HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
RizzoTheRat said:
PRTVR said:
Disagree, with long range missiles ranged against you, having a platform that can carry a good number of reloads is important, the destroyers in support will only be able to carry a limited number of missiles, when they are gone there gone, untill a RFA can resupply.
Kuznetzov has a pretty big supply of anti air armament doesn't it? That said - given the size of the QE I do think that it is an odd choice not to have fitted a few VLS cells (though I am sure that retrofit would be viable once she is actually in service).
PRTVR said:
Yes about 200 SAMs it makes sense to protect your premium assets when you have space available on board.
The Kuznetsov is notoriously short on hanger space. The QE is completely designed around getting planes in the air while the Kuznetsov is designed as a multi-role ship and is a compromise in each.
PRTVR said:
Disagree, with long range missiles ranged against you, having a platform that can carry a good number of reloads is important, the destroyers in support will only be able to carry a limited number of missiles, when they are gone there gone, untill a RFA can resupply.
Long-range, ballistic or hypersonic anti ship missiles?To be effective you not only need the right missiles but also the right radar. And for that you'd need to add SAMPSON radar and systems to the carriers.
Evanivitch said:
PRTVR said:
Disagree, with long range missiles ranged against you, having a platform that can carry a good number of reloads is important, the destroyers in support will only be able to carry a limited number of missiles, when they are gone there gone, untill a RFA can resupply.
Long-range, ballistic or hypersonic anti ship missiles?To be effective you not only need the right missiles but also the right radar. And for that you'd need to add SAMPSON radar and systems to the carriers.
Evanivitch said:
Long-range, ballistic or hypersonic anti ship missiles?
To be effective you not only need the right missiles but also the right radar. And for that you'd need to add SAMPSON radar and systems to the carriers.
For point defence (based on the kit we currently have), there's no need for Sampson and associated gubbins - Sea Ceptor integrates with the 997 radar fitted to most of the Type 23 Frigates and QE. To be effective you not only need the right missiles but also the right radar. And for that you'd need to add SAMPSON radar and systems to the carriers.
DiscoColin said:
RizzoTheRat said:
PRTVR said:
Disagree, with long range missiles ranged against you, having a platform that can carry a good number of reloads is important, the destroyers in support will only be able to carry a limited number of missiles, when they are gone there gone, untill a RFA can resupply.
Kuznetzov has a pretty big supply of anti air armament doesn't it? That said - given the size of the QE I do think that it is an odd choice not to have fitted a few VLS cells (though I am sure that retrofit would be viable once she is actually in service).
PRTVR said:
Evanivitch said:
PRTVR said:
Disagree, with long range missiles ranged against you, having a platform that can carry a good number of reloads is important, the destroyers in support will only be able to carry a limited number of missiles, when they are gone there gone, untill a RFA can resupply.
Long-range, ballistic or hypersonic anti ship missiles?To be effective you not only need the right missiles but also the right radar. And for that you'd need to add SAMPSON radar and systems to the carriers.
donutsina911 said:
For point defence (based on the kit we currently have), there's no need for Sampson and associated gubbins - Sea Ceptor integrates with the 997 radar fitted to most of the Type 23 Frigates and QE.
997 is an anti aircraft radar. It's not suitable against modern anti-ship capabilities.Evanivitch said:
997 is an anti aircraft radar. It's not suitable against modern anti-ship capabilities.
Incorrect. Whether you think it fit for purpose against evolving threats, particularly Anti Ship Ballistic Missiles is another debate, but 997 and Sea Ceptor replaces 996 and Seawolf as the SHORAD combo for the RN. Sea Ceptor is capable of engaging aircraft, small craft and supersonic anti ship missiles and 997 brings to bear air-defence, anti-ship and fighter control capability in one unit - together they've completed first live firings:
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activ...
Due to the Sea Ceptor's active RF, data link and claimed compatibility with 'any surveillance sensor', the fact we've gone with 997 is almost irrelevant - it certainly doesn't warrant Sampson.
donutsina911 said:
Evanivitch said:
997 is an anti aircraft radar. It's not suitable against modern anti-ship capabilities.
Incorrect. Whether you think it fit for purpose against evolving threats, particularly Anti Ship Ballistic Missiles is another debate, but 997 and Sea Ceptor replaces 996 and Seawolf as the SHORAD combo for the RN. Go half-arsed is just a waste of resources on a already good ship. Keep the T45 in the role.
Evanivitch said:
No, it's exactly the debate. 997 and Sea Ceptor are not sufficient against a growing threat of hypersonic and ballistic missile systems. Two threats that are specifically designed to defeat the standard Carrier fleet defence.
Go half-arsed is just a waste of resources on a already good ship. Keep the T45 in the role.
It's not about being half arsed, it's about deploying our carriers with a layered defence in place (F35B, Crowsnest, SSNs SeaViper, SeaCeptor, Phalanx, matelot with a gun) and accepting that hulls have core roles, secondary roles and roles they're never expected to fulfil. Providing fleet protection against hypersonic and ballistic missiles is and will always be the job of our £1billion Type 45s, not the CVF. Go half-arsed is just a waste of resources on a already good ship. Keep the T45 in the role.
This isn't the exception - take a look at the US, the French, the Italians...navies with carriers don't use them as shields, they equip them with point defence systems of a variety of flavours, as part of a layered defence. We took the decision to remove Sea Dart from the Invincible class for this very reason - deck space for jets and their jockeys was way more valuable to any task force commander than duplication of an area defence missile system already carried by escorting Type 42s.
With respect, you have no idea if 997/SeaCeptor is sufficient against the 'growing threats' to which you allude. People, particularly the press get excited about hypersonic missiles, conflating speed with effectiveness, ignoring flight profile, detection capability and the stuff Gollies do behind their black curtains. 997/SeaCeptor does what the RN asked it to do and that is act as a robust point defence combo for our general purpose escorts (and potentially other units), acting as one component of the layered defence. Trials, both real and synthetic, suggest it's pretty f'ing awesome and I hope the RN opts to fit this to QE and POW in due course.
As an aside, nothing the RN has is sufficient to deal with the 'growing threat' of ballistic missiles you talk of today, other than use Sampson to tee up other platforms to prosecute the target. This is unlikely to change unless/until we get our paws on SM-3 or similar for the Type 45s when we can augment detection and tracking with a hard kill capability. So your suggestion we plonk Sampson on QE is today as pointless as it is unlikely.
Ayahuasca said:
I think it is a real shame that the engineers who designed the Elizabeth, and the military brass who instructed the engineers, and the politicians who are paying for her (yes, I know) don't read this topic - we could have ended up with so much more ship.
A bit like on the Simpsons where Homer designs a car.... 
Ayahuasca said:
I think it is a real shame that the engineers who designed the Elizabeth, and the military brass who instructed the engineers, and the politicians who are paying for her (yes, I know) don't read this topic - we could have ended up with so much more ship.
And yet, if she couldn't hit 45 knots, shoot down a lightspeed missle a metre off the water, be powered by steam, electricity and have a back up reactor. Submerge AND fly - then it would be pointless and the Russians have already won. 
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff