Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

I was thinking two T45's and four T23's or T26's but in hindsight that is a bit excessive for a peacetime deployment.

That will mean that all of theT45's will be tied up escorting the carriers most of the time?

Given a similar availability rate with the T26's, apart from escorting the carriers probably only 1 or 2 will be available for other deployments at any one time?

Seems like all the eggs are very much in the Carrier Strike basket

[Ron5]

In peacetime or low threat deployments, it will be one escort or less, just like when the old Ark Royal was in service.

But yes to your point that the RN is going through a major change to become a CSG centered Navy. That's the plan that's being executed.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Seems like all the eggs are very much in the Carrier Strike basket

So it seems; hence the T31.

There's also the carrier availability to factor in... isn't it around 1.4 carriers that we will have (on that basis)?

[Poiuytrewq]

In peacetime or low threat deployments, it will be one escort or less, just like when the old Ark Royal was in service.

But yes to your point that the RN is going through a major change to become a CSG centered Navy. That's the plan that's being executed.

So what standing deployments are going to be shelved to maintain the emphasis on Carrier Strike?

It appears RN is being asked to do a lot more with a lot less.

[Repulse]

I’d say peacetime, when outside of the UK EEZ the on-call CSG would consist of the CVF, a T45, a T23/T26, a FF/DD from an allied nation, a FSS and I’d argue a LPD.

The only overseas standing commitment I see being met permanently by a T26/T45 is Kipion.

[Poiuytrewq]

I’d say peacetime, when outside of the UK EEZ the on-call CSG would consist of the CVF, a T45, a T23/T26, a FF/DD from an allied nation, a FSS and I’d argue a LPD.

The only overseas standing commitment I see being met permanently by a T26/T45 is Kipion.

I can't see five T31's making up the shortfall.

Would you say too much big stick not enough little sticks

[R686]

In peacetime or low threat deployments, it will be one escort or less, just like when the old Ark Royal was in service.

But yes to your point that the RN is going through a major change to become a CSG centered Navy. That's the plan that's being executed.

So what standing deployments are going to be shelved to maintain the emphasis on Carrier Strike?

It appears RN is being asked to do a lot more with a lot less.

The River are going to have to step up more, and a UK strike capabilty will be the minimum us whatever nation will provide escorts to the tasking. I'm actually expecting the USN will bolster a UK CSG in the med as it most likely be cheaper for the USN to provide escorts then even a light carrier.

[Repulse]

Moved my thoughts to the Escort thread.

[Poiuytrewq]

The River are going to have to step up more, and a UK strike capabilty will be the minimum us whatever nation will provide escorts to the tasking. I'm actually expecting the USN will bolster a UK CSG in the med as it most likely be cheaper for the USN to provide escorts then even a light carrier.

Do we have enough Rivers? Retaining the Batch 1's will help bolster numbers but outside the EEZ, without an embarked helicopter how much use are they?

The Rivers could be extremely busy in the Brexit aftermath so it is conceivable that most of the RB1's and RB2's will be busy policing the EEZ unless the fisheries protection squadron is allocated extra vessels.

Personally I would be very happy if the USN would help out and provide escorts for our CSG in the Med but it should only be a temporary solution and long term HMG should fund RN properly to ensure the hull numbers in the fleet match the political ambition.

[R686]

Do we have enough Rivers? Retaining the Batch 1's will help bolster numbers but outside the EEZ, without an embarked helicopter how much use are they?

The Rivers could be extremely busy in the Brexit aftermath so it is conceivable that most of the RB1's and RB2's will be busy policing the EEZ unless the fisheries protection squadron is allocated extra vessels.

Personally I would be very happy if the USN would help out and provide escorts for our CSG in the Med but it should only be a temporary solution and long term HMG should fund RN properly to ensure the hull numbers in the fleet match the political ambition.

It's been debated to death on what the UKG should/would/have done.

The UKG has to decide what it wants the defence to be able to do, if the priorities lay in keeping its standing commitments then they should bite the bullet sell off the CV, if the priority are expeditionary carrier group then cancel T31 invest in a continuous carrier enable battle group with all the enablers required, build Shark Baits interim solution for a helicopter carrier, and replace with four Endurance 170 LHD in the 2030 time frame.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... 0-lhd.html

[matt00773]

HMS Queen Elizabeth to visit New York on her trip to the USA later this year!

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defen ... -1-8470096

[dmereifield]

A nice shop window to showcase to the US public, and the world media more generally, that the UK is back in the big league

[Halidon]

HMS Queen Elizabeth to visit New York on her trip to the USA later this year!

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defen ... -1-8470096

Guess I got a few months to work on an excuse for a NYC trip. Nobody tell my boss

[serge750]

Sorry if I am missing the point but if CSG consists of a T45/T26 that takes away 2 ships for a standing task or one if you would use the CSG for the standing task, personaly I don't see much of a problem with that, if you were to sell the carriers and purchase LHD would you not have to use escorts for them as well ?

Obviously the main problem was the 2010 sdsr! scrapping the T22 to give us four less ships for the standing tasks thereby working the rest of the fleet harder even before the carriers come on line,

really hoping the T31 will be fair ships up for general duties and that the numbers are increased past the 5 expected.

I do like the endurance design though, maybe to replace the Albion class in the 2030's.....
Don't want anything too big just incase the politicians try to call them aircraft carriers in same class as QE as an excuse to sell them of in a few years.

[Poiuytrewq]

I do like the endurance design though, maybe to replace the Albion class in the 2030's.....
Don't want anything too big just incase the politicians try to call them aircraft carriers in same class as QE as an excuse to sell them of in a few years.

I agree, proposing to build anything that looks remotely like an aircraft carrier at the moment would be a bad idea.

In my opinion Amphibious Warfare in the 21st century is going to look a lot different than it did in 1982. Combining troops as well as aviation assets may not be the best way forward in a balanced fleet. Why would you want to put 700 or 800 Marines along with 300 to 400 crew in a ship full of munitions and aviation fuel built mainly to commercial standards and send them into a contested Littoral zone?

Lily padding from multiple vessels seems like the safest option before landing the heavy equipment from the Albions and Bays when the landing area is secure.

Even if the finance was available should Ocean be replaced with a LPH or LPD or should the troop carrying, munitions and aviation elements be split up between various vessels across the fleet?

[Ron5]

HMS Queen Elizabeth to visit New York on her trip to the USA later this year!

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defen ... -1-8470096

Guess I got a few months to work on an excuse for a NYC trip. Nobody tell my boss

If it helps, NYC is a lot safer than London these days. Never thought I would write that.

[SKB]

[R686]

@Poiuytrewq
The post from yesterday was not about the RN and greater UKDF, it was about the UKG having to make a strategic decision on what capabiltes they want from the defence force and fund it appropriately, at the moment they want their cake but don't want all the ingredients to make the cake because it's too expensive. Something has too give either UKDF capabilty or funding levels.

In my opinion Amphibious Warfare in the 21st century is going to look a lot different than it did in 1982.

Yes that's why the consensus among medium size fleets is to combine the function and are build more LHD's

Combining troops as well as aviation assets may not be the best way forward in a balanced fleet. Why would you want to put 700 or 800 Marines along with 300 to 400 crew in a ship full of munitions and aviation fuel built mainly to commercial standards and send them into a contested Littoral zone?

Who said they have to be built to commercial standards, JC1 was built to mainly commercial standards the Canberra's were built to Lloyd's Naval Rules standards. As for fuel and EO being stored on the same ship were exactly do expect to place them every ship is going to have fuel and EO inboard develop to you conops that maybe only 3 days supply on hand or 7 or more. That comes down to the level of supply vessels one can afford in the overall fleet, including aircraft carriers

Lily padding from multiple vessels seems like the safest option before landing the heavy equipment from the Albions and Bays when the landing area is secure.

Yep I agree that's why the suggestion of multiple lean crewed LHD's that can lift a company at a single time reducing the complexities of timing to your battle plan

Even if the finance was available should Ocean be replaced with a LPH or LPD or should the troop carrying, munitions and aviation elements be split up between various vessels across the fleet?

If you can afford it by all means if you want to split your force's from your equipment and specialise your ship by all means, but you can't get around all ships are going to carry fuel and EO irrespective if you place them on large carriers like QE or smaller LPD/LHD.

The RAN tried that in Op Morris Dance the battalion was split from it equipment making logistic life hell let alone have the command elements have to be ferried from ship to ship for operational briefing's, hence the reason from going from LST- LPA to LHD each time reducing the level of complexities from the overall operation planning by bringing man and machine together.

[Poiuytrewq]

@Poiuytrewq
The post from yesterday was not about the RN and greater UKDF, it was about the UKG having to make a strategic decision on what capabiltes they want from the defence force and fund it appropriately, at the moment they want their cake but don't want all the ingredients to make the cake because it's too expensive. Something has too give either UKDF capabilty or funding levels.

Hopefully the funding levels....

Yes that's why the consensus among medium size fleets is to combine the function and are build more LHD's

It does appear to be the consensus that is widely held but it's looks very unlikely that RN is going to get any new LPH's or LPD's before the Albion's are replaced around 2035. Part of the justification for completing HMS POW was to maximise its amphibious support capabilities and in my view the priority must be to retain both QE carriers rather than push for a direct Ocean replacement.

Who said they have to be built to commercial standards, JC1 was built to mainly commercial standards the Canberra's were built to Lloyd's Naval Rules standards. As for fuel and EO being stored on the same ship were exactly do expect to place them every ship is going to have fuel and EO inboard develop to you conops that maybe only 3 days supply on hand or 7 or more. That comes down to the level of supply vessels one can afford in the overall fleet, including aircraft carriers

I understand that a certain amount of fuel and munitions needs to carried for the initial assault but why carry lots of hazardous materials on your troop transports? It all a question of minimising risk. When the troops hit the beach why would they care what vessel the re supplies come from?

Removing the aviation element from the vessel carrying large numbers of troops reduces risk as does not combining large munitions stores and overloaded troop transports. Now that the majority of the aviation capacity is going to be provided by POW how does that fit in with the rest of the amphibious fleet? Could the MARS SSS vessels provide this extra troop transportation capacity?

Apart from the initial wave coming ashore from POW the rest of the amphibious fleet is pretty sort of landing spots to provide rapid reinforcement. If over the horizon Lilly padding is now the way amphibious operations will be conducted in future, after the initial assault the second wave is going to take a long time to mobilise if coming from the Bays and Albions with limited landing spots.

Two adapted MARS SSS vessels may provide the answer. If they had 4 or 5 landing spots, carried only enough munitions to supply the assault forces for the initial wave and had little on board aviation capacity they would be a very low risk option. Large PCRS facilities could also be included to help with HADR when not needed for amphibious assault.

The addition of POW and the possible change of doctrine to Lilly padding is indeed a big change. It will be interesting to see how the fleet adapts.

[Repulse]

The only real advantage (given the likely resources the UK will ever have) I can see over having LHDs versus a combined QE + Albion force (future LPD replacement) is if they can be a center of separate ARGs. The only way this would make sense is if the UK escort force increased in the order of 4-5 per ARG.

2 CSGs + 2 ARGs + Kipion, would require 24 T45/T26s in my book.

2 CSGs + 1 RFA ARG + Kipion, would require @18-19 T45/T26s, as you’d only expect to deliver the ARG safely to port not fight it in to shore. This is the more realistic approach IMO.

[R686]

Hopefully the funding levels....

Actions are speaking louder than words.

It does appear to be the consensus that is widely held but it's looks very unlikely that RN is going to get any new LPH's or LPD's before the Albion's are replaced around 2035.

UKG all ways knew Ocean was a 20 year ship yet they compromised the capabilty by not build the ship for organic rotary aircraft

Part of the justification for completing HMS POW was to maximise its amphibious support capabilities and in my view the priority must be to retain both QE carriers rather than push for a direct Ocean replacement.

Nope it's an afterthought, otherwise both carrier would have been built the same from the beginning, and without the flip-flops from STOVL-CATOBAR-STOVL amphibious assault is an afterthought.

I understand that a certain amount of fuel and munitions needs to carried for the initial assault but why carry lots of hazardous materials on your troop transports? It all a question of minimising risk. When the troops hit the beach why would they care what vessel the re supplies come from?

Because its the job of the SSS is to support the ground combat element after they have exhausted their initial holding untill further replenishment comes from strategic sealift or airlift after a secure POE has been established.

Removing the aviation element from the vessel carrying large numbers of troops reduces risk as does not combining large munitions stores and overloaded troop transports.

I agree it spreads the risk, but removing troops from organic airlift needlessly complicates operational planing. The LPD without aircraft storage and maintenance crew on hand risks that spot if the the machine goes down unexpectedly, you either push it over the side and lose a aircraft or you compromise the battle plan expending more effort recovering the aircraft and launch and recovery spot that's why multiple spot and large hanger's are so vital.

Now that the majority of the aviation capacity is going to be provided by POW how does that fit in with the rest of the amphibious fleet? Could the MARS SSS vessels provide this extra troop transportation capacity?

Isn't that defeating your purpose of seperating troops from large store of EO and fuel

The addition of POW and the possible change of doctrine to Lilly padding is indeed a big change. It will be interesting to see how the fleet adapts.

Your concept of operations are basically the same, the major diffrence is now pending how you have stacked the deck with the differing types of aircraft the EMF may be significantly reduduced. Now the majority of troops have to be airlifted off the LPDs where with Ocean the majority we're with organic airlift and can be lifted concurrently.

[Ron5]

UKG all ways knew Ocean was a 20 year ship yet they compromised the capabilty by not build the ship for organic rotary aircraft

Not sure I follow.

[SKB]

Britain's Biggest Warship, Episode 2 just finished.

BBC iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b11bb1

No other "unofficial" sources, yet....

[R686]

UKG all ways knew Ocean was a 20 year ship yet they compromised the capabilty by not build the ship for organic rotary aircraft

Not sure I follow.

Basically Ocean was a replacement for the old converted light aircraft carriers that became Commando carriers. With lessons learnt from the Falklands, Ocean was a cheap quick fix to work with the then Fearless class, invincible's were the compromise ASW/Strike carriers.

When time came for the Fearless class replacement they were expected to have enhanced aviation capabilities but for budgetary reason was deleted, UKG/RN knew at the time Ocean had been built with a 20 service and would need replacing well before the A/B would, obviously the governent at that time looked at the budget like they all do only the here and now.

When the RN saw the opportunity for large strike carriers as replacement for the Invincible's they they lost focus on the amphibious warfare vessels or had taken the ostrich head in sand approach and thought they would get another cheap and cheerfull Ocean replacement. UK concept of operations for some time as always grouped task groups separately.

Time and time again we have seen governments on both sides of the house cut capabilty for budgetary reason's and sooner or later something's got to give.

The UK is now in a position where they compromised the capabilty has reached critical proportions, not only has the concept of operations doctrine been blurred, but the safety of the task group has been compromised by the lack of proper escorts, and yet still expected to maintain the overreach of standing commitments, something has to give UKG aspirations or capabilty.

[Opinion3]

Interesting to understand the actual prop / seal / shaft issue. The engineer in me wishes investigations and solutions were of greater detail but I found it more enjoyable than last week. Although I feel a crime has been committed by not having the build filmed.