After five years of construction at six different shipyards, one of the UK’s most-challenging engineering projects is almost at an end. In just a couple of months’ time, HMS Queen Elizabeth — Britain’s first new aircraft carrier in more than 30 years — will float out of its dry dock in Rosyth, Scotland.
For the latest of our reader Q&As, we put your questions on the design and production of the new ship to BAE System’s David Downs, engineering director of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA).
The ship was originally expected to weigh 65,000 tonnes, but is now thought to have a displacement of 70,600 tons. What caused this discrepancy?
The displacement of the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers upon delivery to the customer will be approximately 65,000 tonnes, which is the same as the predicted displacement when we started the manufacturing phase, although the design allows for weight growth in excess of 70,000 tonnes through the service life of the ship due to upgrades.
What was done to make the ship as manoeuvrable as possible? How does it compare to modern cruise liners and does it make similar use of things such as side thrusters and electric drives?
The QE-class aircraft carriers have an integrated electric propulsion system, which provides a high degree of control and manoeuvrability, but among the key design drivers for the aircraft carriers are issues such as survivability, endurance, speed and even stealth. Manoeuvrability is not as fundamental as it would be to a modern cruise liner, which would regularly need to enter congested harbours without assistance. Bow and stern thrusters are not a requirement for the QE class as the home port, HM Naval Base Portsmouth, will have the infrastructure and assistance needed for the ships to come alongside and would normally remain at sea if away from home.
What defences does the aircraft carrier have against long-range missiles? What consideration has been given to future potential threats such as weaponised lasers? How easy would it be to adapt the carriers for changing requirements in the future, for example, by fitting arrestor gear for STOBAR operations?
The QE-class aircraft carriers have very sophisticated and capable radar systems, and other sensors for the detection of threats, but they would be deployed as part of a carrier task force and the escort vessel would take the lead for the engagement of an incoming threat, although the QE-class carriers also have their own close-in weapon system (CIWS) and small calibre guns. Like other ships in the carrier task force such as the Type 45 destroyer, the QE-class carriers are intentionally designed with the ability to be retrofitted at a later stage in their life as technology, requirements and threats evolve.
Has anything been done to enable the carrier to act as an amphibious assault unit carrying Royal Marines and their kit, perhaps including some light vehicles?
The primary role of the QE-class carriers will be carrier-enabled power projection; their size, versatility and complexity allows for a wide range of roles, which could include amphibious assault, although this is not a key design driver. New innovations and highly mechanised systems mean that the ships will require a crew of just 679, but there is the capacity, the facilities (and the bunks) for 1,600. This space would be needed when all air elements are on board, but could also accommodate personnel such as the Royal Marines or prove vital when providing humanitarian aid or disaster relief.
How did you manage the project across the supply chain? For example, did you use a digital mock-up i.e. a single version controlled CAD model, across all suppliers?
Yes, across the supply chain we have been using a virtual prototype of the entire ship using modern 3D CAD systems, which has proved very successful. A single version-controlled model wasn’t required, but the technology for virtual modelling has been developing fast in recent years and this has brought us significant benefits.
What innovations developed for the carrier programme could have a commercial use elsewhere and what are the partners doing to exploit these developments?
Virtual modelling is one example of technology that was exploited for the benefit of the QE-class carriers and is likely to become ever more important for the design of complex warships in the future. The way in which different companies across the UK collaborated on this from the design stage through to the build, transport, integration and eventually the delivery has also proved very successful so the Aircraft Carrier Alliance is itself an innovation when it comes to delivering large complex projects. The alliance is comprised of the Ministry of Defence, BAE Systems, Thales and Babcock, and with more than 200 direct suppliers and many more across the wider supply chain there are more than 10,000 people involved in this project.
One of The Engineer’s readers mentioned a rumour that HMS Queen Elizabeth will require some additional buoyancy to allow it to float over the caisson bases and leave the Rosyth dockyard. Is this rumour true and, if so, how will you achieve this float-out?
Although this rumour is not true, the float-out of HMS Queen Elizabeth in July following the naming ceremony is certainly going to be a quite a challenge for all involved, but this is a milestone we are really looking forward to. Buoyancy tanks were used successfully during the transportation and docking of Lower Block 04. In contrast, we’re actually going to use 4,000 tonnes of ballast water when floating the ship out of the dock.
Another good example is Platform Navigation. The QE-class carriers are incredibly complex workplaces as there are more than 3,000 compartments and virtually no windows so even routine journeys can take up to 20 minutes. We needed a navigation system for new or infrequent visitors that could work indoors where satellite navigation cannot penetrate so we created Platform Navigation by combining the deck plans with route-finding logic and installing it onto commercially available handheld devices. Platform Navigation now has the potential to be used inside other large ships and structures, both during construction and in service, and its ability to record inspections and patrols makes it suited for environments such as hospitals or underground transport networks.
Once again, I congratulate those involved in integrating all elements of this ‘cutting-edge/white-heat/pivotal technology and manufacture. You have ‘jointly and severally’ harnessed the great forces of Nature to the benefit of …..?
As Engineers, surely pride in achievement is appropriate: but I ask, yet again, if this skill, technical development, ability management now shown to be effective ….isn’t/shouldn’t now be made available to manufacture revenue-earning vessels of similar size and complexity.
Mike B
A stupendous waste of money.it will end up being flogged to India-or possibly Argentina. Why do we have to import foreign technology for our railways,etc etc. Yet the ludicrous “Defence Industry” is subsidised to produce costly overpriced,obsolescent junk?
Yes, because AIRCRAFT CARRIERS that enable you to be far more effective, react better around the world, increase your defense, increase your power projection (How well you can react around the globe,) Is obsolete. Sorry mate, that’s some stupid logic, back up your claim.
He is indeed a fool, sounds like he needs to study history.
I don’t always agree with the things that Mike says, but in this case I wholeheartedly agree. This is a great piece of engineering and, in my opinion, something that is needed by the Navy to defend British interests.
The technologies and techniques developed in the construction of these vessels must be applicable to commercial shipping construction, and BAe Systems should be encouraged to commercialise what has been learned. A first base would be for the contract for the RFA ships currently being built in Korea (MOD madness!) to be curtailed and the remainder to be built in the UK.
Agree with Mike B and Edward, we really need to exploit this fantastic acheivement and huge investment for commercial shipbuilding.
Thank you!
In a long and fascinating career, worldwide-our Editor knows much about it- I have had the privilege of working with Engineers and technicians almost all over the world. I believe you may be aware that my primary activities have been in the functional textile areas and the machinery and processes that apply.
I have had many projects with a military/ extreme forces ‘link’ from assisting in the design of the machines that were developed to produce Kevlar (before it had a name) and the NBC suits for protection from those ‘nasties’ which Mr Blair assured us we were threatened by!
Amazingly, no trace whatsoever was found?
Almost my final project was to assist in trying to contain the effects of road-side bombs (as used by the Taliban, et al) IEDs
My father died in WWII (as did those of most of my school contemporaries as I was educated at an orphanage for freemason’s sons) so if my views on ‘defense’ may appear somewhat different from the norm, perhaps there is a good reason.
I still hope that this outstanding technology (and the management /administration which is certainly there to support it) is now directed towards civilian use.
[I never went to Albania, but neither has anyone else, so it probably does not count!]
Time and again, I have been humbled to hear of the outstanding reputation in which our profession [and those (like me) with the privilege of a UK based education] is held by our peers and technically trained colleagues in other lands. Why in heavens name do we still allow the conflict groups in our own nation absolute power.
Yes its a great piece of engineering one which we should be proud. But from the commercial side, where does the big crane go after the contracts complete ? is it staying at Rosyth?
I for one applaud the UK for investing in the Royal Navy. The RN has always led the world in Naval innovation and engineering. Personally I’d like to see six more Type 45’s. With the current number of blue water ships the RN could not sustain the loss of one ship without being crippled. In addition the US Navy cannot forever be protectors of the worlds shipping lanes. It would be nice to see the Royal Navy and other EU Navies step up their role.
Can’t wait to see the HMS Queen Elizabeth at see with an F35B squadron.
As with other ships, I find the idea of having no “wastes” to take a breather from below decks a bit claustrophobic – Although there is the Flight Deck on occasion, I suppose ? (no deck hockey?)unless I’ve misread the article above. But then my experience was with the carriers, HMS Implacable and HMS Victorious when I had extensive duty steering them, in all kids of weather and flight operations.
This one is “something else”!
This ship is nothing more than a costly, poorly thought out, planned and executed folly. Politics have once again got in the way of military requirements. Not having cats n traps is a BIG mistake as is not being nuclear powered. Why is the ski ramp not offset leaving a full deck runway? I also suspect that the defence element for the ship is FFBNW. Had we had a government that could see past its nose we may still have had Shars to fly at least.
With a projected 50 year service life, hopefully, the age of conventional maritime aircraft will be long gone. And, with it, the need for long flight decks and cats – very expensive items indeed. Diego Garcia and Ascension island have proven critical in British and US military world wide operations over the years. However, both are stationary oceanic airfields located miles from anywhere, and, an easy target for an enemy attack. Now, back to basics, two mobile oceanic airfields free to roam the maritime world are a must for anyone’s military inventory – as a maritime nation 90 percent of our trade is by sea – we need to protect our trading routes as well as support our NATO commitment – and, as a UK taxpayer, I’m all for that!
Until these ships have any aircraft (there is a hint in their name, AIRCRAFT carriers…) they are effectively virtually useless…..
These two ships fill me with pride. For my money I believe it is in the UK’s interest to look outside of Trident the next Generation and place orders for another 2 of these carriers and more Type 45’s and 26’s.
In the 21st Century it will be important that potential adversaries can see your capability and potential.
As for nuclear deterrence the successful completion or fruition of Skylon will leave other super powers in no doubt that if threatened the UK has at its disposal the ability to hit anywhere in as little as 4 hours just by the fact it has Skylon.
Hence a very cost effective deterrent without the need for expensive trident submarines.
Skylon if achieved gives the UK/EU access to low Earth Orbit and a credible deterrent against anyone with a mind to threaten.
Gary
When has Skylon ever being described as a military machine. It is design as a reusable spacecraft. That said why would we need skylon to do what an intercontinental missile can do already.
It will interest engineers to know that one of the most important features of the QE Class is that they are ‘lean-manned’ ships.
This was an essential feature of the original Thales design, the 290m ship, and a feature essentially carried through to the Delta Design now under construction.
By using modern highly efficient mechanical handling and processing equipment the number of personnel required to operate these large ships is the same as those required to operate the very small Invincible Class Carriers they replace.
QE Class is 3 times larger than Invincible, the size of ship’s crew is the same.
The use of bulk handling, palletised loads, dedicated mechanical equipment, storage and retrieval systems, tagging and state of art computer inventory management means that the ships complement is reduced, thus reducing the number of berths, which in turn reduces the support facilities, fresh-water generators, messing facilities, cabins etc and thus the size and cost of construction is less.
For example, there are 17 lifts to handle loads between decks, including a dedicated facility to supply pre-prepared food to the flight crew. The mighty Aircraft Lifts can carry a spread Chinook, or 2 F-35B Lightnings from Hangar to Flight deck in less than a minute.
A measure of the efficiency is a comparison between Invincible Class that requires upwards of 100 persons several weeks to load the ship’s provisions for a Patrol.
QE Class can strike down all provisions stores, with 12 operators in one working shift (8 hours).
The refrigerated provisions stores are vast.They permit in-store wheeled transport and direct supply of perishable goods from deep within the ship to the food preparation areas. These features are common across all stores handling facilities throughout the ship.
These modern facilities enable forward planning and inventory management unheard of in warships hitherto, and is truly a first in naval engineering.
AMB
completely agree that these should be nuclear powered in this day and age. They’re limited to 10k miles range so rely on fuel support which is strategically risky, costly, a logistical millstone and time consuming. Look to Nimitz class and g. Ford class for how it should be done.
Nuclear power has many problems of its own, including development costs of a new design capable of powering a vessel of this size. Refuelling costs of the nuclear reactor are also astronomical and would require a brand new support infrastructure of its own. Reliability issues can occur, look at the Charles de Gaulle. There is nothing wrong with conventionally powered aircraft carriers, there is a reason that the only country with a fleet of nuclear powered carriers is the USA, France, which has one, won’t build another because of all the problems they have had.
Don’t ever let the politicians near a major project. This one has ended up being tied to just one type of airplane. If that is discontinued by Lockheed, these ships are hosed. What did I read the other day about asking the US Marines if they would like to “borrow” one for a couple of years to fly off their Harriers? Another airplane that was scrapped far too soon. Now we are left with nothing.
Aside from this, these ships are too slow. They can only do around 25 knots. A US carrier task force does 30 knots! So we won’t be able to keep up. Also, they should have been nuclear powered. You are going to have to drag your fuel supply round with you on extended missions. Just badly thought out and executed. Well done, government. No criticism implied on the designers and builders.
They are 25 knots plus. And there is a worry that a nuclear powered ship is likely to be totally contaminated if damaged in the reactor area by a missile strike.
I am sure the Americans had thought that through when deciding to build nuclear powered carriers and hence have suitable provisions and defences in place so the question still remains…why are they not nuclear powered?
My father (Lt. Cdr Doug Taylor) spent his whole career persuading the Navy that it didn’t need big, expensive, vulnerable aircraft carriers and could operate VSTOL aircraft from much smaller boats. The Navy grudgingly accepted the rationale and the result was the Ski Jump/Harrier combination – just in time to save Mrs Thatcher’s political bacon in the South Atlantic. But inevitably, the egos of those vainglorious admirals and self-important politicians reasserted themselves – and here we are again, with expensive, useless and inefficient vanity projects. Every news item about the new carrier starts with the boast that it’s the Navy’s biggest-ever ship; and that’s all that seems to matter.
Nuclear power is all well and good and does give the ship a far greater speed and range, BUT it also serves to limit the vessels as to where they can go and dock alongside because a lot of nations, including Australia, will not allow Nuclear powered ships, of any category to enter their ports, but to build a ship now of almost three quarters the size of an American super carrier but only have less than one quarter the crew, shows the technology the Royal Navy brings to the world.
Nuclear powered ships are allowed to dock in Australia. I believe you are referring to New Zealand.
I am writing this about a year after the last comments and I am amazed at how pessimistic some of them are. TheQE is almost finished now and is ahead of scedule. I am just worried about how labour seems to hate the Trident nuclear deterrent right now and i hope this ends soon.
As was stated earlier, how many planes and when will we have them to use these carriers?
The first carrier will be launched in 3 months!
I truly cannot understand why these ships are not nuclear powered. With a bit of forethought, when the ship is in dock and the power plant is not being worked on, it could effectively supply the dock yard with power. This of course saving money by not using commercial power companies. Also, with the current power plants, these ships will not be able to keep up with the current U.S carriers.
This will rank right up there with the early Comet, Brabazon and British dental procedures. Two islands, conventional power and an axial flight deck???? Looks like helo’s and untested F-35’s will be doing the lions share. No E-2’s?? If they don’t angle the deck any bets they don’t see the breakers in 20 or less years?
The deck is angled, the bit that sticks out to the left and overhangs the hull is the angled flight deck. Google it.
Is there a date when it will leave Rosyth for the open sea.
Why no angled flight deck?
Is 25 knots for an aircraft carrier when tracked by an enermy SSN? Can the HMS Queen propulsion be retrofitted with more powerful non nuclear plant to allow speeds of 30 knots?
I agree with most of these comments, this carrier project has been so watered down. At least one should have been fitted with cats and traps…they’ll probably end up with no more aircraft than an Invincible class carrier.
Hi Everyone. I have just read about problems encountered when landing a WW1 plane onto a ship.
It mentions ‘displacement current’ as a problem and wondered what this meant ?
Thanks.
Can you explain please how the propellor blades were manoeuvred into position and fitted to the prop hub when there is no directly over head lift available, or is there.
I am the American carrier design expert who was primarily responsible for the feasibility design of the CVF. I was solely responsible for the twin island concept. Each island has a gas turbine generator located in the starboard sponson directly below the Island. The weight of the generators offsets the typical list caused by the larger port sponson. This arrangement saved nearly 50 million dollars as compared to a conventional machinery arrangement.
The crew size was set absolutely arbitrarily from day one. It is nearly one third that of comparable USN carrier designs. To make it work the various sub systems has to be extensively automated after the initial design was completed. Hence, extensive weight and cost growth and tremendous added risk.
The CVF is the least well protected carrier generated since WW11. No side protection, no HEAT or SAPHE protection. Even using concepts that did not yet exist real passive protection proved to be impossible without a huge increase in displacement and a significant loss in speed. Maintaining speed would have required a significant increase in power and likely the addition of at least one shaft.
However, the absolute folly inherent in the CVF design that finally emerged was the lack of adequate margins to enable conversion to CTOL aircraft. The F 35B has really limited range/endurance compared to the F35C and the CVF will lack a significant AWAC capability which could have been provided by the E2D. Maintaining a meaningful CAP when using the F35 is simply impossible because of its limited endurance and the lack of organic buddy tanker support. It’s strike range is very limited and consequently the vulnerable CVF will have to get close in shore to generate a meaningful threat.
The RN entered into a performance based procurement without having first validated the requirements or determining the costs. They really thought they would have a 35,000 ton carrier at a fraction of the resulting cost. I told them the reality they faced on day one but no one wanted to face the bitter truth. We were not permitted to address daily sortie rate or aircraft numbers.
This was the most amateur procurement I have ever worked on!
Unfortunately I believe you are right Mr Brower. It is clear that it was commissioned by the Blair administration as our contribution to the EU defence force. They wanted a big ego project to demonstrate to the world how mighty & important they are. Practicalities are of no consequence when dealing with the bureaucrats of the Commission. I fear that Mr Putin was right when he said that the QE is just a big target. When that is sunk we will have nothing of consequence with which to defend ourselves (or the EU), having blown the budget in one go.
What defence is being done to ensure the aircraft carrier can defend itself against a hypo sonic missile?
These ships have all the makings of another legacy project. I would be interested to know exactly how these contribute to our national defence and how this is evaluated. The Admiralty has wanted a big carrier or carriers since the 1960s when their earlier ambitions were thwarted.
These two big ships are big targets and will suck in the need for defensive cover from frigates and submarines. Smaller and more agile ships would in my view have been a better option.
I must confess that I did NOT note this part of the specification for these two vessels: had I done so, I would have described my father’s involvement in lifts and suchlike in previous generations of Navy ships. in the 30s he worked for a firm, Weygood Otis, (where he did some of his apprenticeship ) and was part of the team responsible for the design and installation of lifts on the then Queen’s (Mary and Elizabeth) High on the list of unlikely excuses to your girl-friend for not taking her out, “sorry dear, I have to go to Glasgow to put the lifts into the ‘Queens’,” even if quite true. I am sure that getting a lift to go up and down without problems in the equivalent of a 15 story building (but one pitching and rolling) at sea! is not easy. Presumably such has not changed in nearly 100 years! More details if any fellow bloggers wish. mikeblamey@yahoo.co.uk