Home » Air » Britain’s Queen Elizabeth Carrier Prepares for JSF Flights

Britain’s Queen Elizabeth Carrier Prepares for JSF Flights

by Kris Osborn on July 15, 2014

Queen Elizabeth CarrierFARNBOROUGH, England — Preparations are underway for the first F-35 test flight aboard the United Kingdom’s new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier slated for 2018, BAE Systems officials said Tuesday at the Farnborough International Airshow.

BAE Systems engineers and UK Ministry of Defence officials are working with simulation technologies in order to ensure the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter will successfully take-off and land aboard the British Royal Navy’s newly christened HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier. The ship was christened July 4, 2014.

U.S. and British officials had planned for the F-35 to execute a fly over of the Queen Elizabeth on the day of its christening to be the F-35s first ever international flight before the grounding of the Joint Strike Fighter fleet canceled those plans.

“Overall, this ship has been designed with the F-35 in mind from day one,” said David Atkinson, BAE Systems, Team JSF.

Slated to enter service in 2020, the 65,000-ton Queen Elizabeth is the largest warship ever built by the UK.  It will be the first in a series of two planned Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, ships being engineered to house and sustain as many as 36 JSF aircraft, BAE officials said.

While not quite the size of an U.S. Navy Nimitz or Ford-class aircraft carrier, the Queen Elizabeth-class ships will be 280-meters long and carry a crew of 671. The ship will house a total of 40 aircraft including Joint Strike Fighters and Chinook and Merlin helicopters.  The first helicopter trial flights from the carrier deck are slated for 2017, Atkinson said.

The ship is being built by a BAE Systems-led team including Babcock and Thales.  Some estimates put the prince of the Queen Elizabeth at $5 billion U.S. dollars.

The design, configuration and deck space of the ship have all been engineered to accommodate the F-35B Short Take-Off-and-Landing, or STOVL, variant of the JSF – the same variant of the aircraft planned for the U.S. Marine Corps.

Simulations replicating the glide slope of the aircraft, configuration and lighting on the ship and the wind, water and ship speed are all part of the preparatory calculus.

“We’ve used a highly accurate F-35 flight simulator, a very accurate model of the ship including the way it moves through the waves to develop all the things we need to do in the aircraft and on the ship to conduct that maneuver successfully,” Atkinson said.

Also, unlike U.S. carriers, the Queen Elizabeth class ships have no catapult technology or arresting gear to help fighter jets land.

“We’ve been developing this concept of shipboard rolling vertical landing to enhance the bring back of the F-35B. The Queen Elizabeth Class flight deck is big enough to allow us to do a forward rolling vertical landing on the flight deck and stop using the brake,” Atkinson added.

Atkinson explained how the F-35B STOVL aircraft will have the option to hover and perform a vertical landing or perform the shipboard rolling vertical landing, or SRVL, depending upon mission requirements or operational need.

“The performance of the aircraft is affected by the airspeed. It is all about the matching of the wind on the deck relative to the flight speed of the aircraft. You will always have your vertical landing capability. SRVL is a quick maneuver where the aircraft does not have to hover,” Atkinson added.

Performing the SRVL will allow the F-35B to travel with an additional few thousand pounds of payload such as extra fuel or weaponry, he said.

The Queen Elizabeth carriers plan to place a trained F-35B pilot in the ship’s control room area in order to facilitate successful communication with approaching JSF aircraft, Atkinson said. A landing signal officer will be placed at a special work station on board the carrier.

“From the earliest stages, a lot of attention has been paid to the human-machine interface and precisely what is needed in order to make that flight control work in the most efficient possible way,” he said.

“The landing signal officer will be a fully qualified F-35 pilot with additional training to be the subject matter expert on the F-35.”

Since there is no arresting gear, the SRVL landing will need to succeed in achieving the correct speed, decent and glide slope while approaching the deck of the carrier so as to be able to come to a complete stop by merely using brakes.

The success of this effort will be assisted by a velocity vector placed into the helmet mounted display of the F-35 which will help the pilot know when it is time to catch a final decent down onto the ship’s deck, Atkinson explained.

Visual landing aids in the form of different colored lights are built into the tram lines on the carrier deck to help pilots land as well, Atkinson said.

Share |

{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }

hibeam July 15, 2014 at 5:21 pm

A British war ship is Christened on July 4th? I assume not by accident. They are the best ally this Nation could ever ask for so I hope the F-35 works out well for them.


Jane July 15, 2014 at 6:02 pm

The Brits and Aussies definitely have our backs!


neo con artist July 16, 2014 at 3:59 pm

quote "The Brits and Aussies definitely have our backs!"

LOL. I'm afraid it's the other way around.

The Brits definitely have Americans' balls if not their behinds.


Stan July 17, 2014 at 11:51 am

True, Allen. It can hardly be called a "country" with its lack of defined borders and continuing existence dependent on American taxpayers and a lobby dominating the American political system.


neo con artist July 16, 2014 at 3:55 pm

Some would say it's the other way around: the US is the best "ally" or "hit squad" or "cannon fodder" Britain / London Interests could ever ask for.

When it comes to scheming / plotting in global politics, Britain can play America like a fiddle.


quest July 17, 2014 at 2:13 pm

Britain has played America well, even when America is at its height of power shortly after WWII and the death of Roosevelt.

Anyone noticed how different Truman was from Roosevelt, and how similar he was to that crooked imperialist hypocrite Winston Churchill?


polaris111 August 9, 2014 at 9:27 am

Not so much by accident, more that no one cares about your holiday


JEMcKellar July 16, 2014 at 7:00 am

It doesn't make any sense to build an aircraft carrier of that size without a catapult. They could have filled the airwing with Raphales and Hawkeyes, maybe even a Growler. Even if the F-35B turns out to be a capable front-line fighter, the plane's useless without proper AEW support.


Cam July 16, 2014 at 2:31 pm

The UK does have carrier-capable AEW aircraft. They are the Sea King Mk7s of the Royal Navy http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipment/aircraf

The carrier air wing will consist of a mix of aircraft and is specially designed around the F-35 Lightning II VSTOL aircraft for the air defence and strike role . The exact type to fulfil the AEW role aboard the future carrier is not yet known. The Future Organic Airborne Early Warning (FOAEW), as this project is called, is focussed on the choice between the Grumman E-2C+ Hawkeye, Boeing-Bell V-22 Osprey and Agusta-Westland EH-101 Merlin.


neo con artist July 16, 2014 at 4:02 pm

It doesn't make any sense for Britain to build any aircraft carrier in the first place. But then, those who dictate policies in Britain aren't building it for the British people or Britain's national interests.


Adrian Flitcroft July 23, 2014 at 7:48 pm

It made even less sense to have an army based in Germany and then, after the end of the Cold War, to keep an armoured division when there was no military justification for it. Besides, look how often the UK's used their carriers in the past 48 years ever since Healey cancelled CVA-01. Also, you are facing a carrier shortage & our carriers could cover for you as HMS Ark Royal IV did in the 70s. Finally, we are an island & dependant upon our maritime trade. Aircraft carriers are far more useful than anarmy seemingly orientated to fighting a continental war or an extended ground campaign against insurgents. Future military interventions are likely to be shorter affairs like the UKs intervention in Sierra Leone in 2000 with troops being deployed for a a quick in & out.


Allen July 16, 2014 at 7:54 am

The carriers were contracted for by the outgoing Labour government in 2010 because 95% of the project's shipyards are in Labour voting electoral wards; and most Labour MPs are sponsored by GMB, the union for workers in the shipbuilding industry. It was a bribe.

The UK couldn't afford them, so the Royal Navy was gutted: nearly-new frigates sold and ships sailing with empty magazines and missile tubes.


Big-Dean July 16, 2014 at 5:26 pm

Wow, so your saying that if Argentina made a move on the Falklands right now, that Great(?) Britain would be powerless to stop them?


joe July 17, 2014 at 9:53 am

Not so much. The Falklands garrison has been given substantially sharper teeth (eurofighter typhoons and a much larger infantry force) than in the eighties whilst the Argentinian air force has more or less remained static.

Plus the RN has a new generation of SSNs


LPF July 16, 2014 at 10:40 am

They were supposed to be built with the ability to add electro catapults later, but BAE pulled a Lockheed on the MOD , so we are now saddled with ships that are no where as useful as they should be.

Be assured at some point they will be retro fitted to allow the launch of normal aircraft but not before the british armed forced have paid in blood and BAE got their 30 pieces of silver


Skyraider July 16, 2014 at 11:48 am

Unbelievable, a aircratt carrier with NO catapult, NO arresting cable and a halfarsed F35 single engine do nothing aardvark type airframe. Dang! the brits got screwed.


Adrian Flitcroft July 23, 2014 at 8:03 pm

The UK did NOT get screwed. The selection was the best possible solution for the Royal Navy AT THE TIME IT WAS MADE. Any problems that occured subsequently can only be put down to hindsight. At the time of down selection the EMALS was an untried concept & STOVL WAS a proven system. Certainly I wish the STOVL successor had been a completely seperate aircraft to the Joint Strike Fighter as development could have been optomised for the specific variants instead of the compromises that were accepted. Also, given that they were going to be Gas Turbine powered fitting steam catapults was a non starter. Also it was envisioned that part of the air groups would be provided by the RAF & this would be easier to accomplish with STOVL. Personally, I prefer the STOVL option, the F35B may not be as capable as the F35C but it is more flexible & easier to operate in constrained waters such as the Gulf. I guess the proof will be when they finally become operational. After all, did they not say the same things about the Harrier, Sea Harrier & Invincible class carriers yet they have given good service over the decades… until the Coalition foolishly got rid of them just so the RAF could keep their Tornados & provide work for a bunch of back seaters.


Big-Dean July 16, 2014 at 1:48 pm

I thinks the Brits are now kicking themselves wishing they had made this a conventional carrier with cats and traps so that they could put real working aircraft on it

after all, what's a carrier worth without aircraft-not much


Beno July 17, 2014 at 4:07 am

No we arnt, they were designed from the word go for VSTOL.

If you REALLY look at the stats there isnt that much beteween the F35B and C in many respects.
( except of course that the C doesnt work )

With a sortie rate on VSTOL of up to 1.6 that of CTOL, and we can operate in 2 sea states higher than a CTOL carrier and worse weather.

The thing was designed driven by a desire from a US Admiral for the Brtish to operate a carrier with "the kind of punch of a US carrier" and based on the above metrics they configured for 36 F35B. ( tho resent studies are saying a war load of up to 50 odd could be operated )

Now Im not going to get into a compotition about which one is best, that is silly we are allies after all, but it offers a whole new set a paramiters to a Nimitz Ford and in the right conditions and used properly IS definatly very much in the ball park.


Beno July 17, 2014 at 4:07 am

I think the point is really, its about 1000% better than the next best potential adversary.

Which is lucky as with sequestration there is now a very real possibility QE class could be rotating throught Nimitz duties. Stealth carrier strike will be a potent new option.

As for the Falkland crack thats rediculous, ONE Daring class can pretty much garentee nothing flys in a 300 mile diameter zone round the falkland.
I guess you were asleep for Iraq, Afganistand and Libya ?


Las Vegas GE Appliance Parts July 22, 2014 at 8:02 am

Wonderful post! We will be linking to this great
content on our website. Keep up the great writing.


Zspoier September 6, 2014 at 2:42 am

They should of built them to use both type of systems.So the type of aircraft aren`t restricted.


ghostwhowalksnz July 15, 2014 at 7:34 pm

Not that small, its about 20,000 t more displacement. More like the Forrestal class when they came out


Beno July 16, 2014 at 4:21 am

She's actually clocking about 70,000 right now, but we will have an accurate measure on float out in a few days. So possibly nearer your Kittyhawk class i think ?


Blue Jay July 23, 2014 at 8:43 pm

And it will weigh even more when it's sunk … weight of torpedo + weight of water + g * mass of carrier.



Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: