Page 1 of 5

HMS Queen Elizabeth

Posted: 26 Jun 2017, 12:57
by Nigel H-J
Due to start sea trials today, what a fantastic looking a/c carrier she looks.

Wonder how long before the a/c are ready though?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-e ... e-40402153

Regards
Nigel.

Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth

Posted: 26 Jun 2017, 15:45
by Tomliner
I'll be watching for her later. From here I can see the Firth of Forth about 5 or 6 miles away downstream of the bridges. I've seen her from time to time under construction at Rosyth. :) EricT

Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth

Posted: 26 Jun 2017, 16:43
by FlyTexas
Now there's a handsome ship. :thumbsup: Thanks for the heads up, Nigel. :hello:

Brian

Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth

Posted: 26 Jun 2017, 17:01
by GHD

Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth

Posted: 26 Jun 2017, 17:49
by blanston12
She should really have been built with CATOBAR, she would have had a much wider range of aircraft she could carry, for now she has to wait if the F35B is ever ready or pull the Sea Harriers out of retirement. As a Catobar ship she could use Rafale's or F18's until the F35 is ready.

Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth

Posted: 26 Jun 2017, 19:52
by SkippyBing
blanston12 wrote:
26 Jun 2017, 17:49
She should really have been built with CATOBAR, she would have had a much wider range of aircraft she could carry, for now she has to wait if the F35B is ever ready or pull the Sea Harriers out of retirement. As a Catobar ship she could use Rafale's or F18's until the F35 is ready.
You know the USMC have declared initial operating capability with the F-35B and have deployed them to Japan, so it's going to be ready when the ships are. There are no Sea Harriers to pull out of retirement, or at least doing so would be more than any sane person would try and do, you're talking museum pieces that have been stripped of equipment.

Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth

Posted: 26 Jun 2017, 20:41
by Paul K
I've sometimes wondered, but never bothered to ask - what's the rationale behind the two islands? I know one is for navigating the ship and the other for air operations ( at least that's what I was told ), but why aren't they combined into one structure the way the Colonials have theirs?

Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth

Posted: 26 Jun 2017, 21:14
by DaveB
And I quote.. it separates command of the ship from flying operations and increases survivability..

ATB
DaveB B)smk

Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth

Posted: 26 Jun 2017, 21:44
by TSR2
:hide: I'm a big on the ignorant side, bug I'd have thought command of a carrier and flying operations go hand in hand.

Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth

Posted: 26 Jun 2017, 22:33
by SkippyBing
My understanding is it's a combination of positioning to contain the up and down takes for the engines and minimising the disturbance of the airflow over the flight deck. A single large island would have created more turbulence, if you didn't do a lot of internal rearrangement of the ducting it would also end up being a very big island. Obviously the colonials have the advantage of not needing to find some way of getting vast quantities of air to/from the engine rooms, their old conventional carriers having a different arrangement being powered by oil fired boilers but also placing a lot of the compartments we have in the island in the hull.
Ultimately it's all a compromise, but it'd be interesting to be on-board when FOST give them a total comms failure during flying ops!