UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24256
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 Jul 2017, 22:13

NOICE CVF/FORD COMPARO graphic - via e-mail - otherwise origin UNK...
Attachments
CVF R08_CVNpdf.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2647
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post25 Jul 2017, 22:53

The Queen Elizabeth carriers sure have an impressive size.

It's curious that they don't look that big in photos (at least to me).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24256
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 Jul 2017, 22:56

There is perspective distortion in the graphic from front to back - that needs to be accounted for. Otherwise the CVFs are large. There are a few comparo graphics in this thread and elsewhere probably - I'll hunt them down soon enough. :roll:

download/file.php?id=19115 & download/file.php?id=15985 & download/file.php?id=15987 & download/file.php?id=15988 & download/file.php?id=15989
OR
Click on the graphics here: http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircra ... ompare.htm
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24256
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Jul 2017, 01:46

Unequivocal statement from Sir Fallon about striking terrorists with the CVFs in this video:
Video: Michael Fallon - HMS Queen Elizabeth will combat terrorist threats
25 Jul 2017 BelfastTellyDigits

"Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon says that the UK's newest state-of-the-art warship, HMS Queen Elizabeth, means that Britain can now combat terrorist threats "in the seven seas of the world.""

Source: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/video ... 65222.html
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2647
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post26 Jul 2017, 22:14

spazsinbad wrote:There is perspective distortion in the graphic from front to back - that needs to be accounted for. Otherwise the CVFs are large. There are a few comparo graphics in this thread and elsewhere probably - I'll hunt them down soon enough. :roll:

download/file.php?id=19115 & download/file.php?id=15985 & download/file.php?id=15987 & download/file.php?id=15988 & download/file.php?id=15989
OR
Click on the graphics here: http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircra ... ompare.htm


Thanks spazsinbad for the links (with comparison graphics)!

By looking at the graphics of the links that you shared it seems more apparent to me why I personally thought that the Queen Elizabeth looks somehow "smaller".
Looking at the same graphics the Queen Elizabeth is somehow or a bit shorter in lenght than for example the Russian Kuznetsov carrier however the Queen Elizabeth is almost as wide as a US Nimitz class carrier and of course considerably wider than for example and again the Russian Kuznetsov carrier.

I guess that what I mean is that the difference between length to width doesn't look as big as seen on other carriers (specially on heavier carriers).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24256
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post30 Jul 2017, 22:03

This article headlines the Su-22 shootdown however the comparo between BUSH & QE CVF is instructive so plonked here.
Up close with a US super carrier and the pilots fresh from combat operations
29 Jul 2017 SaveTheRoyalNavy

"The arrival of the USS George HW Bush in British waters to participate in exercise Saxon Warrior with the Royal Navy provided a useful opportunity to meet US naval aviators who have recently completed combat missions against ISIS in the Middle East. Although they are very different, inevitable comparisons will also be made between the Nimitz class CVN and the Queen Elizabeth class CVF, which deserve to be put in perspective....

...USS George HW Bush v HMS Queen Elizabeth. Apples v Oranges.
Walking down the flight deck of the Bush there was a feeling of regret at how the UK has managed to squander its hard-won lead in innovation. Britain pioneered naval aviation, invented the steam catapult, the angled deck and automated deck landing system [written by a fish head most likely who should have said MIRROR - & still moaning as Brits do after all these years about STOVL - just stop already] (the meatball in US parlance), not to mention the jet engine, radar and steam turbine, all of which are foundational to the Nimitz class super carrier. Although it is regrettable, the Queen Elizabeth class will not have catapults and traps and we must accept that CATOBAR is beyond the inadequate resources the government is willing to provide the RN. STOVL and F-35Bs are the only sensible choice for the RN, given its budget and manpower constraints.

Searching for a candid view of how the US Navy see the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers, one officer was asked if they perceive them as something like a larger USS America (LHA – Marine assault ship operating F-35Bs) or closer to the Bush and the CVNs? “It’s true her air group cannot deliver quite the same effect as us, but she’s another big deck. She will make a similar diplomatic impact to our carriers, they have great command and control facilities and some innovations we are keen to learn about” he replied carefully. “As far as we’re concerned they will help share the load and relieve some of the burden on the US fleet”.

In European terms, the QEC will be a huge jump in capability and will be a very big step forward for the Royal Navy. In pure combat terms, the QEC is still far behind the US Navy. The 12-14 jets aboard the QEC will not compare well with the 44 carried by the Bush on this deployment (with space for an air group of up to 90 aircraft). CATOBAR means the Bush also benefits from dedicated electronic warfare aircraft (Growlers), buddy-buddy air-air refuelling jets (adapted F-18s) and EC3 Hawkeye which have approximately double the radar range of the Crowsnest Merlin helicopters.

This capability does not come cheap. Despite having nuclear-powered propulsion, the food, aircraft fuel and spares bill for the Bush runs at around $10M per month when on operations. It would be instructive to know if the MoD has calculated and properly budgeted for the running costs for the QEC when deployed. Manpower is the biggest through-life cost. QEC will have just 1,500 with a full air group embarked which compares very well to the 5,300 required by the Bush. HMS Queen Elizabeth cost around £3.2Bn to construct, while the Bush cost $6.2Bn back in 2009.

Observing both ships at close quarters they are very different workplaces. QE benefits from a 10 year advance in technology and a design philosophy aimed at reducing manning to a minimum. It is slightly unfair to compare a seasoned 8-year-old ship that has been in action for 6 months and inevitably looks battered, with a brand new vessel. QE feels like a more comfortable ship with automation everywhere, while the Bush has a more workman-like interior. A good example is a comparison between the Chief’s mess aboard the Bush and the equivalent Senior Rates dining hall on QE. Both are cafeteria-style eating areas but QE’s is far larger, has carpets and a suspended ceiling. On the Bush the deckhands and pipework are all exposed, whitewashed bulkheads and a lino floor make for a tough, utilitarian atmosphere.

What the two ships will have in common, is the reach of carrier air power that extends across the globe. The ability to strike our enemies or to provide support to our allies by air from the sea is a capability that all the greatest nations aspire to."

Source: http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/up-clos ... perations/

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post30 Jul 2017, 22:29

$10M is only $2,000 a month for each of 5000 sailors.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24256
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post30 Jul 2017, 22:35

Something has been misread - I guess this sum has come from the USN?:
"...the food, aircraft fuel and spares bill for the Bush runs at around $10M per month when on operations. It would be instructive to know if the MoD has calculated and properly budgeted for the running costs for the QEC when deployed...."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post30 Jul 2017, 22:50

spazsinbad wrote:Something has been misread - I guess this sum has come from the USN?:
"...the food, aircraft fuel and spares bill for the Bush runs at around $10M per month when on operations. It would be instructive to know if the MoD has calculated and properly budgeted for the running costs for the QEC when deployed...."

I didn't really state that clearly. It seams to me that the pay for the sailors will be the dominant expense of deploying the carrier.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24256
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post30 Jul 2017, 23:25

:devil: My WAG wildassguess would be 100 million per month in US deneiro for that group of items. :doh:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7719
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post31 Jul 2017, 02:47

If memory serves... USS Ford 4.5 acre flight deck and 4 acres for CVF.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2896
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post31 Jul 2017, 03:54

....not to ask an awkward question, but...... Has the QE fixed it's engineering issues and left the docks to resume the testing under way? Last I heard, it was tied to the dock with no details. Any info?
:)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24256
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post31 Jul 2017, 04:00

The last thing anyone heard AFAIK the CVF QE hit her straps straight away at 27+ knots but sometimes the AIS was switched off probably to hide that she actually went much faster but that is just my WAG. AIS =
HMS Queen Elizabeth position http://www.queenelizabethcruises.net/hm ... t-carrier/
This is a VesselFinder tracker for HMS Queen Elizabeth current position (tracking her IMO number 4907892). Please note, that you won’t be able to track the QE aircraft carrier’s location if her AIS equipment is not switched on."

https://www.vesselfinder.com/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1378
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post31 Jul 2017, 09:34

https://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=4907892

At the time of this post the ship was doing a little over 12 knots, sailing back and forth (in no discernible pattern or track) around 57.9N, 3.1W.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2647
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post31 Jul 2017, 11:11

I've heard about the "vesselfinder" website but never used it before. WoW, this is amazing! :D

Currently (10:08 UTC) the QEC is sailing southwest at 17.3 knots northeast from Inverness and west from Lossiemouth.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests