Page 25 of 977 FirstFirst ... 1517181920212223242526272829303132333575125525 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 375 of 14642

Thread: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

  1. #361
    Senior Member Elbs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Pollos Hermanos
    Posts
    5,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by happyslapper View Post
    The Telegraph, like every other paper, says a different thing every day. Thus far without a single relaible or attributed source.

    This is a thread about the QE Class Carriers, not about the SDSR or the latest rumours.
    Happyslapper, if it wasn't for you pointing out the B.S. in these articles, any one who so much as glanced through this forum would come away thinking the RN was back to flying Sea Hurricanes off CAM ships. Keep fighting the good fight.

  2. #362
    Senior Member Arnie100's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    5,982

    Default

    Sources: 'Navy Wins Fight For Carriers'

    The Royal Navy looks set to have two new carriers capable of supporting planes as well as helicopters, Ministry of Defence sources have confirmed. There had been speculation the second of the two carriers ordered by the Navy - the HMS Prince of Wales, due to enter service in 2018 - would be either be scrapped, downgraded, or moth-balled following the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR).
    http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Pol...ky_Sources_Say

    Good news for the Royal Navy!

  3. #363
    Senior Member Jdam1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,049

    Default

    Good to hear, is it to much to hope that they are going for the EMALS as well.

  4. #364

    Default

    just heard the defence review,its a bloody joke why not just make us a neutral country?!! canceling one carrier and not even having any aircraft to put on the one we have left! defense in this country is over well done westminster you just made france the number 1 power in western europe god preserve us! I used have a keen interest in defence.........NOT ANYMORE!

  5. #365
    Senior Member DPM_Sheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    閱讀這個該死的手冊
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    They're not canceling a carrier, there's nothing in the review about cancelling or selling a carrier, just press hypebole.

    The plan is still what it was always going to be: one carrier in active service and one in reserve, only now we actually get the better variant of the Dave to fly off them. We just have to wait longer to get them fully in service.

  6. #366

    Default

    Indeed there's far too much drama about the whole thing.

    As per the future UK CVF capability this is what is written in the Review:

    Aircraft carriers

    • There is a strategic requirement for a future carrier-strike capability. The Invincible-class carriers were designed principally to meet Cold War threats on the high seas, with short-range jets providing air defence for a naval task group, without the ability to interoperate aircraft with our key allies and whose primary mission was anti-submarine warfare. A Queen Elizabeth-class carrier, operating the most modern combat jets, will give the UK the ability to project military power more than 700 nautical miles over land as well as sea, from anywhere in the world. Both the US and France, for example, have used this freedom of manoeuvre to deliver combat airpower in Afghanistan from secure carrier bases in the Arabian Gulf and Indian Ocean. This capability will give the UK long term political flexibility to act without depending, at times of regional tension, on agreement from other countries to use of their bases for any mission we want to undertake. It will also give us in-built military flexibility to adapt our approach over the 50 years of the carrier’s working life. In particular, it provides options for a coercive response to crises, as a complement or alternative to ground engagements. It contributes to an overall Force Structure geared towards helping deter or contain threats from relatively well-equipped regional powers, as well as dealing with insurgencies and non-state actors in failing states.

    We will need to operate only one aircraft carrier. We cannot now foresee circumstances in which the UK would require the scale of strike capability previously planned. We are unlikely to face adversaries in large-scale air combat. We are far more likely to engage in precision operations, which may need to overcome sophisticated air defence capabilities. The single carrier will therefore routinely have 12 fast jets embarked for operations while retaining the capacity to deploy up to the 36 previously planned, providing combat and intelligence capability much greater than the existing Harriers. It will be able to carry a wide range of helicopters, including up to 12 Chinook or Merlin transports and eight Apache attack helicopters. The precise mix of aircraft will depend on the mission, allowing the carrier to support a broad range of operations including landing a Royal Marines Commando Group, or a Special Forces Squadron conducting a counterterrorism
    strike, assisting with humanitarian crises or the evacuation of UK nationals.

    A single carrier needs to be fully effective. As currently designed, the Queen Elizabeth will not be fully interoperable with key allies, since their naval jets could not land on it. Pursuit of closer partnership is a core strategic principle for the Strategic Defence and Security Review because it is clear that the UK will in most circumstances act militarily as part of a wider coalition. We will therefore install catapult and arrestor gear. This will delay the in-service date of the new carrier from 2016 to around 2020. But it will allow greater interoperability with US and French carriers and naval jets. It provides the basis for developing joint Maritime Task Groups in the future. This should both ensure continuous carrier-strike availability, and reduce the overall carrier protection requirements on the rest of the fleet, releasing ships for other naval tasks such as protection of key sea-lanes, or conducting counter- piracy and narcotics operations.

    The strike needs to be made more capable. Installing the catapult and arrestor will allow the UK to acquire the carrier-variant of Joint Strike Fighter ready to deploy on the converted carrier instead of the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant. This version of the jet has a longer range and greater payload: this, not large numbers of aircraft, is the critical requirement for precision strike operations in the future. The UK plans to operate a single model of JSF, instead of different land and naval variants. Overall, the carrier-variant of the JSF will be cheaper, reducing through-life costs by around 25%.

    The current, limited carrier-strike capability will be retired. We must face up to the difficult choices put off by the last Government. Over the next five years combat air support to operations in Afghanistan must be the over-riding priority: the Harrier fleet would not be able to provide this and sustain a carrier-strike role at the same time. Even after 2015, short-range Harriers – whether operating from HMS Illustrious or HMS Queen Elizabeth – would provide only a very limited coercive capability. We judge it unlikely that this would be sufficiently useful in the latter half of the decade to be a cost-effective use of defence resources.
    This new carrier-strike policy is consistent with the Strategic Defence and Security Review’s overall approach of holding defence capabilities at different levels of readiness appropriate to the strategic context. It makes strategic sense to focus on developing a more effective and appropriate carrier-strike capability to deal with the uncertain evolution in type and scale of potential threats from various states in the next decade and beyond. To provide further insurance against unpredictable changes in that strategic environment, our current plan is to hold one of the two new carriers at extended readiness. That leaves open options to rotate them, to ensure a continuous UK carrier-strike capability; or to re-generate more quickly a two-carrier strike capability. Alternatively, we might sell one of the carriers, relying on cooperation with a close ally to provide continuous carrier-strike capability. The next strategic defence and security review in 2015 will provide an opportunity to review these options as the future strategic environment develops. Retaining this flexibility of choice is at the core of the Government’s adaptable approach.

  7. #367
    Senior Member NovocastrianUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Yep they are keeping both, plus Cameron has just said the second will be put in dock on readiness alert (NOT sold). All in all, not too bad. Bring on these beauties!

  8. #368
    Senior Member Jdam1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NovocastrianUK View Post
    Yep they are keeping both, plus Cameron has just said the second will be put in dock on readiness alert (NOT sold). All in all, not too bad. Bring on these beauties!
    This will delay the in-service date of the new carrier from 2016 to around 2020
    You will need to wait 10 years.

    So these carriers are going to sit in port for 4 years.

  9. #369
    Senior Member DPM_Sheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    閱讀這個該死的手冊
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    If they shift the ISD of QE back by a couple of years and expedite the EMCATs, there is absolutely no reason why they couldn't temporarily host the Marine Nationale Airwing while CdeG undergoes her refuelling....

  10. #370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jdam1 View Post
    So these carriers are going to sit in port for 4 years.
    Additional time for CATOBAR training/trials, do not underestimate how many new skills are going to have to be relearned on the first of a class. It really is a leap in capability over STOVL

  11. #371
    Member Little J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    In my armchair, commanding my army
    Posts
    981

    Default

    Does this mean that the E-2 Hawkeye is back on the table (in the distant future of course) to replace the Sea King ASaC?

  12. #372
    Senior Member happyslapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Windsor, United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,641

    Default

    Possibly, but I can't see this government signing any contracts for new equipment like that. They only want to put 12 fast-jets onboard (which no doubt will not be FAA owned). I'm hoping that by the time PoW is built, we'll be able to afford a full airwing that is not some cobbled-together half measure. Everything is a little raw at the moment (being as it's only 4 hours since dippy Dave stood in the House of Commons and told us the country it was to be neutered), so it's going to take a few days to work out exactly what we can expect from the CVF programme, and Naval Air in general.

  13. #373
    Senior Member Hauser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    London
    Age
    26
    Posts
    1,108

    Default

    Is the QE definitely going to use EMCATs, or is it still possible to mount a traditional steam catapult?

    Quote Originally Posted by NovocastrianUK View Post
    Yep they are keeping both, plus Cameron has just said the second will be put in dock on readiness alert (NOT sold). All in all, not too bad. Bring on these beauties!
    The second carrier won't be that ready, seeing as it seems only the QE will get catapults and arrestor gear. And as we will have no STOVL in the future, it will only be good for a helicopter assault ship.

  14. #374
    Senior Member Jdam1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,049

    Default

    It has to use EMCATs as i believe that the QE doesn't have room or been designed to have steam boilers.

    As i said in another thread, the one and only good thing to come out of this is that the we are going for the C or more importantly going for the CATOBAR on the carriers, it now possible to buy in a large selection of aircraft types for the carriers, we may not have the money right now but that might change in the future.

  15. #375

    Default

    Ok i may of over reacted i know theres only going to be 12 jets at the start but will this number definatly increase especialy if the argentines were to invade invade the falklands again,now say that they do we would presumably send both carriers but would we have enough planes or pilots?and would we fill them both to maximum capacity i.e. 35 planes each? please help 'happyslapper'!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •