HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
donutsina911 said:
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.
donutsina911 said:
Yes. It's the smilie equivalent to the faces of a former RN carrier CO, a current SSN CO and a current MCMV CO as we laughed at your posts yesterday over a few too many new years drinks. Life's too short to argue the toss with armchair naval experts, so I'm bowing out with a smile. 
Oh come on FFS, we all know that Sea slug was the best anti aircraft missile we had in 1982, so Antrim was the correct choice as "goalkeeper" , and Plymouth was the best Anti Submarine frigate in the fleet at the time.I suggest you do some more research, from YOUR armchair.
T66ORA said:
donutsina911 said:
Yes. It's the smilie equivalent to the faces of a former RN carrier CO, a current SSN CO and a current MCMV CO as we laughed at your posts yesterday over a few too many new years drinks. Life's too short to argue the toss with armchair naval experts, so I'm bowing out with a smile.
Oh come on FFS, we all know that Sea slug was the best anti aircraft missile we had in 1982, so Antrim was the correct choice as "goalkeeper" , and Plymouth was the best Anti Submarine frigate in the fleet at the time.I suggest you do some more research, from YOUR armchair.
In case he isn't being sarcastic. Only one Sea Slug launch during the Falklands against an aircraft, it missed. 20 years old at the time and already obsolete and useless as it couldn't target low flying objects. So bad they used a few up by firing them at Stanley Airfield, a big enough target as Sea Slug couldn't miss.
Just an OT but there's a great video on Pathe about the Sea Slug armed HMS Glamorgan, suitable 1960s voice over.
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/hms-glamorgan-co...
The bit about getting the Wessex helicopter out of the hangar and "within minutes it's ready to go" made me chuckle.
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/hms-glamorgan-co...
The bit about getting the Wessex helicopter out of the hangar and "within minutes it's ready to go" made me chuckle.
V8 Fettler said:
Why would the British need Harriers in the Falklands if Phantoms and Buccs were available?
The Harriers have a distinct advantage in bad weather. They can land in virtually zero visibility and in very heavy seas that would have made recovery of any other aircraft type impossible.Let's go to fantasy land for a moment, it's 1981 and HMS Ark Royal (r09) has just been through a major refit and is undergoing sea trials again, HMS Hermes (r12) is operating a small fixed wing catobar airgroup having been the UK's only carrier for the past three years, including upto 6 Phantoms and 8 Buccaneers, No Invincible class carriers have been ordered, the Harrier concept was still born due to a lack of firm orders. CVA01 is also off the cards due to cost and half the RN Phantoms are on duty in Germany having been de navalised.
What outcome would have happened in the case of a conflict in 1982 in the South Atlantic? Also what state would the RN have been in by 1983?
What outcome would have happened in the case of a conflict in 1982 in the South Atlantic? Also what state would the RN have been in by 1983?
FourWheelDrift said:
In case he isn't being sarcastic. Only one Sea Slug launch during the Falklands against an aircraft, it missed. 20 years old at the time and already obsolete and useless as it couldn't target low flying objects. So bad they used a few up by firing them at Stanley Airfield, a big enough target as Sea Slug couldn't miss.
Quite. David Hart-Dyke described Sea Cat and Sea Slug (Plymouth and Antrim) as being 'now virtually obsolete' (Four Weeks in May, P13/14).There's good reason why the TG looked like this at the beginning of May 1982:
V8 Fettler said:
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.
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.
I'm not quite sure I follow your argument. Sadly economics, cost or whatever have to be a factor. I wish it wasn't so, but decisions like the one to retire the big carriers, or not have AEW, under arm certain frigates or whatever does put a price on the heads of British service personnel. Note that I am not saying that is right. I'm just saying that it is they way it is.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.
I don't think any of the economies made with CVF actually compromise the safety of the ships or the crew. On the contrary, STOVL and all the stuff associated with it is I think cheaper and safer than the alternative.
The real "crime" in all this looking into history is three fold. First the decision in 1966 by Denis Healey to cancel the big conventional CVA-01 and 02 . That's where the problem lies. Second, the decision not to convert Eagle for Phantom use. She was the better ship and would easily have been around in 1982 indeed she'd have steamed on until the 1990s. Let's not forget about the huge manpower drain Eagle or Ark would have been on the RN. Also this was the Cold War and the RN at the time was investing in its NATO role as sub hunters in some future Battle of the Atlantic. With defence budgets being squeezed a big carrier would have meant fewer frigates.
Neither of the above is guaranteed to have headded off the Falklands War especially if Argentina had waited for our one carrier to go into a long refit which Ark would have been due in the early 1980s. Hermes or Bulwark would not have been Bucc/Phantom capable as they were commando carriers by 1982 and had been for some time. A
The third "crime" had it not happened would have I feel saved lives. This was the retirement of Gannet and its AEW capability. This was put into Sea Kings at short order and should have been something planned for when the decision was taken to get out of fixed-wing Cvs.
Invincible and Hermes I think did as good a job (apart from AEW) as Ark would have. First, two hulls are much better than one. SHAR with Blue Fox and AIM 9L was a pretty formidable fighter. Not one was lost in Air to Air combat. The GR3 was a flexible and capable ground attack aircraft. Most of the time the task force operated in sea state 8 or worse the simple STOVL configuration of the two carriers made for greater resilience to the weather, fewer obstacles to launching and recovery. Don't forget too Invince's sensor fit - especially her 1022 radar was pretty good. Her modular gas turbine plant allowed her to overcome machinery defects that would have potentially rendered a conventional carrier useless. Oh and she fired Sea Dart in anger.....something Ark with or without Buccs or super fantasy Buccs couldn't do.
I'm not suggesting SHAR or GR3 Harriers were better than Phantoms or Buccs in a back to back test, but given all the variables, weather, ship serviceability etc above, I think they were about as good as each other in the context of a Falklands style war.
That's why the decision to make the QEC STOVL rather than CATOBAR is the right one when you take into account all the pros and cons.
I wouldn't be too concerned by the "worried" comment. QEC will be well equipped and capable ship. A huge amount of future proofing so gone into them. I just hope we continue to find the money to run them.
Edited by wildcat45 on Saturday 2nd January 17:14
AstonZagato said:
Could Ospreys operate off the QE? Could they provide AEW? I believe that they can provide air to air refueling- could that be used for the f35?
Easily, hell the CVF might just be the best platform around for the Osprey.The problem is that Ospreys are silly expensive, the logistics train to run them is even more silly expensive and for the handful the UK would need it's simply not worth it.
I can see USMC Ospreys operating off the deck though in trials and perhaps maybe some sort of service renting agreement a good deal of years from now.
AstonZagato said:
Could Ospreys operate off the QE? Could they provide AEW? I believe that they can provide air to air refueling- could that be used for the f35?
Yes with ease. The RN has opted to put AEW or ASaC as they call it into Merlin helicopters. It's not a bad solution for many reasons including cost and flexibility. You don't have to introduce a specific type of aircraft for just one role with all the tailored support it would need.AEW versions of Osprey were looked at.
I can see future RN AEW - in 20 or so years time - developing and perhaps using a platform like Osprey. More likely though, unmanned aircraft in this role or some sort of podded system flown on a fighter.
Edited by wildcat45 on Saturday 2nd January 17:23
AstonZagato said:
Could Ospreys operate off the QE? Could they provide AEW? I believe that they can provide air to air refueling- could that be used for the f35?
Osprey could without doubt but Merlin will be the initial RN AEW platform. Tanker services will have to be provided by allies or land based tankers at the moment I can't see the FAA acquiring its own tankers unless the F35 becomes able to buddy up.AstonZagato said:
Could Ospreys operate off the QE? Could they provide AEW? I believe that they can provide air to air refueling- could that be used for the f35?
potentially however what does an osprey based solution offer over a Merlin + Sentry solution other than the hull ooss rate rate of the Osprey ...
mph1977 said:
potentially
however what does an osprey based solution offer over a Merlin + Sentry solution other than the hull ooss rate rate of the Osprey ...
Would think max ceiling and endurance are possible advantages? Offset probably by cost and adding an additional airframe into the fleet. Too big for FF/DD operation too which is a ball ache.however what does an osprey based solution offer over a Merlin + Sentry solution other than the hull ooss rate rate of the Osprey ...
Godalmighty83 said:
AstonZagato said:
Could Ospreys operate off the QE? Could they provide AEW? I believe that they can provide air to air refueling- could that be used for the f35?
Easily, hell the CVF might just be the best platform around for the Osprey.The problem is that Ospreys are silly expensive, the logistics train to run them is even more silly expensive and for the handful the UK would need it's simply not worth it.
I can see USMC Ospreys operating off the deck though in trials and perhaps maybe some sort of service renting agreement a good deal of years from now.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff