HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
oj113 said:
Personally I think you can look at it this way. Now or in the future strategically we're going to be up against either:
A lesser technologically advanced enemy, such as an ISIS style enemy, where the top speed of your Carrier is largely irrelevant as all you're going to be doing is hanging off a coastline steaming in circles launching and recovering aircraft 24/7 to lob bombs into whichever country you see as hosting this weeks threat
or
A similarly or seriously well armed enemy such as Russia. In Russia's case again top speed in order to avoid detection is largely irrelevant as in the Atlantic for example you're going to be against a multi-layered threat. TU-95 Bears that have the range and endurance to loiter until they find Carrier Battle Groups, which can then provide this information for airborne launched anti-shipping missiles and sub launched anti-shipping missiles. And all with enough numbers to negate any advantage that being able to steam 10kts faster would give you.
Small, quiet diesel boats hiding in thermoclines and saline layers will probably create the greatest threat to carriers in the near future; can be avoided by the use of speed though. Although that would be difficult where there is restricted sea room.A lesser technologically advanced enemy, such as an ISIS style enemy, where the top speed of your Carrier is largely irrelevant as all you're going to be doing is hanging off a coastline steaming in circles launching and recovering aircraft 24/7 to lob bombs into whichever country you see as hosting this weeks threat
or
A similarly or seriously well armed enemy such as Russia. In Russia's case again top speed in order to avoid detection is largely irrelevant as in the Atlantic for example you're going to be against a multi-layered threat. TU-95 Bears that have the range and endurance to loiter until they find Carrier Battle Groups, which can then provide this information for airborne launched anti-shipping missiles and sub launched anti-shipping missiles. And all with enough numbers to negate any advantage that being able to steam 10kts faster would give you.
V8 Fettler said:
Small, quiet diesel boats hiding in thermoclines and saline layers will probably create the greatest threat to carriers in the near future; can be avoided by the use of speed though. Although that would be difficult where there is restricted sea room.
Please share with us the standard methods of countering a diesel submarine threat. I'll give you a clue, none of them involve the use of increased speed.V8 Fettler said:
Firing solution being the key phrase. No firing solution = failure. The ability to detect the enemy at sea by using sound has been overplayed for at least 100 years.
Really, could you explain this a little more please, passive acoustics is far more successful than active sonar, however since you seem to have better information than others I wait to learn from you.BTW a threat of a firing solution is enough for a force to alter plans not just the solution.
V8 Fettler said:
Small, quiet diesel boats hiding in thermoclines and saline layers will probably create the greatest threat to carriers in the near future; can be avoided by the use of speed though. Although that would be difficult where there is restricted sea room.
The authors of that report were also of the opinion that fast nuclear carriers and SSN escorts would be safe '...formidable undersea-warfare capabilities of the latest U.S. nuclear attack submarines and the extensive antisubmarine capabilities of the surface fleet, it is not hard to see why the Navy expects to retain underwater supremacy through 2020.'That opinion lasted about five years - http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sweden-has-a-sub-...
And if you think a diesel boat has to wait for you to wonder past then you'll get a nasty shock from new designs like the SMX Ocean, 25,000km range and scalp missiles with 1,000km range, plus it's quieter than the nuclear boat it's based on.
My understanding the best way for a surface vessel to deal with a submarine threat is to use aircraft to find the submarine and then remain as far away as possible in your big grey boat whilst sending a few air launched homing torpedoes at the submarine. Of course I have no naval training so stand to be ridiculed by all of those here who held any rank in the senior service.
The Invincibles - especially R05 - sounded like a skeleton having a w
k in a tin bath when they were giving it (coffee) beans.
You don't want to be going fast and making noise if there is a SSK or a SSN running around. There's a reason why Type 23s have the ability to creep around on electric drive.
The QEC will have Merlins to help detect and attack submarines. They will most probably also sail with ASuW dedicated Type 26 frigates equipped with very good towed array and hull sonars.
Most likely there will be an Astute Class SSGN there too.
QE will sail at anything between 5-10 knots most of the time, then she'll speed up to whatever the required speed is to launch her jets.
In all the time I spent at sea in Invincibles (as a civviy during exercises mainly) I don't think we ever did more than 28 knots when launching SHARs GR7s or GR9s.
The only time apart from flying stations was as tests during standard manoeuvres to check the steering and stuff.
Why are we wasting pages here discussing a fairly academic top speed of these warships as if it was a make or break capability?
k in a tin bath when they were giving it (coffee) beans.You don't want to be going fast and making noise if there is a SSK or a SSN running around. There's a reason why Type 23s have the ability to creep around on electric drive.
The QEC will have Merlins to help detect and attack submarines. They will most probably also sail with ASuW dedicated Type 26 frigates equipped with very good towed array and hull sonars.
Most likely there will be an Astute Class SSGN there too.
QE will sail at anything between 5-10 knots most of the time, then she'll speed up to whatever the required speed is to launch her jets.
In all the time I spent at sea in Invincibles (as a civviy during exercises mainly) I don't think we ever did more than 28 knots when launching SHARs GR7s or GR9s.
The only time apart from flying stations was as tests during standard manoeuvres to check the steering and stuff.
Why are we wasting pages here discussing a fairly academic top speed of these warships as if it was a make or break capability?
maffski said:
V8 Fettler said:
Small, quiet diesel boats hiding in thermoclines and saline layers will probably create the greatest threat to carriers in the near future; can be avoided by the use of speed though. Although that would be difficult where there is restricted sea room.
The authors of that report were also of the opinion that fast nuclear carriers and SSN escorts would be safe '...formidable undersea-warfare capabilities of the latest U.S. nuclear attack submarines and the extensive antisubmarine capabilities of the surface fleet, it is not hard to see why the Navy expects to retain underwater supremacy through 2020.'That opinion lasted about five years - http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sweden-has-a-sub-...
And if you think a diesel boat has to wait for you to wonder past then you'll get a nasty shock from new designs like the SMX Ocean, 25,000km range and scalp missiles with 1,000km range, plus it's quieter than the nuclear boat it's based on.
Re: SMX Ocean, there have always been wonderful designs for futuristic military hardware. Perhaps one day we'll see satellites armed with lasers capable of cutting large holes through the deck of a carrier.
donutsina911 said:
V8 Fettler said:
Small, quiet diesel boats hiding in thermoclines and saline layers will probably create the greatest threat to carriers in the near future; can be avoided by the use of speed though. Although that would be difficult where there is restricted sea room.
Please share with us the standard methods of countering a diesel submarine threat. I'll give you a clue, none of them involve the use of increased speed.wildcat45 said:
The Invincibles - especially R05 - sounded like a skeleton having a wk in a tin bath when they were giving it (coffee) beans.
You don't want to be going fast and making noise if there is a SSK or a SSN running around. There's a reason why Type 23s have the ability to creep around on electric drive.
The QEC will have Merlins to help detect and attack submarines. They will most probably also sail with ASuW dedicated Type 26 frigates equipped with very good towed array and hull sonars.
Most likely there will be an Astute Class SSGN there too.
QE will sail at anything between 5-10 knots most of the time, then she'll speed up to whatever the required speed is to launch her jets.
In all the time I spent at sea in Invincibles (as a civviy during exercises mainly) I don't think we ever did more than 28 knots when launching SHARs GR7s or GR9s.
The only time apart from flying stations was as tests during standard manoeuvres to check the steering and stuff.
Why are we wasting pages here discussing a fairly academic top speed of these warships as if it was a make or break capability?
Was the Invincible class capable of much more than 28 knots? k in a tin bath when they were giving it (coffee) beans.You don't want to be going fast and making noise if there is a SSK or a SSN running around. There's a reason why Type 23s have the ability to creep around on electric drive.
The QEC will have Merlins to help detect and attack submarines. They will most probably also sail with ASuW dedicated Type 26 frigates equipped with very good towed array and hull sonars.
Most likely there will be an Astute Class SSGN there too.
QE will sail at anything between 5-10 knots most of the time, then she'll speed up to whatever the required speed is to launch her jets.
In all the time I spent at sea in Invincibles (as a civviy during exercises mainly) I don't think we ever did more than 28 knots when launching SHARs GR7s or GR9s.
The only time apart from flying stations was as tests during standard manoeuvres to check the steering and stuff.
Why are we wasting pages here discussing a fairly academic top speed of these warships as if it was a make or break capability?
Type 23 is designed to engage subs, hence creeping. Carriers are designed to stay as far as possible from subs, hence the importance of speed.
Phud said:
V8 Fettler said:
Firing solution being the key phrase. No firing solution = failure. The ability to detect the enemy at sea by using sound has been overplayed for at least 100 years.
Really, could you explain this a little more please, passive acoustics is far more successful than active sonar, however since you seem to have better information than others I wait to learn from you.BTW a threat of a firing solution is enough for a force to alter plans not just the solution.
If altering plans means altering course then you are correct, as recognised a few years ago http://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/onlin...
V8 Fettler said:
The basics of warfare don't typically change very quickly in peacetime, neither does the capability of the equipment, see age of USN carriers as an example. I also quoted the example of the age of the design of the Mark 8 torpedoes used by Conqueror. If you have a problem with the Lexington paper then why not take it up with the authors?
Hermes and Invincible were easier for the Argentinians to locate because the carriers had to operate substantially nearer to the Falklands and Argentina than Ark (Buccs) would have. Additionally, the operating range of the Phantoms on Ark (Buccs) would have reduced the ability of the Argentinians to locate the Task Force east of the Falklands.
What use is a missile or torpedo if the target cannot be located or if it's out of range?
There's so much crap in your posts, it's hard to know where to start, but I'll start by reiterating this - you haven't a fHermes and Invincible were easier for the Argentinians to locate because the carriers had to operate substantially nearer to the Falklands and Argentina than Ark (Buccs) would have. Additionally, the operating range of the Phantoms on Ark (Buccs) would have reduced the ability of the Argentinians to locate the Task Force east of the Falklands.
What use is a missile or torpedo if the target cannot be located or if it's out of range?
king scooby about naval warfare. From sending a carrier unescorted to the Falklands, then choosing Antrim and Plymouth instead, to the continued gibberish you write about submarine firing solutions, it's evident that you're out of your depth. Your comment about sound being overplayed for 100 years is the nail in your credibility coffin. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of passive sonar ops would know (not guess, or read up on Wikipedia) that certain frequencies, emitted by certain noise sources can be detected (and over a long period of time a rough position derived) from literally hundreds of miles - that's why short bursts of speed for jet ops, followed by very slow speed is the best way to operate a carrier.Your continued drivel about carrier top speed and fairy tale Buccaneers is utterly fallacious - I've given a couple of real world examples of how it falls down and there's plenty more on tap.
The key debates around the QE class have been around CATOBAR / STOVL, whether or not we can manage to get two operational rather than one, is the F35B going to be fit for purpose, is it enough to have six T45s as escorts, can we man the bloody things etc etc. If you go to serious forums and research sites with more than the token dark blue type sticking his nose in (and I would commend RUSI membership and access to their work for a start), you'll see the issue of QE speed as being conspicuous by its absence. It's a non issue for anyone, but you.
V8 Fettler said:
The basics of warfare don't typically change very quickly in peacetime.'
Quite true.V8 Fettler said:
neither does the capability of the equipment.
Bullst. To give you one of many examples - compare the ISR capability of the Chinese now v's a decade ago, or the phased array radar tech on T45s with the 965s carried in 1982 and whilst the general principles may have remain unchanged, the kit is dramatically more capable. V8 Fettler said:
If you have a problem with the Lexington paper then why not take it up with the authors?
I have no major problem with the Lexington paper. It was probably broadly accurate for a US centric audience and the purposes of lobbying Congress (at a guess) in 2001, within the constraints of what can and can't be talked about in public. I prefer my knowledge to come from having actually done the job rather than reading about it third hand and where there are gaps, to fill them with up to date material, from well respected sources, relevant to the UK. My problem is not with Lexington, but with you regurgitating a decade old paper to reinforce a point that doesn't exist. V8 Fettler said:
Hermes and Invincible were easier for the Argentinians to locate because the carriers had to operate substantially nearer to the Falklands and Argentina than Ark (Buccs) would have. Additionally, the operating range of the Phantoms on Ark (Buccs) would have reduced the ability of the Argentinians to locate the Task Force east of the Falklands.'
What the fk? Source please (and a credible one). In the meantime, on to your Lexington paper.Because nuclear propulsion enables the ship to maneuver at maximum speed for weeks without having to accommodate the complex logistics of frequent refuelings at sea.
Unfortunately for you, not only does this sentence not place any emphasis at all on exactly what this maximum speed is (the crux of your argument), it ignores the simple truth that CVNs just don't maneuver at top speed on a regular basis. As previously referenced by me and others, carrier ops are about bursts of power to launch jets. In basic terms, the way in which a carrier is tasked is this - 'go sit in that box, and launch jets when told to.' Whilst in that box, they'll be at speeds consistent with the threat. This is never 30kts or 35kts, unless weather/payload conditions dictate massive wind over deck requirements.
'Complex logistics' is one way to describe the need to Replenish At Sea (RAS). Regardless of fuel used, a CVN/CVF will need to RAS routinely - for scran, for A4 paper, for tampons, for bombs, for OPDEF bits and pieces etc etc. A carrier is not this autonomous beast that charges round at high speed self sufficiently for weeks on end when in theatre. When conducting high tempo operations with gazzilions of sorties a day, a RAS will be an infuriatingly frequent occurrence. It's no good the Mission Essential Unit skipping away at 35kts and then realising that the wardroom fridge is empty and the rest of the Task Group is three days behind you. Interestingly, the Type 26 has a similar published top speed to the QE Class and our new fast tankers in the RFA will be much the same. Are you spotting a theme here?
"The most basic protection the carrier has against being detected, though, is distance. The areas in which carriers typically operate are so vast that adversaries would be hard-pressed to find them even in the absence of active countermeasures by the battle group. Consider, for example, the South China Sea, where China recently held hostage a Navy EP-3 electronic-intelligence aircraft and its crew on Hainan Island. Even though it comprises less than five percent of the Western Pacific, the sea measures over a million square miles."
This statement is only remotely accurate if you're the USN willy waving with the Chinese in the Pacific and you're talking about early century tech. We're not. In fact, the opposite is true. Take a look at where we've bombed in the last 20 years and are likely to bomb in the future - not much in the way of 'vast' areas of sea there. If we ever start cocking around with the Chinese in their patch, I'd be more concerned about digging out my Piz Buin and finding a table to hide under.
Regardless of which ocean you pick, the world is a different place than it was in 2001 and adversaries are not quite so 'hard pressed' today. The circles the Chinese would draw would be based on the capability of the threat - from UK plc that would be land based RAF air assets, the carrier strike group and Tomahawks from SSNs. It's not beyond the wit of man to draw these circles based on the known operating ranges of missiles and jets and the likely targets. All of a sudden you've gone from a million square mile circle to something much, much smaller.
Once you've reduced your whopping great circle into a slightly smaller one, there are a multitude of ways to locate surface assets and the Chinese no longer lack a cueing capability to prosecute surface targets. Contrary to the crap you talked about sound being over stated, even a noddy Kilo class is effective at tracking a ship from a long way away (in excess of 100nm). With China and a leap in ISR capability in the last two decades, you've now got MPA aircraft, satellites, a decent surface fleet and some nifty submarines to contend with, at least in home waters. The nub of the matter is this, no matter how big your imaginary circles are, the minute you start winding up a carrier to 30 odd knots, someone will know about it pretty soon. We're not in Pirates of the Caribbean, with only eyeballs and a midshipman up a mast to spot the fleet - don't kid yourself that a carrier wins battle points by steaming at 35kts inside of a big circle, leaving the enemy bamboozled.
There are forum members here who are actually involved in the building of RN ships who we can all learn from - you're not one of them.
V8 Fettler said:
Was the Invincible class capable of much more than 28 knots?
Type 23 is designed to engage subs, hence creeping. Carriers are designed to stay as far as possible from subs, hence the importance of speed.
The declared maximum speed was 28kts; although the power available from 4 Olympus could theoretically drive them faster, propellor and especially gearbox limits would prevent it in practice, the gearboxes were unreliable enough as it was without overstressing them.Type 23 is designed to engage subs, hence creeping. Carriers are designed to stay as far as possible from subs, hence the importance of speed.
Lurking Lawyer said:
I'm interested to know what your background and qualifications are, V8 Fettler. You're making some very bold statements of opinion, almost presented as fact, but it's not clear how well placed you are to make them.
I think you have may have overlooked answering my question, V8 Fettler. 
donutsina911 said:
V8 Fettler said:
The basics of warfare don't typically change very quickly in peacetime, neither does the capability of the equipment, see age of USN carriers as an example. I also quoted the example of the age of the design of the Mark 8 torpedoes used by Conqueror. If you have a problem with the Lexington paper then why not take it up with the authors?
Hermes and Invincible were easier for the Argentinians to locate because the carriers had to operate substantially nearer to the Falklands and Argentina than Ark (Buccs) would have. Additionally, the operating range of the Phantoms on Ark (Buccs) would have reduced the ability of the Argentinians to locate the Task Force east of the Falklands.
What use is a missile or torpedo if the target cannot be located or if it's out of range?
There's so much crap in your posts, it's hard to know where to start, but I'll start by reiterating this - you haven't a fHermes and Invincible were easier for the Argentinians to locate because the carriers had to operate substantially nearer to the Falklands and Argentina than Ark (Buccs) would have. Additionally, the operating range of the Phantoms on Ark (Buccs) would have reduced the ability of the Argentinians to locate the Task Force east of the Falklands.
What use is a missile or torpedo if the target cannot be located or if it's out of range?
king scooby about naval warfare. From sending a carrier unescorted to the Falklands, then choosing Antrim and Plymouth instead, to the continued gibberish you write about submarine firing solutions, it's evident that you're out of your depth. Your comment about sound being overplayed for 100 years is the nail in your credibility coffin. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of passive sonar ops would know (not guess, or read up on Wikipedia) that certain frequencies, emitted by certain noise sources can be detected (and over a long period of time a rough position derived) from literally hundreds of miles - that's why short bursts of speed for jet ops, followed by very slow speed is the best way to operate a carrier.Your continued drivel about carrier top speed and fairy tale Buccaneers is utterly fallacious - I've given a couple of real world examples of how it falls down and there's plenty more on tap.
The key debates around the QE class have been around CATOBAR / STOVL, whether or not we can manage to get two operational rather than one, is the F35B going to be fit for purpose, is it enough to have six T45s as escorts, can we man the bloody things etc etc. If you go to serious forums and research sites with more than the token dark blue type sticking his nose in (and I would commend RUSI membership and access to their work for a start), you'll see the issue of QE speed as being conspicuous by its absence. It's a non issue for anyone, but you.
V8 Fettler said:
The basics of warfare don't typically change very quickly in peacetime.'
Quite true.V8 Fettler said:
neither does the capability of the equipment.
Bullst. To give you one of many examples - compare the ISR capability of the Chinese now v's a decade ago, or the phased array radar tech on T45s with the 965s carried in 1982 and whilst the general principles may have remain unchanged, the kit is dramatically more capable. V8 Fettler said:
If you have a problem with the Lexington paper then why not take it up with the authors?
I have no major problem with the Lexington paper. It was probably broadly accurate for a US centric audience and the purposes of lobbying Congress (at a guess) in 2001, within the constraints of what can and can't be talked about in public. I prefer my knowledge to come from having actually done the job rather than reading about it third hand and where there are gaps, to fill them with up to date material, from well respected sources, relevant to the UK. My problem is not with Lexington, but with you regurgitating a decade old paper to reinforce a point that doesn't exist. V8 Fettler said:
Hermes and Invincible were easier for the Argentinians to locate because the carriers had to operate substantially nearer to the Falklands and Argentina than Ark (Buccs) would have. Additionally, the operating range of the Phantoms on Ark (Buccs) would have reduced the ability of the Argentinians to locate the Task Force east of the Falklands.'
What the fk? Source please (and a credible one). In the meantime, on to your Lexington paper.Because nuclear propulsion enables the ship to maneuver at maximum speed for weeks without having to accommodate the complex logistics of frequent refuelings at sea.
Unfortunately for you, not only does this sentence not place any emphasis at all on exactly what this maximum speed is (the crux of your argument), it ignores the simple truth that CVNs just don't maneuver at top speed on a regular basis. As previously referenced by me and others, carrier ops are about bursts of power to launch jets. In basic terms, the way in which a carrier is tasked is this - 'go sit in that box, and launch jets when told to.' Whilst in that box, they'll be at speeds consistent with the threat. This is never 30kts or 35kts, unless weather/payload conditions dictate massive wind over deck requirements.
'Complex logistics' is one way to describe the need to Replenish At Sea (RAS). Regardless of fuel used, a CVN/CVF will need to RAS routinely - for scran, for A4 paper, for tampons, for bombs, for OPDEF bits and pieces etc etc. A carrier is not this autonomous beast that charges round at high speed self sufficiently for weeks on end when in theatre. When conducting high tempo operations with gazzilions of sorties a day, a RAS will be an infuriatingly frequent occurrence. It's no good the Mission Essential Unit skipping away at 35kts and then realising that the wardroom fridge is empty and the rest of the Task Group is three days behind you. Interestingly, the Type 26 has a similar published top speed to the QE Class and our new fast tankers in the RFA will be much the same. Are you spotting a theme here?
"The most basic protection the carrier has against being detected, though, is distance. The areas in which carriers typically operate are so vast that adversaries would be hard-pressed to find them even in the absence of active countermeasures by the battle group. Consider, for example, the South China Sea, where China recently held hostage a Navy EP-3 electronic-intelligence aircraft and its crew on Hainan Island. Even though it comprises less than five percent of the Western Pacific, the sea measures over a million square miles."
This statement is only remotely accurate if you're the USN willy waving with the Chinese in the Pacific and you're talking about early century tech. We're not. In fact, the opposite is true. Take a look at where we've bombed in the last 20 years and are likely to bomb in the future - not much in the way of 'vast' areas of sea there. If we ever start cocking around with the Chinese in their patch, I'd be more concerned about digging out my Piz Buin and finding a table to hide under.
Regardless of which ocean you pick, the world is a different place than it was in 2001 and adversaries are not quite so 'hard pressed' today. The circles the Chinese would draw would be based on the capability of the threat - from UK plc that would be land based RAF air assets, the carrier strike group and Tomahawks from SSNs. It's not beyond the wit of man to draw these circles based on the known operating ranges of missiles and jets and the likely targets. All of a sudden you've gone from a million square mile circle to something much, much smaller.
Once you've reduced your whopping great circle into a slightly smaller one, there are a multitude of ways to locate surface assets and the Chinese no longer lack a cueing capability to prosecute surface targets. Contrary to the crap you talked about sound being over stated, even a noddy Kilo class is effective at tracking a ship from a long way away (in excess of 100nm). With China and a leap in ISR capability in the last two decades, you've now got MPA aircraft, satellites, a decent surface fleet and some nifty submarines to contend with, at least in home waters. The nub of the matter is this, no matter how big your imaginary circles are, the minute you start winding up a carrier to 30 odd knots, someone will know about it pretty soon. We're not in Pirates of the Caribbean, with only eyeballs and a midshipman up a mast to spot the fleet - don't kid yourself that a carrier wins battle points by steaming at 35kts inside of a big circle, leaving the enemy bamboozled.
There are forum members here who are actually involved in the building of RN ships who we can all learn from - you're not one of them.
Do you have any links or calculations to support your comments regarding carriers avoiding detection? The Lexington paper applies in 2015 because the basics of warfare don't typically change very quickly in peacetime. The calculations might change as the equipment changes, but the basics have remained the same.
You've not posted any meaningful technical reason why Ark (Buccs) could not have been sent unescorted to the Falklands in 1982 to reach out with Buccs at the limit of their range (had the Ark existed in serviceable order in 1982) . You've also not posted any meaningful technical reason why Antrim and Plymouth could not have provided an escort, if an escort was required and if they could keep up with the Ark (Buccs).
As previously posted, operational ranges for Phantoms and Sea Harriers
Of course you can detect noise underwater, but - as you say - you need a long time to derive a rough position for the source of the noise. There will be occasions when noise can be heard over hundreds of miles, but the sea is a big, incoherent place.
Your view on the operation of carriers doesn't reflect the Lexington paper. You cannot possibly know where we are likely to be bombing over the next 50 years, the same applies to the designers of the QE, therefore no-one can predict the likely use of the QE over the next 50 years.
My view on the importance of carrier top speed is similar to the views of the authors of the Lexington paper. Super Bucc would have been the logical design progression from the Bucc, improving the world-leading qualities of the Bucc. It probably is a fantasy to expect the MOD and politicos to procure logically.
Maximum speed = maximum speed available at any particular time.
I doubt if the British alone will "cock around" with the Chinese, but it is possible that US, British and others might become involved in maintaining free passage in the South China Sea at some stage.
The carrier wins battle points by using 35 knots to steam outside the sub's circle of reach, which for something like the much-vaunted Gotland is limited.
Lurking Lawyer said:
Lurking Lawyer said:
I'm interested to know what your background and qualifications are, V8 Fettler. You're making some very bold statements of opinion, almost presented as fact, but it's not clear how well placed you are to make them.
I think you have may have overlooked answering my question, V8 Fettler.V8 Fettler said:
Lurking Lawyer said:
Lurking Lawyer said:
I'm interested to know what your background and qualifications are, V8 Fettler. You're making some very bold statements of opinion, almost presented as fact, but it's not clear how well placed you are to make them.
I think you have may have overlooked answering my question, V8 Fettler.He's asking do you have some sort of Naval background/qualifications or are just an amateur enthusiast?
In other news, the aft island for Prince of Wales has been lifted into place. There are only 5 major sponson sections (SP11, SP12, CB05a, CB05b, CB06) left to be lifted to complete the flight deck, which could happen as early as Easter if they keep up the pace. After that, it just the two aircraft lifts, walkways around the deck and the radar masts atop the islands to make POW look structurally complete externally.
V8 Fettler said:
The carrier wins battle points by using 35 knots to steam outside the sub's circle of reach, which for something like the much-vaunted Gotland is limited.
In reality - Gotland detects the idiot doing 35 knots from 100's of miles away, projects the likely course and calculates a good ambush point, moves there slowly pretending to be an empty patch of water and waits for the carrier to come to him. You cant avoid what you can't detect.Please research naval warfare a bit, and do try and remember that a lot of it is not in the public domain, due to something called operational security.
Also can you name one carrier that can do 35knots? Bonus points if its post WW2.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff