Thread: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

  1. #2776
    Member Captain Thundebolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    southern highlands NSW
    Posts
    724

    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]

  2. #2777
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    26,445

    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?

  3. #2778

    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 12:11 PM.

  4. #2779
    Faulty Charisma Chip
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,596

    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)

  5. #2780
    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.

  6. #2781
    Member Captain Thundebolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    southern highlands NSW
    Posts
    724

    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]

  7. #2782
    Faulty Charisma Chip
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Peter View Post
    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.
    I'm still to be convinced although as in most of these reports there are no detail just vague suggestions,one of them being that a 'Comms Room' was actually being built on POW.

    Can you imagine the US letting us have the same on one of their vessels,I think not.

    I remember some years ago,collecting signal traffic from onboard a US ship and they a a Marine guard on the door and it wasn't for my benefit.

    Whether this is still the case I wouldn't know,but it did seem rather OTT. I doubt whether such facilities would be politicaly acceptable to either government.

    Then,stranger things have happened.

  8. #2783

    Default

    14:30 BST Monday 26th. Defence Questions in House of Commons. All will be revealed.....

  9. #2784
    Faulty Charisma Chip
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hovematlot View Post
    14:30 BST Monday 26th. Defence Questions in House of Commons. All will be revealed.....
    Well hopefully,but these latest rumours are that the C versus B decision is possibly being delayed until after the spring recess,due to more 'top level' discussions taking place.

  10. #2785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hovematlot View Post
    14:30 BST Monday 26th. Defence Questions in House of Commons. All will be revealed.....
    H Hour - 5 chaps...

  11. #2786
    Member 9166's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Newcastle on Tyne
    Posts
    140

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Pongoglo View Post
    H Hour - 5 chaps...
    Any update did not see BBC Parliament

  12. #2787
    Senior Member SDL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brentwood, England
    Posts
    3,712

    Default

    Sky seemed to hint at the session being focused on the news Hammond announced at the start about the two NATO deaths being British

  13. #2788
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Livingston, Scotland, UK
    Posts
    109

    Default

    it is still ongoing you can watch it live here
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/...00/9434799.stm

  14. #2789

    Default

    No news.. 'Decision not yet made'.. No news is good news I guess!

  15. #2790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 9166 View Post
    Any update did not see BBC Parliament
    Its ongoing..quite a few questions ref Carrier Strike..as one would expect. I thought Hammond's choice of words very interesting. Am recording it, and will have to play back and listen again, however to me most reassuring point of note were that he referred repeatedly to the carriers in the plural. In the past he has been pretty dogged in towing what appeared to be the party line referring to it as delivering 'THE carrier'. Just played it back. His exact words are ' there is no intention to revisit the decision to build the carriers, the review is around how we operate THEM, how we use THEM, and how we ensure that THEY remain affordable into the future.' Everything in his tone indicated that in his mind at least both vessels were central to the solution and would be operated by the UK (as in the use of the royal 'WE') in one form or other. I felt strongly that the implication was that the option to sell one or other as openly stated in SDSR was no longer in mind.

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
  •