• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) development

Purpletrouble

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
292
Reaction score
207
No this is a temptation to hijack the thread.

Strictly the bulk of CVF spending took hold after the wind down of operations.

Blaming the Navy or the RAF is playing right into the politicians hands. The very same politicians who are responsible for the delays on CVF and a myriad of irresponsible decisions over all services equipment plans and budgets.
No this is a temptation to hijack the thread.

Strictly the bulk of CVF spending took hold after the wind down of operations.

Blaming the Navy or the RAF is playing right into the politicians hands. The very same politicians who are responsible for the delays on CVF and a myriad of irresponsible decisions over all services equipment plans and budgets.
I guess truth can be very inconvenient.

The Navy spent the 2000s & 10s buying AAW destroyers, nuclear submarines, amphibious ships and carriers. Billions and billions spent with plethoras of calls for “more more more”.

Meanwhile British Forces fought and died on land, benefitting not one iota from any of that.

What we needed was helicopters, land based airpower and more and better ground forces and equipment.

The effort and expense instead went on systems that played little (and no un-replaceable) part in any of our conflicts, and haven’t done since 1982.

When you claim this is all for “deterrence effects” to save lives, it is highly relevant to point out that actually it has cost lives, actual named ones, friends and people I could send you photos of.

I find it offensive to try and whitewash their loss by claiming all this money was to prevent conflict and win conflicts we weren’t and aren’t in.

This is all highly relevant to a thread called “CVF development” because it explains why it kept being delayed and why the other supporting aspects arent also complete/as envisaged because on occasions the right decisions were made to fund fighting the war vs preparing for a war.

And lets not pretend the Services dont do politics, hell that kicks in with a vengeance at SO2 level, let alone the starred brigade who are basically politicians in uniform and who routinely go on to become civvy politicians (pundits, Lords and the rest).
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
1,800
Senior military men have been responsible for political decisions since the Falklands.
Had the Royal Navy been honest with Mrs Thatcher and told her that due to John Nott and his predecessors the Navy was geared to operations in NATO and not for expeditionary warfare further afield. The Falklands was a nasty war with severe casualties, many of whom live with their injuries today. It could have ended badly if Argentine aircraft had refuzed bombs and been more effective at targeting vulnerable ships.
I am not saying that Mrs Thatcher should not have tried to retake them but that the price should have been explained more clearly to Parliament and people.
Sadly, this gung ho attitude from senior officers was repeated in Iraq and Afghanistan. Politicians tend to believe the uniformed chap who tells them the job can be done. It was these chaps not Gordon Brown who sent their men to war in snatch Land Rovers. More honourable men would have told politicians that they could not let their men operate in such kit.
Today, unlike in the1970s and earlier, most politicians or civilians (like me) have not served in the forces, still less fought in a war. We rely on the senior officers to speak truth to power. But in fact we have to hear the facts from their personnel.
 

Purpletrouble

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
292
Reaction score
207
As Clauswitz said, war is politics by other means and of course the most famous British General went on to be PM!

The Senior officer cohort has a lot to answer for. Revolving door postings and all about OJARs.

It is very unlikely to ever answer for it, not least as it succeeded in shifting the blame to the civvy politicians. Meanwhile they sit in very comfortable retirement. “Serve to Lead” I was taught - I realise now how naieve I was (and still am) to believe it.
 

Purpletrouble

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
292
Reaction score
207
Senior military men have been responsible for political decisions since the Falklands.
Had the Royal Navy been honest with Mrs Thatcher and told her that due to John Nott and his predecessors the Navy was geared to operations in NATO and not for expeditionary warfare further afield. The Falklands was a nasty war with severe casualties, many of whom live with their injuries today. It could have ended badly if Argentine aircraft had refuzed bombs and been more effective at targeting vulnerable ships.
I am not saying that Mrs Thatcher should not have tried to retake them but that the price should have been explained more clearly to Parliament and people.
Sadly, this gung ho attitude from senior officers was repeated in Iraq and Afghanistan. Politicians tend to believe the uniformed chap who tells them the job can be done. It was these chaps not Gordon Brown who sent their men to war in snatch Land Rovers. More honourable men would have told politicians that they could not let their men operate in such kit.
Today, unlike in the1970s and earlier, most politicians or civilians (like me) have not served in the forces, still less fought in a war. We rely on the senior officers to speak truth to power. But in fact we have to hear the facts from their personnel.
To be fair, the RN said this can be done, Thatcher did listen and did take the cost on the chin. I’m as equally critical of the “take the leash off us” military mindset as if just going postal will achieve what is ultimately a political objective. The military work for the civvies and the moment we think we are our own thing we are out of control. Of course Blair and subsequent took that to extremes with no clear aims and just endless risk averse decisions that had nothing to do with acheiving anything and all to do with next days headline/their political career.
 

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,757
Reaction score
520
That is brilliant news Forest Green, it has been a long time coming for the Royal Navy.

November 1978 ?

You are right about the 1978 date Archibald, I had forgotten about the cancellation of the then new CVA-01 Queen Elizabeth super carrier, I always had thought that the Illustrious class (the Harrier carriers) were a stand in class until the Labour government in 1997 published it's Strategic Defence Review which effectively ordered the two new current Queen Elizabeth class carriers.
 

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
215
Reaction score
331
The flood is the second to affect the ship in five months , It’s understood the leak has come from a pipe onboard the ship and not a breach of Prince of Wales’s hull.

 

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,757
Reaction score
520
The flood is the second to affect the ship in five months , It’s understood the leak has come from a pipe onboard the ship and not a breach of Prince of Wales’s hull.


That is now the second carrier to have suffered a leak after the Queen Elizabeth herself suffered a leak early on during the sea going trials the whole incident was recorded for a documentary which was subsequently broadcast on tv. Hope that the leak was repaired, and the flood dealt with.
 

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
545
Reaction score
217
There's a pay wall for me. Is this a catapult to launch F-35Cs, what does it mean by Plan B?

Ah found another similar article here.

 
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,979
Reaction score
3,813
Thanks. That firewall is a pain. Half the time it is malfunctioning and blocking articles or previews that should be free. Sometimes it even blocks the main page!

EDIT: Ack, meant to say paywall!
 
Last edited:

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
1,804
“Potential arrestor solutions ideally should offer:
a. Max trap 47000lbs / 21318Kg
b. Min trap 11000lbs / 5000Kg
c. Energy damping method
d. Potential for energy reclamation

Potential catapult solutions ideally should offer:
a. Max launch weight 55000lbs / 24949Kg
b. Electrical power input required against launch cycle time.”
That's a meaty system for UAVs.
Even Taranis only topped out at 18,000lbs, though admittedly MQ-25 is probably something like 40,000lb MTOW.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,267
Reaction score
961
Something bigger and beefier perhaps?
F35C is a non-starter unless a lot more money is forthcoming.
But certainly heavier UCAV options are available on paper.
 

TinWing

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
893
Reaction score
74
There's a pay wall for me. Is this a catapult to launch F-35Cs, what does it mean by Plan B?

Ah found another similar article here.

It seems to be me that the MOD received a presentation from General Atomic for EMALS and AAG - probably the same sales pitch made to the Japanese. GA is literally the only possible bidder for such a requirement and you can assume the MOD’s RFP is just quoting GA brochure specifications.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,267
Reaction score
961
Hmmmm..... couldn't you just post a bit of that?
Yet another subscription for just a short time and then what?

Anyway I did wonder about South Korea's CV design, as it did seem to show some CVF features.

Will.be interesting to watch.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,979
Reaction score
3,813
Sorry, that bloody paywall again.

Technology from the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers is being offered to South Korea as the country beefs up its military.

Advanced systems and designs developed by the “carrier alliance” of Babcock, BAE Systems and Thales to deliver the UK’s two Queen Elizabeth-class vessels could be
exported to the south-east Asian nation as the UK steps up efforts to reap the financial benefits of constructing the 65,000-tonne ships. The two ships will cost taxpayers about £6.5bn.

Industry sources said officials from the Department for International Trade have begun informal discussions with Korean counterparts about areas of technology the country could be interested in. Any deal would have to meet strict controls designed to protect UK national security.

However, in January Defence Secretary Ben Wallace spoke with his Seoul counterpart about closer co-operation on military matters.

In 2019, Korea announced a 290 trillion won (£180bn) defence spending spree over five years that included adding an aircraft carrier capable of handling F-35B jets, though it envisaged a smaller vessel than the Queen Elizabeth class, which also operates advanced fighter jets.

The Royal Navy carriers have pioneered automated systems which reduce the number of crew they need, making them more efficient.


One such invention is a highly mechanised weapons handling system, which lifts bombs and missiles from arsenals deep inside the ship up to the flight deck.
Developments like this mean the Queen Elizabeth and her sister ship Prince of Wales have crews of just 700 to operate them, rising to 1,600 when the air wing is included.

By comparison, the US Nimitz-class carriers require 3,000 sailors to get under way and a further 1,800 to operate their aircraft.
Peter Sandeman, director of analyst group Navy Lookout, said: “A proposal has been floating around of a scaled-down carrier using the twin-island design from the Queen Elizabeth.

“The new technology in the Navy’s new carriers, like the ammunition handling, aircraft lifts, the electric power system, is what Korea is interested in as that’s the really hard stuff.”

Exporting carrier technology would be a further boost for the UK, after BAE secured deals with Australia and Canada for their navies to build new frigates based on the Type 26 ships currently under construction at the company’s Scottish shipyards.

Mr Sandeman added: “There’s definitely a small-scale revival going on in the UK’s naval industry.”

A Government spokesperson said: “The United Kingdom and South Korea have an important defence and security relationship. Our Indo-Pacific tilt will provide further areas for cooperation.”
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,125
Reaction score
3,000
British Q.E as a lower end alternative to Nimitz / Ford for wannabee carrier powers... interesting. Make sense, they are larger than CdG but also non nuclear, and smaller that Fords.
It also kind of "balance" the Russian - China - India carrier rebuild / new build of the past two decades.
Basically - a viable alternative for countries not friend with China or Russia but also unable to afford such a huge ship as the Ford, plus nuclear power well known issues.

GB may have found itself an enviable niche there...

EDIT: Imagine, if Q.E pulls a Colossus / Majestic again, in the 21th Century... :D Or if it succeeds where the CVV failed 5 decades ago - again, low-end alternative to the USN supercarriers.
 
Last edited:

Thorvic

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
639
Reaction score
108
Well it looks like they want various bits and peices of kit. Its not as sexy as building a whole ship but its good news for the suppliers and the lower end of the supply chain - orders like this keeps them going.
It South Korea, they can build ships, it's the design and fitting out an Aircraft Carrier they are looking at and whats being touted, so should be interesting to see the results.
 

Thorvic

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
639
Reaction score
108
Well the SDSR renewed the commitment to both QNLZ class carriers and despite stories being banded about the F-35B will continue to grow beyond the current 48 aircraft which indicates the possibility of being able to field the full airwing on both carriers 'On Paper' I mean of course the 2 squadrons on each or 3 on one with a number in the training deep service/reserve.
 

Similar threads

Top