The times when the British Navy ruled the seven seas, killing pirates and upstart colonials is, sadly, gone; that doesn’t mean, though, that we can’t build impressive little ships to sail around in. The newest and greatest are the two Queen Elizabeth-class carriers, 65,000 tonne supercarriers currently under construction, right here in the not-so-sunny United Kingdom.
When it came to deciding where the carriers would be built, there was a problem: there’s no dock in the UK big enough to handle building an entire carrier in situ. Rather than embiggen an existing dock at great cost, the MoD decided to spread the carrier-building love. The ships were designed to be built modularly, with different blocks being build in different yards around the country, and then joined together to create the final ship. It’s kind of like a giant Lego set, only bigger: some of the blocks are 11,000 tonnes by themselves. To put that in perspective, that means that the individual blocks are, by themselves, bigger than the next-biggest ship in the Royal Navy.
Once each of the nine blocks is constructed, it’s floated by barge from the individual shipyard (there are six of them around the UK) to the Rosyth yard. As you might imagine, moving 11,000-tonne lumps of metal around isn’t easy, especially when they weren’t designed to take to the sea as individual pieces. For the move, they’re attached to giant barges and taken by tugboat around the UK, a process that typically takes around a month and depends heavily on the weather.
Once a block arrives at the dock in Rosyth, it’s manoeuvred into the dry dock by a small team of tugboats. There, it’s attached to the main body of the ship — no easy project, as it involves moving 30,000 tonne blocks of metal around. To do this, the engineers have mounted the whole thing on a low-friction PTFE base, and use hydraulic rams to shunt the thing around. The entire build process is neatly shown in the video above, which demonstrates exactly how the carrier is being built, block by block. It’s like a giant Lego set, only awesomer.
Of course, this is a building project, and as all budding architects know, all building projects require big cranes to lift things. This is no exception — in fact, it’s got the biggest crane in the UK, aptly named Goliath. It’s a monster of a machine, capable of lifting a nice round 1000 tonnes a height of 68 metres. The lifting power comes from not one, but three hooks, each independently controlled so that pieces with awkward centres of gravity can still be lifted safely. It’s used to move the sub-blocks — handy little extras like the bow of the ship, or the aircraft elevators and things like that.
As it currently stands, the first of the two aircraft carriers (the HMS Queen Elizabeth) is about 50 per cent built. All nine of the blocks have been built; once it’s all assembled, attention turns to moving the two towers into place, a process that starts today with the forward island. Once the islands are in place, there’s a bit more work to make it seaworthy, and then the ship will be floated out in 2014 to begin the process of outfitting it with all the bits and bobs to make it a fully-functioning aircraft carrier.
That’s already started, with the biggest and most important thing — the engines — currently in the process of being installed. Unlike the US’s nuclear-powered Nimitz-class supercarriers, our big floating airports are driven along by gas-turbine engines. Specifically, they’re Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines, capable of producing 40MW each — that’s as much power as 50 high-speed intercity trains. At pedal-to-the-metal power, that’s enough power to drive the carriers at 25 knots, or close to 30mph, with a range of 10,000 nautical miles. There’s also 4 diesel generator sets, which provide the electricity for the ship — enough of it to power 300,000 kettles, or 5,500 family homes.
Obviously, being an aircraft carrier and all, the most important things to go on it are the aircraft. These will be F-35B Joint Strike Fighters, stealth planes that have been developed in conjunction with our American cousins. The specific version we’re getting is the ‘B’ model, notable because it’s STOVL capable — Short Take Off, Vertical Landing. This means it’s like the Harrier it’s replacing, able to take off and land from a carrier without the need for catapults and trapezes. As a result, though, the STOVL version is able to carry less weapons payload and fuel, giving it a shorter range, less lethality and, because of weapons hanging on external pylons, it’s also less sneaky.
All that electrical power is necessary because of the plethora of weapons systems the aircraft carriers will be packing. In addition to all the systems needed to run the aircraft (we’ll come to those in a second), there are other weapons and systems on the ship. For last-ditch Hail-Mary shit’s-about-to-hit-the-fan missile defence, there are Phalanx Close In Weapons Systems; there will be 4-6 of these mounted on the ship, each consisting of a radar-guided 20mm gun, firing 75 bullets the size of your fist per second at incoming missiles and planes, the aim being to hit incoming missiles and blow them up before they hit the ship.
There are also 30mm cannons, the same as found on other Royal Navy ships, for medium-range defence against small boats. Apart from these, the carriers won’t pack much offensive weaponry; rather, they’ll depend on their escorts and the planes they carry to deal with anything nasty.
Speaking of the aircraft: each carrier will carry ‘up to 40′ aircraft, including helicopters; in reality, an air wing will likely be 6-12 fighters and a few helicopters. The fighters can be stored on deck for quick launch, or there’s a big hangar below deck where additional fighters can be stored, and they can be kept protected from the elements for maintenance.
In a battle, those fighters would go through ammunition quickly; in order to keep them topped up, the carriers have a completely automated ammunition storage facility — like in some kind of super-Amazon warehouse, all the moving is done electronically, with 56 ‘moles’ able to move pallets back and forth, up and down around the magazine, into the hangar and to the aircraft elevator, ensuring a constant flow of missiles to the right places. All this automation saves on people — it’s estimated that the moles mean that a crew of 12 could operate the armoury, where previously it would’ve needed 150. This automation extends right throughout the ship — the total crew needed to work the ship (without the Top Gun-pilot component) is only 679. Compare that to the US Nimitz-class carriers, which need 3200 people to work, and you can see that the Royal Navy is really taking automation to heart.
The Queen Elizabeth won’t be in service until 2020, sadly; the second carrier, the Prince of Wales, may not ever enter service at all, due to financial wrangling at the Ministry of Defence. Even though they might not be the most powerful ships ever to set sail, they’re certainly going to be some of the smartest; and it has to be said, the ingenious system of building them is quintessentially British. No other nation would be quite so brilliantly (stupidly?) eccentric as to build a ship in nine different parts. Truth be told, they’d probably just build one big-enough ship. Screw ‘em. [Aircraft Carrier Alliance - Wikipedia - Royal Navy - The Engineer]
All images Aircraft Carrier Alliance
Update: The forward island (yes, our aircraft carrier has two islands, probably just to stick it to the Yanks with their one-tower carriers) has left the build yard in Portsmouth and made its way up to the mothership in Rorsyth. BAE Systems were nice enough to give us the first look at the awesome time-lapse footage of it doing so, so you can hit up the embedded video below (or go on over to our YouTube channel). Pro tip: although the video is a timelapse and doesn’t have audio, a quick experiment reveals that it’s made far more dramatic with the addition of The Ride of the Valkyries. Enjoy.
This article was originally published on February 4th 2013, but has been updated with the exclusive video footage
















Shadow Lords: The Top Ten Behind-the-Scenes Technology Giants
What Is Happening to This Aircraft Carrier?
Iron Man 3 Behind-the-Scenes Footage Is Six Minutes of Pure Awesome
This is an aircraft carrier that’ll be complete in 2016, but won’t actually have any fighter aircraft until 2018. Also, not that I’m a shipwright or anything, but doesn’t it seem foolishly dangerous to park hundreds of millions of pounds of aircraft right next to the take-off ramp, and down the side of the runway ?
A) The close-quarters parking only occurs when the carriers are particularly active. Most of the time, the majority of the aircraft are stored in the hangar deck, directly below the flight deck.
B) It’s not foolishly dangerous. Carriers of all sorts have been doing this for decades, so they’re well practiced. That said, the flight deck of an aircraft carrier is often said to be the most hazardous working environment there is.
I’m just thinking that all you need is one takeoff-gone-bad to destroy an awful lot of very, very expensive equipment, to say nothing of the deckhands. They’re actually a little better catered-for on these carriers, as they really, really dangerous stuff like arrester cables and catapults isn’t needed with VSTOL fighters and helicopters anyway.
They are useless anyway, they had to scrape the nuclear engines due to budget cuts, that means we could send them out and they could run out of fuel and they will be more expensive to run in the long term.
They were never due to receive nuclear power plants – the submarines only have them because the US give us the tech to do so.
Well, the PWR1 may have used the core design from the S5W reactor but the PWR2 is a much more home-grown design. That said, the PWR3 is most likely to be a Anglicised version of the S9G or S8G due to their existing certification.
Rolls Royce at work again
Most likely it will be. I agree it would be great to have these two running on fission, but the cynic in me says that makes them harder to mothball or sell on
My dad used to look after the reactors on the Vanguard and Victorious before he left the navy, spent ages down on barrow in furness when they were building the other ones as well!
Frustratingly, while I agree that they are pretty advanced ships, I can’t help but feeling that were they nuclear we’d have been able to use EMALS and purchase the F-35C instead.
Astute however, when it’s not running aground or providing Southampton CID with a change of scenery, is a masterpiece of engineering
If it’d been nuclear, there’d have been no need for EMALS, no?
While initially more costly, EMALS is far better because it’s all electric (which is far better provisioned on a nuclear carrier).
This means you can vary the power output to allow for different aircraft weights and take-off speeds; the acceleration gradient is linear, so less stress on the aircraft undercarriage during launch; you’re not having to store and pipe superheated steam throughout the ship; etc…
There are many, many benefits to EMALS over a steam catapult, but you need moar powah! Detractors will inevitably point out that the system isn’t fully developed yet but neither are the carriers themselves, and it’s far easier to lay some fat power cables later in the build than it is to mess with steam piping.
Was used to the Vanguard class popping up in the water along the clyde and i thought they were massive until an American one stopped by for a visit! It kind of dwarfed ours!
Always trying to show off!
Astute looks positively lost in Devonshire Dock Hall, you could get 4 of them in there (2×2), and still have room left!
If I remember correctly (though this may be an urban myth), the only reason Vanguard is the length it is is because it’s 1m shorter than the lift available at Barrow to lower the completed boats into the water.
no idea about that….
Living around the corner we used to hear all sorts of crazy stuff though
apparently the little girl from chitty chitty bang bang lives at the peace camp around the corner. The peace campers also tried to swim into the base and apparently a few of them got killed by conger eels.
The other worrying one we heard is that the Hills around the corner that belong to coulport navy base has the most nuclear weapons in them in the EU.
I’d have thought the last one would be attributed to the base in Scotland (can’t remember the name)
That is the base i was on about both Faslane and coulport are on the clyde and all the vanguard class subs are based there.
That’s the one! For some reason I can never remember the name of Faslane!
Astute would have been even more impressive if it had used turbines that were properly matched to its steam-raising plant, not some hand-me-downs from a Trafalgar.
I’ll take a stab in the dark and assume that the accountants refused to pay RR to do a redesign?
Nuclear engines have lots of issues, US carriers can’t even approach many nations waters because of it and considering they may be our allies that isn’t a good idea. It isn’t just a budget thing.
You also have a long commissioning and decommissioning process, increased risks on repairs and operations and high costs for replacement parts and maintenance. While there is certainly the chance to run out of fuel that is true of any warship and we do a good job stopping that from happening.
The main reason – nuclear power is hideously expensive. That long decommissioning process that scot mentioned takes years, and ends up costing a fortune. The maintenance is also costly and can be unreliable – just ask the French. The Charles de Gaulle has run into many such issues in its short life, and it took 12 years from being laid down to being commissioned.
It works for the Americans because they have huge pots of money to throw at these problems.
That was because the French decided to use submarine reactors for a surface ship… Not such a good idea.
Yeah, that was probably a bad idea, but then I’d assume they did that to avoid the cost of developing a whole new type of reactor just for a single vessel.
So again, it comes down to the cost of nuclear power. By contrast, the Americans commissioned unique reactor designs for the Enterprise, the Nimitz and the Ford classes.
Chris, absolutely brilliant article. Cheers, fascinating read.
We aim to please
Some of you do anyway ;o)
I think it’s all of us, tbh
Okay, you all aim and most of you succeed.
That’s the positive attitude we all love!
Hear, hear.
I’m just waiting for the report that one of these bits of ship has sunk on it’s way round the coast. It’s also interesting with the level of automation, I would have thought that would make it much more vulnerable to complete failure in a combat situation.
True, but only if it gets hit. These days, if your aircraft carrier is damaged, something has gone seriously wrong.
That’s because carriers never venture into hostile water without some serious backup.
I was thinking that after I posted. But then I remembered the royal navy’s propensity for crashing their ships so I figured that could cause issues.
Ha, yes they’ll never live that one down
.
I’m sure there will be teething problems that will probably cost millions to fix, but a few years later, once its value has been proven, that will all be forgotten.
I think all the blocks are now delivered safely, and are sitting in Rosyth awaiting installation.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the modular construction of warships was an American technique. They used it to build there subs and new surface vessels for a long time now. And when we were building the Astutes and screwing it up an American team came in and implemented the system in the UK so we could speed it up.
The modular build is a modern technique and it would be much harder to build the Carrier without it. It allows for the fitting of a lot of systems and piping that otherwise would need to be integrated after the hull it built, making it a lot harder to access parts of the ship.
You’re right. The Americans have been doing it since the construction of the Roosevelt in 1984. It’s now the standard technique for large-scale ship construction, with modern cruise and container ships being built in this way.
and the Germans did it with the type XXI electroboots (U-Boats) in 1944/5.
Yeah. The Gerald R Ford (The next US Navy carrier to launch) is being built in modules. The difference is that all the modules are manufactured on a single site, while QE class modules are built in lots of places.
Regarding Astute, my understanding is the Americans were brought in to help with the CAD software systems (which were proving unequal to the task of managing the Astute design). They did NOT get involved with the actual boat design.
That just confirms my suspicions that these are being built in a variety of places simply for political reasons.
And a couple Sunburn missiles means it’s dead in the water.
Sensibly you would have a type 45 destroyer escort the carrier to deal with such things.
Not just one, at that
What a great article.
Love carriers. My first two ships were “carriers”
Correct me if im wrong on this but surely when assembling the carrier the dock needs to be big enough to fit the entire ship. I thought the modular design was about speed, spreading the construction ( wealth ) to different parts of the UK and how complex ships are now built.
It’s not just the raw size of the dock — it’s things like being able to produce enough steel.
“Embiggen”?
“Awsomer”?
“And things like that”?
Are you guys deliberately trying to upset us?
Did you even go to school?
Very sloppy journalism.
Leave ‘embiggen’ alone. It may not have been legitimised by the OED, but it has been used in popular culture for some time.
I concur! English evolves, get over it. If the Chaucer heard you speak he’d call you a raring mule!
Fascinating article, reminds me of the look round HMS Ocean I had when it was in London to support the Olympics.
It seems although we don’t have the biggest navy anymore we may have the most advanced navy.
Yeah, aside from the later Nimitz class vessels… and the Ford class, and the San Antonio class, and the Virginia class, and the Zumwalt class…
Even still, we do hold our own. The Type 45 destroyer may well be a world-beater.
I thought the Zumwalk class were having a lot of issues, cant remember what, but I believe it was serious.
Yeah, they’re trying too hard, introducing many new designs in a single class. Hull design, fire control and gun design are new, as are many other fundamental technologies. Cost overruns, predictably, are massive. Even still, it may introduce a number of key technologies that could find their way onto new ship designs for decades to come.
Don’t forget the Astute!
Type 45 is certainly a world beater (each Type 45 replaces 6 Type 42s); and as Chris has pointed out above Astute is an amazing piece of kit, and genuinely at the point of being almost impossible to detect.
Yeah, I considered mentioning the Astute, but the Virginia class is arguably comparable. It’s certainly up there.
I think you’d have a harder time finding Astute, though the Virginia class is definitely the closest competitor that we know about.
That said, the Astute’s pretty easy to find when it’s on a sandbank
Low blow
The steam plume does give it away a little… We are supposed to be making it even moderately difficult for the Russians and Chinese!
Of course if we’d still had a working maritime patrol aircraft then you’d have had a barrage of sonar buoys keeping an eye on it that made traversing the minefields of the Korean DMZ seem as easy as climbing through an open ground floor window!
You’re probably right, but noise levels and plant output numbers are two salient details that the military likes to keep secret, much like RCS data for aircraft. As such, it’s hard to say for sure.
Whereas, I do know that the Type 45′s SAMPSON is a world-beating piece of kit. BAE likes to brag about it
.
A comment from one of the guys I was at uni with:
“If they make it any quieter it’ll stand out as an absence of background ocean noise”
I haven’t heard them mention it
That’s some great insight and I can absolutely believe it.
A massive portion of the development cost and assembly time is spent ensuring that it is acoustically invisible.
Sure. Stealth was supposedly the west’s greatest undersea advantage over the Soviets throughout the Cold War. If it was easy to achieve (or cheap), that wouldn’t have been the case.
It’s just that the Americans aren’t strangers to high development costs either…
Based on their current fiscal statement, that’s something they’re seriously having to look at, because they can’t just pour a steady stream of dollars into the accounts of Northrop, Lockheed and Boeing anymore.
Doesn’t just replace the Type 42s, it replaces the whole air-defence pairing farce that required Type 42s to be on station with Type 23s, providing one nice big target and adding a handy obstacle to the Sea Viper radars. Still, it’s a little-known fact that the computer crashed during the first Type 45 live-fire test, so all’s not quite rosy yet….
Oops… Also had the lightning conductors fall off the radome during initial sea trials… More wind tunnel testing was needed!
I was specifically meaning the effective top-cover radius, the fact that we can sell on the Type 23′s as well is an added bonus
They’re a big enough threat even in a simulator – took off from Woodford and at about 1000ft had a missile warning go off in my ears which meant I had to make a frantic dive for Manchester. Unknown to me the sim operator had spawned a hostile Type 45 in the Irish Sea while I was on my take-off roll!
Extremely impressed by the quality of the Giz readership here. The comments have proved as fascinating and informative as the article – which is more than can be said for the average Mail or Guardian post!
You did somewhat clarify your own point by reference to Mail & Guardian
Seeing as this ship is wholly reliant on electricity for self-defense, I really hope they have the foresight to shield the electronics… one EMP and the ship + planes would be out of action. Sure it may still be able to move at 20 knots but short of using it as the worlds’ most expensive ram, it would have no means to attack or defend.
Does the military do this as standard?
Any sensitive equipment would be shielded during the build process. Its necessary to take a lot of precautions with any electronic warfare system and the military usually do.
It is a problem, but as planes and ships are no longer coal fired, electricity has to be used. Each defensive weapon, from aircraft to anti aircraft defences, uses electronics. The attacks happen so fast that a human would not have the time to react to an incoming missile. Its all computers and computers are powered by electrickery.
I want to see a coal-fired plane get off the ground
tl;dr
That’s a shame, you missed a great article…
I remember watching a documentary about the Airbus A380 and that was modularly built. I think most airliners are built like this.
When will Gizmodo UK employ some real reporters or train the rash of “I googled it” staff they seem to have stumbled upon?
The readership here are not all bottle fed morons wearing overly tight trousers with over developed thumbs. I am increasingly irritated by the poor quality of Gizmodo UK posts.
Please employ someone who at the very least is capable of writing reviews and reports that are based on sound balanced research, not a post template called “Awesome”?
OH NO ITS NOT!
Luckily for you your residence is probably in a country which allows free choice.
Therefore it’s unlikely you are being forced to read this site and if you find the writing offends you so much then I suggest you use your freedom to stop reading it.
(If on the other hand you are living in some dictatorial state where you are forced to read every Gizmodo UK article then I just have to say “tough luck”).
Out of interest, what, in particular, did you have issue with here?
Oh if it would only work that smoothly. Pusser will mess it up.
Both HMS Bulwark and Albion were built using this modular construction in the 1990s at Barrow In Furness. I do have photos somewhere of a section being transported along the road from the DDH to the slipway. This was before I had a digital camera. I’ll have to go hunt them out.
Wait… is this a new or old article? Unless I’ve fallen into a time warp…
Reposted?
Updated.
The video at the bottom of the article is new, and it’s (*drum roll*) exclusive.
It really is – I can’t find it anywhere!
Excellent article which has stimulated some good debate.
THIS is what I come to Giz for. Moar please!