Posted on 01/07/2013 6:36:13 PM PST by the scotsman
'These new computer-generated images put into context the huge scale of the largest warships ever built for the Royal Navy.
The Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA) has released a series of powerful posters illustrating the sheer size of the warships. The computer-generated images show the warships dwarfing some of the country's most recognisable landmarks.
Another notable poster is of the under-construction HMS Queen Elizabeth berthed alongside in Portsmouth, Hants.
The ACA is a consortium of defence companies behind the construction of Portsmouth's newest carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. Ian Booth, programme director of the ACA, said: 'These posters depict the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers in front of the Houses of Parliament and in Portsmouth. 'They're stunning images and show that two really spectacular ships can be expected once construction is complete.'
A computer-generated image released last year showed how HMS Queen Elizabeth would look alongside at Portsmouth Naval Base. The images reveal the length of the ship is the equivalent of 28 London buses and is almost three times the size of Buckingham Palace. Around 80,000 tonnes of steel will be used for the two ships, three times that used in Wembley Stadium.
The carriers are 280m in length, 65,000 tonnes and capable of transporting 40 aircraft - twice the capacity of HMS Illustrious. They are being constructed at shipyards around the country and taken for assembly at Rosyth in Scotland.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
According to the article it will be 280m long. The Reagan is 320m long. The Enterprise is/was 342m.
Nice canoe!
Lot smaller than the Enterprise!
Hope it doesn’t have electrical problems like my ol MGB!
If you’re going to take the tour, I think the boat with the glass ceiling would be better to see all the sights like the Taj Mahal or something.
Is Cameron gonna send it to the Falklands ?
This is great, but I hope that it isn’t the Islamic Republic of Great Britain by the time her service life is through.
Training wheels in the aft bridge?
I think they HAD to build bigger carriers. The ones they have are made for VTOL planes (Harriers) and they retired them. I assumed they’ve learned their lesson and designed catapult and arresting gear into the flight deck for conventional Naval A/C.
Scoop foredeck for VTOL’s?
Old Brit car and bike humor. Corollary was a joke about why Brits drink warm beer.
Seriously, I bet these ships will be built top notch. Ship building is in their genes. Would love to tour one, but never happen out here on an island.
/johnny
... is it as big as the mosque in the background?
What mosque?.
The building on the far left with the light coloured roof is a Whitehall building.
Are those not two white minarets exposed to the left of the top of the tower?
No, those are the 2 of the four chimneys of Battersea Power Station.
My half Irish/half French Canadian ancestry has conflicts with that, but I do have immense respect for them. They kicked ass in their day with precious little to back them up.
918 feet as compared to CVN-77 (George H.W. Bush) at 1092 ft.
Nifty looking carrier that is, but still smaller than US Carriers.
No. The initial plans were for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers to use STOVL aircraft (the F35B), with the capability of later upgrade to F35C or similar aircraft, but with changes to the F35 program making the delivery of F35Bs far less likely, it was decided to go straight to the later configuration. The 'skijump' has been retained because it is still useful for non-STOVL aircraft - even with a catapult assisted launch, that up angle increases the weight you can launch over a particular distance.
And yes, the QE class carriers will be smaller than US carriers, but will be larger than anything anybody else in the world has. As it is unlikely the UK will be going to war with the US in the near future, they are big enough.
(The next generation French carrier may also wind up slightly larger than the Queen Elizabeth class, but, again, war with France seems unlikely).
In this day and age of ever-faster and smarter missile technology, carriers are becoming obsolete. Sure, we can roll one up on a small country without the resources to give us a run for our money, but the Russians and Chinese have developed special missiles which have a high probability of destroying or disabling a carrier. If these missiles are fire in volleys, their probabilities go way up. Sure we have some missile defenses, but you really only have to get lucky once with the hypersonic missiles they are working on that are travelling at speets approaching mach 10 and upwards. A simple, non-explosive warhead travelling at that speed would be like being struck by a comet.
There also is the growing militarization of space, which has the usual players, namely Russia, and to a lesser degree, China. Why each country would not be working on their own version of Rods from God would defy common sense. Imagine even a crowbar moving at several miles per second making impact.
I wonder if it has dual SU downdraft carbs.
Madness.
(I say that on every UK post)
I think the Brits invented the angle flight deck. Ironic it lacks that...
So how long were you in the Navy?
The Brits had balls. Too bad all the good ones were killed at the Somme. And the real men in France died at Verdun, same for the Germans at Stalingrad.
With a little luck Lucas CAV won’t be doing the electrical work on the CV.
The next war will start with large missiles and torpedoes hitting these targets.
It’s a good lookin’ ship.
VSTOL
I assumed they’ve learned their lesson and designed catapult and arresting gear into the flight deck for conventional Naval A/C.
Nope. Too expensive and the UK has reversed course again and will be purchasing the F-35B as originally planned.
Yes.
28 years
The correct reply is, “All me bloomin’ life!” shipmate. Unless, of course you were an officer, then the correct reply is, “Until my wife made me quit.”
Still no according to the people I know who are involved in this.
The Defence Secretary does want to go back to the F-35B idea and has announced that, but it’s contingent on the F-35B being proven viable by sometime later this year and that is looking unlikely. The final decision on whether to go CATOBAR with the F-35C or stick with the F-35B has to be made in the second half of this year. The F-35C will be the decision unless the F-35B reaches a particular set of criteria by then, and that is doubtful - the USMC (who also want the F-35B) expect that stage to be reached in 2014 or 2015. That’s too late for the British - they need to make the final decision this year. Personally, I think the Defence Secretary’s announcement was primarily intended to both put pressure on Lockheed Martin to speed things up, while simultaneously saying that if it would help speed things up, they could be confident Britain would go with that choice. But it has to happen by the time they reach the stage of building the flight deck on the first carrier, or they will have to go with CATOBAR and conventional take off.
None of this, naturally, is restricted information or I wouldn’t be discussing it. But I’m confident of what I’m saying. The F-35B is officially Britain’s current choice - but it will only remain so if Lockheed Martin reach certain stages earlier than expected.
How’d make it past the Wibbly Wobbly Bridge? ;O)
Either way, the F-35 is a mouse made to government specifications:
] 
It is basically a:
Too bad, it was a good idea.
EMALs for the CVFs has been scrapped. The UK cannot afford $3.2 billion to outfit two boats with catapults and arresting gear. There will not be a catapult of any type installed.
There are a lot of people who were confident that the F-35B would never make it off of Gates' probation, including Gates. They were wrong as well. Sea trials on the Wasp in October of 2011 proved that. As for viability of the B, you might want to talk to the folks in Yuma at VMFA-121, which stood up on 20 November 2012 and will have its full complement of aircraft by the end of 2013.
How much verifiable time have you logged in any F-35 variant/simulator?
Your question is a Non sequitur.
The problem with the F-35 isn't its conceptual design. It is all the added baggage the politicians affixed to it. In their desire to make it work for all circumstances, it works for very few.
Other than H2H (we may never know that), the F-16 can fulfill all the mission requirements the Flying Anvil F-35 at 1/4 the price. The Navy (rightly) is hesitating on the F-35 since the F-18 (the next best MRF) can also fulfill the missions parameters
It saddens me b/c I loved the idea of the F-35. A homogeneous next-generation MRF platform with interchangeable parts made a lot of sense. Then the ballast-attachers got involved and killed it.
The F-15, F-16 and F-18 will continue to rule the skies (another sadness: F-22) for at least another generation.
Well, we're obviously talking to different people. I don't know who you are talking to, but I do know the people I am talking to know their stuff and they've been doing this for decades - and I used to do with them in some cases. They could be wrong, but time will tell.
EMALs for the CVFs has been scrapped. The UK cannot afford $3.2 billion to outfit two boats with catapults and arresting gear. There will not be a catapult of any type installed.
Cost is the reason why the 'drop dead' date is on the second carrier - it's already been decided the first will not go with the CATOBAR design at least initially as it would waste money that has already been spent. If needed, it could eventually be retrofitted, but, yes, that all costs money and money is tight. What Britain can and can't afford though, to an extent comes down to need. If the only way they can have carrier capability requires a couple of billion pounds and they want that capability, the money will be found. It'll blow budgets and nobody wants it to happen, but it will be found. Building carriers that don't have planes that can fly off them wastes every penny spent on the carriers. That's worse than finding the extra money if needed.
There are a lot of people who were confident that the F-35B would never make it off of Gates' probation, including Gates. They were wrong as well. Sea trials on the Wasp in October of 2011 proved that. As for viability of the B, you might want to talk to the folks in Yuma at VMFA-121, which stood up on 20 November 2012 and will have its full complement of aircraft by the end of 2013.
Do I believe the F-35B will eventually be a fully viable aircraft? Yes, I do. So do my friends. But the problem is when it will happen. Decisions have to be made at certain points in the Carrier project and those decisions have to be based on the guaranteed (not theoretical but guaranteed) capabilities of the aircraft. The dates aren't working at the moment.
Having got rid of the Harriers, there's no fall back available. Unless there is a 100% guarantee the F35-B will meet requirements at the decision date, the decision has to be different. A 100% guarantee, at the moment, is considered to mean, it has met the requirements by that date. There is some wriggle room on that but how much is a big question.
There are no 'done deals' on this. A year ago, it was a 'done deal' that it would be the F35-C. To begin with, it was a 'done deal' that it would be the F3-B. At the moment, officially the F35-B is the choice, but that can be changed by a decision from the Defence Secretary. The people I am talking to are people who have to plan based on what they believe Britain's defence needs will be, and ensuring a credible carrier force as soon as they can get it. They look ahead, beyond what is being said now, to what they believe will be being said in the future.
When I joined the RAN, Australia was meant to have a carrier forever. I spent much of 1981 learning to be a carrier sailor, because it was the official position of Australian governments that we would have carrier capability for decades to come and all the details had been worked out. By the middle of 1982, we didn't have any carrier capability at all, and we still don't. What politicians have decided today, doesn't really mean much to me.
But all I'm reporting is what I believe to be true, based on what people who normally know what's going on in my experience, believe to be true. They could be wrong and I could be wrong. Maybe you've got better sources. The proof in the pudding will be what is sailing in 2020 and what is flying off them. I just hope it's something sailing with something flying - not carriers that can't find suitable aircraft. I'd be perfectly happy with the RN going with the F-35B (partly because the only hope Australia has of getting any sort of carrier capability in the next two decades is the success of the F-35B flying off the Canberras - again, not officially an option at the moment, but...
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.