HMS Queen Elizabeth

[SantaBarbara]

telecat said:

The Anti Ship and Sea skimmers can be picked off by the Daring's using Sea Viper and as a last line of defence they have Phalanx Gatling Guns.

Is chaff still effective in confusing the missiles?

[CrutyRammers]

Cobnapint said:

100 jets ? Lol. They didn't all come at the same time you know.

And I'm not talking about Argentina being a major threat here, I'm referring to some of the kit the likes of China and Russia have up their sleeves. You'd need a fk site more than a Phalanx at each end to stop all of that getting through.

Someone your answer is, "don't have carriers as they might get attacked"? The same is true for absolutely any military kit you can think of.

[Bluedot]

megaphone said:

Does anyone know if I could get close to her in a boat? Can I sail into Portsmouth Harbour and go see her? I've done it in the past, usually get warned off when getting within 100 yards of an HMS.

Not surprisingly there were a couple of Royal Navy Police boats moored nearby her last night. Not sure you'd be able to get close but Portsmouth is a tight harbour anyway with plenty of craft passing her as they go further inland to Port Solent/Fareham marina etc.

[donutsina911]

Cobnapint said:

100 jets ? Lol.

When grown ups use Lol..

Cobnapint said:

They didn't all come at the same time you know.

Well aware of the tempo of sorties over San Carlos - my old man was a Principle Warfare Officer on a T42 at the time so I took a vague interest in his chances of coming home. Subsequently wrote my academic paper on the Falklands War at Dartmouth, so for 4 months, it was my job to know.

Cobnapint said:

And I'm not talking about Argentina being a major threat here, I'm referring to some of the kit the likes of China and Russia have up their sleeves. You'd need a fk site more than a Phalanx at each end to stop all of that getting through.

Right, so you're now talking about Russia and China but using the Argentinian failure to stop the landings at San Carlos or meaningfully threaten RN carriers as a reference point. Makes perfect sense chap.

IMHO, if we're shooting more than just the st with either Russia or China, I suspect it'd be a moot point.

[Flying Phil]

RizzoTheRat said:

hidetheelephants said:

Explodey missiles are the weapon du jour for threatening carriers with fiery/sinky death. Portable drills not so much.

Wasn't the first submarine equipped with a drill to screw in to the side of ships to attach explosives?

I think you are correct - but most of the ships had wooden hulls then......;)

[RizzoTheRat]

Flying Phil said:

RizzoTheRat said:

hidetheelephants said:

Explodey missiles are the weapon du jour for threatening carriers with fiery/sinky death. Portable drills not so much.

Wasn't the first submarine equipped with a drill to screw in to the side of ships to attach explosives?

I think you are correct - but most of the ships had wooden hulls then......;)

Yeah but drill bits have improved since then too.

[SantaBarbara]

Following the loss of Belgrano, I seem to recall that the Argentinian Navy maintained a low profile, or mostly stayed in port.

[Cobnapint]

CrutyRammers said:

Cobnapint said:

100 jets ? Lol. They didn't all come at the same time you know.

And I'm not talking about Argentina being a major threat here, I'm referring to some of the kit the likes of China and Russia have up their sleeves. You'd need a fk site more than a Phalanx at each end to stop all of that getting through.

Someone your answer is, "don't have carriers as they might get attacked"? The same is true for absolutely any military kit you can think of.

No my answer is have loads of carriers, but don't parade them on TV like you're some kind of hard man, don't have the PM stand on the deck bragging about projecting British power, and don't dismiss the Russian Defense Ministry for calling it a convenient large target, because without a mass of defensive systems - that's exactly what it is.

[Ayahuasca]

I think we have to accept that if the Russians or the Chinese wanted to sink the Elizabeth, they could do so without too much difficulty. Equally they have to accept that, if we wanted to, we could reduce Moscow or Peking to radioactive ash. Not sure that is a game that anyone wants to play.

I see the Elizabeth as being able to project British power overseas in conflicts where we are up against lower league opposition similar to ISIS, AQ, Taliban, Libya, Syria, Sierra Leone, Argentina, etc, to help out in humanitarian relief operations, and to boost Britain's standing and prestige (and thus business opportunities) around the world by rocking up and holding awesome air displays and cocktail parties for Johnny Foreigner. In that role, it will be fantastic.

[SantaBarbara]

Ayahuasca said:

I think we have to accept that if the Russians or the Chinese wanted to sink the Elizabeth, they could do so without too much difficulty. Equally they have to accept that, if we wanted to, we could reduce Moscow or Peking to radioactive ash. Not sure that is a game that anyone wants to play.

I see the Elizabeth as being able to project British power overseas in conflicts where we are up against lower league opposition similar to ISIS, AQ, Taliban, Libya, Syria, Sierra Leone, Argentina, etc, to help out in humanitarian relief operations, and to boost Britain's standing and prestige (and thus business opportunities) around the world by rocking up and holding awesome air displays and cocktail parties for Johnny Foreigner. In that role, it will be fantastic.

However, Argentina did have some powerful assets armed with some advanced missiles,
And we used STUFT red ensign to a great extent

Ships Taken up from Trade. Atlantic Conveyor, Canberra and others

Where would we be with out Cunard?

[donutsina911]

Ayahuasca said:

I think we have to accept that if the Russians or the Chinese wanted to sink the Elizabeth, they could do so without too much difficulty. Equally they have to accept that, if we wanted to, we could reduce Moscow or Peking to radioactive ash. Not sure that is a game that anyone wants to play.

I see the Elizabeth as being able to project British power overseas in conflicts where we are up against lower league opposition similar to ISIS, AQ, Taliban, Libya, Syria, Sierra Leone, Argentina, etc, to help out in humanitarian relief operations, and to boost Britain's standing and prestige (and thus business opportunities) around the world by rocking up and holding awesome air displays and cocktail parties for Johnny Foreigner. In that role, it will be fantastic.

This ^

[SantaBarbara]

Where would we be without Cunard?

Answer. STUFT

[Cobnapint]

donutsina911 said:

Ayahuasca said:

I think we have to accept that if the Russians or the Chinese wanted to sink the Elizabeth, they could do so without too much difficulty. Equally they have to accept that, if we wanted to, we could reduce Moscow or Peking to radioactive ash. Not sure that is a game that anyone wants to play.

I see the Elizabeth as being able to project British power overseas in conflicts where we are up against lower league opposition similar to ISIS, AQ, Taliban, Libya, Syria, Sierra Leone, Argentina, etc, to help out in humanitarian relief operations, and to boost Britain's standing and prestige (and thus business opportunities) around the world by rocking up and holding awesome air displays and cocktail parties for Johnny Foreigner. In that role, it will be fantastic.

This ^

[AshVX220]

ou sont les biscuits said:

telecat said:

The Anti Ship and Sea skimmers can be picked off by the Daring's using Sea Viper and as a last line of defence they have Phalanx Gatling Guns.

This says not for the latest generation of hypersonic missiles.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/britain-...

That piece is bks from start to finish, it says QE carries Sea Ceptor.....it does not.

[Hainey]

AshVX220 said:

ou sont les biscuits said:

telecat said:

The Anti Ship and Sea skimmers can be picked off by the Daring's using Sea Viper and as a last line of defence they have Phalanx Gatling Guns.

This says not for the latest generation of hypersonic missiles.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/britain-...

That piece is bks from start to finish, it says QE carries Sea Ceptor.....it does not.

Well said. To start with the 45 class, they were after my time but I do have a still serving friend who is a 2 and a half WEO.

His opinion is the true capabilities of the 45s are astonishing, much more so than that which has been made public or indeed will be made public for many a year.

The Americans actively request the 45s to protect their carrier group. That in and of itself tells me a great deal.

As for the QE, lets not relegate big Liz to a mobile cockers p and cricket pitch role just yet I think. Much like her namesake she is packing an iron fist under the velvet and it'd be some foolish adversaries out there to think otherwise.

[ou sont les biscuits]

Nanook said:

AshVX220 said:

ou sont les biscuits said:

telecat said:

The Anti Ship and Sea skimmers can be picked off by the Daring's using Sea Viper and as a last line of defence they have Phalanx Gatling Guns.

This says not for the latest generation of hypersonic missiles.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/britain-...

That piece is bks from start to finish, it says QE carries Sea Ceptor.....it does not.

Reads like it was written by a 12 year old, and the 'facts' are mostly nonsense.

The only 'fact' that is at all relevant is whether we have the capability to stop a Zircon 100% of the time. So do we?

[mikal83]

Nanook said:

ou sont les biscuits said:

The only 'fact' that is at all relevant is whether we have the capability to stop a Zircon 100% of the time. So do we?

Of course we don't.

QEC has no real protection of her own apart from the aircraft carried, but even if she did, you can never guarantee anything, you could litter 1 deck with CIWS, Aster, whatever else you like, and still not be able to promise you can deal with them 100% of the time.

100% of the time.........tell me one that is!

[98elise]

Cobnapint said:

CrutyRammers said:

Cobnapint said:

100 jets ? Lol. They didn't all come at the same time you know.

And I'm not talking about Argentina being a major threat here, I'm referring to some of the kit the likes of China and Russia have up their sleeves. You'd need a fk site more than a Phalanx at each end to stop all of that getting through.

Someone your answer is, "don't have carriers as they might get attacked"? The same is true for absolutely any military kit you can think of.

No my answer is have loads of carriers, but don't parade them on TV like you're some kind of hard man, don't have the PM stand on the deck bragging about projecting British power, and don't dismiss the Russian Defense Ministry for calling it a convenient large target, because without a mass of defensive systems - that's exactly what it is.

I assume someone with your expert knowledge must be Warfare Officer, or at the very least a Weapons Engineering Officer?

[Cobnapint]

98elise said:

I assume someone with your expert knowledge must be Warfare Officer, or at the very least a Weapons Engineering Officer?

Not yet - start next week.......

[Funky Panda]

ninja-lewis said:

hidetheelephants said:

Explodey missiles are the weapon du jour for threatening carriers with fiery/sinky death. Portable drills not so much.

Yeah, drills are more suited to targeting frigates and media moguls.

This has not been given the recognition it deserves