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
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1873
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 10 May 2018, 11:56

SKB wrote:How's this? Shrunk it by 50%
Much better :thumbup:

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 6774
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby SKB » 10 May 2018, 14:01


inch
Member
Posts: 906
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby inch » 10 May 2018, 14:15

they must have built pow longer than qe according to the reporter at over 300mts length and rivalling US carriers ."wow" news to me .lol ...but on serious note yes good the ships getting affiliated with the great cities around our country :-)

Little J
Member
Posts: 656
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Little J » 10 May 2018, 16:04

R686 wrote:Agree it looks shit, better replace it with Skippy :clap:

http://www.navy.gov.au/history/traditio ... l-insignia


We're more than happy to build a couple of QE's for you to permanently have Skippy on :D

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1856
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Location: Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby R686 » 10 May 2018, 17:07

Little J wrote:
R686 wrote:Agree it looks shit, better replace it with Skippy :clap:

http://www.navy.gov.au/history/traditio ... l-insignia


We're more than happy to build a couple of QE's for you to permanently have Skippy on :D


Quite happy to do that old son, but I think that old silver haired blokes who currently resides in the Lodge is waiting for another UK fire sale, to pick it up on te cheap again. :thumbup:

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1615
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby seaspear » 11 May 2018, 02:37

I was wondering if there is any definitive information on the differences between the two carriers ,it has been published that some corridors are widened on the P.O.W for its troop carrying role but not how much and and the expense of what areas,there have been claims of a heavier weight without being exact or specifically why and if these differences effect any differences comparing the capabilities in how these ships operate or other measures e.g. stores carried , sortie rate of rotary aircraft ?

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 6774
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby SKB » 11 May 2018, 09:28


Odd... S.S. Great Britain flying the White Ensign.

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby shotleylad » 11 May 2018, 10:37

The Great Britain always has the White Ensign flying.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 6774
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby SKB » 11 May 2018, 11:17

Aha! From Wikipedia:
"Brunel's SS Great Britain, although a merchant ship, appears to have worn (and still wears, in dry dock) the White Ensign, apparently because its first master James Hosken (an ex-Royal Navy man) brought it with him."

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1856
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Location: Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby R686 » 13 May 2018, 07:52

Apologies if I missed this, but I agree with the whole premises of the article.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/is-ther ... -carriers/

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 14879
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 May 2018, 08:45

Regardless of whether one agrees with the views or not, Richard Beedall's texts are always superb.

HMS Eagle out in 1972 and in "April 2023(!) 809 Naval Air Squadron (NAS) will re-commission with Lightening’s"

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1856
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Location: Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby R686 » 13 May 2018, 08:51

I had a chuckle when I read this little bit,

We therefore plan to replace our current aircraft carriers with two larger vessels in the second decade of the next century. Present thinking suggests that new carriers might be of the order of 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes and capable of carrying up to 50 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters.


might have been good if they were thinking Super Tucano's or something similar :clap: :clap:

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Enigmatically » 13 May 2018, 10:04

R686 wrote:Apologies if I missed this, but I agree with the whole premises of the article.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/is-ther ... -carriers/


ArmChairCivvy wrote:Regardless of whether one agrees with the views or not, Richard Beedall's texts are always superb.

HMS Eagle out in 1972 and in "April 2023(!) 809 Naval Air Squadron (NAS) will re-commission with Lightening’s"


I must disagree. I cannot agree that his text his superb when he repeatedly gets the name of the aircraft wrong. It is named after the discharge of electrical energy from the sky, not a process of removing weight. So it is Lightning, not Lightening. Even if I could overlook the other spelling mistakes (e.g. miss-use), such a fundamental mistake as this seems bizarre.

Furthermore he overlooks many factors that are well known. He says that the QEC ships are too big, partly because of the number of crew. He then lauds the America class as more the correct size, despite the fact that it has a bigger complement, and was not designed from the start for F-35Bs. Automation to reduce crew takes space. So does the equipment required to make maximum use of the F-35Bs information systems.
Apparently QEC is too big and thus too expensive (even though he starts with the principle that steel is cheap and air if free), and over-equipped but under-armed.
He also gets the costs wrong
So he ignores too many basic facts and has too many internal contradictions for me to think that article is "superb". Indeed IMO it is of a poor quality compared to much of his work.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1856
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Location: Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby R686 » 13 May 2018, 15:51

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Regardless of whether one agrees with the views or not, Richard Beedall's texts are always superb.

HMS Eagle out in 1972 and in "April 2023(!) 809 Naval Air Squadron (NAS) will re-commission with Lightening’s"


I believe they are insightful in the overall premise of the subject matter at hand


Enigmatically wrote:I must disagree. I cannot agree that his text his superb when he repeatedly gets the name of the aircraft wrong. It is named after the discharge of electrical energy from the sky, not a process of removing weight. So it is Lightning, not Lightening. Even if I could overlook the other spelling mistakes (e.g. miss-use), such a fundamental mistake as this seems bizarre..

well we all cant be Rhodes Scholars can we, I'm certainly far from it

Enigmatically wrote:Furthermore he overlooks many factors that are well known. He says that the QEC ships are too big, partly because of the number of crew.


He is far from saying that they are too big in the role the ship was initially designed for.(Strike Carrier)

Enigmatically wrote: He then lauds the America class as more the correct size, despite the fact that it has a bigger complement, and was not designed from the start for F-35Bs.


He is comparing the roles in which they now find themselves in, not the doctrinally how the RN & USN compare when crewing a ship

Enigmatically wrote:Apparently QEC is too big and thus too expensive (even though he starts with the principle that steel is cheap and air if free), and over-equipped but under-armed.


what he is comparing it too is ships built for approx. half the price in the role that the QECV are being pushed into, its like saying that the USN will put the new Ford Class CVN in the same tactical position as a Wasp/America class ship, the USN just would not do it


Enigmatically wrote:He also gets the costs wrong
So he ignores too many basic facts and has too many internal contradictions for me to think that article is "superb". Indeed IMO it is of a poor quality compared to much of his work.


Even the best of us sometime muddle things up.

But the context of the article is if you had a crystal ball and saw how badly effected the overall capability of the RN would find itself in, would you still build QECV or would you build something that gives the 80% solution to funding and overall balanced capability. I cant say for certain he's right or wrong, but there is no doubt that the QECV have placed the RN in a difficult position to the overall balance of the RN.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 2360
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 13 May 2018, 16:03

For me the biggest thing is that it is pushing the idea the carriers are the cause of the funding woes when in fact it is the 31 billion pound of the CASD program that is killing the MOD

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1800
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 13 May 2018, 16:06

Why do people seem to think it's the QEs that have put the fleet out of balance when clearly they a remarkably cheap for what they are, espaily when compared to other carrier costs around the world.

What has through the fleet out of balance is the constant cuts to the budgets over the times of these projects.

Let's look at it like this, if I asked you to build me a couple of high end super cars 4 standard cars and say 10 bikes over 15 odd years and said at the start you have a £2m budget, but then over the year I kept cutting that budget first to £1.75m then £1.5m and Finaly to £1m and I also said you had to fund the cost of my existing super car and its replacement in to the same budget. Things would obviously have to give.

It's not the QEs that have upset the balance its the fact that the budget for that balanced fleet has been cut over and over.

It's gone from 12 T45s, 20 T26s, 12 Astutes, 2 QEs and ocean.
Down to what we have today, and at the same time the budget has gone from around 3.2% of GDP to around 1.6-1.7% of GDP coincidence ? I think not

albedo
Member
Posts: 139
Joined: 27 Jun 2017, 21:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby albedo » 13 May 2018, 16:12

Tempest414 wrote:For me the biggest thing is that it is pushing the idea the carriers are the cause of the funding woes when in fact it is the 31 billion pound of the CASD program that is killing the MOD


That's part of it I'm sure, as is persistent under-estimation of likely programme costs (it's almost like every new programme proposal should have a 30% contingency automatically built in).

But what's the answer - abandon CASD? But please, let's leave moving the CASD budget back out of the MoD out of consideration - that just ain't going to happen; there's no political will at all in the present austere climate and little rationale either, truth be told.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 5109
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 13 May 2018, 16:15

Tempest414 wrote:For me the biggest thing is that it is pushing the idea the carriers are the cause of the funding woes when in fact it is the 31 billion pound of the CASD program that is killing the MOD


I disagree. The huge cuts in the defence budget are the problem.

Beedall's article is a poor one.

The original decision to build CVF was the same one to build CVA01 carriers, that is to provide the ability to strike land and surface ship targets anywhere in the world within reach of the sea and at the same time provide air cover to the carrier itself and its supporting fleet.

Interesting enough, even though both decisions were so far apart, the capacity of both carriers are approx the same. 50 aircraft in a mix of strike, air defence, AEW & ASW.

The smaller carriers he proposes would not be capable of doing that. Period.

As for the ability to build more Type 45's & Type 26's if the UK didn't have strike carriers, I would ask what would be the point of building expensive escorts with nothing worth that level of escort?

P.S. the biggest single contributor to the cost of the CVF program was the Gordon Brown decision to postpone their completion by two years.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 14879
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 May 2018, 18:09

Enigmatically wrote:such a fundamental mistake as this seems bizarre


Were I to write with the same clarity at his age (spelling apart) I would be a happy bunny :)

Enigmatically wrote:Indeed IMO it is of a poor quality compared to much of his work.

- like the authorative history, with all the fact-checked facts, written over the many years when the carrier prgrm took shape (thru many twists and turns)?

R686 wrote:He is comparing the roles in which they now find themselves in

- the point, actually
+
R686 wrote: he is comparing it to[o ,] is ships built for approx. half the price in the role that the QECV are being pushed into


R686 wrote: would you still build QECV or would you build something that gives the 80% solution to funding and overall balanced capability. I cant say for certain he's right or wrong

- neither can I, but good to ask the question?

Ron5 wrote:P.S. the biggest single contributor to the cost of the CVF program was the Gordon Brown decision to postpone their completion by two years.

- absolutely correct (not to mention that there was a "make work" aspect embedded from earlier)
- hence the VFM question... with a longer batch (than 2... or 1!) such delay would not have been necessary and VFM would have been better

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 2360
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 13 May 2018, 19:29

albedo wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:For me the biggest thing is that it is pushing the idea the carriers are the cause of the funding woes when in fact it is the 31 billion pound of the CASD program that is killing the MOD


That's part of it I'm sure, as is persistent under-estimation of likely programme costs (it's almost like every new programme proposal should have a 30% contingency automatically built in).

But what's the answer - abandon CASD? But please, let's leave moving the CASD budget back out of the MoD out of consideration - that just ain't going to happen; there's no political will at all in the present austere climate and little rationale either, truth be told.


I am not saying that CASD should be abandoned but what ever happens if HMG want it they needed to pay for it by upping the budget or moving the program out of the Budget as for it not being moved there is more pressure to do so. also lets remember that the cost was moved over to the MOD in 2010 and it is this that has been unbalanced the fleet

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby indeid » 13 May 2018, 19:51

Tempest414 wrote:I am not saying that CASD should be abandoned but what ever happens if HMG want it they needed to pay for it by upping the budget or moving the program out of the Budget as for it not being moved there is more pressure to do so. also lets remember that the cost was moved over to the MOD in 2010 and it is this that has been unbalanced the fleet


The deterrent has always been funded from within the Defence Budget. The wording of CSR07 seems to have started the thinking that capital costs of the Trident replacement would come from outside the allocated budget, and it is that line of thinking Osborn quashed in 2010, not a change in previous policy. No idea if there is a designated top up line for the deterrent from the treasury, but it has always sat in defence.

This document seems to have the detail https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... fullreport

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 6774
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby SKB » 13 May 2018, 19:59


Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 984
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 14 May 2018, 00:27

Shame that there will not be an HMS Duke of York in the picture as well :thumbdown:

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 5109
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 14 May 2018, 01:21

Duke of Edinburgh surely.

Rumored to be the name of CVA02. CVA03 being Prince of Wales.

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 984
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 14 May 2018, 02:13

I have no objection to Having four of them! ............ Even though the lack of escorts & aircraft would be even more problematic for the politicos. :think:


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests