HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
Evanivitch said:
"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..."
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.
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.
Interesting fact one of the pilots was an American on exchange posting , it would have become complicated if a shooting war had started.
. 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.
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.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.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.How wise is it to concentrate so much resource in a single, sinkable, ship?
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.
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.
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
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.
ked 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.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.
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.
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.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 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.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.
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 something2xChevrons 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...
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.
ked 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.
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.
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.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff