Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[new guy]

Well I hope you’re right we will see.

I suggest you read posts not regurgitate what you think I wrote I’ll copy what I wrote here for the avoidance of doubt

“ We could have build 4 vessels similar to the Italian cavour and crewed 3 of them with what we have spend and allocated crew to the cvf program or built 6 Canberra class and crewed 5. We made our bed.”

Nothing lowered or changed under protest.

My mistake for mis-remembering what you stated,
yet my points still stand disregard less.

[tomuk]

potential SRB was highlighted.

SRB??

From what I have heard it's a corrosion issue

The way it was explained in the now deleted comments on Navy Lookout, was that some time ago a routine pre-deployment underwater inspection revealed that a cover (fiber glass) on one of the couplings was not seated correctly and seawater had entered the coupling. Maybe the cover had not been reattached correctly after the earlier inspections done as a result of the POW problems. The divers removed the cover and visually inspected underneath. Some pitting was observed but not enough for concern. So they applied the standard fix of painting the corroded parts with heavy anti-corrosion paint and the cover was re-attached. So far so good.

However, since the Afghanistan Nimrod crash, new rules meant that somebody well up the food chain had to be identified as the risk owner and to sign off before the ship could sail. This person, presumably an Admiral, was finally briefed a couple of days ago and he/she pulled the plug on the grounds that a visual inspection was not sufficient to determine if there was catastrophic damage beneath the surface of the coupling e.g. done by Sulfate Reducing Bacteria (SRB).

The NL commentator added a few more inflammatory statements. One was that the coupling "only" had a 10% margin for safety and was not the standard coupling used by the Royal Navy but a new type from Voith. He speculated they were chosen on the basis of lower cost.

Please remember this was all from an anonymous poster and subject to my less than perfect memory.

It does make me think that investing in a QE capable dry dock at Portsmouth would be a great idea. Could also use it for my giant T83 trimarans!

That is very interesting Brings up a couple of questions.
1) If the ship can't sail until agreed by the senior officer, assumed Admiral, has signed off then why was the inspection not carried out sooner. No point in inspecting D-2 if you'll only get the go ahead due to 'paperwork' delays if done on D-14.

2) If there is now this lead time to a go/no go then surely the PR has to also follow the same timeline.

3) Ditto the upkeep\workup required on POW. If she is down as backup then she needs to be ready at the same timeline. What happens in say a week when POW i ready gets a final inspection and is failed too. How will that play in the Daily Wail?

4) If the visual inspec\paint repair isn't good enough why is it being carried out? Where are the procedures so that the risk can be properly dealt with.

5) Why the need to throw VOITH under the bus they're a very successful company making various very robust drivetrain products in various domains.

[tomuk]

If you want to prepare a fast jet force for peer warfare they should be spending the majority of their deployed time in Nevada at the most complex air exercise in the world not bobbing about on a boat.

Lockheed seem to think that there are British F35s participating in Redflag 24-1??

[SW1]

If you want to prepare a fast jet force for peer warfare they should be spending the majority of their deployed time in Nevada at the most complex air exercise in the world not bobbing about on a boat.

Lockheed seem to think that there are British F35s participating in Redflag 24-1??

Don’t think they were

https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/ex ... ther-year/

The RAF contribution to the exercise consisted of Typhoon fighter jets, a Voyager air-to-air refueler, Rivet Joint electronic surveillance crews, engineers, Air Controllers, Space specialists and a variety of support personnel.

[whitelancer]

We didn’t sail around with dozens of jets on carriers after the Falklands either

Yes, but not because it was a the RN choice, isn't it, as new carriers were to small to have larger air group. But that was a minimum what they could get from government at that time, but not what they actually wanted.

HMS Hermes remained in service until 1986 and there was 14 harriers on invincible in the 90s. The majority of the time if they deployed with jets at all there was 7 or less.

What they want is irrelevant. This is repeatedly the problem wants and aspirations far beyond reality.

If you want to prepare a fast jet force for peer warfare they should be spending the majority of their deployed time in Nevada at the most complex air exercise in the world not bobbing about on a boat.

The Invincible's sailed with so few Harriers because the RAF had cancelled the Sea Harriers and had taken control of JFH and starved the ships of aircraft. The RAF has a long and very inglorious history of fucking over RN air power.

[Ron5]

potential SRB was highlighted.

SRB??

From what I have heard it's a corrosion issue

The way it was explained in the now deleted comments on Navy Lookout, was that some time ago a routine pre-deployment underwater inspection revealed that a cover (fiber glass) on one of the couplings was not seated correctly and seawater had entered the coupling. Maybe the cover had not been reattached correctly after the earlier inspections done as a result of the POW problems. The divers removed the cover and visually inspected underneath. Some pitting was observed but not enough for concern. So they applied the standard fix of painting the corroded parts with heavy anti-corrosion paint and the cover was re-attached. So far so good.

However, since the Afghanistan Nimrod crash, new rules meant that somebody well up the food chain had to be identified as the risk owner and to sign off before the ship could sail. This person, presumably an Admiral, was finally briefed a couple of days ago and he/she pulled the plug on the grounds that a visual inspection was not sufficient to determine if there was catastrophic damage beneath the surface of the coupling e.g. done by Sulfate Reducing Bacteria (SRB).

The NL commentator added a few more inflammatory statements. One was that the coupling "only" had a 10% margin for safety and was not the standard coupling used by the Royal Navy but a new type from Voith. He speculated they were chosen on the basis of lower cost.

Please remember this was all from an anonymous poster and subject to my less than perfect memory.

It does make me think that investing in a QE capable dry dock at Portsmouth would be a great idea. Could also use it for my giant T83 trimarans!

That is very interesting Brings up a couple of questions.
1) If the ship can't sail until agreed by the senior officer, assumed Admiral, has signed off then why was the inspection not carried out sooner. No point in inspecting D-2 if you'll only get the go ahead due to 'paperwork' delays if done on D-14.

2) If there is now this lead time to a go/no go then surely the PR has to also follow the same timeline.

3) Ditto the upkeep\workup required on POW. If she is down as backup then she needs to be ready at the same timeline. What happens in say a week when POW i ready gets a final inspection and is failed too. How will that play in the Daily Wail?

4) If the visual inspec\paint repair isn't good enough why is it being carried out? Where are the procedures so that the risk can be properly dealt with.

5) Why the need to throw VOITH under the bus they're a very successful company making various very robust drivetrain products in various domains.

You might want to leave the Board of Inquiry something to do

[tomuk]

If you want to prepare a fast jet force for peer warfare they should be spending the majority of their deployed time in Nevada at the most complex air exercise in the world not bobbing about on a boat.

Lockheed seem to think that there are British F35s participating in Redflag 24-1??

Don’t think they were

https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/ex ... ther-year/

The RAF contribution to the exercise consisted of Typhoon fighter jets, a Voyager air-to-air refueler, Rivet Joint electronic surveillance crews, engineers, Air Controllers, Space specialists and a variety of support personnel.

They issued a PR talking about a multinational 'force' of F35s madeup of US OZ and UK

[new guy]

It does make me think that investing in a QE capable dry dock at Portsmouth would be a great idea. Could also use it for my giant T83 trimarans!

Of all the issues with Independence class / LCS the fact it was a trimaran wasn't one of them.

[dmereifield]

Bro, I'd love to be wrong, but I doubt we'll see 24 UK F35 on board. I'm sure we'll see 24 on her, but I expect that will include US airframes. I'd be surprised/happy if we'd only meed them to contribute 8, and we can pony up 16 of our own...

STDE24 will also be another step in the journey towards achieving Full Operational Capability (FOC) for UK Carrier Strike. Cdre James Blackmore, COMUKCSG, he said that following Exercise Strike Warrior in the Autumn, 24 British F-35Bs will be onboard HMS Prince of Wales for the Indo-Pacific deployment in 2025. 617 Sqn and 809 NAS will provide 12 jets each.

He knows better than I, obviously, and that may well be the plan. But I'd stall wager we don't see 24 UK jets on her. Or if so, it'll be a temporary proof of concept thing - 1 full squadron embarked and another joins temporarily for a small period of the deployment

[topman]

There's nothing much available publicly but I'll say you can read the report about the F35 that went for a swim and the manpower stats for the year that happened and the latest one.

Compare them and see if how likely it is the force is going to grow that quickly to support 24 aircraft on exercise at the same time for quite a long det.

[Scimitar54]

Well, if there are to be USMC F35s on board, you might well see PWLS with not just 24 but c. 34 x F35s during. CSG25.

[new guy]

He knows better than I,

he is the commander of the CSG.

[Bongodog]

There's nothing much available publicly but I'll say you can read the report about the F35 that went for a swim and the manpower stats for the year that happened and the latest one.

Compare them and see if how likely it is the force is going to grow that quickly to support 24 aircraft on exercise at the same time for quite a long det.

I read the full report, whilst it is correct that the UK contingent had rather less maintainers per aircraft than the USMC, the biggest issue was the complete lack of procedures for handling the blanking plugs for each aircraft, instead of having a shadow board for each aircraft and placing the various plugs on the board, they were just thrown into a communal stillage. Also there was no clear procedure of when the plugs should be installed. They weren't routinely used but had been installed for the Suez transit to prevent spying eyes seeing up the intakes. If an appropriate procedure had been in place it would have saved time.

[topman]

There were many issues, the biggest issue is arguable. Why were they put in one box?

What isn't is that there was a shortage of people.

[hovematlot]

If PLWS is eventually deployed to relieve the Eisenhower after Steadfast Defender 24 I assume she'll be refitted with her Phalanx and maybe even finally get the 3 x 30mm mounts installed?

[Bongodog]

There were many issues, the biggest issue is arguable. Why were they put in one box?

What isn't is that there was a shortage of people.

The only plausible explanation for the sloppy procedures is its the natural consequence of allowing the light blue to have a straglehold over carrier aviation

[topman]

There were many issues, the biggest issue is arguable. Why were they put in one box?

What isn't is that there was a shortage of people.

The only plausible explanation for the sloppy procedures is its the natural consequence of allowing the light blue to have a straglehold over carrier aviation

You sound like you have a lot of experience in flight safety and occurrence reporting or is this just a hobby?

[Turnturtle]

If PLWS is eventually deployed to relieve the Eisenhower after Steadfast Defender 24 I assume she'll be refitted with her Phalanx and maybe even finally get the 3 x 30mm mounts installed?

It's 4 x 30mm mounts (the baseplates have been there since build), but I agree with you entirely. I'll leave aside the fact that these ships are virtually the only carriers in the world not equipped with self defence missiles (what does the RN know that no other navy does?). However, it would be irresponsible and dangerous to deploy a multi billion £ ship with hundreds of our service people on board into what is, in effect, a warzone without adequate self defence. And this is a warzone potentially swarming with drones and missiles which may swamp the ability of escorts to bring them all down.

[Poiuytrewq]

4 x 30mm mounts….

Thats not enough anymore. It’s needs to be 40mm or 57mm now.

If QE was Italian it would be covered in 76mm OTO Melara’s and rightly so.

Unfortunately the chronic underarming to save cash is coming back to bite in a big way now.

It was always just a matter of time.

[Repulse]

4 x 30mm mounts….

Thats not enough anymore. It’s needs to be 40mm or 57mm now.

If QE was Italian it would be covered in 76mm OTO Melara’s and rightly so.

Unfortunately the chronic underarming to save cash is coming back to bite in a big way now.

It was always just a matter of time.

The QEs will always be escorted, so whilst CIWS is important anything more isn’t a priority IMO. Amphibious ships on the other hand will not now always be in an ARG so the RN does need to break tradition here.

[Poiuytrewq]

4 x 30mm mounts….

Thats not enough anymore. It’s needs to be 40mm or 57mm now.

If QE was Italian it would be covered in 76mm OTO Melara’s and rightly so.

Unfortunately the chronic underarming to save cash is coming back to bite in a big way now.

It was always just a matter of time.

The QEs will always be escorted, so whilst CIWS is important anything more isn’t a priority IMO. Amphibious ships on the other hand will not now always be in an ARG so the RN does need to break tradition here.

How much has the entire CSG aspiration cost so far? It’s almost unquantifiable.

4x40mm or 4x 57mm is a tiny cost for added insurance. Why risk it?

[Repulse]

4 x 30mm mounts….

Thats not enough anymore. It’s needs to be 40mm or 57mm now.

If QE was Italian it would be covered in 76mm OTO Melara’s and rightly so.

Unfortunately the chronic underarming to save cash is coming back to bite in a big way now.

It was always just a matter of time.

The QEs will always be escorted, so whilst CIWS is important anything more isn’t a priority IMO. Amphibious ships on the other hand will not now always be in an ARG so the RN does need to break tradition here.

How much has the entire CSG aspiration cost so far? It’s almost unquantifiable.

4x40mm or 4x 57mm is a tiny cost for added insurance. Why risk it?

I have no problem with a level of self defence, but would say that it’s a lot more important to spend money on keeping threats far away from the carrier. I would rather add these guns to the T46s - though never liked the double gun look of the Horizons.

[wargame_insomniac]

4 x 30mm mounts….

Thats not enough anymore. It’s needs to be 40mm or 57mm now.

If QE was Italian it would be covered in 76mm OTO Melara’s and rightly so.

Unfortunately the chronic underarming to save cash is coming back to bite in a big way now.

It was always just a matter of time.

The key thing for any RN Upgrade / refit IMO is TIME. How long will the ship be realistically out of water, and for which the contractor must be contractually bound for.

Same for PWLS, T45, T26, T31 , FSS etc.

The cost of initial upgrade and the improvement benefit thereon are important. But how long will that be for?

[Ron5]

If PLWS is eventually deployed to relieve the Eisenhower after Steadfast Defender 24 I assume she'll be refitted with her Phalanx and maybe even finally get the 3 x 30mm mounts installed?

It's 4 x 30mm mounts (the baseplates have been there since build), but I agree with you entirely. I'll leave aside the fact that these ships are virtually the only carriers in the world not equipped with self defence missiles (what does the RN know that no other navy does?). However, it would be irresponsible and dangerous to deploy a multi billion £ ship with hundreds of our service people on board into what is, in effect, a warzone without adequate self defence. And this is a warzone potentially swarming with drones and missiles which may swamp the ability of escorts to bring them all down.

I read an analysis that showed a warships chances of intercepting an incoming missile aimed at itself vs at a nearby target. I don't remember the source of the analysis or the precise numbers but I do remember being very surprised how much more likely it was to shoot down the missile heading straight for you. Something like twice as likely in most scenarios.

How hard would it be to transfer a couple of scrapped Type 23 Sea Ceptor systems to the carriers? Answer: not very.

[tomuk]

If PLWS is eventually deployed to relieve the Eisenhower after Steadfast Defender 24 I assume she'll be refitted with her Phalanx and maybe even finally get the 3 x 30mm mounts installed?

It's 4 x 30mm mounts (the baseplates have been there since build), but I agree with you entirely. I'll leave aside the fact that these ships are virtually the only carriers in the world not equipped with self defence missiles (what does the RN know that no other navy does?). However, it would be irresponsible and dangerous to deploy a multi billion £ ship with hundreds of our service people on board into what is, in effect, a warzone without adequate self defence. And this is a warzone potentially swarming with drones and missiles which may swamp the ability of escorts to bring them all down.

I read an analysis that showed a warships chances of intercepting an incoming missile aimed at itself vs at a nearby target. I don't remember the source of the analysis or the precise numbers but I do remember being very surprised how much more likely it was to shoot down the missile heading straight for you. Something like twice as likely in most scenarios.

How hard would it be to transfer a couple of scrapped Type 23 Sea Ceptor systems to the carriers? Answer: not very.

I assume you mean the components such as LMS boxes etc that have likely already been removed as the silos aren't going anywhere.