With Land Ceptor utilising eight box launchers on the back of a MAN truck, surely it's not beyond our engineering capability to have 4-6 batteries of them placed around a QEC class in such a way that it wouldn't limit air operations or munition transportation?Ron5 wrote:You would think it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a CAMM solution that meets that requirement.Caribbean wrote:as they can be mounted in positions where they don't need to launch across the flight deck/ path
Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Ron5 wrote:You would think it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a CAMM solution that meets that requirement.
If the money was available, agreed, but using CAMM would also require integration with the carriers CMS, wouldn't it? RAM is pretty much standalone (OK - it needs a console, wiring and external power etc. but, as I understand it, is not dependent on the host vessel's CMS, has it's own radar etc. etc.), so it would potentially be a much cheaper alternative (of course, all that work may have been done already as part of qualifying CAMM fo ruse on the frigates, so it may not be an issue)Jensy wrote:With Land Ceptor utilising eight box launchers on the back of a MAN truck, surely it's not beyond our engineering capability to have 4-6 batteries of them placed around a QEC class in such a way that it wouldn't limit air operations or munition transportation?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
All launchers would have to be on the islands, the throw height of the gas piston is 30m. Either that or you would have to have the CMS programmed for separate engagement arcs for each launcher. TBH RAM and the 30mm mounts fitted with Martlet might be a better option.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Would there be value in acquiring c.e.c for the carriers and escorts in the co-ordination of defences espiacially with other navies that have such
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Depends on whether you're worried about probability of kill.Tempest414 wrote:agreed however I do like the SeaRam option which CAMM and Aster do not have i.e it offer ships with little or no linked radar a good point defence missile option
Against all but the most basic threats, CAMM has a Pk much better than SeaWolf. (Against the most basic threats such as silkworm missiles they are both equally good.)
For a range of threats, SeaRAMs Pk was not as good as SeaWolf's. Once launched, SeaRAM is a passive missile, relying on signatures generated by the incoming threat for guidance.
How such systems perform against hard manoeuvring, low signature targets is key.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Talking of Pk's, the rule of thumb was that a missile fired from the target (as opposed to being fired by an escort) had double the probability of a hit. The reason is fairly obvious, head-on vs crossing target.
Just another reason why the UK carriers need better self defense.
Of course the Treasury wouldn't approve. Pre Falklands they nixed CIWS on such ships as the type 42 on the basis the primary system shouldn't miss. Today they'll say the t45s shouldn't miss.
Just another reason why the UK carriers need better self defense.
Of course the Treasury wouldn't approve. Pre Falklands they nixed CIWS on such ships as the type 42 on the basis the primary system shouldn't miss. Today they'll say the t45s shouldn't miss.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I was not talking missile more the system i.e fitting CAMM to a Bay class is going to take a lot of work and cost a lot of money as it would need a radar and CMS to support CAMM where as with SeaRam it is case of picking which Phalanx mount to change giving it a step change in defensive capability. So what I am getting at is I like SeaRam's ability to give ships that can't support CAMM a Missile defence optionAethulwulf wrote:Depends on whether you're worried about probability of kill.
Against all but the most basic threats, CAMM has a Pk much better than SeaWolf. (Against the most basic threats such as silkworm missiles they are both equally good.)
For a range of threats, SeaRAMs Pk was not as good as SeaWolf's. Once launched, SeaRAM is a passive missile, relying on signatures generated by the incoming threat for guidance.
How such systems perform against hard manoeuvring, low signature targets is key.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
News this morning (with usual media sensationalised suggestions) that QE will anchor off in Stokes Bay before starting FOST (next week?). Hopefully nothing sinister in it.
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defen ... vy-2843743
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defen ... vy-2843743
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Putting them in lower positions... well, a chance to "clear the decks"jimthelad wrote:All launchers would have to be on the islands, the throw height of the gas piston is 30m.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Defence Solution: Build a third island for missile launches.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
It's just a covert way of locking down the IoW so that this trial with the tracking app can be tested properly...Magpie64 wrote:News this morning (with usual media sensationalised suggestions) that QE will anchor off in Stokes Bay before starting FOST (next week?). Hopefully nothing sinister in it.
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defen ... vy-2843743
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Just read the supposed 'local' newspaper that should know better, the opening line says 'The HMS Queen Elizabeth...' pretty much says it all. Stopped buying this paper a long time ago when the reporting and articles declined in standards.
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Hard to believe that will function in any kind of wind.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I feel sorry for the diver who has to go down into Portsmouth Harbour to retrieve the three emergency chute doors!
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Should find benefit from the "Soap on a Rope" principle then!
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Not sure about the low cost...each RIM-116 costs at least £800,000. 21 of those in a launcher is £15m..plus the launcher. If you get change from £25m per loaded mount I'd be surprised. And all for a missile with a longer minimum engagement range, and far, far shorter overall range than Sea Ceptor. And it has a hot launch method which brings problems of its own. RAM is good but you have to wonder how well it would work with an IR seeker at maximum range in the North Atlantic on a wet or foggy day. RF seekers avoid that problem. The USN has both bases covered on its carriers by having ESSM as well.Caribbean wrote:I must admit that I do think that adding a few RAM batteries to the carriers (less impact on aircraft operations than e.g. CAMM, as they can be mounted in positions where they don't need to launch across the flight deck/ path), alongside Phalanx (to give them, effectively, their own "Goalkeeper" capability) might be a good idea. Add in a few extras to bolt onto (say) the RB2s and RFAs operating in more dangerous waters and you add quite significant defensive capability at relatively low cost
The QE Class CMS is the same as the T23's. And the same radar (Artisan). Integrating Sea Ceptor has to all intents and purposes already been done.Caribbean wrote:If the money was available, agreed, but using CAMM would also require integration with the carriers CMS, wouldn't it? RAM is pretty much standalone (OK - it needs a console, wiring and external power etc. but, as I understand it, is not dependent on the host vessel's CMS, has it's own radar etc. etc.), so it would potentially be a much cheaper alternative (of course, all that work may have been done already as part of qualifying CAMM fo ruse on the frigates, so it may not be an issue)
There are 2 types of RAM launchers. A 21 round launcher is the standard across the USN. That requires integration to the host vessels CMS as it has no sensors of its own. SeaRAM, a re-purposed Phalanx mount, has an 11 round capacity. Only a few ships have this mount at present, despite it being around for 15 years. This is the standalone version. One issue though is that it would compete for the appropriate space with the Phalanx to provide all round protection. It's not usual to have SeaRAM AND Phalanx. Usually one or the other.
HMS York did have SeaRAM installed for a demonstration by Raytheon.
Was an operational western CIWS actually in existence prior to the Falklands in any numbers? Phalanx only went on the first USN ship in late 81. Lightweight Seawolf wasn't a thing, and its unlikely that it would have been available in time anyway as the priority was the T22's and Broad Beamed Leander's Sea Wolf fit. Goalkeeper demo'd in 79 but just started to rollout in 83. Phalanx in its earlier incarnations was renowned for not working anyway...hence why the RN selected the Goalkeeper when they had a competition, despite its higher cost.Ron5 wrote:Of course the Treasury wouldn't approve. Pre Falklands they nixed CIWS on such ships as the type 42 on the basis the primary system shouldn't miss. Today they'll say the t45s shouldn't miss.
Seems the usual procedure for the few VLS out there on carriers (Cavour and CdG) is to have 2 sets. One Port and one starboard. For QE there appears to be room on the port side near the jump, and starboard at the stern. That would provide 360 coverage. Highest point on the QE is the ESM masts at about 35 metres above the deck so clearance of the rest of the islands wouldn't be an issue. But all of the Sea Ceptor firings to date appear to have rotation of the missile after the piston throw followed by a short climb away. A software fix would be pretty straightforward for any shot over the islands.jimthelad wrote:All launchers would have to be on the islands, the throw height of the gas piston is 30m. Either that or you would have to have the CMS programmed for separate engagement arcs for each launcher. TBH RAM and the 30mm mounts fitted with Martlet might be a better option.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Having to use a carrier to counter the might of the I.o.W ferry?PhillyJ wrote:It's just a covert way of locking down the IoW so that this trial with the tracking app can be tested properly...
I had no idea the Red Funnel Line had such power!
Presumably people remember the old joke "what's brown and steaming, and comes out of cowes backwards? The I.o.W ferry!"
*Tips hat to the Two Ronnies.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
QE to be at anchor in Stokes Bay from 7 to 15 May.Magpie64 wrote:News this morning (with usual media sensationalised suggestions) that QE will anchor off in Stokes Bay before starting FOST (next week?). Hopefully nothing sinister in it.
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defen ... vy-2843743
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/qhm/portsm ... 5-may-2020
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
QE at anchor in Stokes Bay for first time
(until 15th May)
(@GrantyNUFC2020) 8th May 2020 - VE Day +75
(until 15th May)
(@GrantyNUFC2020) 8th May 2020 - VE Day +75
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
QE marks 75th anniversary of VE Day
(@HMSQNLZ) 8th May 2020 - VE Day +75
(@WarshipCam) 8th May 2020 - VE Day +75
(@HMSQNLZ) 8th May 2020 - VE Day +75
"Everyone, man or woman, has done their best. Everyone has tried. Neither the long years nor the dangers, nor the fierce attacks of the enemy, have in any way weakened the unbending resolve of the British nation".
- Sir Winston Churchill 9th May 1945.
Proud & thankful 75 years on.
(@WarshipCam) 8th May 2020 - VE Day +75
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Not quite correct. Goalkeeper was purchased as part of a quid pro quo deal with the Dutch.Timmymagic wrote:...hence why the RN selected the Goalkeeper when they had a competition, despite its higher cost.
-
- Member
- Posts: 20
- Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 20:12
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
HMS Queen Elizabeth made to look like a dinghy!!
https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/ ... 20/photo/1
https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/ ... 20/photo/1