Stunning graphics show UK’s future (twin-island) supercarriers

Not as large as U.S. flattops but 280 meters in length hence longer than the London’s Palace of Westminster: this is the size of HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, UK’s Royal Navy future flagships.

The team behind the future aircraft carriers have produced a series of rendering whose aim is to demonstrate the scale of the carriers. To give a better idea of the size of the 65,000-tons leviathan, the artists put the HMS Queen Elizabeth, on the Thames next to the Palace of Westminster, and the HMS Prince of Wale,s at Victory Jetty in Portsmouth.

QE 2

Last summer, UK’s helicopter carrier HMS Ocean, currently Britain’s biggest warship, was docked on the Thames at Greenwich with several helicopters on board as part of the anti-terrorist effort put in place for the London Olympics.

The two aircraft carriers, that will host the F-35B (the Short Take Off Vertical Landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter that will replace the Harrier “jump jet” untimely retired as a consequence of 2010’s spending review), are expected to enter service later this decade.

QE 1

Noteworthy, unlike any previous design, the new aircraft carrier will feature a twin-island on the flight deck.

QE 3

Image credit: Royal Navy / UK MoD

Enhanced by Zemanta
About David Cenciotti
David Cenciotti is a journalist based in Rome, Italy. He is the Founder and Editor of “The Aviationist”, one of the world’s most famous and read military aviation blogs. Since 1996, he has written for major worldwide magazines, including Air Forces Monthly, Combat Aircraft, and many others, covering aviation, defense, war, industry, intelligence, crime and cyberwar. He has reported from the U.S., Europe, Australia and Syria, and flown several combat planes with different air forces. He is a former 2nd Lt. of the Italian Air Force, a private pilot and a graduate in Computer Engineering. He has written five books and contributed to many more ones.


  1. Hello,

    > The two aircraft carriers, that will host the F-35B…

    Mr. Cenciotti bravely uses the grammar mode of statement here. However, there is no proof the trouble-prone VSTOL JSF will ever enter service! It is not reliable and not affordable for purchase and maintenance. If it ever did, the budget cost would sink QE like a fiscal cliff.

    The end result will likely be Rafale-Maritime or the Sea Gripen on-board as the Super Hornet looks too big to fit enough of them under-deck. The british-designed Sea Gripen variant of the BAE-designed Gripen is probably the affordable solution and some 36 could easily fit on-board even without folding wings. ETPS just loves the Gripen.

    Italy has been offered co-manufacturing of Gripen-NG with the swiss, in anticipation for the potential failure of the F-35 pyramid game. (The Boot Country needs next-gen jetplanes for the Cavour flat-top and to replace the returned F-16s, since twinjet Eurofighters are too expensive to operate and unreliable. Gripen can easily take a single EuroJet powerplant, as BAE originally designed her for that turbine.)

    A bankrupt country like Italy does not need the F-35 and Britain will also become bankrupt if ever receiving the F-35 … while the US military-industrial lobby and the chinese will laugh all the way to the bank! In contrast, Gripen has been always within contraced time and budget and the Rafale, while scary costly, at least delivers all the sharp teeth it promises (unlike the Eurofighter and the F-35).

    • You’re right ofcourse. Reliability aside all of which can be fixed in time the advantages of having some F35’s are probably worth it. This is if they live up to the hype and can penetrate enemy areas that are heavily defended for example with out being detected, take out targets and then slip away.

      If you look at the figures below the US is in for a major financial shock which it can not really justify by the time 2040 comes around and all the SuperHornets and F16s are replaced with the F35. Presumably once the rolling production line roles out 1 per day that the cost of production will come down and the unit cost will be more in line with what was originally predicted, what do you think?

Comments are closed.