Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier

[Glassfan]

Question for the naval nerds, does the UK really need a better radar or a better missile battery? The UK, I imagine, needs ships capable of taking on a second-rate military like Iran or Argentina and not suffering losses. It doesn't need ships capable of operating off China's coast without sustaining losses. So is an inferior weapons system really a detriment given those requirements?

You get what you pay for. If you invest in cheap, you tend to lose and have high casualties. If you spend more, you tend to win and let the other guy die for his country.

 

[imperialman]

One of the biggest cranes in Europe moved to the dockyard

Crane assembled

 

[imperialman]

Found a couple of new images on the BAE website...

 

[Patroklos]

As a not the F-35B finished its first at sea landing onboard the USS Wasp on OCT 3rd, and espite all its detractors warning it do not melt through the deck of th ship. It was a flawless evolution. This seemed relevant given this was to be the primary air frame for this vessel and Cutlass's earlier mostly baseless claims

 

[emzie]

You get what you pay for. If you invest in cheap, you tend to lose and have high casualties. If you spend more, you tend to win and let the other guy die for his country.

I don't dispute that, but cost effectiveness has to play a part. You can't expect the UK to have a Navy stronger than the USN just because the USN is there. The chances of either force engaging the other is not something the military should be planning for.

So if the UK's current ships can defend the fleet against an Argentinian or Iranian strike, that's good enough.

 

[Patroklos]

You current fleets can't. Your old carriers are completely and utterly useless. I don't think you have to worry about the two newcarriers that are barely the size of our LHDs being a stroger than our actual carrier fleet.

I see what you are saying, I just don't see two medium carriers being a brack breaking effort for a relatively rich first world island nation.

 

[imperialman]

The new carriers will have around 36 F-35's and can fit 50-60 aircraft of all types, a similar number to the Nimitz which carries 38 F-18s routinely and tends to deploy with just over 60 air frames.

The Queen Elizabeth class has 95% of the strike ability, 80% the deck area, 70% of the tonnage, 20% of the complement and similar projected sortie rates when compared to a Nimitz class carrier. They're a punch beyond medium, they're large carriers and have the capabilities of supercarriers but they don't have the surge ability of a Nimitz nor the 100,000 tons. In terms of actual capability, the Nimitz gets the prize as it tends to have more aircraft.

I found a nice little graphic.

Also,

the two newcarriers that are barely the size of our LHDs

I'm confused by this, the Queen Elizabeth class are nearly double the tonnage, have 6 times the combat jet force and greater in every measurement of size.

 

[Patroklos]

They are not double the size of the Wasp-class. The Wasp is 41,000 tons and the QE is 65,000 tons, the disparity in tonnage being easily explained by the existence of the well deck in the first. Dimension wise they are very similar; 253 vice 284 feet long and 32 vice 39 meters abeam at the waterline. As far a physical space they are not that different.

The size of their air complement is not a good metric to use when comparing the size of different purposes vessels. The QE don't have six times the air wing of the Wasp LHD, they both have a normal tactical load out of 40 airframes. However, the Wasp has that ability in addition to half it's internal space being used for Marine ground forces and their equipment.

A better comparison would be the America-class LHA which is 45,000 tons and does not have a well deck

In addition you are inflating and deflating air wing numbers. The QEs carry 40 aircraft, the Nimitz carries 85. That is a greater than 100% difference. The Invincible class carried 22 aircraft, the QEs 40, and the Nimitz 85. I thing it is more than generous to call the first a light carrier, the second a medium carrier, and the last and most numerous class (more of them than the rest of the world's carriers combined) the standard for full carrier.

 

[imperialman]

They are not double the size of the Wasp-class. The Wasp is 41,000 tons and the QE is 65,000 tons, the disparity in tonnage being easily explained by the existence of the well deck in the first. Dimension wise they are very similar; 253 vice 284 feet long and 32 vice 39 meters abeam at the waterline. As far a physical space they are not that different.

The size of their air complement is not a good metric to use when comparing the size of different purposes vessels. The QE don't have six times the air wing of the Wasp LHD, they both have a normal tactical load out of 40 airframes. However, the Wasp has that ability in addition to half it's internal space being used for Marine ground forces and their equipment.

A better comparison would be the America-class LHA which is 45,000 tons and does not have a well deck

I didn't say double. I said nearly double. The QE is expected to be around 70k given the design changes brought about last October. The 60-65k figure was the STOVL format. Also, I didn't say 6 times the air wing, I said 6 times the combat jet force. IIRC, the Wasps tend to deploy with 6 Harriers.

The QE and Wasp classes are very different ships designed for different roles. The QE class doesn't deserve the accolade of being "the two newcarriers that are barely the size of our LHDs" given their larger size and roles as fleet carriers that carry a similar number of combat jets to the Nimitz class.

Also, the USN and RN have different practices for storing aircraft on carriers, the Royal Navy have always tended to deploy only with the number of aircraft that can fit in the hangar as opposed to the USN who surge aircraft on board, not all being able to fit in the hangars. I have no doubt the QE class could fit a similar number of total aircraft to the Nimitz given the hangar space and deck parking space.

As for the America class, it is capable of carrying around 1700 marines as opposed to the 1300 for the Queen Elizabeth class but it should be remembered that both ships have very different roles and that the primary role of the QE class is not to deliver troops. In the role of assault ship, the America class are evidently better at that as they were designed to be. In the role of fleet carrier, the Queen Elizabeth class are better due to their increased complement of fixed wing combat aircraft. The only jet the America class can operate the slightly less capable VTOL F35B which has lifecycle costs (IIRC) 25% higher than the F35C, according to the British Prime Minister, which can be carried by the Queen Elizabeth class.

A Queen Elizabeth class ship can supply all of Britain's expeditionary air power needs in most conflicts, the less aviation capable America class couldn't and would require either additional ships or land based fighter and tanker support at an additional cost which far exceeds that of the aircraft carriers themselves. Simply put, in the role it was designed for, the Queen Elizabeth class ship is superior to any assault ship. Comparing a fleet carrier and assault ship is apples and oranges really.

 

[Patroklos]

I did not say the LHA/LHD was any better or worse at any particular mission area, I just made a size comparison.

All told, the QEs are significantly bigger than most nations carriers, and significant smaller than US carriers. Add to that the fact that if you take all carriers currently afloat and fit the QEs into the lineup, they are right in the middle on every metric. That is the very definition of medium.

I think it willnfill the required mission rolls well, but the facts are still the facts.

 

[imperialman]

I did not say the LHA/LHD was any better or worse at any particular mission area, I just made a size comparison.

All told, the QEs are significantly bigger than most nations carriers, and significant smaller than US carriers. Add to that the fact that if you take all carriers currently afloat and fit the QEs into the lineup, they are right in the middle on every metric. That is the very definition of medium.

I think it willnfill the required mission rolls well, but the facts are still the facts.

I apologise, I had taken it as you were comparing them in terms of mission ability.

The average displacement of all the carrier classes in service today is around 40,000t. That's the displacement of the French carrier, Charles de Gaulle. To call what will be a 70,000t class "medium" is simply incorrect statistically. The ships won't be medium on any metric at all given the only ships that outclass them are the Nimitz class and upcoming Ford class and even then, as has been mentioned they will have very similar sized combat air wings and almost equal sortie generation rates IIRC to the Nimitz class.

While I understand they are smaller than the US carriers (I wouldn't say significantly as it's largely displacement and the only significant size difference would be the length), I really don't see why that makes much of a difference given aircraft complement, sgr's etc. Yes, a larger carrier may be more efficient but that doesn't put the QE class into medium for any category.

 

[imperialman]

So if the UK's current ships can defend the fleet against an Argentinian or Iranian strike, that's good enough.

High end capabilities is the least we can give to the people we ask to fight for us. Besides, our current carriers are far too small and old to be useful, they weren't built to last forever and are certainly not good enough.

 

[emzie]

High end capabilities is the least we can give to the people we ask to fight for us. Besides, our current carriers are far too small and old to be useful, they weren't built to last forever and are certainly not good enough.

By current I was including the Queen Elizabeth class. Should have specified that. If those two ships and your 45s can secure the Persian Gulf against Iranians threatening oil shipping, or the Falklands against a mad Argentinian dictator, I don't see much point in spending more.

 

[imperialman]

Ah I see, but a fleet is far more than capital ships and escorts. Spending more on things like supply etc is vital.

 

[Patroklos]

I apologise, I had taken it as you were comparing them in terms of mission ability.

The average displacement of all the carrier classes in service today is around 40,000t. That's the displacement of the French carrier, Charles de Gaulle. To call what will be a 70,000t class "medium" is simply incorrect statistically. The ships won't be medium on any metric at all given the only ships that outclass them are the Nimitz class and upcoming Ford class and even then, as has been mentioned they will have very similar sized combat air wings and almost equal sortie generation rates IIRC to the Nimitz class.

While I understand they are smaller than the US carriers (I wouldn't say significantly as it's largely displacement and the only significant size difference would be the length), I really don't see why that makes much of a difference given aircraft complement, sgr's etc. Yes, a larger carrier may be more efficient but that doesn't put the QE class into medium for any category.

If the Invincible class at 22,000 tons and an air wing of 22 aircraft is a light carrier, and a Nimitz class at 100,000 tons and 85 aircraft is a full carrier, what would the metrics of a medium carrier be to you?

 

[Benefactor]

The French one, ours are bigger than that .

..and thats all that matters

 

[imperialman]

If the Invincible class at 22,000 tons and an air wing of 22 aircraft is a light carrier, and a Nimitz class at 100,000 tons and 85 aircraft is a full carrier, what would the metrics of a medium carrier be to you?

This isn't just my opinion but something around 40,000t such as the Charles de Gaulle with a maximum complement of 40 aircraft is categorised as a medium carrier. Indeed, this represents the middle size of the worlds carrier classes.

Indeed, I found the following text;

"Supercarrier is an unofficial descriptive term for the largest type of aircraft carrier, usually displacing over 70,000 long tons. The U.S. Navy currently has 11 such ships. In comparison, a few countries operate medium carriers (fleet carrier) of around 40,000 tons (such as Charles de Gaulle), whereas light carriers closer to 20,000 tons (such as HMS Illustrious) are more typical."

As I meant to elaborate on earlier, the Queen Elizabeth class and the future French aircraft carrier were originally going to to be of the same design. The tonnage and dimensions of the old STOVL format of the new British carrier are misleading due to the recent design changes and in fact, they will be almost identical to the CTOL design that France had planned on using.

The displacement of the Queen Elizabeth class will be almost identical to the design above (French CTOL), which is 70–75,000t when built and 77-82,500t full load. If you are still interested, I can link you to a couple of discussion forums on the new carriers that I contribute to.

 

[Patroklos]

The displacement I'd the QEs is exact,y between that of it's predecessor class and that of the full US carrier. That is text book "medium" by any definition out there.

And the QEs max complement is 40 aircraft, there is not a source out there that I have seen that has mentioned this 60 aircraft capacity you keep throwing out there.

In a world divorced from the US you are indeed the largest carrier out there. However, reality is not divorced from the US and the QE is 40% smaller and has 50% of the air wing. There is no logical reason to consider such a ship to be ranked with the largest of the type with such a disparity in size a capacity. I know it makes you feel good to pretend you are operating a peer platform but you are not, you have admitted as much above, so why the dogged reluctance to call a spade a spade?

 

[RedRalph]

What are those third gen-looking fighters in the OP meant to be? Just a hypothetical future warplane or some specific future UK project?

 

[imperialman]

As I have explained earlier, the 40 figure is hangar storage only and not the maximum, as is the practice on Royal Navy carriers. It's increased complement is 40 plus 16-20 deck parked aircraft, which is what the Royal Navy call "surge" deployments. USN carriers routinely deploy with aircraft both stored in the hangars and deck parked unlike the RN who only store aircraft in hangars, hence the higher number in this case. Both carriers can comfortably operate three squadrons of combat jets. The figure of 60 as a surge complement is arrived at by the physical size of the hangars, the deck parking capacity and provision of aviation fuel and ammunition storage. It should be noted that a typical air wing on a Nimitz is around 64 aircraft though it is capable of more. The QE is 75% of the displacement but as said previously, the only major measurement difference is length. Also, given the surge air group of 60 compared to the maximum of 85 for a Nimitz (64 is more typical), the QE air group is roughly 70% of the size. Besides, as has also been mentioned, the size of the air wing means little at such a small difference given that both carriers have a projected sortie generation rates of between 110-120 per day.

Medium carriers displace around 40,000 tonnes, that figure is the midway point between small carriers (such as the Illustrious) and large ones (such as the Nimitz). The relative size of the predecessors class doesn't impact what category the replacement ship falls under. Simply put, anything around 40k is a medium carrier, that's not a matter of opinion.

I have no idea why you are becoming slightly insulting simply because I contend that a non-American platform isn't a medium carrier. I'm not intending to insult you but you seem to absolutely reject the idea that non-American platforms can be ranked in the same league and are just rejecting what I say for no apparent reason when they counter your points.