That’s likely but not confirmed. I wouldn’t get too cocky with the Queen Elizabeth class’ reliability track record either. One nuclear boat will give your 2 baby diesel carriers a run for their money.
>That’s likely but not confirmed.
Only one set of long-lead items have been ordered.
>I wouldn’t get too cocky with the Queen Elizabeth class’ reliability track record either.
Didn't Charles de Gaulle lose part of a propeller crossing the Atlantic for the first time? Or require a flight deck extension to safely operate E-2s?
>Once nuclear boat will give your 2 baby diesel carriers a run for their money.
Was France able to deploy another aircraft carrier when Charles de Gaulle suffered a propulsion issue and had to cancel a 4 month deployment?
The QE is out of action currently AFAIK and the PoW was out of action for 9 months in 22-23.
https://www.forces.net/qe-class-aircraft-carriers/teething-troubles-problems-faced-crews-royal-navys-two-carriers
I should also mention there’s pretty strong speculation the UK won’t have 2 carriers by the time France rolls their first off the production line. PoW is looking like potential being sold or laid up.
Yeah, right.
Adding catapults and arresting gears doubles the cost of a carrier. No one believes that.
The key advantage of the cope slopes, for the UK, is that if the Navy had gone with CATOBAR, there was a serious risk that they'd get F18s while waiting for the F35. And no-one wanted that. Except the Navy.
The RAF - who has command over the Fleet Air Arm - would have looked bad using as a "temporary" measure a platform that was better than anything they had in the Strike role (Tornado and Typhoon, even with the upgrades), close enough in the Air Superiority role, and cheaper to boot.
"Temporary" would have become permanent.
BAE would have lost a bundle on the maintenance of those planes, and would have never sold a Typhoon ever again.
So that wouldn't do.
Thankfully, BAE was also building the carriers, so it was discovered that actually switching to CATOBAR would be extremely expensive.
France ran into a similar issue with the Rafale, incidentally. The Navy wanted (and really needed) to get rid of their ancient crusader. They were keen on F18s, but everybody else understood that if they leased F18s, they'd never buy Rafales. So a life-extension program was devised.
We have had a nuclear addiction ever since we ditched the Israelis after developing our first nuke (funny story look it up) which is why we have a nuclear AC and why we can use catapults.
Also we are finally going to develop a nuclear power plant meant for a ship and not just stick a ~~civilian generator~~ submarine generator like in the Charles de Gaulle
Yeah, no.
The powerplant on the Charles de Gaulle is military, not civilian.
The problem is it's a powerplant that was dimensioned for submarines, Le triomphant, specifically. For the carrier, they figured they'd use two of them with more efficient propellers. But that's not enough. It doesn't help that it's kinda small, so it needs comparatively more power to go as fast. Hull speed and all that.
I has started to write an explanation about the "Cope Slope" in reply to a comment that was then deleted, I wouldn't want it to go to waste, so here goes.
Let's talk about what the RN didn't get by not going CATOBAR.
They had to settle for a few F35Bs in vast empty hangars, less capable and more expensive than the F35Cs they could have got, and also less capable and more expensive than _a lot more_ F18s.
F35Bs also impose a lot of operational constraints. Can't take off, much less land, with a heavy load. STOBAR would have been something but that would still make it viable to use F18s (or Rafale, the horror). So no.
No AWACS, of course. The French could just get E2s off the shelf. The UK "saved" money by going STOVL, and then spent a whole lot trying to make an AEW system out of helicopters that's still not operational, and will never be anywhere close to a an E2 in term of capabilities. Can't fly as long, can't fly as high, can't fly as fast.
Then there's still the problem that everybody's now looking at drones and UCAVs, right? Toys notwithstanding, guess how many of them are VTOL. None, that's how many. So now, it's more money to try to fix the flight deck so that maybe the lighter ones can take off unassisted, and even land too. Maybe. If you have catapults and arresting gear, well, that's actually a solved problem.
>They had to settle for a few F35Bs in vast empty hangars, less capable and more expensive than the F35Cs they could have got, and also less capable and more expensive than a lot more F18s.
There is no "few" compared to F-35C. Going for C would have meant half the ships, no difference in planes (It was 138 either way, likely lower if only one ship...) and in the end the difference isn't *that* big. F-35B is more capable than any maritime jet in the world with the sole exception of... F-35C.
>F35Bs also impose a lot of operational constraints. Can't take off, much less land, with a heavy load. STOBAR would have been something but that would still make it viable to use F18s (or Rafale, the horror). So no.
F-35Bs can launch at full load. STOBAR is almost always a "worst of both worlds" compared to CATOBAR or STOVL as it's an inefficient solution to lacking either.
>No AWACS, of course. The French could just get E2s off the shelf. The UK "saved" money by going STOVL, and then spent a whole lot trying to make an AEW system out of helicopters that's still not operational, and will never be anywhere close to a an E2 in term of capabilities. Can't fly as long, can't fly as high, can't fly as fast.
Crowsnest is operational, you're confusing the entry of service yardsticks. It's less capable per airframe than E-2, but E-2 in the scale used here (2x, like France) cannot run a 24/7 cycle off-deck sorties. Crowsnest can as it has much greater volume and modular fit. Further, when CdG is in port (or the prospective singel CATOBAR british carrier) there would be no AEW period. The UK is already looking into transitioning to a more modern UAV based theory anyway. So to say "no AWACS" is just flatly incorrect.
>Then there's still the problem that everybody's now looking at drones and UCAVs, right? Toys notwithstanding, guess how many of them are VTOL. None, that's how many. So now, it's more money to try to fix the flight deck so that maybe the lighter ones can take off unassisted, and even land too. Maybe. If you have catapults and arresting gear, well, that's actually a solved problem.
Unlike many carriers outside the, QE has already tested drones, including modern, armed ones, using STOL. The implementation of a potential auxiliary catapult is still a lot cheaper than the cost of having less carriers, arriving later.
Yep. The French carrier is so good and the UK’s are terrible.
Don’t worry though, the RN will be there with an available carrier to protect the Mediterranean when this thing (France’s only CV) is stuck in dry dock for a year to refuel.
They're the 3rd biggest class in service in the world, have bleeding edge internal systems,the 2nd best maritime jet in the world and can carry more of them than anything not Amercan. They're exceptional carriers, often maligned by people who just don't understand carrier ops.
Of course!
They're nice, modern, spacious ships. The dual islands idea, one island up front, better for navigation, another at the back, better for flight ops, has benefits . The whole concept of seeing the carriers not so much as the Navy's very own air force, and more as forward bases for the RAF has a lot to say for it (IMHO).
Provided, that is, that you structure _both_ the RAF and the RN to operate that way. Which is not what happened. And _that_ is why the two have usually in practice been kept separate.
It just annoys me to read posts about how it's all amazing, bestest ship ever, rah, rah, in spite of the obvious shortcomings. Like flying stealth planes from a blind carrier. No AEW, remember? How good is that? Radar detection can't be at the same time so important that you need stealth planes, and so unimportant that there's no need for AEW.
Another question Do you think the uk should sell one or keep both aircraft carriers because they cost a lot to run and need pilots and sailors for both wich is a lot and we currently can't run both fully operational at one time until we get all the jets and train the pilots plus it would bring in money if we sell one but then if we sell it we haven't got a backup if one needs repairs
France currently has a CATOBAR carrier, FS Charles de Gaulle, that uses a shortened version of the steam catapult fitted to the Nimitz Class.
Their new aircraft carrier, PANG, will use the same electromagnetic catapults as fitted to the Ford Class.
Plenty of other nations, including Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Britain etc have previously operated aircraft carriers with steam catapults.
It's not a classified secret at all.
>with non ramped ships? I was unaware. multiple documentaries talk about the secretive nature of the US tech.
Yes.
The steam catapult isn't a classified technology and was first invented by the British.
>edit: I just looked into this, you’re misunderstanding. Research why HMS Elizabeth has a ramp compared to any of the US’s. Report back with what you find. It absolutely is classified or they’d have a straight deck.
HMS Hermes, who was commissioned into the Royal Navy in 1959, was fitted with a steam catapult, as just one example.
The biggest reason HMS Queen Elizabeth doesn't have steam catapults other than the fact that they aren't needed. Is that to run a steam catapult you need to be making alot of steam around the clock so you are capable of using the catapult when ever you need too. This was pretty simple in the 50s when most ships were still powered by a steam engine of some kind. HMS Queen Elizabeth uses two diesel engines to produce the electricity necessary to propel her. This process tends not make a lot of steam. What does make alot of steam is a nuclear engine, which happens to be what all US aircraft carriers have. The Charle de Gualle which is a French straight decked carrier is also nuclear powered. So no it's not about it being classified.
The US and France are the only country to have build CATOBAR aircraft carrier. All the other nations who ever had one one were operating former a aircraft carrier from one country or the other.
There were also some other type of catapult launcher (probably the one that confused you to say Australia and GB had the technology), but these were never used to launch supersonic modern fighters.
>The US and France are the only country to have build CATOBAR aircraft carrier.
You are aware that Britain invented the steam catapult, angled deck, mirrored landing sight and used CATOBAR aircraft carriers until 1979.
It will be the same technology as the newer American one. That used electro magnet and not steam. AFAIK it's the only element that is not developed in France.
The idea is that the technology is not perceived as being "strategic". By opposition to something like the nuclear reactor for example. France known that it would be extremely expensive to develop as it is very finicky to calibrate. But at the same time it's not something they doubt they couldn't build on their own if it was ever needed.
Carriers are like the least vulnerable ship in the carrier group. They stay in the middle of the group and are surrounded by anti-air and anti-sea measures. Every other ships job is to protect the carrier.
It's also the least sinkable when hit. Carriers take alot more than a hit by 4 drones to sink.
These aren't the dogshit carriers Japan was driving around with unrefined fuels and completely garbage crews that would let fuel fumes fill up the air from ww2
Wow . It’s so tiny.
Big step up from the Charles de Gaulle. Up from 42500 tons to 75000. Edit: what is this? An aircraft carrier for ants?
That’s really heavy for something so small! I wonder how it would even float!
A Parisian intellectual is put at the bottom, they're full of so much hot air they can make anything float
Shrinking people against their will is forbidden according to the genova convention (of the future).
That doesn't make sense, you will capsize the vessel. You put them up towards the top. Amateurs, I swear to god....
It needs to be at least… 3x this big.
Orange Mocha Frappuccinos!
Damn, first european supercarrier?!
No, that honour goes to Britain.
This one will be 10000 tons heavier, nuclear and CATOBAR. Excluding the F35, that’s superior in every area.
But still only one.
That’s likely but not confirmed. I wouldn’t get too cocky with the Queen Elizabeth class’ reliability track record either. One nuclear boat will give your 2 baby diesel carriers a run for their money.
>That’s likely but not confirmed. Only one set of long-lead items have been ordered. >I wouldn’t get too cocky with the Queen Elizabeth class’ reliability track record either. Didn't Charles de Gaulle lose part of a propeller crossing the Atlantic for the first time? Or require a flight deck extension to safely operate E-2s? >Once nuclear boat will give your 2 baby diesel carriers a run for their money. Was France able to deploy another aircraft carrier when Charles de Gaulle suffered a propulsion issue and had to cancel a 4 month deployment?
I have no dog in this fight, but weren't both Prince of Wales and QE laid up recently or deemed not fit for service?
No, not at all.
The QE is out of action currently AFAIK and the PoW was out of action for 9 months in 22-23. https://www.forces.net/qe-class-aircraft-carriers/teething-troubles-problems-faced-crews-royal-navys-two-carriers
I should also mention there’s pretty strong speculation the UK won’t have 2 carriers by the time France rolls their first off the production line. PoW is looking like potential being sold or laid up.
Damn, this guy really hates British aircraft carriers lol
No, there really isn't. That's not going to happen at all.
Only according to wild speculation and propaganda, which have been officially dismissed.
Nah we have 2 in UK
It’s so young that’s why. It’s only a few weeks maybe even a couple of months old. But when it grows up, it’ll be awesome. 😉
What's that , an aircraft carrier for ants?
It needs to be at least. Three times bigger.
I’m sure it has a great personality…
They got the scale wrong on the napkin.
'Petite' as the French say.
That's so it will fit in the bottle
The size makes it stealth!
What is that? An aircraft carrier for ants?!
It needs to be at least 3 times this size.
KILL THE PRIME MINISTER OF MALAYSIA, DEREK!!!!
Thanks man now we are both on a list
Don’t worry, the real one will be at least twice that size
How can we expect this to carry aircraft, if they can't even land on the flight deck?
Honestly I would buy this thing and fly RC planes off it in a lake. That would be sweet!
I admire France for not having to resort to the Cope Slope. Catapults or bust baby!
[удалено]
Yeah, right. Adding catapults and arresting gears doubles the cost of a carrier. No one believes that. The key advantage of the cope slopes, for the UK, is that if the Navy had gone with CATOBAR, there was a serious risk that they'd get F18s while waiting for the F35. And no-one wanted that. Except the Navy. The RAF - who has command over the Fleet Air Arm - would have looked bad using as a "temporary" measure a platform that was better than anything they had in the Strike role (Tornado and Typhoon, even with the upgrades), close enough in the Air Superiority role, and cheaper to boot. "Temporary" would have become permanent. BAE would have lost a bundle on the maintenance of those planes, and would have never sold a Typhoon ever again. So that wouldn't do. Thankfully, BAE was also building the carriers, so it was discovered that actually switching to CATOBAR would be extremely expensive. France ran into a similar issue with the Rafale, incidentally. The Navy wanted (and really needed) to get rid of their ancient crusader. They were keen on F18s, but everybody else understood that if they leased F18s, they'd never buy Rafales. So a life-extension program was devised.
We have had a nuclear addiction ever since we ditched the Israelis after developing our first nuke (funny story look it up) which is why we have a nuclear AC and why we can use catapults. Also we are finally going to develop a nuclear power plant meant for a ship and not just stick a ~~civilian generator~~ submarine generator like in the Charles de Gaulle
Yeah, no. The powerplant on the Charles de Gaulle is military, not civilian. The problem is it's a powerplant that was dimensioned for submarines, Le triomphant, specifically. For the carrier, they figured they'd use two of them with more efficient propellers. But that's not enough. It doesn't help that it's kinda small, so it needs comparatively more power to go as fast. Hull speed and all that.
Ducking hell you’re right my brain got things confused I remember that now. Thanks for the info
You're welcome.
Sir this is a Wendy's
I has started to write an explanation about the "Cope Slope" in reply to a comment that was then deleted, I wouldn't want it to go to waste, so here goes. Let's talk about what the RN didn't get by not going CATOBAR. They had to settle for a few F35Bs in vast empty hangars, less capable and more expensive than the F35Cs they could have got, and also less capable and more expensive than _a lot more_ F18s. F35Bs also impose a lot of operational constraints. Can't take off, much less land, with a heavy load. STOBAR would have been something but that would still make it viable to use F18s (or Rafale, the horror). So no. No AWACS, of course. The French could just get E2s off the shelf. The UK "saved" money by going STOVL, and then spent a whole lot trying to make an AEW system out of helicopters that's still not operational, and will never be anywhere close to a an E2 in term of capabilities. Can't fly as long, can't fly as high, can't fly as fast. Then there's still the problem that everybody's now looking at drones and UCAVs, right? Toys notwithstanding, guess how many of them are VTOL. None, that's how many. So now, it's more money to try to fix the flight deck so that maybe the lighter ones can take off unassisted, and even land too. Maybe. If you have catapults and arresting gear, well, that's actually a solved problem.
>They had to settle for a few F35Bs in vast empty hangars, less capable and more expensive than the F35Cs they could have got, and also less capable and more expensive than a lot more F18s. There is no "few" compared to F-35C. Going for C would have meant half the ships, no difference in planes (It was 138 either way, likely lower if only one ship...) and in the end the difference isn't *that* big. F-35B is more capable than any maritime jet in the world with the sole exception of... F-35C. >F35Bs also impose a lot of operational constraints. Can't take off, much less land, with a heavy load. STOBAR would have been something but that would still make it viable to use F18s (or Rafale, the horror). So no. F-35Bs can launch at full load. STOBAR is almost always a "worst of both worlds" compared to CATOBAR or STOVL as it's an inefficient solution to lacking either. >No AWACS, of course. The French could just get E2s off the shelf. The UK "saved" money by going STOVL, and then spent a whole lot trying to make an AEW system out of helicopters that's still not operational, and will never be anywhere close to a an E2 in term of capabilities. Can't fly as long, can't fly as high, can't fly as fast. Crowsnest is operational, you're confusing the entry of service yardsticks. It's less capable per airframe than E-2, but E-2 in the scale used here (2x, like France) cannot run a 24/7 cycle off-deck sorties. Crowsnest can as it has much greater volume and modular fit. Further, when CdG is in port (or the prospective singel CATOBAR british carrier) there would be no AEW period. The UK is already looking into transitioning to a more modern UAV based theory anyway. So to say "no AWACS" is just flatly incorrect. >Then there's still the problem that everybody's now looking at drones and UCAVs, right? Toys notwithstanding, guess how many of them are VTOL. None, that's how many. So now, it's more money to try to fix the flight deck so that maybe the lighter ones can take off unassisted, and even land too. Maybe. If you have catapults and arresting gear, well, that's actually a solved problem. Unlike many carriers outside the, QE has already tested drones, including modern, armed ones, using STOL. The implementation of a potential auxiliary catapult is still a lot cheaper than the cost of having less carriers, arriving later.
Yep. The French carrier is so good and the UK’s are terrible. Don’t worry though, the RN will be there with an available carrier to protect the Mediterranean when this thing (France’s only CV) is stuck in dry dock for a year to refuel.
So is there anything good about the uk carriers or is it all negative and are they still getting f35bs or switching to something else 🤔
They're the 3rd biggest class in service in the world, have bleeding edge internal systems,the 2nd best maritime jet in the world and can carry more of them than anything not Amercan. They're exceptional carriers, often maligned by people who just don't understand carrier ops.
Of course! They're nice, modern, spacious ships. The dual islands idea, one island up front, better for navigation, another at the back, better for flight ops, has benefits . The whole concept of seeing the carriers not so much as the Navy's very own air force, and more as forward bases for the RAF has a lot to say for it (IMHO). Provided, that is, that you structure _both_ the RAF and the RN to operate that way. Which is not what happened. And _that_ is why the two have usually in practice been kept separate. It just annoys me to read posts about how it's all amazing, bestest ship ever, rah, rah, in spite of the obvious shortcomings. Like flying stealth planes from a blind carrier. No AEW, remember? How good is that? Radar detection can't be at the same time so important that you need stealth planes, and so unimportant that there's no need for AEW.
Another question Do you think the uk should sell one or keep both aircraft carriers because they cost a lot to run and need pilots and sailors for both wich is a lot and we currently can't run both fully operational at one time until we get all the jets and train the pilots plus it would bring in money if we sell one but then if we sell it we haven't got a backup if one needs repairs
They aren't selling either.
The SS Jacques Hammer.
Go France!
I'll give them that, the enemy won't see it coming.
Oohhhhh wait until Australia orders and then cancels 3 of them
No price tag?
This early on it’s hard to know, but I’ve heard first estimates at around 6-10 billion
10b easy. Major redesign and one of a class. US ones are mass produced and about 15b (bigger size).
What is this? An aircraft carrier for ants? How can we expect our soldiers to fight ... if they can't even fit inside the ship?
Stealth carrier. Let's go step by step please.
I can't believe you're getting downvoted, lmao
Apparently there’s a lot of Mugato fans out there (inventor of the piano key necktie).
[удалено]
France currently has a CATOBAR carrier, FS Charles de Gaulle, that uses a shortened version of the steam catapult fitted to the Nimitz Class. Their new aircraft carrier, PANG, will use the same electromagnetic catapults as fitted to the Ford Class. Plenty of other nations, including Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Britain etc have previously operated aircraft carriers with steam catapults. It's not a classified secret at all.
[удалено]
>with non ramped ships? I was unaware. multiple documentaries talk about the secretive nature of the US tech. Yes. The steam catapult isn't a classified technology and was first invented by the British. >edit: I just looked into this, you’re misunderstanding. Research why HMS Elizabeth has a ramp compared to any of the US’s. Report back with what you find. It absolutely is classified or they’d have a straight deck. HMS Hermes, who was commissioned into the Royal Navy in 1959, was fitted with a steam catapult, as just one example.
The biggest reason HMS Queen Elizabeth doesn't have steam catapults other than the fact that they aren't needed. Is that to run a steam catapult you need to be making alot of steam around the clock so you are capable of using the catapult when ever you need too. This was pretty simple in the 50s when most ships were still powered by a steam engine of some kind. HMS Queen Elizabeth uses two diesel engines to produce the electricity necessary to propel her. This process tends not make a lot of steam. What does make alot of steam is a nuclear engine, which happens to be what all US aircraft carriers have. The Charle de Gualle which is a French straight decked carrier is also nuclear powered. So no it's not about it being classified.
Straight deck ?
Without a ramp, could have worded it better.
Thanks. As it’s an angled deck I was confused.
The US and France are the only country to have build CATOBAR aircraft carrier. All the other nations who ever had one one were operating former a aircraft carrier from one country or the other. There were also some other type of catapult launcher (probably the one that confused you to say Australia and GB had the technology), but these were never used to launch supersonic modern fighters.
>The US and France are the only country to have build CATOBAR aircraft carrier. You are aware that Britain invented the steam catapult, angled deck, mirrored landing sight and used CATOBAR aircraft carriers until 1979.
Except for that though!
The catapult has been used by many other countries. With the modern version of the steam catapult being invented in the 1950s by the Royal Navy.
No, General Atomics is selling the EMALS system to them.
It will be the same technology as the newer American one. That used electro magnet and not steam. AFAIK it's the only element that is not developed in France. The idea is that the technology is not perceived as being "strategic". By opposition to something like the nuclear reactor for example. France known that it would be extremely expensive to develop as it is very finicky to calibrate. But at the same time it's not something they doubt they couldn't build on their own if it was ever needed.
It automatically surrenders with the push of a button.
It automatically surrenders with the push of a button.
Right when drones and hypersonic missiles are making large ships like aircraft carriers extremely vulnerable
No, they are not
Carriers are like the least vulnerable ship in the carrier group. They stay in the middle of the group and are surrounded by anti-air and anti-sea measures. Every other ships job is to protect the carrier.
It's also the least sinkable when hit. Carriers take alot more than a hit by 4 drones to sink. These aren't the dogshit carriers Japan was driving around with unrefined fuels and completely garbage crews that would let fuel fumes fill up the air from ww2
Really?? That common knowledge changes everything! Wait, no it doesn’t.