HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
Steve vRS said:
Is that a realistic test of the ships ability to survive though as in real life, might the initial explosions ignite fuel and stored munitions?
Not so much, It’s as much a test of the weapon as it is anything else - life firings outside of naval gunfire support are rare as rocking horse s
t. Ref survivability, I believe most of that is modelled by QinetiQ but they would have got some learnings from a live firing. Sea wolf magazines on a 22 were pretty deep although can’t remember where JP5 (iirc) was held. Assuming she was at war, if there’d been any Sea Wolf in the aft launcher (not visible on pics but sat on hanger) , I’d say the effects would have been pretty catastrophic.
Scrump said:
donutsina911 said:
Ref survivability, I believe most of that is modelled by QinetiQ but they would have got some learnings from a live firing.
The QQ modelling tool has been used to inform the design of many of the recent RN vessels but it is not the only modelling used.I think what is missing from this debate is context. The QE taking a hit from a anti-ship missile would be in the context of a state on state conflict. Just think about that. State on State conflict would only be likely occur as a direct result of a threat to the nation state.
It is not top trumps, where the spec of my ship out does the spec of your missile.
Oh no.
This is where the consequences of the QE taking a hit and that being broadcast over the world's media have much wider consequences that the lives lost at sea. In such a case, the main effort of the Navy would be to protect the QE from taking a hit in the first place. It doesn't matter if the QE survives. The political outcomes are massive and may sway the outcome of such a conflict.
The question is, how much confidence do the heads of the military, and the Politicians,have that the QE be defended from such an attack? If there is no confidence then the QE employment opportunities are limited.
It is not top trumps, where the spec of my ship out does the spec of your missile.
Oh no.
This is where the consequences of the QE taking a hit and that being broadcast over the world's media have much wider consequences that the lives lost at sea. In such a case, the main effort of the Navy would be to protect the QE from taking a hit in the first place. It doesn't matter if the QE survives. The political outcomes are massive and may sway the outcome of such a conflict.
The question is, how much confidence do the heads of the military, and the Politicians,have that the QE be defended from such an attack? If there is no confidence then the QE employment opportunities are limited.
kurt535 said:
Im following this thread with interest; nephew will be serving on her as an AET in about a year or so after he completes Sultan. I suppose if a missile is big enough, it will sink any ship....
I have tried to PM you but you have emails turned off. I work at Sultan - drop me an email?stevesingo said:
I think what is missing from this debate is context. The QE taking a hit from a anti-ship missile would be in the context of a state on state conflict. Just think about that. State on State conflict would only be likely occur as a direct result of a threat to the nation state.
It is not top trumps, where the spec of my ship out does the spec of your missile.
Oh no.
This is where the consequences of the QE taking a hit and that being broadcast over the world's media have much wider consequences that the lives lost at sea. In such a case, the main effort of the Navy would be to protect the QE from taking a hit in the first place. It doesn't matter if the QE survives. The political outcomes are massive and may sway the outcome of such a conflict.
The question is, how much confidence do the heads of the military, and the Politicians,have that the QE be defended from such an attack? If there is no confidence then the QE employment opportunities are limited.
2006, Hezbollah reported as attacking an Israeli ship with an anti-shipping missile https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/world/middleeas...It is not top trumps, where the spec of my ship out does the spec of your missile.
Oh no.
This is where the consequences of the QE taking a hit and that being broadcast over the world's media have much wider consequences that the lives lost at sea. In such a case, the main effort of the Navy would be to protect the QE from taking a hit in the first place. It doesn't matter if the QE survives. The political outcomes are massive and may sway the outcome of such a conflict.
The question is, how much confidence do the heads of the military, and the Politicians,have that the QE be defended from such an attack? If there is no confidence then the QE employment opportunities are limited.
If similar groups obtain similar weapons then the Persian Gulf could be a dangerous place for a carrier.
V8 Fettler said:
2006, Hezbollah reported as attacking an Israeli ship with an anti-shipping missile https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/world/middleeas...
If similar groups obtain similar weapons then the Persian Gulf could be a dangerous place for a carrier.
I would view that as (proxy) State on State conflict. If similar groups obtain similar weapons then the Persian Gulf could be a dangerous place for a carrier.
V8 Fettler said:
2006, Hezbollah reported as attacking an Israeli ship with an anti-shipping missile https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/world/middleeas...
If similar groups obtain similar weapons then the Persian Gulf could be a dangerous place for a carrier.
You have that arse about If similar groups obtain similar weapons then the Persian Gulf could be a dangerous place for a carrier.
If there is a British Carrier in the Persian Gulf, then it will dangerous to be in Hezbollah.
We used to be good at this kind of thinking...
Gargamel said:
V8 Fettler said:
2006, Hezbollah reported as attacking an Israeli ship with an anti-shipping missile https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/world/middleeas...
If similar groups obtain similar weapons then the Persian Gulf could be a dangerous place for a carrier.
You have that arse about If similar groups obtain similar weapons then the Persian Gulf could be a dangerous place for a carrier.
If there is a British Carrier in the Persian Gulf, then it will dangerous to be in Hezbollah.
We used to be good at this kind of thinking...
A similar group(s) in the Persian Gulf area, armed with several anti-shipping missiles, could create danger for a carrier in the restricted waters of the Gulf.
donutsina911 said:
Steve vRS said:
Is that a realistic test of the ships ability to survive though as in real life, might the initial explosions ignite fuel and stored munitions?
Not so much, It’s as much a test of the weapon as it is anything else - life firings outside of naval gunfire support are rare as rocking horse st. Ref survivability, I believe most of that is modelled by QinetiQ but they would have got some learnings from a live firing. Sea wolf magazines on a 22 were pretty deep although can’t remember where JP5 (iirc) was held. Assuming she was at war, if there’d been any Sea Wolf in the aft launcher (not visible on pics but sat on hanger) , I’d say the effects would have been pretty catastrophic.
It gets beaten by watching a broadside by the USS New Jersey though!
98elise said:
It gets beaten by watching a broadside by the USS New Jersey though!
Now that is something I would have loved to have experienced.When I was growing up back in the late 60's/early 70's, a friend of my Dad had served on HMS Duke of York in the pacific, so I grew up fascinated by big-gun battleship tales.
98elise said:
It's a shame if the modern navy doesn't do much in the way of life firings these days. I've stood on the flight deck of Ark Royal during a live seadart shoot, and it's a great thing to have experienced.
It gets beaten by watching a broadside by the USS New Jersey though!
You on Outback then?It gets beaten by watching a broadside by the USS New Jersey though!
98elise said:
It's a shame if the modern navy doesn't do much in the way of life firings these days. I've stood on the flight deck of Ark Royal during a live seadart shoot, and it's a great thing to have experienced.
It gets beaten by watching a broadside by the USS New Jersey though!
Can't match a New Jersey broadside but have seen a live Sea Dart firing - Illustrious 1984; the battering of the ex HMS Devonshire in the first live warshot Sea Eagle firing and a live firing of a Sea Wolf (which went rogue) from the Bridge of HMS Boxer. The OOW had to order "Port 30"!It gets beaten by watching a broadside by the USS New Jersey though!
andy97 said:
Can't match a New Jersey broadside but have seen a live Sea Dart firing - Illustrious 1984; the battering of the ex HMS Devonshire in the first live warshot Sea Eagle firing and a live firing of a Sea Wolf (which went rogue) from the Bridge of HMS Boxer. The OOW had to order "Port 30"!
Ive got a couple of days down at HMS Victory this week with my boy; Ill see if they will be up for a broadside so we can compare and contrast 
kurt535 said:
Ive got a couple of days down at HMS Victory this week with my boy; Ill see if they will be up for a broadside so we can compare and contrast
When a French cruise ship entered Portsmouth 3 years ago - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_FpYLnNhVw
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff