UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Location: United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Halidon » 07 Sep 2017, 07:17

I don't dislike the PoW name, and it's not my Navy anyway, but I'm a bit sad George VI seems destined to never have a capital ship named for him. Seems a raw deal for a wartime King who, as a prince, served the RN at Jutland.

Defiance
Member
Posts: 535
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Defiance » 07 Sep 2017, 08:24

I think it's a bit more poetic, the sinking of the previous Prince of Wales being representative of the decline of the battleship in favour of airpower.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 13348
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Sep 2017, 08:35

Agreed. And PoW + South China Sea? Isn't that where they will be headed, taking turns, sure

While the name makes a nice pair with the other carrier, and harks back to (building/ solidifying) the Special Relationship
"1941, the very first wartime meeting between U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill took place aboard the Prince of Wales, off the coast of Canada."
the use of the capital ship as a strategic tool was very reminiscent of the emerging RN strategy:
"Churchill and the British naval high command ordered the creation of Force Z [...] with the intention of warning the Japanese away from aggressive behavior."
... single Task Force...all is lost (or won) despite the airpower nuances. Many lessons learnt; this time not embodied in just a document ;)

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby james k » 07 Sep 2017, 09:58

The ability to see.


quote="R686"]
james k wrote:That steel on her bows looks painfully thin, more so than Queen Elizabeth, has someone been cutting costs or is it an optical illusion? And some of that welding looks more like a school project than proper shipbuilding.


Can I ask from what Qualifications you base that on?[/quote]

shotleylad
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 25 May 2015, 08:38
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby shotleylad » 07 Sep 2017, 10:42

The steel and welding looks OK to me.

CameronPerson
Member
Posts: 300
Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby CameronPerson » 07 Sep 2017, 11:28

New round of defence cuts today and F-35 procurement has been slowed. Now looking at 38 aircraft by 2025 instead of the target of 48. Final order of 138 unchanged. Of course it's inevitable that with cuts comes the spin of a "rising defence budget" which as we know, is a line that Michael Fallon has been repeating constantly since the 2015 SDSR.. in fact I think he's recorded himself saying it onto his phone so when asked any question he just plays the recording by default. Saves time I suppose. ;)

Although being pitifully slow procurement of aircraft, what do you think the implications for QE and PoW are? Does it effect plans that much considering we were always planning to lean on the USMC to help us during the early years of operation, and it might just be me but I don't recall anyone official making a promise to carry the max 36 British aircraft on the carrier anytime soon. I would have guessed that if that was going to happen at all it would be with the Yanks providing the big numbers.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1831
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Location: Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby R686 » 07 Sep 2017, 11:45

james k wrote:The ability to see.


quote="R686"]
james k wrote:That steel on her bows looks painfully thin, more so than Queen Elizabeth, has someone been cutting costs or is it an optical illusion? And some of that welding looks more like a school project than proper shipbuilding.


Can I ask from what Qualifications you base that on?


didn't know a mere mortal can tell the thickness of metal or the welding ability from a photo on the internet, or you doubt the integrity of the team of assessors from Lloyd's Register

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3724
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 07 Sep 2017, 11:51

If true, cutting 10 F35B cost about 1-1.5B GBP by 2025, although we must be careful because Gabriele-san pointed out this is just "under consideration" and not yet determined.

On the other side, T31e program cost is around 1.25-1.5B GBP, by 2027. Matches well. Yes this is just speculation....

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1736
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 07 Sep 2017, 12:02

CameronPerson wrote:New round of defence cuts today and F-35 procurement has been slowed. Now looking at 38 aircraft by 2025 instead of the target of 48. Final order of 138 unchanged. Of course it's inevitable that with cuts comes the spin of a "rising defence budget" which as we know, is a line that Michael Fallon has been repeating constantly since the 2015 SDSR.. in fact I think he's recorded himself saying it onto his phone so when asked any question he just plays the recording by default. Saves time I suppose. ;)

Although being pitifully slow procurement of aircraft, what do you think the implications for QE and PoW are? Does it effect plans that much considering we were always planning to lean on the USMC to help us during the early years of operation, and it might just be me but I don't recall anyone official making a promise to carry the max 36 British aircraft on the carrier anytime soon. I would have guessed that if that was going to happen at all it would be with the Yanks providing the big numbers.


What will the implications be if we need the carrier to carry a full airwing for our own operation that the yanks don't agree with ?

Or similarly if the yanks provide say two thirds of the airwing for any giving operation who is in charge of them, will they go in to battle on our decision ?

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby james k » 07 Sep 2017, 12:30

Mortal or not anyone can see if metal plate looks thick or thin and I think that looks thin. As I said it may be an optical illusion. Welding is an art and it's very easy to see if it's been done well and some of the seams there look rough and unfinished, up close they may not be but that is how they look. Now I'll offer you some advice - I suggest that you stand up and withdraw the thing that you have shoved up your backside

R686 wrote:
james k wrote:The ability to see.


quote="R686"]
james k wrote:That steel on her bows looks painfully thin, more so than Queen Elizabeth, has someone been cutting costs or is it an optical illusion? And some of that welding looks more like a school project than proper shipbuilding.


Can I ask from what Qualifications you base that on?


didn't know a mere mortal can tell the thickness of metal or the welding ability from a photo on the internet, or you doubt the integrity of the team of assessors from Lloyd's Register

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1831
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Location: Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby R686 » 07 Sep 2017, 12:48

james k wrote:. Now I'll offer you some advice - I suggest that you stand up and withdraw the thing that you have shoved up your backside



oh comm'on you can do better than that, but in order for you to insult me I would first have to give a flying fuck

indeid
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby indeid » 07 Sep 2017, 13:06

james k wrote:That steel on her bows looks painfully thin, more so than Queen Elizabeth, has someone been cutting costs or is it an optical illusion? And some of that welding looks more like a school project than proper shipbuilding.


I blame the RAF........

The other sevices would get far more from the amount of steel they used.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2652
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 07 Sep 2017, 15:02

Chill, everyone. If there's further insults directly back and forth then we'll be taking stronger action here.

Remember that a level of respect and politeness is expected at all times here. If you have a problem with someone's posting, then use the Report System, rather than wading in with insults.

This is an informal reminder, expecting it to cease.

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby james k » 07 Sep 2017, 15:22

If there is a fault then it must indeed be the fault of the RAF :lol:

indeid wrote:
james k wrote:That steel on her bows looks painfully thin, more so than Queen Elizabeth, has someone been cutting costs or is it an optical illusion? And some of that welding looks more like a school project than proper shipbuilding.


I blame the RAF........

The other sevices would get far more from the amount of steel they used.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4819
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 07 Sep 2017, 18:11

From the Times on the latest cuts (and on the same day the Type 31 program kicks off with Fallon & clique spouting on about increasing budgets!):

"Warships and battlefield training to be axed in defence cuts
Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor

September 7 2017, 12:01am, The Times

Two Royal Navy ships and battlefield training for thousands of troops will be cut to save money from the defence budget, The Times has learnt.

A slowdown in the purchase of next-generation F-35 Lightning II warplanes from the United States is under consideration as military chiefs and mandarins struggle to find up to £30 billion in savings over the next decade. Twelve helicopters used by special forces will also be taken out of service.

Defence sources said the cuts risk damaging morale. The armed forces are several thousand short of their personnel target and struggling to retain talent.

The cost savings come at a time of global crises including a nuclear stand-off between North Korea and the United States and as Russia prepares to conduct a military exercise along Nato’s eastern flank next week.

General Sir Richard Barrons, a former commander, said Britain was taking a risk with defence because the public has lived through a period of relative peace in western Europe, a status quo that is not guaranteed.

“There are potential risks to our homeland and our vital interests abroad that we cannot address with our capability,” he said, adding that the top brass, ministers and parliament should be making a national debate of whether the country wants the military to be in this state.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is trying to close the funding gap that emerged when a defence review in 2015 included the purchase of jets and ships part-funded by unspecified “efficiency savings”.

Underestimating the cost of new kit and a drop in the value of the pound have added to the shortfall.

One push is focused on balancing the in-year budget, which has a hole of about £2 billion. Another strand forms part of a capability review led by the Cabinet Office. There are also proposals to save money by improving internal structures across defence.

Royal Navy minehunters are being targeted. The fleet of Hunt-class and Sandown-class ships will be cut from 15 to 13 in the coming year, freeing sailors to man the rest of the fleet.

The number of armoured battle groups, each comprising about 1,000 soldiers, deploying to British Army Training Unit Suffield in Canada for training this year will be reduced from four to three. Over the same period light infantry battlegroups sent to British Army Training Unit Kenya will be cut from five to three.

The temporary move, expected to save about £20 million, will reduce the army’s overall readiness, although soldiers bound for Iraq, Afghanistan, Estonia and a high-readiness brigade in the UK will not be affected.

In another move, 12 Lynx helicopters operated by 657 Squadron of the Army Air Corps and used by special forces will be taken out of service. The aircraft were being funded by the Treasury but that money runs out in March.

The MoD source said that this was because the special forces said they wanted a better aircraft. A detachment of Puma helicopters would fill the gap until a new aircraft is bought so the SAS and SBS would not lose capability, he said. Another source said the reason was likely to be financial: “I find it hard to believe that special forces would do away with any capability that has been proven in theatre.”

More significant cuts are being looked at as part of the Cabinet Office-led review including the possible slowdown in F-35 purchases, four sources said. A plan to buy 48 of the jets by 2025 — at a cost of at least £100 million each — could be slowed to 38 over the same period. The total purchase of 138 over the programme’s lifetime is unchanged.

The MoD said: “In the face of intensifying threats we are looking at how we best spend a rising defence budget to support our national security.”

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 13348
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Sep 2017, 19:05

NAO publications have lost a lot of their broader review content (in other countries that is called transparency of spending and budgets) and hence we are forced to believe whatever version is fed to us. Compare
- how the £38 bn that was eliminated has come back
struggle to find up to £30 billion in savings over the next decade

- quite right; but how do they debate without proper input. We do not have a "Congressional Research Service"
parliament should be making a national debate of whether the country wants the military to be in this state.

One push is focused on balancing the in-year budget, which has a hole of about £2 billion.
... even this one has doubled in half a year?! Or, is it that the efficiency savings not found have been added back to the deficit?

Enigmatically
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Enigmatically » 07 Sep 2017, 21:59

The USN put ESSM and RAM on their Amphibs. But the Aussies don't put a missile. So its not just the Brits who make that judgement (and their is less of a justification for not doing it on Amphibs)

It is well documented that steel looks think on most modern warships because of the construction techniques making it look like a hungry horse, irrespective of thickness.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2652
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 08 Sep 2017, 01:25

Enigmatically wrote:The USN put ESSM and RAM on their Amphibs. But the Aussies don't put a missile. So its not just the Brits who make that judgement (and their is less of a justification for not doing it on Amphibs)


Because the Juan Carlos class doesn't have a demonstrated missile integration yet (given Spain's own budget woes), so it would have cost the Aussies a whole lot to put them on.

They were too budget strapped to even get the ramp removed from the design despite not having anything that can use it. They were never going to afford missiles. It's not because of a doctrinal reason. It's just lack of money, same as us.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1535
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby seaspear » 08 Sep 2017, 01:57

There are many differences between the Juan Carlos and Canberra class that increased the capabilities of the Canberra class ,the money was put into those capabilities than the ramp ,which was a tease for the f35b fans

User avatar
swoop
Member
Posts: 214
Joined: 03 May 2015, 21:25
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby swoop » 08 Sep 2017, 03:52

Halidon wrote:The aft sponsons contain the Plasma gasification plant built by Pyrogenesis.

After looking at a few more images of that last night, it seems like a huge afterthought to add that block onto the hull. Earlier designs seem to show a much smaller block for the missile mount. Presumably there is an abundance of electrical power so adding a garbage disposal system will keep a greenie happy (yeah, that'll never happen...).

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1831
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Location: Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby R686 » 08 Sep 2017, 04:52

seaspear wrote:There are many differences between the Juan Carlos and Canberra class that increased the capabilities of the Canberra class ,the money was put into those capabilities than the ramp ,which was a tease for the f35b fans


Agree the ADF priorities were command and control, don't think for the cost of removing the jump would have given any more options for landing spots just more volume space for self defence weapons.

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Location: United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Halidon » 08 Sep 2017, 06:53

swoop wrote:
Halidon wrote:The aft sponsons contain the Plasma gasification plant built by Pyrogenesis.

After looking at a few more images of that last night, it seems like a huge afterthought to add that block onto the hull. Earlier designs seem to show a much smaller block for the missile mount. Presumably there is an abundance of electrical power so adding a garbage disposal system will keep a greenie happy (yeah, that'll never happen...).

Yes the original aft sponsons were a great deal smaller as all they needed to carry was a missile launcher. However "afterthought" is not the sort of word I would use to describe the addition of PAWDS and the supersize sponsons that came along with, it was done with due consideration and the system had to proceed it's way onto the ship. They aren't the sleekest saddlebags in history, but they get the job done so far.

As for "greenies," I've been accused of being one in my time and yet I am quite happy about my country's CVNs and the steps the Navy has made to get more green. Can't speak for others but hopefully those who who take the time to study the system and it's use will see it as a positive step. PAWDS is a serious improvement over pitching stuff into the ocean, and hopefully the Navy's use of it will help bring commercial plasma gasification a step closer to wide acceptance.

User avatar
QEC Eye in the SKY
Member
Posts: 277
Joined: 27 May 2015, 12:51
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby QEC Eye in the SKY » 08 Sep 2017, 09:48






User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 6577
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby SKB » 08 Sep 2017, 10:04

For comparison:
Image
^ QE naming, 4th July 2014
Image
^ PoW naming 8th September 2017

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 6577
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby SKB » 08 Sep 2017, 10:19


New video from ACA


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ddinoz, Majestic-12 [Bot], MarkyMark, RichardIC and 30 guests