HMS Queen Elizabeth

[anonymous-user]

IanMorewood said:

Inkyfingers said:

Ironically, probably older Ark Royal with Buccs, simply due to their longer range and ability to buddy refuel.

But then, if the aggressor you were flying against had a remotely modern air defence system then you'd probably have more chance of coming back in an F-35.

Assuming the old Ark Royal didn't suffer technical problems the moment she left harbour, she was a fairly old ship built to an even older design at the point she was decommissioned and somewhat tired.

Of course, but when dealing with hypothetical questions, it's easier to keep things simple

[hidetheelephants]

Inkyfingers said:

IanMorewood said:

Inkyfingers said:

Ironically, probably older Ark Royal with Buccs, simply due to their longer range and ability to buddy refuel.

But then, if the aggressor you were flying against had a remotely modern air defence system then you'd probably have more chance of coming back in an F-35.

Assuming the old Ark Royal didn't suffer technical problems the moment she left harbour, she was a fairly old ship built to an even older design at the point she was decommissioned and somewhat tired.

Of course, but when dealing with hypothetical questions, it's easier to keep things simple

R09 would have had ~600 tiffs and assorted stokers coaxing 4 turbines, 8 boilers and a motley collection of recalcitrant ironmongery to perform the propulsion, which often involved boilers going diffy for long periods of time, stripped turbines and other mechanical borkage. QE will probably have <200 running the show in the bilge. Guess which will break down more.

[V8 Fettler]

IanMorewood said:

Inkyfingers said:

Ironically, probably older Ark Royal with Buccs, simply due to their longer range and ability to buddy refuel.

But then, if the aggressor you were flying against had a remotely modern air defence system then you'd probably have more chance of coming back in an F-35.

Assuming the old Ark Royal didn't suffer technical problems the moment she left harbour, she was a fairly old ship built to an even older design at the point she was decommissioned and somewhat tired.

Ark (Bucc variant) from the early 1970s would be fine, see East Coast Rampage (no, not Hull).

Need to be careful describing any Ark as "old", there have been a few.

[Gandahar]

Probably good against the Argies in the south atlantic but less good with the Ruskies in the Barents sea who could sink it at a stroke.

Would that be a good summation?

[V8 Fettler]

I doubt if any Western country would risk sailing a large surface warship in the Barents Sea in a time of conflict with the USSR or Russia.

[PRTVR]

V8 Fettler said:

I doubt if any Western country would risk sailing a large surface warship in the Barents Sea in a time of conflict with the USSR or Russia.

With our present ASW aircraft they would be in danger around the UK.

[Trevatanus]

so when are we likely to see her off the South Coast then? Sometime next year?

[donutsina911]

PRTVR said:

With our present ASW aircraft they would be in danger around the UK.

[PRTVR]

donutsina911 said:

PRTVR said:

With our present ASW aircraft they would be in danger around the UK.

it was referencing to the Russia sub that was inside our territorial waters off Scotland and we had to send a warship from Portsmouth.

[donutsina911]

PRTVR said:

donutsina911 said:

PRTVR said:

With our present ASW aircraft they would be in danger around the UK.

it was referencing to the Russia sub that was inside our territorial waters off Scotland and we had to send a warship from Portsmouth.

That's got no relevance to the protection of QE with escorts (T23 with 2089 sonar- immense), Merlin Mk2s (prob the best ASW suite in class) and most importantly, a T boat or Astute in company. A Russian sub appearing just highlighted the folly of not having an RAF MPA capability, not the vulnerability of what will be a pretty well guarded RN asset when it deploys.

I think you're also confusing the warship being sent from Pompey (T45) to track a Russian cruiser off Moray Firth in 2014, with the duty TAPs T23 joining the search for the Russian sub off Scotland last month.

[aeropilot]

IanMorewood said:

Inkyfingers said:

Ironically, probably older Ark Royal with Buccs, simply due to their longer range and ability to buddy refuel.

But then, if the aggressor you were flying against had a remotely modern air defence system then you'd probably have more chance of coming back in an F-35.

Assuming the old Ark Royal didn't suffer technical problems the moment she left harbour, she was a fairly old ship built to an even older design at the point she was decommissioned and somewhat tired.

She was knackered.......concrete having to be placed into the hull even back in the 60's.

The stupidity of not doing the F-4 fit on Eagle instead, which was in much better nick, was a typical British political fk-up and non-decision as a result of the typical inter-service willy waving contests between RN & RAF.

[wildcat45]

aeropilot said:

She was knackered.......concrete having to be placed into the hull even back in the 60's.

The stupidity of not doing the F-4 fit on Eagle instead, which was in much better nick, was a typical British political fk-up and non-decision as a result of the typical inter-service willy waving contests between RN & RAF.

Eagle was better in so many ways. Radar being one.. She reportedly had enough life in her to have lasted until the 1990s should thst have been the will.

'Ark's 'Phantomisation' refit did not really address the problems you mention. She also had some long-running machinery defects I seem to recall.

The real losses to RN carriers was the cancellation of HMS Malta - an improved Version of Eagle and Ark, and later the cancellation of CVA-01 - which would have been comparable in size to today's QE

[V8 Fettler]

It appears that the decrepit Ark (Buccs) struggled across the Atlantic for about 1500 nautical miles at 27 knots before launching two Buccs at extreme range to save the day in Belize (1972). It's bizarre that the QE will be slower than the decrepit Ark, also that the QE will have to engage the enemy more closely before launching aircraft. So much for progress.

This thread has forced me to invest £2.48 in a copy of "Phoenix Squadron".

Will the American carriers wait for the QE during NATO combined manoeuvres?

[hidetheelephants]

V8 Fettler said:

It appears that the decrepit Ark (Buccs) struggled across the Atlantic for about 1500 nautical miles at 27 knots before launching two Buccs at extreme range to save the day in Belize (1972). It's bizarre that the QE will be slower than the decrepit Ark, also that the QE will have to engage the enemy more closely before launching aircraft. So much for progress.

This thread has forced me to invest £2.48 in a copy of "Phoenix Squadron".

Will the American carriers wait for the QE during NATO combined manoeuvres?

That was a flag waving exercise; aircraft carriers travel in carrier battle groups which move at the speed of the slowest unit, in the RN's case that's RFA Wave Knight that can do 18 knots or the new Tide class which are on order from S Korea and will do ~26 knots. For the hypothetical flag waver over Belize QE has bigger issues than only doing 28 knots(that makes her take 53.5 hours to do 1500nm rather than the theoretical 47 hours of Ark); the F35 has sod all range compared to the Buccaneer and as far as I've read no buddying capability as the MoD isn't paying for it, so the 1500nm would need to be extended to 2500nm and an extra day and half's steaming.

Edit to add: the account of this event in HMS Ark Royal describes the Ark detatching from her group and increasing speed to 26 knots and launching Buccaneers from 1300 miles away. Needless to say F35 won't be doing this.

[TTmonkey]

Would the RFA travel in the carrier battle group formation or would it rendezvous at scheduled resupply points?

I would think the latter.

[MiniMan64]

There seems to be a far amount of negativity towards what will be the finished QE product on here.

If what we're going to get delivered isn't the right solution/outcome/product then what would have been the best solution to new carriers for the UK?

[FourWheelDrift]

Don't build carriers to fit the aircraft. Order the aircraft to fit the carrier.

VSTOL - little choice.
CATOBAR - lots of choice.

[PRTVR]

MiniMan64 said:

There seems to be a far amount of negativity towards what will be the finished QE product on here.

If what we're going to get delivered isn't the right solution/outcome/product then what would have been the best solution to new carriers for the UK?

A bit bigger, cat and trap, able to carry its own AEW aircraft (not helicopters) the problem I see is that missiles have improved so much unless you can detect them soon enough you are a dead duck, terminal speeds of upto 3k mph, stealth capabilities, along with ranges of hundreds if not thousands of miles make the environment they operate in very hostile, given that the opponent is Russia or China, I wonder how long they would last.

[hidetheelephants]

PRTVR said:

MiniMan64 said:

There seems to be a far amount of negativity towards what will be the finished QE product on here.

If what we're going to get delivered isn't the right solution/outcome/product then what would have been the best solution to new carriers for the UK?

A bit bigger, cat and trap, able to carry its own AEW aircraft (not helicopters) the problem I see is that missiles have improved so much unless you can detect them soon enough you are a dead duck, terminal speeds of upto 3k mph, stealth capabilities, along with ranges of hundreds if not thousands of miles make the environment they operate in very hostile, given that the opponent is Russia or China, I wonder how long they would last.

It's big enough and fast enough to do all that if fitted with catapults and arresters; there's no shortage of deck and hangar space.

[Hooli]

V8 Fettler said:

It appears that the decrepit Ark (Buccs) struggled across the Atlantic for about 1500 nautical miles at 27 knots before launching two Buccs at extreme range to save the day in Belize (1972). It's bizarre that the QE will be slower than the decrepit Ark, also that the QE will have to engage the enemy more closely before launching aircraft. So much for progress.

This thread has forced me to invest £2.48 in a copy of "Phoenix Squadron".

Well worth the money, it's a damned good read.

On the way down Ark Royal's engineroom chaps converted a few jet fuel tanks on board into water tanks to get double the flow to the boilers as the existing water supply was absolutely on it's limit to produce 27kts.