Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier class ( Program CVF ) on active duty

Nice video. When are they getting proper weapons for air-to-ground, stand-off and anti-ship missions?

(Beyond Paveway IVs which aren’t very helpful for high-threat scenarios or protected targets)
 
Is there really a need to send the Fleet air Arm in the Red seal?!
What the heck does Brits use their Med basing for?!
 
Hi,
One thing that's a little frustrating about videos like the one above is that on one hand the presentor complains that the existing ships are extremely expensive and that the government is unable to afford to even by enough aircraft to fully outfit one carrier to its maximum capacity, but on the other hand also then complains that the ships really should have been made even more expensive (by adding catapults and arrestor gear) so that they could (in his view of things) been made made more capable. In the end he really kind of seems to be arguing "both ends against the middle" when in reality if the concern is that the ships are really too expensive for the UK right now, then it would be best to discuss what level of "lesser" capability could have been provided at a lower cost, or if the ships are considered not capable enough than a discussion should have been provided on what the cost would be to provide that additional capability.

At least he didn't delve into the argument that seems to come up all too often that a CATOBAR solution would have provided the ability to operate more capable AEW assets while ignoring the added costs of such airplanes (which appears to be on the order of $3.135 Billion for a 9 plane E-2D order by Japan six years ago).
 
I admit to being a carrier sceptic. I used to be a fan of CVA01 and still have lots of models of it. But the hard fact for a medium rank military power is that an SSN is a much more useful weapon. It has global reach and once equipped with cruise missiles it can strike inland too.
However, the need for carriers has led the UK to lead the way in VSTOL airpower.
The Invincible class combined the roles of ASW helicopter carrier, commando ship, command cruiser and light carrier.
Tempting though a full catapult ship is, I think it would be too expensive for the UK.
Even the two CVFs have hollowed out the RN. But they do meet the same requirements as the Invincibles.
Italy has always impressed me with its aviation ships. Three Cavours would be a good option for the RN.
 
GTX said:
He isn't arguing one way or another. It is just presenting multiple perspecti
Click to expand...

Hi,

I don’t know that I agree with that assessment. While the presenter does occasionally mention things like “we'll explore the reasons that some hold them in poor regard...” he also make several statements as if they are fact such as;

“So bad is the F-35 situation in fact that on every deployment that the Queen Elizabeth has been on that the Americans had to lend some of theirs just to be able to put it to sea with even a minimum compliment. This sounds pretty ridiculous doesn’t it. I mean how could a major developed military power blunder so catastrophically.”

As well as;

“While we’re on the topic of things that the Queen Elizabeth should have but doesn’t, lets talk about catapults. The decision to completely forgo catapults of either the traditional steam variety or the newer electromagnetic sort was influenced by one thing, and one thing alone, and you know exactly what that issue was because this is British military procurement we’re talking about. It’s money.”

“The absence of catapults on these carriers is a major limitation. This isn’t like a nuclear versus turbine propulsion with merits both ways depending on how you look at it. No, not having catapults is an objective detriment…”

To me these statements come across more as the presenter making a statements as fact rather than just presenting multiple perspectives. Had he stated that “some feel this is a major blunder” or “some argue that the lack of catapults is a major detriment” I would probably be able to buy that he is presenting alternate perspectives. However, the way he make the above statements (and others throughout the video he comes across more as making specific arguments against the ships rathr than presenting alternate points of view.
 
Meh, Youtube videos are just clickbait. Everyone has opinions and feels the need to air them. He's not saying anything new that we've not already heard ten zillion times before. And when their time comes up for decommissioning one day in 30 years time, the same people will be wet eyed saying they shouldn't be retired because they are the greatest ships in the Navy and the UK will be weak without them.
 
Hood said:
And when their time comes up for decommissioning one day in 30 years time, the same people will be wet eyed saying they shouldn't be retired because they are the greatest ships in the Navy and the UK will be weak without them.
Click to expand...
I suppose that depends on whether they're being retired with or without replacement.
 
PFJN said:
Hi,

I don’t know that I agree with that assessment. While the presenter does occasionally mention things like “we'll explore the reasons that some hold them in poor regard...” he also make several statements as if they are fact such as;

“So bad is the F-35 situation in fact that on every deployment that the Queen Elizabeth has been on that the Americans had to lend some of theirs just to be able to put it to sea with even a minimum compliment. This sounds pretty ridiculous doesn’t it. I mean how could a major developed military power blunder so catastrophically.”

As well as;

“While we’re on the topic of things that the Queen Elizabeth should have but doesn’t, lets talk about catapults. The decision to completely forgo catapults of either the traditional steam variety or the newer electromagnetic sort was influenced by one thing, and one thing alone, and you know exactly what that issue was because this is British military procurement we’re talking about. It’s money.”

“The absence of catapults on these carriers is a major limitation. This isn’t like a nuclear versus turbine propulsion with merits both ways depending on how you look at it. No, not having catapults is an objective detriment…”

To me these statements come across more as the presenter making a statements as fact rather than just presenting multiple perspectives. Had he stated that “some feel this is a major blunder” or “some argue that the lack of catapults is a major detriment” I would probably be able to buy that he is presenting alternate perspectives. However, the way he make the above statements (and others throughout the video he comes across more as making specific arguments against the ships rathr than presenting alternate points of view.
Click to expand...
Oh get over it. It is very obvious that it is just presenting information and giving weight to both sides of the argument.
 
GTX said:
Oh get over it. It is very obvious that it is just presenting information and giving weight to both sides of the argument.
Click to expand...
Hi,
Sorry but I have to disagree. For example some of his statements were very clearly were that "I mean how could a major developed military power blunder so catastrophically” and "The absence of catapults on these carriers is a major limitation. This isn’t like a nuclear versus turbine propulsion with merits both ways depending on how you look at it. No, not having catapults is an objective detriment…". He made no attmpt to couch that as being just one of many points of view.
 
PFJN said:
Hi,
Sorry but I have to disagree. For example some of his statements were very clearly were that "I mean how could a major developed military power blunder so catastrophically” and "The absence of catapults on these carriers is a major limitation. This isn’t like a nuclear versus turbine propulsion with merits both ways depending on how you look at it. No, not having catapults is an objective detriment…". He made no attmpt to couch that as being just one of many points of view.
Click to expand...
Because it's objectively true that not having catapults IS a major limitation. Can't operate any big fixedwings, like a nice Hawkeye AEW plane. So you need to have 5x or more Merlin AEWs onboard instead of 3x Hawkeyes. Can't operate any fixed wing CODs, either.

All I can say is that it sure looks like an attempt by the admiralty to buy a pile of V-22s and force the UK to fund the solo development of an Osprey AEW variant.
 
The CV(F) compares unfavourably even with the Ark Royal which operated Phantoms and Buccaneers supported by Gannets (AEW and COD) and Seaking (ASW).
Sadly like the Millennium Dome (now a concert venue) it was a Blair/Brown con trick on the taxpayer.
The RN took what they were able to get, even at the cost of hollowing out the fleet.
Like the O2 centre the CV(F) has its uses but at huge cost to the poor old taxpayer.
 
CATOBAR CVF would have been an even greater cost to the taxpayer, and given the greater personnel requirements would have hollowed out the fleet to an even greater extent.

Blair and Brown are not fully to blame for the fleet's personnel shortages, they haven't been in government for 14 years, perhaps whoever had been governing for the past 14 years might have been able to fix this issue if they wanted to?
 
Not this again....
Can't this be put to bed?

The ships have not got catapults. End of. No amount of wishing or dreaming is going to change that. One day they might get mini-EMALS for UAVs and that's about as much as you can hope for.
 
Fair points.
I like the Italian Cavour and would have built three similar. But these arguments have all been thrashed out on other threads.
 
uk 75 said:
The CV(F) compares unfavourably even with the Ark Royal which operated Phantoms and Buccaneers supported by Gannets (AEW and COD) and Seaking (ASW).
Sadly like the Millennium Dome (now a concert venue) it was a Blair/Brown con trick on the taxpayer.
The RN took what they were able to get, even at the cost of hollowing out the fleet.
Like the O2 centre the CV(F) has its uses but at huge cost to the poor old taxpayer.
Click to expand...

The new carriers in absolute and relative terms are significantly more powerful than that old Ark Royal ever was. As part of their respective task forces the new carriers have far more offensive power and are far more able in defending themselves. I can only assume nostalgia leading to the overstating the old Ark Royals capably, combined with the bad press for the new carriers.

These new carriers were a product of their time of instigation (emphasis on expeditionary-style warfare as little else credible for the RN to do at that time). If starting now (with a re-emergent Russian threat) it is possible that these carriers may have been built as somewhat smaller and cheaper versions of themselves.

However that would be directly at odds re: the chain of thought often seen re: catapults. CTOL versions of the new carriers would be even more expensive up-front and to operate with greater training burdens, you’d need a larger fleet of F-35s but they (and the carriers themselves) would be even more tied up with carrier take-off and landing training to sustain the necessary currency. And given these greater associated financial demands there is very little credibility to the Uk also being able/ choosing to also spend additional billions on the purchase, ongoing operation and ongoing updating of Hawkeyes in such a scenario (or on F-35s)

Personally I think the new UK carriers are (somewhat unfairly) lightening rods for a wider malaise in UK defence thinking and moral (as much among enthusiasts etc. as decision makers). The carriers are subject to criticism from both those that have always considered them over ambitious and/ or distractions from higher priorities/ threats closer to home, and from those that were more in the advocate position but have seen their hopes/ fantasies for the likes of a UK pivot to Asia etc. dashed by reality (with later group more likely to be nursing grievances re: lack of catapults etc.). These carriers have the dual disadvantage of both being “too much” and “too little” for different groups of people. And they are very much not the sole culprit re: the varying competing priorities and priorities of UK defense spending and budget shortfalls.

As ever the reality is normally somewhere in the middle and these carriers should eventually provide good service.
 
Last edited:
Again?
CVF was extensively justified repeatedly and expensively in the face of opposition from No.11(Treasury). The economic and military cases were unavoidable.

Bigger actually is cheaper and inherently more capable.

And no, what killed the MoD and RN budget was not the carriers. It was fighting two wars and a continued 'peace dividend' of defence cuts.

So can we stop with the 1984 style Ministery of Truth revisionism to justify emotional preferences.
 
Fwiw, i probably said it elsewhere, no sane country/government builds a 70,000 tons behemonth and puts VTOL planes on it. Look at India, they spend all that money on an expensive reconstruction on the 40,000 tons Baku just to get CTOL planes on it. Or the similar sized Vikrant with CTOL planes. Or the french who on the also 40,000 tons CdG squeezed in 2 cats for Rafales and nuclear propulsion. Or China who didn't even looked at VTOL planes for their first two 60,000 tons ships.

VTOL planes are only worthwhile for smaller ships. It seems to me the backdoor political and interests maneuvering was to make sure the F-35B was the only option hence the rushed and hushed sale (not just retiring and storing them) of the Sea Harriers, and not putting 2 cats on the QE from the design phase so that god forbid Rafales or even Sea Typhoons can operate from it (do i recall correctly that in the previous decades there was some kind of sharing agreement proposed with France involving flying Rafales off the ships?)

If they just wanted the damn F-35B, they should have built a much cheaper 40,000 tons ship and be done with it, saving a few billions in the process. I haven't even looked recently, are the QEs even operational now or they're mostly pierside queens?
 
I am happy to modify my assertions in the light of various comments above.
The RN track record of operating big ships like carriers and RFAs has been plagued over the years by poor construction and mechanical failures. Illustrious had engine problems. QE and POW have been poor value for money so far.
I accept the woes in the Defence Budget have many causes. But Italy has consistently made much better use of smaller resources. Three Cavour sized ships or even a copy of the US LHD would have been more useful.
F35 should be more capable than 60 year old designs like the F4 and Buc but is Crowsnest Merlin a better AEW than the old Gannet.
 
lancer21 said:
Fwiw, i probably said it elsewhere, no sane country/government builds a 70,000 tons behemonth and puts VTOL planes on it.
Click to expand...

The size of CVF was dictated by the airing, and the ordnance and fuel to support it.

lancer21 said:
If they just wanted the damn F-35B, they should have built a much cheaper 40,000 tons ship and be done with it, saving a few billions in the process.
Click to expand...

Steel is cheap and air is free, the expensive part of a ship are the combat systems and the crew. A 40,000 ton STOVL carrier is not going to be all that much cheaper than a 70,000 ton one, machinery and radars are likely to be similar, and require the same number of people to operate.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Steel is cheap and air is free, the expensive part of a ship are the combat systems and the crew. A 40,000 ton STOVL carrier is not going to be all that much cheaper than a 70,000 ton one, machinery and radars are likely to be similar, and require the same number of people to operate.
Click to expand...
I've seen that line of argument made before and i disagree more and more with it. Compared to a 70,000 tons ship a 40,000 tons one needs smaller/less powerful engines for the same speed, so less fuel needed, hence reducing purchase and operating costs. Not to mention the equivalent of the extra 30,000 tons displacement saved in steel, which WILL be a significant sum.

And pitifully despite the capacity to carry 36 F-35 (plus whatever number of helicopters, how many the QEs carry normally, 12 iirc? That's a huge amount of empty space and displacement hauled around at great epense for no reason (other than lunacy).

Just have a 40,000 tons ship carry say 24 VTOL planes and a few helos for much less purchase and operating costs, for much the same real-world capability as the QE hermaphrodites.
 
lancer21 said:
I've seen that line of argument made before and i disagree more and more with it. Compared to a 70,000 tons ship a 40,000 tons one needs smaller/less powerful engines for the same speed, so less fuel needed, hence reducing purchase and operating costs. Not to mention the equivalent of the extra 30,000 tons displacement saved in steel, which WILL be a significant sum.
Click to expand...

Not all that much in the way of savings, and given that the Royal Navy wanted a Strike Carrier, capable of high sortie rates, and sustaining them, that demands a much larger ship than a 40,000 ton LPH. Almost like the people who designed CVF knew what they were doing!

lancer21 said:
And pitifully despite the capacity to carry 36 F-35 (plus whatever number of helicopters, how many the QEs carry normally, 12 iirc? That's a huge amount of empty space and displacement hauled around at great epense for no reason (other than lunacy).
Click to expand...

Again steel is cheap and air is free, and post-2010 funding cuts (the people who are responsible for them shall remain nameless) were obviously not envisioned in the design.

lancer21 said:
Just have a 40,000 tons ship carry say 24 VTOL planes and a few helos for much less purchase and operating costs, for much the same real-world capability as the QE hermaphrodites.
Click to expand...

Operating costs would not be all that different, possibly even higher given that in some cases smaller ships required larger crews (less volume to devote to labour-saving devices like automated magazine handling). QEs aren't hermaphrodites, they designed with only one role in mind, that of a strike carrier. They're basically the perfect ship for a country that wants to do sustained air strikes, but cannot afford nuclear reactors, or the greater number of personnel or training for CATOBAR.
 
I would be interested to know how much influence the US Marines had on the CV(F) programme.
The US F35B s go a long way to filling the gap
 
The US Navy CVV studies showed that, when cutting aircraft carriers tonnage from 100 000 to 80 000 to 60 000 tons (going back from Ford to Kitty Hawk to Midway, roughly) procurement cost drops much slower than lost capabilities. Least capable carriers are not worth the supposed procurement costs savings.

Or so said the USN, when Carter almost rammed a CVV down their throats instead of moar Nimitz.
 
What is an aircraft carrier? Seems obvious of course.
But for the UK politics meant that between 1966 and 1979 the Invincible class were refered to as "Command Cruisers" (or informally Through Deck Cruisers). The first two had cruiser names and their design and armament reflected their name.
Some years earlier the RN had refered to its new aircraft carrier as CVA-01 (Attaçk Carrier Vessel One) reflecting US practice.
The US dropped the CVA/CVAN description when in the 70s the old Essex anti submarine carriers (CVS) retired and place was found on Forrestal and Nimitz ships for S3 Viking and helicopter ASW units making them CV/CVN.
Once in service the Invincibles became CVS ships with the R deck letter of previous aircraft carriers.
Strike carriers are in my view carriers with full airgroups covering Fighter, Strike, ASW, AEW and COD requirements. The Ark Royal of 1979 squeaked in to that role.
The CVs now in service with the RN are less clearly definable.
Despite criticism the F35 meets the Fighter and Strike requirement even if numbers are lacking at present, this can be remedied, even if we have to host other F35B users.
It is the forced use of rotary aircraft in the ASW, AEW, and COD roles which makes the current RN carriers less clearly strike carriers and closer to the CVS.
The swing role as a Commando ship or Relief platform with RAF helicopters and even AAC ones is praised by the MOD as a golf bag. Some might say it is a hermaphrodite carrier.
The Invincible and her Sea Harriers came out of the Falklands War better than some feared but underlined their lack of AEW.
We have fortunately not yet had to put QE and POW to a similar test.
 
kaiserd said:
The new carriers in absolute and relative terms are significantly more powerful than that old Ark Royal ever was. As part of their respective task forces the new carriers have far more offensive power and are far more able in defending themselves. I can only assume nostalgia leading to the overstating the old Ark Royals capably, combined with the bad press for the new carriers.
Click to expand...
You think that 12x Phantoms and 14x Buccaneers plus 4x Gannett AEWs, is significantly less capable than 24x F-35Bs and 4-5x Merlin AEW?

Total max effort bombloads are comparable.

Only real advantage is the F-35s are stealthy, but that absolutely strangles their bombload down to 2x1000lbs (because -B models).

The AEW is vastly inferior, less altitude and less distance away from the carrier compared to Gannett.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You think that 12x Phantoms and 14x Buccaneers plus 4x Gannett AEWs, is significantly less capable than 24x F-35Bs and 4-5x Merlin AEW?

Total max effort bombloads are comparable.

Only real advantage is the F-35s are stealthy, but that absolutely strangles their bombload down to 2x1000lbs (because -B models).

The AEW is vastly inferior, less altitude and less distance away from the carrier compared to Gannett.
Click to expand...

There is a magnitude of difference between the performance and effectiveness of the avionics and weapon systems of the new carriers air wing versus that of the old Ark Royals.

In the strike role the F-35 has astronomically better targeting systems and more accurate weapons than the Buccaneer had. Hence the comparison of max bomb load is beyond simplistic. In terms of actual combat power this isn’t even close a comparison so to be honest I find it somewhat embarrassing that I seem to have to explain this to some contributors.

Ditto the F-35 compared to the F-4 in the air combat role; multiple generations more advanced radar, electronic warfare systems, weapons etc. Again not even remotely close.

And finally the AEW Gannet. Almost literally a WW2 radar (shared with its Skyraider predecessor) that was extremely limited and which in retrospect would probably look extremely marginal in effectiveness and obsolescent even before it was first put in the Gannet. An aircraft whose actual real-work capabilities have been greatly over hyped due to its absence from the Falklands conflict (where something, anything re: AEW would have been better than nothing, and the most discussed version of anything invariably develops a halo-effect). I am aware of the technical problems and delays the UK has experienced fielding the AEW Merlin but when it is its radar will be multiple orders of magnitude more advanced and capable than the AEW Gannets equivalent (we are talking approx. 80 years between when these respective radars were developed).
The AEW Gannet’s systems were obsolescent at the time it entered service and even when just compared with the E-1 Tracers, yet alone when compared to all that comes after.

The Merlin AEW has limitations as a helicopter and isn’t going to be as capable as the E-2D. But in absolute and relative terms it’s still leaps and bounds better than the AEW Gannet.
 
kaiserd said:
There is a magnitude of difference between the performance and effectiveness of the avionics and weapon systems of the new carriers air wing versus that of the old Ark Royals.

In the strike role the F-35 has astronomically better targeting systems and more accurate weapons than the Buccaneer had. Hence the comparison of max bomb load is beyond simplistic. In terms of actual combat power this isn’t even close a comparison so to be honest I find it somewhat embarrassing that I seem to have to explain this to some contributors.
Click to expand...
Iraq and Afghanistan would not have cared about better built-in targeting systems. F4s have carried laser-guided bombs, both self-designated from a pod in one of the Sparrow recesses and off-board. While it would take some modifications to allow either F4 or Bucc to carry JDAMs, either would be perfectly capable of doing so if you could pry the money out of HMTreasury.

And frankly, F4 and Bucc would give so much better "shows of force" being visibly armed.


kaiserd said:
Ditto the F-35 compared to the F-4 in the air combat role; multiple generations more advanced radar, electronic warfare systems, weapons etc. Again not even remotely close.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's newer.

At the time the old Ark Royal was operating F4s and Buccs, those were front line aircraft.

As defensive CAP against a bomber attack, the F4 is superior due to 4+4 missiles, while the F35 is carrying 2+2 with some external and ruining the stealth.



kaiserd said:
And finally the AEW Gannet. Almost literally a WW2 radar (shared with its Skyraider predecessor) that was extremely limited and which in retrospect would probably look extremely marginal in effectiveness and obsolescent even before it was first put in the Gannet. An aircraft whose actual real-work capabilities have been greatly over hyped due to its absence from the Falklands conflict (where something, anything re: AEW would have been better than nothing, and the most discussed version of anything invariably develops a halo-effect). I am aware of the technical problems and delays the UK has experienced fielding the AEW Merlin but when it is its radar will be multiple orders of magnitude more advanced and capable than the AEW Gannets equivalent (we are talking approx. 80 years between when these respective radars were developed).

The AEW Gannet’s systems were obsolescent at the time it entered service and even when just compared with the E-1 Tracers, yet alone when compared to all that comes after.

The Merlin AEW has limitations as a helicopter and isn’t going to be as capable as the E-2D. But in absolute and relative terms it’s still leaps and bounds better than the AEW Gannet.
Click to expand...
*facepalm*

You Brits could F up a wet dream.

You seriously never upgraded the radar?!?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Iraq and Afghanistan would not have cared about better built-in targeting systems. F4s have carried laser-guided bombs, both self-designated from a pod in one of the Sparrow recesses and off-board. While it would take some modifications to allow either F4 or Bucc to carry JDAMs, either would be perfectly capable of doing so if you could pry the money out of HMTreasury.

And frankly, F4 and Bucc would give so much better "shows of force" being visibly armed.



Yes, it's newer.

At the time the old Ark Royal was operating F4s and Buccs, those were front line aircraft.

As defensive CAP against a bomber attack, the F4 is superior due to 4+4 missiles, while the F35 is carrying 2+2 with some external and ruining the stealth.




*facepalm*

You Brits could F up a wet dream.

You seriously never upgraded the radar?!?
Click to expand...

As other contributors can confirm I’m very much not a “Brit”.

And unfortunately the rest of your comments above are equally nonsensical and unconnected to fact or reality.

We are not talking about some science-fiction version of what the old Ark Royal carrier could have been, we are talking about what it actually was and how capable it actually was in reality.

Out of courtesy I would like to debate your points but really they so embarrassingly poor and ill informed it’s hard to know where to start.
I have no idea what “visibly armed” means in this context or why it is meant to be in any way a remotely valid argument in this context.

In relation to the impact of targeting systems and the relative missile loads you are essentially just wrong.

Plus to give clear context in my comments I said the carriers and their associated task forces; the escorts of the new carriers are massively more capable than the equivalent opposite numbers that escorted the old Ark Royal.

It appears you didn’t have an accurate understanding of the actual capabilities of the air wing etc. associated with the old Ark Royal when you made your original claim but feel you now have to defend that claim, however poorly you are able to do so.
We’ve all made a comment on this site and retrospectively realised we didn’t know quite as much as we thought we did.
My best advice for such instances is to stop digging and chalk it up to learning new things on this site.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom