delivered until 2023 at the earliest”. However, with a planned 50-year service life and an inherently flexible design, it was always thought that modifying the ships for CATOBAR operations remained a possibility for the distant future and was also bound to involve UAS.

The RfI itself does not represent a definite commitment to modifying the carriers but shows the RN is sensibly exploring what may be feasible and affordable. The RN’s Future Maritime Aviation Force vision for 2030 includes project VIXEN, a plan for a medium-sized fixed-wing ‘Loyal Wingman’ UAV to work with F-35. VIXEN would almost certainly require cats and traps and be the initial driving factor behind the urgent move towards a hybrid CATOBAR / VSTOL carrier.

Continues at:
https://www.navylookout.com/cats-traps- ... yDx8zdsVnY

[Pelican]

UK considering carrier based drones for aerial refuelling
April 2, 2021140
According to a presentation on the ‘Future Maritime Aviation Force’, the Royal Navy is planning to develop a carrier launched aerial refuelling aircraft.

The presentation states that the Royal Navy wish to improve range to “enable deep strike without undue risk to own force or inhibiting freedom of manoeuvre” through the use of “organic UAS Air to Air Refuelling”, that’s a remotely piloted, sea based aircraft for those that don’t know.

Pictured at the top of this article, by the way, is the Boeing MQ-25 Stingray, an American aerial refuelling drone that resulted from the Carrier-Based Aerial-Refueling System programme, the image is purely illustrative and not in any way a suggestion that the UK will operate this sytem.

Continues at:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-cons ... O2uLEIE6XQ

[Pelican]

Close-in defence for the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers


HMS Queen Elizabeth is due to deploy on her first operational deployment without the 30mm Automated Small Calibre Gun (ASCG) mounts that were originally specified for the QEC carriers. Here we consider the reasons behind this omission and how the carrier is defended against close-in threats.

As part of their self-defence armament, QEC carriers were designed to carry four ASCG. They were not fitted when the ship was built and it was intended they would be added subsequently during one of the series of Capability Insertion Periods (between 2017-20). Official sources have confirmed it has been decided not to fit these weapons, at least for now.

Reaction amongst the tiny section of the population that concern themselves about such details has been overwhelmingly negative. There is an interesting PR/optics angle to this decision, there are many who already believe the aircraft carriers are inadequately protected and leaving off the ASCG may add further to this perception, whatever the operational justification.

In an ideal world of unlimited funding, the carriers would have the Sea Ceptor missile system and mount their full gun armament on the principle that you are unlikely to ever regret having too much firepower. (See broader discussion about aircraft carrier missile defences here) However, every weapon that is carried by a warship adds a cost in logistic support, maintenance and crew. The RN is always balancing finite resources and has concluded that investment in other means can provide an effective defence. RN weapon engineers know what they are doing and are not obliged to publish the detailed analysis behind such decisions. However naval sources have outlined some of the reasoning.

Continues, with images, at:
https://www.navylookout.com/close-in-de ... 7bry1KjfK4

[Brian James]

Queen Elizabeth Class Carrier HMS Prince of Wales pictured departing from Portsmouth Naval Base yesterday.

[Pelican]

For info - hangar stowage layout.

[Pelican]

Dr. Nira Chamberlain
Current Workplace Babcock International Group
Current Role Principal Consultant in Data Science and Mathematical Modelling

"My proudest professional achievement was the creation of a mathematical cost capability trade-off model for the HMS Queen Elizabeth. At the time when the £6.2 billion project was still at the computer design stage and the first sheet of steel had yet to be cut, my model convinced the client that this prestigious aircraft carrier should indeed be built. It not only earned plaudits for my employer but credited me to be cited in the American Encyclopaedia of Mathematics & Society – making me one of only a handful of British mathematicians to receive such an accolade."

From Wiki - He created a mathematical cost capability trade-off for HMS Queen Elizabeth, modelling the lifetime running costs of aircraft carriers versus operating budgets.

[ivorthediver]

We obviously mix in different circles David , but he must have a large abacus

[Pelican]

We obviously mix in different circles David , but he must have a large abacus

A huge amount of thought and planning went into QEC Ivor, hence one of the reasons the Admiralty approached him was to cut down on running costs as at that time the whole project was unaffordable. A good example was requiring only a crew of around 1600. For info Q.E. will be leaving for CSG21 next week.