"HMS Queen Elizabeth " Topic

A great name, in a service with a long tradition of great names. Video of the new QE entering New York Harbor 2 days ago:

YouTube link

Can't say as I have any firm opinion on her combat capabilities, but I will give the RN credit for taking to see what must be the ugliest ship of the post-WW2 era!

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

HMS Ocean was far uglier :). I did encourage my friends in the design team to pay more attention to the aesthetics, especially around the bow and the end of the ski jump – something akin to Hermes – but it would have cost a bit so we were stuck with the "face rammed into a brick wall" look.

Oh, I just thought, the French LHDs are FAR WORSE than either Ocean or Queen Liz, having all the design qualities of a brick :D

Sailed right past it this morning! It's sort of the size of a US amphibious assault ship. There were 2 big helos on deck; no Harriers visible.

Are you sure you saw the right one Jeff? It's not much smaller than the Nimitz class ones and we haven't had Harriers for about 8 years now.

What's the ski-jump for then? It's certainly possible that the distance/perspective made it look smaller than it is, or that the size of the helos fooled my eye. 53 meters is a not-negligable size difference, I think.

Edit: I see you guys intend to fly F-35s off her eventually.

Edit 2: Wasp-class: 257m; QE: 280m.

Just to add on the size comparison.

In length, which is probably the most obvious thing you see, Queen Elizabeth is closer to a Wasp than to a Nimitz: Wasp 257, QE 280, Nimitz 333m.
Displacement is in between: roughly 40,000, 70,000 and 95,000 metric tons at full load. (QE is usually quoted as 65,000 metric tons without qualifying the load state, her captain recently said 73,000 and I've seen estimates of 75,000 full load.)
The size feature where QE is closest to a CVN is in deck area – obviously a key feature for operating aircraft efficiently but invisible from the shore or a passing boat. I can't find comparable flight deck areas but the maximum beams are: 31.8m, 73m and 76.8m (bear in mind that the Nimitz has a short widening for the angled deck run out, a long narrow bow and a narrower deck over the stern compared to the QE's much squarer deck.
This graphic shows the comparison well. link

Also to add for Jeff:

"Edit: I see you guys intend to fly F-35s off her eventually."

That started three weeks ago. The first F35B landed on HMS QE on 25th September.

YouTube link
link

There are 9 aircraft, so far, working up to IOC with 617 squadron in the UK at RAF Marham. 48 ordered so far with 138 planned.
link

I watched the Youtube video: it seems that the aircraft are not catapulted off the deck?

The F35s are VTOL and can also do a rolling launch via the ski jump as did the Harriers that you may be more familiar with.

"I watched the Youtube video: it seems that the aircraft are not catapulted off the deck?"

No, they use the ski-jump and the aircraft's short take-off capability, the same as Harriers have done for nearly 40 years on British, Spanish and Italian carriers. The idea is that by launching them on an upwards, ballistic trajectory, even if they aren't at wing-borne flying speed, they have extra time to accelerate. This allows launches at a heavier load and/or with a shorter run than off a flat deck. It also means that the aircraft is heading up, away from the waves – particularly useful in really bad weather.

Landing is normally vertical – hence the choice of F35B – but there is a new technique called short rolling vertical landing, SRVL, where the aircraft comes in at a low flying speed using the lift fan and engine nozzle rotated but getting some extra lift from the wings, allowing a bigger bring-back weight, especially in hot conditions. There is a new type of landing aid for this called the Bedford Array that helps the pilot follow the right line.

By not having catapult launches and arrested recover, maintaining carrier qualification is much easier – a big factor for the UK as we have a mixed Airforce and Navy pool of pilots on F35.

Midlander65,
It also reduces sortie turnaround times, giving an increased number of sorties.