Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier

[imperialman]

Size is size. the mid point between the Illustrious and the Nimitz is not 40K, it is 60K. The displacement of the QE? 65K. You said it, so why not apply your own metric.

The end result oy the Brits running around pretending they have a peer full size carrier when in fact they have something 35% less than one is exactly what happened with the previous generation of British carrier. A lot of hype and talk, and a platform that can't meet expectations.

Its fine to pretend 40K tons or missing mass means nothing, until you realize that is five Type 45s worth of gear and capability the QE is missing. Do you think that mass on a Nimitz is dead weight?

Sortie generation rate is sortie generation rate. The displacement figure of 65k I gave originally was for the STOVL format (still quoted on Wiki IIRC), after more research I found that the CATOBAR displacement would be based on the CTOL design of the QE class which would be between 75-85k so let's just say 80.

By midpoint I meant the average size of carrier types, sorry for that, I worded it poorly. Simply, the average size for a carrier class is around 40,000 tonnes. The increased displacement is accounted for easily by the greater length of the bow and stern of the Nimitz class and it should be noted that hangar areas will be almost identical in size, not to mention the relatively massive crew accomodation of the Nimitz class throws the size off.

The fact that the Nimitz class is 20,000 tonnes larger than the projected full load displacement of the Queen Elizabeth class is frankly irrelevant, they both have almost identical sortie generation rates and would deploy with the same size combat jet force.

the Brits running around pretending they have a peer full size carrier when in fact they have something 35% less

Wow, that's just ridiculous. The QE will have the same effectiveness as a "full carrier" (odd expression that), that is to say, it will be able to run the same amount of aircraft sorties per day at half the cost with a fraction of the manpower partially due to the highly automated weapon handlng systems. No pretending is necessary. I'm astonished you seem to be basing your argument on the difference in displacement rather than things that actually matter on carriers such as the often mentioned, sortie generation rate for example.

I don't know why this is such a problem, you're simply hanging on to the difference in size despite the irrelevance of this to operational effectiveness in an attempt to dismiss these carriers because they aren't American.

 

[imperialman]

MY DICK IS BIGGER THAN YOUR DICK!!!

Jesus Pat, give it a rest.

Seconded!

 

[Glassfan]

Size is size. the mid point between the Illustrious and the Nimitz is not 40K, it is 60K. The displacement of the QE? 65K. You said it, so why not apply your own metric.

The end result oy the Brits running around pretending they have a peer full size carrier when in fact they have something 35% less than one is exactly what happened with the previous generation of British carrier. A lot of hype and talk, and a platform that can't meet expectations.

Its fine to pretend 40K tons or missing mass means nothing, until you realize that is five Type 45s worth of gear and capability the QE is missing. Do you think that mass on a Nimitz is dead weight?

Really, the importance of this carrier is that it will carry 1st line aircraft like the F-35 rather that the much-less capable Harriers. A significant qualitative, rather than quantitative improvement.

MY DICK IS BIGGER THAN YOUR DICK!!!

Where's that blaster filter when we need it?

 

[Dachs]

MY DICK IS BIGGER THAN YOUR DICK!!!

Jesus Pat, give it a rest.

Dude, you could apply that to pretty much everybody in this thread. The whole point is dick-swinging.

 

[IglooDame]

Seconded!

Thirded, it's beyond the default thread swinging standard.

 

[Patroklos]

I am engaging in reasoned, sourced, and polite discussion. I resent any such activity being classified as "dick swinging."

Sortie generation rate is sortie generation rate.

Nobody challenged this. The problem is sortie generation rate is entirely irrelevant. Carriers as a strike platform are not about who can get more planes up faster, but who can get larger integrated strike packages on target period.

BTW, your aircraft capacity numbers are about to take another hit, because while you have generally been talking about packing your QE full of nothing by JSFs I have been talking about a full mixed air wing. If we are talking about just strike aircraft...

In order for a carrier to deploy, it must embark one of ten Carrier Air Wings (CVW).[Note 3] The carriers can accommodate a maximum of 130 F/A-18 Hornets[26] or 85–90 aircraft of different types, but current numbers are typically 64 aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier#Carrier_air_wing

Using just JSF sized jets as you were doing the Nimitz can carry 130 airframes, presumably using the weather deck.

We never mentioned this, but the fact that the QE has no true AEW platform, air refueling platform, air capable cargo platform, or as of right now a dedicate EW airframe pretty much shoots the QE in the foot for any comparison right off. Granted, that is a capability argument, not a size and classification argument.

The displacement figure of 65k I gave originally was for the STOVL format (still quoted on Wiki IIRC), after more research I found that the CATOBAR displacement would be based on the CTOL design of the QE class which would be between 75-85k so let's just say 80.

First it was 65K. Then when that was found to be underwhelming you said 70-75K. Now that that is not convincing to you anymore you upped it to 80K. Which is it, and where is the source that says anything other than the publically announced 65K?

By midpoint I meant the average size of carrier types, sorry for that, I worded it poorly.

Fair enough.

Simply, the average size for a carrier class is around 40,000 tonnes.

Using this link for active carriers and wiki for displacements for consistency:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

List of active carriers and their displacements (long tons when differentiated, rounded to nearest thousand full load):

United States:
Enterprise - 95,000
Nimitz - 100,000
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 102,000
Carl Vinson - 101,000
Theodore Roosevelt - 105,000
Abraham Lincoln - 100,000
George Washington - 104,000
Harry S. Truman – 104,000
John C. Stennis - 103,000
Ronald Reagan - 101,000
George H. W. Bush - 102,000

United Kingdom:
Illustrious - 22,000

France:
Charles DeGaulle - 42,000

Russia:
Admiral Kuznetsov - 55,000

Italy:
Cavour - 30,000
Giuseppe Garibaldi - 14,000

India:
Viraat – 28,000

Spain:
Principe de Asturias – 17,000
Juan Carlos I – 27,000 (I consider this more of an amphibious ship, but it was on the list)

Brazil:
San Paolo – 33,000

Thialand:
Chakri Naruebet – 11,000

The average size for a carrier = 65,000

I had been using napkin calculations before. Now I have now shown conclusively that the new QEs are literally EXACTLY the average, ie the definition of medium.

More importantly that list makes something else clear. 11 of 21 carriers in the world are of the 100K range type, or more than half. That makes them the standard for what a carrier is, not the light European variety.

The increased displacement is accounted for easily by the greater length of the bow and stern of the Nimitz class

Which of course would make it bigger, which is exactly the point. There is a reason for that extended bow and stern, which is to increase capability. Are you still claiming that is 20K tons of wasted space?

and it should be noted that hangar areas will be almost identical in size,

Source?

not to mention the relatively massive crew accommodation of the Nimitz class throws the size off.

I suppose that extra crew is all dead weight too, right? Surely it doesn’t add capability over smaller vessels...

BTW just so we are clear the projected complement for the QE is 600. I doubt that includes the air wing, but as a comparison the normal complement of a Nimitz is over 3000. A Nimitz air wing is itself over 600 people.

The fact that the Nimitz class is 20,000 tonnes larger than the projected full load displacement of the Queen Elizabeth class is frankly irrelevant, they both have almost identical sortie generation rates and would deploy with the same size combat jet force.

35,000 difference, until you come up with a source that says otherwise.

So you are saying that 35K of material, FIVE TYPE 45s WORTH OF EQUIPMENT, is of no consequence when classifying the vessels?

And what they will deploy with is irrelevant, it’s what the CAN deploy with that matters when making a classification argument. Just so we are clear, the Royal Navy will not have 40 JSFs to put on their QEs until years after they are commissioned, is what they actually deploy with the metric you really want to use here?

Not that using the actual air wings at optimal manning helps, its still 64 to 40, or a greater that 50% difference.

Not only that, but as I mentioned above even if they end up with the same number of aircraft aboard, you are conveniently ignoring that dozens of the American aircraft are far larger than the less diverse airframes of the British air wing.

Wow, that's just ridiculous. The QE will have the same effectiveness as a "full carrier" (odd expression that),

So far every metric provided in this thread supports my position.

that is to say, it will be able to run the same amount of aircraft sorties per day

Source? This is important, you have mentioned this quite a bit but never supported it. I am going to point out that the QEs have two catapults as designed, the Nimitz has either three of four (the newer ones have three as the fourth was rarely used).

What I found on this claim (for the original QE design):

The carrier will support joint combat aircraft carrying out up to 420 sorties over five days and be able to conduct day and night time operations. The maximum sortie rate is 110 joint combat aircraft sorties in a 24-hour period.
…
The maximum launch rate is 24 aircraft in 15 minutes and the maximum recovery rate is 24 aircraft in 24 minutes.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/

that is a max of 110. Impressive, but not at all comparable to the actually observed sortie rates of a Nimitz recorded here:

http://www.cna.org/documents/2797011110.pdf

They hit a max of 216 sorties in a 24 hour period, nearly double that of the projected original QE. Note this is actual performance, not some wishful thinking projection.

Do you have something that says the QEs will be able to beat this?

at half the cost with a fraction of the manpower partially due to the highly automated weapon handlng systems.

Source?

No pretending is necessary. I'm astonished you seem to be basing your argument on the difference in displacement rather than things that actually matter on carriers such as the often mentioned, sortie generation rate for example.

Things I am basing my argument on:

Displacement
Aircraft capacity
Aircraft supported
Math

I don't know why this is such a problem, you're simply hanging on to the difference in size despite the irrelevance of this to operational effectiveness in an attempt to dismiss these carriers because they aren't American.

I am dismissing nothing, I am making a sober comparison devoid of idle speculation for a class that hasn’t even been build yet. Most of your position is based on unproven and for the most part conjecture without sources.

 

[IglooDame]

How much does nuclear powerplant (vs conventional) add to displacement, I wonder? Enterprise vs JFK? Bainbridge vs Leahy? Truxtun vs Belknap?

 

[Patroklos]

That is a good question. I bet it is actually the opposite of what most would think though. I imagine a nuclear plant is heavier machinery wise, but a conventional plant makes up for that in spades fuel storage wise.

I am not sure if I can post the actual fuel capacity of a DDG, but it is not insignificant. If you are talking about having a similar endurance level for a ship like the QE that is eight times the displacement you are in the multiple millions of gallons of DFM range.

Deisel is 7.15 pounds per US gallon, so we are talking thousands of tons.

 

[IglooDame]

I'm going purely by wikipedia here (including "full load" annotations or lack thereof), break out the Janes if you'd like (Red is nuclear, green is conventional):

Enterprise: 94781 tons (full load)
JFK: 82655 tons (full load)

Bainbridge: 9100 tons
Leahy: 7800 tons (full load)

Truxtun: 8659 tons (full)
Belknap: 7930 tons

The derivative Truxtun class shared the weapons systems outfit of the Belknap class, but was nuclear-powered, larger and substantially unrelated in design (for example, many weapons systems in different locations, such as the aft-facing GMLS). Most information related to nuclear cruisers is still classified, but "Truxtun" appears to be a "Belknap"-like derivative of the nuclear cruiser "Bainbridge" more than the other way around.

Oh, and
California: 10800 tons
Virginia: 11000 tons
Ticonderoga: 9800 tons (full load)

 

[Patroklos]

Some of those vessels where physically much larger as your wiki quote says.

USS Enterprise
Length: 1,123 ft (342 m)[3][4]
Beam: 132.8 ft (40.5 m) (waterline)
257.2 ft (78.4 m) (extreme)

USS John F. Kennedy
Displacement: 60,728 tons light
82,655 tons full load
21,927 tons deadweight
Length: 1,052 ft (321 m) overall, 990 ft (300 m) waterline
Beam: 252 ft (77 m) extreme, 130 ft (40 m) waterline

The Enterprise is 75 more feet of hull and a bit bigger in beam.

USS Truxton
Displacement: 8,659 tons (full)
Length: 564 ft (172 m)
Beam: 58 ft (18 m)
Draft: 30 ft 6 in (9.30 m)

USS Belknap
Displacement: 8957 tons
Length: 547 feet (167 m)
Beam: 55 feet (17 m)
Draught: 31 ft (9.5 m)

In this case the conventionall ship is heavier despite being shorter and skinner. I found only a difference of 300 tons between the two which is inconclusive, I don't think we can dertermine plant weights by these types of comparisons.

USS California
Displacement: 11,548 long tons (11,733 t) full
Length: 181.6 m (596 ft) overall
Beam: 18.5 m (61 ft) extreme
18.2 m (60 ft) waterline
Draft: 10 m (33 ft)

USS Ticonderoga
Displacement: Approx. 9,600 long tons (9,800 t) full load
Length: 567 feet (173 m)
Beam: 55 feet (16.8 meters)
Draft: 34 feet (10.2 meters)

This isn't really a comparison, the California is a buch bigger vessel.

 

[imperialman]

Nobody challenged this. The problem is sortie generation rate is entirely irrelevant. Carriers as a strike platform are not about who can get more planes up faster, but who can get larger integrated strike packages on target period.

Sortie generation rate is the number of operational flights by a single aircraft per day. To call that irrelevant to carrier operations is astonishing. Why have a huge number of aircraft when you can only generate 120 sorties max per day in normal conditions?

BTW, your aircraft capacity numbers are about to take another hit, because while you have generally been talking about packing your QE full of nothing by JSFs I have been talking about a full mixed air wing. If we are talking about just strike aircraft...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier#Carrier_air_wing

Using just JSF sized jets as you were doing the Nimitz can carry 130 airframes, presumably using the weather deck.

Given the reasonably similar deck size, I don't see why a similar number can't be possible on the QE.

We never mentioned this, but the fact that the QE has no true AEW platform, air refueling platform, air capable cargo platform, or as of right now a dedicate EW airframe pretty much shoots the QE in the foot for any comparison right off. Granted, that is a capability argument, not a size and classification argument.

The air wing of the Queen Elizabeth is still being looked at, the purchase of AEW, COD and an EW platform have still to be decided but the E-2 is obviously the main contender for AEW given the request for information the programme issued a few years back, the same story with the V-22 for COD but there is currently no hint as to what the EW would be. Refuelling will be done buddy-buddy by the F-35's.

First it was 65K. Then when that was found to be underwhelming you said 70-75K. Now that that is not convincing to you anymore you upped it to 80K. Which is it, and where is the source that says anything other than the publically announced 65K?

I explained this many times, have a look at the specs for the CTOL version of the QE design that the French had planned on using.

Using this link for active carriers and wiki for displacements for consistency:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

List of active carriers and their displacements (long tons when differentiated, rounded to nearest thousand full load)

I had said average size for a carrier class.

I had been using napkin calculations before. Now I have now shown conclusively that the new QEs are literally EXACTLY the average, ie the definition of medium.

Ships around 40k are classified as medium carriers, that isn't merely opinion.

More importantly that list makes something else clear. 11 of 21 carriers in the world are of the 100K range type, or more than half. That makes them the standard for what a carrier is, not the light European variety.

A carrier is a vessel that's primary purpose is to launch and recover aircraft. You can't fluff that up because the ships are American.

Which of course would make it bigger, which is exactly the point. There is a reason for that extended bow and stern, which is to increase capability. Are you still claiming that is 20K tons of wasted space?

I never have, I simply trying to explain that all this offers is what it has to, not much of an increase in actual operations.

I suppose that extra crew is all dead weight too, right? Surely it doesn’t add capability over smaller vessels...

The small crew size on the QE is largely due to automation, so no.

BTW just so we are clear the projected complement for the QE is 600. I doubt that includes the air wing, but as a comparison the normal complement of a Nimitz is over 3000. A Nimitz air wing is itself over 600 people.

I know, that doesn't change anything.

35,000 difference, until you come up with a source that says otherwise.

As has been repeatedly requested, look at the stats of the CTOL version of the carrier, the Wiki article (which I helped to construct) still quotes the semi-official figure of 65k as do the media, however, that is still based on the old design and nothing new has came into the public domain yet.

So you are saying that 35K of material, FIVE TYPE 45s WORTH OF EQUIPMENT, is of no consequence when classifying the vessels?

Again, didn't say that once.

And what they will deploy with is irrelevant, it’s what the CAN deploy with that matters when making a classification argument. Just so we are clear, the Royal Navy will not have 40 JSFs to put on their QEs until years after they are commissioned, is what they actually deploy with the metric you really want to use here?

We're talking about the capability of the ship, not what it will have in X year.

Not that using the actual air wings at optimal manning helps, its still 64 to 40, or a greater that 50% difference.

Not only that, but as I mentioned above even if they end up with the same number of aircraft aboard, you are conveniently ignoring that dozens of the American aircraft are far larger than the less diverse airframes of the British air wing.

The British air wings will include essentially the same aircraft as the US equivalent with the exceptions of Merlin and Apache in the roles.

So far every metric provided in this thread supports my position.

If that was true there would be no disagreement.

Your position that they are medium carriers because they aren't identical to the Nimitz class and are physically smaller is a strange position.

Source? This is important, you have mentioned this quite a bit but never supported it. I am going to point out that the QEs have two catapults as designed, the Nimitz has either three of four (the newer ones have three as the fourth was rarely used).

I was under the impression the bow catapult was rarely used, but even with this third catapult it has the same sortie generation rate in standard operating.

What I found on this claim (for the original QE design):

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/

that is a max of 110. Impressive, but not at all comparable to the actually observed sortie rates of a Nimitz recorded here:

http://www.cna.org/documents/2797011110.pdf

They hit a max of 216 sorties in a 24 hour period, nearly double that of the projected original QE. Note this is actual performance, not some wishful thinking projection.

Do you have something that says the QEs will be able to beat this?

Obviously not since they aren't in service yet. I am NOT SAYING THEY CAN BEAT IT, MERELY THAT THEY ARE NOT MEDIUM CARRIERS. Also, I'm curious why you quote the SGR for the QE is normal operations and compare it to the Nimitz on surge.

Source?

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/p/future-force-2020-carrier-vessel-future.html

Things I am basing my argument on:

Displacement
Aircraft capacity
Aircraft supported
Math

I am dismissing nothing, I am making a sober comparison devoid of idle speculation for a class that hasn’t even been build yet. Most of your position is based on unproven and for the most part conjecture without sources.

I am not trying to claim these ships are more powerful or whatever, than a Nimitz class. Merely that you cannot call them medium carriers given what they can do and their actual size. Why on Earth does this matter so much to you?

I'll say it again, I am not claiming the QE is better than the Nimitz. I am claiming that it is not medium carrier. There are many sources that refer to these ships as supercarriers.

 

[imperialman]

I am simply trying to explain why the QE class cannot be called medium carriers, not that that they are better than the Nimitz class. I never intended for this thread to be a "mine is better than yours", merely a discussion on the new carriers.

 

[RedRalph]

When the facts aren't enough, time to stop wasting your breath.

 

[imperialman]

Agreed.

 

[IglooDame]

Some of those vessels where physically much larger as your wiki quote says.
...
The Enterprise is 75 more feet of hull and a bit bigger in beam.

And are you claiming the JFK is in fact a "medium carrier"?

USS Truxton
Displacement: 8,659 tons (full)
Length: 564 ft (172 m)
Beam: 58 ft (18 m)
Draft: 30 ft 6 in (9.30 m)

USS Belknap
Displacement: 8957 tons
Length: 547 feet (167 m)
Beam: 55 feet (17 m)
Draught: 31 ft (9.5 m)

In this case the conventionall ship is heavier despite being shorter and skinner. I found only a difference of 300 tons between the two which is inconclusive, I don't think we can dertermine plant weights by these types of comparisons.

That's odd that wikipedia has "7930 tons" for Belknap where you show 8957 tons. But that aside, perhaps the result here is indicating that nuclear powerplant requires a larger hull for a given horsepower in the first place, given similar combat capabilities? (In the first three comparisons that is; I'm obviously not talking about comparing Tico to anything previous in that respect.)

 

[Antilogic]

Your position that they are medium carriers because they aren't identical to the Nimitz class and are physically smaller is a strange position.

...

I'll say it again, I am not claiming the QE is better than the Nimitz. I am claiming that it is not medium carrier. There are many sources that refer to these ships as supercarriers.

I am simply trying to explain why the QE class cannot be called medium carriers, not that that they are better than the Nimitz class. I never intended for this thread to be a "mine is better than yours", merely a discussion on the new carriers.

The problem here is that, in the absence of something like the 1920's naval treaties, the term "supercarrier" is undefined. And thinking back to WW2, we had fleet carriers, light carriers, escort carriers, seaplane tenders, but no "medium" carriers (I guess the old fleet carriers are now medium carriers). Thus, we are witness to an argument over one or two poorly defined terms.

 

[Ajidica]

Thus, we are witness to an argument over one or two poorly defined terms.

And? Those are conditions as usual for CFC debates.

 

[Antilogic]

And? Those are conditions as usual for CFC debates.

Yeah, I just realized how pointless my post was.

 

[imperialman]

I too have realised the absolute insignificance of arguing over this.

 

[Patroklos]

Sortie generation rate is the number of operational flights by a single aircraft per day. To call that irrelevant to carrier operations is astonishing. Why have a huge number of aircraft when you can only generate 120 sorties max per day in normal conditions?

earlier in this tread you specifically used the term "sortie generation rate" when tking the position that the ski jump allowed carriers to get aircraft into the air faster, not the total number that could be launched period. The implication being one type could react faster to a threat.

It's irrelevant, we know from your above reply you have no source for your claim of a greater sortie generation in either total launches or speed of those launches.

Given the reasonably similar deck size, I don't see why a similar number can't be possible on the QE.

Take it up with the MOD. Note you did not provide a source for your hanger size equivalency claim, is one forthcoming?

The air wing of the Queen Elizabeth is still being looked at, the purchase of AEW, COD and an EW platform have still to be decided but the E-2 is obviously the main contender for AEW given the request for information the programme issued a few years back, the same story with the V-22 for COD but there is currently no hint as to what the EW would be. Refuelling will be done buddy-buddy by the F-35's.

Most assuredly, but surely you admit using just JSFs and Merlins to come up with a number of 40 airframes in disingenuous when you know once they add in some of those larger aircraft the overall figure of 40 will have to drop. The 80-90 figure for a Nimitz already takes a mixed airing into account.

I explained this many times, have a look at the specs for the CTOL version of the QE design that the French had planned on using.

you can explain all you want, you need to provide a source. I did, so why not link the material you got that info from. You can't really be surprised I will not accept your claim at face value in direct opposition to my source can you?

[qoute]I had said average size for a carrier class.[/quote]

you did, and it is. Average is the pretty much the definition of medium.

Ships around 40k are classified as medium carriers, that isn't merely opinion.

Says who? What source? Math certainly disagrees with you. I asked before but you didn't answer, what do you consider a light, medium, and full carrier?

On a scale of 1T to 100,000Ts, where to you divide the classification? If your scale is not regular in classification boundaries, what is your justification for this?

A carrier is a vessel that's primary purpose is to launch and recover aircraft. You can't fluff that up because the ships are American.

light, medium and full sized carriers are all carriers, your distinction above is irrelevant. No fluffing is required. Carriers do come in different sizes though, and there is reason not to have a distinction between those based on what each size brings to the table within that mission area.

[qote]I never have, I simply trying to explain that all this offers is what it has to, not much of an increase in actual operations.[/quote]

I don't quite follow you. But I will tell you what that does offer the Nimitz: a 50-225% increase in airframe stowage depending on air wing makeup according to the sources presented.

The small crew size on the QE is largely due to automation, so no.

Source?

So that we are clear, you think the automation is so good you can have 20% of the crew and have the same operational capabilities. Those numbers pass your casual review?

know, that doesn't change anything.

it doesn't change anything?!?! Apparently you have achieved a level of automation centuries ahead of the rest of the first world. Your sailors are now five times a productive a American ones.

As has been repeatedly requested, look at the stats of the CTOL version of the carrier, the Wiki article (which I helped to construct) still quotes the semi-official figure of 65k as do the media, however, that is still based on the old design and nothing new has came into the public domain yet.

I will look at whatever stats you present, but my research has found no sours whatsoeve that mentions anything other that 65K for the QEs. Surely somebody in some defense journal or other publication has caught on. Link?

And this isn't new either, we have known about this design change for nearly a year. There is no reason to think it was just overlooked by everyone.

Again, didn't say that once.

By hand waving the disparity is size you did say exactly that . If that substantial size addition to the Nimitz doesn't add significant carrier capability as you claim, what is it there for?

We're talking about the capability of the ship, not what it will have in X year.

you actually switch back and forth, always using the max capacity for the QE but trying to use the present tailored air wing for the Nimitz, but never being consistent overall. If we are consistent we end up with the following

Max capacity of JSF type aircraft:
QE - 60 (according to you, unsourced)
Nimitz- 130

Planned or current air wing size:
QE - 40
Nimitz- 64

Either way the QE is at a significant disadvantage to the other, and it's misleading to lump them both into the same category.

The British air wings will include essentially the same aircraft as the US equivalent with the exceptions of Merlin and Apache in the roles.

then you need to accept your number of aircraft inboard when this happens will be less that the 40 currently advertised. Right now the figure of forty is predicated on only using JSFs and your helicopters, when you start adding in E2s and V22s that take up significant deck space you either need tom find more deck space or reduce the airframe total. Simple math.

If that was true there would be no disagreement.

Your disagreement is not based on facts, at least not any you have shared with us. Please link all these things you mention, I sincerely want to know where you are getting your information from. I may be wrong, I am just not going to take your word for it when I provided sources.

Your position that they are medium carriers because they aren't identical to the Nimitz class and are physically smaller is a strange position.

I have provided several metrics, all support my position. How else can something be considered medium other than being less than the large?

I was under the impression the bow catapult was rarely used, but even with this third catapult it has the same sortie generation rate in standard operating.

the first Nimitz vessels have four catapults, the later half have three. But apparently that doesn't matter as you just hand waved them. Apparently two British catapults are better than three or even four American ones.

Whats the source for this sortie rate you keep mentioning. I backed up the American sortie numbers, I even provided the original QE ones. Do you have a source for your claimed equivalency? Can you even spot us a number?

Obviously not since they aren't in service yet. I am NOT SAYING THEY CAN BEAT IT, MERELY THAT THEY ARE NOT MEDIUM CARRIERS.

I know you are doing that, I am looking for a logical reason to support your classification.

Also, I'm curious why you quote the SGR for the QE is normal operations and compare it to the Nimitz on surge.

I did not quote the QEs normal sortie generation rate, I quoted thier MAXIMUM generation rate. By definition maximum means the most they can possibly do.

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/p/future-force-2020-carrier-vessel-future.html

That does not say they can accomplish the same thing as the Nimitz, merely that they can accomplish whatever the requirements are I'd the RN.

I am not trying to claim these ships are more powerful or whatever, than a Nimitz class. Merely that you cannot call them medium carriers given what they can do and their actual size. Why on Earth does this matter so much to you?

the real question is why it matters so much to you. I am using math to show something very simple, you want all the facts ignored so you can give your ship a classification that makes it look like something it is not.

It is a semantic arguement, but that same semantic arguement Is exactly what got you the Invincibles.

I'll say it again, I am not claiming the QE is better than the Nimitz. I am claiming that it is not medium carrier. There are many sources that refer to these ships as supercarriers.

CVN. There is no "S" in there. As time progresses classifications modify to reflect reality. In WWIi a 30K ton Essex was a super carrier, was it called that then? Is it called that now? In today's day and age most carriers are in the 100K range, that is the normal size of a carrier in this day and age. Again, that's math.