HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
eccles said:
God, two days later and we're still arguing over how fast the bloody boat will go!
25 or 35kts, it's still pretty impressive to me and faster than the old 17ft rigid inflatable I used to whizz around in. Didn't stop the fun police from telling me off on my way to Port Solent. I wonder if they would have pulled over HMS QE? 
Godalmighty83 said:
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.
Indeed. It was also massively ugly, which obviously is a big no-no for a warplane.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.
than it gotdonutsina911 said:
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 sImportance 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.
tting 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...
If you have an issue with the Lexington paper then you can always contact the authors, the members list is on page 28.
Try three different sets of calcs for "hunt the carrier" with only three variables: carrier speed 25 knots (QE), 30 knots (US carriers) and 35 knots (New Ark) to see the crucial difference that speed makes.
Silent diesel submarines (potentially Argentina, Iran, North Korea etc) are regarded by some as an emerging threat to carriers, the "circles" will still apply but with differing data compared to a nuclear submarine.
I wouldn't send R07 (Ark with Harriers) to the Falklands unescorted in 1982 due to lack of reach and lack of defence. Ark (Buccs) in 1982 would be a much more serious proposition. Compare reach between Ark (Harriers) and Ark (Bucc):
Fantasy carrier with AEW? Did not Gannets on Ark (Buccs) provide airborne early warning?
What do you think the Argentinians could have have reached the Ark (Buccs) with in 1982? Assuming they didn't have any concealed Soviet strategic bombers.
Back tracking? No, I don't think so. Your view is that the Ark (Buccs) would have needed an escort, I've suggested Conqueror. The date of the Conqueror leaving UK waters can only be as "reported" in the media; as far as I am aware the control room log is not in the public domain. If not Conqueror then perhaps Antrim and Plymouth to escort Ark (Buccs).
Godalmighty83 said:
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.
You're confusing Bucc (1950s onwards) with Super Bucc (2015), the latter being a measured, logical development over 50 years and benefiting from enhanced speed, enhanced range, enhanced reliability, enhanced weapons capacity, enhanced avionics, stealth, flexibility ...... etc. No need to fly any lower though. It would certainly be a completely different aircraft but would build on the best features of the original Bucc.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.
V8 Fettler said:
1918 or 2015, the principles remain the same even though the data changes. Pre WW1 torpedeos had ranges of over 10,000 yards. The Conqueror fired at the Belgrano from less than 2,000 yards using Mk V111 torpedos (originally introduced mid-1920s).
If you have an issue with the Lexington paper then you can always contact the authors, the members list is on page 28.
I've made my observations on the paper and hunting carriers as discretely as I can. Within the constraints of a public forum it's difficult to have reasoned debate with armchair experts with zero naval experience and the fact you have a different view to me is absolutely fine and dandy. But consider one thing - as other posters have mentioned, if speed was as important as you keep saying it is, then surely the handful of navies with carriers would be knocking out 35kt carriers. They're not. Does that not tell you something? If you have an issue with the Lexington paper then you can always contact the authors, the members list is on page 28.
I'm well aware of your circles, you've made the point over and over again and I've explained that hunting surface assets is a little more sophisticated than this and that 'New Ark' is no less protected for having 35kt capability. Indeed, 'skipping along' at high speeds is a god send to the CO of a submarine - surprised you've missed this.
V8 Fettler said:
Silent diesel submarines (potentially Argentina, Iran, North Korea etc) are regarded by some as an emerging threat to carriers, the "circles" will still apply but with differing data compared to a nuclear submarine. I wouldn't send R07 (Ark with Harriers) to the Falklands unescorted in 1982 due to lack of reach and lack of defence. Ark (Buccs) in 1982 would be a much more serious proposition. Compare reach between Ark (Harriers) and Ark (Bucc)
So, still implying you'd send Ark alone. Epic.V8 Fettler said:
Fantasy carrier with AEW? Did not Gannets on Ark (Buccs) provide airborne early warning?
Yes - withdrawn from service four years prior to Op Corporate.V8 Fettler said:
What do you think the Argentinians could have have reached the Ark (Buccs) with in 1982? Assuming they didn't have any concealed Soviet strategic bombers.
Type 209 Submarine for a start. V8 Fettler said:
Back tracking? No, I don't think so. Your view is that the Ark (Buccs) would have needed an escort, I've suggested Conqueror. The date of the Conqueror leaving UK waters can only be as "reported" in the media; as far as I am aware the control room log is not in the public domain. If not Conqueror then perhaps Antrim and Plymouth to escort Ark (Buccs).
My view and that of every other military professional and sane layperson is that all carriers require a layered defence in place. You, not me suggested you'd send a carrier ahead of the fleet. That is backtracking in any reasonable sense of the word. Regardless, given the assets available in 1982, your choice of Antrim and Plymouth speaks volumes about your real world knowledge.V8 Fettler said:
You're confusing Bucc (1950s onwards) with Super Bucc (2015), the latter being a measured, logical development over 50 years and benefiting from enhanced speed, enhanced range, enhanced reliability, enhanced weapons capacity, enhanced avionics, stealth, flexibility ...... etc. No need to fly any lower though. It would certainly be a completely different aircraft but would build on the best features of the original Bucc.
And you are confusing reality Bucc (1950s onwards) with fantasy Super Bucc 2015. The ongoing development of the Bucc didn't happen for many good reasons I suspect.Im confused about this arguing about speed during the falklands war, pretty much all ships in the fleet at the time had a top speed of circa 30 knots and they all used the same/similar engine configuration (twin Olympus and twin tyne)
We did have issues with aircraft reach of r07 vs r09. But what happened happened hindsight is the greatest general.
r08 is a tad slow according to what we are being told, but its just that, we will see at see trials next year.
L15 does less than 20knots and that's never been a problem.
We did have issues with aircraft reach of r07 vs r09. But what happened happened hindsight is the greatest general.
r08 is a tad slow according to what we are being told, but its just that, we will see at see trials next year.
L15 does less than 20knots and that's never been a problem.
What the he'll is this? Some sort of fantasy fleet what if Thread? Super Buccs, top speeds of "new Ark" etc.
The QEC is as fast as it needs to be as a STOVL carrier.
It is as big as practical as it can be for the RN bearing mind the infrastructure that will need to support it, dry docks, depths of navigation channels etc.
The ships are designed to be economical not just in terms of fuel but crew numbers and support so no nukes.
There could be scenarios where a higher top speed would be nice, but every warship is a compromise and 25KT is plenty. If you have to chuck the carrier round at high speed because of air or sub attack, 5 knots ain't going to be a big loss as you have much more pressing problems. Thinks really will have gone pair shaped because your layered AAW and ASuW won't have worked.
What is more important is that the class has sufficient legs to cover distance at pace with its consorts, a frigate, a destroyer oiler and stores ship, perhaps an SSGN too.
The F35B doesn't have great range, but again it is a trade off. STOVL, or more likely rolling landings, have so many advantages. A simpler ship, no cats, crew for the cats, steam/electric generators for the cats, and a greater sortie generation rate. To traps to operate and maintain.
Also recovery is a when not an if. An over simplification, but it is safer to bring jets on board without the need for the controlled crash of an arrestor wire arrival. Less chance of missing the wires. No need to configure two jets to buddy refuel a jet that misses the wire. A jet can return with stores rather than dropping millions of quids worth of ordnance in the Oggin.
Despite the costs and delays the QEC represents a great mix of mature and modern technologies. It will be a flexible platform capable of doing stuff from old school Battle of Midway ops to Falklands style roles both as a carrier and a LPH. ASuW, humanitarian aid, peace keeping, a base for future UCAVs and a host of other scenarios over the next 50 years.
For what is worth I'd have preferred 3 big Invincible style ships, but we've got these now. It was explained to me by someone in the RN like this:
"We really wanted three Ford Galaxys, but instead we are getting two top end bespoke Range Rovers. Not really what we need but no cause to complain."
The QEC is as fast as it needs to be as a STOVL carrier.
It is as big as practical as it can be for the RN bearing mind the infrastructure that will need to support it, dry docks, depths of navigation channels etc.
The ships are designed to be economical not just in terms of fuel but crew numbers and support so no nukes.
There could be scenarios where a higher top speed would be nice, but every warship is a compromise and 25KT is plenty. If you have to chuck the carrier round at high speed because of air or sub attack, 5 knots ain't going to be a big loss as you have much more pressing problems. Thinks really will have gone pair shaped because your layered AAW and ASuW won't have worked.
What is more important is that the class has sufficient legs to cover distance at pace with its consorts, a frigate, a destroyer oiler and stores ship, perhaps an SSGN too.
The F35B doesn't have great range, but again it is a trade off. STOVL, or more likely rolling landings, have so many advantages. A simpler ship, no cats, crew for the cats, steam/electric generators for the cats, and a greater sortie generation rate. To traps to operate and maintain.
Also recovery is a when not an if. An over simplification, but it is safer to bring jets on board without the need for the controlled crash of an arrestor wire arrival. Less chance of missing the wires. No need to configure two jets to buddy refuel a jet that misses the wire. A jet can return with stores rather than dropping millions of quids worth of ordnance in the Oggin.
Despite the costs and delays the QEC represents a great mix of mature and modern technologies. It will be a flexible platform capable of doing stuff from old school Battle of Midway ops to Falklands style roles both as a carrier and a LPH. ASuW, humanitarian aid, peace keeping, a base for future UCAVs and a host of other scenarios over the next 50 years.
For what is worth I'd have preferred 3 big Invincible style ships, but we've got these now. It was explained to me by someone in the RN like this:
"We really wanted three Ford Galaxys, but instead we are getting two top end bespoke Range Rovers. Not really what we need but no cause to complain."
Edited by wildcat45 on Thursday 31st December 18:42
V8 Fettler said:
Back tracking? No, I don't think so. Your view is that the Ark (Buccs) would have needed an escort, I've suggested Conqueror. The date of the Conqueror leaving UK waters can only be as "reported" in the media; as far as I am aware the control room log is not in the public domain. If not Conqueror then perhaps Antrim and Plymouth to escort Ark (Buccs).
Conqueror's Report of Proceedings is in the public domain. Unfortunately, it has disappeared from the GOV.UK website but the 6 parts have been mirrored on this site: http://www.radarmalvinas.com.ar/informes_britanico...It starts after her departure from Faslane on 4 April. But it's fairly irrelevant because Conqueror was ordered to South Georgia on 10 April, arriving in the area on 18 April.
HMS Spartan sailed from Gibraltar on 30 March, arriving when the 200nm Maritime Exclusion Zone came into effect on 12 April. HMS Splendid arrived the following day from Faslane.
The three submarines were averaging around 24 knots to put their voyages south into perspective.
Before you suggest tasking Splendid and Spartan to escort your carrier, consider that none of the submarines were ever under Woodward's command. They were all controlled through Flag Officer Submarines back in Northwood. They were also busy searching for the Argentine carrier, unsuccessfully as it turned out.
Just like Hermes and Invincible, it is unlikely that your Ark Royal would sailed from Portsmouth until 5 April at the earliest - once the crew has been recalled from Easter leave and the ship stored for war.
When Ark Royal did her 25 knot dash to Belize in 1972, she used 60% of her Furnace Fuel Oil in less than 48 hours. That put her pretty close to having to fill her fuel tanks with sea water to maintain ballast. Once filled with sea water, a thorough clean would be required before they could be used for FFO again. Ideal in a warzone. In other words, your fast carrier needs RFAs that can keep up with it as she will need resupply every 48 hours.
Diverting Antrim and Plymouth would have meant abandoning Op Paraquet, the recovery of South Georgia. This was not a minor sideshow. It was considering an important morale boost, particularly after the quiet period of transit and a demonstration of political intent.
It's diplomacy that really sinks your speed argument. The Government had to allow time for negotiations to be conducted, no matter how unlikely they were to succeed. We had to be seen to taking the high ground in the eyes of the world. It wasn't as clear cut as Britain-victim, Argentina-aggressor - even in the eyes of the US Government. A couple of rounds of shuttle diplomacy took the best part of a month.
Putting a carrier in the area as early as that would have been a very high profile signal of intent, not just to Argentina but also to the rest of the world. More importantly, establishing a TEZ at that stage would also have required us to confront the Argentine resupply missions - forcing us to fire the first shot while negotiations were still ongoing or lose face by backing down.
The advantage of the nuclear submarines and MEZ was that they had a relatively low profile yet still had a real military effect without undermining our commitment to the negotiation process. By not cutting off all resupply routes at once and Argentina keeping warships out of the MEZ (they had expected the SSNs to be sent and had made the switch to air resupply only in plenty of time), neither side forced a precipitous conflict.
In the meantime, the Carrier Battle Group did not sail straight to the Falklands. Hermes and Invincible arrived at Ascension on 14 April. Woodward had to transfer his flag from Glamorgan to Hermes. He had to meet with his amphibious and land force commanders as well as a hold a council of war with Admiral Fieldhouse and his staff. The taskforce also needed time to redistribute stores to the correct ship and order for operations, everything having been stored in a hurry before they left. The Carrier Battle Group eventually left Ascension on 18 April.
Don't forget, all the ships of the taskforce needed time to work up for operations. A faster transit would have left less time for procedures to be refined - for example, the first extensive use of Night Vision Goggles by helicopter pilots was on the transit south while all the Harriers had their white bellies painted out.
Lastly, your circles do not translate into your Ark Royal being able to stand further off the Falklands. Every night, the task force was closing the Falklands: Hermes and Invincible to land Special Forces by helicopter to recce the enemy dispositions; and escorts taking up positions in the gun line off Stanley.
ninja-lewis said:
In the meantime, the Carrier Battle Group did not sail straight to the Falklands. Hermes and Invincible arrived at Ascension on 14 April. Woodward had to transfer his flag from Glamorgan to Hermes. He had to meet with his amphibious and land force commanders as well as a hold a council of war with Admiral Fieldhouse and his staff. The taskforce also needed time to redistribute stores to the correct ship and order for operations, everything having been stored in a hurry before they left. The Carrier Battle Group eventually left Ascension on 18 April.
That's an understatement; stores were just loaded on the nearest available ship as they arrived at the ports, far too little effort was made at organised or tactical loading, the political need to be seen to be 'doing something' overrode military logistical needs. 2-3 days extra spent getting the loading right in home ports would have been far more use than the disorganised chaos of a reshuffle that went on at Ascension and would have reduced the effect of the loss of Atlantic Conveyor.donutsina911 said:
V8 Fettler said:
1918 or 2015, the principles remain the same even though the data changes. Pre WW1 torpedeos had ranges of over 10,000 yards. The Conqueror fired at the Belgrano from less than 2,000 yards using Mk V111 torpedos (originally introduced mid-1920s).
If you have an issue with the Lexington paper then you can always contact the authors, the members list is on page 28.
I've made my observations on the paper and hunting carriers as discretely as I can. Within the constraints of a public forum it's difficult to have reasoned debate with armchair experts with zero naval experience and the fact you have a different view to me is absolutely fine and dandy. But consider one thing - as other posters have mentioned, if speed was as important as you keep saying it is, then surely the handful of navies with carriers would be knocking out 35kt carriers. They're not. Does that not tell you something? If you have an issue with the Lexington paper then you can always contact the authors, the members list is on page 28.
I'm well aware of your circles, you've made the point over and over again and I've explained that hunting surface assets is a little more sophisticated than this and that 'New Ark' is no less protected for having 35kt capability. Indeed, 'skipping along' at high speeds is a god send to the CO of a submarine - surprised you've missed this.
V8 Fettler said:
Silent diesel submarines (potentially Argentina, Iran, North Korea etc) are regarded by some as an emerging threat to carriers, the "circles" will still apply but with differing data compared to a nuclear submarine. I wouldn't send R07 (Ark with Harriers) to the Falklands unescorted in 1982 due to lack of reach and lack of defence. Ark (Buccs) in 1982 would be a much more serious proposition. Compare reach between Ark (Harriers) and Ark (Bucc)
So, still implying you'd send Ark alone. Epic.V8 Fettler said:
Fantasy carrier with AEW? Did not Gannets on Ark (Buccs) provide airborne early warning?
Yes - withdrawn from service four years prior to Op Corporate.V8 Fettler said:
What do you think the Argentinians could have have reached the Ark (Buccs) with in 1982? Assuming they didn't have any concealed Soviet strategic bombers.
Type 209 Submarine for a start. V8 Fettler said:
Back tracking? No, I don't think so. Your view is that the Ark (Buccs) would have needed an escort, I've suggested Conqueror. The date of the Conqueror leaving UK waters can only be as "reported" in the media; as far as I am aware the control room log is not in the public domain. If not Conqueror then perhaps Antrim and Plymouth to escort Ark (Buccs).
My view and that of every other military professional and sane layperson is that all carriers require a layered defence in place. You, not me suggested you'd send a carrier ahead of the fleet. That is backtracking in any reasonable sense of the word. Regardless, given the assets available in 1982, your choice of Antrim and Plymouth speaks volumes about your real world knowledge.I don't think there are any experts in the field of naval warfare on this forum. If you have something to post that contradicts the Lexington paper then post it, providing it's within the public domain and doesn't breach PH rules.
There was a time when the British strived to have the best navy in the world, that time has passed. But we could at least try to ensure that our capital ships outperform their predecessors in all aspects, otherwise we're going backwards.
I'm pleased that the point about the circles has sunk in. I agree that the "New Ark" would be no less protected from attack if it had a 35 knot capability, in fact it would have an increased protection from attack with a 35 knot capability compared with a lesser ship with a 25 knot capability.
The Lexington paper refers to the advantage of a nuclear-powered carrier being able to elude detection by manoeuvring at maximum speed for weeks, it says nothing about reducing speed to avoid detection.
We are now agreed the Ark (Buccs) had fixed wing AEW i.e. it is not a fantasy for an RN carrier to possess fixed wing AEW. In my view, it was negligent for the MOD and the politicians to scrap Ark (Buccs) with no equivalent or improved replacement. This negligence led directly to the deaths of British servicemen in the Falklands.
One off type 209 to form a picket line across the South Atlantic to intercept the Ark (Buccs)? Never going to be sufficient; probably need to add another six type 209s, but even then the interception would rely on luck. See repeated failure of uboats pack to intercept unescorted and unarmed liners Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth during WW2.
Belize demonstrates that aircraft carriers can operate without layered defence. You've stated that Ark (Buccs) would have required an escort in 1982, I've suggested Conqueror to meet your requirements for an escort, you've provided no reason why Conqueror couldn't have been used in that role. I've also suggested Antrim and Plymouth to meet your requirements for an escort, and likewise you've provided no reason why Antrim and Plymouth couldn't have been used in that role.
Foliage said:
Im confused about this arguing about speed during the falklands war, pretty much all ships in the fleet at the time had a top speed of circa 30 knots and they all used the same/similar engine configuration (twin Olympus and twin tyne)
We did have issues with aircraft reach of r07 vs r09. But what happened happened hindsight is the greatest general.
r08 is a tad slow according to what we are being told, but its just that, we will see at see trials next year.
L15 does less than 20knots and that's never been a problem.
You need to define "fleet". Do you mean the Falklands task force in its entirety?We did have issues with aircraft reach of r07 vs r09. But what happened happened hindsight is the greatest general.
r08 is a tad slow according to what we are being told, but its just that, we will see at see trials next year.
L15 does less than 20knots and that's never been a problem.
No hindsight is required to recognise the reduced capability of Ark (Harriers) compared to Ark (Buccs) in terms of reach.
HMS Hood had inferior deck armour, that was never a problem until it became a problem.
wildcat45 said:
What the he'll is this? Some sort of fantasy fleet what if Thread? Super Buccs, top speeds of "new Ark" etc.
The QEC is as fast as it needs to be as a STOVL carrier.
It is as big as practical as it can be for the RN bearing mind the infrastructure that will need to support it, dry docks, depths of navigation channels etc.
The ships are designed to be economical not just in terms of fuel but crew numbers and support so no nukes.
There could be scenarios where a higher top speed would be nice, but every warship is a compromise and 25KT is plenty. If you have to chuck the carrier round at high speed because of air or sub attack, 5 knots ain't going to be a big loss as you have much more pressing problems. Thinks really will have gone pair shaped because your layered AAW and ASuW won't have worked.
What is more important is that the class has sufficient legs to cover distance at pace with its consorts, a frigate, a destroyer oiler and stores ship, perhaps an SSGN too.
The F35B doesn't have great range, but again it is a trade off. STOVL, or more likely rolling landings, have so many advantages. A simpler ship, no cats, crew for the cats, steam/electric generators for the cats, and a greater sortie generation rate. To traps to operate and maintain.
Also recovery is a when not an if. An over simplification, but it is safer to bring jets on board without the need for the controlled crash of an arrestor wire arrival. Less chance of missing the wires. No need to configure two jets to buddy refuel a jet that misses the wire. A jet can return with stores rather than dropping millions of quids worth of ordnance in the Oggin.
Despite the costs and delays the QEC represents a great mix of mature and modern technologies. It will be a flexible platform capable of doing stuff from old school Battle of Midway ops to Falklands style roles both as a carrier and a LPH. ASuW, humanitarian aid, peace keeping, a base for future UCAVs and a host of other scenarios over the next 50 years.
For what is worth I'd have preferred 3 big Invincible style ships, but we've got these now. It was explained to me by someone in the RN like this:
"We really wanted three Ford Galaxys, but instead we are getting two top end bespoke Range Rovers. Not really what we need but no cause to complain."
You refer to cost savings and economies, there were substantial cost savings when the Ark (Buccs) wasn't replaced in 1978 with a faster class of carrier with more aircraft with greater range and greater capability; that cost saving should be balanced against the lives of British servicemen in the Falklands. In my view there is no balance: the bean counters failed dismally. The deterrent of the Ark (Buccs) or similar in service = no Falklands conflict.The QEC is as fast as it needs to be as a STOVL carrier.
It is as big as practical as it can be for the RN bearing mind the infrastructure that will need to support it, dry docks, depths of navigation channels etc.
The ships are designed to be economical not just in terms of fuel but crew numbers and support so no nukes.
There could be scenarios where a higher top speed would be nice, but every warship is a compromise and 25KT is plenty. If you have to chuck the carrier round at high speed because of air or sub attack, 5 knots ain't going to be a big loss as you have much more pressing problems. Thinks really will have gone pair shaped because your layered AAW and ASuW won't have worked.
What is more important is that the class has sufficient legs to cover distance at pace with its consorts, a frigate, a destroyer oiler and stores ship, perhaps an SSGN too.
The F35B doesn't have great range, but again it is a trade off. STOVL, or more likely rolling landings, have so many advantages. A simpler ship, no cats, crew for the cats, steam/electric generators for the cats, and a greater sortie generation rate. To traps to operate and maintain.
Also recovery is a when not an if. An over simplification, but it is safer to bring jets on board without the need for the controlled crash of an arrestor wire arrival. Less chance of missing the wires. No need to configure two jets to buddy refuel a jet that misses the wire. A jet can return with stores rather than dropping millions of quids worth of ordnance in the Oggin.
Despite the costs and delays the QEC represents a great mix of mature and modern technologies. It will be a flexible platform capable of doing stuff from old school Battle of Midway ops to Falklands style roles both as a carrier and a LPH. ASuW, humanitarian aid, peace keeping, a base for future UCAVs and a host of other scenarios over the next 50 years.
For what is worth I'd have preferred 3 big Invincible style ships, but we've got these now. It was explained to me by someone in the RN like this:
"We really wanted three Ford Galaxys, but instead we are getting two top end bespoke Range Rovers. Not really what we need but no cause to complain."
Edited by wildcat45 on Thursday 31st December 18:42
See Lexington paper re: ability to avoid detection by manoeuvring an aircraft carrier at maximum speed for weeks.
It's worrying when your RN acquaintance states that the QE class is not really what the RN needs.
ninja-lewis said:
V8 Fettler said:
Back tracking? No, I don't think so. Your view is that the Ark (Buccs) would have needed an escort, I've suggested Conqueror. The date of the Conqueror leaving UK waters can only be as "reported" in the media; as far as I am aware the control room log is not in the public domain. If not Conqueror then perhaps Antrim and Plymouth to escort Ark (Buccs).
Conqueror's Report of Proceedings is in the public domain. Unfortunately, it has disappeared from the GOV.UK website but the 6 parts have been mirrored on this site: http://www.radarmalvinas.com.ar/informes_britanico...It starts after her departure from Faslane on 4 April. But it's fairly irrelevant because Conqueror was ordered to South Georgia on 10 April, arriving in the area on 18 April.
HMS Spartan sailed from Gibraltar on 30 March, arriving when the 200nm Maritime Exclusion Zone came into effect on 12 April. HMS Splendid arrived the following day from Faslane.
The three submarines were averaging around 24 knots to put their voyages south into perspective.
Before you suggest tasking Splendid and Spartan to escort your carrier, consider that none of the submarines were ever under Woodward's command. They were all controlled through Flag Officer Submarines back in Northwood. They were also busy searching for the Argentine carrier, unsuccessfully as it turned out.
Just like Hermes and Invincible, it is unlikely that your Ark Royal would sailed from Portsmouth until 5 April at the earliest - once the crew has been recalled from Easter leave and the ship stored for war.
When Ark Royal did her 25 knot dash to Belize in 1972, she used 60% of her Furnace Fuel Oil in less than 48 hours. That put her pretty close to having to fill her fuel tanks with sea water to maintain ballast. Once filled with sea water, a thorough clean would be required before they could be used for FFO again. Ideal in a warzone. In other words, your fast carrier needs RFAs that can keep up with it as she will need resupply every 48 hours.
Diverting Antrim and Plymouth would have meant abandoning Op Paraquet, the recovery of South Georgia. This was not a minor sideshow. It was considering an important morale boost, particularly after the quiet period of transit and a demonstration of political intent.
It's diplomacy that really sinks your speed argument. The Government had to allow time for negotiations to be conducted, no matter how unlikely they were to succeed. We had to be seen to taking the high ground in the eyes of the world. It wasn't as clear cut as Britain-victim, Argentina-aggressor - even in the eyes of the US Government. A couple of rounds of shuttle diplomacy took the best part of a month.
Putting a carrier in the area as early as that would have been a very high profile signal of intent, not just to Argentina but also to the rest of the world. More importantly, establishing a TEZ at that stage would also have required us to confront the Argentine resupply missions - forcing us to fire the first shot while negotiations were still ongoing or lose face by backing down.
The advantage of the nuclear submarines and MEZ was that they had a relatively low profile yet still had a real military effect without undermining our commitment to the negotiation process. By not cutting off all resupply routes at once and Argentina keeping warships out of the MEZ (they had expected the SSNs to be sent and had made the switch to air resupply only in plenty of time), neither side forced a precipitous conflict.
In the meantime, the Carrier Battle Group did not sail straight to the Falklands. Hermes and Invincible arrived at Ascension on 14 April. Woodward had to transfer his flag from Glamorgan to Hermes. He had to meet with his amphibious and land force commanders as well as a hold a council of war with Admiral Fieldhouse and his staff. The taskforce also needed time to redistribute stores to the correct ship and order for operations, everything having been stored in a hurry before they left. The Carrier Battle Group eventually left Ascension on 18 April.
Don't forget, all the ships of the taskforce needed time to work up for operations. A faster transit would have left less time for procedures to be refined - for example, the first extensive use of Night Vision Goggles by helicopter pilots was on the transit south while all the Harriers had their white bellies painted out.
Lastly, your circles do not translate into your Ark Royal being able to stand further off the Falklands. Every night, the task force was closing the Falklands: Hermes and Invincible to land Special Forces by helicopter to recce the enemy dispositions; and escorts taking up positions in the gun line off Stanley.
There are unknowns with any "what if" scenario e.g. where is the Ark (Buccs) on April 2nd 1982? Reliability? Performance? If Ark (Buccs) needs refuelling then Ascension is the answer. Don't forget, Ark (Buccs) only needs to get within - say - 1000 nautical miles of the Falklands to reach out with Buccs. Her designed range at 25(ish) knots should have been around 5000 nautical miles.
Militarily, why recover South Georgia before attacking Argentine resources on the Falklands? The US got it right in WW2 in the Pacific: get to the primary target as quickly as possible. I can see the political reasons to support the recovery of South Georgia during a period of time when there is minimal ability to strike at the Argentinians on the Falklands. As an aside, the Ark (Buccs) could probably sit between South Georgia and the Falklands providing air cover for both (including fixed wing AEW).
With Ark (Buccs), the requirement to get the task force to the South Atlantic was not so urgent, Ark (Buccs) could strike effectively at the Argentinians with little support required from other vessels. Certainly wouldn't place the Atlantic Conveyor and similar in the dangerous positions that occurred in reality.
Why would the British need Harriers in the Falklands if Phantoms and Buccs were available?
By all means have some diplomacy of you wish, but not too much, wouldn't want to give the Argentinians hope nor the opportunity to build their defences on the Falklands. If diplomacy has to happen then my preference would be for it to occur in the knowledge that Phantoms and Buccs might appear over international waters in the South Atlantic at any time. The Phantoms would have stopped the air supply route immediately.
How does the close approach of the Hermes and Invincible at night deter the Argentine strike aircraft during daylight? Phantoms from Ark (Buccs) would have dealt with the problem to the west of the Falklands (see circles).
V8 Fettler said:
Post dissection, why? You wouldn't speak like that if we were in a pub, mine's a Broadside by the way.
I don't think there are any experts in the field of naval warfare on this forum. If you have something to post that contradicts the Lexington paper then post it, providing it's within the public domain and doesn't breach PH rules.
There was a time when the British strived to have the best navy in the world, that time has passed. But we could at least try to ensure that our capital ships outperform their predecessors in all aspects, otherwise we're going backwards.
I'm pleased that the point about the circles has sunk in. I agree that the "New Ark" would be no less protected from attack if it had a 35 knot capability, in fact it would have an increased protection from attack with a 35 knot capability compared with a lesser ship with a 25 knot capability.
The Lexington paper refers to the advantage of a nuclear-powered carrier being able to elude detection by manoeuvring at maximum speed for weeks, it says nothing about reducing speed to avoid detection.
We are now agreed the Ark (Buccs) had fixed wing AEW i.e. it is not a fantasy for an RN carrier to possess fixed wing AEW. In my view, it was negligent for the MOD and the politicians to scrap Ark (Buccs) with no equivalent or improved replacement. This negligence led directly to the deaths of British servicemen in the Falklands.
One off type 209 to form a picket line across the South Atlantic to intercept the Ark (Buccs)? Never going to be sufficient; probably need to add another six type 209s, but even then the interception would rely on luck. See repeated failure of uboats pack to intercept unescorted and unarmed liners Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth during WW2.
Belize demonstrates that aircraft carriers can operate without layered defence. You've stated that Ark (Buccs) would have required an escort in 1982, I've suggested Conqueror to meet your requirements for an escort, you've provided no reason why Conqueror couldn't have been used in that role. I've also suggested Antrim and Plymouth to meet your requirements for an escort, and likewise you've provided no reason why Antrim and Plymouth couldn't have been used in that role.
I don't think there are any experts in the field of naval warfare on this forum. If you have something to post that contradicts the Lexington paper then post it, providing it's within the public domain and doesn't breach PH rules.
There was a time when the British strived to have the best navy in the world, that time has passed. But we could at least try to ensure that our capital ships outperform their predecessors in all aspects, otherwise we're going backwards.
I'm pleased that the point about the circles has sunk in. I agree that the "New Ark" would be no less protected from attack if it had a 35 knot capability, in fact it would have an increased protection from attack with a 35 knot capability compared with a lesser ship with a 25 knot capability.
The Lexington paper refers to the advantage of a nuclear-powered carrier being able to elude detection by manoeuvring at maximum speed for weeks, it says nothing about reducing speed to avoid detection.
We are now agreed the Ark (Buccs) had fixed wing AEW i.e. it is not a fantasy for an RN carrier to possess fixed wing AEW. In my view, it was negligent for the MOD and the politicians to scrap Ark (Buccs) with no equivalent or improved replacement. This negligence led directly to the deaths of British servicemen in the Falklands.
One off type 209 to form a picket line across the South Atlantic to intercept the Ark (Buccs)? Never going to be sufficient; probably need to add another six type 209s, but even then the interception would rely on luck. See repeated failure of uboats pack to intercept unescorted and unarmed liners Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth during WW2.
Belize demonstrates that aircraft carriers can operate without layered defence. You've stated that Ark (Buccs) would have required an escort in 1982, I've suggested Conqueror to meet your requirements for an escort, you've provided no reason why Conqueror couldn't have been used in that role. I've also suggested Antrim and Plymouth to meet your requirements for an escort, and likewise you've provided no reason why Antrim and Plymouth couldn't have been used in that role.
stevesingo said:
V8 Fettler said:
You're confusing Bucc (1950s onwards) with Super Bucc (2015), the latter being a measured, logical development over 50 years and benefiting from enhanced speed, enhanced range, enhanced reliability, enhanced weapons capacity, enhanced avionics, stealth, flexibility ...... etc. No need to fly any lower though. It would certainly be a completely different aircraft but would build on the best features of the original Bucc.
And you are confusing reality Bucc (1950s onwards) with fantasy Super Bucc 2015. The ongoing development of the Bucc didn't happen for many good reasons I suspect.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff