It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


England's New Super-Carriers

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 01:02 PM
Des Browne today announced that Rosyth naval dockyard would be getting a £38M facelift, in order facilitate the assembly of the two
super- carriers.

Babcock Engineering Services and Edmond Nuttall Limited will modify the existing docks to accommodate the carriers and they will also widen the existing entrance.

The carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales, will be built in sections in the existing shipyards of Portsmouth, Barrow-in-Furness, Glasgow with final assembley taking place in Rosyth.

This, I believe, scuppers once and for all, the public belief that the two carriers will be made in Freance and Germany.

The CEO of Babcock International, Peter Rogers said:

The award of this contract is the culmination of a great deal of hard work by Babcock Marine and Edmund Nuttall together with our colleagues in the Aircraft Carrier Alliance inc the MOD, to ensure that the Rosyth site is ready to play its part in what is the most exciting and largest defence project for many years.

posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 03:44 PM

Must make haste here to shove off for work but wanted to comment on your post. I was aware for about a year now that a requirement for replacements in Royal Navy Carriers was due. I am glad to see it is taking place. The Royal Navy has needed a new carrier for some time now. I expect her existing ships are being worn out as badly as are many of ours.

Also very glad to see the Astute Class boats coming together.

I have not ,however, seen any specifications on what is to be in this ship as far as what kind of power plant, speeds, aircraft compliment, crew compliment etc .etc.

Nuclear or conventional. boiler fired...or gas turbine. Jump ramp or catapult?

Any info on this would be appreciated.

Must shove off now.


[edit on 11-2-2008 by orangetom1999]

posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 04:46 PM
i'm with orangetom, if anyone has any info on them please post it because i'm interested to find out about them.

raptor 1

posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 04:51 PM
reply to orangetom1999[/url]

At present Orangetom, there are only artist and computer impressions of what the 2 carriers will 'look like' - in other words, wait and see.

As far as I am able to ascertain, these carriers are equal in size and weight of the QE2, will ship about 40 aircraft of which, there will be a compliment of 36 JSF VSTOL a/c + 4 EW/ASW a/c.

Crewing will be roughly 1400 officers and men across all rank structures who will apparently, have access to email and the internet, 24 hours a day.

There have been no releases of what weaponry or powerplants and once that info is released, I'll post it as soon as I see it.

posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 07:30 PM

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I have not ,however, seen any specifications on what is to be in this ship as far as what kind of power plant, speeds, aircraft compliment, crew compliment etc .etc.

Nuclear or conventional. boiler fired...or gas turbine. Jump ramp or catapult?

Tom from what I can find the new Queen Elizabeth class of aircraft carriers will have the following specifications and characteristics. But first let me answer one of your questions; the carriers will feature an Integrated Full Electric Propulsion system and NOT nuclear reactors. Each ship will have two RR gas turbines each putting out 36MW of power, two auxiliary diesel generators rated at 7MW each, two emergency diesel generators each producing 2MW of power and it will also have two electric motors each rated for 30MW. The design features two shafts driving two power fixed bronze propellers which will be almost 22 feet in diameter and weighing approximately 36.4 tons each.

Basic Design - Information

Currently two aircraft carriers are planned, the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, the service entrance dates are 2014 and 2016 respectfully. The Queen Elizabeth class is projected to displace around 70,000 tons fully loaded and will have full compliment of 40 aircraft. Current carrier air wing structure features up to 36 F-35B fighters and several AEW/ASuW/SAR multi purpose helicopters. The layout features two main island decks on the starboard side of the ship. The forward island will primarily be utilized for ship control while the aft island will be utilized for aircraft (flight control) approach and landings, both islands will cross manage the flight deck area. Each island is slightly smaller than the one found on a Nimitz class carrier. The explanation for this design choice is increased flight deck area, reduced turbulence on the flight deck and increased flexibility. Survivability might also have played a role in the process. However one wonders if splitting up the command and control nerve center into two groups (miscounting, confusion, time delay etc…) will prove to be a wise move.

(The version of the Queen Elizabeth class used for comparison in the above image is the proposed CATOBAR design. This will not be the initial deck layout of the ships when they enter service)

Anyway, the forward island will house (cost permitting) a multi-function radar while the aft will host a air search and surveillance radar. Starboard of the forward island will be a deck crane and aft of each island will be an elevator, only two per ship, each rated at 77 tons. The elevators will be large enough to simultaneously accommodate two F-35B fighters.


Length (Overall) - 931.7 Feet (284m)
Beam (Waterline) - 128 Feet (39m)
Beam (Overall) - 239.5 Feet (73m)
Draught (Keel to Waterline) - 36 Feet (11m)
Height (Keel to Masthead) - 183.7 Feet (56m)
Draft - 29.5 Feet (9m)

Endurance and Maintenance

The carrier will have a top speed near 25 knots while its combat range at 15 knots cruise speed is estimated at 10,000 nautical miles. The ship will carry roughly 8,818 tons of fuel for the ship and aircraft. Each carrier will stock enough food, fuel and stores/supplies for an endurance of seven days between replenishments. Each ship will have a complement of typically 1,200, including 600 aircrew, although it can have a ship crew of up to 900.

Combined the two ships are planned to have an availability of 584 ship days a year (292 per ship), a 6 day interval between docking and a refit interval of 6 months.

Flight Deck

The flight deck is planned to initially be configured for ski jump operations (ski jump is angled at 13 degrees), with a design ability to later back fit the ship for CATOBAR functions. Current plans call to convert the carriers for CTOL aircraft sometime near the expected 20 year service life of the F-35B. Depending on the level of progress and maturity of the US electromagnetic catapult system (being designed for the Ford class) it is one of the options being considered when it’s time for the CATOBAR retrofit along with traditional steam catapults.

The deck has a total of three runways: two shorter runways of approximately 160m (525 Feet) for the STOVL Joint Strike Fighter and a long runway, approximately 260m (853 Feet) over the full length of the carrier, for launching heavily loaded aircraft – an area of nearly 13,000m² (139,880 ft²). The deck will have one or two vertical landing pads for the F-35 aircraft towards the stern of the ship.

Jet Blast Deflectors will be fitted on each runway 160m (525 Feet) back from the bow ski jump and probably in line with the rear wall of the first island. The deflectors protect the deck from the blast of the F-35 joint strike fighter aircraft engines operating at maximum thrust for take-off.


The carrier will support Joint Combat Aircraft carrying out up to 420 sorties over five days and be able to conduct day and night time operations. The maximum sortie rate is 110 Joint Combat Aircraft sorties per 24-hour period.

The standard airgroup of 40 aircraft includes the Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, the EH-101 Merlin helicopter and the Maritime Surveillance and Control aircraft (MASC).

The maximum launch rate is 24 aircraft in 15 minutes and the maximum recovery rate is 24 aircraft in 24 minutes.

The hanger deck, 155m (508.5 Feet) L x 33.5m (110 Feet) W x 6.7m to 10m (22-32.8 Feet) high, accommodates up to 20 fixed and rotary wing aircraft.



Besides the aircraft the carrier will be designed to incorporate a close in system (no specification as to which or what type of system) and it could also (if funds were allocated) feature two 16 cell vertical launch systems for Aster (and presumably other) air defense missiles.

Hull Design

The carrier hull is being designed as having a life service around 50 years. As such the hull is being built around an open architecture model (not unlike the Ford class). This module based concept will ensure that the ships is "future proof" when it comes to being converted in order to accommodate catapult systems. With the flight deck included the hull will be nine decks deep. Due to budget restraints a number of key armor features have been dropped form the design. These include side armor plates and armored bulkheads.

Some Video For Our Visual Learners

Other Source
MoD Carrier Order
QE Class

[edit on 11-2-2008 by WestPoint23]

posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 01:50 AM
good post westy

a couple of bits to add for you:

Alstom (now Converteam) won the DERA competition for the EMCAT for use on the QE2 ships - although BAe are in talks to General Atomics for proposal of using there EMALS system (the one for the ford class) so a bit of competition there

and they will be fitted with mag cat backfit from the start - 2 reasons really , france have come on board for the design for their new carrier and it needs to be CATOBAR for rafale (so will likely use the french mag cat system ) and the UK (as you said) will want CTOL operations at some point: sooner rather than later if there are issues with the F35

[edit on 12/2/08 by Harlequin]

posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 09:42 PM
Well that looks good to me! It seems to have certain stealth features built in as well. (the ramp would give it away though). Nice and big though, good to see the brits get a couple!

posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 06:20 PM
As goes propulsion they're being designed for, but not with, the PW2 reactor, as was the type 45, allowing quick conversion to nuclear power should the need arise.

posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 08:28 PM
Well this is just nitpicking and all... but isn't the classification for a Super-Carrier rated at a max displacement of 75,000 tonnes?

Shattered OUT...

posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 02:55 AM
reply to post by ShatteredSkies

Its comparable to the USS Forrestal in displacement - and that ship was dubbed by the US press as the worlds first super carrier.

but apparantly to be a `super carrier` it has to have an angled deck , arrestor wires and cats - which IMO is rubbish if the ship is to operate STOVL aircraft - but they are being built with magcat backfit the deck will be reconfigurable (ask the french who are using the design) and can have wires fitted.

posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 07:34 AM
Would someone be able to outline the French involvement in this project for me? Will they be building an identical ship and if so surly the British have certain technologies they don’t want the French getting their hands on?

Also is their any possibility that a third carrier will be ordered and kept in reserve like the current format? What about the current carriers, will any of them be kept in reserve? What’s the plan?

posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 08:19 AM

In December 2005, following discussions between the UK and French governments on the possibility of co-operation with the design of the next French carrier, the PA2, it was agreed that France would pay one-third of the costs of the demonstration phase of a common baseline design of CVF. A memorandum of understanding to that effect was signed by the two nations in March 2006.

the new french carrier PA2 will be of a very similar design but slightly heavier (at 75,000 displaced) , the reason is that the company the UK selected - thales , was also part of the PA2 bid - so it made alot of sence economically instead of 2 countries designing and building a similar carrier from scratch - they use 1 common basic design and fit it as they want - don`t forget the UK said it has to be CTOL capabale for its full live , and the french need it CTOL now for rafale

also tech wise - thales are building it along with BAE , there are 2 companies looking for the mag cat contract - france want there own kit and the uk is interested in the us kit - but the `back fit` will be the same for both.

the UK and France are alot closer , militarily than most will admit - i know that last year several FAA pilots flew with a rafle squadron , getting stick time on the type; could mean anything that one

and whilst the UK are the tier 1 for the F35 - the contract is by no mean signed for buying them so they need all options open.

posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 05:33 PM

Originally posted by MisterVoid
As goes propulsion they're being designed for, but not with, the PW2 reactor, as was the type 45, allowing quick conversion to nuclear power should the need arise.

I do not think the T45 destroyer or the CVF carriers have ever been designed to take the PW2 reactors. I have been able to find no source for this statement and in fact a nuclear CVF was never seriously considered on grounds of cost.

The T45 have WR21 integrated electric propulsion units. I am not sure the CVF has been concluded and may be WR21 or possibly the MT30.

Nuclear is not part of the equation.


posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 12:56 AM
Having started this thread about the upgrade of facilities in the Rosyth Naval Dockyard by Babcock Engineering Services and Edmond Nuttall Limited, I have sat back and red with great interest, the ardent speculation about the UK's Future Carrier programme.

From the outset, my thread had only a passing reference to the two carries. It had more to do with the refitting of most of the naval dockyards and what that would entail.

The posters who have laid out these wonderful filmclips and illustrations depicting what the carriers 'will' look like, are simply speculating, as is most of the press.

The RN has issued a factual broadsheet of what aircraft carrier will look like and aircraft types it preferes and would like if monies 'were no object' but, and it is a very big but, the Treasury is tightening the MOD purse strings and, more importantly, big projects are being cut back - across the board!

The outcome of these swingeing cutbacks - due to the ever increasing costs of fighting two wars and maintaining the peace in several small countries, is forcing Gordon Browne [dislikes the MOD from when he was Chancellor] and the Northern Rock fiasco is forcing the puppet Darling to order cutbacks.

What this will eventually mean to the carrier programme, we will all have to wait and see.

[edit on 21-2-2008 by fritz]

posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 02:47 AM
there now appears to be a delay due to funding in the carrier programme - delay not cancellation

Shipyards had been expected to cut first steel on HMS Queen Elizabeth in late 2008, this would presumably slip to 2009 or even 2010 under these "ideas", with her in-service date similarly slipping from 2014 to 2015 or 2016. A few days later this website was informed that first steel was expected to be cut in late January 2009 - if a contractual commitment was made by the MOD in February 2008.

given the 1 year slip to IOC for the F35 (now at 2017) according to the article today in flight global - the delay would actually be useful for the carrier

posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 05:55 AM
Not at all Harlequin.

The best aircraft in Europe at the moment, is by far the Typhoon. The French Rafael cannot do half of what the Typhoon is alleged to be capable of and anything from the Rodina will bound to be short on spare parts if we ever fall out with each other.

In waiting for the F-35 or 'whatever', the MOD is missing a golden opportunity to fit the Typhoon with arrester hook gearing and is, IMHO, just wasting taxpayer's money in purchasing the US answer to the

posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 06:30 AM
the uk won`t get the F35 for another 10 years -

The aircraft is the first weight-optimised F-35, having had (3,000lb) of weight removed from its original design, and Standridge says “the suppliers are catching up to the demands of that design.” A second STOVL test aircraft will roll out in April, with the type scheduled to achieve initial operating capability with the US Marine Corps in 2012 and the UK during 2017.

thats a 1 year slip from the last mentioned delivery of 2016

posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 07:10 AM
all right, it is always so discouraging to see people drooling over these monstrous killing machines. yay to the aircraft fleets that can takeoff and land to these carriers after they have bombed some terrorists and civilians. does britain (or any other country) need these kinds of stuff? who is going to attack them? or are they perhaps build for attack purposes?

i gonna lol when i see one of these or other carriers that have costs millions of people's money to sink just because they collide with the tanker when docking. or one of those planes accidentally explode under deck sinking the whole crap. why do you people support building these things? honestly?

posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 01:50 PM
I'm sorry, but I get disturbed when someone jumps onto one of these threads saying that we're the nut jobs drooling over these "weapons of death".

First off, this stuff doesn't kill people, people kill people. I have yet to see a Carrier go berserk on its own power and thought and mindlessly slaughter people.

Second, we are no "drooling", what is occurring is a discussion of what we believe the technologies are that are being involved. We are not here to discuss killing people, we here to discuss the hardware.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 02:00 PM
reply to post by ShatteredSkies

i'm sorry as well, but i get distrupted every time people talks about things related to spread hatred and violence, in a fancying way. no matter what these things (weaponry) are for killing and they are purposedly build and fancying that kind of stuff seems somehow very perverted to me

i'm also sorry that i distrupted you in anyway, now that i have said what i had to say, i won't disturp you no more (at least on this thread

moderators of course delete my posts if they see that they dont contribute on the conversation.. i just wanted to give a little nudge

ny siincere apology for that, im idiot someimes.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in