Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Spinflight]

Amen to that.

In other words a well managed and efficient project which prioritises and provides forces for the front line.

The aircraft carrier alliance certainly seemed to deliver that, the delays were political.

[shark bait]

Numbers mean nothing if there's no capability, it's still disarm ourselves. If the T31 programme delivers 20 incabale hulls it will still be a failure.

The carrier's are spot on, a fine example of delivering quality, despite of MOD U-turns cocking things up. The talk of 12 aircraft is frankly dumb.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Numbers mean nothing if there's no capability

A good point there, capacity times capability is what counts

[arfah]

Fitted with but not for?

[abc123]

The talk of 12 aircraft is frankly dumb.

Is it really? So, in a fleet of 48 ( at least until 2025 I don't think that UK will have more of them, but let's hope that I'm wrong ), shared between FAA and RAF, you can have in active squadrons- how many? 30-35 maybe. Of that number, you can have 1 squadron of 12 for the RAF ( do not think that RAF will happily agree to have all squadron just for carriers ), 1 squadron of 12 for FAA and the rest of 6-10 in some sort of war reserve/training ( you can't have all 20 in carrier at the same time, you have to give crews some rest and being home ).

So, that leaves us with ( maybe ) 12 on board permanently. And even that is under question mark, because of availability of aircrafts ( new aircrafts, I don't expect to have more than 50% of them ready at least first 5-10 years, especially with UK style of support with spare parts ). Let's remember that Invincible-class normally operated IIRC with about 8 Harriers ( with a fleet of about 60-70 aircrafts and just for FAA ).

[shark bait]

Your right, we should only plan a decade in advance, great idea.

I entirely reject that logic. You don't even mention a single helicopter, which are essential to operations. At the minimum level there will be 12 helicopters and 12 F35 on board. That means at the minimum level QE's hangar will be full, and the entirety of an Invincible or Canbera class will be consumed by QE's minim level.

Then if you remove your short sighted logic and consider what will happen over the next 50 years of service, including more UK F35, allied F35, assault helicopters and drones, on proper long term deployments in different oceans, its quite clear that QE is the right size. Bodging all that into a small carrier is a dumb idea.

[rbw91]

Whereas a few, including yourself, just spout uninformed garbage (I am not exactly the first to suggest as much) and throw in baseless insults as well

This site is being besieged (only lately) by three characters:
- the good cop (the layman)
- the bad cop (spinning, and when that does not work, insulting)
- and the merry idiot with a ending his/ her every msg
Could be just one person on a salary (or paid by line of output).

Good advice on the dedicated thread on how to deal with each ( all) of them.

Well I don't know about that as I just lurk, but lurk every day. I rarely post as I have nothing containing new info to add. But I therefore see a lot. I think Ron5 is the most antagonistic person I have seen on here in a long time and the forum would be better off without him.

*** returns to lurking finding this thread fascinating for what it is - about the carriers and not the egos ***

[seaspear]

Ron5 may answer for himself but having been on here for a while I would disagree with your claim ,its not easy for many of the contributors to get information that can be posted and its easy to get it wrong ,Im happy to be corrected by some of the members with better access and knowledge .

[downsizer]

You can feel the christmas love around the site at the minute!

[Bring Deeps]

This is interesting about the deck coating:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/st ... -carriers/

[Enigmatically]

Has this been posted?
https://theaviationist.com/2016/12/08/f ... ceptional/

[shark bait]

But Facebook says it's bad




On a more serious note; it's interesting how they all talk about the aircraft's systems, and from where I've seen that's where this aircraft's real advantage is. The final stage of the OODA loop has been optimised to death, and now improving that takes great effort for little return.

The F35 takes a different approach, significantly optimising the other stages of the loop, yeilding huge gains. Let the computer do data stuff that computers are good at and free the human up for stuff humans are good at.

Old schoolers get upset because this generation doesn't go way faster, or turn way harder than the last generation like previous generations have thought is to expect. Instead it is way way smarter than anything else that comes before it.

That's causing some headaches, but once sorted it will be a huge asset to the RN along with QE

[SDL]

Has this been posted?
https://theaviationist.com/2016/12/08/f ... ceptional/

Not seen it before. an interesting read, thanks for posting.

[Spinflight]

On a more serious note; it's interesting how they all talk about the aircraft's systems, and from where I've seen that's where this aircraft's real advantage is. The final stage of the OODA loop has been optimised to death, and now improving that takes great effort for little return.

The biggest advance will be with the mission files, which I think are scheduled for 2018. Think about all of the Rivet Joint, recon and Istar assets which collect data and sigint 24/7. The threat picture in other words which is currently something which pilots would be briefed on pre-mission and have to interpret themselves whilst airborne.

The F-35 should bring all of that intel together, display it during a mission and even update it in real time.

[R686]

You can feel the christmas love around the site at the minute!

HO,HO, HO

[The Armchair Soldier]

Moved the previous few posts to the Naval Command to 2030 thread. Let's try and stay on the topic of the carriers and keep the wider fleet discussions in the wider fleet discussion threads (such as the one linked).

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

Has this been posted?
https://theaviationist.com/2016/12/08/f ... ceptional/

Brilliant read, and an excellent find. A lot of people get bogged down in the 'ifs' and 'buts' surrounding the F35 (I'll hold my hand up too as I questioned its capabilities) but taking note from those better qualified than us to comment, and seeing that the F35 fleet has some 75,000 plus flying hours, you cannot wait to see it working from the QE and PoW in due course ....Well, I know I am.

[abc123]

Your right, we should only plan a decade in advance, great idea.

I entirely reject that logic. You don't even mention a single helicopter, which are essential to operations. At the minimum level there will be 12 helicopters and 12 F35 on board. That means at the minimum level QE's hangar will be full, and the entirety of an Invincible or Canbera class will be consumed by QE's minim level.

Then if you remove your short sighted logic and consider what will happen over the next 50 years of service, including more UK F35, allied F35, assault helicopters and drones, on proper long term deployments in different oceans, its quite clear that QE is the right size. Bodging all that into a small carrier is a dumb idea.

Now, UK bought 6 ( instead of 12 ) Type 45, 8 ( instead of 13 ) Type 26, 160 ( instead of 230 Typhoons ), but you wan't us to think that they will buy all 138 F-35? We have never saw that HMG decides out of the blue that some capabilities are not needed any more/not affordable?

Yeah right.

About 12 helicopters, so that's 4 ASW Merlins, 4 AEW Merlins and maybe 2-4 SAR birds. That's fine, but it's just a normal part of any aircraft carrier in the world, not something special that will enable UK power projection in unprecedented ways.

Same thing with USMC F-35, sorry, but I consider that as a US charity- not some UK capability.

I'm not against the size of QE-class, but I'm against this half-assed approach ( want to fu**, but without penetration- as the saying goes ) to defence we can see in the UK for the, at least, last 15 years.

[shark bait]

Those helicopters are just as important to achieving a credible capability as the F35's.

This conversation stems back to you saying;

if UK will end with 12 F-35 on them, then you could build new Invincible-class as well. If you will have big enough number of F-35, Merlins, V-22 etc. for them, then you could build them even larger....

The truth is those 12 F-35 and 12 Merlin would fill the Invincible's. Admiralty understand that, which is why we're building "them even larger"

There is no "half-assed approach", do you for get that the Royal Navy is rebuilding carrier operations from scratch? Its foolish to suggest operating at capacity so soon. They are going to be around for 50 years, and such a powerful capability will take time to build up, which is a fully reasonable approach.

Over the next decade the Royal Navy will be able to put to sea the most capable carrier group that isn't parked on a Nimitz. That's a pretty good start, and the capability will continue to mature from that point.

I wouldn't disregard the USMC operations so quickly either, that allows the RN and UK to score diplomacy points with the Americans, and maintain influence within NATO may be useful post Brexit. Its still a capability bonus to the UK, just indirect.

[dmereifield]

Your right, we should only plan a decade in advance, great idea.

I entirely reject that logic. You don't even mention a single helicopter, which are essential to operations. At the minimum level there will be 12 helicopters and 12 F35 on board. That means at the minimum level QE's hangar will be full, and the entirety of an Invincible or Canbera class will be consumed by QE's minim level.

Then if you remove your short sighted logic and consider what will happen over the next 50 years of service, including more UK F35, allied F35, assault helicopters and drones, on proper long term deployments in different oceans, its quite clear that QE is the right size. Bodging all that into a small carrier is a dumb idea.

Now, UK bought 6 ( instead of 12 ) Type 45, 8 ( instead of 13 ) Type 26, 160 ( instead of 230 Typhoons ), but you wan't us to think that they will buy all 138 F-35? We have never saw that HMG decides out of the blue that some capabilities are not needed any more/not affordable?

Yeah right.

About 12 helicopters, so that's 4 ASW Merlins, 4 AEW Merlins and maybe 2-4 SAR birds. That's fine, but it's just a normal part of any aircraft carrier in the world, not something special that will enable UK power projection in unprecedented ways.

Same thing with USMC F-35, sorry, but I consider that as a US charity- not some UK capability.

I'm not against the size of QE-class, but I'm against this half-assed approach ( want to fu**, but without penetration- as the saying goes ) to defence we can see in the UK for the, at least, last 15 years.

Fully understand your points on procurement seemingly ending up with fewer than planned, and especially the examples you highlight, bit I imagine it will be harder to reduce the numbers on the F35 programme given our relationship with the Americans and our Tier 1 status in the project, I would think it would be much harder to drop numbers on this programme than the other's you mention. That is unless the Americans cut their orders substantially, which might make it more feasible for us to do so

[ArmChairCivvy]

Now, UK bought 6 ( instead of 12 ) Type 45, 8 ( instead of 13 ) Type 26, 160 ( instead of 230 Typhoons ), but you wan't us to think that they will buy all 138 F-35? We have never saw that HMG decides out of the blue that some capabilities are not needed any more/not affordable?

Yeah right.

If "now" is the operative word, then someone might be a bit behind on the "peace dividend" curve?

[ArmChairCivvy]

We here, generally speaking , seem to be quite dismissive of the Forward Basing capability extra?
- the USMC, the Swiss and Swedish as well as the Finnish airforces are not ; and three out of the 4 fly naval fighters

A recent statement about the USMC sqdrns 121 and 211:
"Wherever you have enough road to land a C-130J and offload jet fuel, you can put F-35Bs to go operate for a period of time.

We just did the hot rearm, hot refuel with the F-35Bs. We have been doing that with Harriers 12 years now, and we do it with F/A-18s. We did it at WTI for the F-35Bs. 2 F-35s came in and landed, we never shut them down, we refueled, reloaded them with ordinance and took off in less than 20 mins. That’s a significant capability."

So, if it might be a bit tight down in the hangars on the CVFs, it need not last for long?

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

Those helicopters are just as important to achieving a credible capability as the F35's.

This conversation stems back to you saying;

if UK will end with 12 F-35 on them, then you could build new Invincible-class as well. If you will have big enough number of F-35, Merlins, V-22 etc. for them, then you could build them even larger....

The truth is those 12 F-35 and 12 Merlin would fill the Invincible's. Admiralty understand that, which is why we're building "them even larger"

There is no "half-assed approach", do you for get that the Royal Navy is rebuilding carrier operations from scratch? Its foolish to suggest operating at capacity so soon. They are going to be around for 50 years, and such a powerful capability will take time to build up, which is a fully reasonable approach.

Over the next decade the Royal Navy will be able to put to sea the most capable carrier group that isn't parked on a Nimitz. That's a pretty good start, and the capability will continue to mature from that point.

I wouldn't disregard the USMC operations so quickly either, that allows the RN and UK to score diplomacy points with the Americans, and maintain influence within NATO may be useful post Brexit. Its still a capability bonus to the UK, just indirect.

Well Put!!!

[abc123]

Your right, we should only plan a decade in advance, great idea.

I entirely reject that logic. You don't even mention a single helicopter, which are essential to operations. At the minimum level there will be 12 helicopters and 12 F35 on board. That means at the minimum level QE's hangar will be full, and the entirety of an Invincible or Canbera class will be consumed by QE's minim level.

Then if you remove your short sighted logic and consider what will happen over the next 50 years of service, including more UK F35, allied F35, assault helicopters and drones, on proper long term deployments in different oceans, its quite clear that QE is the right size. Bodging all that into a small carrier is a dumb idea.

Now, UK bought 6 ( instead of 12 ) Type 45, 8 ( instead of 13 ) Type 26, 160 ( instead of 230 Typhoons ), but you wan't us to think that they will buy all 138 F-35? We have never saw that HMG decides out of the blue that some capabilities are not needed any more/not affordable?

Yeah right.

About 12 helicopters, so that's 4 ASW Merlins, 4 AEW Merlins and maybe 2-4 SAR birds. That's fine, but it's just a normal part of any aircraft carrier in the world, not something special that will enable UK power projection in unprecedented ways.

Same thing with USMC F-35, sorry, but I consider that as a US charity- not some UK capability.

I'm not against the size of QE-class, but I'm against this half-assed approach ( want to fu**, but without penetration- as the saying goes ) to defence we can see in the UK for the, at least, last 15 years.

Fully understand your points on procurement seemingly ending up with fewer than planned, and especially the examples you highlight, bit I imagine it will be harder to reduce the numbers on the F35 programme given our relationship with the Americans and our Tier 1 status in the project, I would think it would be much harder to drop numbers on this programme than the other's you mention. That is unless the Americans cut their orders substantially, which might make it more feasible for us to do so

I would say that the UK was much more than Tier 1 in Type 45, Type 26 and Eurofighter programmes...

[abc123]

T
There is no "half-assed approach", do you for get that the Royal Navy is rebuilding carrier operations from scratch? Its foolish to suggest operating at capacity so soon. They are going to be around for 50 years, and such a powerful capability will take time to build up, which is a fully reasonable approach.

Over the next decade the Royal Navy will be able to put to sea the most capable carrier group that isn't parked on a Nimitz. That's a pretty good start, and the capability will continue to mature from that point.

I wouldn't disregard the USMC operations so quickly either, that allows the RN and UK to score diplomacy points with the Americans, and maintain influence within NATO may be useful post Brexit. Its still a capability bonus to the UK, just indirect.

OK, so if say US had built 2 Ford-class carriers ( with capacity for at least 48 or even 60 fighters ) and then put just 12 or 20 on carriers, you would say that's not "half-assed"?

I don't disregard anything, least not the USMC and diplomacy, but that can't replace British capabilities. Or, if it can, then why not disband whole HM Armed Forces- the Americans have more than enough ships, tanks or aircrafts? Or you think that British diplomatic standing with the US will be greater because USMC has to send their allready precious F-35s to assist the Royal Navy, because UK doesen't want to spend it's money on defence, far better that US taxpayers do that...