Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[RetroSicotte]

Worth bearing in mind that news author has a notable trend regarding "Buy more little ones!" as his personal line that's turned up many times.

So while considerations are being taken, take articles by him with a pinch of salt as to what is actually being considered.

[Cooper]

Worth bearing in mind that news author has a notable trend regarding "Buy more little ones!" as his personal line that's turned up many times.

He was just reporting what another defence website put online.

The link to that article is in there.

[Tempest414]

so a Ford class is 337 x 75 meters costs 13 billion and has a ships company of 3500 odd if the US went for a QE class with a 25 meter plug making it 309 x 73 Meters they could maybe build 4 for the same money and 3500 crew divided by 4 comes to 875 about what the QE class needs this could allow the US navy a lot of room in budgets not only build but man power

[Jake1992]

so a Ford class is 337 x 75 meters costs 13 billion and has a ships company of 3500 odd if the US went for a QE class with a 25 meter plug making it 309 x 73 Meters they could maybe build 4 for the same money and 3500 crew divided by 4 comes to 875 about what the QE class needs this could allow the US navy a lot of room in budgets not only build but man power

We have to remember that the USN would want an EMAL version which in its self would up the cost a crew numbers, there’s also the fact that ship building is typically more costly in the US than the UK so once again cost would go up but yes still be far cheap than a ford.

The question is though to give the same projected air power across the fleet they’d need a greater number of QEs than Fords and in turn giving the added cost through the extra escorts, subs and replenishments. Would this over all cost still be cheaper than the current 10 fords planed ?

[inch]

But the plus side 2 carriers in an area Half's the chance of getting hit and putting a single carrier out of action even temporarily ? So even if after costs they operate 2x 65k and build with support (tanker) for the price of on ford they still double the fleet from extra 6 ford After the first 4 already building/ planned to 12 X 65 k after that ,and that's alot ,4x ford 12x qe size and 10 America size ( marine s) but,but agree USA never go for it in my opinion

[Jake1992]

But the plus side 2 carriers in an area Half's the chance of getting hit and putting a single carrier out of action even temporarily ? So even if after costs they operate 2x 65k and build with support (tanker) for the price of on ford they still double the fleet from extra 6 ford After the first 4 already building/ planned to 12 X 65 k after that ,and that's alot ,4x ford 12x qe size and 10 America size ( marine s) but,but agree USA never go for it in my opinion

But if your only getting the carrier plus replenishment vessels for the price of a Ford then your not going to be able to double the fleet for the same over all price as you’ll still need the 4-6 extra escorts per CSG along with the extra SSN. These are not cheap and soon cut the numbers away.

The question is dose any believe you could get 2 x EMAL QEs plus 4-6 escorts, 1 SSN and a set of replenishment vessels for $13bn built in the US ? If so then that’d be the way for them to go IMO if not then it’s a mute point.

[inch]

Maybe cheaper if USA doesn't miss a trick and says to someone like India ,at a push Japan and says let's all build a carrier class that works for us all ,just a thought lol,but kinda going off qe class now unless ?;-)

[inch]

Also France add to that list mmh

[Boertjie]

One also need to consider the fact that you'll have to add nuclear propulsion which will turn up the cost even more. Will this work for them? Do not know if this makes any sense?
If one has to add a plug of 25m and nuclear and EMALS, then you sit with much more cost and less space for additional aircraft. Taking out some punch.
Also have to keep in mind that smaller CV does not negate the need for escorts. More CV's means more escorts means more cost.
The analysis does not add up??

[Jake1992]

One also need to consider the fact that you'll have to add nuclear propulsion which will turn up the cost even more. Will this work for them? Do not know if this makes any sense?
If one has to add a plug of 25m and nuclear and EMALS, then you sit with much more cost and less space for additional aircraft. Taking out some punch.
Also have to keep in mind that smaller CV does not negate the need for escorts. More CV's means more escorts means more cost.
The analysis does not add up??

Would they stick with nuclear if they go smaller again or go back to GT and diesel ?

With the current planed air wing for the fleet ( 95 max per ford ) you’ll be looking at an over all air wing of 950, to match that with QEs ( 60-70 max ) you’ll need at least 9 QEs along with the first 4 Fords just to match it.
That would mean 3 more subs, 12-16 more escorts and 3 more replenishments than currently planned.

Really to make it worth while you’d want to increase you over all airwing by what 20% plus so for the price of 6 Fords you’d be looking at 12 QEs plus 6 SSN, 6 replenishments and 24-36 escorts. Could all that me got for roughly $78bn ? If not then it’s not worth it.

[inch]

Well if you say 36b for 36 Burke at 1b a pop ,6 bill for 6 subs ? That's 42 bill ISH,that leaves 36 bill on your numbers for 12 qe class and tankers , doable I don't know ?even if you play about a bit more for Burks or subs etc .mind you save a bit on decommissioning nuclear carriers if they went conventional adding to the overall numbers down the line .but as said again don't think navy would ever go for it unless made too

[Jake1992]

Well if you say 36b for 36 Burke at 1b a pop ,6 bill for 6 subs ? That's 42 bill ISH,that leaves 36 bill on your numbers for 12 qe class and tankers , doable I don't know ?even if you play about a bit more for Burks or subs etc .mind you save a bit on decommissioning nuclear carriers if they went conventional adding to the overall numbers down the line .but as said again don't think navy would ever go for it unless made too

If I remember right the ABs are about $1.8bn each and the SSNs $2bn each. Don’t get me wrong I personally think it’d be a good move if the sums work out as it’d give them an over all bigger punch while being more flexible but 2 things make me think it won’t happen.
1 - I’m not convinced the sums will work out right
2 - the politics of it, national pride will make it very difficult for them to go smaller even with an increase in numbers, also if they ever did I can’t see them ever choosing a foreign design all hell would break loose.

[PhillyJ]

Worth bearing in mind that news author has a notable trend regarding "Buy more little ones!" as his personal line that's turned up many times.

So while considerations are being taken, take articles by him with a pinch of salt as to what is actually being considered.

Off topic but I assume you are Retro_Sicotte on Twitter? I must admit to having had to step away from a few recent tweets about the QE class, F35B's and how they are doomed to failure and a big mistake by the RN. I've seen you respond to some of the numpty comments though!

[RetroSicotte]

Off topic but I assume you are Retro_Sicotte on Twitter? I must admit to having had to step away from a few recent tweets about the QE class, F35B's and how they are doomed to failure and a big mistake by the RN. I've seen you respond to some of the numpty comments though!

Am indeed. I keep a very strict sanity preservation approach of just the odd reply here and there and never dedicate to actually having a "presence".

It's the only way to not lose one's mind on social media.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the only way to not lose one's mind on social media.

Better still to stay here... or does the forum fall within the broad spectrum of social media?
- whatever security there is, leaving the site for the many twitter links utterly thrashes that

[Tempest414]

If I remember right the ABs are about $1.8bn each and the SSNs $2bn each. Don’t get me wrong I personally think it’d be a good move if the sums work out as it’d give them an over all bigger punch while being more flexible but 2 things make me think it won’t happen.
1 - I’m not convinced the sums will work out right
2 - the politics of it, national pride will make it very difficult for them to go smaller even with an increase in numbers, also if they ever did I can’t see them ever choosing a foreign design all hell would break loose.

You make some very good points for me if we look at it from a hole force point of view then it might work. Lets say the US stopped at 4 Fords and had 78 billion to play with if they built 8 X 310 meter EMAL QE class carriers for 5 billion = 40 billion next they build 6 AB's at 2 billion each = 12 billion then 6 more FFGX at 1 billion each = 6 billion and then 2 SSN's at 2 billion = 4 billion this comes to 62 billion leaving 16 billion for other assets like supply ships and so on

On top of this if we say a Forward class has a crew of 3500 = 21000 people if they could have crews like so

QE = 1500
AB = 350
FFGX = 150

This would come to 16000 people. So they would end up with 12 Carriers ( yes 8 of them smaller ) but maybe more important 2 whole carrier groups i.e 2 extra Carriers 12 escorts and 2 SSN's for about the same money and man power as just 10 Fords

Lets also note that 310 x 73 meter QE class with say 70 aircraft is still more capable than anything it will meet over the time frame we are talking

[serge750]

The main costs of the us carriers are crew & nuclear power ? if they do go for cost cutting they will probably just go for conventional power, 2500-3k crew? 80k gas/diesel power if they can do a electric power increase for the Emals, maybe 3 cats 50-60 planes incl hawkeye's, still potent !

Maybe 4 fords + 6-8 conventional carriers to keep the yards going but save 10% on crew and the extra nuke costs obviously that will increase their fuel costs, slightly less planes, but still keeping the u.s. ideal of 12 carrier groups, maybe increase the turn around of a CBG being conventional power?

Smaller CV for general patrol then save the big guns (CVN) for more prominent duties...

But hasn't the u.s navy been through this before? so maybe won't happen due to political uproar?

[Jake1992]

If I remember right the ABs are about $1.8bn each and the SSNs $2bn each. Don’t get me wrong I personally think it’d be a good move if the sums work out as it’d give them an over all bigger punch while being more flexible but 2 things make me think it won’t happen.
1 - I’m not convinced the sums will work out right
2 - the politics of it, national pride will make it very difficult for them to go smaller even with an increase in numbers, also if they ever did I can’t see them ever choosing a foreign design all hell would break loose.

You make some very good points for me if we look at it from a hole force point of view then it might work. Lets say the US stopped at 4 Fords and had 78 billion to play with if they built 8 X 310 meter EMAL QE class carriers for 5 billion = 40 billion next they build 6 AB's at 2 billion each = 12 billion then 6 more FFGX at 1 billion each = 6 billion and then 2 SSN's at 2 billion = 4 billion this comes to 62 billion leaving 16 billion for other assets like supply ships and so on

On top of this if we say a Forward class has a crew of 3500 = 21000 people if they could have crews like so

QE = 1500
AB = 350
FFGX = 150

This would come to 16000 people. So they would end up with 12 Carriers ( yes 8 of them smaller ) but maybe more important 2 whole carrier groups i.e 2 extra Carriers 12 escorts and 2 SSN's for about the same money and man power as just 10 Fords

Lets also note that 310 x 73 meter QE class with say 70 aircraft is still more capable than anything it will meet over the time frame we are talking

The problem is with going down the 4+8 route is that while it gives you more flat tops for similar money it also gives you a slightly smaller over all air wing.

10 Ford carriers gives you an over all max air wing of 950 while the 4+8 gives you an over all air wing of 930. Yes we can say the difference if so small it’s irrelevant but why go through all the effort of starting a new carrier build and the introduction of a new class for very little benefit.

The other issue is that like I said above the US would never use a foreign design for its carriers it’d be like the RN using a french or Indian design, national pride on such projects won’t allow this even more so when they are the main symbol of US power. With this in mind it would mean them designing a new carrier with all the added costs and delays that would come with it.

The best chance of this happening would of been just as the QE project began ( a while before the Ford project ) the MOD sitting down with the US and convincing them that a joint project of say 18 80,000t carriers would be the best way to go with us having 2 and them 16 giving them an over all larger and more flexible force.

[SW1]

Not that it’s going to happen but what is being missed in the comments is distributed operations.

Do u need so much concentrated in one place, would you like to have the ability to be in more places at the same time. Does having assets distributed make it harder for the enemy to get them all without retaliation.

Can they come together in groups to take on larger operations. But be more useful for 99% of all other tasks.

[serge750]

If it were to happen, the u.s. would still want 60 odd aircraft, so not to be seen to be going much smaller, don't they currently routinely carry 70?

So saving on the initial nuclear power costs would be the way to go, even on a 1 for 1 basis a 80k super carrier would still be a supercarrier & keep the yards busy but save a few $ on the initial costs and save on running costs wilst saving face, didn't the last conventional carrier decommission in 2007? so not to much of a downgrade? they could say it is greener !!

[Ron5]

It's not numbers of aircraft, it's number of productive sorties over numbers of days.

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

[ArmChairCivvy]

10 Ford carriers gives you an over all max air wing of 950 while the 4+8 gives you an over all air wing of 930.

Lose one, in each scenario, of the 'average sort' and you have 865 vs. 853... practically the same, but for the latter available over a wider area of Ops (one or several). Which takes us neatly to:

what is being missed in the comments is distributed operations.

Do u need so much concentrated in one place

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).

[Jake1992]

10 Ford carriers gives you an over all max air wing of 950 while the 4+8 gives you an over all air wing of 930.

Lose one, in each scenario, of the 'average sort' and you have 865 vs. 853... practically the same, but for the latter available over a wider area of Ops (one or several). Which takes us neatly to:

what is being missed in the comments is distributed operations.

Do u need so much concentrated in one place

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).

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 ?

[serge750]

isn't the article about saving money though ? surely just buy buying more smaller carriers with an equal or greater airwing ( albiet pro's of being in more places ) just spending the same $ ? if they want to save money something has to give...that's why the main reason we went stovl not catobar.

I see it as if they want to save money, cut nuclear power or capability i.e

same number of Conventional powered CV, 60 or so planes - broadly same sortie rate, save $ on initial nuclear costs + midlife refuels etc

same number of Smaller CVN's (more like CdeG) less sortie rate/aircraft, save money on airwing costs etc

Less carriers

I think the best would be 4 x fords, then conventional power for broadly the same airwing/sotie rate & keep the yards going,

Also would the non nuclear powered carriers have a increased avaliabilty rate to improve things further?

[Jake1992]

isn't the article about saving money though ? surely just buy buying more smaller carriers with an equal or greater airwing ( albiet pro's of being in more places ) just spending the same $ ? if they want to save money something has to give...that's why the main reason we went stovl not catobar.

I see it as if they want to save money, cut nuclear power or capability i.e

same number of Conventional powered CV, 60 or so planes - broadly same sortie rate, save $ on initial nuclear costs + midlife refuels etc

same number of Smaller CVN's (more like CdeG) less sortie rate/aircraft, save money on airwing costs etc

Less carriers

I think the best would be 4 x fords, then conventional power for broadly the same airwing/sotie rate & keep the yards going,

Also would the non nuclear powered carriers have a increased avaliabilty rate to improve things further?

The reason I brought up the air wing side of this is that can anyone here say that politically the US would cut the capabilities of its carrier force ? I don’t believe they would but if they went for smaller carriers ( QE sized ) that is was they would be doing unless they went for a greater number and then that in turn brings you back to to same sort of price as currently.

We have to remember unlike us where the carriers are seen “almost” purely as a military asset and it’s all about money, for the US they are a very big political aspect to them both at a domestic level and international level.