Hms Queen Elizabeth

[rmgill]

Until the A-7 with its nosewheel cat hookup in the mid-'60s, USN aircraft also had a bridle system.

If the ship had horns over the front of the cat positions, it was setup for bridles.

 

 

 

 

There's also a hold back system for the non-bridle system, it's just smaller bits of hardware attached to the nose landing gear. The hold back bars are designed to break at a specific level of force. This prevents the aircraft from rolling forwards off the tension that the shuttle exerts.

[rmgill]

Aussie A4's.

 

[2805662]

 

It would be interesting to see how big the water tank is on the F35, I quite agree.

Does the F35 have a water tank at all? I was under the impression it had enough engine power that water injection wasnt required for STOVL ops.

[FlyingCanOpener]

Or films, Gozilla, Mothra, Battle Royale...

 

White Base, Ra Cailum, Argama, and Macross, obviously.

[rmgill]

They'll need mobile suits...

 

But name them that and 1000 otaku engineers will probably figure out the materials science and power issues to make that happen.

Edited October 31, 2018 by rmgill

[shep854]

 

Until the A-7 with its nosewheel cat hookup in the mid-'60s, USN aircraft also had a bridle system.

If the ship had horns over the front of the cat positions, it was setup for bridles.

 

 

 

 

There's also a hold back system for the non-bridle system, it's just smaller bits of hardware attached to the nose landing gear. The hold back bars are designed to break at a specific level of force. This prevents the aircraft from rolling forwards off the tension that the shuttle exerts.

 

It's easy to see how the nose gear attachment system greatly simplified the process, as well as making it safer.

[Nobu]

I'd be happy with 4 carriers of the HMS Queen Elizabeth class in the spirit of the Kongo class battlecruisers designed by George Thurston for the Imperial Japanese Navy. The first, to be built in the Firth of Forth, the remaining 3 at Yokosuka.

 

I would settle for a day when Japan finds it within itself to actually call a carrier a carrier, versus a fake, neutered, carrier-looking thing that is destined to operate in a less-capable supporting role behind the larger flagships of the world, in a manner utterly unworthy of the name Kaga.

 

I do not look forward to the day when the Koreans may actually begin operating a carrier before Japan. If their insulting "Dokdo" nomenclature for their heavy amphibious assault ships is any indication, the first Korean carrier will likely be named "The East Sea of Korea."

 

If anything, the willingness of the UK to spend the necessary amount in a time of austerity to design, build, and launch the HMS Queen Elizabeth class shows an understanding of the military and political value of seapower, and of the value of maintaining placeholder expertise in the naval sector. For Japan, unfortunately, maintaining placeholder expertise in carrier operations is a ship that has since sailed. What others already know, Japan and Japanese will have to re-learn.

 

What London must have concluded at some point, was that leaving carrier operation expertise for non-British to pay the cost of maintaining and refining may have been more economically viable, but would not be in the longer term otherwise in various ways. There is a lesson to be learnt by Japan and Japanese here.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Nobu

[JasonJ]

Making carriers will be expensive. Just need to keep parity with China. An Izumo-class with F-35bs is still better than the ski jump carriers China has. China's third might be when Japan would need a larger and truer carrier.

[Chris Werb]

 

Dutch to contribute warship to QE Carrier Strike Group.

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/our-region/portsmouth/dutch-warship-to-deploy-alongside-hms-queen-elizabeth-from-2021-1-8679997

That's a very good development. A very formidable carrier group can be made on a moment's notice if protocals for syncing up with ally destroyers can be made.

 

 

Well, we abandoned CEC for our D class destroyers between each other, so any hope of similar capability to cooperate with foreign warships is unlikely to materialise.

[Nobu]

I'd rather not see anything close to approaching "parity" for Japan and Japanese regarding seapower in Northeast Asia. 30 years ago, "Chinese seapower" was a nonsense phrase in the context of complete Japanese naval superiority. That superiority, and the security it provided for Japanese interests, has now been degraded.

 

Relying on other navies to make up the difference may be viable economically, in much the same way the UK could have chosen to save money in exchange for medium-term reliance on the U.S. Navy to do its heavy carrier operations lifting for it. That London, given the choice, did not do so in a time of austerity, is of great interest in various ways.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Nobu

[Stuart Galbraith]

[shep854]

Baby brother coming along:

[shep854]

H/T Mr King from FB.

[Josh]

Making carriers will be expensive. Just need to keep parity with China. An Izumo-class with F-35bs is still better than the ski jump carriers China has. China's third might be when Japan would need a larger and truer carrier.

 

This rather assumes that the JMSDF's first response to PLAN carriers would be its own carrier. Equivalency shouldn't be the goal, operational requirements should. Japan shouldn't build a CV just to keep up with the Jones. That said I agree F-35B is a more useful aircraft than J-15 and both sides would lack a meaningful embarked AEW aircraft. Though the latter is perhaps something Japan should consider long term.

[JasonJ]

 

Making carriers will be expensive. Just need to keep parity with China. An Izumo-class with F-35bs is still better than the ski jump carriers China has. China's third might be when Japan would need a larger and truer carrier.

 

This rather assumes that the JMSDF's first response to PLAN carriers would be its own carrier. Equivalency shouldn't be the goal, operational requirements should. Japan shouldn't build a CV just to keep up with the Jones. That said I agree F-35B is a more useful aircraft than J-15 and both sides would lack a meaningful embarked AEW aircraft. Though the latter is perhaps something Japan should consider long term.

 

 

I also agree that equivalence is not always the goal, but it may have to be matched if China does have a fully capable carrier with EMALs and AEW since it could be used as influence in the Indian Ocean or in the Pacific beyond the 1st island chain where a carrier that can fully function more independently from land based assets. Of course if US and Japan security relations are kept tight, then Japan could focus a little more on developing its forces to compliment with American forces, thus no real need to match up with what China does. Leave big ticket items like super carriers, bombers, nuclear deterrent to the US so then Japan can compliment with top notch ASW, minesweeping, additional work horse destroyer fleet, etc. But if things start to drift towards multi-power dynamics, then Japan might not always be able to count on a US carrier to operate in alignment with Japanese interest in regards to Chinese activities. Well some shaky examples do already exist such as the US weak response to the beginning of China's island making in the SCS or the US's not immediate support of Japan about the nationalization of the Senkaku islands. I think a carrier might be one of those things Japan might want to have for themselves while still leaving other things like bombers and nuclear deterrent for the US to cover.

[Stuart Galbraith]

H/T Mr King from FB.

 

Damn, that looks good.

[Stuart Galbraith]

UK doubles F35B buy to 35 aircraft.

 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/197596/uk-orders-17-additional-f_35-fighters.html

[Josh]

So almost an airwing?

Edited November 15, 2018 by Josh

[Stuart Galbraith]

I think we are talking of sending 35 to sea at a time, so that is an air wing. But we were planning on buying a minimum of 48, so we have at least one air wing and a training and combat reserve I guess. The plan is to buy 138, but some of those, if the RAF has its way, will be F35A, so useless for shipboard operations.

 

There seems limited chance at present that both these ships will deploy on operations as fixed wing aircraft carriers. I think they were planning on using POW as a Helicopter carrier to replace HMS Ocean, at least until QE goes into refit, when I suppose they will swap roles. That was unpopular, because as was pointed out, the stairs and accomodation on Commando carriers need to be substantially different than on an aircraft carrier. Carrying bergans upstairs, that kind of thing.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[shep854]

I thought both ships were fully helo assault and jet capable.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well im going back to the last Government, but they were saying one would operate as a Carrier, the other would operate as a Commando carrier. They would have an identical fit, but be dual role. That may have changed since, im not sure. Previously they were talking about only buying 48 F35B which is clearly inadequate to operated 2 air wings at sea.

[Panzermann]

Just should have bought the C variant for both RN and RAF and put catapults on the carriers. But no, they gotta have those jump jets.

[shep854]

Just should have bought the C variant for both RN and RAF and put catapults on the carriers. But no, they gotta have those jump jets.

All that money saved by not having the cats and traps...

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well as I pointed out earlier, that nearly happened. After call me Dave tried to cancel the carriers, and failed, he figured he would improve on them. So he cancelled the F35B, and requested a different work share on the C.

 

After spending a considerable sum of money investigating converting the ships on the slipway to cats and traps (im not sure how much, but it was certainly millions the defence budget cant afford) he finally figured out it would cost MORE to install cats and traps than it would to buy the F35B. Particularly as having a diesel electric drive we would need access to the USN's electric cat system, which im told they were reluctant to give anyone access to.

 

So after all that, he gave in and we went back to the F35B. Causing cost and potential delay, but as you have seen from recent events, Cameron was well renowned for such things.

 

I think a Cats and Traps carrier would have been the best option. But of course we initially planned to initially operate Harrier GR9 off these ships. At least the USMC still might.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[shep854]

So many ways to cook books...