HMS Queen Elizabeth

[98elise]

Cobnapint said:

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.......

So you have zero knowledge then...thought so.

[littlebasher]

Got a closer look earlier today

[Cobnapint]

98elise said:

Cobnapint said:

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.......

So you have zero knowledge then...thought so.

Same as you then.

I still have an opinion though. What is your issue?

[gary58]

Lurking Lawyer

4,296 posts
145 months
[report][news]Tuesday 4th Julyquotequote all
gary58 said:
When she and her sister ship prince of wales are in service and a fully loaded with the latest raptor there won't be any money left in the kitty
I think you mean Lightning II (the F35).

Raptor is the F22, which not even the Septics put on carriers.....

who knows best ?

[vournikas]

gary58 said:

Lurking Lawyer

4,296 posts
145 months
[report][news]Tuesday 4th Julyquotequote all
gary58 said:
When she and her sister ship prince of wales are in service and a fully loaded with the latest raptor there won't be any money left in the kitty
I think you mean Lightning II (the F35).

Raptor is the F22, which not even the Septics put on carriers.....

who knows best ?

Specifically with regard to technical acumen, and the use of PH forum quoting thereof, that is a fking shocker.

[gary58]

UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has confirmed that the US Marine Corps will be flying F-35Bs from HMS Queen Elizabeth on the aircraft's carrier's maiden operational deployment.

He said: “I can welcome the commitment of the United States to deploying F-35s on the first operational deployment of Queen Elizabeth – the HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2021. And in the fullness of time, we expect our F-35s to be welcome on the American carriers.”

[CrutyRammers]

Cobnapint said:

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.

Defence doesn't work by standing up and saying that your armed forces are crap.

[yellowjack]

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......;)

I'm pretty sure that drill thing was foiled by copper plating on the wooden hull...

[gary58]

Do not under estimate the crown

[hidetheelephants]

yellowjack said:

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......;)

I'm pretty sure that drill thing was foiled by copper plating on the wooden hull...

Metal sheathing of the hull is to stop aquatic beastys like gribble and teredo from eating the wood for dinner and to a lesser extent prevent growth of barnacles and seaweed.

[Speculatore]

gary58 said:

UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has confirmed that the US Marine Corps will be flying F-35Bs from HMS Queen Elizabeth on the aircraft's carrier's maiden operational deployment.

He said: “I can welcome the commitment of the United States to deploying F-35s on the first operational deployment of Queen Elizabeth – the HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2021. And in the fullness of time, we expect our F-35s to be welcome on the American carriers.”

This works well and is very effective. When I was the Executive warrant Officer onboard Illustrious we embarked 16 USMC along with 250 US Marines as operators and deck crew. Once we got over the language barrier we had a very successful 2 weeks. This was followed some time later by embarking 6 Spanish harriers for a 10 day exercise and then a while later 6 Italian harriers.
The QE will be a very effective moving airfield capable of operating with a number of our NATO allies and capable of projecting airpower around the globe.

That said, I do tend to agree that a more comprehensive protective screen would make more sense remembering that the initial order for the Type 45 was 13 and we ended up with 6. (And that the Type 45 does not have a surface to surface capability as we did with Exocet and Harpoon.
They should also stick with Goalkeeper as a point defense weapon rather than Phalanx as it is a much more capable system.

[Cobnapint]

CrutyRammers said:

Cobnapint said:

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.

Defence doesn't work by standing up and saying that your armed forces are crap.

I'm not saying that. Just have a bit of class, decorum. Build it, commision it, let the other side recognize what you've got and make their own decisions how much of a threat you are.

Standing on the deck saying look at us, we're hard, isn't good form.

[Cobnapint]

Speculatore said:

That said, I do tend to agree that a more comprehensive protective screen would make more sense remembering that the initial order for the Type 45 was 13 and we ended up with 6. (And that the Type 45 does not have a surface to surface capability as we did with Exocet and Harpoon.
They should also stick with Goalkeeper as a point defense weapon rather than Phalanx as it is a much more capable system.

What advantages does the Goalkeeper CIWS have over Phalanx?

[98elise]

Cobnapint said:

98elise said:

Cobnapint said:

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.......

So you have zero knowledge then...thought so.

Same as you then.

I still have an opinion though. What is your issue?

I'm an ex RN Weapons Engineer,where my principal role was Phalanx CIWS (on a carrier) + loads of other weapon systems experience...so I have some knowledge.

Your opinions just sounded like they were based on zero knowledge so I thought I'd check.

Edited by 98elise on Friday 18th August 08:52

[wal 45]

Cobnapint said:

Speculatore said:

That said, I do tend to agree that a more comprehensive protective screen would make more sense remembering that the initial order for the Type 45 was 13 and we ended up with 6. (And that the Type 45 does not have a surface to surface capability as we did with Exocet and Harpoon.
They should also stick with Goalkeeper as a point defense weapon rather than Phalanx as it is a much more capable system.

What advantages does the Goalkeeper CIWS have over Phalanx?

Larger calibre round therefore better destructive oomph, doesn't make sense though to fit GK with the current choice of RN CIWS portfolio (different training, spares etc etc required for minimal numbers of mountings). Have you also seen how much space a GK takes up versus Phalanx?

Edited by wal 45 on Friday 18th August 08:40

[98elise]

Speculatore said:

gary58 said:

UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has confirmed that the US Marine Corps will be flying F-35Bs from HMS Queen Elizabeth on the aircraft's carrier's maiden operational deployment.

He said: “I can welcome the commitment of the United States to deploying F-35s on the first operational deployment of Queen Elizabeth – the HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2021. And in the fullness of time, we expect our F-35s to be welcome on the American carriers.”

This works well and is very effective. When I was the Executive warrant Officer onboard Illustrious we embarked 16 USMC along with 250 US Marines as operators and deck crew. Once we got over the language barrier we had a very successful 2 weeks. This was followed some time later by embarking 6 Spanish harriers for a 10 day exercise and then a while later 6 Italian harriers.
The QE will be a very effective moving airfield capable of operating with a number of our NATO allies and capable of projecting airpower around the globe.

That said, I do tend to agree that a more comprehensive protective screen would make more sense remembering that the initial order for the Type 45 was 13 and we ended up with 6. (And that the Type 45 does not have a surface to surface capability as we did with Exocet and Harpoon.
They should also stick with Goalkeeper as a point defense weapon rather than Phalanx as it is a much more capable system.

I didn't think there was much in it between Phalanx and Goalkeeper (but I have a bias). When I was running Phalanx on Ark Royal my mate doing the same on Goalkeeper (i cant remember which carrier though) but we never actually discussed the relative merits of either!

One big advantage of Phalanx is the ability run entirely with no ship inputs (other then power and water) an no deck penetration. It can be moved from ship to ship relatively easily, and retrofitted. For a new ship that's not an advantage though, so would not have been part of the decision.

Its interesting you call Goalkeeper a point defense system. I've always though of Seawolf etc to be point defense with ciws as the next layer in (last chance!)

[Cobnapint]

98elise said:

I'm an ex RN Weapons Engineer,where my principal role was Phalanx CIWS on carriers...so I have some knowledge.

Your opinions just sounded like they were based on zero knowledge so I thought I'd check.

Very good.

Just for interest, how much firing time do these things have. Are they limited by heat build up, ammo holding capabilities or what, if anything..?

[98elise]

wal 45 said:

Cobnapint said:

Speculatore said:

That said, I do tend to agree that a more comprehensive protective screen would make more sense remembering that the initial order for the Type 45 was 13 and we ended up with 6. (And that the Type 45 does not have a surface to surface capability as we did with Exocet and Harpoon.
They should also stick with Goalkeeper as a point defense weapon rather than Phalanx as it is a much more capable system.

What advantages does the Goalkeeper CIWS have over Phalanx?

Larger calibre round therefore better destructive oomph, doesn't make sense though to fit GK with the current choice of RN CIWS portfolio (different training, spares etc etc required for minimal numbers of mountings). Have you also seen how much space a GK takes up versus Phalanx?

Edited by wal 45 on Friday 18th August 08:40

As i said above the size of goalkeeper isn't so much of an issue when its part of the original design. If its retrofitted then phalanx is a no brainer.

In my day the Phalanx used APDS (Uranium) rounds so the barrel size did not equal the perpetrator size. "destructive oomph" is not just from round size, its also from weight.

[Dog Star]

On FB I've just "unfollowed" a load of stuff to do with the RN and the carriers and so on.

Instead of being proud of the acheivement and industry involved the number of ignorant and ill informed bile coming from so many people continually just wears me down. None stop stuff along the lines of....
- no planes
- the planes are rubbish
- windows xp
- white elephant
- drone landing on it
- should have put the Harrier on it
- money should have been spent on the NHS (incindentally £3bn would last the NHS 10 days)
- people in Britain are starving/food banks
- Britain is nothing, who do we think we are, we are a tiny insignificant nation with no military power

It just goes on and on...
It's a bit like dealing with Apollo-hoax idiots, like having your brain turned to mush.

I despair.

[MartG]

Dog Star said:

- people in Britain are starving/food banks

So they want to put everyone working on the carriers and their equipment on the dole too ? :/