Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... anxWeapons

Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con):
"How many Phalanx close-in weapon systems will be fitted to each new aircraft carrier; and if he will make a statement?"

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster):
"Three Phalanx close-in weapon systems will be fitted to each new aircraft carrier. Two are being fitted to HMS Queen Elizabeth during her current capability insertion period, with the third to be fitted towards the end of 2020. Three will be fitted to HMS Prince Of Wales in 2020."
Only two Phalanx on QE until end of 2020? Wtf? Why? :shock:

2x Phalanx Arcs:
QE Phalanx 2019-2020.PNG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

May be part of the reason why 2 escorts are "virtually in extended readiness".



https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8473830/h ... t-of-crew/

PhillyJ
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:27
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by PhillyJ »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Some interesting images of current progress on HMS Prince of Wales.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/hms-prince-of-wales
They used 'The' HMS Prince Of Wales, just me being picky, but very annoying!

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

# Mistakenly posted to escort thread... Sorry.

Can you see the two "yellow dotted lines" showing the "escape zone" for the blast of the two ASTER15 SAM VLS launchers?
- On the starboard forward VLS, an E2C is located.
- The port-side amidship one, is just before the catapult set position, on which another E2C is located in the photo.

Two impressions.
- SAM VLS does have some impact on airplane handling, as expected (or the other way, aircraft handling has impact on SAM).
- but, still CdG has is. Did not omit it for long. I think it is considered to be vital.
Dz39pM_WkAAz05x.jpg-large.jpeg

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

SKB wrote:Only two Phalanx on QE until end of 2020? Wtf? Why? :shock:
As long as three Phalanx are fitted before her first operational deployment in 2021, I don't think it matters.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Would it save time to fit the phalanx to P.O.W now ?

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by abc123 »

SKB wrote:
2x Phalanx Arcs:
QE Phalanx 2019-2020.PNG
:o :( :thumbdown:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Good to hear that a forth Phalanx can be fitted to the QE's if threat level deemed severe enough to require it.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... anxWeapons
OMFG, so you need a separate study about threat levels for UKs capital ships to spend fuck*** 10-15 mil. pounds for another goddamned Phalanx? :roll:

It's like buying a Ferrari for 100 000 pounds and then not want to spend 10 pounds for buying first aid kit?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Often a study is just a delaying tactic to spending money ,it presents those doing this as publicly diligent and responsible , usually risk mitigation though is carried out much earlier in the planning stage.

Digger22
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Digger22 »

We talked about CIWS on the class years ago on the old Site, I couldn't believe we would skimp on Protection for such a massive investment. 4 Phalanx to me is a bare minimum, giving two CIWS mounts to engage any and all close in threats instead of sometimes one, depending on where the threat lies.
So why wouldn't you have four?? It guarantees double the chance of engagement on some arcs.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Phalanx as I understand has a magazine capacity for twenty to thirty seconds before needing to be manually reloaded , for multiple threats from different directions ,maybe they better breakout that gun from the ward room , you would have to hope the escorts have a full missile loadout with this sort of parsimony going on .

Digger22
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Digger22 »

A swarm attack would overload any defence, eventually. My point was that to be able to engage a threat with two Phalanx rather than one has to be better.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SW1 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:May be part of the reason why 2 escorts are "virtually in extended readiness".



https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8473830/h ... t-of-crew/
So having underestimated the budget by about 100% to build them, we also underestimated the crew requirements by about 20%, I assume these crew numbers could be subject to revision after we actually test the ship in operationally relevant trials?

cpu121
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 10 May 2015, 02:09

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by cpu121 »

SW1 wrote: So having underestimated the budget by about 100% to build them, we also underestimated the crew requirements by about 20%, I assume these crew numbers could be subject to revision after we actually test the ship in operationally relevant trials?
Did they not take some POW crew with them as well so both ships would benefit from trials experience?

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by S M H »

SW1 wrote:So having underestimated the budget by about 100% to build them, we also underestimated the crew requirements by about 20%, I assume these crew numbers could be subject to revision after we actually test the ship in operationally relevant trials?
The underestmate was only 40 % the rest was due to the Monk of Dunfermilines short term costings causing a build delay to meet yearly constraints. Causing a longer build increasing costs. The crewing levels were always subject to upwards revision in light of trials. There was personnel onboard for experience prior to crewing there own carrier.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SW1 »

S M H wrote:
SW1 wrote:So having underestimated the budget by about 100% to build them, we also underestimated the crew requirements by about 20%, I assume these crew numbers could be subject to revision after we actually test the ship in operationally relevant trials?
The underestmate was only 40 % the rest was due to the Monk of Dunfermilines short term costings causing a build delay to meet yearly constraints. Causing a longer build increasing costs. The crewing levels were always subject to upwards revision in light of trials. There was personnel onboard for experience prior to crewing there own carrier.
It was hardly earth shattering news that the MoD had to live within its budget ever year. Needless to say it cost the MoD nearly 100% more than it thought to buy them.

Yes I can accept crew numbers could rise but 20% seems a pretty big number considering we haven’t even really tested the system yet. The americans and French are the only ones with anything really comparable and as new American carriers require 2500 crew and the French carrier 1400 could we see further revisions up after more strenuous exercises? Given in destroyers and the like we operate our ships with about 60% of the Americans and worse case you crudely scale across at what point does crew number increases start to become a manpower concern? And do we learn lessons for future crewing calculations on type26/31.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

This would come under something they would not be able to provide to much details of but for damage control for a catastrophic event a significant amount of crew would be needed , hope there has been realistic exercises for these events .

User avatar
swoop
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 03 May 2015, 21:25
Pitcairn Island

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by swoop »

seaspear wrote:Often a study is just a delaying tactic to spending money...
Commonly, it is simply wasting money.
Just arse-covering by public servants who do not want to make a decision and risk their careers, without having a "get out of jail free" card and be able to say "advice given to us stated that ..." which ends up with vast amounts paid to consultants, instead of those funds going into actual projects.
Sadly it is endemic in the western world.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »


:shock:
9 Dock is located off the south-east corner of 2 Basin.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

UK secures long term agreement to use Naval Base in Oman with dry docking facilities large enough to handle the QE's.
Dz_up-mXgAAqxGd.jpg
https://www.maritime-executive.com/arti ... se-in-oman

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Why wouldn't maintenance requiring a dry dock be at Rosyth lol

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Halidon »

seaspear wrote:Why wouldn't maintenance requiring a dry dock be at Rosyth lol
The linked article doesn't explicitly mention drydocking the CVs, it simply refers to the port having the depth and space to accommodate them. Duqm has a pair of rather gigantic dry docks, but it's big selling point for the RN is likely that it's a greenfield project for a massive multimodal logistics hub. Supporting a CV forward-deployed to the area will be a lot easier with that sort of facility. I would imagine the dry docks would be considered a bonus if either of the ladies had an incident in the area, or if the RN wanted something fairly minor done without having to sail all the way home, similar to how the USN uses foreign maintenance facilities.

User avatar
swoop
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 03 May 2015, 21:25
Pitcairn Island

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by swoop »

seaspear wrote:Why wouldn't maintenance requiring a dry dock be at Rosyth lol
Laws against "monoplies" or "anti-competitive behaviour" perhaps?
That, and sunny weather in which paint can dry properly? :D

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 »

What has curiously escaped attention/ publicity is that a training/ logistics facility (for which branch of the Forces was left out; Joint, obviously) was agreed at the same time.

Though the carriers are the offensive fist, if ever required, a broader foot print is not a bad thing. Why would that be?

Goes back to US energy self-sufficiency and therefore waning interest in the Gulf/ ME Regions (Iran & Israel exempted, at least during this Administration). Further, the broader India Ocean Region seen with US eyes stands divided into the Central command: Middle East nations up to Pakistan, Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Aden., Africa command: East Coast of Africa, waters along the east coast from South of Somalia, Pacific command: Main Area of the ocean, but centered on India (save for the Pacific itself)
- in effect: Africa Command does not possess naval forces and the ones for Central Command are rotating through it, from the Pacific Command.

Where does this put the UK? We are not energy self-sufficient (Norway is nearby, but Qatar is not) and hence immediately vulnerable to the "Gulf going up in flames". Can we reliably figure out the intentions of the key players in the area? I doubt it
- hence having a firm foothold right next door is important
- and having a force that can be moved in and exert some influence (even if the US would decide, for the time, to sit on the fence) is essential
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I agree with the argument but not the solution. To exert the level of influence suggested we would need to have either a full brigade stationed in the region or its equipment prepositioned there. A LSG might show intent but lacks the density to achieve anything beyond its role as a SF base. The Carrier group should eventually bring with it a big punch but it can only be in one place at a time and so should not be a default option, but rather one to be used when not required elsewhere, specifically for NATO duties.

The impression I am getting is that the Government would like the carrier to be everywhere showing the UK's global reach and determination to still be a big player. The problem is we need more then two carriers to effectively do this and more aviation assets to have more than one at see in the carrier role. As it stands with the exception of the initial "Grand Tour", announced by the Defence Secretary, the single ready carrier should stay in the Atlantic with the odd one or two month detour to the Med or Indian Ocean.

Post Reply