HMS Queen Elizabeth

[donutsina911]

If the collective view is to stop the troll feeding, I'll go with the majority..

In the meantime, back on topic:

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activi...

[MBBlat]

My last attempt to whack a troll

V8 Fettler said:

How can you not be interested in the US approach? They have built a carrier or two over the years, typically capable of 30+ knots.

From a previous link, these are the actual trials speeds of a selection of American carriers, together with their commissioning dates.
  Enterprise                   33.6 knots after last refit 1962
    Nimitz                         31.5 knots 1975
    Theodore Roosevelt    31.3 knots 1986
    Harry S Truman          30.9 knots 1998
Note how none are over your magic 35 knots and also that the later carriers are noticeably slower than the earlier ones. Seems like even the USN don't believe that top speed is a primary requirement otherwise they would all go as fast as Enterprise.

V8 Fettler said:

The Ark (Buccs) example demonstrates that those who make decisions regarding the design and procurement of aircraft carriers can get it very wrong. Unless you have a very accurate crystal ball then the key is to ensure that the replacement carrier exceeds the performance of its predecessors in all areas.

So mr V8 armchair admiral know better than everyone else in the MoD & ACA, who had access to a lot more information than you do. Have you tried contacting Michal Fallon & told him you know ever so much more than all the professionals that come under his remit. BTW allowing you to win a game of top trumps is not normally considered a design driver for military procurement.

V8 Fettler said:

Is it the reference material that causes you issues?

No its because you won't listen to those who know a lot more about the subject than you do.

BTW I'm a C.Eng & MRINA, my CV may include a little project thats under discussion.

[Lincsblokey]

Come on V8turbomong, give it up now, listen to the experts.

[Piginapoke]

Er, any update on how the carrier is coming along?

[paulrussell]

V8 Fettler, you've ben told time and time again that you're wrong by people who know what they're talking about. So please stop posting such nonsense that even a non expert like me know it's rubbish.

[hidetheelephants]

Piginapoke said:

Er, any update on how the carrier is coming along?

Spiffing apart from the paint coating whoopsie; the PR fluff department are naming the carrier berths after Princess Anne and presumably the metal bashers are attaching PoW's aft island, which means the heavy bashery is over and it's plumbing and wiring time.

[V8 Fettler]

MBBlat said:

My last attempt to whack a troll

V8 Fettler said:

How can you not be interested in the US approach? They have built a carrier or two over the years, typically capable of 30+ knots.

From a previous link, these are the actual trials speeds of a selection of American carriers, together with their commissioning dates.
  Enterprise                   33.6 knots after last refit 1962
    Nimitz                         31.5 knots 1975
    Theodore Roosevelt    31.3 knots 1986
    Harry S Truman          30.9 knots 1998
Note how none are over your magic 35 knots and also that the later carriers are noticeably slower than the earlier ones. Seems like even the USN don't believe that top speed is a primary requirement otherwise they would all go as fast as Enterprise.

V8 Fettler said:

The Ark (Buccs) example demonstrates that those who make decisions regarding the design and procurement of aircraft carriers can get it very wrong. Unless you have a very accurate crystal ball then the key is to ensure that the replacement carrier exceeds the performance of its predecessors in all areas.

So mr V8 armchair admiral know better than everyone else in the MoD & ACA, who had access to a lot more information than you do. Have you tried contacting Michal Fallon & told him you know ever so much more than all the professionals that come under his remit. BTW allowing you to win a game of top trumps is not normally considered a design driver for military procurement.

V8 Fettler said:

Is it the reference material that causes you issues?

No its because you won't listen to those who know a lot more about the subject than you do.

BTW I'm a C.Eng & MRINA, my CV may include a little project thats under discussion.

The current USN design philosophy appears to require a maximum speed of at least 30 knots:

http://thefordclass.com/doc/Ford-fact-sheet.pdf

If a 25 knot maximum speed is acceptable then why aren't the US saving money and building their supercarriers with a 25 knot maximum?

Ellwood's "Leveraging UK Carrier Capability" paper (Sept 2013, linked to by donutsina911) makes reference to the benefits of higher speed to avoid detection:

Ellwood said:

Additionally, whilst carriers can be targeted by various weapons systems, a sense of proportion is needed. A carrier operating 100 miles from the coast can increase its ‘area of uncertainty’ from its point of origin by 400 square miles in the first hour, by 1,600 square miles in the second hour, 3,600 square miles in the third hour and so on until the area of uncertainty is over 60,000 square miles by the end of a twelve-hour period. This area, even if the carrier were at its furthest point from origin, is still only 300 miles from the coast and thus, with air refuelling, is within useful striking range of land targets while all but the most advanced long-range weapons (such as the Chinese DF-21 missile) are negated. Even the DF-21 requires accurate targeting data that assumes a high level of technological resilience for satellite or survivability and tracking capabilities for submarines.

Ellwood's "area of uncertainty" appears small, perhaps referring to a quadrant generated at a speed of approx 22 knots. At 35 knots the area of uncertainty increases by a factor of approx 2.5. If the area of uncertainty is important then the bigger the area the better, hence speed (the primary factor to increase area) is important.

Ellwood's paper is damning about the design process, includes:

Ellwood said:

The 2012 MoD review is the first to speculate on what effect the UK wants to achieve, rather than what vehicles or methods it currently uses that could be slid across to the new Queen Elizabeth class.

The hull was laid down in 2009 and it wasn't until 2012 that the MOD even speculated on the intended purpose of the QE?! That's a design process that's fraught with risk and likely to be incoherent.

[Godalmighty83]

Really wish they would stop with the Royal names, it's bad enough that the Carriers have awful names but now even the Jetty's are named after a family that are becoming increasingly irrelevant. I know the names themselves have a history within the RN but in today's world of desperately seeking public support naming them after a controversial and decisive group of toffs is a bit daft.

It's not exactly like they are limited on choices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ship_names_o...

a C group would be my choice.

Centaur/Centurion/Cerberus/Courageous

[SWTH]

V8 Fettler said:

The current USN design philosophy appears to require a maximum speed of at least 30 knots:

http://thefordclass.com/doc/Ford-fact-sheet.pdf

If a 25 knot maximum speed is acceptable then why aren't the US saving money and building their supercarriers with a 25 knot maximum?

Ellwood's "Leveraging UK Carrier Capability" paper (Sept 2013, linked to by donutsina911) makes reference to the benefits of higher speed to avoid detection:

Ellwood said:

Additionally, whilst carriers can be targeted by various weapons systems, a sense of proportion is needed. A carrier operating 100 miles from the coast can increase its ‘area of uncertainty’ from its point of origin by 400 square miles in the first hour, by 1,600 square miles in the second hour, 3,600 square miles in the third hour and so on until the area of uncertainty is over 60,000 square miles by the end of a twelve-hour period. This area, even if the carrier were at its furthest point from origin, is still only 300 miles from the coast and thus, with air refuelling, is within useful striking range of land targets while all but the most advanced long-range weapons (such as the Chinese DF-21 missile) are negated. Even the DF-21 requires accurate targeting data that assumes a high level of technological resilience for satellite or survivability and tracking capabilities for submarines.

Ellwood's "area of uncertainty" appears small, perhaps referring to a quadrant generated at a speed of approx 22 knots. At 35 knots the area of uncertainty increases by a factor of approx 2.5. If the area of uncertainty is important then the bigger the area the better, hence speed (the primary factor to increase area) is important.

Carriers do not go blundering around at 30-odd knots. Great, you've cleared the area of risk quickly. You've also just announced loud and clear your location for anyone bothering to listen. There is very significant risk associated with high speed, even US carriers capable of doing 30+ kts seldom do so.

You seem fixated on having a carrier that can do 30kts. Nobody in the RN agrees with you. Can you not see that they may have a point, based on experience and balancing needs and risks?

[Europa1]

Enough's enough: V8fettler, will you please just shut the f^&k up.

[rhinochopig]

Godalmighty83 said:

Really wish they would stop with the Royal names, it's bad enough that the Carriers have awful names but now even the Jetty's are named after a family that are becoming increasingly irrelevant. I know the names themselves have a history within the RN but in today's world of desperately seeking public support naming them after a controversial and decisive group of toffs is a bit daft.

It's not exactly like they are limited on choices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ship_names_o...

a C group would be my choice.

Centaur/Centurion/Cerberus/Courageous

Personally I think the naughts top the list when it comes to vessel names. Fearnaught, Dreadnuaght, etc.

They could call the new carrier: CarryNaught.

[yellowjack]

rhinochopig said:

Personally I think the naughts top the list when it comes to vessel names. Fearnaught, Dreadnuaght, etc.

They could call the new carrier: CarryNaught.

[Hooli]

yellowjack said:

rhinochopig said:

Personally I think the naughts top the list when it comes to vessel names. Fearnaught, Dreadnuaght, etc.

They could call the new carrier: CarryNaught.

[T66ORA]

Hooli said:

yellowjack said:

rhinochopig said:

Personally I think the naughts top the list when it comes to vessel names. Fearnaught, Dreadnuaght, etc.

They could call the new carrier: CarryNaught.

Very good

[oj113]

Given the direction this thread has taken:

SpeedNaught....

[perdu]

oj113 said:

Given the direction this thread has taken:

SpeedNaught....

Please don't take this any further in THAT direction

[V8 Fettler]

SWTH said:

V8 Fettler said:

The current USN design philosophy appears to require a maximum speed of at least 30 knots:

http://thefordclass.com/doc/Ford-fact-sheet.pdf

If a 25 knot maximum speed is acceptable then why aren't the US saving money and building their supercarriers with a 25 knot maximum?

Ellwood's "Leveraging UK Carrier Capability" paper (Sept 2013, linked to by donutsina911) makes reference to the benefits of higher speed to avoid detection:

Ellwood said:

Additionally, whilst carriers can be targeted by various weapons systems, a sense of proportion is needed. A carrier operating 100 miles from the coast can increase its ‘area of uncertainty’ from its point of origin by 400 square miles in the first hour, by 1,600 square miles in the second hour, 3,600 square miles in the third hour and so on until the area of uncertainty is over 60,000 square miles by the end of a twelve-hour period. This area, even if the carrier were at its furthest point from origin, is still only 300 miles from the coast and thus, with air refuelling, is within useful striking range of land targets while all but the most advanced long-range weapons (such as the Chinese DF-21 missile) are negated. Even the DF-21 requires accurate targeting data that assumes a high level of technological resilience for satellite or survivability and tracking capabilities for submarines.

Ellwood's "area of uncertainty" appears small, perhaps referring to a quadrant generated at a speed of approx 22 knots. At 35 knots the area of uncertainty increases by a factor of approx 2.5. If the area of uncertainty is important then the bigger the area the better, hence speed (the primary factor to increase area) is important.

Carriers do not go blundering around at 30-odd knots. Great, you've cleared the area of risk quickly. You've also just announced loud and clear your location for anyone bothering to listen. There is very significant risk associated with high speed, even US carriers capable of doing 30+ kts seldom do so.

You seem fixated on having a carrier that can do 30kts. Nobody in the RN agrees with you. Can you not see that they may have a point, based on experience and balancing needs and risks?

Then why do the Americans continue to spend billions on carriers that are designed to sail at over 30 knots?

For the design, the balancing element you've missed is cost.

[tuffer]

V8 Fettler said:

Then why do the Americans continue to spend billions on carriers that are designed to sail at over 30 knots?

For the design, the balancing element you've missed is cost.

Because building very large, very expensive Nuclear powered carriers keeps a lot of people in jobs.

[SWTH]

V8 Fettler said:

Then why do the Americans continue to spend billions on carriers that are designed to sail at over 30 knots?

For the design, the balancing element you've missed is cost.

Cost is an integral part of balancing needs and risks. It doesn't need listing as a separate part.

[Impasse]

Meanwhile, back in the reality of dry land, Colas have just announced that they will begin digging up the fair streets of Portsmouth in a week's time. This is to run a new power line from the nearby substation* to the Dockyard to ensure the carriers and their associated support will have a decent supply of shore power when parked up.



*(electricity substation, not underwater craft holding area)