Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[SW1]

and also air warfare is not done just by the carriers (though once they succeed in that, the whole 'fire power' can be turned into offensive operations - not true for the other assets that are important early on).

Not really sure that’s true, both the carrier and it’s escort in the US have quite significant air defence and land capability the escort thru tomahawk.

The US will be using its amphibious carriers in this role of air wings for lessor conflict. When you spend oddles of $ building a vertical take off stealth jet and putting them on things like USS America it becomes harder to justify maintaining cvn numbers given increased anti access issues in a confrontation with China or Russia.

[Lord Jim]

This is why the RN is on such a steep learning curve. We have to re learn skills we have not had since the old HMS Arc Royal (the one with Phantoms and Buccaneers) was taken out of service.

[Tempest414]

That’s my point though it gives you the same over all air wing, if you are going to go through the hassle cost and delays of changing carrier build mid program along with introducing a new class then you are going to want the out come to deliver more for similar money not the same.
Granted it would give you greater over all flexibility in the fleet but is that enough to justify a mid build change ?

And this is my point that if the US can build a 310 or 320 meter CV for 5 or 6 billion (at this time they are building LHA's for 3 billion) they could get two more whole carrier groups including 6 escorts and a SSN each for the same money and manpower i.e 12 in total allowing much more flexibility and with China about to have 3 carriers this could allow the US to have 3 carrier at sea in the Pacific all year round

Edit) and could save them 10 billion to spend on more FFGX or LHD's

[Jake1992]

That’s my point though it gives you the same over all air wing, if you are going to go through the hassle cost and delays of changing carrier build mid program along with introducing a new class then you are going to want the out come to deliver more for similar money not the same.
Granted it would give you greater over all flexibility in the fleet but is that enough to justify a mid build change ?

And this is my point that if the US can build a 310 or 320 meter CV for 5 or 6 billion (at this time they are building LHA's for 3 billion) they could get two more whole carrier groups including 6 escorts and a SSN each for the same money and manpower i.e 12 in total allowing much more flexibility and with China about to have 3 carriers this could allow the US to have 3 carrier at sea in the Pacific all year round

Edit) and could save them 10 billion to spend on more FFGX or LHD's

Like you say it gives greater flexibility but only a similar over all air wing so the power projection of the over all US carrier force remains the same.

My questing is would the US see this added flexibility worth the extra cost a delays that come with changing carrier design mid build ?
We have to remember they are never going to choose a foreign design so time will have to be taken to design a new carrier along with all the costs this adds, it inevitably will delay the over all program and add costs.

If they started to program with 2 carrier designs ready with the plan in place of 4 of one 8 of the other and the build scheduled was planned around this then all good, but we are not talking of that. Its like us now saying the final 5 T26s are going to be cancelled and replace with a whole new smaller UK design that we havnt got yet but expect it to finish at the time and same budget as currently planed.

[Tempest414]

Like you say it gives greater flexibility but only a similar over all air wing so the power projection of the over all US carrier force remains the same.

with war at sea ever changing greater flexibility may well be the key to winning or even surviving

My questing is would the US see this added flexibility worth the extra cost a delays that come with changing carrier design mid build ?
We have to remember they are never going to choose a foreign design so time will have to be taken to design a new carrier along with all the costs this adds, it inevitably will delay the over all program and add costs.

This is the 78 billion dollar question

[RetroSicotte]

Hopes on them realising that hardship and choosing to build a line of 6-7 QE class to get an already made design then?

(Zero, but it's a nice fantasy dream)

[serge750]

wonder how long the ford design would take to convert to gas turbines ( also how much % wise does nuke power add in the initial cost of a carrier ? ) or Perhaps the original Alpha design (extended) with 160mw could be a better starting point ?...maybe we could give them the design for all the help they are giving us in getting carrier aviation + mpa back.....

[Cooper]

why the UK ended up with two large carriers instead of 3 little ones.

'3 little ones' wouldn't have been the 20,000t Invincible class carriers, they would have been a more capable, 30-40,000t class, probably with a maximum 18 (24 surge) F-35B air wing on each.

[Jake1992]

wonder how long the ford design would take to convert to gas turbines ( also how much % wise does nuke power add in the initial cost of a carrier ? ) or Perhaps the original Alpha design (extended) with 160mw could be a better starting point ?...maybe we could give them the design for all the help they are giving us in getting carrier aviation + mpa back.....

They won’t ever use a foreign design, it’d be politically impossible and national pride wouldn’t allow it. Just think the carriers are the face of US defence, it’d be like us using a french or Indian carrier design in place of the QEs but ranked up 100 fold.

why the UK ended up with two large carriers instead of 3 little ones.

'3 little ones' wouldn't have been the 20,000t Invincible class carriers, they would have been a more capable, 30-40,000t class, probably with a maximum 18 (24 surge) F-35B air wing on each.

And we would of ended up with just 2 smaller carriers as 2 is “all we need” in government eyes.

[Cooper]

And we would of ended up with just 2 smaller carriers as 2 is “all we need” in government eyes.

No, we would have been locked into a 'it will be cheaper to build them than cancel' contract whichever way the RN had gone because Gordon Brown would have been looking after the Clyde, as he did with the QE class.

[Jake1992]

And we would of ended up with just 2 smaller carriers as 2 is “all we need” in government eyes.

No, we would have been locked into a 'it will be cheaper to build them than cancel' contract whichever way the RN had gone because Gordon Brown would have been looking after the Clyde, as he did with the QE class.

And we would of ended up with just 2 smaller carriers as 2 is “all we need” in government eyes.

No, we would have been locked into a 'it will be cheaper to build them than cancel' contract whichever way the RN had gone because Gordon Brown would have been looking after the Clyde, as he did with the QE class.

That could very well be true but with 3 in service it’d make it much easier for Cameron and Osborn to sell 1 right out the park like they we considering with PoW

[serge750]

It would of been built, but...wasn't (a) invincible going to be sold to OZ in the early eighties?
I do like the idea of of 3 X 50 k carriers, enlarged cavours but at the time of design things were so different financially, glad Gordon brown done something good

[Little J]

It would of been built, but...wasn't (a) invincible going to be sold to OZ in the early eighties?

I believe talks were on going, right up until the Falklands kicked off.

[Lord Jim]

The deal was basically done as far as Australia were concerned.

[SD67]

It would of been built, but...wasn't (a) invincible going to be sold to OZ in the early eighties?

I believe talks were on going, right up until the Falklands kicked off.

My understanding is Nott actually still wanted to sell her after the Falklands war, the deal was only cancelled by the incoming Australian Labour government in 83

[SD67]

Hopes on them realising that hardship and choosing to build a line of 6-7 QE class to get an already made design then?

(Zero, but it's a nice fantasy dream)

It’s not that far fetched. BAE’s US subsidiary dust off the work done on PA2 and discreetly sell the drawings to HII. Nobody would call it a QE class it’d have a new name and be US built. USN already use the MT30. Hell BAE are already collaborating with the USN on the missile tubes for the Virginia class

[ArmChairCivvy]

That's a good rationale as even the price (£ 100 mln) is pre-negotiated . But the fact that

Hell BAE are already collaborating with the USN on the missile tubes for the Virginia class

and thereby there is this kind of jointness with missile tubes has less to do with industrial capability and more with

1. that the UK defence budget is already creaking under the (design cost) load of the Successors, and
2.therefore getting those missile compartments practically free of design cost helps a Lidl, but
3. at the same time sweeps under the carpet the fact that the new boats will be conventional-strike capable... strictly NOT the policy of TODAY
4. and keeps out of sight and out of mind the fact that as the US will intro the nxt-gen missile... that's why those tubes are needed as it is likely to be bigger AND therefore we are in line for another, massive investment into a new warhead. THOUGH only in the 2040s

[inch]

The only problem with that sd67 I think everyone would know it was a derivative of the qe class when they turned up with twin Islands for exhaust ,think the penny would drop .ie similar size and width as qe and twin Islands ,( if it barks like a dog and looks like a dog it's a dog ) or a qe in this case lol

[Ron5]

why the UK ended up with two large carriers instead of 3 little ones.

'3 little ones' wouldn't have been the 20,000t Invincible class carriers, they would have been a more capable, 30-40,000t class, probably with a maximum 18 (24 surge) F-35B air wing on each.

I'm not sure the financials support that hypothesis. Three 40k ton carriers would have cost appreciably more than two 65k tonners. Not the least in crewing.

[Ron5]

And we would of ended up with just 2 smaller carriers as 2 is “all we need” in government eyes.

No, we would have been locked into a 'it will be cheaper to build them than cancel' contract whichever way the RN had gone because Gordon Brown would have been looking after the Clyde, as he did with the QE class.

The idea that Gordon Brown in any way was a friend to the carriers and directed them to Rosyth is pure urban myth.

There was one and only one suitable place for their assembly in the UK and that was Rosyth. The worst CoE in history, had no hand in causing the ships to be assembled there.

The "Scottish git" as many call him, also delayed ordering them again and again for zero good reason and while in build, added years to the schedule and a billion or so to the cost in support of his genius plans.

GB was, and is, a total ass and a very real enemy to the defense.

[SKB]

The "Scottish git" as many call him.

Incorrect. 'One-eyed lefty useless incompetant Scottish git'.

[Scimitar54]

They would also have needed to be at the very least in the 40-50k Ton class (if not >50k) to operate that size of Carrier air wing, with the costs not vastly different from QEC (65-75k Ton). More Merlins (ASW and Crowsnest), Escorts and SSNs also being required. For me, I have always believed that we should have had 3 x QEC along with the necessary aircraft, escorts and SSNs and Crew to be able to operate 2 of the 3 at all times (with 24 x F35 per carrier air wing). One CSG in the Atlantic/Mediterranean and the second EOS.

I trust that GB refers to Gordon B(ruin) and not Great Britain.

[Ron5]

The "Scottish git" as many call him.

Incorrect. 'One-eyed lefty Scottish git'.

Thank you, I stand corrected.

[Ron5]

.. the costs not vastly different from QEC (65-75k Ton)

That's where we differ, I think they would have.

[Ron5]

One CSG in the Atlantic/Mediterranean and the second EOS.

In my opinion, Boris needs to understand that to be a real player EOS (and he should, there's a shed load of benefits), his current Defense budget is totally inadequate. To try halfheartedly & part time is worse that not at all despite that being the British way.