HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
Jeez, what's with the hang up over QE's top speed - it has zero impact on her ability prevent a submarine from obtaining a firing solution, zero impact on her ability to avoid an inbound Sunburn at Mach 3 or, more likely, avoid a RIB packed with explosives at 50 kts. It's not an exercise in top trumps chaps.
V8 Fettler said:
You're clearly struggling when you refer to WW2 vessels as "rivals" to the QE.
You brought up the WW2 ships not me, and in context the 'rival' aspect was speed and range.V8 Fettler said:
It's ludicrous to make direct comparisons between a carrier that was initially designed during World War 2 and a carrier which is yet to be launched, but it is startling to consider that a carrier initially designed in WW2 could outrun and outreach the QE.
.
My post only mentioned the Invincible class and last I checked the war was fairly over by 1980..
FourWheelDrift said:
Don't build carriers to fit the aircraft. Order the aircraft to fit the carrier.
VSTOL - little choice.
CATOBAR - lots of choice.
And the interesting thing about that is that we've locked ourselves into not just the F-35B, but whatever the F-35B is replaced by - the F-35 is only going to last 30 years, but the QE class is designed to last for 50. VSTOL - little choice.
CATOBAR - lots of choice.
It seems incredibly short-sighted to have not specified at least the space for CATOBAR operations, even if EMALS wasn't mature yet.
davepoth said:
And the interesting thing about that is that we've locked ourselves into not just the F-35B, but whatever the F-35B is replaced by - the F-35 is only going to last 30 years
Production isn't scheduled to finish until 2035 So I would hope those last ones stay in service a little longer then ten years! Godalmighty83 said:
Production isn't scheduled to finish until 2035 So I would hope those last ones stay in service a little longer then ten years!
The F-35Bs are the first ones we're buying, and will be in service by the early 2020s. The first ones will be out of airframe life by 2050 or so, depending on how hard we work them (and we'll work them very hard). QE class will be around for another 20 years or so after that. donutsina911 said:
Jeez, what's with the hang up over QE's top speed - it has zero impact on her ability prevent a submarine from obtaining a firing solution, zero impact on her ability to avoid an inbound Sunburn at Mach 3 or, more likely, avoid a RIB packed with explosives at 50 kts. It's not an exercise in top trumps chaps.
Whatever vessel is carrying the Sunburn needs to get within firing range. If said vessel cannot get within firing range because the new Ark is skipping away at 35 knots then the capability of the Sunburn is irrelevant.If there is a risk of attack by Sunburn carried by a land-based aircraft then place the new Ark out of range whilst retaining the ability to strike the enemy airfields with the Super Bucc from 1000+ nautical miles.
In both the above scenarios, the new Ark sailing at 35 knots will be a lot more difficult to find than the QE sailing at 25 knots.
It's difficult to envisage any situation where a new Ark with the ability to strike from 1000 nautical miles should be anywhere near to an enemy RIB.
Godalmighty83 said:
V8 Fettler said:
You're clearly struggling when you refer to WW2 vessels as "rivals" to the QE.
You brought up the WW2 ships not me, and in context the 'rival' aspect was speed and range.V8 Fettler said:
It's ludicrous to make direct comparisons between a carrier that was initially designed during World War 2 and a carrier which is yet to be launched, but it is startling to consider that a carrier initially designed in WW2 could outrun and outreach the QE.
.
My post only mentioned the Invincible class and last I checked the war was fairly over by 1980..
davepoth said:
The F-35Bs are the first ones we're buying, and will be in service by the early 2020s. The first ones will be out of airframe life by 2050 or so, depending on how hard we work them (and we'll work them very hard). QE class will be around for another 20 years or so after that.
The only timeframe for the full 138 order that has been announced so far is 'by the 2030's. Although we should have at least 24 by 2023 in order to make a standing squadron for the QE. We could get far more sooner but the sooner you buy them from the LRIP train the more expensive they are. The initial ones could indeed be obsolete or out of flying hours by then, but that is not a problem we haven't encountered before Tranche1Typhoonscoughcough. But as the final price is expected to be around half of what it is now then topping up the numbers from the last of the production line shouldn't be too tricky.
V8 Fettler said:
You mentioned "ww2 rivals". I then referred to the Ark (Swordfish) that could reach 30+ knots.
AFTER you posted this-''but it is startling to consider that a carrier initially designed in WW2 could outrun and outreach the QE.''
Edited by Godalmighty83 on Sunday 27th December 20:28
V8 Fettler said:
Why do we need a substantially "bigger load" than the Ark (Buccs)?
Why is my tax money being spent on aircraft carriers that can only try and avoid the Enemy of the Day at 25 knots?
To put 25 knots into context, the previous, previous, previous Ark could manage 30 knots plus, the initial design for which commenced over eighty years ago.
Several posters have explained why a faster top speed is of nugatory use. Ark's hangars were too small for Buccaneer and Phantom and so was the flightdeck; the RN made do because that's what was done then. With a clean sheet design CVA-01 was going to operate the same airwing with a displacement of 53,000 tonnes. Shoe-horning aircraft into every corner of the hangar wrecks productivity and sortie rate and the same applies to deckspace. For much of the time Ark couldn't actually do 32 knots because of endemic mechanical problems, yet she managed to do the job for 20 years; admiralty pattern boilers were inefficient and difficult to maintain even by ww2 standards, by the time she began fitting out proper in the 50s they were well out of date.Why is my tax money being spent on aircraft carriers that can only try and avoid the Enemy of the Day at 25 knots?
To put 25 knots into context, the previous, previous, previous Ark could manage 30 knots plus, the initial design for which commenced over eighty years ago.
Godalmighty83 said:
The only timeframe for the full 138 order that has been announced so far is 'by the 2030's. Although we should have at least 24 by 2023 in order to make a standing squadron for the QE. We could get far more sooner but the sooner you buy them from the LRIP train the more expensive they are.
The initial ones could indeed be obsolete or out of flying hours by then, but that is not a problem we haven't encountered before Tranche1Typhoonscoughcough. But as the final price is expected to be around half of what it is now then topping up the numbers from the last of the production line shouldn't be too tricky.
We're heavily dependent on the USMC in many respects - if they decide they don't want any more there is at least the possibility that the supply chain for the -B specific bits might get closed down early, so we might end up with issues there. It may not happen, but it's a risk that leaves us without anything to fly off our carrier (again).The initial ones could indeed be obsolete or out of flying hours by then, but that is not a problem we haven't encountered before Tranche1Typhoonscoughcough. But as the final price is expected to be around half of what it is now then topping up the numbers from the last of the production line shouldn't be too tricky.
Godalmighty83 said:
V8 Fettler said:
You mentioned "ww2 rivals". I then referred to the Ark (Swordfish) that could reach 30+ knots.
AFTER you posted this-''but it is startling to consider that a carrier initially designed in WW2 could outrun and outreach the QE.''
Edited by Godalmighty83 on Sunday 27th December 20:28
V8 Fettler said:
Whatever vessel is carrying the Sunburn needs to get within firing range. If said vessel cannot get within firing range because the new Ark is skipping away at 35 knots then the capability of the Sunburn is irrelevant.
If there is a risk of attack by Sunburn carried by a land-based aircraft then place the new Ark out of range whilst retaining the ability to strike the enemy airfields with the Super Bucc from 1000+ nautical miles.
In both the above scenarios, the new Ark sailing at 35 knots will be a lot more difficult to find than the QE sailing at 25 knots.
It's difficult to envisage any situation where a new Ark with the ability to strike from 1000 nautical miles should be anywhere near to an enemy RIB.
I'm guessing your ops room experience is either limited, or non existent - nothing in your post is accurate.If there is a risk of attack by Sunburn carried by a land-based aircraft then place the new Ark out of range whilst retaining the ability to strike the enemy airfields with the Super Bucc from 1000+ nautical miles.
In both the above scenarios, the new Ark sailing at 35 knots will be a lot more difficult to find than the QE sailing at 25 knots.
It's difficult to envisage any situation where a new Ark with the ability to strike from 1000 nautical miles should be anywhere near to an enemy RIB.
The likely deployment of something like Sunburn is either from land or air, but regardless of platform, 'skipping away at 35 knots' will be of little advantage to the QE over skipping away at 25kts as a missile skips in at 600 metres a second. The factors influencing where QE is operating are entirely unrelated to her top speed constraints - the whereabouts of a T45 up threat, being the main one.
You may think it's difficult to envisage any situation where QE could face an enemy RIB - the crew of USS Cole probably had a similar difficulty. I can think of half a dozen passages east of Suez, that QE will probably routinely do, where this threat is pretty significant.
In neither scenario does 35 knots make QE 'more difficult to find'
Godalmighty83 said:
V8 Fettler said:
You mentioned "ww2 rivals". I then referred to the Ark (Swordfish) that could reach 30+ knots.
AFTER you posted this-''but it is startling to consider that a carrier initially designed in WW2 could outrun and outreach the QE.''
Edited by Godalmighty83 on Sunday 27th December 20:28
hidetheelephants said:
V8 Fettler said:
Why do we need a substantially "bigger load" than the Ark (Buccs)?
Why is my tax money being spent on aircraft carriers that can only try and avoid the Enemy of the Day at 25 knots?
To put 25 knots into context, the previous, previous, previous Ark could manage 30 knots plus, the initial design for which commenced over eighty years ago.
Several posters have explained why a faster top speed is of nugatory use. Ark's hangars were too small for Buccaneer and Phantom and so was the flightdeck; the RN made do because that's what was done then. With a clean sheet design CVA-01 was going to operate the same airwing with a displacement of 53,000 tonnes. Shoe-horning aircraft into every corner of the hangar wrecks productivity and sortie rate and the same applies to deckspace. For much of the time Ark couldn't actually do 32 knots because of endemic mechanical problems, yet she managed to do the job for 20 years; admiralty pattern boilers were inefficient and difficult to maintain even by ww2 standards, by the time she began fitting out proper in the 50s they were well out of date.Why is my tax money being spent on aircraft carriers that can only try and avoid the Enemy of the Day at 25 knots?
To put 25 knots into context, the previous, previous, previous Ark could manage 30 knots plus, the initial design for which commenced over eighty years ago.
35 knots brings several advantages over 25 knots e.g. start from a single common point in a vast ocean and plot the possible area where a 35 knot vessel could be positioned within 3 hours, now do similar with a 25 knot vessel. Which one would you prefer to hunt? Particularly if the 35 knot vessel was appreciably the smaller of the two.
V8 Fettler said:
Well there's a coincidence, CVA-01 proposed at 53,000 tonnes, I've already proposed new Ark at approx 55,000 tonnes.
35 knots brings several advantages over 25 knots e.g. start from a single common point in a vast ocean and plot the possible area where a 35 knot vessel could be positioned within 3 hours, now do similar with a 25 knot vessel. Which one would you prefer to hunt? Particularly if the 35 knot vessel was appreciably the smaller of the two.
Stop talking b35 knots brings several advantages over 25 knots e.g. start from a single common point in a vast ocean and plot the possible area where a 35 knot vessel could be positioned within 3 hours, now do similar with a 25 knot vessel. Which one would you prefer to hunt? Particularly if the 35 knot vessel was appreciably the smaller of the two.
ks. There's no scenario where a Carrier Battle Group plays hide and seek in the manner you describe.V8 Fettler said:
If there is a risk of attack by Sunburn carried by a land-based aircraft then place the new Ark out of range whilst retaining the ability to strike the enemy airfields with the Super Bucc from 1000+ nautical miles.
That's clearly not going to work. In the case of a TU22 armed with AS4s, the a/c has a combat radius of about 1500 miles, the missile's range is over 300 miles.
To be out of range of a strike from a base on the coast, the carrier would have to be about 1800 miles away.
Combat radius of a Buccaneer? About 800 miles.
donutsina911 said:
Stop talking bks. There's no scenario where a Carrier Battle Group plays hide and seek in the manner you describe.
Nah, let him keep going, I want to see the continuation of a well researched and reasoned argument.ks. There's no scenario where a Carrier Battle Group plays hide and seek in the manner you describe.35 kts is vital but why stop there, why not and... I'm blue water thinking here... go for a trimaran style flat top?? Even higher speed, more top deck space to fit more of those Super Buccanears that are just coming into service, what could possibly go wrong!!
V8 Fettler said:
I'm not stating that any carrier from WW2 could "rival" the QE, that would be ridiculous; you have attempted to move the goalposts to comparing the QE and the Ark (Swordfish) as rivals when clearly they are not.
I have never referred to the bloody Ark! My first post compared it to the Invincible class in terms of costs (you know the fairly recent harrier-carriers?). YOU brought up how WW2 ships could go further and faster, I replied that only the CVE carriers could but they were very very naff. At no point ever have I even remotely mentioned the old Ark or ship of it's class!
It's not moving goalposts when you are clearly hallucinating.
Have I stepped into Pistonheads circa 1975?
Comparing QE and the F-35 to Ark Royal and the Buccaneers is interesting, but utterly pointless. Much more sensible to compare her capabilities to the the current generation of US Navy carriers, which admittedly have a few more kts top speed, but still probably have a smaller theoretical combat radius than the Bucc.
QE and the F-35B do have a lot of compromises, but it's a damn sight better than what we have now.
Comparing QE and the F-35 to Ark Royal and the Buccaneers is interesting, but utterly pointless. Much more sensible to compare her capabilities to the the current generation of US Navy carriers, which admittedly have a few more kts top speed, but still probably have a smaller theoretical combat radius than the Bucc.
QE and the F-35B do have a lot of compromises, but it's a damn sight better than what we have now.
donutsina911 said:
V8 Fettler said:
Whatever vessel is carrying the Sunburn needs to get within firing range. If said vessel cannot get within firing range because the new Ark is skipping away at 35 knots then the capability of the Sunburn is irrelevant.
If there is a risk of attack by Sunburn carried by a land-based aircraft then place the new Ark out of range whilst retaining the ability to strike the enemy airfields with the Super Bucc from 1000+ nautical miles.
In both the above scenarios, the new Ark sailing at 35 knots will be a lot more difficult to find than the QE sailing at 25 knots.
It's difficult to envisage any situation where a new Ark with the ability to strike from 1000 nautical miles should be anywhere near to an enemy RIB.
I'm guessing your ops room experience is either limited, or non existent - nothing in your post is accurate.If there is a risk of attack by Sunburn carried by a land-based aircraft then place the new Ark out of range whilst retaining the ability to strike the enemy airfields with the Super Bucc from 1000+ nautical miles.
In both the above scenarios, the new Ark sailing at 35 knots will be a lot more difficult to find than the QE sailing at 25 knots.
It's difficult to envisage any situation where a new Ark with the ability to strike from 1000 nautical miles should be anywhere near to an enemy RIB.
The likely deployment of something like Sunburn is either from land or air, but regardless of platform, 'skipping away at 35 knots' will be of little advantage to the QE over skipping away at 25kts as a missile skips in at 600 metres a second. The factors influencing where QE is operating are entirely unrelated to her top speed constraints - the whereabouts of a T45 up threat, being the main one.
You may think it's difficult to envisage any situation where QE could face an enemy RIB - the crew of USS Cole probably had a similar difficulty. I can think of half a dozen passages east of Suez, that QE will probably routinely do, where this threat is pretty significant.
In neither scenario does 35 knots make QE 'more difficult to find'
How is the concept of a carrier aircraft with a combat radius in excess of 1000 nautical miles "not accurate"?
Following the attack on the Cole, is there any realistic chance of an enemy RIB getting close to an RN carrier in port? Although clearly the best method to avoid RIBs is to sit as far as possible from the coast.
The Sunburn may be a quick bugger, but if the new Ark isn't in range then what difference does that make? I know, we'll mount the Sunburn onto a 30 knot destroyer, then we can close on the new Ark. Except of course the new Ark escapes the 30 knot destroyer by virtue of superior speed.
The QE can't achieve 35 knots. Which is more difficult to find (assume equally stealthy): the QE somewhere in a circle with a radius equal to the distance the QE can travel within - say - two hours at 25 knots, or the new Ark in a circle with a radius equal to the distance the new Ark can travel within two hours at 35 knots? Don't forget, the possible search area continues to increase until the carrier is located. Do the same comparison after 4 hours to see how much more difficult it is to find a 35 knot ship.
You mention factors influencing where the QE will operate, your crystal ball must be very good if you can forecast the likely operational requirements for the QE over the next 50 years or so.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff