image missing
HOME SN-BRIEFS SYSTEM
OVERVIEW 		EFFECTIVE
MANAGEMENT 		PROGRESS
PERFORMANCE 		PROBLEMS
POSSIBILITIES 		STATE
CAPITALS 		FLOW
ACTIVITIES 		FLOW
ACTORS 		PETER
BURGESS
SiteNav SitNav (0) SitNav (1) SitNav (2) SitNav (3) SitNav (4) SitNav (5) SitNav (6) SitNav (7) SitNav (8)
Date: 2024-04-19 Page is: DBtxt001.php txt00019296

Military
Modern Naval Operations

Quora ... Which is better, HMS Queen Elizabeth or the new Ford class Aircraft Carrier?

Burgess COMMENTARY

Peter Burgess
Which is better, HMS Queen Elizabeth or the new Ford class Aircraft Carrier?

Which is better, HMS Queen Elizabeth or the new Ford class Aircraft Carrier? Good question.



How do you define ‘better’? Aircraft carried? Sortie rate? Enemy detection capability? Speed? Range? Cost? Or a good balance of all of them?



An issue is that a lot of the standard specifications can be improved by supplementing them and therefore improving their characteristics. For example, an aircraft’s range, if lacking, can be improved by using an in-flight refueler. Other specifications can be improved by using a different, if more expensive, platform, such as using Ospreys instead of helicopters.

However, some differences can’t be changed without a significant redesign of the ship. I’ll start off with these. The first point to note, however, is that I will be comparing two Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers to a single Ford. Even with two ships, the cost is still less than half the Ford’s!

SPEED

The maximum speed the HMS Queen Elizabeth has reached was 32 knots in it’s sea trials whilst the USS Ford will be able to travel at just less than 36 knots. Now the speed of the QE Class may be a little high (maybe a temporary maximum) so let’s assume the QE’s max continuous speed is 30 knots and the Ford’s is 35 knots. This means the Ford can cover the same distance in about 14% less time.



This does give the Ford a certain advantage, however transit speed is almost always limited by the escorts and is much more commonly 20 knots or less, and in this situation both have plenty of capability.



ISLAND(S)

Whilst the main reason for the separate islands on the QE Class was the exhausts for the engines, it has several important side effects, of which one of the most important is redundancy. Whilst the forward island holds the bridge and the rear one holds the Flyco, they can each take over from the other in the event of one being put out of action. On the other hand, the Ford only has a single island, and would have to control the ship from a compromised below-deck position in the event of the island being put out of action.

The twin islands allow greater space do be dedicated to the bridge and flyco than if they were all in one island, like the Ford. Also, the two radars are spaced far enough apart to have negligible effect on the other’s signal, giving greater accuracy and a full 360˚ field of view for both radars.



The issues with this set up include a slight reduction in deck space (although the QE isn’t lacking in this regard) and a removal of face-to-face communication between the bridge and flyco commanders, although other communications can and will be used.

AIRCRAFT RECOVERY RESILIENCY

In the Ford, there is a single area for landing, and if this gets damaged badly enough, any jet in flight can’t land. On the QE, however, the jets can land vertically, allowing the recovery of the jets no matter what happens. They can even land backwards!



FLYCO

The Ford’s Flyco seems to be split between four floors, each with smallish windows. It is also situated towards the rear of the ship



The QE’s flyco, on the other hand, has 3 metre tall glass windows giving a great view out from a central location and ensuring that the controllers have the best view. On previous ships the crew had to go close to the window to see jets above the ship, but with this set up it’s not a problem. There are two floors in a single room, allowing good communication between flight controllers.







The flyco is positioned in the centre of the ship, an ideal position for monitoring the entire flight deck. Also, the bridge is placed close to the front of the ship, giving a much better view of the bow of the ship compared to the Ford.



WEAPONS HANDLING

The QE class carriers have pioneered the use of the Highly Mechanised Weapon Handling System, (HMWHS) which uses 56 ‘moles’ to quickly and efficiently store and distribute weapons to where they are needed. Armaments are stored on large ‘pallets’, which can be efficiently moved between the magazines and the hangar, weapons preparation area, and flight deck. The Ford lacks this feature.



FLIGHT DECK & HANGAR AREA

The Ford's flight deck is 4.6 acres and the hangar is 7,000m2. The QE flight deck is 4 acres and the hangar is 5,000m2. This means that the duo of QE carriers have 70% more space on the flight deck and 40% more space in the hangar.



AIRCRAFT VARIETY

It is much easier designing aircraft for CATOBAR rather than STOVL, so there is a greater variety of aircraft to choose from. However, currently the F-35B and Osprey provide a world leading foundation for carrier operation and more aircraft could be designed around the F-35B template. Also it is likely that automation will bring smaller drones like the Valkyrie, Boeing Wingman and more, which may not need a catapult at all - the QE’s runway would likely be sufficient for lighter drones to operate from.



CREW REQUIREMENTS

The two QE carriers have a total ship's crew of around 1,400 whilst the Ford will need about 2,600, 1,000 more than the QE. The Ford will require 1,700 flight crew compared to the QE's 1,800, despite the latter being able to operate 40% more aircraft.



COST

The USS Ford required $4.7bn in development costs, and $13.3bn (so far) in production costs. This comes to a total of $18bn or £14.3bn.

The full and final production cost of the two Queen Elizabeth carriers came to a grand total of £6.4bn, less than half the cost of a single USS Ford.

In the next section, I will compare the two QE Class ships to the Ford, and use the price difference to supplement the capabilities of the lesser to the level of the the greater, to allow us to more closely compare apples to apples.

RANGE & JET FUEL CAPACITY

The Ford Class has an unlimited range and has an aviation fuel capacity of approximately 3 million gallons, or 11.4 million litres. The two QE Class, however, have a 12,000 mile range and an aviation fuel capacity of 6 million litres. The Ford Class can carry 5.4 million more litres of aviation fuel than the QE Class.

Luckily, the Tide Class tankers, which have been designed specifically to resupply the QE Class, can hold up to 24 million litres of fuel. If we dedicate 9 million litres to jet fuel, we can hold up to 15 million litres of fuel for the ship's engines. This would increase the range of the two QE Class carriers, plus the single tanker, to over 30,000 miles.



That's enough to do a world cruise — sailing through the Mediterranean and past the Middle East and India before visiting our friends in Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Canada. Even at high speed, it would be enough to get anywhere in the world without stopping off. I believe top speed uses 50% more fuel, so this would equate to 20,000 miles — enough to get out to the Middle East, carry out 2 weeks of air strikes, then return. This answers all claims of the ‘limited range' of the carriers — the range is plenty for almost any situation that the carrier will find itself in.

The tanker would cost £200m — the four Tide Class that the RN bought cost £175m each.

DEFENSIVE WEAPONS

The Ford Class has three levels of defence against missiles — 3 Phalanx, 2 RAM, and two 8 shot ESSM launchers. In comparison, the QE Class currently only has 2 Phalanx CIWS on board. Increasing the capability shouldn't be hard, as there are plenty of potential positions for Phalanx or RAM launchers, and a batch of 24 VLS launchers for Sea Ceptor would provide good long range defence. I estimate this would add £200 million to the cost. FAST JET COST The USS Ford has the ability to carry a varied strike load of 24 F-35C and 24 F/A-18E/F, however the QE is constrained to the more expensive F-35Bs. The Ford's strike air wing would cost £2.9bn whilst the QE's is £3.9bn. ORDINANCE DELIVERY CAPABILITY The F-35C and F/A-18E/F are capable of a maximum load of 18,000 lbs each, whilst the F-35Bs are only capable of 15,000 lbs. This means that an extra 12 F-35Bs would be required, at a cost of £1bn. An important point to note is that the F-35B still wouldn’t be able to carry 2,000 lb bombs internally, although with 25% more airframes it could deliver more 1,000 lb bombs or missiles than the Ford could. ELECTRONIC WARFARE The Ford Class will carry 6 E/A-18G electronic warfare aircraft. It carries, amongst other systems, two high band jammers, a low band jammer and some missiles. The F-35 has a very capable organic EW kit, however it likely falls short in some areas where the E/A-18G excels. Therefore we could fit jammer pods in the weapons bays of 6 new F-35Bs, covering their weaknesses in comparison to the E/A-18G, whilst still retaining full stealth. To replace the 6 E/A-18Gs we’d need 6 specialised F-35Bs with the EW kit and a further 6 standard F-35Bs to carry the missiles. This would total 1.5bn compared to the Ford's cost of £340m. AIRCRAFT RANGE The combat radius of the F-35C is 640 nautical miles, whilst the F-35B's is 505 nmi. This means that the Ford's aircraft have a range that is 135 nmi greater than the QE's. To match the range of the F-35C, the F-35B will need 3,600 lbs of fuel delivered to it at a distance of over 135 nmi from the carrier. A single V-22 Osprey can carry an aerial refuelling kit, and transfer this amount of fuel to 7 F-35Bs. To cater for the 72 F-35Bs carried between the carriers, we’d need a total of 10 V-22 Ospreys and refuelling kits, costing about £700m. These kits would be removable, allowing the V-22s to also be used for logistics work. See FY2018 Selected Acquisition Report for data as to demonstrated ranges for the F-35s. AIRBORNE EARLY WARNING The Ford carries 4 E-2D Hawkeye on board, giving a great AEW capability, with long endurance, high flight ceilings and a powerful radar. Currently the QE carrier's Crowsnest solution, whilst workable, is not ideal. To bring the E-2D's capability to the QE Carriers, we could fit radar systems to V-22 Ospreys to allow them to cover the AEW role sufficiently. This would be relatively difficult as you couldn’t really retrofit the radar from the E-2D to the V-22, however three fixed AESA radars could be fitted, adding capability over and above what the E-2D has currently. This would cost approximately £1.2bn for the 4 EV-22s compared to £560m for the E-2D. LOGISTICS CAPABILITY The USS Ford would use two V-22 Ospreys for Carrier Onboard Delivery. For the QE Class, however, we could reuse the V-22s we got for refuelling by using them for logistics work when the refuelling mission is not required, which is most of the time. This would actually cost nothing for the QE compared to over £100m for the Ford. SORTIE RATES The target sortie rates for the Ford Class carrier are 160 per day for 30 days of 12 hour launches, or a surge of 270 per day for four days assuming 24/7 launches and recoveries. However, the Director of Operational Testing Michael Gilmore has criticised the assumptions used in these forecasts as unrealistic and has indicated sortie rates similar to the 120/240 per day of the Nimitz class would be acceptable. This higher sortie rate was dependant on EMALS, AAG and AWE, all of which have had serious flaws and may never get to design specifications. Therefore, for this comparison we will assume the 120/240 sorties per day for the USS Ford. The Queen Elizabeth carriers would each be able to launch 110 sorties over 1 day and 420 sorties over a five day period. Looking into the figures, it seems that it assumes 3 sorties per plane on the first day, then 2 sorties per plane per day thereafter, which sounds about right for a continuous sortie rate. The USMC are expecting up to 3 missions per jet in a 14 hour day from their F-35Bs, so 2 missions per day continuously for a strike carrier seems reasonable. Another thing to bear in mind is the FY2018 Selected Acquisition Report which says that the F-35B’s demonstrated sortie rates are 5.5/day initial surge, 4/day sustained surge and 2/day wartime sustained. This is in comparison to the F-35C, which comes in at 3.9/day initial surge, 3/day sustained surge and 1/day wartime sustained. Something to bear in mind is that the sortie duration was only 1.1 hours for the F-35B compared to 1.8 hours for the F-35C, due to the longer range. These figures are not to be taken as gospel, as there are may other variables, however they show that it is possible for F-35Bs to sustain more sorties per day than F-35Cs. Anyhow, I think it is reasonable to compare the Ford’s rate of 120/day to the Queen Elizabeth’s 72/day. Doubling the QE’s number gives 144/day, which is 20% higher than the Ford’s, equating to the difference in payload capability between the F-35Bs and F-35Cs. Therefore, we’ll call it quits on sortie rates. AIRCRAFT CAPACITY The Ford Class carriers are designed to efficiently operate 48 fast jets, 6 EW aircraft, 4 AEW aircraft, 2 COD aircraft and 8 ASW helicopters, for a total of 68 aircraft. The QE carriers were specifically designed to operate at maximum efficiency 36 F-35Bs and 14 medium helicopters, 5 for AEW and 9 for ASW. With the modifications I have made, each carrier would carry 36 F-35Bs, 7 V-22s and 4-5 ASW helicopters, within the optimum design requirements for efficiency. ELECTRICITY GENERATING CAPABILITY The Ford's power generating capability is impressive, with up to 125MW of power being generated through the nuclear reactor's power. The QE's power generation capability is large, too, as the four 40MW turbines and eight 11.6 diesels that the two carriers hold can together produce 218MW of electrical power. The Ford has the requirement of powering the four electromagnetic catapults, which require up to 60MW of power, plus the higher crew requirements would likely require higher auxilliary energy requirements.The QEs, on the other hand, require part of its power to go to the electric powertrain, which can take a maximum of 160MW. They both have plenty of spare capacity built in to power things like lasers or other electrical requirements that may arise in the future. REPLENISHMENT AT SEA FREQUENCY The QE carriers would undoubtedly require more frequent replenishment of fuel and stores, however I don't see this as an issue. Flight operations are not required to stop whilst RAS is underway, at least for the QE. MEDICAL FACILITIES The Ford has an on-board hospital that includes a full lab, pharmacy, operating room, 3 bed intensive care unit, 2 bed emergency room, and 41 bed hospital ward. The QE carriers, however, together have a total of 16-24 hospital beds. To match the hospital of the Ford, each QE would have to have a 2 bed intensive care unit, a single bed emergency room, and a 16 bed hospital ward, which should be a doable upgrade for £100m. STORES ENDURANCE The QE has an endurance of 45 days for food and stores, however I'm not sure what the figure is for the Ford. FLEXIBILITY Having double the amount of carriers means a lot more flexibility. In low threat areas, you could have a single carrier operating with a light escort of 2–3 destroyers, whilst you could bring two battle groups together when needed to give a more potent force than you could with a Ford carrier. This gives significantly better coverage in low threat areas HARBOURING The Ford Class is a larger ship than the QE, sporting a bigger draft and width. this means that there would likely be harbours where it couldn’t access, where the QE Class would have no problem. Also, access to harbours in New Zealand and access through the Suez canal would be limited for the Ford. However, there are two QE Carriers to cope with, and together being 65% longer than the Ford, they would take up a lot more harbour space. COST 2.0 The total cost for the Ford and it’s air wing comes to £18.2bn, whilst the duo of QEs and their additions, as I’ve configured, comes to £15.2bn. This means you are saving 15% of the cost, or in other words you could increase the number of carrier groups available from 10 to 12. (or 24 carriers total) Considering each QE carrier group is more effective than the Ford carrier group, the difference is a game changer. 10K viewsView Upvoters
Jim Brown ... Interested in Naval Forces
Updated July 23, 2020
The text being discussed is available at

and
SITE COUNT<
Amazing and shiny stats
Blog Counters Reset to zero January 20, 2015 		TrueValueMetrics (TVM) is an Open Source / Open Knowledge initiative. It has been funded by family and friends. TVM is a 'big idea' that has the potential to be a game changer. The goal is for it to remain an open access initiative.
WE WANT TO MAINTAIN AN OPEN KNOWLEDGE MODEL
A MODEST DONATION WILL HELP MAKE THAT HAPPEN
The information on this website may only be used for socio-enviro-economic performance analysis, education and limited low profit purposes
Copyright © 2005-2021 Peter Burgess. All rights reserved.