+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557 Posted March 3, 2009 Any infos about it?! why two islands ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Hinchinbrooke 36 Posted March 3, 2009 Well, if they ever get built.................... (they've been in the works for years). I'm not sure if design has been completely finalized (I've seen various proposals), but as for the two mini-islands (according to that video), a side lift requires an island gap for flightdeck access. Perhaps a weight-saving measure also, giving good visuals for flight operations (as opposed to a long, continual, heavier island). The ships could do with a name change also. Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales don't do much for me (being battleship names). I'd rather have another Eagle, Victorious, Hermes, etc., etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557 Posted March 4, 2009 about the name, you are right but the carrier are the "new age" battleships.. since WWII ends. If someone has any other pics about this carrier would be nice to collect them here. And hinch any plans to make such a carrier? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted March 4, 2009 I suspect splitting the bridge for navigation and the tower for air ops provides for the better visibility and control by each to some extent. And the mid location of the side elevator probably makes movement of aircraft a bit easier. Interesting design. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Hinchinbrooke 36 Posted March 4, 2009 about the name, you are right but the carrier are the "new age" battleships.. since WWII ends. If someone has any other pics about this carrier would be nice to collect them here. And hinch any plans to make such a carrier? True, carriers have been the 'capital' ships post WWII, but the RN has a good selection of carrier names to use. The other dirty, little secret (or secrets) regarding these ships............... will there be the crews and planes to man them............. and useful numbers of suitable escort ships (destroyers, frigates, etc.) to create viable taskforces. (See UK Treasury.) As for building one. Interesting project, but low on the priority list. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+SkippyBing 8 Posted March 4, 2009 I think the two islands also improves air flow over the deck, although I can't remember where I heard that originally. Personally I'm not convinced it's a rgeat idea separating Flyco and the bridge that much as if you have a comms or electrical failure during flying ops it's going to get a bit emotional. As to the names, by convention the first capital ship launched in a monarchs reign is named after the monarch, obviously we've left it a while. I'm not sure if it's pessimistic or pragmatic to name the second one Prince of Wales.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scouserlad13 0 Posted March 4, 2009 Looks expensive haha. Why have the ramp though? Why not just fit it with a slingshot? And also, what was the huge barrel on the side of the seaking? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast 153 Posted March 4, 2009 Looks expensive haha. Why have the ramp though? Why not just fit it with a slingshot? And also, what was the huge barrel on the side of the seaking? Okay the Barrel on the side of the Seaking as you put it is the Searchwater Radar used for AEW duties. Fitting the slingshot as you also delicately put it was in one of the designs but they have gone with the STOVL F-35 to be honest imho it would have been better putting catapults on that way the ship could carry E-2's with better radar coverage and also allow a wider range of jets to be used in case the STOVL F-35 doesnt work or gets canned... The Ramp is so that the STOVL F-35's can launch with a greater payload... Next.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SayethWhaaaa 245 Posted March 4, 2009 I suspect splitting the bridge for navigation and the tower for air ops provides for the better visibility and control by each to some extent. And the mid location of the side elevator probably makes movement of aircraft a bit easier. Interesting design. Yeah, the stories I've been hearing is that the aft one is where the tower will be situated and it'll have much better visibility in comparison to contemporary carriers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted March 4, 2009 Yeah, the stories I've been hearing is that the aft one is where the tower will be situated and it'll have much better visibility in comparison to contemporary carriers. of that, I can attest! "I'm not convinced it's a rgeat idea separating Flyco and the bridge that much as if you have a comms or electrical failure during flying ops it's going to get a bit emotional." trust me on this one - if you have a comms or electrical failure during flight ops, its going to be very emotional regardless of whether Pri-Fly and the Bridge are physically connected!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sugarblues 0 Posted March 4, 2009 Tsk Tsk Tsk Skippy... Queen Elizabeth was the Queen Mum... QEII is the present Boss! But like you guys, I was truly hoping to have a new Eagle or Victorious... if they had to use BB names, they could've at least brought back Warspite or Renown...ships that actually "did" something... the last QE spent most of her time sitting on a pile of gin bottles in Alex harbour, and the PoW... well, she was a hoodoo ship, wasn't she ? W.R.T. the catapults; the ships are designed with the new electro-magnetic catapults in mind - simply not fitted. The idea is go with STOVL for now, but be able to convert the ships to CATOBAR at a later date if necessary. That's assuming the USN gets them to the point where they can shoot planes off the pointy bit without exploding the ordnance first! As Hinch said - it's going to be interesting to see if there's enough escorts available for a proper battle group by the time these ships get to sea, not to mention if there'll be enough aircraft and aircrews... I think the two islands also improves air flow over the deck, although I can't remember where I heard that originally. Personally I'm not convinced it's a rgeat idea separating Flyco and the bridge that much as if you have a comms or electrical failure during flying ops it's going to get a bit emotional. As to the names, by convention the first capital ship launched in a monarchs reign is named after the monarch, obviously we've left it a while. I'm not sure if it's pessimistic or pragmatic to name the second one Prince of Wales.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+SkippyBing 8 Posted March 4, 2009 I think QEII was avoided so it didn't sound like a liner! trust me on this one - if you have a comms or electrical failure during flight ops, its going to be very emotional regardless of whether Pri-Fly and the Bridge are physically connected!!! Fair one, but it does make it tricky to give the Officer of the Watch a slap when he's been stupid! W.R.T. catapults, it would be very expensive to fit steam cats to a gas turbine powered ship. There is actually a version of the design with steam cats etc, but it takes up a lot of room with dedicated steam generation and storage and ends up being about 80% the cost of a nuclear carrier without the handy saving in fuel costs. Essentially the STOVL design makes the ship nice and cheap but makes the aircraft pricer, but they're on a different budget...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Hinchinbrooke 36 Posted March 5, 2009 As to the names, by convention the first capital ship launched in a monarchs reign is named after the monarch, obviously we've left it a while. I'm not sure if it's pessimistic or pragmatic to name the second one Prince of Wales.... Count me a little confused, convention wise, but the first capital ship launched under George VI, was named after his father, George V (which I assume was a re-name for the original KGV dreadnought).............. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557 Posted March 5, 2009 another version Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+SkippyBing 8 Posted March 5, 2009 Count me a little confused, convention wise, but the first capital ship launched under George VI, was named after his father, George V (which I assume was a re-name for the original KGV dreadnought).............. blink.gif To be honest I can't remember where I heard that it was a while ago and I never really questioned the logic! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scouserlad13 0 Posted March 5, 2009 (edited) I think this is funny, and i think some of you might agree, because whenever they release these video's showing what it is going to look like, it looks great and fantastic and that nothing can stop it, but when it comes to seeing it in real life, you start to think err this wasn't what it looked like on the video... Edited March 5, 2009 by scouserlad13 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
