Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Aethulwulf]

I suspect it is more likely to be the Bedford array landing light system being fitted.

[Simon82]

Apparently the Bedford Array will be first fitted and trialled on HMS Prince of Wales, before being retrofitted to HMS Queen Elizabeth at a later date.

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/hms-que ... fast-jets/

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

[Halidon]

Apparently the Bedford Array will be first fitted and trialled on HMS Prince of Wales, before being retrofitted to HMS Queen Elizabeth at a later date.

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/hms-que ... fast-jets/

If 1 CV is active and the other is reduced operating state, it makes all kinds of sense to use the latter as a trials/testbed. Anything that doesn't pan out can be deleted before she rotates into the Active role, everything else will be ready to go and have tons (tonnes?) of test hours under its belt by the time she deploys. Good to see.

[SKB]

New video from ACA:


(ACA/QEClassCarriers)

HMS Queen Elizabeth celebrations video featuring members of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance workforce, hear from them what it was like to be part of the HMS Queen Elizabeth journey

@3:53 Captain Jeremy Kyd: "...and very quickly ran up to full power, just under 30 knots..."

[inch]

not sure if posted in right place but just been looking at hmas Canberra and cant help thinking how many on here would have maybe gone for 2 Canberra class and more type 26 escorts and well armed t45 than going for our qe class ?,even though I think there great and looking forwards to the next programme about them and they probably end up doing just fine for us over the years to come

[Jake1992]

not sure if posted in right place but just been looking at hmas Canberra and cant help thinking how many on here would have maybe gone for 2 Canberra class and more type 26 escorts and well armed t45 than going for our qe class ?,even though I think there great and looking forwards to the next programme about them and they probably end up doing just fine for us over the years to come

The canberras are great but I don't think they'd quite do what we'd need.

The problem is when the QEs were designed and plan for them went forward we were meant to get 12 T45s fully equipped and closer to 20 T26s ( mix of ASW and GP ) to replace the 16 T23s and 4 T22s.

So the QEs made a lot of sence, it's the constant cutting of defence spending over the last 20 years that's f**ked everything up not the QEs them selfs

[Poiuytrewq]

The problem is when the QEs were designed and plan for them went forward we were meant to get 12 T45s fully equipped and closer to 20 T26s ( mix of ASW and GP ) to replace the 16 T23s and 4 T22s.

100% Agree. Although not ideal, I think 6 T45's is workable. Only 8 T26's is simply not credible, in my opinion the bare minimum is 20 Tier 1 escorts.

The simplest way to achieve it is to make the T31's a truly capable war winning escort but that would require the T31 budget to increase by about 100%

With that kind of money (£2.5bn to £3bn) it would probably be better to simply build more T26's.

A way must be found to achieve this as a priority in my view.

With little else left to cut, only new money will reverse the decline......

[R686]

not sure if posted in right place but just been looking at hmas Canberra and cant help thinking how many on here would have maybe gone for 2 Canberra class and more type 26 escorts and well armed t45 than going for our qe class ?,even though I think there great and looking forwards to the next programme about them and they probably end up doing just fine for us over the years to come

The canberras are great but I don't think they'd quite do what we'd need.

The problem is when the QEs were designed and plan for them went forward we were meant to get 12 T45s fully equipped and closer to 20 T26s ( mix of ASW and GP ) to replace the 16 T23s and 4 T22s.

So the QEs made a lot of sence, it's the constant cutting of defence spending over the last 20 years that's f**ked everything up not the QEs them selfs

Agree, the role of CVF was vastly different then what is now being pushed onto 2x CV I could understand it better if 3/4 cv were being built. All looked rosy when you had Ocean for the amphibious role, I'd even be happy if you converted a point class ro-ro (shark-bait?)as an intern helicopter carrier to work with A/B until 2 large LHD can be built


https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the- ... ?r=US&IR=T

[inch]

Now why cant our powers that be do something sensible like that r686 as interim Solution as you say , they will prob hit back at me and say yet another ship mothballed alongside for lack of crew

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

Episode 2

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

[Ron5]

Should have been a Navy squadron.

[downsizer]

Should have been IX(B) Sqn, not that junior filth.

[R686]

Should have been a Navy squadron.

Agree, but how many RN pilots have there fast jet wings at the moment and how many are planning on returning to there roots of the RN?

[SKB]

*deleted duplicate post*

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

Already posted it, just a few posts up too!

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

Thank you SKB

[Ron5]

Should have been a Navy squadron.

Agree, but how many RN pilots have there fast jet wings at the moment and how many are planning on returning to there roots of the RN?

Make up the numbers with RAF bodies. I don't think any of the squadrons are expected to be 100% from one service or another.

[downsizer]

60/40 on each depending upon the badge.

[Poiuytrewq]

The US Carrier strike group that recently arrived in the Mediterranean consists of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75); Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy (CG 60); Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers USS Farragut (DDG 99), USS Forrest Sherman (DDG 98), USS Bulkeley (DDG 84) and USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51), along with the embarked staffs of Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 8, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 1 and Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 28. The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers USS Jason Dunham (DDG 109) and USS The Sullivans (DDG 68) are also to deploy and rejoin the strike group at a later date.

I expect one or two subs would also be in attendance.

How is the RN CSG going to compare with it's USN counterpart in terms of number of escorts and overall firepower?

[serge750]

Their not.......

[Aethulwulf]

The standard US carrier group normally has 5 escorts (1 cruiser and 4 destroyers). With a total of 22 cruisers and 66 destroyers, these 5 escorts are about 5.5% of the total number of US escorts.

It has been stated that a UK carrier group will normally have two T45 and two T23 escorts. These 4 escorts are about 21% of the total number of the UK's 19 escorts (or 29% of the 14 escorts designated for use with the carriers.)

[Repulse]

USN has 10 carriers (not including ARGs) which makes 50 cruisers / destroyers around 55% of the 88 fleet. The UK has two CSGs with 8 FFs/DDs also about 60% when compared to 14. To be honest I think it's ok.