HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
donutsina911 said:
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.
What is your point? I'm well aware that defence of a primary asset is a multi layered approach.donutsina911 said:
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.
I don't question it's effectiveness in the role both 997/SeaCeptor were designed to operate. They do it very well. But to believe that they possess capabilities far beyond their requirements is fantasy at best.donutsina911 said:
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.
I never suggested we put SAMPSON on QE. Infact I think I suggested the exact opposite.And you've kind of proven my point, we don't have a ballistic/hypersonic missile defence (though ASTER is our best hope). Anything else placed on QE (besides CIWS) is pointless as long as it is deployed with the planned CROWS, F35 and Type 45 compliment. To sail without would be criminal.
Politically, to spend the money on fitting defensive missiles onto QE would only serve the purpose of undermining the need for the full complement of deployment assets.
Evanivitch said:
What is your point? I'm well aware that defence of a primary asset is a multi layered approach.
My point is that you've made incorrect and confusing statements that are inconsistent with being 'well aware' of the topic...Evanivitch said:
997 is an anti aircraft radar. It's not suitable against modern anti-ship capabilities - Incorrect
You've gone on to speculate on the capabilities of a set up it's unlikely you've had any experience of...Evanivitch said:
997 and SeaCeptor are not sufficient against a growing threat of hypersonic and ballistic missile systems - You don't know this and are guessing
And then made a hash of making some kind of point around fitting Sampson to QE...Evanivitch said:
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.
followed byEvanivitch said:
never suggested we put SAMPSON on QE. Infact I think I suggested the exact opposite.
These two posts appear contradictory to me. Perhaps if you'd added something along the lines of 'which is unnecessary given the T45 escorts', your post might have made more sense.Evanivitch said:
And you've kind of proven my point, we don't have a ballistic/hypersonic missile defence (though ASTER is our best hope). Anything else placed on QE (besides CIWS) is pointless as long as it is deployed with the planned CROWS, F35 and Type 45 compliment. To sail without would be criminal.
QE will never deploy in anger alone. Ever. The criminal comment is moot.Secondly, adding a point defence capability over and above Phalanx may be pointless in your opinion, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny outside a lens that views Russia and China as our only future adversaries or one that takes Russian and Chinese military press releases at face value, alongside the mainstream media hyperventilating about hypersonic missiles.
Regardless of the fact Russia and China are the exact opposite of where we think we'll be scrapping any time soon, we invested in 6 T45's to deal with heavyweight, peer and near peer opponent scenarios and this capability will no doubt evolve over time to include a full fat anti ballistic missile package. For all other scenarios other than going toe to toe with China or Russia, 997/SeaCeptor is low cost, nearly proven and a prudent addition to the tool kit, should we feel that the threat warrants losing some space on QE.
Evanivitch said:
Politically, to spend the money on fitting defensive missiles onto QE would only serve the purpose of undermining the need for the full complement of deployment assets.
That's one view. Another is that there is a finite budget and we're struggling to get enough jets, sailors and ready to fight escorts for QE, keeping our amphibious capability intact, delivering on our Op Kipion commitments and getting more than one SSN to sea to be worrying about gucci kit for QE just now. If the carrier is called upon to scrap with the Queen's enemies, I suspect given cost/ease/integration SeaCeptor would be bolted on pretty sharpish.Speculatore said:
I served over 6 years on Invincible and 2.5 years on Illustrious and we often deployed on our own with no escorts.
But not, I'd imagine, "in anger" which is what you've quoted.Not every tasking will require an escort. I think what is being suggested is that a carrier wouldn't sale into a potentially hazardous area of operations without an adequate escort, which is slightly different....
Gargamel said:
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.
No angled flight deck is a massive mistake. Cats or no cats.Read that Indian is to trial Brahmov with 200kg DU lump instead of explosive warhead
Try stopping that when its Barnes Wallace'ing it's way towards you at m1.
hidetheelephants said:
Given the beancounter-in-chief has bilked his air fare and wants to shrink the pongoes to <50,000, are these things ever going to deploy with Biggles and Algy on board and a full quota of hairy planes?
Rumours are that the RAF are seeking to reopen the debate on F35A purchases, splitting the pot of money between A and B. Chances of getting 3 (UK) squadrons on deck at any one time seem remote to say the least.johnxjsc1985 said:
I don't know about anyone else but these big ships are just incredible pieces of engineering.
Yep, just awesome. How do they float? Fantastic engineering It’s like they’re alive with some system always running inside. That why it’s so sad seeing them decommissioned or being towed to some breakers yard. I’ve no idea whether it’s the right thing for the country to be building but I like it a lot.
El stovey said:
Yep, just awesome. How do they float? Fantastic engineering It’s like they’re alive with some system always running inside. That why it’s so sad seeing them decommissioned or being towed to some breakers yard.
I’ve no idea whether it’s the right thing for the country to be building but I like it a lot.
I was in Gosport when she first came into Portsmouth in August. It was a stunning event. we took our 10yo daughter down - I hope in the 40/50 yrs time when she is decommissioned, my daughter will be able to tell her kids and grand kids that she remembers the day......I’ve no idea whether it’s the right thing for the country to be building but I like it a lot.
Speculatore said:
Evanivitch said:
QE will never deploy in anger alone. Ever. The criminal comment is moot.
I served on the Ark (Phalanx)....so we have a complete set
robinessex said:
Should have kept our Harrier jump jets.
Perhaps, but that (metaphorical) ship sailed years ago.Interestingly, I was reading this morning that the US are now looking to shift their own AV8Bs (including the airframes and spares they bought when we retired our Harriers) with the F35 coming onstream - Turkey is reputedly interested in acquiring them.
Lurking Lawyer said:
Perhaps, but that (metaphorical) ship sailed years ago.
Interestingly, I was reading this morning that the US are now looking to shift their own AV8Bs (including the airframes and spares they bought when we retired our Harriers) with the F35 coming onstream - Turkey is reputedly interested in acquiring them.
LL have you got a link for that? Would be interested to see what kind of value they're putting on the AV8Bs..Interestingly, I was reading this morning that the US are now looking to shift their own AV8Bs (including the airframes and spares they bought when we retired our Harriers) with the F35 coming onstream - Turkey is reputedly interested in acquiring them.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff