Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Halidon]

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]

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.

[ArmChairCivvy]

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]

The ability to see.


quote="R686"]

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]

The steel and welding looks OK to me.

[CameronPerson]

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]

The ability to see.


quote="R686"]

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]

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]

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]

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

The ability to see.


quote="R686"]

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]

. 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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.”

[ArmChairCivvy]

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]

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]

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]

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

[swoop]

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]

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.

[Halidon]

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.

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

[SKB]

For comparison:

^ QE naming, 4th July 2014

^ PoW naming 8th September 2017

[SKB]

New video from ACA