Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[USS Alabama]

Nice! Can it operationally sustain the type in terms of hanger space and maintenance requirements?

Best.

[jonodavies12]

Saw a comment on one of the pages USS Alabama linked to, http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/20...s-america.html reads,

It would've been nice if for both the UK and France if the UK could just sell the second carrier to France. This would cost French jobs, but could save the UK defense budget - or at least a big chunk of it.

The more I read this the more I'm thinking it could be a realistic scenario. Apart from the POW not being nuclear and the fact the french have a largely different design in their heads, does anyone think that the POW could be built as a shell, sold, then fitted with french equipment?

Or am I just talking *ollocks?

[xav]

Not sure how the DCNS workers in France would feel, but it would be a social / political sh!tstorm no doubt...
And not sure how RN sailors would feel as well.

Actually if you look at it this way, it looks like a bad idea for "both sides" of the pond

Nice! Can it operationally sustain the type in terms of hanger space and maintenance requirements?

If a C2 brings in parts, ammo and US Navy mechanics then why not ? In '08 IIRC 4 or 5 Rafale M were detached for a couple days on a US CVN... granted it was peace time but still, both crews and jets "slept" on the US carrier.

[SDL]

In all honesty, what wouild be more cost effective for us....

Run the QE as a helicopter carrier until the F35s arrive or lease some fighters from the US (Hell, could we potentially lease harriers from them?) till the F35s arrive?

[jonas]

Saw a comment on one of the pages USS Alabama linked to, http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/20...s-america.html reads,

It would've been nice if for both the UK and France if the UK could just sell the second carrier to France. This would cost French jobs, but could save the UK defense budget - or at least a big chunk of it.

The more I read this the more I'm thinking it could be a realistic scenario. Apart from the POW not being nuclear and the fact the french have a largely different design in their heads, does anyone think that the POW could be built as a shell, sold, then fitted with french equipment?

Or am I just talking *ollocks?

IMO this would be the most unrealistic scenario,put aside any of the agreements that have been signed between the UK/France in regards to closer cooperation in defence matters. The idea of France buying any one of these carriers would be a 'step to far' for them.

As a matter of national pride it would be unacceptable to their politicians,without question the whole French shipbuilding industry would be up in arms,and we have seen the power of French industrial action in the past. Sorry but that idea is a complete non starter.

I am only glad that xav,said as much the same,now I can't be accused of being a Francophobe.

Apart from which,we (the UK) need both of these carriers in RN service both fitted as CTOL carriers.
I only hope that the latest restructuring of the US armed forces,and it's intention to focus more on the Asian/Pacific area will bring it home to Europe that they must do more to defend themselves instead of relying on the US.

As Hammond has been in close consultation with Pannetta,I can once again only hope that he has realised that we must fill any capability gap left by the US in Europe by retaining both QE and POW.

[jonas]

USS Alabama said,
With the defense cuts the U.S. Military is facing, here's a novel approach to addressing the RN's F35 shortage and possible cuts in USN strike squadrons, why not stand up several RN/RAF squadrons - not a few pilots imbedded in U.S. squadrons, full FAA and RAF squadrons - operating off USN carriers and flying leased F/A 18's to gain carrier operations experience while the CVF's are finished?

Nice idea,but not going to happen.
Only a few months ago as a result of the SDSR up to 70 RAF student pilots were made redundant,some of them were literaly within a couple of weeks of recieving their 'Wings'.

The idea being (apart from saving money) was that with the UK scrapping the Harrier squadrons and Tornado due to go sometime after 2015 we will not need these pilots,whether or not this is short sited the fact remains it's been dodne.

So we are now left in a situation that we barely have enough fast jet pilots to man what aircraft we have and certainly nowhere near enough to man several RAF/FAA squadrons to fly off US carriers.

Also as the RAF did a very good hatchet job on the FAA,I reckon they would be hard pressed to form one squadron.
What is need is for the FAA to find some balls and fight their corner instead of lying down and rolling over in the face of RAF pressure. At the moment the plan is for the F35C to be flown of CVF jointly 60/40 percent in the RAF's favour,and that cannot be right.

[USS Alabama]

What is need is for the FAA to find some balls and fight their corner instead of lying down and rolling over in the face of RAF pressure. At the moment the plan is for the F35C to be flown of CVF jointly 60/40 percent in the RAF's favour,and that cannot be right.

Good points all jonas - especially the last. However, I still think that with some lead time and the vagaries of politics, this option could still be available for future consideration, if the political will existed (the policy decision could change / be modified as world events unfold) - and then the fastest way for the RN and Britain to get a fixed wing strike capability back might be this route.

Bottom line: Even 2 or 3 squadrons available could make a world of difference in some scenario 3 -4 years hence. How badly would Britain want one air wings worth of FW Strike capability in the shortest period of time to meet a future sovereign emergency - eg: Falklands type against a more capable military than the Argies? Even if it means "borrowing" a USN carrier and crew while the RN provides the combat strike capability and most of the escorts/UNREP. Didn't Reagan offer Thatcher one of our LHA/D's in the event that Hermes or the Invincible were sunk?

Best.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...k_newsweek.jpg

Still one of my favorite all time covers...

[Naval Oldie]

I agree, the dark grey beams, both on the bottom of the sponson and the lowest deck within it, appear to be there to provide structural support until the sponson is welded to the side of the Super Block. Once the temporary beams are removed that would free up space for a boat to be stored within and launched from this sponson. If this is the case I presume the opening would be fitted with some kind of internal door to protect the stowage area from waves.

[Naval Oldie]

The January Edition of Carrier News is now available to read on the ACA website. Unfortunately it does not include any new photographs or news about the forthcoming build that is not already known.

[serge 750]

hi guys

About the sponson question,i find it quite interesting that they have painted the inside red,like it couold be a opening also the level above it seem a bit empty,it does look very plausable it could be for a launch,very neat design if it is !
Well if the F35 is delayed anymore we will need something,was the intial in service date 2014? (for the B version) i agree with alabama,RN/RAF pilots are training on the hornet at the moment so if there is another delay (after 2018?) why couldnt we lease some of america,maybe from the george washington if they deactivate her in 2016?

[jonas]

[QUOTE=USS Alabama;5960969]Good points all jonas - especially the last. However, I still think that with some lead time and the vagaries of politics, this option could still be available for future consideration, if the political will existed (the policy decision could change / be modified as world events unfold) - and then the fastest way for the RN and Britain to get a fixed wing strike capability back might be this route.

Bottom line: Even 2 or 3 squadrons available could make a world of difference in some scenario 3 -4 years hence. How badly would Britain want one air wings worth of FW Strike capability in the shortest period of time to meet a future sovereign emergency - eg: Falklands type against a more capable military than the Argies? Even if it means "borrowing" a USN carrier and crew while the RN provides the combat strike capability and most of the escorts/UNREP. Didn't Reagan offer Thatcher one of our LHA/D's in the event that Hermes or the Invincible were sunk?

Best.

At the end of the day in the UK today it all boils down to money (or rather the lack of),this government is so determined to cut the so called 'black hole' in defence spending that nothing else seems to matter.
The cuts we have had already have been drastic,and most informed people seem to think that more are on the cards.

We are going to have to wait until at least 2015 until the next SDSR to find out whether any cash is available,this government are saying that defence spending will rise by 1% annually after that date.

Myself,I believe this is just smoke and mirrors as 2015 is an election year so basicly anything could happen.

I doubt that 'borrowing' a US carrier is feasible,too many problems such as different systems,one of the main being the UK has never operated a nuclear surface vessel. Also the size and manning requirements of a US carrier would be beyond our capabilities.

The 1st Sea Lord went on record recently bemoaning the fact that the proposed cuts to RN manpower would not allow him to man two carriers. This in itself caused some controversy as it was suggested he had just handed the 'anti carrier brigade' another weapon.

Truth be known,as much as one trys to remain optimistic the state of defence in this country is a complete shambles.

N.B. That cover certainly takes me back some.

[Jdam1]

The hole in the sponsons is an odd one, I remember people discussing it so I thought people would like that pic the most, its a mystery as to what it is for, the supports in it look temporary and I think it might be a bit too close to the water line to launch boats from.

What ever it is it will be a long time before its fitted out as the yellow supports for sponson will get in the way.

[USS Alabama]

I doubt that 'borrowing' a US carrier is feasible,too many problems such as different systems,one of the main being the UK has never operated a nuclear surface vessel. Also the size and manning requirements of a US carrier would be beyond our capabilities.

It is a memorable cover isn't it. I was sitting in the CENTAG region at the time and we were certainly cheering you boys onward and every loss that was taken by the Forces was keenly felt by us as well.

As for the carrier "loan" I was thinking of it as an option in the framework of the arrangement I had previously proposed - British sovereign squadrons operating on a joint basis off of our CVs to develop / maintain a RN carrier FW strike capability. In a joint international operation / contingency, these aircraft could be part of Britain's contribution to the effort, just as we operate with you right now in several theaters of ops. Sort of like having a British Invincible Class Carrier group operating in conjunction with one of our CV Strike groups such as during the Balkan operations and Gulf 1/2 ( or one of the LHA/D centered ESG's) only, the British aircraft would be operating off one of our carriers while the RN contributes escorts and support units to the effort.

I envision that for a purely sovereign operation (you Legal Eagles jump in here with the niceties/ precedents/ or lack thereof) The squadrons could operate off an American crewed carrier seconded to the RN (Much as the Victorious operated as the USS Robin for a time in the Pacific War). Only - since so few countries have a serious blue water combat capability - the carrier and its escorts would probably not be facing any type of serious fleet action and therefore we could declare our carrier to be operating in a "support" role while the FAA, RAF, and any Littoral / TLAM capable submarines assigned as the actual naval combatants that the RN has involved in the operation would be assigned to do the fighting.

The US carrier and its USN escorts would conduct it's own CAP and maintain its own defensive "bubble" as they normally do anyway, while the British forces would conduct the actual strike operations - we would also probably have to supply much of the CSAR as well - still it could be labeled as "support" just as it was in Libya...

Just a thought!

best

[jonas]

Interesting headline article on CVF in todays issue of :- http://defense.aol.com/

Although it is mostly conjecture and speculation,it is always the case that it is what politicians don't say that matters.
Is there something to this story or as I said just wild speculation.

USS Alabama :- In the comments,it would appear someone else thinks along the same lines as yourself i.e. UK F35's flying off USN carriers. Myself I don't think it likely,but stranger things have happened.

[Jdam1]

That aol article seems very strange we are already building the carriers, the French paid us and thales UK for the Intellectual Property of the CVF why would we now be going to America for carrier designs?

All I can think of is that they are talking about emails design and integration