QE Class Carrier - BBC Article
Discussion
Simpo Two said:
As an aside, how much of the £58Bn we spend on defence actually ends up in defence and not frittered away on flip charts, civil servants and top brass sitting in meetings eating biscuits and talking guff?
Indeed. I would laugh but the worrying thing is that of the £58 billion I'm pretty sure the Armed forces get between £30-40 Billion. Meaning that MOD takes £18 billion at least each year... Probably more. Shame as well beside with that defence budget we should be able to organise a truly effective military.
Sea Dragon said:
Simpo Two said:
As an aside, how much of the £58Bn we spend on defence actually ends up in defence and not frittered away on flip charts, civil servants and top brass sitting in meetings eating biscuits and talking guff?
Indeed. I would laugh but the worrying thing is that of the £58 billion I'm pretty sure the Armed forces get between £30-40 Billion. Meaning that MOD takes £18 billion at least each year... Probably more. Shame as well beside with that defence budget we should be able to organise a truly effective military.
I cant see how that will go wrong. I really can't!
MoleVision said:
Agreed. All we need is 1 civil servant with a incredible level of knowledge in all departments of defence, including engineering (all disciplines), safety, finance, commercial, legal but to name a few. We then equip him or her with a MASSIVE credit card.
I cant see how that will go wrong. I really can't!
The budget of $58 billlion is misleading though, because ultimately the MoD is one of the most bloated organisations in the world. When you pay £22 pounds for a 60p light bulb something is going very wrong. I cant see how that will go wrong. I really can't!
Now I wouldn't suggest 1 man can do it all but let us not forget the example of Samuel Pepys who proved that 1 man could make a huge difference and become very knowledgeable to the point of catching out the defence industries, private companies and the government in the interests of ensuring that money assigned to the forces reached the forces and was well spent.
PW said:
Sums it all up, doesn't it?
A handful of countries have carriers, only two have anything big, and only one has more than 2 of them.
Everyone else seems to be getting on fine without them - I haven't noticed a host of nations lying in ruin for want of a aquatic landing strip.
Although I understand that they would be a useful asset, they don't appear to be an "absolutely can't do without" bit of kit.
Except your wrong. The majority of those countries are economic or military powerhouses. Furthermore in the event of a war the other countries would be hard pressed to stop carrier capable countries due to their ability to project power.A handful of countries have carriers, only two have anything big, and only one has more than 2 of them.
Everyone else seems to be getting on fine without them - I haven't noticed a host of nations lying in ruin for want of a aquatic landing strip.
Although I understand that they would be a useful asset, they don't appear to be an "absolutely can't do without" bit of kit.
Britain has a huge merchant navy. We depend on trade. We have overseas territories. We have security council responsibilities. We live in an increasingly unstable and unsafe world. Tell me when in the last 100 years we have been at peace for more than 15 years? We live in a world that is fast becoming over crowded and over harvested. You think we can defend potential oil fields in the Falklands or Antartic Territories without carriers? You think we can defend merchant trade traveling through the Hurmous straights, the Suez cannel or a dozen other choke points with no soverign airbase near by with only light frigates and OPVs?
Anyone who believes we don't need a strong and capable military able to defend out interests is Naive. People will try to take them from us. They have in the past, they have not too recently and they will in the future.
He who rules the waves, rules the world... Now I am not suggesting we should attempt to rule the world, however I am suggesting we wise up and accept our territories and resources are not nicely grouped and thus easily defendable by air and land. They are spread out and thus the most effective way to defend them is from the sea. With the ability to project land and air assets in the event the initial defence fails.
Carriers are the only things that can do this.
Sea Dragon said:
Britain has a huge merchant navy. We depend on trade. We have overseas territories. We have security council responsibilities. We live in an increasingly unstable and unsafe world. Tell me when in the last 100 years we have been at peace for more than 15 years? We live in a world that is fast becoming over crowded and over harvested. You think we can defend potential oil fields in the Falklands or Antartic Territories without carriers? You think we can defend merchant trade traveling through the Hurmous straights, the Suez cannel or a dozen other choke points with no soverign airbase near by with only light frigates and OPVs?
That is what it boils down to really - a gamble on whether the world is going to be a more dangerous place over the next 30-40 years (as that is likely to be the lifespan of the ships). Looking at the way things are, with increasing demand for resources and space, it would be foolish to ignore it and hope for the best. If we bin a large amount of our military capability, it will be too late when it becomes apparent that we do actually need it.Sea Dragon said:
Britain has a huge merchant navy. We depend on trade. We have overseas territories. We have security council responsibilities. We live in an increasingly unstable and unsafe world. Tell me when in the last 100 years we have been at peace for more than 15 years? We live in a world that is fast becoming over crowded and over harvested. You think we can defend potential oil fields in the Falklands or Antartic Territories without carriers? You think we can defend merchant trade traveling through the Hurmous straights, the Suez cannel or a dozen other choke points with no soverign airbase near by with only light frigates and OPVs?
I can only add two overviews. One is that as global population expands, resources WILL run out and when push comes to shove, wars WILL break out as the strong scramble to grab from the weak. It's called population ecology. Secondly, those who beat their swords into ploughshares can end up farming for those who didn't. We are generally nice people, basking in a post-Empire haze of complacency, and it is comfortable to assume everybody is like us.ETA: Sea Dragon may have cocked up his grammar/spelling but literacy does not always confer correctness. Indeed over-educated socialists are largely responsible for our current mess.
tank slapper said:
Sea Dragon said:
Britain has a huge merchant navy. We depend on trade. We have overseas territories. We have security council responsibilities. We live in an increasingly unstable and unsafe world. Tell me when in the last 100 years we have been at peace for more than 15 years? We live in a world that is fast becoming over crowded and over harvested. You think we can defend potential oil fields in the Falklands or Antartic Territories without carriers? You think we can defend merchant trade traveling through the Hurmous straights, the Suez cannel or a dozen other choke points with no soverign airbase near by with only light frigates and OPVs?
That is what it boils down to really - a gamble on whether the world is going to be a more dangerous place over the next 30-40 years (as that is likely to be the lifespan of the ships). Looking at the way things are, with increasing demand for resources and space, it would be foolish to ignore it and hope for the best. If we bin a large amount of our military capability, it will be too late when it becomes apparent that we do actually need it."People think fighter jets and strategic bombers can cover those key operational requirements? Or Soldiers on the ground? Time to wake up."
So whats it going to be?
Finally,
"We have security council responsibilities."
Now you are REALLY grasping at straws.
For those of you who think our security council obligations are not important there will be little I can do to change that. However remember that those obligations give us trump cards in diplomatic meetings with other countries. Something that is very important in the international community.
For those of you who think that we need either carriers or more destroyers/frigates this is not the case. Bad procurement AND political delays in projects coupled with political changes to projects result in our equipment costing more than it should. Finally the MoD lets native British defence industry get away with murder.
Get rid of the constant 1 year delay to save money short term (with a long term increase) and the 60p lightbulbs bought for £22 etc and we would see big changes.
Next the RN recieves the least funding of the 3 forces, while shouldering the burden of the strategic deterrent. Parliment MUST pay for the strategic deterrent as it is a weapon only they can use. It is an important political tool but one that should not affect the conventional spending of our forces.
Finally the RN should recieve an increase in its funds. We are as I have highlighted above, an Island nation dependent on trade and on overseas territories that we own. A Navy is the only way to effectively defend these interests.
Those 3 steps would allow the construction of the carriers with a proper carrier air wing and very little messing around. The carriers and the Amphibious fleet would be able to project power for medium to large scale conflicts. They would rely on the 6 T45 and 13 T23 or T26 to protect them.
Meanwhile Britain does not need ships the size of the T22 frigates to do WIGS, Falklands guard, anti terrorism, anti piracy etc. For those roles we need a versatile and capable low end fleet made up of a good MCMV class like the hunt class we currently have, 15-20 of them are going to be needed. Maybe more as poorer countries attempt to use mines to stop our larger assets.
Then a class called the Khareef would fit the bill for small-medium scale conflicts plus peace time duties. It has a good weapons fit for such a small ship, it can carry the new lynx wildcat and 3 of them with lifetime support and training cost the Royal Oman Navy a mere £400 million.
With 12 VL SAM's (Mica but we would use CAAM), 4 Harpoon/Exocet SSM's, 1 75mm super raid, 2 30mm and 1 helicopter the Khareef class is a more than capable little ship. Perfect for tangling with swarm attacks due to their better than average capabilities AND numbers, anti narcotics and anti piracy can be covered. Due to cheapness in Medium scale conflicts they can operate as a SAG to help counter swarm attacks in the littoral or provide a ASuW section with Harpoon while the Lynx helps with ASW.
Her smaller size also means she can easily dock in small ports around the world and everything but a full refit/dry dock can be done away from home. Allowing fuel and cost savings due to operating the ship as an attachment to soverign territories.
For those of you who think that we need either carriers or more destroyers/frigates this is not the case. Bad procurement AND political delays in projects coupled with political changes to projects result in our equipment costing more than it should. Finally the MoD lets native British defence industry get away with murder.
Get rid of the constant 1 year delay to save money short term (with a long term increase) and the 60p lightbulbs bought for £22 etc and we would see big changes.
Next the RN recieves the least funding of the 3 forces, while shouldering the burden of the strategic deterrent. Parliment MUST pay for the strategic deterrent as it is a weapon only they can use. It is an important political tool but one that should not affect the conventional spending of our forces.
Finally the RN should recieve an increase in its funds. We are as I have highlighted above, an Island nation dependent on trade and on overseas territories that we own. A Navy is the only way to effectively defend these interests.
Those 3 steps would allow the construction of the carriers with a proper carrier air wing and very little messing around. The carriers and the Amphibious fleet would be able to project power for medium to large scale conflicts. They would rely on the 6 T45 and 13 T23 or T26 to protect them.
Meanwhile Britain does not need ships the size of the T22 frigates to do WIGS, Falklands guard, anti terrorism, anti piracy etc. For those roles we need a versatile and capable low end fleet made up of a good MCMV class like the hunt class we currently have, 15-20 of them are going to be needed. Maybe more as poorer countries attempt to use mines to stop our larger assets.
Then a class called the Khareef would fit the bill for small-medium scale conflicts plus peace time duties. It has a good weapons fit for such a small ship, it can carry the new lynx wildcat and 3 of them with lifetime support and training cost the Royal Oman Navy a mere £400 million.
With 12 VL SAM's (Mica but we would use CAAM), 4 Harpoon/Exocet SSM's, 1 75mm super raid, 2 30mm and 1 helicopter the Khareef class is a more than capable little ship. Perfect for tangling with swarm attacks due to their better than average capabilities AND numbers, anti narcotics and anti piracy can be covered. Due to cheapness in Medium scale conflicts they can operate as a SAG to help counter swarm attacks in the littoral or provide a ASuW section with Harpoon while the Lynx helps with ASW.
Her smaller size also means she can easily dock in small ports around the world and everything but a full refit/dry dock can be done away from home. Allowing fuel and cost savings due to operating the ship as an attachment to soverign territories.
doogz said:
Mojocvh said:
Easy. Firstly we are not paying for the Libya operations. So that's your dubious "£30 million" for starters.
Secondly the aircraft are operating from MOB's that allow the maximum weapon load-outs if required.
They are then refuelled both in transit and on ops, providing both a quick reaction as required whilst also carrying out sweeps over the area to find their own targets of opportunity.
They are also able to bring back ALL of the very expensive weapons instead of ditching some of them as would have been the case on a "through deck cruiser" and Harrier.
Third, you may find the fact that Libyan assets are carrying out littoral operations will concentrate the mind any Naval force commander, what price a carrier meandering into a minefield laid shortly before??
With the cuts being carried out** you will find that before long we will need our European allies to perform any medium/large scale operations, the only reason the army were spared this time round is AFG.
It's not even the small stuff, it's like no aircraft, no experienced deck operators/pilots, no cats [didn't need them because the aircraft..OH hang on], conventionally powered [when everyone else puts a reactor in and has loads of steam for steam cats, not some experimental system that has not been proven in service, the list just goes ON and ON.
Convert one to carry helicopters instead, that's a real smart move, how many marines can you get on there? 500/1000??
Here's a question for you, where do they eat, sleep and s
t? How much water will all these troops need to survive per day? How do you produce all that "extra" capacity? Redesign, well that ain't going to cost much will it!
The whole carrier program has become [and some less kind than myself would say from the beginning] a complete cluster ****.
But I don't care, because I was lucky enough to get my time in and GTF out before all this [recent] shambles started.
Mo.
I really don't understand your point of view.Secondly the aircraft are operating from MOB's that allow the maximum weapon load-outs if required.
They are then refuelled both in transit and on ops, providing both a quick reaction as required whilst also carrying out sweeps over the area to find their own targets of opportunity.
They are also able to bring back ALL of the very expensive weapons instead of ditching some of them as would have been the case on a "through deck cruiser" and Harrier.
Third, you may find the fact that Libyan assets are carrying out littoral operations will concentrate the mind any Naval force commander, what price a carrier meandering into a minefield laid shortly before??
With the cuts being carried out** you will find that before long we will need our European allies to perform any medium/large scale operations, the only reason the army were spared this time round is AFG.
- Does the Title HMS Cumberland ring a bell?
It's not even the small stuff, it's like no aircraft, no experienced deck operators/pilots, no cats [didn't need them because the aircraft..OH hang on], conventionally powered [when everyone else puts a reactor in and has loads of steam for steam cats, not some experimental system that has not been proven in service, the list just goes ON and ON.
Convert one to carry helicopters instead, that's a real smart move, how many marines can you get on there? 500/1000??
Here's a question for you, where do they eat, sleep and s
t? How much water will all these troops need to survive per day? How do you produce all that "extra" capacity? Redesign, well that ain't going to cost much will it!The whole carrier program has become [and some less kind than myself would say from the beginning] a complete cluster ****.
But I don't care, because I was lucky enough to get my time in and GTF out before all this [recent] shambles started.
Mo.
They're expensive, we shouldn't be building them, we can't afford it.
Except we should finish building them. And chuck more money at redesigning them to be helicopter carriers.
Then where will we put all these marines that are now going to be on the boat? Well, they'll probably sleep in bunks, like everyone else. There are rather a few. Eat? In the canteen. s
t, in the bogs. Water. You know ships like this make their own clean drinking water?And you want more smaller ships? like the T45's we've built, and the T26's we're going to build.
For someone that apparently doesn't care, you seem to care enough to post your nonsensical opinions all over here.
The marines mentioned are additional to the ships operating complement as originally intended as an aircraft carrier. They have never been factored in when the ships or it's systems were designed. It was EXACTLY this lack of attention to detail with HMS Ocean, when they embarked there wasn't enough ROOM for them. You know boring stuff like weapons, ammunition, bunks, kit. Then they discovered the waste system was marginal to say the least.
So now the plan is to refit one of the new carriers as a helicopter/assault ship one has to wonder just how far this will go in the design/planning stage. Probably to the letter of the poorly drawn up contract.
Anyway, I don't care, really.
The whole program is skewed, the blinkers have been fully fitted and it's full steam ahead. The admirals will get their aircraft-less carriers and no doubt it will be someone else to blame as they steam around impotently in the future.
However what does tick me off, as happened in past campaigns when I WAS involved, is the RN not having the balls to turn round and sort out their own problems without the constant mudslinging, the political lobbyists, et al.
You don't believe me about the pure spite and malice directed towards the youngest of our armed services?
http://www.fleetairarmoa.org/asp/news.asp?NewsItem...
"and there are many hundreds of aircraft. If the RAF can’t sustain current operations, what are all those people and all that expensive equipment for? There is much that curious Defence and Treasury ministers should question about the RAF’s structure and management".
Can anyone explain WHY they trashed their own organic air defence assets, some of them the lowest FI'd Harriers there were??
As I said, they need to sort their own boat out first.
Mo.
PW said:
The majority of economic or military powerhouses in the world don't have any carriers. Those that do have the barest minimum, apart from one.
One also has to take into account the geography and political positions and aspirations of each country. For centuries the Navy was the only thing that stopped us getting invaded successively by Holland, Spain, France and Germany. We relied on trade for wealth; with nothing to protect that trade we'd have been easy meat for every rival. Of course things have changed over the years and you can rightly say that we don't need a carrier this week. But what will the world do in the near future? If we suddenly need a carrier in, say, 2020, for some as-yet unknown reason, what will we do? That is why, whilst aruguments rage back and forth, I say 'build one anyway' - because you are sure to need it one day.Sea Dragon said:
..........
.............
Then a class called the Khareef would fit the bill for small-medium scale conflicts plus peace time duties. It has a good weapons fit for such a small ship, it can carry the new lynx wildcat and 3 of them with lifetime support and training cost the Royal Oman Navy a mere £400 million.
With 12 VL SAM's (Mica but we would use CAAM), 4 Harpoon/Exocet SSM's, 1 75mm super raid, 2 30mm and 1 helicopter the Khareef class is a more than capable little ship. Perfect for tangling with swarm attacks due to their better than average capabilities AND numbers, anti narcotics and anti piracy can be covered. Due to cheapness in Medium scale conflicts they can operate as a SAG to help counter swarm attacks in the littoral or provide a ASuW section with Harpoon while the Lynx helps with ASW.
Her smaller size also means she can easily dock in small ports around the world and everything but a full refit/dry dock can be done away from home. Allowing fuel and cost savings due to operating the ship as an attachment to soverign territories.
It would require a wholesale change in the MoD before they buy anything like those, sensible as it sounds..............
Then a class called the Khareef would fit the bill for small-medium scale conflicts plus peace time duties. It has a good weapons fit for such a small ship, it can carry the new lynx wildcat and 3 of them with lifetime support and training cost the Royal Oman Navy a mere £400 million.
With 12 VL SAM's (Mica but we would use CAAM), 4 Harpoon/Exocet SSM's, 1 75mm super raid, 2 30mm and 1 helicopter the Khareef class is a more than capable little ship. Perfect for tangling with swarm attacks due to their better than average capabilities AND numbers, anti narcotics and anti piracy can be covered. Due to cheapness in Medium scale conflicts they can operate as a SAG to help counter swarm attacks in the littoral or provide a ASuW section with Harpoon while the Lynx helps with ASW.
Her smaller size also means she can easily dock in small ports around the world and everything but a full refit/dry dock can be done away from home. Allowing fuel and cost savings due to operating the ship as an attachment to soverign territories.
aeropilot said:
Mojocvh said:
The admirals will get their aircraft-less carriers and no doubt it will be someone else to blame as they steam around impotently in the future.
Interesting new rumours doing the rounds which if there's any truth in might mean they won't be aircraft-less Apart from the lend/lease deal with the frogs.
Hooli said:
They know that we are stupid enough to play world policeman & waste billions doing it so they don't have too.
That is a very good point. I'm not in favour of our attempt to 'democratise' the Middle East - they don't want it, any more than we want an Islamic Britain.Policing aside, other roles are to protect interests and defend the homeland. There is not currently an aggressor lining up, but then there wasn't in 1933 either. 'There can never be another war' we all said in 1919 - and disbanded 90% of the Navy and Air Force.
Mojocvh said:
aeropilot said:
Mojocvh said:
The admirals will get their aircraft-less carriers and no doubt it will be someone else to blame as they steam around impotently in the future.
Interesting new rumours doing the rounds which if there's any truth in might mean they won't be aircraft-less aeropilot said:
Mojocvh said:
aeropilot said:
Mojocvh said:
The admirals will get their aircraft-less carriers and no doubt it will be someone else to blame as they steam around impotently in the future.
Interesting new rumours doing the rounds which if there's any truth in might mean they won't be aircraft-less Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff