[Closed] New Aircraft Carrier

Thats one way of looking at it..what if we spent 6.5 billion on a large boat to deliver Greggs Sausage rolls and steak bakes.

That would come in handy from day one.

Back in the real world people are dying, because grown men like to play power games with their big toys.

Had a chat with somebody from BAE last weekend..... s'all about drones these days apparently

Seriously, do people think we are doing to be "dogfighting" in fast jets in the forseeable?

*ducks for cover*

Have the Harriers actually been broken up for scrap?

If they still exist, couldn't the navy just line em up on deck, just for the look of the thing, for the next decade or so ?

Pump the tyres up and you could probably roll them around a bit and really mess with the Ruskies minds

Not scrapped as such, more dismantled for parts. We'd have to buy them back as well.

Why not F-14? Excellent missile carrier, fast, very cabable radar and long range. Only got killed off as they were getting hard to maintain . The manufacturer had proposed a vastly upgraded new version (bit like the super hornet compared to the hornet) which internally would've been pretty much a new beast with avionics, internal systems like hydraulics brought up to date and more powerful engines.

Sadly the USN was obsessed with the Hornet and F-35 program, which they may pay dearly for in a Pacific conflict with the Chinese in 20 years or so.
I think they've got a rewinging program in place for the A-10.

You can fit a lot of drones on that boat.

A great big vanity project, but still more useful than a Trident sub.

Why is it taking another 9 years to commission though?

I'm another that doesn't see the point of it, unless it's for humanitarian evacuation or assistance for medical needs POV.
Just a big lump of inter-Government lahdidah "we need more money, because we are the navy and the army blokes have guns n stuff because you keep sending them into wars" horsecrap.

How many hospital beds can you fit on the deck ?

Had a chat with somebody from BAE last weekend..... s'all about drones these days apparently

F35s are liekly the last manned generation of aircraft. I think you can expect unmanned airbourne things to be launched from these in the future. But that will be some years in the future, not next week. This isn't "Amazon Delivers". Yet.

Anyway. The carriers;
1) should have a nuke running the show
2) should have catobar

They might get some kind of #2 in the future.

Seriously, do people think we are doing to be "dogfighting" in fast jets in the forseeable?

*ducks for cover*

No need to duck - you won't see the incoming because it's all done BVR nowadays. It's decades since a dog fighting kill AFAIK - I can only assume people have watched Top Gun too many times if they think it's an important capability. Even when that was filmed it was already becoming outdated.

You can fit a lot of drones on that boat.

Yep, they'll be flying drones off it before it is up and running with F35s.
The Navy have been flying drones off various platforms for a while - including T23.

Why is it taking another 9 years to commission though?

I'm not sure it is?
Last we've heard is it'll be doing a couple of years of commissioning + sea trials out of Portsmouth when it arrives later this year/early next, followed by a period of time doing 'aircraft integration' trials off the coast of Florida (Fort Lauderdale?)

The full compliment of F35s will not be delivered/operational until the mid 2020s, so that might be where the 9 year figure has come from.

mrmonkfinger - Member

I think you can expect unmanned airbourne things to be launched from these in the future. But that will be some years in the future, not next week. This isn't "Amazon Delivers". Yet.

Anyway. The carriers;
1) should have a nuke running the show
2) should have catobar

They might get some kind of #2 in the future.

Drones (big ones) have already been tested on carriers in the US, no reason we wont be doing it before long.

[img] [/img]

1) Can you imagine the STW-froth?!?!
2) Not without massively changing the construction of the flight-deck, think that ship has sailed now

It's decades since a dog fighting kill AFAIK

Yep, decades.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/21/politics/us-syria-russia-dogfight/index.html

Nice boat that HMS QE with some good kit on it.

It's decades since a dog fighting kill AFAIK
Yep, decades.

convert - Member
[i]She's still a baby in comparison to the US ones.
Ones we could've bought for a lot, lot, lot less money too.....[/i]
Wiki says the latest US show pony the USS Gerald R. Ford which gets commissioned next month is 100,000 tonnes and cost $12.7bn + $4.7bn R&D whilst the Queen Elizabeth is 70,000 and cost £3.1BN (£6.2bn for the pair).

It's a bit smaller (US craft 50m longer but pretty much identical beam) but a lot, lot cheaper. I'd be amazed if the yanks would have sold us a cast off for less than we spent once you took a refit into account. We'd also have struggled to park/service it in a UK port.

Whilst I'm first in the queue to bin trident I can still see the point in an aircraft carrier even for a tinpot nation such as the UK.

Its also worth pointing out the manpower disparity -

US carrier - 6000 crew including airwing
HMS QE - 1600 including airwing

That's a substantial recurring cost reduction

Also, a US style nuclear carrier costs substantially more (££Bn) to de-commission than a conventionally fuelled one.

Telegraph reporting it's running Windows XP, but thankfully will be due for a computer upgrade within the next decade.

In terms of value for money, the carriers whilst expensive are definitely better value than their US Super Carrier counterparts - for the price of the USS Ford we could have 3 x QE class carriers.

It's too late now to harp on about CATOBAR; the decision should have been taken around 10 years ago to either build them that way, or just replace the 3 light carriers, with 3 more light carriers...

Now that we have them, I'm sure we'll get good value. The expected life-span is 50 years, and as pointed out drone tech is coming along rapidly and can do all sorts of clever things without a bag of meat to carry.

For those that slate the F35B, it is late, and it is expensive but from what I've read/been told/understand it will be a game changer. The old RAF Tornado F3's proved themselves in exercises against proper fighters like the F16 once they were properly upgraded with data-links and BVR weapons. The F35B has that and will be more capable that the Harrier ever was.

Could we put some Sea Harriers on them? Yes, but the School of Flight Deck Operations at RNAS Culdrose might be a bit miffed to lose their toys, and Sharky Ward is a bit long in the tooth now 😀

Telegraph reporting it's running Windows XP, but thankfully will be due for a computer upgrade within the next decade.

The problem here is caused by shipbuilding lead-times.
The computer kit in question was probably ordered 8 years ago, and would have been current spec at the time.
We have huge issues with this at work - we build refrigeration plant for Navy Ships and submarines - there is anything from a 4-8 year gap between delivery and commissioning.
How many people are still using an 8 year old laptop? or mobile phone?

F35s are likely the last manned generation of aircraft.

I don't think that will be true, as part of engagement rules you still often need a person to eyeball the target. Planes are also better in bad weather, which is why the Yanks are still using the U2 in areas prone to tropical storms.

Why not F-14?

Because it's design was outdated, swing wings are heavy and hard to maintain. It has a history of reliability issues and was only really good in one role, where as the F-35 is multirole.

As for the A-10 not sure why it is being discussed as it isn't carrier based, but anyway it was designed to attack tanks and is far too susceptible to missile attack hence, it's demise.

F35s are liekly the last manned generation of aircraft

Industry and governments seem to think otherwise. Unmanned aircraft work very well for lots of roles, but not all of them.

The problem with drones is that you'll still need to launch and recover them, something that QE won't do without CATOBAR.

I did love the F-14 comment, it's a hugely charismatic jet, but it's big and the design dates back to the late sixties. It's extremely maintenance intensive and isn't built for low level strike missions - the F-14B and D variants suffered a lot of airframe fatigue from being bounced around in low level turbulent air.

As a long range air to air carrier carrier defence aircraft, it really needs a long range AWACS platform to work, something we don't have.

The UK has the typhoon to do that.

F35 was never designed for that roll.

The Typhoon cant operate from a carrier. We bought the wrong F-35, we should have bought the A model for the Air Force and the longer range C model for the Royal Navy. The latter has larger wings and greater ordinance capacity.

PJM1974 - Member

The problem with drones is that you'll still need to launch and recover them, something that QE won't do without CATOBAR.

Unless you either build VSTOL drone or they are light enough to land on the deck without reinforcement (but this would of course still require an arrestor system)

how does an aircraft carrier stop a suicide bomber in London?

Well not directly obviously. The war on terror is an intelligence war. How do you think intelligence is gathered? Intel gathering uses all wings of our armed forces including aircraft carrier operations. An aircraft carrier parked off the coast of some country brings capabilities into region that work as part of an integrated system. So on its own an aircraft carrier does nothing, but as part of an integrated system it is an important contributor.

2) should have catobar

Why not F-14?

If we were to go for a Catobar system then we'd be better off with the F35 CV variant or a navalised Eurofighter.

As for the A-10 not sure why it is being discussed as it isn't carrier based, but anyway it was designed to attack tanks and is far too susceptible to missile attack hence, it's demise

Another outdated aircraft. We now have shoulder mounted guided missiles to kill tanks so no need for a tank buster. Also a helicopter with Hellfire's hiding behind a mountain 20km away can fire missiles to kill tanks that have been targeted by spotters on the ground. Similar shoulder mounted guided missile systems would blow a slow and cumbersome A10 out of the sky as soon as it rocked up. It's a redundant weapon system if ever a conventional war broke out against a well equipped army.

Do we have any planes to put on it yet?

Only helicopters right now, although RAF/FAA crews are training on the F-35B.

The training and integration of a fast jet air wing takes time, we've a new jet flying from new carriers with new subsystems - there will be bugs to iron out.

Wobbillscot, FWIW, I think you are wrong on a couple of points...

Catobars are all about getting lots of planes, whole squadrons, into the air quickly.

ther outdated aircraft.

If old, slow planes were not survivable in the wars we are fighting, then the Super Tucano would not be the CAS plane of choice in a lot of the shittier countries around the world.

I agree that the A10, no matter how tough, would have a hard time surviving against the latest Russian and/or Chinese kit, but with the right tactics, I think it would more than prove its worth even in those environments.

Do we have any planes to put on it yet?

It's been asked three times already just in this thread by people who already know the answer. It's a good tosser identifier

That's handy - we could do with some tossers, then we wouldn't need the 35B variant.

Flight Deck handling is going on at Culdrose.

Here are the toys. http://www.gateguardsuk.com/gta/4961546

Catobars are all about getting lots of planes, whole squadrons, into the air quickly

The QE class have a rather impressive sortie rate - it isn't just cats and traps that matter. The sortie rate drove many of the requirements.

Do we have any planes to put on it yet?

You want to put planes on a carrier before they have even tested the basic systems?

Perhaps we should wait until the sea trials are over... (then yes, there will be planes on it at that point)

To expand on the capabilities mentioned earlier and side tracked. It gives us the abilty to put a heavily armed and protected UK platform anywhere in the world. That means that if any of our citizens in a foreign country are under threat, we can quickly evacuate large numbers to a safe place. That in itself is a fantastic capability and one you never know when it might be needed.

It also allows us to help out other countries in times of natural disasters, which again is a huge bonus to smaller countries with 3rd world abilities.

Presumably this is one of the reasons 'them' are training with V-22?

Will be interesting to see which drones can successfully launch from the new ship.

Rockape63 - Apart from anywhere landlocked. Like AFG for example.

I get your point though, it's nice to have something like Ocean that can be used for disaster relief, but that's not the whole point of an aircraft carrier; it's force projection and I am not sure that the limited capabilities of QE are enough to project force on an opponent in the Russian/Chinese category. Possibly even that Turkey/Brazil category.

Well you could turn the thing beam on and ram it up a sandbar to stop immigrants rowing up the Thames.

#Dailywhail

It also allows us to help out other countries in times of natural disasters, which again is a huge bonus to smaller countries with 3rd world abilities.

Tenner says it's never used like this. Other RN logistics/supply/helicopter carrying ships maybe.

Tenner says it's never used like this. Other RN logistics/supply/helicopter carrying ships maybe.

As far as i am aware, HMS Ocean, whilst not a pure aircraft carrier, being a troop ship and helicopter carrier, was deployed in Honduras following the Hurricane there, in Sierra Leone in support against the rebels there and provided a base during the London Olympics or helicopters, so it's not all war-mongering!

I seem to remember (mate was serving on board for 8 years) that the captain had a seat from a Lotus Elise on the bridge to sit in..

re: Catobars, well, that would have got the carrier the F35C, rather than the steamer of an engineering marvel that is the F35B, plus (I guess) capability to launch and land most anything the US have, which seeing as our ships are designed to slot in with a US carrier, might be "handy".

re: the F35 being last gen, I didn't qualify with "fighter". Its really rather quite expensive to make a whole new airframe from scratch and I doubt the western industry are unlikely to stomach it (china/****stan might, but safety and thoroughness and testing demands are a bit lighter). And the "fighter" profile, as pointed out, is a bit outdated with the BVR engagements that are the current norm. Rules of engagement and humans to do target sighting, er, hmm, ok, that's probably another moral discussion...

Rockape63 - Apart from anywhere landlocked. Like AFG for example.

Thing is with that much firepower, we can do what the hell we want in the pursuit of saving our citizens from certain death. The route in over ****stan looks the least confrontational.

Do we have any planes to put on it yet?

just these old antiques

[img] [/img]

Least confrontational for sure, but 'firepower' is a subjective matter. Compare the strength of QE with a full wing of -B variants with a full wing of -C from a CATOBAR type carrier and you are still going to get shat on by the land-based F-16s from ****stan.

IN reality, their effectiveness in scaring off a nation state relies on said nation state not having the ability to respond in strength.

OTOH the C does get your boat parked a bit further away than the B.

Moot points, as ever...

Some very excellent points, well made.

I'm not an expert on the F-35 and although I've read damming reports about it's dogfighting ability with the early block F-16 models, it's obvious that the F-35 is still early in development and the pilot will have greater situational awareness.

The QE carrier was designed "for but not with" (a great spin term for hedging bets) CATOBAR, it has been suggested that it may be retrofit later, but this seems unlikely. Indeed, the SDR of 2010 mooted swapping our order to F-35Cs and fitting EMALS cats, however BAe scuppered that plan (allegedly) when they got wind that the MoD was interested in F-18/Rafale jets instead of the risky F-35C so the cost for EMALS suddenly escalated to the point that the MoD caved in and went STOVL.

I'm not an expert on the F-35 and although I've read damming reports about it's dogfighting ability with the early block F-16 models, it's obvious that the F-35 is still early in development and the pilot will have greater situational awareness.

Wasn't that on the basis of 'the F16 is better in a dogfight' versus 'Yes, but only if the F16 can get within dogfighting range'

It reminds me of the explanation for the Soviets thinking on unarmed combat - that in order to resort to hand to hand combat, a soviet soldier would have to have got trapped, on his own, behind enemy lines, without a radio, lost his rifle, ammunition, bayonet, helmet, spade and be utterly befeft of any other potential weapon such as a rock or branch... and meet an opposing soldier suffering the exact same fate at the exact same time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40415959/hms-queen-elizabeth-sets-sail-from-rosyth-for-sea-trials

Says here not fully operational until 2026?

IN reality, their effectiveness in scaring off a nation state relies on said nation state not having the ability to respond in strength.

Indeed!

Says here not fully operational until 2026?

Depends on exactly what "fully" means. She is due to have an "operational military capability" by 2020

[quote=ninfan ]Wasn't that on the basis of 'the F16 is better in a dogfight' versus 'Yes, but only if the F16 can get within dogfighting range'

Quite - see above for discussion of the relevance of "dogfighting" ability - I note that the link given as an example of a recent kill certainly wasn't dogfighting in the sense portrayed in Top Gun and the relative dogfighting abilities of the aircraft concerned was pretty much irrelevant (kill was with a medium range missile).

The performance needed to dogfight may not be needed for that specific purpose but it also comes in handy to use for defeating incoming missiles and also to give your own missiles that additional energy and range.

The biggest problem with the QE is the fact that it will mainly be manned by lardy arsed Pompey fat knackers and it will be too big to get into any decent ports for the obligatory piss up, theres no point in joining the navy if you are going to spend your off watch sat on the quarterdeck watching the sun set over Fort lauderdale at spring break cos you missed the liberty boat.

Its too ****ing big, it will be a shit draft and morale will be like rocking horse shit.
Who gives a shit what planes are on it 😉

Finally some informed comment!

😆

From a matelow? Probably the least informed person here, don't want them getting ideas above their station 😉

[quote=budgierider67 ]The performance needed to dogfight may not be needed for that specific purpose but it also comes in handy to use for defeating incoming missiles and also to give your own missiles that additional energy and range.

You can't really dodge incoming missiles (you can evade them, but that's not the same thing at all), and to give your own missiles extra energy the only thing which matters is speed.

Why? Where is the need to be able to launch 5 planes an hour (or whatever it is)? Catobars are all about getting lots of planes, whole squadrons, into the air quickly. Future wars are not dogfighting they are electronic wars. Dogfights will become more and more rare going forward and will be irradiated by beyond visual range missiles anyway. CATOBAR are a whole order of magnitude more expensive and quite unreliable. Yes you can empl9y aircraft with greater capabilities, but they are capabilities that will become more and more redundant as time goes on - the concept of 'dogfight your way to the target, destroy the target, dogfight your way back again' is yesterday's theatres of war. The aircraft is simply a platform, the important bits are what it's carrying and the electronics on board

1) A proper air war doesn't include lots of dogfighting, it's all about how many planes and thus missiles you can lob down range at the other side.

2) The idea that stealth is going to allow a couple of planes to penetrate an integrated air defence and deliver a few bombs on key targets is already obsolete (although RCS is still an important part of an aircrafts performance), hence why the US Navy is pushing for a a very shooty/bangy/overt aircraft in its F/A-XX Program.

3) The Carrier has to reinvent itself in terms of capability, in the face of ever improving cruise and ballistic missiles - that means increasing it's offensive range and thus ability to act as a first strike weapons platform - not act as a support platform when you've already degraded a countries air defence.

You can't really dodge incoming missiles

You can, depending on the range the missile was launched at. Kill probability decreases with range.

The QE ships and their F-35B complement would be rather useful for fighting alongside the US Marines during an island hopping campaign in the archipelagos of the South Pacific - I'm pretty sure that is purely accidental though.

Worth watching this with a mind on why aircraft carriers may or may not be relevant in the future:

Tom_W1987 - Member

The QE ships and their F-35B complement would be rather useful for fighting alongside the US Marines during an island hopping campaign in the archipelagos of the South Pacific

So as long as we get it fully tested and operational by 1942 it's going to be a great asset

The QE ships and their F-35B complement would be rather useful for fighting alongside the US Marines during an island hopping campaign in the archipelagos of the South Pacific - I'm pretty sure that is purely accidental though.

There's also a reason why the US has had discussions with India about the sale of advanced catapult technology for use in Indian carriers, which are presently configured as STOBAR. I daresay that Indian carriers wouldn't be operating beyond the very limits of their range, nor would they have to sail from halfway around the globe to respond to a crisis.

PJM1974 - Member
The QE carrier was designed "for but not with" (a great spin term for hedging bets) CATOBAR, it has been suggested that it may be retrofit later, but this seems unlikely. Indeed, the SDR of 2010 mooted swapping our order to F-35Cs and fitting EMALS cats, however BAe scuppered that plan (allegedly) when they got wind that the MoD was interested in F-18/Rafale jets instead of the risky F-35C so the cost for EMALS suddenly escalated to the point that the MoD caved in and went STOVL.

I remember reading an article in an aviation article when the SSDR proposed switching the QE class vessels from STOVL to CATOBAR. It stated that the minimum number of CATOBAR carriers required for one to be deployable at all times is 3. One that is ready, one that is in refit and one that is dedicated to training pilots, as CATOBAR launches and recoveries are very difficult and pilots need a lot of training to remain qualified for them.

The equivalent for STOVL carriers is only two carriers, one that is ready and one in refit. Training a land-based STOVL pilot to fly from a carrier is a comparatively trivial task. The QE ships were ordered on the basis of operating STOVL aircraft, so the government only went for 2 of them. Switching to CATOBAR was considered by the article to be rife with problems beyond even BAE Systems stitching up the MoD on the cost of doing so.

Of course other carrier operators presumably don't have the expectation that a carrier will always be available, but that seemed to be something that the government or the MoD was definitely after.

Most alarmed at cheekyboys comments, I and my daughter thought it would be an ideal gin palace come social club for her to float around the world on also she wanted to be in the accompanying 10 part fly on wall documentary that is bound to follow.