Guest blogger
ACA Engineering Director
David is employed by BAE Systems, and is responsible for all the engineering work being carried out on the QE Class programme. Previously, he was design manager for HMS Ocean, Albion and Bulwark, and was chief engineer on the Type 45 Destroyer programme
The assembly cycle of the Aircraft Carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth continues in the dry dock at Rosyth. Since my last blog just about all the blocks comprising the forward end of the hull have been assembled, and consolidation, fairing and welding is progressing well. The only parts yet to be assembled are the upper parts of the bow including the mooring flat and the ramp; the forward end of the port gun sponson; and the upper sections of the starboard sponson. This latter area makes up the forward gas turbine room. The lower parts of the sponson are in place, the deck has been shot blasted and painted and the seats installed and machined ready for the installation of the Rolls Royce MT30 Gas Turbine Generator. Being used to more traditional warship designs it is quite strange to be preparing a machinery space high above the coping of the dock rather than down in the depths on the double bottom, one of the benefits of an Integrated Electric Propulsion system.
We have had a number of important visitors to Rosyth over the past few months to witness progress with the build of the giant aircraft carrier to gain a bird’s eye view of the ship from the control cab of the Goliath crane and to walk the decks of the ship itself. Most notable of the visitors have been the Princess Royal in September followed a week later by the Duke of Edinburgh. Both appeared fascinated by the build process and the scale of the ship. The Prince in particular put some of my colleagues to shame with the speed at which he negotiated the ladders between decks. In October the Prime Minister visited us and was photographed in front of the ship on a rare gloriously sunny day. We expect more visitors as the build progresses.
Lower Block 04, which was assembled at BAE Systems shipyard at Govan on the Clyde, is the largest single block of the whole aircraft carrier weighing more than 11,000 tonnes. When in the build hall at Govan, the block was so large that it stuck a considerable way through the door. This block makes up most of the after part of the ship up to hangar level and comprises the aft machinery spaces and all four propulsion motors. Load-out onto the transportation barge took place on 15 October: it required a huge number of Self Propelled Modular Trailers (SPMT) all linked together so that they move and manoeuvre the block as one controlled by a single controller with a joystick. The load out from the build hall across the quay wall and onto the semi-submersible transportation barge was carried out without a hitch and the sea fastenings attached so that the barge was ready to depart Govan on 29 October, almost a week earlier than the plan. Unfortunately, the weather has intervened, with forecasts of very strong winds off the north coast of Scotland, and the departure had to be postponed. It seemed a shame as on the 29th there was not a breath of wind at Govan, but clearly it is better for the barge to be moored up safely at Govan than trying to find shelter off the west coast in deteriorating weather. LB04 finally departed on 4th November travelling around the South of England instead of north; the 1200 mile journey took one week with the block arriving in Rosyth on Remembrance Sunday. LB04 will be floated off from the barge and then docked down in the build dock separated from the rest of the ship by the intermediate gate. Skidding of the forward part of the ship to align with LB04 is currently planned to occur between Christmas and New Year and will result in nearly the whole length of the carrier being visible.
While these large block movements are taking place bringing the ship to life continues. A significant event was the first running of two Air Treatment Units within Damage Control Zone 3, this signalled the start of setting to work the Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system designed and manufactured by Imtech. Design and integration of the huge HVAC system on these aircraft carriers has been a challenging programme and it is particularly satisfying to see the system start to come to life.
The Integrated Platform Management System (IPMS) software is now installed on board HMS Queen Elizabeth and is being used by the commissioning team to control the Low Voltage breakers in Damage Control Zone 3 (DCZ3), with the plan for them to shortly move onto DCZ2. This is a particularly significant evolution in bringing the ship to life and while challenges remain in getting the full IPMS fully functional this is an extremely good start.
On the South Coast a successful trial has been conducted using the Link 16 Communications system to communicate between the shore integration site and HMS Illustrious. This has proven the ability to communicate with an existing warship at sea and has significantly de-risked the integration on board the ship.
The second ship HMS Prince of Wales is also progressing well. The diesel generators have recently been loaded into Lower Block 02 of Prince of Wales at the BAE Systems yard at Portsmouth, an important milestone and one that incorporated many of the lessons learned from carrying out these evolutions on Queen Elizabeth.
I’m not a naval architecht but if I was building this pig’s ear, I wouldn’t be in any great hurry to fit that ramp as mentioned here. I predict we will end up with F-18s as the usual fit as they are relatively cheap. Without vectored thrust, anything hitting that ramp at speed will break. Can’t we have more AV-8Bs?
Joe, your first sentence rather undermines the rest of your comment. This seems to be a very successful construction process and a massive backward step will be taken if we go to AV8B. They don’t just throw these things together. Have a look at
Joe, your first sentence rather undermines the rest of your comment. This seems to be a very successful construction process and a massive backward step will be taken if we go to AV8B. They don’t just throw these things together. They cannot simply throw F18 off the ship. The conversion to CATOBAR at this stage of construction is simply not possible without doubling the costs. Going back to an aircraft developed in the late 1950s is also a rather curious suggestion, and makes no sense when we are procuring a 21st century aircraft 25% of which is built in the UK. It simply makes no sense. This is no dog’s dinner. It is a large, future proof power projection platform second only to the Nimitz class. I don’t understand the need in this country to bash one of the oldest and proudest institutions to the tune of a very Anti press. Thanks.
I’ve been enormously impressed with the build so far-a hugely complex project going to timescales, with cost increases only when the spec has been changed. The high level of internal fitting-out is also notable-the “Lego blocks” are being delivered already kitted out for their roles. Well done BAe-hope we get lots of pictures of the docking of LB04 and the skidding/link up.
Joe dont agree with anything you have said, but to add a little to your ignorance I would like to point out that the F35B which is slated to fly off the carriers in 2018 does indeed have vectored thrust. As for the AV8B or Harrier they are no longer in UK service.
Well said CarrierFan !
Just to add a little bit to the previous comments. Although we certainly won’t be seeing F-18s on these carriers, an aircraft does not need thrust vectoring to launch from a ramp.
The russain aircraft carrier launches none thrust vectored aircraft via a ramp. As will the future Indian ones.
David, his team and all working on the carriers are doing a superb job. This country is going to owe them a huge debt of gratitude in the future for bringing back to life what political (all parties) incompetence had lost. It is going to be a very good day for this country when HMS Queen Elizabeth takes her place as flagship of the fleet. We should already be looking to the future. The expertise gained and expenditure should be put to use not only for future warship building but to get this country back into large commercial ship building. This will bring both strategic and econimic benefits. Furthermore we should be looking beyond the F35 for the next generation of aircraft either with greater British design and content or entirely so. In this country the talent and ability are clearly there to do whatever we wish, we just have to make up our mind to do it!
Thanks to anon & anon & anon. I see we are running short on names here. Could I point out that we don’t actually have any of the hardware mentioned above. My point is that given the number of U-turns we have seen on this project so far, you may be wrong about what we end up with. I am sure the engineering is first-class, it is the political wrangling that is the problem. Maybe I should have said, can we have a super-Harrier?
Joe, nice backpedallaing. Try having a few facts at your fingertips next time.
Neither am I a Naval Architect. But I am former Navy Engineer.
Perhaps the design team could answer in laymans words…
Why does a vessel designed to last 50 years. With extensive design considerations enabling future proofing double in cost when you consider the fitment of the most obvious modification to this vessel that may be required over that time period. (Namely Catapults)
I would be dismayed if these carriers did not have launch catapaults, especially as modern versions do not need steam but instead use linear induction powered devices.
Thank you Westy, you asked for a few facts.Perhaps I could quote from some people better qualified than myself? On the subject of the Harrier (super or otherwise), whose demise has left us, a major maritime nation, devoid of of significant force projection for years:- Admiral West, who I suspect knows his job, recently stated that ‘They should never have been scrapped’. The shadow defence secretary Ian Murphy calls the carrier procurement an ‘Omnishambles’ and the Economist refers to the F-35 program as slipping into a ‘death spiral’ on costs. As for the design interference, the original plan for the F-35-B (STOVL) was changed in 2010 for the -C (cat) version. then this year, back to the -B variant. The latest estimate for the cost of a single F-35-A is $135 million & that is from the Pentagon’s own analysts.I would expect the -B to cost significantly more. The worst aspect to my mind is that we will again be in thrall to the Americans & totally reliant on their defence industry for spares & replacements. As an aside, I am grateful to Anon for pointing out that the Russian navy (until recently our sworn enemy, current status unknown) will be able to drop in on our carrier but our allies will not as they favour cat & trap operation.
Just a question to Joe King, with a name like that does anyone take you seriously? or is this a nom de plume?
Joe, As the Anon who mentioned the Russian aircraft carrier use a ramp to launch aircraft without thrust vectoring, I should point out that I said launch.
The Russian aircraft could not land on our carriers, as they still use arrestor gear for landing. Something our carriers will not have.
So the Russian kind of use cat and trap operation, just they don’t have the cat’s.
This actually can result in the aircraft being able to carry less than if it was a STOVL aircraft.
From what I understand a F-18 could launch from HMS Queen Elizabeth without a catapult. For it to be able to land the carrier would need arrestor gear.
But the amount of weight (fuel and weapons) the F-18 could carry in that, would be servely limited.
It might be possible that a F-35C could also launch without a catapult. Again it would need arrestor gear to land, but again the amount of weight it could carry would be limited. So it would be able to carry less weapons and less fuel than a F-35B.
The Russians, Indians and China will all have carriers without catapults (mainly because they haven’t developed the technology to build catapults on their carriers), and all their aircraft will be able to carry less than if they were launched by a catapult.
Compared to a harrier, their aircraft will most likely be superior, and be able to carry more weapons and have longer range. However the F-35B is not a harrier and it will be superior to the aircraft that they are planning to use on their carriers.
with the pathetic way the av8b mess was handled ,I will be greatfull to just see both these carriers go into operation and not mothballed or sold off as soon as possible . they are important for the future of the royal navy and are a necessary expense and a justifiable expense
Hi. Since they announced the building of these ships and the statement that they were to be conventionally propelled. I have often wondered why they didn’t use nuclear power. Would it not be cheaper to have a nuclear propulsion system than fossil fuels, with greater speeds being available because of this?
We should develop our own stealth aircraft. Lockheed is a disaster – I know, I worked on the F35 in Fort Worth. We should limit our purchase to 2 or 3 squadrons of F35s and build our own aircraft.
I would rather have had a couple of CVA -01’s 30 years ago with another 20 years of life left in them! Just think: no capability gap! But then again the only downside to that is that Argentina would never have dared invade the Falklands and Knott would have succeeded in killing off the Navy.. Navies prevent wars, which is why idiots think we don’t need them (we’ve not had a war for ages, why do we need warships?).
A Roman military saying was “If you wish for peace, prepare as if for war”. Also, “Speak softly, but carry a big stick” holds equally true.
The gainsayers who preach disarmament because we are not at war are either would-be traitors or breathtakingly naive.
And I agree with those who say we should develop our own carrier capable stealth combat aircraft. The infamous scrapping of the TSR2 (see Google) comes to mind. The F1-11 US alternative fell so short of it’s stated specification it was vitually useless. I have heard it said that the government of the day was ‘coerced’ into this choice by the threat of disclosures that were ‘not in the public interest’……
Nice one, John K
The same Roman “republican” theorising is the one that now preaches that all US primary schoolteachers must be compelled to carry side-arms in class, and be fully trained and ready to use them in the event of even the least suspicion of dissent!
Brilliant!
Anyone else for some jingoism?
Pete.
Unsupervised, Random ownership of Firearms is a recipe for disaster. That is blindingly obvious to anyone. As you say so charmingly sarcastically, the US example makes this clear.
But…. I had thought it would also be obvious that the statement. “prepare as if for war” would be clear as defining a ‘National’ armed force (Even non-republicans admit the need for this)
so why am I still surprised there are those who will deliberately misunderstand such views for their own purposes and mix Roman philosophy with US Republican policies without obvious embarrassment.
Pragmatism I will own up to but I don’t think anything I said is ‘Jingoistic’.
Maybe you want the current Russian political system to be implemented in the UK. i.e. Power in the hands of the ‘Caring Intellectuals’. Now there’s a shining example of socialist/democratic principles at work.
I see the reason of building these giants: It is just for the imperialistc intentions of the “BIG GUYS”. Small countries don’t need it. It is a waist of time and money!
It is actually a shame! Don’t we have some better projects to do?
How strong is the QE hull? Can it cope with light ice? How much battle damage can it take? Was planned armour removed to save money?