HMS Queen Elizabeth: Leak found on new aircraft carrier

So if you don't know what questions to ask, and wouldn't understand the answer anyway why not shut up rather than plastering rubbish across the front page

Shipbuilding has always been difficult and warships particularly challenging. First of class warships are 'rocket science' in the sense they are miracles of organisation pushing technology to the limit and beyond. No wonder things go wrong!

Examples of nautical teething troubles include:

• The Mary Rose, which sank in the Solent in 1535
• The Vasa, which capsized 1300 metres into it's maiden voyage at Stockholm in 1628.
• HMS Royal George, sank in Portsmouth harbour in 1782 killing 900
• HMS Captain, which sank off Finisterre in 1870
• US Iowa Class Battleships in 1938, where it was found at the end of the design process that the gun mountings and turrets didn't fit the hull.
• HMS Thetis, which sank in Liverpool Bay in 1939 due someone painting over a test-cock.
• Multiple problems with the French nuclear carrier Charles de Gaulle, including a propeller that fell off and a runway that had to be extended after testing with aircraft.

Dave

Unfortunately, the "Sun" seems to have many informants in positions of non power "leaking" misinformation over the years. My original comment regarding outside toilets would have had a suitable nail for hanging 1/8th page pieces of the publication - for the use of.

Regards Ian.

I bet the designers are kicking themselves now for not consulting the ME forum at an earlier stage

Re: the non provision of steam catapult because the aircraft are VTOL , a recent report in the press stated that F35 aircraft, which will equip the carriers some time in the future, have serious problems with being over weight for the power of the engines and this seriously compromises their ability to operate off carriers, maybe the omission of a steam catapult is a serious design error. We may need to operate alternative aircraft, perhaps Harriers, oh forgot we threw them all away, perfectly serviceable and would have filled the gap temporarily until the F35's could be made to work to spec., yes I know Harriers are VTOL as well and wouldn't need a steam catapult but a catapult would have kept our options open.

Dave W

They could use rockets similar to those used on Hercules for quick take off on short runways.

I blame Max Boyce.

One big problem re the catapult, we don't use steam on board modern ships now.

The F35's also use the ramp for takeoff - same as the harrier on the CVS, very rarely would VTOL be used,

Lofty

Vintagengineer, rocket assisted take off would certainly be spectacular.

Lofty, not much use with a takeoff ramp for F35's if the latest report on their development states that they are overweight for the engine performance to land on the carrier which has to be done from the hover.

Dave W

I must admit I've not been keeping uop to speed with this F35 saga. But if we've got the ship and the F35's are having problems that could always re-commission the Harriers GR7/9's and keep people occupied.

We did that when the Harrier GR1's were having problems in the early days. The Hunters were dragged out of retirement to give the aircrew something to do and 45 and 58 sqns were formed at RAF Wittering

Pete

With the amount of shaving to the bone the government does, i'm surprised we bother with armed forces at all in this day and age.

Perhaps the impulse of self-preservation twinges from time to time in the ruling classes.

Michael W

All our submarines are still steam powered!

Keep believing the fake news Dave

Looks ok to me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPy7FuA0Z6A

You would think that he would have a little light or something to tell him that he had left the boot lid open !!!!

Was it not designed for the HMS QE to have an electro magnetic launch system added once the system has been properly developed. Was that not a major cost addition within the build & was there not a lot of arguing because nobody really knows how it will fit so an area has been left to take it. That is why, in the meantime we have to adopt the expensive STOL aircraft which cost more than a steam launch system ( which works) would have cost over & above cheaper aircraft options

I thought that the idea was that it will be fitted sometime in the future. Or has that now been abandoned

Edited By Sam Longley 1 on 21/12/2017 21:35:26

I was once told by a submariner that there are only submarines or targets at sea!

Sam, Q1 Why no steam catapults?

A1 No steam

Q2 Why no electro magnetic launch system

A2 Experimental system and VERY expensive, I'm not sure if even the USN have got it working yet, but I'm happy to be corrected.

unasked question but relevant to Q1. Catapult launched aircraft require not only a catapult system (steam, electro magnetic, magic whatever) but a recovery system, that is arrestor wires strung across the blunt end of the deck. These are not simply random bits of steel cable, strung across the deck, but bits of steel cable with a gobsmackingly complex and expensive set of hydraulic dampers to absorb the loads imposed by a (say) 20 tonne aircraft at 150mph.stopping in (say) 20 metres.

Merry Christmas

cheers

Bill

Also answers another question as to why we are buying the US Army version of the F35 and not the Navy Version - no need for sophisticated take off and landing systems.

Oh, and the use of an Electro magnetic arrestor system when modern detections systems rely on Magnetic Anomaly Detection rather than just RADAR.

That would be MAD wouldn't it?