Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:CAT is just half of the system, paired with TWS. For the CAT part you could buy Rafael's active decoy or a hard-kill system from Germany as replacements.
Most of the system will be common with the UK SSTD so the easier option would be to purchase the UK SSTD countermeasure fitout (which includes active decoys) rather than getting the Rafael system. Which I'm surprised the US hasn't done on other vessels....not sure what their current countermeasure fit out is. You have to wonder how well (if at all) the Sea Spider hardkill has been tested, I don't think anyone has bought it.
What surprises me about anti-torpedo systems is that hardkill is always another expensive torpedo. The Limbo mortar in years past could be used in an anti torpedo sense by dropping 3 great big depth charges in the path of a torpedo. The Swedish or Russian multiple launch depth charge systems launch a pattern of (admittedly) smaller contact fused depth charges out to a decent range. If we look at CAT in the same way that we look at tank APS there seems to be a shift from complex interceptors to cheaper munitions with decent sensors mounted on the vehicle. With SSTD the real cost is in the sensors and systems, perhaps pairing with cheaper depth charge style 'interceptors' would make more sense. At some point even a torpedo on S type path will straighten up for the run into a target, particularly if its a great big carrier making a hell of a lot of noise.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- Europe will need to do more in the wider Gulf region
I agree but is current planning heading in a different direction.
- Europe is not UK alone, so would be a good time to take stock?
Again agreed but in reality as far as defence is concerned most European nations are inward looking and won't commit the necessary resources beyond the Med/North Africa and/or the Baltics. France and the UK are clearly not that category.

Getting the mainland European countries to be more self reliant when it comes to the wider defence of Europe is a good thing and the UK should play its part but only on a proportional basis, meaning the mainland European countries will have to commit to 90% of the heavy lifting.

Unsurprisingly I would suggest the UK's wider maritime defence strategy should be based around both CVF's forming two separate CSG's along with a fully independent ARG (40,000t+ LHD, 2x LPD's, 2 Points).

This would of course require an increase in T26's, T45's (or replacement), SSN/SSK's, F35's, MPA's, Tides, SSS etc. Completely unaffordable at 2% GDP but perfectly possible at 3%.

Between the UK, France and Italy it should be little problem keeping a NATO CSG in the Med allowing any RN CSG(s) to spend more time in the North Atlantic and/or the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific regions.

The QE's are crucial to contain the threat, and we have them in the water now but we need to further invest in the assets to make full use of them if a containment strategy proves to be ineffective in the longer term.

Low SSN numbers are still the biggest concern IMO.
Jake1992 wrote:And there is the crux of it right there, with the rise of certain nations in the world ( China, India, Rearmed Russia and now even Pakistan with a carrier ) HMG really needs to consider raising defence to the 3% plus mark for us to stay relivent in the world.

I have my doubts that in a world that looks ever more likely that even 2 fully equipped QE CSG would be enough to give us the voice we need.
Two CSG's and an independent ARG are the most we could ever hope to afford unless things go really pear shaped. As said above increasing SSN and possibly SSK numbers must be a very high priority if planners really consider these threats serious enough to warrant a robust containment strategy.

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 »

Sunk at Narvik wrote:entirely dissatisfied with their carrier
... or, they internally called it 'an aviation training ship'
- in propaganda it was, of course, a mighty carrier

Perhaps it was never meant to be more than the means to train their naval aviation cadre (isn't the fighter of Mig-21 vintage, with bigger wings to manage the restricted deck area?)
- and they did have the "carrier on land" for years before getting the chance to train for real
Sunk at Narvik wrote: or they are entirely dissatisfied with their carrier
- and are probably now in a good place, for real carriers to come on-
stream
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)

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:- Europe will need to do more in the wider Gulf region
I agree but is current planning heading in a different direction.
- Europe is not UK alone, so would be a good time to take stock?
Again agreed but in reality as far as defence is concerned most European nations are inward looking and won't commit the necessary resources beyond the Med/North Africa and/or the Baltics. France and the UK are clearly not that category.

Getting the mainland European countries to be more self reliant when it comes to the wider defence of Europe is a good thing and the UK should play its part but only on a proportional basis, meaning the mainland European countries will have to commit to 90% of the heavy lifting.

Unsurprisingly I would suggest the UK's wider maritime defence strategy should be based around both CVF's forming two separate CSG's along with a fully independent ARG (40,000t+ LHD, 2x LPD's, 2 Points).

This would of course require an increase in T26's, T45's (or replacement), SSN/SSK's, F35's, MPA's, Tides, SSS etc. Completely unaffordable at 2% GDP but perfectly possible at 3%.

Between the UK, France and Italy it should be little problem keeping a NATO CSG in the Med allowing any RN CSG(s) to spend more time in the North Atlantic and/or the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific regions.

The QE's are crucial to contain the threat, and we have them in the water now but we need to further invest in the assets to make full use of them if a containment strategy proves to be ineffective in the longer term.

Low SSN numbers are still the biggest concern IMO.
Jake1992 wrote:And there is the crux of it right there, with the rise of certain nations in the world ( China, India, Rearmed Russia and now even Pakistan with a carrier ) HMG really needs to consider raising defence to the 3% plus mark for us to stay relivent in the world.

I have my doubts that in a world that looks ever more likely that even 2 fully equipped QE CSG would be enough to give us the voice we need.
Two CSG's and an independent ARG are the most we could ever hope to afford unless things go really pear shaped. As said above increasing SSN and possibly SSK numbers must be a very high priority if planners really consider these threats serious enough to warrant a robust containment strategy.
3-3.5% of GDP on defence is comfortably possible for the UK, we see to think that it's an unusual high proportion due to 2 decades of dreadful underspend where it's been year on year cuts but it was only in the 90s late 90s at that that we were spending that amount.
At this amount the MOD budget would increase by £18.5bn - £28bn extra a year.
With this sort of increase over the next 20 year period the UK could rebuild the forces to a nice level.

2 CSG properly equipped and 2 ARG as you describe should be very reasonable to achieve along with the much needed increase in SSN/SSK numbers.

This is what I belive is really needed over the next 20 years to keep the UK relivent and its voice heard amongst the rising powers that I pointed to.

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:current planning heading in a different direction.
Our own naval base still only has a proposed dry dock for the QEs, in Duqm we actually have one
Poiuytrewq wrote:France and the UK are clearly not that category.
+
Poiuytrewq wrote: maritime defence strategy should be based around both CVF's forming two separate CSG's
Yep, then with the French we have "the rule of three" in place
Poiuytrewq wrote:Between the UK, France and Italy it should be little problem keeping a NATO CSG in the Med
Yep, that can be done on the side (3 and a 1/2 carriers :) )
Poiuytrewq wrote:we need to further invest in the assets to make full use of them if a containment strategy proves to be ineffective in the longer term.
What containment strategy might that be?
Poiuytrewq wrote:Low SSN numbers are still the biggest concern IMO.
Indeed.
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)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:What containment strategy might that be?
Exactly :thumbup:

When we actually get a coherent containment strategy in place maybe some bright spark in HMG will decide to fund it properly.

Until then the best we can hope for is token deployments to keep the newspaper headline writers busy....

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 »

Jake1992 wrote:3-3.5% of GDP on defence is comfortably possible for the UK
Let's assess the immediate Brexit impact first (cash out + the expenditures to stabilise/ compensate/ and in-lieu) and the impact on growth (tax takings and fiscal balance) then.

We might end up with the two CSGs as our only contribution to any alliances, plus
QRA by the RAF, and
TA as the Home Guard, both for these islands only
- well , the Falklands have their own Home Guard, so may be we can keep 4 Tiffies down there, too
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)

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:3-3.5% of GDP on defence is comfortably possible for the UK
Let's assess the immediate Brexit impact first (cash out + the expenditures to stabilise/ compensate/ and in-lieu) and the impact on growth (tax takings and fiscal balance) then.

We might end up with the two CSGs as our only contribution to any alliances, plus
QRA by the RAF, and
TA as the Home Guard, both for these islands only
- well , the Falklands have their own Home Guard, so may be we can keep 4 Tiffies down there, too
It all depends on what economist you listen to and what HMG do after Brexit. Economist for free trade along with the former govener of the BOE say there could be up to an 7% increas in GDP due to lowering of tariffs and opening of new trade deals along with reinvesting the saving from EU contributions. When taken along with the fact that all dyer predictions of what would happen straight after the vote have no materialised, I find it harder and harder to belive the economy will take a nose dive.

The money to do what I surgested above is with in the means of our nation its just all about priorities.

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 »

Jake1992 wrote: the former govener of the BOE say there could be up to an 7% increas in GDP due to lowering of tariffs and opening of new trade deals
As he is retired, that will keep him the center piece of local dinner parties (aka echo chambers).

I was just advising caution, before spending the monies alluded to above ;) .
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)

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: the former govener of the BOE say there could be up to an 7% increas in GDP due to lowering of tariffs and opening of new trade deals
As he is retired, that will keep him the center piece of local dinner parties (aka echo chambers).

I was just advising caution, before spending the monies alluded to above ;) .
And the serving govener of the BOE who's every prediction since before the referendum has been complety wrong, the treasureys predictions of 800,000 job loses and an imdeiant recession complety wrong.

I agree caution is needed but to go to the extremes of believing the economy will take a large down turn just because the very same people that said it 3 years ago and before the euro debt are now saying it is madness as to belive these would be to do nothing as the thought would be Britain is a small tiny worthless country who's in constant decline.

If 3-3.5% of GDP was comortably achievable in the 90s during black Wednesday and the hight of recessions and high inflation then it is surely possibly now even with Brexit, it's all just a matter of priorities and defence needs to start climbing that list again.

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 »

Jake1992 wrote:If 3-3.5% of GDP was comortably achievable in the 90s during black Wednesday and the hight of recessions and high inflation then it is surely possibly now even with Brexit
I moved the response to the Brexit thread
- affordability of defence (over a longer run than what has been termed mid-term review, the "MDP", is really heavily entangled with those matters.
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
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »

Predictably, it isn't another piano....
Its a Phalanx 1B. A rapid-fire radar and electro-optical guided gun, the first of three to be fitted. Featuring a 20mm barrel it is capable of firing 4,500 rounds per minute against anti-ship missiles and a range of surface threats.
Image
(Photo: @HMSQNLZ)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Looks brand new.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

could be one of the refitted ones

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

People might be disappointed it wasn't a Pizza oven lol

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Better than Grape Shot.

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 »


Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

QE's Phalanx arc's.
Dyy65hwW0AA8vVL.jpg
A forth position would seem sensible, especially with the lack of CAMM.

Considering the importance of these vessels for the Royal Navy and the UK as a whole, it would seem prudent to go the extra mile with the CIWS capability.

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 »

Mine's better. :P
Image

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by inch »

Wonder why they not got a fourth position seems v strange really ,I'm sure it wouldn't break the bank

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 »

Now we know where the nearest escort will be positioned
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)

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

United Kingdom – MK 15 PHALANX Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) Block 1B Baseline 2
Archives
February 2019 (1)
January 2019 (1)
December 2018 (1)
November 2018 (8)
October 2018 (3)
September 2018 (9)
August 2018 (3)
July 2018 (7)
June 2018 (3)
May 2018 (2)
April 2018 (11)
March 2018 (7)
More Archives

Printer Friendly VersionPrinter Friendly Version
PDF Version:
PDF icon UK_11-12.pdf
Media/Public Contact:
Charles Taylor (703) 601-3859 / Paul Ebner (703) 601-3670
Transmittal No:
11-12
WASHINGTON, April 29, 2011 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress Monday of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of the United Kingdom of Ordnance Alteration Kits for conversion and upgrades of MK15 PHALANX Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $137 million.

The Government of the United Kingdom (UK) has requested the sale of 20 Block 1A to Block 1B Baseline 2 configuration Ordnance Alteration Kits and 16 Block 1B Baseline 1 to Baseline 2 Ordnance Alteration Kits for conversion and upgrades of MK15 PHALANX Close-In Weapon System (CIWS), spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, software support, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and all other related elements of program support. The estimated cost is $137 million.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to maintain and improve the security of a key NATO partner that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic power in Europe.

The MK 15 PHALANX CIWS overhauls/upgrades will be used for close-in ship self-defense against air and surface threats onboard the UK’s naval combatants and auxiliaries. The MK 15 PHALANX CIWS Block 1B Baseline 2 upgrades will provide enhanced electro-optical and radiofrequency close-in detection, tracking and engagement capabilities over the UK’s existing MK 15 PHALANX systems, while improving CIWS supportability, maintainability and interoperability with U.S. systems. The UK, which already has earlier versions of the MK 15 PHALANX in its inventory, will have no problem absorbing these upgrades and support into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The prime contractor will be Raytheon Systems Company in Tucson, Arizona. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the UK.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

-30-

Tags:
United Kingdom
MK 15 PHALANX Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) Block 1B Baseline 2

I included the above document to show which version of the Phalanx is to be placed on the ship ,all U.S.N ships are in the middle of being upgraded to Baseline 2


The drum for the ammunition carries some 1550 rounds for some twenty seconds or so of firing ,Im not sure what happens after the drum is emptied and how long it takes to reload especially in the event of multiple targets ,can you have too many ciws ?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Now we know where the nearest escort will be positioned
Isn't that gap on the starboard side where the tanker will sit? With 2 x Phalanx on board?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

The tanker and FSS will not be with the CSG for most of the time. Usual procedure would be for the carrier to retire briefly and liaise with the tanker and FSS further away from the threat before returning to the fray. The ability to store ship and fuel simultaneously from opposite sides is designed to make that evolution dramatically shorter. And thats before we get to the speed of the Tides and FSS and the Heavy RAS speeding up stores transfer.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Yeeah, I know. That was a joke! I agree that a fourth Phalanx is clearly needed, probably along with a number of SeaRam launchers, as used by the USN
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Post Reply