HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
donutsina911 said:
Another 80 or so crew over younger models, but there really was nothing old and creaky about B3 22's...proper ships, built with the exuberance of a post Falklands victory and they had another decade at least.
The hulls and machinery may have had life left but keeping the electronics going when a significant portion of the spares are either special order or NLA is expensive and time-consuming. The extra bodies mean the 2SL has an even less feasible juggling operation to complete and the ships would have high crew turnover and run shorthanded.donutsina911 said:
And you'd want some form of ASW capability on an DD because life isn't always as you'd expect it to be. Threats don't appear in a nice neat sequence and the ability to defend oneself from a threat under and above the water at the same time is quite handy, particularly when your raison d'etre is to protect several billion pounds worth of carrier!
That's fine, but the extra ASW equipment and crew to run it means you only get 4-5 T45s instead of 6.Inkyfingers said:
I seem to remember that before the Falklands we thought out shipbourne air defence was top notch.
It was relatively; Seadart was about as good a medium range sam system as you could get in 1982, it just wasn't designed to cope with loony argentine pilots skimming the terrain of the Falklands. It was designed to shoot down Russian bombers and cruise missiles at altitude in the mid-Atlantic, which it was quite good at as there are no hills for them to hide behind.Seawolf was(and is) very capable, but it was still in development and initially it did not cope with multiple targets and land clutter; engineers and technicians had sailed with the task force and worked on solving these issues while the war went on, and had some success doing so.
The ships with either no sams or obsolescent systems like Seaslug and Seacat had great difficulty putting up an adequate defence, but in this the RN were as well prepared and equipped as any other contemporary navy for the war(which is to say not well prepared at all).
hidetheelephants said:
donutsina911 said:
Another 80 or so crew over younger models, but there really was nothing old and creaky about B3 22's...proper ships, built with the exuberance of a post Falklands victory and they had another decade at least.
The hulls and machinery may have had life left but keeping the electronics going when a significant portion of the spares are either special order or NLA is expensive and time-consuming. The extra bodies mean the 2SL has an even less feasible juggling operation to complete and the ships would have high crew turnover and run shorthanded.Not half as expensive as buying £6 billion of T45s with a whole load of 'coming soon' stickers on the upper deck! I'm not sure what you base this observation on anyway - Harpoon/Sea Wolf/4.5" etc are supported for 23s and apart from some swanky kit in the ops room, there's not much that is unique on a 22, perhaps other than in the ME dept or GK.
donutsina911 said:
And you'd want some form of ASW capability on an DD because life isn't always as you'd expect it to be. Threats don't appear in a nice neat sequence and the ability to defend oneself from a threat under and above the water at the same time is quite handy, particularly when your raison d'etre is to protect several billion pounds worth of carrier!
That's fine, but the extra ASW equipment and crew to run it means you only get 4-5 T45s instead of 6.
in relation to capabilityhidetheelephants said:
there's no budget for putting Stormshadow in a Sylver box or buying SCALP any time soon.
Stormshadow is SCALP. If the French Navy get it, then I can't see why ours won't eventually. Would give us a cheaper option than Tomohawk. Although I read somewhere the next generation Tomohawk is going to be a lot cheaper than the current.I guess hidetheelephants comments were more aimed at saying that there's nothing much wrong with the capability of the Sea Viper weapon system rather than the platform as a whole, which might have a few niggles to iron out. I share the view that the platform isn't perfect yet, and would point out that the requirements for such a ship today are a world away from what they were in the mid 1990s when a lot of decisions were being made.
It would seem someone is happy with the T45 though. Just found this:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-dest...
It would seem someone is happy with the T45 though. Just found this:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-dest...
dnb said:
I guess hidetheelephants comments were more aimed at saying that there's nothing much wrong with the capability of the Sea Viper weapon system other than it is effing awful in the LZ, rather than the platform as a whole, which might have a few massive niggles to iron out. I share the view that the platform isn't perfect yet, and would point out that the requirements for such a ship today are a exactly the same as in 2000 when the Horizon project was re-booted and a lot of decisions were being made, but the QE project has drained resource from every other area of MOD (N)so that we're left with a pale imitation of a modern DD.
It would seem someone is happy with the T45 though. Just found this:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-dest...
EFA It would seem someone is happy with the T45 though. Just found this:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-dest...
Was it specced for operation in the LZ? No. I'm not going to answer too much more here lest I say something I shouldn't (You do have a good point that it SHOULD be made to work better in the LZ if there are issues since this is most likely a current & future requirement).
ETA: the firing trials look pretty good from the news reports now the missiles don't fall apart.
ETA: the firing trials look pretty good from the news reports now the missiles don't fall apart.
Edited by dnb on Friday 14th June 13:27
donutsina911 said:
Not half as expensive as buying £6 billion of T45s with a whole load of 'coming soon' stickers on the upper deck! I'm not sure what you base this observation on anyway - Harpoon/Sea Wolf/4.5" etc are supported for 23s and apart from some swanky kit in the ops room, there's not much that is unique on a 22, perhaps other than in the ME dept or GK.
So I refer you back to my point earlier about the capability of the T45s. Combine a few fundamental issues with the class, a sprinkling of technical niggles and an absence of sub or surface capability and you get my in relation to capability
The seawolf installation on the T22 has limited commonality with the VLS on the T23; capital budget is different from crewing budget, which involves filling bunks now rather than fictional numbers on a page that might well get hacked about by the next Secretary of state for Defence. If there is a significant operational problem with propulsion they should be giving Converteam a hard time until it's fixed; it's not like the CVs or T42/T22 were free of teething when first introduced to the fleet.So I refer you back to my point earlier about the capability of the T45s. Combine a few fundamental issues with the class, a sprinkling of technical niggles and an absence of sub or surface capability and you get my
in relation to capabilityhidetheelephants said:
donutsina911 said:
Not half as expensive as buying £6 billion of T45s with a whole load of 'coming soon' stickers on the upper deck! I'm not sure what you base this observation on anyway - Harpoon/Sea Wolf/4.5" etc are supported for 23s and apart from some swanky kit in the ops room, there's not much that is unique on a 22, perhaps other than in the ME dept or GK.
So I refer you back to my point earlier about the capability of the T45s. Combine a few fundamental issues with the class, a sprinkling of technical niggles and an absence of sub or surface capability and you get my in relation to capability
The seawolf installation on the T22 has limited commonality with the VLS on the T23; capital budget is different from crewing budget, which involves filling bunks now rather than fictional numbers on a page that might well get hacked about by the next Secretary of state for Defence. If there is a significant operational problem with propulsion they should be giving Converteam a hard time until it's fixed; it's not like the CVs or T42/T22 were free of teething when first introduced to the fleet.So I refer you back to my point earlier about the capability of the T45s. Combine a few fundamental issues with the class, a sprinkling of technical niggles and an absence of sub or surface capability and you get my
in relation to capabilityGiven that 50% of it's principle asset is a radar that is significantly under performing when/where needed most, that it hasn't proved 'capable' at FOST, that it has a habit of shutting down at inconvenient moments, that it hasn't met 3 of the original KURs, I'd suggest your comparisons with 42/22s are neither here not there.
I'm not questioning that there have been "snags" along the way, but let's put a bit of perspective on to your damning report of things.
First off, some of what you say sounds like the usual rumour mill exagerations.
The crews are assessed by FOST too IIRC - Are they badly trained as well as having "bad" ships?
The 3 KUR failures - #4 was not met in 2006 (probably due to the MOD not having any spare helicopters at the time, and since the FOC wasn't in service it might be argued this point is moot... ) and #2 and #3 were not met in 2009 as FOC entered service. Fair enough - trials only test so much of a capability - but perhaps a bit of progress might have been made in the last 4 years? (Have I got the right 3?)
I believe we should continue T45 discussions in a separate thread rather than cluttering up the QE thread. I'm sure in the fullness of time it'll have enough snags and quirks for some real lively discussion here.
KURs quoted for the record: (from http://navy-matters.beedall.com/daring1-1.htm)
Key user requirements (KUR's) are:
KUR1 PAAMS The T45 shall be able to protect with a Probability of Escaping Hit of ??, all units operating within a radius of 6.5km, against up to 8 supersonic sea skimming missiles arriving randomly within ?? seconds.
KUR2 Force Anti-Air Warfare Situational Awareness The T45 shall be able to assess the Air Warfare Tactical Situation of 1000 air real world objects against a total arrival and/or departure rate of 500 air real world objects per hour.
KUR3 Aircraft Control The T45 shall be able to provide close tactical control to at least 4 fixed wing aircraft, or 4 groups of aircraft in single speaking units, assigned to the force.
KUR4 Aircraft Operation The T45 shall be able to operate both one organic Merlin (Anti-Submarine Warfare and Utility variants) and one organic Lynx Mk8 helicopter, although not simultaneously.
KUR5 Embarked Military Force The T45 shall be able to operate an Embarked Military Force of at least 30 deployable troops.
KUR6 Naval Diplomacy The T45 shall be able to coerce potential adversaries into compliance with the wishes of Her Majesty’s Government or the wider international community through the presence of a Medium Calibre Gun System of at least 114mm.
KUR7 Range The T45 shall be able to transit at least 3000 nautical miles to its assigned mission, operate for 3 days and return to point of origin, unsupported throughout, within 20 days.
KUR8 Growth Potential The T45 capability shall be able to be upgraded to incorporate new capabilities or to enhance extant capabilities through displacement margins of at least 11.5 %.
KUR9 Availability The T45 shall have a 70% availability to contribute to Maritime Operations over a period of at least 25 years, of which at least 35% will be spent at sea.
As of November 2006, KUR 4 will not be met and KURSs 2 and 3 may not be met when HMS Daring enters service in late 2009.
First off, some of what you say sounds like the usual rumour mill exagerations.
The crews are assessed by FOST too IIRC - Are they badly trained as well as having "bad" ships?
The 3 KUR failures - #4 was not met in 2006 (probably due to the MOD not having any spare helicopters at the time, and since the FOC wasn't in service it might be argued this point is moot...
) and #2 and #3 were not met in 2009 as FOC entered service. Fair enough - trials only test so much of a capability - but perhaps a bit of progress might have been made in the last 4 years? (Have I got the right 3?)I believe we should continue T45 discussions in a separate thread rather than cluttering up the QE thread. I'm sure in the fullness of time it'll have enough snags and quirks for some real lively discussion here.
KURs quoted for the record: (from http://navy-matters.beedall.com/daring1-1.htm)
Key user requirements (KUR's) are:
KUR1 PAAMS The T45 shall be able to protect with a Probability of Escaping Hit of ??, all units operating within a radius of 6.5km, against up to 8 supersonic sea skimming missiles arriving randomly within ?? seconds.
KUR2 Force Anti-Air Warfare Situational Awareness The T45 shall be able to assess the Air Warfare Tactical Situation of 1000 air real world objects against a total arrival and/or departure rate of 500 air real world objects per hour.
KUR3 Aircraft Control The T45 shall be able to provide close tactical control to at least 4 fixed wing aircraft, or 4 groups of aircraft in single speaking units, assigned to the force.
KUR4 Aircraft Operation The T45 shall be able to operate both one organic Merlin (Anti-Submarine Warfare and Utility variants) and one organic Lynx Mk8 helicopter, although not simultaneously.
KUR5 Embarked Military Force The T45 shall be able to operate an Embarked Military Force of at least 30 deployable troops.
KUR6 Naval Diplomacy The T45 shall be able to coerce potential adversaries into compliance with the wishes of Her Majesty’s Government or the wider international community through the presence of a Medium Calibre Gun System of at least 114mm.
KUR7 Range The T45 shall be able to transit at least 3000 nautical miles to its assigned mission, operate for 3 days and return to point of origin, unsupported throughout, within 20 days.
KUR8 Growth Potential The T45 capability shall be able to be upgraded to incorporate new capabilities or to enhance extant capabilities through displacement margins of at least 11.5 %.
KUR9 Availability The T45 shall have a 70% availability to contribute to Maritime Operations over a period of at least 25 years, of which at least 35% will be spent at sea.
As of November 2006, KUR 4 will not be met and KURSs 2 and 3 may not be met when HMS Daring enters service in late 2009.
donutsina911 said:
The original comment to which I responded - "The capability of the T45 is without doubt"
Given that 50% of it's principle asset is a radar that is significantly under performing when/where needed most, that it hasn't proved 'capable' at FOST, that it has a habit of shutting down at inconvenient moments, that it hasn't met 3 of the original KURs, I'd suggest your comparisons with 42/22s are neither here not there.
Issues aside, operational deficiencies in men and materials are what FOST is designed to uncover so at least that's working fine. Given that 50% of it's principle asset is a radar that is significantly under performing when/where needed most, that it hasn't proved 'capable' at FOST, that it has a habit of shutting down at inconvenient moments, that it hasn't met 3 of the original KURs, I'd suggest your comparisons with 42/22s are neither here not there.
[quote=dnb]I'm not questioning that there have been "snags" along the way, but let's put a bit of perspective on to your damning report of things. Damning? A and some observations is hardly damning.
First off, some of what you say sounds like the usual rumour mill exagerations. Or my best mate being a SWO on the FOST staff that has put the last 18 months of 45s through Guz or the current CO of a 45 being a close family friend. Both have (with a great deal of regret) fed back the issues I have touched on.
The crews are assessed by FOST too IIRC - Are they badly trained as well as having "bad" ships?
As you'd expect, FOST separates the performance of the ship and her people.
and some observations is hardly damning. First off, some of what you say sounds like the usual rumour mill exagerations. Or my best mate being a SWO on the FOST staff that has put the last 18 months of 45s through Guz or the current CO of a 45 being a close family friend. Both have (with a great deal of regret) fed back the issues I have touched on.
The crews are assessed by FOST too IIRC - Are they badly trained as well as having "bad" ships?
As you'd expect, FOST separates the performance of the ship and her people.
The Aft Island was lifted into place last night.
Lifting the aft island into place by QEClassCarriers, on Flickr
Lifting the aft island into place by QEClassCarriers, on Flickr
The new profile of HMS Queen Elizabeth by QEClassCarriers, on Flickr
Weekly update - http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/~/media/F...
Lifting the aft island into place by QEClassCarriers, on Flickr
Lifting the aft island into place by QEClassCarriers, on Flickr
The new profile of HMS Queen Elizabeth by QEClassCarriers, on Flickr
Weekly update - http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/~/media/F...
Deck area is very much designed around giving room for aircraft to be serviced and out of the way, the all important sortie rate was a heavy focus.
In sufficient conditions and with the use of a blast deflector the rear half of the ship could be one giant pit stop for aircraft allowing for a massive first day sortie rate.
Edit- It's a shame they are repainting it, I was getting used to the red!
In sufficient conditions and with the use of a blast deflector the rear half of the ship could be one giant pit stop for aircraft allowing for a massive first day sortie rate.
Edit- It's a shame they are repainting it, I was getting used to the red!
Well, having just stepped off the ship I can say she gets more impressive everytime I see her.
There's still a very long way to go, particularly inside, but some of the spaces are at a great level of completion, with others stil being nothing more than a steel box. The Hangar deck is now hugely impressive to be inside, I'd estimate somewhere between 4-6 times the size of a CVS hangar. The flight deck is vast and just seems to go on and on, though oddly when viewed from the bridge the bow doesn't seem that far away.
There are only 3 sponsons left to go on I think, before she's basically complete as far as large pieces go. So by the time I come up next she'll be there from the outside with the exception of the cat-walks. Internal outfit for the Mission System can really get under way then.
I'm gonna be a lot fitter by the time I finish working on her!
There's still a very long way to go, particularly inside, but some of the spaces are at a great level of completion, with others stil being nothing more than a steel box. The Hangar deck is now hugely impressive to be inside, I'd estimate somewhere between 4-6 times the size of a CVS hangar. The flight deck is vast and just seems to go on and on, though oddly when viewed from the bridge the bow doesn't seem that far away.
There are only 3 sponsons left to go on I think, before she's basically complete as far as large pieces go. So by the time I come up next she'll be there from the outside with the exception of the cat-walks. Internal outfit for the Mission System can really get under way then.
I'm gonna be a lot fitter by the time I finish working on her!
doogz said:
And the shafts and props, which are a massive headache, but fortunately for me, not for much longer as I'm finishing up on QEC this week.
I can imagine, there doesn't seem to be a lot of space between the A-Frames and the end of the dock!! When do the shafts and props go on? Where are you heading to?Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff