HMS Queen Elizabeth, the Royal Navy’s flagship, bid farewell to Portsmouth on Sunday evening, 15th May 2023, as it set sail for sea trials.
In a tweet from the official ships account, the ship expressed excitement about putting the crew and vessel through their paces in preparation for the upcoming deployment.
@HMSQNLZ bids farewell to Portsmouth as we have completed our preparations for sea. It’s time to put the ship and crew through their paces as we train for our next deployment!#Flagship pic.twitter.com/YpICKmkCB8
— HMS Queen Elizabeth (@HMSQNLZ) May 14, 2023
The tweet from @HMSQNLZ read, “HMS Queen Elizabeth bids farewell to Portsmouth as we have completed our preparations for sea. It’s time to put the ship and crew through their paces as we train for our next deployment! #Flagship”
With sea trials now underway, HMS Queen Elizabeth aims to ensure that the ship is fully ready for its next mission. These trials will allow the crew to test the ship’s systems, assess its performance, and refine its operational readiness.
The Prime Minister’s recent statement regarding the carrier’s future deployments in the Indo-Pacific region further emphasises the ongoing commitment to maintaining a strong maritime presence.
Together with France’s Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth will play a central role in forming a European maritime presence.
POW proving why it was a good decision to go with two QE class. The French should take note.
I always find it weird that the French only ever built one, they originally had two carriers that need to be replaced how come they never built a second. Even there future carrier that’s in the works is only planned to be one ship not two.
They did plan for two CDG but the program was a disaster and they canceled the second one, they then paid the UK for access to the CVF design and program and planned to buy one but canceled it due to lack of funds around 2010. I think they paid us about £200 million.
I knew they bought CVF design but I didn’t realise they had planned for two CDG thought it was always one. I read that it was a complete disaster, suppose that happens when you go from only building two homegrown carriers to trying to go nuclear. I do wonder if PANG (I think that’s what it’s called) will ever see the light of day.
I hope so. If only for reasons of national pride, I can’t see the French not having a carrier.
I think it’s a shame they’ve gone nuclear again, but cats and traps have to be the right way to go. Estimates vary between €5-7bn, but It wouldn’t surprise me to see it cost more than both QE class carriers put together.
Sorry just noticed you posted better than I did.
Money – ran out
Also they didn’t want another CDG.
There was a moment when there could have been another but it went in favour of working with UK on a nuclear QEC style carrier with catapults.
Image in Cameron and Osbourne got their wish in 2010 and sold one off or scrapped the second one.
France has had numerous issues with CDG in the past like this, thank god and Gordon brown we got two.
Hopefully our next chancellor comes from a constituency with a ship yard in it.
Two was the way to go, for sure. I just wish they had installed cats and traps or even planned to install them on the first major refit. It would have been nice to have the option of launching/recovering conventional naval fixed wing aircraft.
My views exactly. Well said George!
Quite so. The F-35C has a much better payload and range characteristics than the Bs (good though they are too). The C’s would have been better for the RAF too. Still, with all the problems associated with building new cats and traps (e.g. USS Ford…), perhaps a simple ramp was just that much more reliable (and cheaper of course…the real reason)
I wonder why they dismissed STOBAR as an option?
Russia, India and China operate them effectively, using fighters with high thrust to weight ratios. I’m sure with tweaking the F35C or F18 could accommodate the same stresses. The F35C with the upgraded engines should cope easily!
Perhaps even a naval version of our Hawk with a more powerful engine. Also the planned modular twin engine version of Aeralis would be a possible candidate. Manned and unmanned systems. That could be a game changer if fully developed for the fleet air arm as unmanned assets.
We can hope. Fitting some barricade or arrestor system would be much cheaper than catapults. It’s old technology.
Define “effectively”
They can actually do it, regardless of take off loads.
I’m way out of my depth on this subject. So thank you to everyone who has taken the time to explain things to this old grunt.
STOBAR is like the worst of all worlds from what I understand. If you actually look at what the Russian and Chinese aircraft launch with, it’s normally 2 or 4 missiles and that’s it. They also appear to launch aircraft almost from the back (is that stern in navy talk?) so they can’t launch and recover simultaneously.
In STOVL they can do that.
Then you have the same carrier qualification issues as with CATOBAR – and when you only have a small fleet of aircraft that’s an issue.
Thanks for the explanation.
STOBAR is a terrible idea.
It has the worst of both worlds.
– No E2
– Issue of carrier qualification
F35B can be launched with fully loaded weapons and a full fuel tank, F35C wouldn’t be able to from STOBAR and range/payload would probably end up nearer to F35B than CATOBAR F35C. FA18 is worse than F35B.
520 mile combat radius is plenty, hopefully refuelling drones will be purchased in the future anyway.
STOVL offers lots of flexibility including operating from unprepared runways and it’s an important capability to have.
Nobody seriously invests in STOBAR other than as a stepping stone to CATOBAR carriers like China and India, or if you’re just shit like Russia.
That explains things nicely. Cheers.
Ramp does give us more options for drones though. STOBAR could be used in the interim until the light catapults are installed.
This is interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cba2REAjU-Y&t=3s
Also keep in mind that two of the three Chinese carriers are Both Soviet Kuznetsov class Carriers. If you look at their Type 003 they’re basically a copy of the American Ford class carriers so even the Chinese are giving up on the idea.
They also had a load of issues with their J-15 initially not having enough thrust to get off the deck of the 001 or 002 carries with much of a payload at all.
Many reasons why we didn’t. Cost. Time to build. You need a much larger deck crew for cats and traps. Much more maintenance is required resulting in longer and more expensive refits. More to go wrong. A much higher training burden for crews to stay deck qualified. And the F35B brings all the same capability with none of those disadvantages. F18 is inferior, so that would be a backwards step. E2 Hawkeye would be to expensive to operate and it’s a very old design. STOVL carriers can launch aircraft in higher sea state’s. And you can launch and recover aircraft quicker. F35C does carry more fuel, thats the only advantage. The weapons we are intergrating make no difference to weapons payload. Drones we will be a big part of future carrier operations.
And having said all that, for the umpteenth time, sooner or later the subject will be raised again. I’d save that mate for cut and pasting when needed.
What Daniele said.
The next moan and rant story will be about the number of aircraft on its next deployment 😄🙈
The main pic of this article with a deck full of F35s should answer any doubters. Every year we’ll need fewer USMC F35Bs to operate as our numbers grow.
It’s always going to be questioned, until we have sufficient aircraft to give both carriers full airwings and some held in reserve. Not forgetting enough for the RAF to operate independently of the RN FAA.
BTW we are British and moaning is our hard won birth right.
The time to worry is when we stop!
But that has never been the requirement. We have two carriers, so one is available 365 to fit around refits and maintenance periods. There will be times both carriers can put to sea, but the force structure is be able to deploy 24 F35’s or 36 at surge. That might not sound that much, but you would have to go back to 2003 was the last time we deployed more than 24 of a single type of fast jet. (Tornado GR4 OP Telic) 24 F35’s at sea, is one hell of a capability. 24, supersonic, agile, all aspect 5th gen stealth fighters that can take off and land vertically, with the most advanced radar and avionics ever fitted to a fast jet. It would have been unimaginable to achieve that 30 years ago.
The requirement should be to prepare for times of war. Surely the point of having two carriers is to always have one on station with a full airwing. The second being available to relieve the first after a few months. Traveling to and from the area of operation will itself require air cover, escorts etc. Then there are the unfortunate but unavoidable losses due to mechanical breakdown, accidents and attrition at the hands of a near peer enemy to contend with. Necessitating a ready reserve of both airframes and pilots. Not forgetting the needs of the RAF in support of our land forces. Which is a completely different and simultaneous requirement.
Clever rotation, creative accounting and modern management terminology. Is no substitute for sufficient numbers of aircraft and trained pilots. They cannot be in two or in this case three, places at once. Neither can they be pulled like rabbits from a hat. By woke politicians in times of grave need.
It’s not just people like me wanting a very large military, at the expense of others things. Simply for the sake of it. The world is becoming a very dangerous place, with power blocks changing allegiances. And potential enemy countries such as communist China rearming themselves.
Not by me. I’m never too old to learn something new.
Well said. Do wish people would stop living in the past! The future is clearly drone based solutions, why should invest in 50 year old platforms.
Exactly mate.
Think the French operate 2 hawkeyes whilst American carriers have 5 aboard, expensive . Looking forward to a crows nest replacement, tilt rotor unmanned ?
Hawkeyes may be an old design, but they’ve been renewed & updated upon the origional airframe. They have a very useful advantage over Crowsnest Merlins in altitude, range & speed, but tilt rotors would indeed close that advantage IF the treasury can ever be persuaded to fund what we need.
The future of AEW will likely be a UCAV networked together.
What happened to our Merlin Crowsnest ASaC helicopters? My understanding was they would provide AEW
They are providing AEW. The long term AEW will likely be UCAV’S.
More I learn about the potential of integrated UCAV and F35’s capabilities. The more I realise you are correct. If those same drones can be launched from other naval assets too. Escort vessels out on picket duty become AEW range multipliers.
The F35 brings another level of warfare that still few understand. In 80s it was all about who could turn tightest or climb the fastest. Now it’s about situational awareness. The pilot who has the best picture of were all the other bad guys are, wins the fight. Performance is still very important, but not like it was. Combat air is always evolving, and the next generation of unmanned platforms will change things again. The more platforms that share data, and create a ‘cloud’ that warfighters can all see, be it fast jets, warships, ISTAR platforms and troops on the ground, allows them to make much better decisions that can turn the tide of the fight. This is why smaller numbers of very well equipped assets can achieve far more than how we did things in the past. 👍
France has just one carrier and deemed that 3 E2 was all they could afford with only 2 on the carrier. Crowsnest is worse but we’re the only other Carrier nation that can provide a 24/7 AEW. Drones will takeover in the future anyway.
When you realise how much they squander and give away. I’m certain they could fund everything we need now and much more.
“E2 Hawkeye would be to expensive to operate”
But less expensive than losing your carrier.
We have Crownsnest AEW. Nothing moves within 500miles of the carrier without the the whole strike group knowing about it. That’s why we have a layered air defence system. And we have to take the cost into account. The E2 is expensive to purchase and operate, and it’s an old design. Networked UCAV’S is the longer term future of AEW. plus a flight of F35’s provides more coverage and situational awareness than any E2.
Quick send John Healy some photos! Less ships alongside now😄
Can anyone comment on the crewing schedule for the QEC Classes? How many sailors are allocated to each of the ships? And are they rotated to other ships during the current PoW refit for example?
Crew minus air group is about 650. I believe some from POW got transferred for exercises in the US but not many.
Of course we know the air group can remain operational. Do the rest just have to sit on their hands?
Duty watch manning, Career courses, training courses, Ceremonial duties ( Been a lot of that!), Aid to Civ Powers ( Passport Checking etc), Maintenance,new kit installations STW , HAT. Adventurous Training( Plenty of that up North)
Plenty to do for almost everyone. Engineers will have been busy. Logs as well. Operators not so much.
650 was the original plan but it was discovered on QE’s sea trials that this was totally unworkable and it was quickly raised 680. After the first deployment to the USA, her Captain asked for another 70, which was agreed after a lot of argument. So it’s now 750, or 800 (actually 797!) as a flagship.
Everyone is talking on here about military facts and information, do you not think agencies from other countries are not looking at these comments too.
All the information is taken from public domain sources.
650 was the original design target, which unsurprisingly never survived the first encounters with the real world. Even before QE commissioned a parliamentary answer revealed that her authorised complement was now 679 (I rounded to 680).
In 2019 this website reported that her crew would number 800, which aligns with the 797 stated in a 2001 MOD PR release related to CSG21.
I assumed at the time that the c.800 included Commander UK Carrier Strike Group and his staff, but there is a good possibility that it doesn’t. Janes Fighting Ships gives the number of flagstaff as 95.
Whilst the accommodation on the QEC is luxurious (by historical standards) when she’s a private ship, the max 1600 berths (with normally 6 berth cabins used as 8 berths) is barely sufficient when operating as a flagship with a decent air group and a RM detachment embarked. I wouldn’t be surprise if in QE’s forthcoming refit, modifications are made to increase her accommodation to 1800.
Warships, particularly aircraft carriers NEVER have enough accommodation when they go to war.
Don’t you think that foreign agencies interested in said military facts and information already know them long before they are ever posted here. Don’t underestimate the intelligence agencies around the world, they know before it’s ever gone into an article
Same happened on T23. The original operating and crew concept did not last very long( Thank God!) It had people wearing multiple hats trying to do conflicting jobs at the same time and proved in real life unworkable. The crew was increased and the number of mess deck bunks increased.
Now T23 has a number of spaces ( Air EMR for example) converted to additional accom to house people as well as some single cabins now doubled up.
The USN LCS operating concept is similar to the RNs original T23 crew concept and they, the USN, are finding that more people are needed. People get tired quickly being watch keepers and doing watch on stop on. Decision making is affected. Maintenance does not get done. You cannot fix defects etc.
If the cack hits the fan and you need to do DC/FF its the number of bodies in BA sets or doing leak stopping and shoring that count . Fire Fighting is a good example. A team sent into a machinery space fire is going to be big. 3 fully dressed in Firefighting rig wearing BA with a 60min duration doing nozzles and operating the Thermal camera. Behind them hose handlers and hydrant operators maybe up to 7 people all in the same Firefighting kit and BA. At the 40 min point they will need another full dressed team of people to go in and start to take over from them. People to help them dress, control the BA sets, recharge bottles, guard the smoke boundary. More people in BA doing smoke clearance and other tasks inside the smoke boundary. All that whilst still trying to keep ships systems operating like Gensets, engines, fire pumps, power and distribution, possibly weapon systems. Loggies providing refreshment for fire fighting teams ( Tea, Coffee, cold drinks for those in BA sets when they come out of a fire.)
Exactly. You can have have all the automation in the world and a mass of contractors to paint ship when you are in port. But if your ship is damaged in combat you need people and lots of them – as anyone who has done a course at Raleigh’s Phoenix NBCD School and had the dubious pleasure of an exercise on on “HMS Havoc” will know.
I was an NBCDQ, train the trained. Weeks of CBRND FF/DC in Whale Island including some stuff with the local Fire Brigade School
Impressed. I did two fire fighting courses at Whale Island back in the late ’80’s. To be honest the facilities and (3?) units were pretty primitive. But I gather there has been a major upgrade in recent years. I can’t remember if there was any particular reason, but I was always sent to Raleigh in the 90’s.
Good luck Big Lizzie!
Make us all proud.
I recall an 18-month study into converting HMS Prince of Wales to CATOBAR was done in 2010/11 but it rapidly uncovered serious cost implications and delays that the changes would entail. Alterations and new equipment required were estimated at £886 Million per ship in November 2010 but by February 2012 the figure was £2 Billion and rising. Perhaps even more intolerable was the realisation that the conversion work would have added another 3 years to the construction time. Purchasing the F-35C would mean HMS Queen Elizabeth unable to operate any fixed-wing aircraft until around 2023. On 10 May 2012, the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond announced that the government had decided not to proceed with the cats and traps conversion, but to complete both carriers in the STOVL configuration.