HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
I still think these two carriers are a complete waste of money that we should be saving in case Brexit goes pear shaped. Amazing ships. Amazing ships we do not need. What's the total cost of both plus their F35s when we get them finally?
£ 7-8 billion?
I am sure we don't need to spend that much just to defeat Argentina next time they get a bit frisky. We are still stuck in our Empire days it seems.....
£ 7-8 billion?
I am sure we don't need to spend that much just to defeat Argentina next time they get a bit frisky. We are still stuck in our Empire days it seems.....
Gandahar said:
I still think these two carriers are a complete waste of money that we should be saving in case Brexit goes pear shaped. Amazing ships. Amazing ships we do not need. What's the total cost of both plus their F35s when we get them finally?
£ 7-8 billion?
I am sure we don't need to spend that much just to defeat Argentina next time they get a bit frisky. We are still stuck in our Empire days it seems.....
Right £ 7-8 billion?
I am sure we don't need to spend that much just to defeat Argentina next time they get a bit frisky. We are still stuck in our Empire days it seems.....
To put the cost into some context - what does the NHS cost us every year?
Dog Star said:
Gandahar said:
I still think these two carriers are a complete waste of money that we should be saving in case Brexit goes pear shaped. Amazing ships. Amazing ships we do not need. What's the total cost of both plus their F35s when we get them finally?
£ 7-8 billion?
I am sure we don't need to spend that much just to defeat Argentina next time they get a bit frisky. We are still stuck in our Empire days it seems.....
Right £ 7-8 billion?
I am sure we don't need to spend that much just to defeat Argentina next time they get a bit frisky. We are still stuck in our Empire days it seems.....
To put the cost into some context - what does the NHS cost us every year?
Keeping to defence spending, why are these two carriers money well spent considering the current position of the UK in the world? Who potentially will we need them for ?
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Been having a discussion with some ex-members of the RN, and the discussion turned to the vulnerability of large aircraft carriers to new tech threats, such as UCAVs, hypersonic missiles, stealth cruise missiles, SSN and modern SSK AIP threats.
Are these ships in danger of becoming the Repulse and Prince of Wales of the 21st century? Especially if facing near peer or even less sophisticated opponents, but who have access to new anti-shipping tech, a 21st century Falkland Island scenario.
Same situation as there has ever been, there is a way to stop any of those threats, the RN will be "fitted for but not with" the system to do so!Are these ships in danger of becoming the Repulse and Prince of Wales of the 21st century? Especially if facing near peer or even less sophisticated opponents, but who have access to new anti-shipping tech, a 21st century Falkland Island scenario.
UCAV - Fundamentally a UCAV is the same threat as a manned aircraft, however I think the likely change will be that in the near future we get to somebody churning out a UCAV which blurs the boundary with munitions and is built on a production line at volume with low unit costs. In this scenario the principle defence would be that the carrier is also carrying an air force worth of swarming UCAV's.
Hypersonics - Personal view is that they are a solution looking for a problem. A better description would be that these are ballistic missiles utilising improvements in sensor technologies to hit moving targets and have the capability to manoeuver past current ballistic missile defences. I see no particular reason why they would not be stopped pretty easily by point defence missiles and lasers if they are trying to hit a point target like a ship. Such weapons are essentially dependant on off board long range sensors and/or radar. Both these are quite highly vulnerable to decoys (which is why the US has gone for stealth cruise missiles)
Stealth Cruise Missiles - Firstly stealth aircraft and munitions were always predicated on reducing detection range and reaction times. Against automated defence systems and point targets equipped with anti-aircraft missiles you would still expect a stealth cruise missile to be detected before it hits.
Solution will be sensor integration and beyond the horizon targeting of the missiles, integrating visual, IR, UV and acoustic sensors to build a point defence picture would also be a solution to whack the missile in the last stages of engagement. I would assume that a modern subsonic missile is probably jinking like a mad man in the terminal phase of the engagement, solutions would be lasers and potentially missiles which employ some degree of game theory.
SSN are a legit threat but few people have them and the best defence is probably getting them with cruise missiles in the dock on day one. Next method is to keep the carrier in deep water and always moving. This reduces the threat of SSK's considerably, I suspect that a the "SSK wins war game, sinks carrier" stories are related to war games where the carrier stays in an area so the SSK can catch it because it would be a boring war game if the SSK never got to within a 100 miles. Our potential hole with regards submarines is probably that our ASW helicopters are quite vulnerable to an SSK with a SAM system.
The really big issue with the carrier is that they suck so much of the budget that they preclude spending on the rapid capabilities to would allow us to protect against of these divergent threats.
Personally if I were designing a carrier today I would probably take a 100,000 tonne container ship hull ($150 million) and fly the air vehicles off electric VTOL platforms thus allowing me to deploy almost any aircraft I want off the carrier and I also don't have to steam into the wind either. I'd also containerise most of the mission systems allowing me to upgrade it much more rapidly, I'd also invest in domestic IT skills to allow me to create mission and planning system myself rather than be reliant on contractors and procurement processes.
Gandahar said:
I still think these two carriers are a complete waste of money that we should be saving in case Brexit goes pear shaped. Amazing ships. Amazing ships we do not need. What's the total cost of both plus their F35s when we get them finally?
£ 7-8 billion?
I am sure we don't need to spend that much just to defeat Argentina next time they get a bit frisky. We are still stuck in our Empire days it seems.....
We are an island nation, I would rather have a decent Navy than Army. British Troops haven't fought ON British soil for a long time (Though I submit that Northern Island was a special case) £ 7-8 billion?
I am sure we don't need to spend that much just to defeat Argentina next time they get a bit frisky. We are still stuck in our Empire days it seems.....
Gandahar said:
What has the NHS got to do with how defence spending should be in 2018?
Keeping to defence spending, why are these two carriers money well spent considering the current position of the UK in the world? Who potentially will we need them for ?
Surely the point is to keep the capability precisely because you dont know when you might need them. They are capable of doing humanitarian work, diplomatic work, and obviously military work. Once you lose that capability then its not a quick job to replace it, and we cant have a navy reliant of 'borrowing' a temperamental French carrier when required. Keeping to defence spending, why are these two carriers money well spent considering the current position of the UK in the world? Who potentially will we need them for ?
£8bn isnt that much money for something expected to last 30 years.
In 2017 Good Health did a report on NHS overspending on basic items like toilet rolls, detergent, bin bags, wet wipes and more, they found the NHS wasted £7.6bn a year on inflated price items. Remember the MoD spending £22 on a single light bulb that was only worth 65p? Same thing.
So that's 2 carriers a year please.
So that's 2 carriers a year please.
Gandahar said:
I still think these two carriers are a complete waste of money that we should be saving in case Brexit goes pear shaped. Amazing ships. Amazing ships we do not need. What's the total cost of both plus their F35s when we get them finally?
£ 7-8 billion?
I am sure we don't need to spend that much just to defeat Argentina next time they get a bit frisky. We are still stuck in our Empire days it seems.....
Ships ordered on 25 July 2007.£ 7-8 billion?
I am sure we don't need to spend that much just to defeat Argentina next time they get a bit frisky. We are still stuck in our Empire days it seems.....
Brexit referendum 23 June 2016.
Gargamel said:
We are an island nation, I would rather have a decent Navy than Army.
Indeed, along with a suitable RAF maritime patrol/antiship component to back it up etc, which is also something that we have undertaken a massive capability gap in since Nimrod was retired and cancelled, and with anti-shipping Tornado GR.1B retirement .... 
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff