HMS Queen Elizabeth

HMS Queen Elizabeth

Author
Discussion

Teddy Lop

4,651 posts

31 months

Sunday 31st January
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Meanwhile, smile and wave, boys.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38745364
"meanwhile"?

I thought that old lump isnt going anywhere soon, with or without its accompanying tow trucks.

TBF the £12B is worth it just to troll putin.

"See vlad, we got one, plus we got a spare one too..."

LotusOmega375D

5,342 posts

117 months

Sunday 31st January
quotequote all
The whole CV-19 thing puts all the costs into perspective. Rishi Sunak is borrowing mind-boggling sums every month. Additional costs like aircraft carriers or even the much discussed annual nett EU contribution pale into insignificance against it. At least with the carriers we have something tangible for our tax money and thousands of people in work.

hidetheelephants

16,928 posts

157 months

Sunday 31st January
quotequote all
Piginapoke said:
PRTVR said:
Piginapoke said:
hidetheelephants said:
Wildcat45 said:
Piginapoke said:
So you’d bomb China/Argentina/KSA in those circumstances? That’s ridiculous.
I keep telling you that carrier operations are not exclusively about bombing things.

Please try to understand this.
Indeed, I'm not sure the R09 Ark Royal's aircraft ever fired a shot in anger but it would be a churlish commentator that suggested she had never done anything or had no effect on world events.
Can you give some examples of how?
In 1972 we sent a carrier to Belize, Guatemala was planning to invade, at the extreme range of the aircraft they launched, made a lot of noise over the capital city, ,Guatemala backed down.
Interesting fact one of the pilots was an American on exchange posting , it would have become complicated if a shooting war had started. smile
Thanks. Interesting example but it was nearly 50 years ago and wasn't the Ark Royal smile. The Ark did contribute a bit to the Bosnian war air programme but a carrier was hardly necessary for the location. Also worthwhile noting that she was decommissioned 5 years earlier than planned following a strategic defence review....

I'm conscious that I'm sounding like a white flag waving pacifist here, and I'm really not. This country, over hundreds of years, owes its wealth, influence and even survival to the RN and it's a key national asset. My concern is that we've built these carriers either due to some rose tinted view of the UK's place in the world, a very odd global risk assessment or a Scottish shipbuilding jobs programme, and the resources and people they will take up will materially reduce the ability of the RN to carry out its much more important roles.

The carriers remind me of battleships. Even though the UK invented the aircraft carrier, making battleships effectively obsolete, we kept building them at huge cost throughout WW2 for zero benefit. In a similar way, threats the UK have moved on from countries needing an aircraft carrier parked off the coast to threaten/harm them as needed, and the RN needs to move on too.
It certainly was Ark Royal; have a read of Pheonix Squadron. No shots fired, immediate military threat to an allied nation averted at the direct cost of a few tonnes of AVCAT and about 1500 tonnes of FFO. It's called 'a show of force', it works because there's force behind it.

Piginapoke

1,813 posts

149 months

Sunday 31st January
quotequote all
hidetheelephants said:
t certainly was Ark Royal; have a read of Pheonix Squadron. No shots fired, immediate military threat to an allied nation averted at the direct cost of a few tonnes of AVCAT and about 1500 tonnes of FFO. It's called 'a show of force', it works because there's force behind it.
Was the previous Ark Royal, not the R09 Invincible Class AR which the previous poster referred to.

hidetheelephants

16,928 posts

157 months

Sunday 31st January
quotequote all
Piginapoke said:
hidetheelephants said:
t certainly was Ark Royal; have a read of Pheonix Squadron. No shots fired, immediate military threat to an allied nation averted at the direct cost of a few tonnes of AVCAT and about 1500 tonnes of FFO. It's called 'a show of force', it works because there's force behind it.
Was the previous Ark Royal, not the R09 Invincible Class AR which the previous poster referred to.
That was me, I referred to R09 because R07 was the one scrapped 5 years ago.

98elise

18,806 posts

125 months

Sunday 31st January
quotequote all
Ayahuasca said:
An argument against is that the carrier represents a huge proportion of RN resources in a single ship. How many frigates and destroyers could we buy with the same money?

How wise is it to concentrate so much resource in a single, sinkable, ship?
All ships are sinkable. Frigates and Destroyers are limited in what they can do. You can't for example launch an amphibious assault from a frigate or a destroyer. You simply don't have the space for more than a handful of marines and you certainly can't operate Chinooks.

It's also can't use frigates and destroyers in any sort of evacuation role or humanitarian aid role. Again they simply lack space. An aircraft carrier can do both.



Evanivitch

8,628 posts

86 months

Sunday 31st January
quotequote all
98elise said:
It's also can't use frigates and destroyers in any sort of evacuation role or humanitarian aid role. Again they simply lack space. An aircraft carrier can do both.
Not necessarily, there's plenty of concepts for a frigate sized ship with a 2-medium/1-large hangar, plus a modular mission system, and then paired with a civvy-style ship with landing spot, but no hangar, you have a peacetime airlift capability without having to spend the same money as a carrier.

Obviously a carrier with a tailored air wing would blow that out of the water, but I don't think there's any times in recent history we've deployed that level of helicopter support in a humanitarian role.


Ayahuasca

26,409 posts

243 months

Sunday 31st January
quotequote all
hidetheelephants said:
t certainly was Ark Royal; have a read of Pheonix Squadron. No shots fired, immediate military threat to an allied nation averted at the direct cost of a few tonnes of AVCAT and about 1500 tonnes of FFO. It's called 'a show of force', it works because there's force behind it.
It was not an allied nation, it was a crown colony. It wasn’t Belize either, it was British Honduras.

Nor did the carrier deter the Guatemalans. They continued to make threats and massed armies on the border. Carriers, you see, sail away.

It was the deployment of Harriers (land based) that finally averted the threat.

Edited by Ayahuasca on Sunday 31st January 15:22


Edited by Ayahuasca on Sunday 31st January 15:22

hidetheelephants

16,928 posts

157 months

Sunday 31st January
quotequote all
Ayahuasca said:
hidetheelephants said:
t certainly was Ark Royal; have a read of Pheonix Squadron. No shots fired, immediate military threat to an allied nation averted at the direct cost of a few tonnes of AVCAT and about 1500 tonnes of FFO. It's called 'a show of force', it works because there's force behind it.
It was not an allied nation, it was a crown colony. It wasn’t Belize either, it was British Honduras.

Nor did the carrier deter the Guatemalans. They continued to make threats and massed armies on the border. Carriers, you see, sail away.

It was the deployment of Harriers (land based) that finally averted the threat.
What bought time for the RAF to make the necessary hotel bookings and restaurant reservations, the army to work out who was getting the chance to be fked around by RAF movers and also time for a frigate to arrive a day or two later? Two Buccaneers from the Ark Royal. It sailed away because it had done what was required and other measures had been taken for intermediate and long term deterrence. The crown colony British Honduras was soon to become the independent nation Belize which was a major reason why the Guatemalans had covetous intent; it's central america, coveting thy neighbour, especially the smaller, weaker ones, is obligatory, especially for right-wing dictators.

Skyrocket21

142 posts

6 months

Sunday 31st January
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
98elise said:
It's also can't use frigates and destroyers in any sort of evacuation role or humanitarian aid role. Again they simply lack space. An aircraft carrier can do both.
Not necessarily, there's plenty of concepts for a frigate sized ship with a 2-medium/1-large hangar, plus a modular mission system, and then paired with a civvy-style ship with landing spot, but no hangar, you have a peacetime airlift capability without having to spend the same money as a carrier.

Obviously a carrier with a tailored air wing would blow that out of the water, but I don't think there's any times in recent history we've deployed that level of helicopter support in a humanitarian role.
A recent one is the relief effort made by HMS Ocean in 2017 to the Caribbean in the aftermath of hurricane Irma and Maria, called operation Ruman.

Here's the deck of Ocean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOIunXnpwYY, notice the two Chinooks on the after deck and all the Merlins, they evacuated over 1000 people, the hanger was full of provisions too, including vehicles, marines etc, try doing that with a frigate.

Evanivitch

8,628 posts

86 months

Sunday 31st January
quotequote all
Skyrocket21 said:
A recent one is the relief effort made by HMS Ocean in 2017 to the Caribbean in the aftermath of hurricane Irma and Maria, called operation Ruman.

Here's the deck of Ocean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOIunXnpwYY, notice the two Chinooks on the after deck and all the Merlins, they evacuated over 1000 people, the hanger was full of provisions too, including vehicles, marines etc, try doing that with a frigate.
That's a good example, but my point is you wouldn't be landing those people or carrying those provisions on a frigate. It would all be on a much cheaper civvy ship. Hangar space and aircraft provision would be supplied by the frigate.

MartG

17,571 posts

168 months

Sunday 31st January
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Skyrocket21 said:
A recent one is the relief effort made by HMS Ocean in 2017 to the Caribbean in the aftermath of hurricane Irma and Maria, called operation Ruman.

Here's the deck of Ocean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOIunXnpwYY, notice the two Chinooks on the after deck and all the Merlins, they evacuated over 1000 people, the hanger was full of provisions too, including vehicles, marines etc, try doing that with a frigate.
That's a good example, but my point is you wouldn't be landing those people or carrying those provisions on a frigate. It would all be on a much cheaper civvy ship. Hangar space and aircraft provision would be supplied by the frigate.
Bloody big frigate needed to carry all those helicopters !

Evanivitch

8,628 posts

86 months

Sunday 31st January
quotequote all
MartG said:
Bloody big frigate needed to carry all those helicopters !
That was an exceptional response, we don't send the same every hurricane season.

2xChevrons

1,252 posts

44 months

Sunday 31st January
quotequote all
MartG said:
Bloody big frigate needed to carry all those helicopters !
By the time you've assembled a flotilla of eight frigates to accommodate all those helicopters, and then sent them with a merchant (STUFT for the occasion or chartered?) or RFA ship to carry all the supplies and receive the casualties, you might as well put a flight deck on the big ship and operate the aircraft from that, so they could load/unload directly to where the bulk of the humanitarian aid and assistance is. You could call it an 'aircraft carrier' or something

Evanivitch

8,628 posts

86 months

Sunday 31st January
quotequote all
2xChevrons said:
By the time you've assembled a flotilla of eight frigates to accommodate all those helicopters, and then sent them with a merchant (STUFT for the occasion or chartered?) or RFA ship to carry all the supplies and receive the casualties, you might as well put a flight deck on the big ship and operate the aircraft from that, so they could load/unload directly to where the bulk of the humanitarian aid and assistance is. You could call it an 'aircraft carrier' or something
Or I dunno, a littoral combat ship...

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2019/02/future-litt...

thewarlock

814 posts

9 months

Monday 1st February
quotequote all
98elise said:
You simply don't have the space for more than a handful of marines and you certainly can't operate Chinooks.
Er...yes you can.

You can operate a Chinook off the back of a T45, and in a couple of years, off a T26.

Ayahuasca

26,409 posts

243 months

Monday 1st February
quotequote all
hidetheelephants said:
Ayahuasca said:
hidetheelephants said:
t certainly was Ark Royal; have a read of Pheonix Squadron. No shots fired, immediate military threat to an allied nation averted at the direct cost of a few tonnes of AVCAT and about 1500 tonnes of FFO. It's called 'a show of force', it works because there's force behind it.
It was not an allied nation, it was a crown colony. It wasn’t Belize either, it was British Honduras.

Nor did the carrier deter the Guatemalans. They continued to make threats and massed armies on the border. Carriers, you see, sail away.

It was the deployment of Harriers (land based) that finally averted the threat.
What bought time for the RAF to make the necessary hotel bookings and restaurant reservations, the army to work out who was getting the chance to be fked around by RAF movers and also time for a frigate to arrive a day or two later? Two Buccaneers from the Ark Royal. It sailed away because it had done what was required and other measures had been taken for intermediate and long term deterrence. The crown colony British Honduras was soon to become the independent nation Belize which was a major reason why the Guatemalans had covetous intent; it's central america, coveting thy neighbour, especially the smaller, weaker ones, is obligatory, especially for right-wing dictators.
Yeah, I know. As a small boy I sat in the cockpit of one of those Harrier GR1s in its inflatable hangar at Airport Camp.

ecsrobin

12,647 posts

129 months

Monday 1st February
quotequote all
thewarlock said:
98elise said:
You simply don't have the space for more than a handful of marines and you certainly can't operate Chinooks.
Er...yes you can.

You can operate a Chinook off the back of a T45, and in a couple of years, off a T26.
Has it ever happened though? It may have been designed for it but I can’t find anything to say it’s ever been tested.

thewarlock

814 posts

9 months

Monday 1st February
quotequote all
ecsrobin said:
Has it ever happened though? It may have been designed for it but I can’t find anything to say it’s ever been tested.
I don't know.

Does that matter?

PugwasHDJ80

7,250 posts

185 months

Monday 1st February
quotequote all
thewarlock said:
98elise said:
You simply don't have the space for more than a handful of marines and you certainly can't operate Chinooks.
Er...yes you can.

You can operate a Chinook off the back of a T45, and in a couple of years, off a T26.
No, you can land a chinook on a T45 and refuel it, but that's it. You don't have the engineering or internal volume to operate a chinook on a T45 like you can with a Merlin or a pair or Lynxes