Thread: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

  1. #2776
    Faulty Charisma Chip
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    This is the Telegraph at its absolute nonsensical best,A permanent squadron of US aircraft embarked,cobblers. As for a Comms dept classed as US Eyes Only, that is more or less saying that on a British Warship you have a 'No Go Area' for British personel. Not going to happen.

    To you know who,please try and mind your own business.Perhaps in future before making such unsolicited comments you may like to look back,at an excerpt from one of your first posts on here,and I quote:-

    SO carrierfan2006 or anybody else please don't bother replying because like Conquerer i'm not interested in your pc drivel.

    I was going to apologize for going off topic but thinking about it i just could not give a s**t.
    Last edited by jonas; 03-24-2012 at 08:26 AM.

  2. #2777
    Senior Member cockneyjock1974's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Pub
    Posts
    1,914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Briani View Post
    I just can't get my head around the 1.8 billion conversion costs either.Having read (can't remember were) that the build cost of POW will be around 950 million,how the hell do we get into the billions for conversion.This is a hull that has supposably been designed for easy conversion from the start.

    Just ignore you know who CJ.He's not worth getting wound up about.
    Cheers Briani,

    A guy on another forum came up with an interesting statement, that the reasoning behind CVA01 being cancelled was the associated cost of the 4 Type 82 destroyers that came with it. This was the argument Healey (I think it was) put forward the overall total cost. I'm not saying for one minute QE or POW are going to be cancelled but as Blue Peter says someone has an agenda. I quite like Philip Hammond, I feel he's honest enough but I don't think he's as pro CVF as Liam was, I hope i'm wrong though.

  3. #2778
    A little plastered Arfah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Just monkeying around
    Posts
    4,819

    Default

    http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...816&do=discuss

    "The British are coming"

    Not a bad place to discuss the off topic nonesense and tit fer tat tittle tattle that's been infecting this thread. Just request that you'd like to join to the group mod (it's not me).


    Back on Topic: If the UK does end up with F35B then a typical airgroup would/could consist of:
    24 F35B (2 SQN's): Swingrole STOVL Fighter
    4 Seaking/Merlin ASaC: C4ISR
    10 Merlin HM2: ASW/SAR
    2 Merlin HC3: Utility/SAR

    Compared to the Invincible class, that's still a giant leap in capability.

    I'm not lowering my expectations though - F35C's please !!! Maybe the US Govt could loan the finances for EMALS and Arrestor gear ?

  4. #2779
    Member exdabtoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Humber
    Posts
    131

    Default

    The US are obviously very keen on a UK C&T carrier for the European theatre, but that would need one operational and one in near readiness, not mothballed.

  5. #2780
    Senior Member cockneyjock1974's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Pub
    Posts
    1,914

    Default

    This may explain why the US are keen to get their hands on our carriers, it kind of backs up whats been discussed already @3 mins on the video "Big E's final deployment" the presenter asks the question that the US Navy is failing to meet it's targeted 2 carriers at sea posture and is only averaging 1.7 carriers at sea (got to love these stats, what does point 7 of a carrier look like Lol ) To compensate deployments are now 8 months instead of 6 which has a big effect on ships morale.

    I feel that the USN see the CVF's as an extension of their own fleet IMO but ONLY if they are converted to CATOBAR.

    http://www.defensenewstv.com/index.php

  6. #2781
    Member exdabtoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Humber
    Posts
    131

    Default

    If you haven't read the article, you will find it on:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ministers.html

  7. #2782
    Member Briani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Blackpool,UK
    Posts
    229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cockneyjock1974 View Post
    This may explain why the US are keen to get their hands on our carriers, it kind of backs up whats been discussed already @3 mins on the video "Big E's final deployment" the presenter asks the question that the US Navy is failing to meet it's targeted 2 carriers at sea posture and is only averaging 1.7 carriers at sea (got to love these stats, what does point 7 of a carrier look like Lol ) To compensate deployments are now 8 months instead of 6 which has a big effect on ships morale.

    I feel that the USN see the CVF's as an extension of their own fleet IMO but ONLY if they are converted to CATOBAR.

    http://www.defensenewstv.com/index.php
    Two carriers at sea let alone 1.7 really is very poor when they've got 11.If we can hit 50% with ours i'm sure we'll all be very happy.

    I once thought that the carrier programme would be good for our escort fleet.My thinking was that we would need to keep enough escorts free for a carrier group so overall this would increase the total number because our current fleet is already overstretched.So much for that theory.

    Not sure about Philip Hammond.Like a lot of people have said he's a bean counter first and formost and defence minister second.Not looking forward to Monday.I think we'll be going back to plan B.

  8. #2783

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Briani View Post
    Not sure about Philip Hammond
    ..the phrase "knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing" was invented for politicians like him.

  9. #2784
    Senior Member cockneyjock1974's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Pub
    Posts
    1,914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Briani View Post
    Two carriers at sea let alone 1.7 really is very poor when they've got 11.If we can hit 50% with ours i'm sure we'll all be very happy.

    I once thought that the carrier programme would be good for our escort fleet.My thinking was that we would need to keep enough escorts free for a carrier group so overall this would increase the total number because our current fleet is already overstretched.So much for that theory.

    Not sure about Philip Hammond.Like a lot of people have said he's a bean counter first and formost and defence minister second.Not looking forward to Monday.I think we'll be going back to plan B.
    I think the 2 carrier average was solely related to the 5th fleet Briani, which if I remember correctly is the one that hangs around very sandy places that produce lots of oil

    The MOD have needed a bean counter for nearly 4 decades, so in theory balanced books should equal money for new toys, that will be the main question for me, will he spend it when that happens.

  10. #2785
    Member Captain Thundebolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    southern highlands NSW
    Posts
    404

    Default

    [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000]Looking at this from across the Pacific, it certainly seems that there is a lot of hysteria if god forbids MOD has to return to the idea of F35B. I am not playing devils advocate just that the RN is not going to fall down if the government of the day returns to a STVOL aircraft. I believe that the 2 million figures thrown around is made from either some inside treasury or an advocate from within RN itself remembering the glory days of the Falkland’s conflict, but sometimes you need to have a short term pain for a long term gain and I see that with the current debate on wether the Queen Elizabeth carriers should be STOVL or CATOBAR carriers. I believe a lot of the disservice for the RN is coming about because of the impending nature of aircraft to be part of Joint service Combat Aircraft for both RN/RAF aircraft and pilots the line are becoming blurred on the very role that the aircraft are to perform under a joint program for the RN/RAF. From my perspective their should be a distinct difference of the role similar the USAF/USN or Marine Nationale/French Air Force in regard to maritime operations and who operates the aircraft for the UK, in saying that it would mean a complete revision on the operating budgets for both service for fast fixed wing aircraft.
    [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000]Their is no doubt that F35B will have a small advantages over a CATOBAR carrier if you have a small amount of aircraft on board, which the Queen Elizabeth class do compared to a Nimitz/Ford class carrier. Aircraft regeneration is in fact better with the F35B over a F35C, don’t forget that USN Conops for sustained 24/7 operations calls for 2/3 carriers working together. With a CATOBAR carrier aircraft operations are in cycles either launching aircraft or recovering they cannot do both at the same time which a STVOL aircraft carrier can do. But realistically unless the RN is going into a Battle of Midway type scenario where aircraft are will be needed to regenerate aircraft quickly to attack a red fleet carrier before a counter attack could be launched upon them, RN will not have that many aircraft in the air at any one time so the slower cycle rates will not have much of an impact on the Conops for the RN.
    [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000]In either configuration STOVL/CATOBAR the carrier will have the same amount of interoperability from either the Italians/Spanish/USMC (STOVL) or USN/MN/BN (CATOBAR) in either strike or CAS operations. The RN CVF is not designed to be USN Super carrier, designed to swing between the role of an LHA and a strike carrier, a flexible ship that can do it all that is comparable to an America class LHA. I would expect that the QE would have a service life of 40/50 years, when it comes time to replace Albion class ships hopefully a true LPH would be on the cards having a vessel like the Canberra Class that also can take aircraft from Queen Elizabeth class carrier gives the RN more flexibility on how it deploys and sustains the FAA. Where do people see the long term viability of the RN going after 2025? [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

  11. #2786
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Blah, blah, friggin' blah.
    Posts
    21,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Thundebolt View Post
    [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000]With a CATOBAR carrier aircraft operations are in cycles either launching aircraft or recovering they cannot do both at the same time which a STVOL aircraft carrier can do. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000] [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
    Is there a reason the forward cats on a Nimitz can't operate while recovering aircraft?

  12. #2787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    Is there a reason the forward cats on a Nimitz can't operate while recovering aircraft?
    They can, and very occasionally do! However, 'cyclic operations' are the preferred option for performing 99% of carrier air operations.

    It's the CVFs (as well as CdeG) that can't perform simultaneous launches and recoveries as the Cats foul the landing ***** on deck...
    Last edited by Pymes75; 03-25-2012 at 11:11 AM.

  13. #2788
    Faulty Charisma Chip
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    I really cannot believe some of the posts that have appeared on this thread in regards to the latest so called developments.

    I still sincerely believe that the UK will stick with the F35C and Catobar,that is my opinion and if I am proved wrong so be it.

    The idea that the US will have a permanent squadron onboard one of our CVF's strikes me as very unlikely,for both practical and political reasons.

    The idea that the US will have a 'US Eyes Only' Comms dept onboard is quite frankly ludicrous.

    This would in fact amount to a 'No Go Zone' for UK personel onboard a UK Warship, if you see this happening then at the best you are naive and at the worst delusional.

    If you know anything at all about security,then you will know that even the best of allies keep things from each other in the so called interests of 'National Security'

    Even the suggestion of such a thing will have the CIA and whatever other 'Security Services' rubbing their hands in glee.Can you imagine them actually embedded within one of our major military assets.

    How many of these US comms personel will be under the jurisdiction of the above departments,it is not a scenrio that even the British Government could assent too,or could it.

    This is not not a fantasy post,but one which should bring you back to reality. (though I very much doubt it)

  14. #2789
    Member Blue Peter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cheshire, England
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Jonas I agree that we'll probably go with F35Cs and CATOBAR, and overall I think it's the right choice. Similarly I agree that we wouldn't see a permanent US presence aboard. Though I suspect we'll see a lot of US training, support aircraft and conops. I think the US will want us to take the strain in the Atlantic/Med area and will support in that.

    But the idea of eyes-only comms gear aboard isn't so crazy. We're not necessarily talking a fully-rigged crypto comms room with sneaky spooks eavesdropping on RN (which you're right, we wouldn't allow). When I've been embedded in US forces, I often had UK eyes only comms gear in the form of an encrypted tablet. I couldn't break comsec without permission of the hosting unit, I couldn't eavesdrop on their comms if they didn't want me to. I just had a line to HMG that my hosts couldn't read, just in case. Maybe that's all that would be needed here, an encrypted terminal for those private moments between squadron CO and the US chain of command.

    Im not navy, so I may be being naive about ship ops there. Though not naive about security.

    Though in fairness, I think the story is one or two facts and 98% journalistic padding.

  15. #2790
    Member Captain Thundebolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    southern highlands NSW
    Posts
    404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    Is there a reason the forward cats on a Nimitz can't operate while recovering aircraft?

    [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][*******#000000]The port bow and waist cats you will notice are the ones they use most of the time when launching aircraft for the very reason if a aircraft goes down on the cat they can move them off to the side without causing to much congestion with the remaining aircraft to be cycle thru the launch sequence, also they will have aircraft on the recovery area which stops the use of the recovery area at the same time. On the old Essex class carrier with no waist cat and they were using both bow cats at the same time it was headache for them if a aircraft went down on the cat they would have to move the aircraft to the stern with all the traffic queuing up for the launch sequence, wont have that problem with either version on Queen Elizabeth class carriers as they will only have a single bow cat plus a waist cat.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

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
  •