HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
V8 Fettler said:
Depends who the enemy is.
^this.Is what the Russians or Chinese could do a moot point when you're using the asset to police some tin pot dictator whos armed forces are a few old migs and a couple of 50 year old floating museums you sold him yourself cos he out bidded the scrapper?
Who actually has effective hunter-killer subs?
saaby93 said:
I wish I could stop thinking of it as a sitting duck 
What would it take to sink it?
The largest warship ever sunk was the slightly smaller USS America. That was a mid-1960s vintage design (so quite a bit has been learned about making such ships more survivable since then) that the US spent 4 full weeks expending pretty much every non-nuclear weapons system in their inventory against as an exercise in 2005. They even loaded it up with old aircraft to see what happened to them in the hangers while they pummelled the **** out of it. Once they had ran out of things to try to sink it with, they eventually settled on scuttling it in the end (somewhere very, very deep by all accounts - keeping the wreck away from prying eyes). There are some details and even a few interesting pictures around if you are curious enough to go and search for them.What would it take to sink it?
So in short - it is probably possible to sink it. In theory. But not necessarily in practise. I don't know the specifics of the design, but if you think about it - if a ship has water tight compartments in all of the right places then you could theoretically split it in half and the 2 halves would still float.
As for a "mission kill" (i.e. rendering it unable to operate) that is also pretty difficult. With catapult/arrestor aircraft carriers you would only need to damage the arrestor gear or put a tangibly large hole in the rear third of the deck to prevent it from operating its aircraft. But when the aircraft are all STOVL, you would basically have to sink it to prevent it from being able to land and launch its aircraft.
In summary - a hell of a lot more difficult than many of the internet's armchair admirals and video games enthusiasts would have you believe.
Edited by DiscoColin on Sunday 19th August 15:27
DiscoColin said:
The largest warship ever sunk was the slightly smaller USS America. That was a mid-1960s vintage design (so quite a bit has been learned about making such ships more survivable since then) that the US spent 4 full weeks expending pretty much every non-nuclear weapons system in their inventory against as an exercise in 2005. They even loaded it up with old aircraft to see what happened to them in the hangers while they pummelled the **** out of it. Once they had ran out of things to try to sink it with, they eventually settled on scuttling it in the end (somewhere very, very deep by all accounts - keeping the wreck away from prying eyes). There are some details and even a few interesting pictures around if you are curious enough to go and search for them.
So in short - it is probably possible to sink it. In theory. But not necessarily in practise. I don't know the specifics of the design, but if you think about it - if a ship has water tight compartments in all of the right places then you could theoretically split it in half and the 2 halves would still float.
As for a "mission kill" (i.e. rendering it unable to operate) that is also pretty difficult. With catapult/arrestor aircraft carriers you would only need to damage the arrestor gear or put a tangibly large hole in the rear third of the deck to prevent it from operating its aircraft. But when the aircraft are all STOVL, you would basically have to sink it to prevent it from being able to land and launch its aircraft.
In short - a hell of a lot more difficult than many of the internet's armchair admirals and video games enthusiasts would have you believe.
Why sink it?So in short - it is probably possible to sink it. In theory. But not necessarily in practise. I don't know the specifics of the design, but if you think about it - if a ship has water tight compartments in all of the right places then you could theoretically split it in half and the 2 halves would still float.
As for a "mission kill" (i.e. rendering it unable to operate) that is also pretty difficult. With catapult/arrestor aircraft carriers you would only need to damage the arrestor gear or put a tangibly large hole in the rear third of the deck to prevent it from operating its aircraft. But when the aircraft are all STOVL, you would basically have to sink it to prevent it from being able to land and launch its aircraft.
In short - a hell of a lot more difficult than many of the internet's armchair admirals and video games enthusiasts would have you believe.
take out the props and rudders and it's effectiveness as a fighting platform is ended
DiscoColin said:
saaby93 said:
I wish I could stop thinking of it as a sitting duck
What would it take to sink it?
The largest warship ever sunk was the slightly smaller USS America. That was a mid-1960s vintage design (so quite a bit has been learned about making such ships more survivable since then) that the US spent 4 full weeks expending pretty much every non-nuclear weapons system in their inventory against as an exercise in 2005. They even loaded it up with old aircraft to see what happened to them in the hangers while they pummelled the **** out of it. Once they had ran out of things to try to sink it with, they eventually settled on scuttling it in the end (somewhere very, very deep by all accounts - keeping the wreck away from prying eyes). There are some details and even a few interesting pictures around if you are curious enough to go and search for them.What would it take to sink it?
So in short - it is probably possible to sink it. In theory. But not necessarily in practise. I don't know the specifics of the design, but if you think about it - if a ship has water tight compartments in all of the right places then you could theoretically split it in half and the 2 halves would still float.
As for a "mission kill" (i.e. rendering it unable to operate) that is also pretty difficult. With catapult/arrestor aircraft carriers you would only need to damage the arrestor gear or put a tangibly large hole in the rear third of the deck to prevent it from operating its aircraft. But when the aircraft are all STOVL, you would basically have to sink it to prevent it from being able to land and launch its aircraft.
In summary - a hell of a lot more difficult than many of the internet's armchair admirals and video games enthusiasts would have you believe.
Edited by DiscoColin on Sunday 19th August 15:27
Hint. The Delta is one one we're left with.
Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Sunday 19th August 16:46
donutsina911 said:
In my humble opinion, albeit now outside of the RN, I believe that even in our threadbare state, we are capable of mustering sufficient escorts to deploy globally, with (preferably) and at a push, without our allies. How long could we sustain ops at any kind of intensity is up for debate, but the proof will be in the pudding when she goes east of suez on her first deployment with jets.
What he said.Finally the RN is becoming a multi their force.
- Carrier, SSGN Subs. Amphibious ships, Sub hunting frigates and air defence destroyers.
- Below this, Type 31 a general purpose frigate.
- Below them all, Offshore Patrol ships for EEZ maritime security anti pirate/narcotics jobs.
The RN does need more ships and more crew but it can just do the job with what it has.
The carriers are not white elephants. Anything but. Capable, indeed extremely capable ships able to do much more than launch and recover jets and helicopters. They represent some new thinking not just for the RN but for other navies who I feel sure will look at he QEs when planning for the future. I can see the USN which through the USMC will have operational access to the QEs - thinking long and hard about their expensive and complex future carriers.
The big threat to QE - apart from he treasury and political change at home - is from below the waves and from the so-called asymmetric threat of terrorists seeing to damage her.
That submarine threat doesn't have to be from something big and nuclear powered but rather from a cheap diesel electric sub many of which are in the hands of smaller nations. Back in 1982, the RN was THE anti-submarine master. Despite this they got a couple of shocks from Argentina's one operational sub.
The aysmmetric threat, like happened with USS Cole is a concern, but the UK is investing in some pretty impressive "fleet train" in the shape of tankers and support ships that will mean the carriers will spend most operational taskings away from ports as the fuel will come to it.
Edited by Wildcat45 on Sunday 19th August 18:43
Edited by Wildcat45 on Sunday 19th August 18:51
Wildcat45 said:
The aysmmetric threat, like happened with USS Cole is a concern, but the UK is investing in some pretty impressive "fleet train" in the shape of tankers and support ships that will mean the carriers will spend most operational taskings away from ports as the fuel will come to it.
Easy to sink in wartime though.DiscoColin said:
saaby93 said:
I wish I could stop thinking of it as a sitting duck
What would it take to sink it?
The largest warship ever sunk was the slightly smaller USS America. That was a mid-1960s vintage design (so quite a bit has been learned about making such ships more survivable since then) that the US spent 4 full weeks expending pretty much every non-nuclear weapons system in their inventory against as an exercise in 2005. They even loaded it up with old aircraft to see what happened to them in the hangers while they pummelled the **** out of it. Once they had ran out of things to try to sink it with, they eventually settled on scuttling it in the end (somewhere very, very deep by all accounts - keeping the wreck away from prying eyes). There are some details and even a few interesting pictures around if you are curious enough to go and search for them.What would it take to sink it?
So in short - it is probably possible to sink it. In theory. But not necessarily in practise. I don't know the specifics of the design, but if you think about it - if a ship has water tight compartments in all of the right places then you could theoretically split it in half and the 2 halves would still float.
As for a "mission kill" (i.e. rendering it unable to operate) that is also pretty difficult. With catapult/arrestor aircraft carriers you would only need to damage the arrestor gear or put a tangibly large hole in the rear third of the deck to prevent it from operating its aircraft. But when the aircraft are all STOVL, you would basically have to sink it to prevent it from being able to land and launch its aircraft.
In summary - a hell of a lot more difficult than many of the internet's armchair admirals and video games enthusiasts would have you believe.
Edited by DiscoColin on Sunday 19th August 15:27
If the intention was to sink the USS America as quickly as possible, then ten ADCAP torpedoes under the keel would probably have been sufficient, perhaps even five would have been enough, but certainly not one.
If the intention was to severely disable the USS America then one or two torpedoes near to the rudders would have been sufficient, probably.
V8 Fettler said:
If the intention was to severely disable the USS America then one or two torpedoes near to the rudders would have been sufficient, probably
Maybe but can you aim a torpedo that accurately? I recall a scuffle with someone here who thought the Bismarck's rudder had been deliberately targeted.Kccv23highliftcam said:
OK tell us the difference between the alpha and delta designs.
Hint. The Delta is one one we're left with.
Yes - the Alpha design didn't work. Starting from a clean sheet of paper at that stage of the design, keeping only the bits that worked, was one of the better design decisions. Hint. The Delta is one one we're left with.
Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Sunday 19th August 16:46
From memory:
Alpha - BMT/Thales CV & STOVL designs (same hull as alpha, different interior layout)
Beta - BMT/Thales/BaE Adaptable design (merge of the 2 Alpha designs with Thales electronics & radars replaced by BaE's) Design was getting into a bit of a rut at this stage.
Charley - 260m design study, post downselect, used to prove to the treasury that smaller isn't necessary cheaper
Delta - QEC as we know her
I'm not going to comment on an open forum about the exact differences, but bear in mind most of what is on the web is uninformed guesswork by armchair admirals.
Simpo Two said:
V8 Fettler said:
If the intention was to severely disable the USS America then one or two torpedoes near to the rudders would have been sufficient, probably
Maybe but can you aim a torpedo that accurately? I recall a scuffle with someone here who thought the Bismarck's rudder had been deliberately targeted.Ginetta G15 Girl said:
So 9 P8 are going to be able to cover what 40 Nimrods did?
Cloud cuckoo land!
The idea theat the RN has enough blue water assets to protect a carrier is just risible at best, and downright duplicitous at worst.
You're a fishead donuts, tell me why the USN battle groups are so large to protect their strikefleets.
UK unlikely to raise the jolly roger and embark on a colonial punch up again so they will punt on being part of a larger multi-nation (USA) task force to protect the carrier. Best we dont fall out with USA or NATO during brexit I guess.Cloud cuckoo land!
The idea theat the RN has enough blue water assets to protect a carrier is just risible at best, and downright duplicitous at worst.
You're a fishead donuts, tell me why the USN battle groups are so large to protect their strikefleets.
DiscoColin said:
saaby93 said:
I wish I could stop thinking of it as a sitting duck
What would it take to sink it?
The largest warship ever sunk was the slightly smaller USS America. That was a mid-1960s vintage design (so quite a bit has been learned about making such ships more survivable since then) that the US spent 4 full weeks expending pretty much every non-nuclear weapons system in their inventory against as an exercise in 2005. They even loaded it up with old aircraft to see what happened to them in the hangers while they pummelled the **** out of it. Once they had ran out of things to try to sink it with, they eventually settled on scuttling it in the end (somewhere very, very deep by all accounts - keeping the wreck away from prying eyes). There are some details and even a few interesting pictures around if you are curious enough to go and search for them.What would it take to sink it?
So in short - it is probably possible to sink it. In theory. But not necessarily in practise. I don't know the specifics of the design, but if you think about it - if a ship has water tight compartments in all of the right places then you could theoretically split it in half and the 2 halves would still float.
As for a "mission kill" (i.e. rendering it unable to operate) that is also pretty difficult. With catapult/arrestor aircraft carriers you would only need to damage the arrestor gear or put a tangibly large hole in the rear third of the deck to prevent it from operating its aircraft. But when the aircraft are all STOVL, you would basically have to sink it to prevent it from being able to land and launch its aircraft.
In summary - a hell of a lot more difficult than many of the internet's armchair admirals and video games enthusiasts would have you believe.
Edited by DiscoColin on Sunday 19th August 15:27
For me it was 1982 -1990 as a weapons engineer, with a stint on ark royal
I would say it's easier than you think. It's obviously better than a civilian ship, but hit it with the right weapons and it's f
ked.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff