God Save the Queen Elizabeth Class

An update, two years since I started this thread:
Dreaded Vote of Confidence in CVF

Since then quite a lot of hot air has been produce over the new Royal Navy Carriers.

Strategic defence review 2010

- Confirms the construction of two carriers to CATOBAR standard.
- One will remain in port at all times as a backup.
- F-35C chosen over the increasingly difficult B version
- Harriers scrapped.
- All three Invincible class carriers off to the knackers yard long before replacement.


NAO (National Audit Office) Report - BBC Link

- Program ripe for scrapping
- No mention of alternative
- Suggested cost rise to £10bn ($16bn)
- "The report shows that cancelling one carrier in the long term would save £200m and cancelling both would deliver £1.2bn in savings over the same period,"


Rumours and speculation

- Libyan intervention demonstrates need for carriers or some manner of marine strike aviation.
- Deployment of Apache gunships on Ocean class Heli Carrier suggests alternative attempts to fixed wing.
- Saab Sea Gripen to be developed and possibly part manufactured in UK. Suggest option to RN
- Sea Typhoon offered to India after historical fuss over carrier version.
- Silent Hornet concept looking tasty and cheap (like Chicken Cottage).
- Further budget cuts to defence.
- British pilots training on Charles De Gaulle.

Take from these points as you will, they paint a picture of an environment in which the Royal Navy is being increasingly stretched with little hope for improvement. Despite this dire budgetary situation, there are options open such as the Sea Grippen, but I fear an obsession with the F-35 will be the greatest issue and could destroy British defence capability in the same ways it looks set to do to the US.

All in all, this below scene seems further away than ever and possibly another great British defence project soon to be scrapped before entering service.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aa0fe0dfefe4.jpg[/atsimg]

Jensy

reply to post by jensy


Waste of money to build those in today's age.

Warfare is changing and so too should the make-up of the military hardware. There will never be another conventional war in my opinion where we need anything beyond what we have now.

reply to post by kro32


I fear that these weapons would be useless in a conventional war, the carriers are not going to be armoured or capable of withstanding sustained attack. Its is only in unconventional wars such as the two which are currently being fought that these ships are best utilised. They should not be considered warships so much as little bits of the UK than can be deployed around the world to proved air support and strike.
Furthermore, while its is the not the best reason to support them, one has to consider the shear number of aircraft carriers entering service around the world at the moment, these are no longer symbols of super powers but becoming the most capable ships in any nations' fleet.


Jensy

i used to work for the company that builds them.

this will go ahead.

reply to post by jensy


I guess it wouldn't hurt to have a couple extra of those.
Well you know, its like the my old saying about ammunition.
The young soldier asks "How much ammo is enough"
At which point a sunbeaten American Man in a Poncho and Sobrero says,
"Well I reccon, you never know when you might go crazy and wish you had more. Wildmanimal
Link:

entertainment.webshots.com...





Those are my words, they aren't in the movie yet. Just so you know , when you wish you had more. Wildmanimal

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by jensy

 

Waste of money to build those in today's age.

Warfare is changing and so too should the make-up of the military hardware. There will never be another conventional war in my opinion where we need anything beyond what we have now.

Define "conventional war". There has been plenty of work for carriers during both Gulf Wars, the Afghanistan conflict, Libya etc etc and I wouldn't exactly class any of them to be "conventional".

Carrier borne aircraft have the ability to be flexible and direct, they have the ability to carry a large variety of ordnance a long way, and they have the ability to assess the situation over the target zone when they get there.

Someone else mentioned bringing back battleships due to their bombardment capability - that capability is nothing versus the capability of an aircraft carrier, and they were retired because of that reason.

Aircraft carriers also have the ability to provide vast amounts of aid in a disaster zone, providing not only medical ability, but the ability to produce vast quantities of fresh water and also evacuate thousands of persons at a time.

Jensy, did this report from the National Audit Office this morning cause you to post the thread?

www.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by RichardPrice


This is my definition of a conventional war:

english.chosun.com...

If your just concerned about getting aid then any old ship will do that can land helicoptors and a fraction of the cost.

These ships will make very expensive reefs for the fish at the bottom of the sea.

eh i like to think of carriers and there other kinds of big weapons systems like condoms id rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it,our carriers(usa) not only are a symbol of our ability to show the flag arround the globe but also help out in humanitarian means but i would have to agree we wont see fleet battles like the days of ww2 mabey sub fleets or something like how it went in the sea quest universe.seems like other nations like india china are looking for carriers or building there own with any luck all we will need them for is feeding people and humanitarian ends but we will see

Missle technology is quickly making carrier fleets obsolete. Pretty soon you will need so many missle defense ships to guard a carrier that it will become cost prohibitive.

reply to post by kro32


Carriers are a prime example of putting all your eggs in one basket.

Hypersonic cruise missiles are going to be a huge threat in the next few years, just as the supersonic cruise missile tipped Tu-22s had the Navy chewing their fingernails in the cold war.

I'm more of a historical military person so not so much up to date on the current tech. However following history's examples it seems like right now the missle technology is jumping ahead of ships. I would imagine that either the ships have to advance quite significantly or the miltary's of the world who use them will have to find an alternate method.

@Richard

reply to post by RichardPrice



Yes entirely, that's what happens when you can't sleep and you have BBC set as your homepage!


@Kro32

Originally posted by kro32
If your just concerned about getting aid then any old ship will do that can land helicoptors and a fraction of the cost.

Unfortunately that has been proven incorrect. HMS Ocean, which pretty much fits that description, is already past its best despite being less than 20 years old. What's more is that every ship you add to a navy, especially one with as many cost restrictions as the British, increases costs hugely in terms of staff, maintenance and supplies.
The fact is that having a 60-70k tonne aircraft carriers is cheaper than both building and operating two of three smaller less capable ships. Also aid and food provisions are usually carried out by civilian aircraft hired form the private sector. See what the Antanov fleet is used for.

@ ZIVONIC

Originally posted by ZIVONICHypersonic cruise missiles are going to be a huge threat in the next few years, just as the supersonic cruise missile tipped Tu-22s had the Navy chewing their fingernails in the cold war.

This argument about missile and other semi autonomous hardware has been around long before I was born and I have no doubt that it will remain a pipe dream long after I’m dead.
The fact is that this technology although highly capable, is a mixture of too advanced, too delicate and too dam expensive to be deployed in the ways you talk about.
What is more, just as the TU-22s were perceived as a threat, but found to be easily knocked out (F-14s); so too will there be advances to combat and protect against such attacks.

Jensy

P.S, just read Kro32’s final comment. Absolutely, it’s that advancement by requirement which will keep the flat top around for a very long time.

reply to post by jensy


You make some reasonable points, but cruise missiles will always triumph over the carrier. How much time, money, and resources were devoted to the development and deployment of the F-14 and the phoenix in response to the Tupolev threat? How many F-14s are left to combat this threat, how many Tupolevs? Do you trust the superhornet, in the F-14s role? Will it be able to intercept a PAK FA with Brahmos?

Supersonic cruise missiles are still a massive threat to carriers, with surface skimming and steep diving trajectories, a hit is assured. You don't even need hypersonic missiles to do the job, that's just icing on the cake. However, mach 5+ missiles are showing up, and I assure you, the first one fielded with this technology will be a carrier killer.

Until we see force fields, carriers will never be safe.

The only cruiuse missilwe that will sink a US carrier will have to have a nucler warhead to do so. Doesn't matter if its doing Mach5 or Mach10. And with the deployment of the laser CIWS systems right around the corner, there's gonna have to be something better for use to kill a carrier, again, I would suggest a nuke, it's just more economical, and it's garunteed to get the job done. As for Tupolevs vs the BGPHES Systems, I wouldn't want to be flying in any of those "Tupolevs" !

reply to post by CosmosKid


Laser CIWS is highly overrated, and there is a reason there has not been a "Manhattan Project" equivalent research effort for such a seemingly capable system. That's because it is easily countered. They have had the technology for this for such a long time, but it is never taken seriously for a few reasons.

1) Lasers do not "cut" the missile down, only cook off the fuel/warhead, proper insulation can counter this threat long enough to breach the system. Also, the speed it which it is currently done is far from impressive, giving the missile plenty of time to reach its target. It took nearly a minute to defeat the black plastic Merc outboard on a patrol boat in the navy's demonstration. Besides a Mach 5+ cruise missile will only give you a few seconds to shoot it down when it reaches the lasers LOS.

2) Currently, our most powerful lasers are aimed by a series of near perfect mirrors, by putting a mirrored surface on the projectile, the mirror closest to the laser source will heat faster than the one on the missile, therefore, the CIWS will destroy itself before the target. Some speculate this was the final nail in the coffin for Reagan's SDI system.

You do not need to sink a carrier, but a 10 foot gaping hole near the water line will quickly need to be addressed, and if your carrier is in harbor for repairs, you might have well just made a land based airfield that cannot be easily destroyed.

Carriers are only used to spread empires and attack poorer countries that do not have the capability to counter them. I personally view them as a ugly metaphor for the United States and NATO's global policy of imperialism for the last half of the 20th century and today. If the Cold War went hot, the CGBs would have been sitting on the bottom of the ocean after the first hour of ICBM strikes. In other words, carriers are absolutely useless for the WWIII everyone expected.

If the UK decides to scrap this project, it is OK with me, use the tax dollars for something that can actually protect her people.