Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
laurencechris
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 23 May 2015, 21:45

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by laurencechris »

No Seawolf or Ceptor, repeating mistakes of Falklands. No other carrier is left so defenceless.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

At what point was were the carriers in the Falklands in danger because it lacked missile systems?

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
South Africa

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Old RN »

In the Falklands the dominant issue was keeping the carriers safe. Given the performance and simplicity claimed for Sea Ceptor (nearly as bad a name as Sea Slug!) it would seem simple to put a limited number (4 × 4?) on the carriers to improve their defence?

laurencechris
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 23 May 2015, 21:45

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by laurencechris »

The carriers and escorts were in mortal danger in the Falklands without point missile defence. CIWS Is too last chance saloon!

Why are we the only nation whose carriers have no credible SAM capability?

User avatar
WhitestElephant
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:57
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by WhitestElephant »

I guess the only consolation is that they can be fitted with CAMM fairly quickly (?) in an emergency... and of course, they will be closely escorted by the best air-defence destroyers in the world.
Though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. - Lord Tennyson (Ulysses)

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Again I'd ask, at what point were the carriers ever in danger to need it?

At what point has a carrier ever had to use its defensive armaments in this way in the Falklands War?

That is the job of the carrier group and the aircraft it carries. If you're relying on the carrier engaging on missile to missile, then the carrier isn't doing its real job.

They'd by nice, sure, but they're not a crucial element and most definitely not some "unlearned lesson."

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

There was never such a moment, for various reasons. One of the was that to remove nukes from the RN ships would have held back the Task Force by another 36 hours. BBC reports in 2005 on a book just then published on the topic:

"Thatcher's government was "desperate" to take them off the vessels, but they were trying to make the "biggest diplomatic impact", Professor Freedman said.

"They decided they had better take them and get them off later," he said. "They put them in the safest places possible. There was no intention to use them, but they certainly went."

The frigates Brilliant and Broadsword were each said to be carrying a normal complement of two nuclear depth charges.

Falklands conflict
Removing the weapons would have caused delays, Prof Freedman says
Ministers opted to store the depth charges on the nuclear weapon-equipped carriers Hermes and Invincible, the book recalls. But the carriers were kept out of Falklands' territorial waters to avoid potential allegations of violation of international law."

... Latin America being a nuclear-free zone etc. It was not just the carriers that received the nukes from other ships as the "safest place" then possible, but also some RFA deep magazines were used, for practicality, but basically for the same reasoning.

So the argument about the admirals being over-cautious with the carriers, and hence the Harriers having to operate at the extreme edge of their range gets cast into a different light as these things started to come out in the early 00's.
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)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by shark bait »

WhitestElephant wrote:Iclosely escorted by the best air-defence destroyers in the world.
Spot on there. Its why we shelled out billions for those ships.

For the sake of discussion though, with a land ceptor on the way, its reasonable to assume a system module could be made to sit on deck. The CAMM is supposedly designed with flexibility in mind.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by whitelancer »

If I remember correctly Hermes and Invincible had about 5 days before they sailed, why would it have taken another 36 hours to remove any nukes on board? As for the springtrain ships while they were already at sea they could have transferred any onto the ships not immediately heading south. I just cant see why any nukes had to be taken south!
Really though that's besides the point it was fear of losing a carrier, whether it had nukes on board or not, that persuaded Adm Woodward to keep the carriers as far from harm as possible which was certainly detrimental to air operations in particular providing a CAP to protect the landing. So he certainly considered his carriers under threat from air attack. Indeed Atlantic Conveyer was hit and sunk while it was with the carrier battle group. So to claim their was no threat to the carriers from air attack is in my opinion totally wrong. A local area air defence system as well as a CIWS are not nice to have they are essential on any carrier that expects to go to war. But then as the Government seems determined not to provide proper Carrier Air Wings perhaps they think they will never have to go to war. Impression over substance perhaps!

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

AAW - we have. How many of the six are ready to leave port at any given time might be an issue.

Local area defence - we are only now getting it with SeaCeptor, capable of crossing shots.

CIWS - three dozen of the Phalanx system to spread around, with a couple of Goalkeepers for such ships where you can afford cut holes through many deck levels.

Of these, as a system of all three plus some AEW+CAP later on, only the CIWS needs to be on the carrier itself.
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)

laurencechris
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 23 May 2015, 21:45

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by laurencechris »

Invincible fired it's sea dart as a desperate response, whilst the Atlantic Conveyor took a hit that was meant for the carriers. The RN lacks the vessels to provide guaranteed defence, whilst the Flaklands showed that capital ships need levels of self defence. 3 x phalanx will not be enough against determined and multiple attacks especially as T45s have limited stocks of missiles. Our carriers need SeaCeptor.

Geoff_B
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 01 May 2015, 22:25
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Geoff_B »

Anyway they has conducted studies to fit Sea Ceptor to the QECs, its not part of the build spec as yet and won't be as it may delay or increase the cost of the build, plus Sea Ceptor has not yet been fitted to a Type 23 and proven its worth as yet. However because its been studied and costed, should the system be needed it may well be sanctioned and fitted at first refit.

(I wouldn't be surprised it hasn't been put foward yet to justify the requirement for 13 Type 26s so enough to act as Escorts, and to ensure a minimal number of F-35B are required for CAP on every deployment to give the QECs layered Air Defence ! )

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Tony Williams »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: CIWS - three dozen of the Phalanx system to spread around, with a couple of Goalkeepers for such ships where you can afford cut holes through many deck levels.
Goalkeeper is almost gone. I think that only a couple of mountings remain in RN service, and they won't be for long.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

laurencechris wrote:Invincible fired it's sea dart as a desperate response, whilst the Atlantic Conveyor took a hit that was meant for the carriers. The RN lacks the vessels to provide guaranteed defence, whilst the Flaklands showed that capital ships need levels of self defence. 3 x phalanx will not be enough against determined and multiple attacks especially as T45s have limited stocks of missiles. Our carriers need SeaCeptor.
Do you have an information source, I have never heard any tales what-so-ever of Invincible even being in range of the planes, let alone Atlantic Conveyor "taking a hit". By most accounts, it was struck by two shots that veered off from another ship's flares. For that to have happened, Argentinian planes would have had to be right on Invincible, something I am pretty sure never happened. (Other from dodgy Argentinian claims of sinking her)

I'm not sure what you mean by "limited stocks of missiles." In any conflict where ASMs are flying, it's going to be a pretty enormous event of conventional warfare. If that sort of nightmare ever occured, you won't be seeing any less than 2 Type 45's on station, let alone the SeaCeptor equipped Type 23's/Type 26's around her. Thats well over 120 anti-air missiles, masses of CIWS, AEW, 5th Generation plane pickets and vastly more advanced electronic countermeasures now. If the conflict is using up more than that, then it is, frankly, beyond the scope of reality.

There is no pressing need for them to have them. It would simply add cost for no genuine reason at this stage of the game purely to try and "checkbox" against other carriers. The Americans can afford basically everything when it comes to this and the French have them because they had no Horizons when CdG was launched. (Indeed, relying on the carrier to launch it is part of why they were happy for Horizon to be what it was, as opposed to the Royal Navy's higher expectation for the AAW ships)

The Falklands did not show that carriers need such a high level of self defence. If anything, it showed the wisdom (unintentional or otherwise) of using them to "outrange" the enemy. Something F-35 happens to be particularly good at...

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

I've got to say, it scares me that if anything gets lobbed at the QEs they're incapable of shooting back until it gets within a mile of them.

If you can't start shooting until a target's a few seconds away it isn't going to take much of a saturation attack to make it highly likely something gets through.

Sea Ceptor looks like a no-brainer. I'd love to see the Phalanx replaced by something with more reach. If we're climbing into bed with BAES for the Mark 45 on the T26, then Mk 110 for the carriers would look like a damned good investment (stick one on the ludicrous new OPVs while we're at it).

But hey, all this costs money.

User avatar
Oddball
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 08 May 2015, 22:26

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Oddball »

Something not to be missed on the telly Tuesday night.

Yesterday (Freeview 19.sky537,virgin206) 9 PM Impossible Engineering focusing on the QE build with a general history of carriers thrown in.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

Oddball wrote:Something not to be missed on the telly Tuesday night.

Yesterday (Freeview 19.sky537,virgin206) 9 PM Impossible Engineering focusing on the QE build with a general history of carriers thrown in.
Someone record that, too!
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Tony Williams »

RetroSicotte wrote: The Falklands did not show that carriers need such a high level of self defence. If anything, it showed the wisdom (unintentional or otherwise) of using them to "outrange" the enemy. Something F-35 happens to be particularly good at...
We were lucky that the distance from Argentina to the Falklands put the islands right on the edge of the combat radius of the Argentinian planes. This meant that the carriers could be placed just a bit further east, safe from the enemy planes but close enough to the Falklands for their Harriers to be able to provide cover. We are unlikely to see such favourable circumstances in future conflicts.

In the future, the new carriers might need to engage land targets, which could easily place them within range of enemy aircraft or even long-range anti-ship missiles. Such threats would force them to operate a long way out to sea, minimising the payload of their F-35s and significantly reducing their sortie rate. Alternatively, they could move in closer and trust to a well-layered defensive system, in which case Sea Ceptor on the carriers as well as on escorts would be an advantage.

The Russians and the Chinese still operate bombers with a combat radius far greater than that of the F-35B, and the very long range Su-27 family of planes has achieved numerous export sales. Some of the family can also carry long-range anti-ship missiles.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Geoff_B wrote: I wouldn't be surprised it hasn't been put foward yet to justify the requirement for 13 Type 26s so enough to act as Escorts, and to ensure a minimal number of F-35B are required for CAP on every deployment to give the QECs layered Air Defence !
makes a valid point.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

Oddball wrote:Something not to be missed on the telly Tuesday night.

Yesterday (Freeview 19.sky537,virgin206) 9 PM Impossible Engineering focusing on the QE build with a general history of carriers thrown in.
Thanks for the heads up!

Yesterday have an online on demand service too, it seems, so we should be able to catch it on there if we miss it on Tuesday:

http://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/on-demand/

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

RichardIC wrote:I've got to say, it scares me that if anything gets lobbed at the QEs they're incapable of shooting back until it gets within a mile of them.
When would an aircraft carrier ever be in a warzone with no escorts and with no aircraft up?

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by jonas »

Tony Williams wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote: The Falklands did not show that carriers need such a high level of self defence. If anything, it showed the wisdom (unintentional or otherwise) of using them to "outrange" the enemy. Something F-35 happens to be particularly good at...
We were lucky that the distance from Argentina to the Falklands put the islands right on the edge of the combat radius of the Argentinian planes. This meant that the carriers could be placed just a bit further east, safe from the enemy planes but close enough to the Falklands for their Harriers to be able to provide cover. We are unlikely to see such favourable circumstances in future conflicts.

In the future, the new carriers might need to engage land targets, which could easily place them within range of enemy aircraft or even long-range anti-ship missiles. Such threats would force them to operate a long way out to sea, minimising the payload of their F-35s and significantly reducing their sortie rate. Alternatively, they could move in closer and trust to a well-layered defensive system, in which case Sea Ceptor on the carriers as well as on escorts would be an advantage.

The Russians and the Chinese still operate bombers with a combat radius far greater than that of the F-35B, and the very long range Su-27 family of planes has achieved numerous export sales. Some of the family can also carry long-range anti-ship missiles.[/quote

As far as the carrier closing to engage land targets, would that be after the T26 with 24 strike length silos had done a job on whatever targets that may be. Not to mention the SSN's armed with TLAM's, both of which have been the prefered method of attacking such targets in recent conflicts. In these conflicts mainlly used by the US, as we only had a limited SSN strike capability, but in the not too distant future we will have that option.
So that whatever aircraft that will be used to attack any naval force, would have been made to use airfields further inland. If as we are told the PAAMS system on T45 is as good as is being made out, they will be picked up very early and hopefully dealt with. Along with the 46 sea ceptors per T26 to deal with any leakers. I not that extended range sea ceptor is on the cards, hopefully by the time first T26 comes online it will be even more capable.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

When would an aircraft carrier ever be in a warzone with no escorts and with no aircraft up?
Why bother arming them at all then? Why do the Americans arm their own carriers so heavily when they have massive airgroups?

Escorts have their own vulnerabilities, limited loadouts and we haven't got enough of them.

And with a possibility that the QEs may go to sea with as few as 12 F-35Bs (we may or may not have enough for a surge) that's barely enough to maintain a CAP 24/7.

And if flying is limited or has to halt for any reason - severe weather, an accident, damage, whatever - it would be nice not to have something other than last-ditch CIWS.

At least the QEs won't be reliant on a single lift stuck smack bang in the middle of the runway that could halt flying with a simple mechanical failure, unlike the Invincibles. The Falklands may have turned out differently if that had gone U/S.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Why bother arming them at all then? Why do the Americans arm their own carriers so heavily when they have massive airgroups?
Because their budget accounts for 70% of all NATO spending and permits them to spend more on two destroyers than we have on two supercarriers and an entire infrastructure to operate them.

The Russians did it because their ship wasn't really an aircraft carrier when it was designed. Same goes for the Invincible Class (and note that they removed them). The French did it because they had no modernised anti-air when they build her. We do.
Escorts have their own vulnerabilities, limited loadouts and we haven't got enough of them.

And with a possibility that the QEs may go to sea with as few as 12 F-35Bs (we may or may not have enough for a surge) that's barely enough to maintain a CAP 24/7.
In any situation where we are facing an enemy that can spam over a hundred ASMs at us from first world advanced sources with the ISTAR to spot the carrier in the first place, then we most certainly will not be going to war with 12 F-35Bs and no escorts.

If an attack is of the scale that is going to penetrate over 90 Aster missiles, over 60-100 SeaCeptor missiles, 24-36 F-35's, many many levels of ECM and probably a good ten or so CIWS, then having another 12 SeaCeptor on the carrier's deck is not going to change very much at all and it is absolutely a fringe case that does not warrant spending money we don't have on this most unlikely scenario. In that case why stop there? Why not start putting Stingrays on it just in case a bunch of subs come at us? Why not give it a Sonar 2087? There is no end to the rabbit hole but there is very much a bottom of the wallet.

The DS30M's and CIWS on it are as much for point defence of surface (ala - USS Cole) as they are for anything in the sky, remember.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

All points accepted, but having so much riding on such lightly defended vessels still makes me feel queasy.

Post Reply