Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Worth bearing in mind that news author has a notable trend regarding "Buy more little ones!" as his personal line that's turned up many times.
So while considerations are being taken, take articles by him with a pinch of salt as to what is actually being considered.
So while considerations are being taken, take articles by him with a pinch of salt as to what is actually being considered.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
He was just reporting what another defence website put online.RetroSicotte wrote:Worth bearing in mind that news author has a notable trend regarding "Buy more little ones!" as his personal line that's turned up many times.
The link to that article is in there.
-
OnlineTempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5616
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
so a Ford class is 337 x 75 meters costs 13 billion and has a ships company of 3500 odd if the US went for a QE class with a 25 meter plug making it 309 x 73 Meters they could maybe build 4 for the same money and 3500 crew divided by 4 comes to 875 about what the QE class needs this could allow the US navy a lot of room in budgets not only build but man power
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
We have to remember that the USN would want an EMAL version which in its self would up the cost a crew numbers, there’s also the fact that ship building is typically more costly in the US than the UK so once again cost would go up but yes still be far cheap than a ford.Tempest414 wrote:so a Ford class is 337 x 75 meters costs 13 billion and has a ships company of 3500 odd if the US went for a QE class with a 25 meter plug making it 309 x 73 Meters they could maybe build 4 for the same money and 3500 crew divided by 4 comes to 875 about what the QE class needs this could allow the US navy a lot of room in budgets not only build but man power
The question is though to give the same projected air power across the fleet they’d need a greater number of QEs than Fords and in turn giving the added cost through the extra escorts, subs and replenishments. Would this over all cost still be cheaper than the current 10 fords planed ?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
But the plus side 2 carriers in an area Half's the chance of getting hit and putting a single carrier out of action even temporarily ? So even if after costs they operate 2x 65k and build with support (tanker) for the price of on ford they still double the fleet from extra 6 ford After the first 4 already building/ planned to 12 X 65 k after that ,and that's alot ,4x ford 12x qe size and 10 America size ( marine s) but,but agree USA never go for it in my opinion
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
But if your only getting the carrier plus replenishment vessels for the price of a Ford then your not going to be able to double the fleet for the same over all price as you’ll still need the 4-6 extra escorts per CSG along with the extra SSN. These are not cheap and soon cut the numbers away.inch wrote:But the plus side 2 carriers in an area Half's the chance of getting hit and putting a single carrier out of action even temporarily ? So even if after costs they operate 2x 65k and build with support (tanker) for the price of on ford they still double the fleet from extra 6 ford After the first 4 already building/ planned to 12 X 65 k after that ,and that's alot ,4x ford 12x qe size and 10 America size ( marine s) but,but agree USA never go for it in my opinion
The question is dose any believe you could get 2 x EMAL QEs plus 4-6 escorts, 1 SSN and a set of replenishment vessels for $13bn built in the US ? If so then that’d be the way for them to go IMO if not then it’s a mute point.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Maybe cheaper if USA doesn't miss a trick and says to someone like India ,at a push Japan and says let's all build a carrier class that works for us all ,just a thought lol,but kinda going off qe class now unless ?;-)
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
One also need to consider the fact that you'll have to add nuclear propulsion which will turn up the cost even more. Will this work for them? Do not know if this makes any sense?
If one has to add a plug of 25m and nuclear and EMALS, then you sit with much more cost and less space for additional aircraft. Taking out some punch.
Also have to keep in mind that smaller CV does not negate the need for escorts. More CV's means more escorts means more cost.
The analysis does not add up??
If one has to add a plug of 25m and nuclear and EMALS, then you sit with much more cost and less space for additional aircraft. Taking out some punch.
Also have to keep in mind that smaller CV does not negate the need for escorts. More CV's means more escorts means more cost.
The analysis does not add up??
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Would they stick with nuclear if they go smaller again or go back to GT and diesel ?Boertjie wrote:One also need to consider the fact that you'll have to add nuclear propulsion which will turn up the cost even more. Will this work for them? Do not know if this makes any sense?
If one has to add a plug of 25m and nuclear and EMALS, then you sit with much more cost and less space for additional aircraft. Taking out some punch.
Also have to keep in mind that smaller CV does not negate the need for escorts. More CV's means more escorts means more cost.
The analysis does not add up??
With the current planed air wing for the fleet ( 95 max per ford ) you’ll be looking at an over all air wing of 950, to match that with QEs ( 60-70 max ) you’ll need at least 9 QEs along with the first 4 Fords just to match it.
That would mean 3 more subs, 12-16 more escorts and 3 more replenishments than currently planned.
Really to make it worth while you’d want to increase you over all airwing by what 20% plus so for the price of 6 Fords you’d be looking at 12 QEs plus 6 SSN, 6 replenishments and 24-36 escorts. Could all that me got for roughly $78bn ? If not then it’s not worth it.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Well if you say 36b for 36 Burke at 1b a pop ,6 bill for 6 subs ? That's 42 bill ISH,that leaves 36 bill on your numbers for 12 qe class and tankers , doable I don't know ?even if you play about a bit more for Burks or subs etc .mind you save a bit on decommissioning nuclear carriers if they went conventional adding to the overall numbers down the line .but as said again don't think navy would ever go for it unless made too
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
If I remember right the ABs are about $1.8bn each and the SSNs $2bn each. Don’t get me wrong I personally think it’d be a good move if the sums work out as it’d give them an over all bigger punch while being more flexible but 2 things make me think it won’t happen.inch wrote:Well if you say 36b for 36 Burke at 1b a pop ,6 bill for 6 subs ? That's 42 bill ISH,that leaves 36 bill on your numbers for 12 qe class and tankers , doable I don't know ?even if you play about a bit more for Burks or subs etc .mind you save a bit on decommissioning nuclear carriers if they went conventional adding to the overall numbers down the line .but as said again don't think navy would ever go for it unless made too
1 - I’m not convinced the sums will work out right
2 - the politics of it, national pride will make it very difficult for them to go smaller even with an increase in numbers, also if they ever did I can’t see them ever choosing a foreign design all hell would break loose.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Off topic but I assume you are Retro_Sicotte on Twitter? I must admit to having had to step away from a few recent tweets about the QE class, F35B's and how they are doomed to failure and a big mistake by the RN. I've seen you respond to some of the numpty comments though!RetroSicotte wrote:Worth bearing in mind that news author has a notable trend regarding "Buy more little ones!" as his personal line that's turned up many times.
So while considerations are being taken, take articles by him with a pinch of salt as to what is actually being considered.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Am indeed. I keep a very strict sanity preservation approach of just the odd reply here and there and never dedicate to actually having a "presence".PhillyJ wrote:Off topic but I assume you are Retro_Sicotte on Twitter? I must admit to having had to step away from a few recent tweets about the QE class, F35B's and how they are doomed to failure and a big mistake by the RN. I've seen you respond to some of the numpty comments though!
It's the only way to not lose one's mind on social media.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Better still to stay here... or does the forum fall within the broad spectrum of social media?RetroSicotte wrote:the only way to not lose one's mind on social media.
- whatever security there is, leaving the site for the many twitter links utterly thrashes that
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
OnlineTempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5616
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
You make some very good points for me if we look at it from a hole force point of view then it might work. Lets say the US stopped at 4 Fords and had 78 billion to play with if they built 8 X 310 meter EMAL QE class carriers for 5 billion = 40 billion next they build 6 AB's at 2 billion each = 12 billion then 6 more FFGX at 1 billion each = 6 billion and then 2 SSN's at 2 billion = 4 billion this comes to 62 billion leaving 16 billion for other assets like supply ships and so onJake1992 wrote:If I remember right the ABs are about $1.8bn each and the SSNs $2bn each. Don’t get me wrong I personally think it’d be a good move if the sums work out as it’d give them an over all bigger punch while being more flexible but 2 things make me think it won’t happen.
1 - I’m not convinced the sums will work out right
2 - the politics of it, national pride will make it very difficult for them to go smaller even with an increase in numbers, also if they ever did I can’t see them ever choosing a foreign design all hell would break loose.
On top of this if we say a Forward class has a crew of 3500 = 21000 people if they could have crews like so
QE = 1500
AB = 350
FFGX = 150
This would come to 16000 people. So they would end up with 12 Carriers ( yes 8 of them smaller ) but maybe more important 2 whole carrier groups i.e 2 extra Carriers 12 escorts and 2 SSN's for about the same money and man power as just 10 Fords
Lets also note that 310 x 73 meter QE class with say 70 aircraft is still more capable than anything it will meet over the time frame we are talking
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
The main costs of the us carriers are crew & nuclear power ? if they do go for cost cutting they will probably just go for conventional power, 2500-3k crew? 80k gas/diesel power if they can do a electric power increase for the Emals, maybe 3 cats 50-60 planes incl hawkeye's, still potent !
Maybe 4 fords + 6-8 conventional carriers to keep the yards going but save 10% on crew and the extra nuke costs obviously that will increase their fuel costs, slightly less planes, but still keeping the u.s. ideal of 12 carrier groups, maybe increase the turn around of a CBG being conventional power?
Smaller CV for general patrol then save the big guns (CVN) for more prominent duties...
But hasn't the u.s navy been through this before? so maybe won't happen due to political uproar?
Maybe 4 fords + 6-8 conventional carriers to keep the yards going but save 10% on crew and the extra nuke costs obviously that will increase their fuel costs, slightly less planes, but still keeping the u.s. ideal of 12 carrier groups, maybe increase the turn around of a CBG being conventional power?
Smaller CV for general patrol then save the big guns (CVN) for more prominent duties...
But hasn't the u.s navy been through this before? so maybe won't happen due to political uproar?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
The problem is with going down the 4+8 route is that while it gives you more flat tops for similar money it also gives you a slightly smaller over all air wing.Tempest414 wrote:You make some very good points for me if we look at it from a hole force point of view then it might work. Lets say the US stopped at 4 Fords and had 78 billion to play with if they built 8 X 310 meter EMAL QE class carriers for 5 billion = 40 billion next they build 6 AB's at 2 billion each = 12 billion then 6 more FFGX at 1 billion each = 6 billion and then 2 SSN's at 2 billion = 4 billion this comes to 62 billion leaving 16 billion for other assets like supply ships and so onJake1992 wrote:If I remember right the ABs are about $1.8bn each and the SSNs $2bn each. Don’t get me wrong I personally think it’d be a good move if the sums work out as it’d give them an over all bigger punch while being more flexible but 2 things make me think it won’t happen.
1 - I’m not convinced the sums will work out right
2 - the politics of it, national pride will make it very difficult for them to go smaller even with an increase in numbers, also if they ever did I can’t see them ever choosing a foreign design all hell would break loose.
On top of this if we say a Forward class has a crew of 3500 = 21000 people if they could have crews like so
QE = 1500
AB = 350
FFGX = 150
This would come to 16000 people. So they would end up with 12 Carriers ( yes 8 of them smaller ) but maybe more important 2 whole carrier groups i.e 2 extra Carriers 12 escorts and 2 SSN's for about the same money and man power as just 10 Fords
Lets also note that 310 x 73 meter QE class with say 70 aircraft is still more capable than anything it will meet over the time frame we are talking
10 Ford carriers gives you an over all max air wing of 950 while the 4+8 gives you an over all air wing of 930. Yes we can say the difference if so small it’s irrelevant but why go through all the effort of starting a new carrier build and the introduction of a new class for very little benefit.
The other issue is that like I said above the US would never use a foreign design for its carriers it’d be like the RN using a french or Indian design, national pride on such projects won’t allow this even more so when they are the main symbol of US power. With this in mind it would mean them designing a new carrier with all the added costs and delays that would come with it.
The best chance of this happening would of been just as the QE project began ( a while before the Ford project ) the MOD sitting down with the US and convincing them that a joint project of say 18 80,000t carriers would be the best way to go with us having 2 and them 16 giving them an over all larger and more flexible force.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Not that it’s going to happen but what is being missed in the comments is distributed operations.
Do u need so much concentrated in one place, would you like to have the ability to be in more places at the same time. Does having assets distributed make it harder for the enemy to get them all without retaliation.
Can they come together in groups to take on larger operations. But be more useful for 99% of all other tasks.
Do u need so much concentrated in one place, would you like to have the ability to be in more places at the same time. Does having assets distributed make it harder for the enemy to get them all without retaliation.
Can they come together in groups to take on larger operations. But be more useful for 99% of all other tasks.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
If it were to happen, the u.s. would still want 60 odd aircraft, so not to be seen to be going much smaller, don't they currently routinely carry 70?
So saving on the initial nuclear power costs would be the way to go, even on a 1 for 1 basis a 80k super carrier would still be a supercarrier & keep the yards busy but save a few $ on the initial costs and save on running costs wilst saving face, didn't the last conventional carrier decommission in 2007? so not to much of a downgrade? they could say it is greener !!
So saving on the initial nuclear power costs would be the way to go, even on a 1 for 1 basis a 80k super carrier would still be a supercarrier & keep the yards busy but save a few $ on the initial costs and save on running costs wilst saving face, didn't the last conventional carrier decommission in 2007? so not to much of a downgrade? they could say it is greener !!
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
It's not numbers of aircraft, it's number of productive sorties over numbers of days.
IOW, why the UK ended up with two large carriers instead of 3 little ones.
IOW, why the UK ended up with two large carriers instead of 3 little ones.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Lose one, in each scenario, of the 'average sort' and you have 865 vs. 853... practically the same, but for the latter available over a wider area of Ops (one or several). Which takes us neatly to:Jake1992 wrote:10 Ford carriers gives you an over all max air wing of 950 while the 4+8 gives you an over all air wing of 930.
and also air warfare is not done just by the carriers (though once they succeed in that, the whole 'fire power' can be turned into offensive operations - not true for the other assets that are important early on).SW1 wrote:what is being missed in the comments is distributed operations.
Do u need so much concentrated in one place
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
That’s my point though it gives you the same over all air wing, if you are going to go through the hassle cost and delays of changing carrier build mid program along with introducing a new class then you are going to want the out come to deliver more for similar money not the same.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Lose one, in each scenario, of the 'average sort' and you have 865 vs. 853... practically the same, but for the latter available over a wider area of Ops (one or several). Which takes us neatly to:Jake1992 wrote:10 Ford carriers gives you an over all max air wing of 950 while the 4+8 gives you an over all air wing of 930.and also air warfare is not done just by the carriers (though once they succeed in that, the whole 'fire power' can be turned into offensive operations - not true for the other assets that are important early on).SW1 wrote:what is being missed in the comments is distributed operations.
Do u need so much concentrated in one place
Granted it would give you greater over all flexibility in the fleet but is that enough to justify a mid build change ?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
isn't the article about saving money though ? surely just buy buying more smaller carriers with an equal or greater airwing ( albiet pro's of being in more places ) just spending the same $ ? if they want to save money something has to give...that's why the main reason we went stovl not catobar.
I see it as if they want to save money, cut nuclear power or capability i.e
same number of Conventional powered CV, 60 or so planes - broadly same sortie rate, save $ on initial nuclear costs + midlife refuels etc
same number of Smaller CVN's (more like CdeG) less sortie rate/aircraft, save money on airwing costs etc
Less carriers
I think the best would be 4 x fords, then conventional power for broadly the same airwing/sotie rate & keep the yards going,
Also would the non nuclear powered carriers have a increased avaliabilty rate to improve things further?
I see it as if they want to save money, cut nuclear power or capability i.e
same number of Conventional powered CV, 60 or so planes - broadly same sortie rate, save $ on initial nuclear costs + midlife refuels etc
same number of Smaller CVN's (more like CdeG) less sortie rate/aircraft, save money on airwing costs etc
Less carriers
I think the best would be 4 x fords, then conventional power for broadly the same airwing/sotie rate & keep the yards going,
Also would the non nuclear powered carriers have a increased avaliabilty rate to improve things further?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
The reason I brought up the air wing side of this is that can anyone here say that politically the US would cut the capabilities of its carrier force ? I don’t believe they would but if they went for smaller carriers ( QE sized ) that is was they would be doing unless they went for a greater number and then that in turn brings you back to to same sort of price as currently.serge750 wrote:isn't the article about saving money though ? surely just buy buying more smaller carriers with an equal or greater airwing ( albiet pro's of being in more places ) just spending the same $ ? if they want to save money something has to give...that's why the main reason we went stovl not catobar.
I see it as if they want to save money, cut nuclear power or capability i.e
same number of Conventional powered CV, 60 or so planes - broadly same sortie rate, save $ on initial nuclear costs + midlife refuels etc
same number of Smaller CVN's (more like CdeG) less sortie rate/aircraft, save money on airwing costs etc
Less carriers
I think the best would be 4 x fords, then conventional power for broadly the same airwing/sotie rate & keep the yards going,
Also would the non nuclear powered carriers have a increased avaliabilty rate to improve things further?
We have to remember unlike us where the carriers are seen “almost” purely as a military asset and it’s all about money, for the US they are a very big political aspect to them both at a domestic level and international level.