Posted on 09/13/2009 1:58:23 AM PDT by OldSpice
An impression of how a controversial future giant aircraft carrier would look in its home base has been unveiled today by the Royal Navy.
The computer-generated image has been created to give an impression of the scale of the next generation of warships which are due to enter service in 2015.
It shows one of the carriers alongside at Portsmouth Naval Base, Hampshire, where it would take up three jetties.
Ministry of Defence computer generated image of how a controversial future giant aircraft carrier would look in its home base was unveiled today by the Royal Navy. It shows one of the carriers alongside at Portsmouth Naval Base, Hampshire, where it would take up three jetties
The ships will be the biggest and most powerful warships ever designed and built in the UK.
They will be 70 metres wide and the flight deck area is equivalent to 49 tennis courts or three football pitches and large enough to take up to 40 aircraft.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I want one for Australia.
(Still bitter (after starting a naval career hoping to serve as a carrier specialist) at the Labor governments decision back in the 1980s not to replace our carrier).
My first thought is that if they are going to leave it tied up perhaps they should save the money.
Australia needs to shore up her defences.
China beckons.
Just wondering, will the muzzies be driving that boat pretty soon?
Let me guess... The HMS Mohammad.
We're not likely to get a QEII class carrier, although some of us are making representations that the government should at least look into it (the RN would also not at all mind having the RAN as a junior partner on this - three with an export buyer taking one is more likely to be palatable to HMG than two just for British use), but we've got some hopes of convincing the government there's a potential carrier role for our planned Canberra classes:
A 30,000 tonne carrier would be far better than none at all.
HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales actually.
I wouldn't want to bet against that eventuality -- and the design will probably require that each compartment will be required to have a foot bath and show the direction to mecca, regardless of what heading the ship is on.
Got to think Obama has that aircraft in his cross hairs to chop...
Billions to be spent on this hi-tech carrier. And it will be disabled by two haji’s, a rubber raft, and an Evinrude.
Lovely looking ship. And a nice old 3-masted in the right background.
A 30,000 tonne carrier would be far better than none at all.
**********************************************************
What would a carrier designed for UAV’s look like?
1 aircraft carrier is a nice begining.
HMS Warrior. The world's first iron hulled, armour plated warship. Arguably the first battleship.
You can also see HMS Victory sitting in dry dock. The oldest commissioned warship in the world, Lord Nelson's flagship at Trafalgar, and to this day, the flagship of the Second Sea Lord as CINCNAVHOME (Commander in Chief Home Command).
While the USS Ronald Reagan can do both at the same time. It is much more practical, in my opinion.
With high speed elevators, the "inventory" of planes are better protected below decks, too.
Remember the planes are STOVL - these ships will be able to carry out simultaneous launches and landings, although will probably not do that on a regular bases.
Still using the old jump decks I see. Fine for work vs. Third World technology, but not going to be very effective vs. higher-quality stuff.
The IRONY of your correct comment is that it was the Brits who pioneered both the 'angled flight deck' and the steam-powered catapult in the modern carrier. This new Brit carrier design in its current conception will have the capability to retrofit catapult capability if it should become necessary.
Looks to me like its already been in an accident. The hood is all bent up.
The jump decks are for use with the STOVL version of the F-35. The carriers are being designed so they can be modified to catapault take offs later if desired.
Also - for the record, these carriers will have two elevators and below deck storage.
Not really, if they astro turf the deck they can host soccer games on it........and throw the rowdy hooligans overboard.
Here’s an interesting story from the NYPost on January 14, 2007
The Strange Death Of The Royal Navy
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_strange_death_of_the_royal_navy_aZDXdCNIwE6fcRZWnHJ0ZP
Aircraft carrier ping
Oh my, quite a treat them all together in this picture...thanks for the additional info. I’ll scan the pic again more closely.
Yeah, but it’s my understanding that flat-decks are vastly superior and can accommodate more, and better, aircraft. The V-STOLS are ok vs. the Argentines, but not the equivalent of our carriers.
Among other things it shows how these carriers can be reconfigured at a later date for non-STOVL aircraft including features like angled flight decks.
Unless the United Kingdom is planning on going to war with the United States, it doesn't really matter if the US has better carriers - and yes, the large US carriers will still be superior in most respects to the Queen Elizabeth class. They can carry twice as many aircraft, for a start. Of course they also have about five times the crew.
The QE carriers should be superior to anything anybody except the US has.
They can also be retrofitted reasonably easily to be flattops at a later date if it is decided the UK needs that capability.
The Royal Navy is going from having 20,000 tonne carriers carrying about a dozen planes to 65,000 tonne carriers carrying about 40. It's a big increase in power as soon as they become available.
I’m thinking China.
And believe me, I think China too - that's where Australia's last aircraft carrier wound up. So the Chinese could study it. I'm sure they learned a lot from a smallish carrier laid down in World War II.
China is considered likely to acquire two new carriers of its own in the reasonably foreseeable future. Neither will be as large, nor anywhere near as capable as the Queen Elizabeth class. They'll probably fly Su-33s (if the Russians will sell them to them, or they manage to steal the plans), which won't be as capable as the F-35.
They also seem to be restoring the Russian Varyag, most likely as a training carrier, but it might give them a third carrier - if so, it would be one vastly inferior to the QE class.
Did you spot the other one. Really cool.
For that matter, we could have kept Melbourne and the Skyhawks in commission. At least that would have allowed us to maintain the Fleet Air Arm, and the expertise needed in the future, and it would have remained a credible force until at least 2000 or so.
Sweet ride! All the best to our British friends in the face of the liberal assault on their nation.
With Hermes or Melbourne you wouldn’t have had a carrier. You would have had an aging, money pit of a floating building with a flat roof.
Umm - Nimitz class and 50% bigger. The British one is 33% smaller.
Computer generated? All well and good if you're playing Halo 3.
See comment #15. Naturalman pointed out the 2 ships and a bit of info regarding them.
Very cool picture. HMS Victory in dry dock & HMS Warrior, the world’s first iron hulled, armor plated warship. Arguably the first battleship.
“For that matter, we could have kept Melbourne and the Skyhawks in commission. At least that would have allowed us to maintain the Fleet Air Arm, and the expertise needed in the future, and it would have remained a credible force until at least 2000 or so.”
That’s a key point that both the UK and the RAN seem to blow off. It takes years, if not decades, to build up the operational knowledge base that makes a big carrier function efficiently. Lose the knowledge base and you have to start all over, like China and Russia are experiencing. Maybe some US/UK/RAN exchange program could help spread the knowledge.
TC
Absolutely correct - Brit is 2/3s the size of the average Nimitz. Sigh, back to school on proper use of ratios!
A nation that can’t afford to operate frigates can’t afford a full deck carrier.
>>>I want one for Australia.
Be patient. I fully expect the UK will sell these ships soon after launch. The UK simply can’t afford to play in this league for the foreseeable future. Australia and India are the logical purchasers.
>>>The IRONY of your correct comment is that it was the Brits who pioneered both the ‘angled flight deck’ and the steam-powered catapult in the modern carrier.
The Brits pioneered EVERY aspect of carrier aviation excluding nuclear propulsion. That includes coming up with the aircraft carrier concept in the first place.
Good one bro, and maybe not that funny if in fact it’s true . Never know these days.
Nevertheless, the "massive" Brit carrier would be 65,000 t. displacement, while the USS Ronald Reagan is 103,000 t., with more aircraft, nuclear propulsion, and nine sisters of equivalent potency in her class alone.
Strategically, Britain can be either an island appendage of the EU or an ally of the US able to make a meaningful military contribution in the world when needed. If Britain builds the new carrier, it means that she wants and is still capable of a larger role as an ally of the US.
The HMS Victory is a fine ship, and deserves to be honored by her people.
It might interest people to know that that ship is in fact the oldest commissioned ship, but it is in dry dock and would probably never sail again.
The oldest commissioned ship STILL AFLOAT is in Boston.
It’s the USS Constitution, and it still can (and does) sail, and it is manned by sailors and Marines of the active-duty US Navy.
How much time have you spent either conducting or observing flight ops aboard a carrier?
Incorrect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.