HMS Queen Elizabeth

[hidetheelephants]

Evanivitch said:

Aren't we all forgetting that the carrier size is limited by the ability to enter Portsmouth and other locations. A nimitz class can't do it.

It's been mentioned a few times; Pompy is the proposed home port and just as important is the availability of drydocks that they can fit into.

[MBBlat]

For those who want a 35knot ship - why? even the USN Nimitz class don't go that fast.

Enterprise 33.6 knots after last refit
Nimitz 31.5 knots
Theodore Roosevelt 31.3 knots
Harry S Truman 30.9 knots


http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm

For a while the USN classified the top speed for their carriers, in fact a lot of people still think they do, which is why you sometimes find some ridiculous numbers banded about. And USN seamen like spreading tall tales just as much as anyone else, so read any tales of the carriers racing past escorts with a pinch of salt.

[FourWheelDrift]

MBBlat said:

For those who want a 35knot ship - why? even the USN Nimitz class don't go that fast.

Enterprise 33.6 knots after last refit
Nimitz 31.5 knots
Theodore Roosevelt 31.3 knots
Harry S Truman 30.9 knots


http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm

For a while the USN classified the top speed for their carriers, in fact a lot of people still think they do, which is why you sometimes find some ridiculous numbers banded about. And USN seamen like spreading tall tales just as much as anyone else, so read any tales of the carriers racing past escorts with a pinch of salt.

And probably tested light without the aircraft, stores, ammunition and full compliment on board.

[V8 Fettler]

donutsina911 said:

V8 Fettler said:

The usual post dissection structure can create convoluted posts, the structure you've chosen is virtually unreadable. Any chance of reassembling it into something coherent?

I'll try and reply to some of the elements you've posted.

New Ark would be smaller then the QE, but we'll have three of them. The ocean is a big place, this is frequently forgotten by those who claim "It's a big lump, it should be easy to find".

Why would new Ark with Super Bucc go through the Straits of Hormuz if there was any risk of attack by RIB? The Super Bucc could have an operational radius of - say - 1500+ nautical miles.

There are some doctrines of naval warfare that don't change over the centuries e.g. if you can't find the enemy then you can't sink them, if the enemy is out of range then you can't sink them.

The primary requirements for RN carriers have changed dramatically over the last 50 years: Cold War -> Falklands -> Bosnia/Middle East; none of which were foreseen by the designers of the carriers involved in each conflict.

Not sure why you're struggling to read the post, but I'll summarise simply for you - the deployment of air power from the sea has remained ever constant since the year dot, regardless of theatre. The exact opposite of your argument is true - what has changed is the nature of the threat - none of which are countered by incremental gains in top speed or skipping away at 35kts!

Interestingly you cite three examples in the Falklands, former Yugoslavia and the Middle East which prove the very point you're tryIng to argue against! At no point did Sandy Woodward crave more speed for his CBG, In former Yugoslavia, not once did the air warfare officer base operational decisions on speed, and Middle East, likewise.

Top speed matters very little. You can keep telling yourself it does - the reality is very different. Anyway, keep drawing imaginary circles and waffling on the Internet and I'll base my view on operational experience on RO7 at the sharp end.

The Yanks know a little bit about building carriers, 30 knots minimum, this has been the case since WW2 e.g USS Midway launched 1945. 30 knots substantially reduces the risk of interception by the enemy, particularly submarines. The higher the speed the lower the likelihood of a submarine achieving a firing solution. The Germans failed dismally to get anywhere near to sinking the QE1 or the Queen Mary in WW2 despite the lack of escorts and rather obvious departures. Speed also permits higher transit times:



From http://fas.org/man/gao/nsiad98001/c2.htm

The issue of the primary requirements for RN carriers is not just speed, for example it would have been extremely unlikely that the Argentinians would have invaded the Falklands if the Ark (Buccs) had been in service. The capability of the Ark (which includes the speed at which it could transit to the Falklands) meant that she would have substantially degraded the Argentine forces in the Falklands before the arrival of the remainder of British fleet. The lack of a fixed wing early warning capability cost the British dearly, as did the inability to intercept the Argentine aircraft at the earliest opportunity to the west of the Falklands.

The Harrier is/was a fine aircraft, but it was originally designed to counter Soviet armour on the North German plain. For Yugoslavia/Middle East, its loitering ability and resilience was relatively poor, this hasn't been meaningfully improved with the F35.

[V8 Fettler]

hidetheelephants said:

V8 Fettler said:

hidetheelephants said:

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.

For a given load there is no way to make a 35kt carrier smaller than a 35kt one; basic physics prevents it. There also isn't any way of making carriers stealthy, they're too large and the baggage train, flying circus and radio traffic tend to give the game away even if some magic stealth tech were invented.

35 knot carrier smaller than a 35 knot carrier?!

Your counter argument is that I've made a typo? Troll begone.

You're typo, knott mine.

The load is a variable, new Ark would be physically smaller then the QE, but we'll have three please.

[V8 Fettler]

MBBlat said:

For those who want a 35knot ship - why? even the USN Nimitz class don't go that fast.

Enterprise 33.6 knots after last refit
Nimitz 31.5 knots
Theodore Roosevelt 31.3 knots
Harry S Truman 30.9 knots


http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm

For a while the USN classified the top speed for their carriers, in fact a lot of people still think they do, which is why you sometimes find some ridiculous numbers banded about. And USN seamen like spreading tall tales just as much as anyone else, so read any tales of the carriers racing past escorts with a pinch of salt.

Depends how important you believe speed is. In heavy seas, most carriers will still outpace most escorts with ease.

[oj113]

V8 Fettler said:

Depends how important you believe speed is. In heavy seas, most carriers will still outpace most escorts with ease.

But why would you want to outpace your escorts? In a war scenario that'd be lunacy, the Americans (who as you point out have far more experience than us in Carrier ops) have considerably more flat tops to lose will keep their carrier groups together at all costs.

Edited by oj113 on Tuesday 29th December 09:27

Edited by oj113 on Tuesday 29th December 09:28

[donutsina911]

V8 Fettler said:

The Yanks know a little bit about building carriers, 30 knots minimum, this has been the case since WW2 e.g USS Midway launched 1945. 30 knots substantially reduces the risk of interception by the enemy, particularly submarines. The higher the speed the lower the likelihood of a submarine achieving a firing solution. The Germans failed dismally to get anywhere near to sinking the QE1 or the Queen Mary in WW2 despite the lack of escorts and rather obvious departures. Speed also permits higher transit times:

The issue of the primary requirements for RN carriers is not just speed, for example it would have been extremely unlikely that the Argentinians would have invaded the Falklands if the Ark (Buccs) had been in service. The capability of the Ark (which includes the speed at which it could transit to the Falklands) meant that she would have substantially degraded the Argentine forces in the Falklands before the arrival of the remainder of British fleet. The lack of a fixed wing early warning capability cost the British dearly, as did the inability to intercept the Argentine aircraft at the earliest opportunity to the west of the Falklands.

The Harrier is/was a fine aircraft, but it was originally designed to counter Soviet armour on the North German plain. For Yugoslavia/Middle East, its loitering ability and resilience was relatively poor, this hasn't been meaningfully improved with the F35.

So you've gone from saying 'speed is very important' to 'primary requirements for RN carriers is not just speed' - epic backtracking, even by PH standards.

I'll say it one more time - the ability to defend against a submarine threat is not influenced one iota by an increase in top speed of 5 knots.

Anyway, thanks for the schoolboy brief on the Falklands and the Harrier by the way - if you think any Task Force Commander would send an asset like Ark Royal/QE down south 'before the arrival of the remainder of the British fleet', you're on another planet. As an aside, Ops Sharp Guard and Deliberate Force were prime examples of the Harrier delivering really rather well in Former Yugoslavia.

[Mojocvh]

donutsina911 said:

V8 Fettler said:

The Yanks know a little bit about building carriers, 30 knots minimum, this has been the case since WW2 e.g USS Midway launched 1945. 30 knots substantially reduces the risk of interception by the enemy, particularly submarines. The higher the speed the lower the likelihood of a submarine achieving a firing solution. The Germans failed dismally to get anywhere near to sinking the QE1 or the Queen Mary in WW2 despite the lack of escorts and rather obvious departures. Speed also permits higher transit times:

The issue of the primary requirements for RN carriers is not just speed, for example it would have been extremely unlikely that the Argentinians would have invaded the Falklands if the Ark (Buccs) had been in service. The capability of the Ark (which includes the speed at which it could transit to the Falklands) meant that she would have substantially degraded the Argentine forces in the Falklands before the arrival of the remainder of British fleet. The lack of a fixed wing early warning capability cost the British dearly, as did the inability to intercept the Argentine aircraft at the earliest opportunity to the west of the Falklands.

The Harrier is/was a fine aircraft, but it was originally designed to counter Soviet armour on the North German plain. For Yugoslavia/Middle East, its loitering ability and resilience was relatively poor, this hasn't been meaningfully improved with the F35.

So you've gone from saying 'speed is very important' to 'primary requirements for RN carriers is not just speed' - epic backtracking, even by PH standards.

I'll say it one more time - the ability to defend against a submarine threat is not influenced one iota by an increase in top speed of 5 knots.

Anyway, thanks for the schoolboy brief on the Falklands and the Harrier by the way - if you think any Task Force Commander would send an asset like Ark Royal/QE down south 'before the arrival of the remainder of the British fleet', you're on another planet. As an aside, Ops Sharp Guard and Deliberate Force were prime examples of the Harrier delivering really rather well in Former Yugoslavia.

LOL you mean littering the seabed with unfused ordinance the puffer jet couldn't bring back or are you just mix and matching to suit yourself ??

Pity the stealthy F35B can't really do fleet defence [will it ever?] despite the excellence of the ASRAAM

One thing about carriers, they don’t let the little boats get in the way, no sir!!

[donutsina911]

Mojocvh said:

LOL you mean littering the seabed with unfused ordinance the puffer jet couldn't bring back or are you just mix and matching to suit yourself ??

Pity the stealthy F35B can't really do fleet defence [will it ever?] despite the excellence of the ASRAAM

One thing about carriers, they don’t let the little boats get in the way, no sir!!

'LOL'? are you twelve?

Crab slagging off Sea Harrier shocker. I was responding to V8Fettler's daft comments about the Harrier - this thread is about QE.

If you want to show off your knowledge of planes including one that isn't even in service, the thread for you is here:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Full of posters who've neither flown or directed a FJ asset, but with plenty of free time on their hands and access to Wikipedia. You'll be right at home...

[Impasse]

hidetheelephants said:

Evanivitch said:

Aren't we all forgetting that the carrier size is limited by the ability to enter Portsmouth and other locations. A nimitz class can't do it.

It's been mentioned a few times; Pompy is the proposed home port and just as important is the availability of drydocks that they can fit into.

The entrance to Portsmouth Harbour is currently undergoing dredging to deepen it a touch. There was a small delay to allow the oysters and whatnot to be relocated out of harm's way (some got re-homed underneath Ainslie's new HQ) but the machines are now doing their thing every night. The published story is that this procedure is solely to allow the larger tourist/cruise ships access.

[donutsina911]

Impasse said:

The entrance to Portsmouth Harbour is currently undergoing dredging to deepen it a touch. There was a small delay to allow the oysters and whatnot to be relocated out of harm's way (some got re-homed underneath Ainslie's new HQ) but the machines are now doing their thing every night. The published story is that this procedure is solely to allow the larger tourist/cruise ships access.

The published story is nothing of the sort - residents in the city have known for quite some time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-333...

[Impasse]

donutsina911 said:

The published story is nothing of the sort - residents in the city have known for quite some time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-333...

Indeed. You know this, I know this and anyone with half a brain knows this. However when the work actually started (which was only about a month ago) references to the RN were dropped. I recall at the time raising an incredulous eyebrow at the angle the newscaster was taking.

But this shouldn't detract from the fact that work to allow larger ships into the harbour has started.

[donutsina911]

Impasse said:

Indeed. You know this, I know this and anyone with half a brain knows this. However when the work actually started (which was only about a month ago) references to the RN were dropped. I recall at the time raising an incredulous eyebrow at the angle the newscaster was taking.

But this shouldn't detract from the fact that work to allow larger ships into the harbour has started.

Not noticed this at all - top links for the story of Portsmouth dredging all reference the carriers.

Daily wail example...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3367400/We...

[V8 Fettler]

donutsina911 said:

V8 Fettler said:

The Yanks know a little bit about building carriers, 30 knots minimum, this has been the case since WW2 e.g USS Midway launched 1945. 30 knots substantially reduces the risk of interception by the enemy, particularly submarines. The higher the speed the lower the likelihood of a submarine achieving a firing solution. The Germans failed dismally to get anywhere near to sinking the QE1 or the Queen Mary in WW2 despite the lack of escorts and rather obvious departures. Speed also permits higher transit times:

The issue of the primary requirements for RN carriers is not just speed, for example it would have been extremely unlikely that the Argentinians would have invaded the Falklands if the Ark (Buccs) had been in service. The capability of the Ark (which includes the speed at which it could transit to the Falklands) meant that she would have substantially degraded the Argentine forces in the Falklands before the arrival of the remainder of British fleet. The lack of a fixed wing early warning capability cost the British dearly, as did the inability to intercept the Argentine aircraft at the earliest opportunity to the west of the Falklands.

The Harrier is/was a fine aircraft, but it was originally designed to counter Soviet armour on the North German plain. For Yugoslavia/Middle East, its loitering ability and resilience was relatively poor, this hasn't been meaningfully improved with the F35.

So you've gone from saying 'speed is very important' to 'primary requirements for RN carriers is not just speed' - epic backtracking, even by PH standards.

I'll say it one more time - the ability to defend against a submarine threat is not influenced one iota by an increase in top speed of 5 knots.

Anyway, thanks for the schoolboy brief on the Falklands and the Harrier by the way - if you think any Task Force Commander would send an asset like Ark Royal/QE down south 'before the arrival of the remainder of the British fleet', you're on another planet. As an aside, Ops Sharp Guard and Deliberate Force were prime examples of the Harrier delivering really rather well in Former Yugoslavia.

There are several primary requirements for an aircraft carrier, all of which are important, one of which is speed.

Importance of speed to avoid detection:

http://lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/a... page 13 mentions circles.

Something from a few years ago, the principles remain the same, particularly if the enemy is using diesel submarines: http://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/onlin... more circles.

I don't think anyone would send the QE down to the Falklands unescorted, she can't look after herself e.g. no fixed wing early warning (unlike the Ark) and her strike aircraft can't reach out 1000 nautical miles (unlike the Ark). If an escort is required for the Ark then possibly HMS Conqueror which reportedly left the UK on 3rd April 1982.

The British airmen and flight deck crews certainly excelled in Yugoslavia; they have invariably achieved far more with the available resources than most would have expected e.g. Sea Harriers in the Falklands.

[donutsina911]

V8 Fettler said:

There are several primary requirements for an aircraft carrier, all of which are important, one of which is speed.

Importance of speed to avoid detection:

http://lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/a... page 13 mentions circles.

Something from a few years ago, the principles remain the same, particularly if the enemy is using diesel submarines: http://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/onlin... more circles.

I don't think anyone would send the QE down to the Falklands unescorted, she can't look after herself e.g. no fixed wing early warning (unlike the Ark) and her strike aircraft can't reach out 1000 nautical miles (unlike the Ark). If an escort is required for the Ark then possibly HMS Conqueror which reportedly left the UK on 3rd April 1982.

The British airmen and flight deck crews certainly excelled in Yugoslavia; they have invariably achieved far more with the available resources than most would have expected e.g. Sea Harriers in the Falklands.

A paper from 1918? A few years ago - are you stting me? Tactics to deal with pre WW2 submarines that max'd out at 10 kts with 1,000 yard range torpedoes are very different to dealing with today's threats.

Ref the Lexington paper, I'm not going to stray into inappropriate content on a forum, but in simple terms, if a hostile nation has the ability to track surface targets in a sophisticated manner (and there are plenty) the difference in 'circles' between a 25kt QE and a 30kt US CVN is of little consequence. If the aggressor lacks this capability (let's think Argentina or Iran perhaps), it's even less important.

You were the one who talked of sending a carrier unescorted to the Falklands - doesn't matter if it's RO7, QE or your fantasy carrier with AEW, it's just never going to happen. Ever. But keep backtracking!

Having served as Flag Lt to the XO of Conquerer in 82 when he later commanded a Task Group, I'd love to hear some of your insight and 'reports' on her...

[eccles]

God, two days later and we're still arguing over how fast the bloody boat will go!

[T66ORA]

eccles said:

God, two days later and we're still arguing over how fast the bloody boat will go!

It's not just this thread mate,its every one you read nowadays.Petty squabbles and willy waving!

[MBBlat]

To put it into car context, its like a load of non drivers arguing that the BMW M3 should be able to do 200mph, based mainly on the wrong assumption that the Veyron can do 300mph.

25knots for CVF was not pulled out of thin air, there are a lot of reasons & calculations behind that number, most of then classified, and it is not purely down to cost.

[Godalmighty83]

The Bucc does indeed have impressive range, let's all just ignore that it is 600mph slower, 10000ft lower and has a radar signature that would let anyone with a hand-held speed gun get a missile lock on it from just about any continent. But yes that range is good.

It's odd to see someone arguing that speed is so important while at the same time advocating for one of the slowest FAA jets ever built.