QE Carriers, Beyond Invincible
By Andrew Rhys Thompson for ISN
When HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales
external pageenter service in 2016 and 2018 respectively, they will represent the most massive surface vessels that the Royal Navy has ever deployed.
The 65,600 ton QE class carriers are intended to replace the three smaller vessels of the 22,000 ton external pageInvincible class, all carriers dating from the 1980s and primarily built for Cold War anti-submarine operations in the North Atlantic. Because the Invincible class was designed to function in a supplementary role within an integrated NATO fleet led by US forces, it quickly showed its limitations when used for stand-alone missions or other power projection tasks.
Chief among the operational shortcomings was the restricted space for a large number of fixed-wing aircraft. While the inadequacies of the Invincible class were therefore already identified by the mid 1990s, it took the British government and the Royal Navy a while to define and implement a successor program.
A cross-Channel partnership
In 1998 the government´s Strategic Defence Review (SDR) first called for a next-generation class of carriers, capable of operating a more powerful air group, while delivering sustained and flexible force projection.
As Professor Andrew Lambert from Kings College in London explained to ISN Security Watch: “The new carriers are seen as the only secure way of deploying and sustaining British forces, from all three services, in regions of vital British interest beyond the European theatre.”
During the ensuing years between 1998 and 2008 the UK Defence Ministry and the Royal Navy completed the design specifications and tactical requirements for the ships, while assembling the vast cast of industrial suppliers and defense contractors needed to build the carriers. In July 2008 the final contract for the delivery of the two vessels was symbolically signed aboard HMS Ark Royal, the present flagship of the fleet. Construction on HMS Queen Elizabeth started a year later.
Of note is the circumstance that already in 2003 the Defence Ministry had selected both initial competitors, Thales and BAE Systems, to work together as lead contractors on the carriers. This team was later expanded to incorporate other key suppliers as well as all major British shipyards, in what has become known as the Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA).
The British inclusion of French defense technology giant Thales seemed suddenly tactful, when in 2004 the French government decided to evaluate the QE class design as the lead option for its own next-generation carrier requirement, known as the external pagePorte-Avions 2 project. In 2006 the French and British governments even signed a formal cooperation agreement and the French declared that the QE class design was 90 percent compatible with their own specifications.
A 'powerful' difference
Since then, there has however been renewed French divergence, making it less likely that the Marine nationale would eventually adopt the British design after all. Chief among the Anglo-French differences are the matters of propulsion and aircraft take-off configurations.
While the Royal Navy external pageselected gas turbines to drive the Queen Elizabeth class, nuclear propulsion has always been the traditional preference of the French military and the French defense industry is heavily invested in the nuclear option.
Additionally, while the British carriers are configured to operate short take off vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft, such as the existing GR9 Harrier and the future F-35 B variant, the French navy requires the more traditional catapults and arrestor wires of the CATOBAR system in order to launch and recover its Rafale M jets.
Due to financial restraints, the French government however decided in 2008 to postpone any final decision on the commissioning of a next-generation carrier until 2011 or later.
Whereas the cost of any future French carrier is expected to be in excess of €2.7 billion ($3.66 billion), the composite expenses for the two British carriers have already eclipsed the originally mandated £3.9 billion and are now expected to be closer to £5 billion.
Modest benefit
Although the British government hopes that much of this investment will help stimulate the UK economy and keep alive the otherwise struggling British shipbuilders, some industry leaders say that the economic effects of the program should not be overestimated. Andrew Cook, chairman of the Sheffield-based steel conglomerate William Cook, told ISN Security Watch: “In my opinion, construction of the two carriers will have only a moderate benefit for UK industry. There are two key benefits to the decision to build these vessels and both are strategic rather than economic. First, the United Kingdom will be able to maintain its warship-building facilities, and second, the Royal Navy will retain a blue-water, long-distance strike capability.
When asked about the choice of gas turbines for propulsion, Cook was more critical: “The choice of gas turbines means that the carriers will have to be supported at all times by fleet tanker auxiliaries to provide fuel supplies around the globe. This will automatically create a need to defend those tankers. This decision is suggestive of short-term and politically influenced strategic thinking. Quite apart from the naval operational benefits, the whole life cost of nuclear propulsion is, on any analysis, far lower.”
Aside from the fixture of gas turbines, the other most prominent design features of the QE class carriers are their flight decks with the characteristic 'ski-jump' launch pads for the short take off aircraft, plus the first-ever use of two separate control towers (or 'islands' as they are known on aircraft carriers). One tower at the front of the vessel will host the command bridge and therefore coordinate all nautical operations, while the tower at the rear of the ship will be in charge of all air-control matters.
In terms of physical dimensions, the carriers will be 284 meters long, 73 meters wide across the flight deck, and feature a draught of 11 meters below the water line. Only the US aircraft carriers of the existing Nimitz and future Ford class are larger.
HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will have the capacity to carry 40 fixed-wing aircraft, 36 fighter jets and four early-warning planes, basically double the capacity of the Invincible class.
Since the formal construction of the first carrier officially started, potential foreign buyers have also taken note of the QE class carriers, with particularly India expressing an interest in the design and capabilities of the class. While India is only just in the process of external pagetaking over the former Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov for $2.3 billion, any potential British sale of carrier technology to an Asian country would naturally be a very sensitive and highly political matter.
Questions surface over focus
While in Britain the high upfront cost as well as the projected life-cycle expenses of the carriers have led to some public debate and even discussions in the government, among policy analysts and academics the discourse has centered around the issue of how utilitarian the carriers would be in low-intensity conflicts or for countering asymmetric threats.
"The question arises: Should Britain continue to devote scarce resources to traditional 'force projection' material, such as aircraft carriers, or should it focus on providing the equipment necessary to wage counterinsurgency operations?" Dr Alexis Crow from the London School of Economics commented for ISN Security Watch.
It seems that for now the British government has made up its mind with regards to the carriers, although the next SDR is also expected to dive deeper into such considerations as the future shape of conflict. "If indeed Britain is to focus on counterinsurgency operations, then a type of informal capability-sharing at a bilateral level - such as the UK-France Joint Helicopter Initiative - is a favorable option," Crow stated.
The 65,600 ton QE class carriers are intended to replace the three smaller vessels of the 22,000 ton external pageInvincible class, all carriers dating from the 1980s and primarily built for Cold War anti-submarine operations in the North Atlantic. Because the Invincible class was designed to function in a supplementary role within an integrated NATO fleet led by US forces, it quickly showed its limitations when used for stand-alone missions or other power projection tasks.
Chief among the operational shortcomings was the restricted space for a large number of fixed-wing aircraft. While the inadequacies of the Invincible class were therefore already identified by the mid 1990s, it took the British government and the Royal Navy a while to define and implement a successor program.
A cross-Channel partnership
In 1998 the government´s Strategic Defence Review (SDR) first called for a next-generation class of carriers, capable of operating a more powerful air group, while delivering sustained and flexible force projection.
As Professor Andrew Lambert from Kings College in London explained to ISN Security Watch: “The new carriers are seen as the only secure way of deploying and sustaining British forces, from all three services, in regions of vital British interest beyond the European theatre.”
During the ensuing years between 1998 and 2008 the UK Defence Ministry and the Royal Navy completed the design specifications and tactical requirements for the ships, while assembling the vast cast of industrial suppliers and defense contractors needed to build the carriers. In July 2008 the final contract for the delivery of the two vessels was symbolically signed aboard HMS Ark Royal, the present flagship of the fleet. Construction on HMS Queen Elizabeth started a year later.
Of note is the circumstance that already in 2003 the Defence Ministry had selected both initial competitors, Thales and BAE Systems, to work together as lead contractors on the carriers. This team was later expanded to incorporate other key suppliers as well as all major British shipyards, in what has become known as the Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA).
The British inclusion of French defense technology giant Thales seemed suddenly tactful, when in 2004 the French government decided to evaluate the QE class design as the lead option for its own next-generation carrier requirement, known as the external pagePorte-Avions 2 project. In 2006 the French and British governments even signed a formal cooperation agreement and the French declared that the QE class design was 90 percent compatible with their own specifications.
A 'powerful' difference
Since then, there has however been renewed French divergence, making it less likely that the Marine nationale would eventually adopt the British design after all. Chief among the Anglo-French differences are the matters of propulsion and aircraft take-off configurations.
While the Royal Navy external pageselected gas turbines to drive the Queen Elizabeth class, nuclear propulsion has always been the traditional preference of the French military and the French defense industry is heavily invested in the nuclear option.
Additionally, while the British carriers are configured to operate short take off vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft, such as the existing GR9 Harrier and the future F-35 B variant, the French navy requires the more traditional catapults and arrestor wires of the CATOBAR system in order to launch and recover its Rafale M jets.
Due to financial restraints, the French government however decided in 2008 to postpone any final decision on the commissioning of a next-generation carrier until 2011 or later.
Whereas the cost of any future French carrier is expected to be in excess of €2.7 billion ($3.66 billion), the composite expenses for the two British carriers have already eclipsed the originally mandated £3.9 billion and are now expected to be closer to £5 billion.
Modest benefit
Although the British government hopes that much of this investment will help stimulate the UK economy and keep alive the otherwise struggling British shipbuilders, some industry leaders say that the economic effects of the program should not be overestimated. Andrew Cook, chairman of the Sheffield-based steel conglomerate William Cook, told ISN Security Watch: “In my opinion, construction of the two carriers will have only a moderate benefit for UK industry. There are two key benefits to the decision to build these vessels and both are strategic rather than economic. First, the United Kingdom will be able to maintain its warship-building facilities, and second, the Royal Navy will retain a blue-water, long-distance strike capability.
When asked about the choice of gas turbines for propulsion, Cook was more critical: “The choice of gas turbines means that the carriers will have to be supported at all times by fleet tanker auxiliaries to provide fuel supplies around the globe. This will automatically create a need to defend those tankers. This decision is suggestive of short-term and politically influenced strategic thinking. Quite apart from the naval operational benefits, the whole life cost of nuclear propulsion is, on any analysis, far lower.”
Aside from the fixture of gas turbines, the other most prominent design features of the QE class carriers are their flight decks with the characteristic 'ski-jump' launch pads for the short take off aircraft, plus the first-ever use of two separate control towers (or 'islands' as they are known on aircraft carriers). One tower at the front of the vessel will host the command bridge and therefore coordinate all nautical operations, while the tower at the rear of the ship will be in charge of all air-control matters.
In terms of physical dimensions, the carriers will be 284 meters long, 73 meters wide across the flight deck, and feature a draught of 11 meters below the water line. Only the US aircraft carriers of the existing Nimitz and future Ford class are larger.
HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will have the capacity to carry 40 fixed-wing aircraft, 36 fighter jets and four early-warning planes, basically double the capacity of the Invincible class.
Since the formal construction of the first carrier officially started, potential foreign buyers have also taken note of the QE class carriers, with particularly India expressing an interest in the design and capabilities of the class. While India is only just in the process of external pagetaking over the former Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov for $2.3 billion, any potential British sale of carrier technology to an Asian country would naturally be a very sensitive and highly political matter.
Questions surface over focus
While in Britain the high upfront cost as well as the projected life-cycle expenses of the carriers have led to some public debate and even discussions in the government, among policy analysts and academics the discourse has centered around the issue of how utilitarian the carriers would be in low-intensity conflicts or for countering asymmetric threats.
"The question arises: Should Britain continue to devote scarce resources to traditional 'force projection' material, such as aircraft carriers, or should it focus on providing the equipment necessary to wage counterinsurgency operations?" Dr Alexis Crow from the London School of Economics commented for ISN Security Watch.
It seems that for now the British government has made up its mind with regards to the carriers, although the next SDR is also expected to dive deeper into such considerations as the future shape of conflict. "If indeed Britain is to focus on counterinsurgency operations, then a type of informal capability-sharing at a bilateral level - such as the UK-France Joint Helicopter Initiative - is a favorable option," Crow stated.