BAE Systems - Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier Simulation

[Catfish]

A friend was already aboard, he just said it was 'gigantic', almost as big as a US flattop, and appx. three times the size of the Ark Royal /Invincible /Illoustrious. Most impressive must have been the now full size beds, who seem to be able to transfer from a bed to a sofa in a storm, so in that case some prefer to sleep on the ground ..
But he likes the ship very much

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Axial deck carrier. Me no like!

Now if F-35B fails to deliver in affordable price Royal Navy will have heavy weight white elephant. Also when it comes time to retire F-35B (which most likely happens before carrier itself) only option will be another VTOL jet. Ofcourse assuming that Royal Navy is not willing to spend few hundred million pounds to refit it as angled deck ship...

[Oberon]

Nah, we'll probably just field the carrier without any aircraft, it's practically what we're doing now.

Yeah, I think most of us in the UK would prefer a CATOBAR carrier and a different model of the F-35 (preferably one that didn't cost so much and break so often) or a navalised Typhoon to pad out the golden birds.
But there you go, that's the MOD for you, making procurement mysteries since 1940.

ARRSE put it best:

The British Military has a habit of procuring and adopting, usually at great expense to the taxpayer, many things that either:

• Aren't needed
• Don't work
• Are obsolete before they're introduced (or even designed in some cases)
• Are rubbish
• Work eventually but cost the GDP of a mid-sized African country to fix
• Are not squaddy proof
• Are more expensive and worse than civilian equivalents that can be bought off-the-shelf

Or avoid all of the above, and so are cancelled just before going into service.
We're not alone in this; but at least American Military procurement mysteries don't completely stuff the Defence budget for everything else. Examples include:

• SA-80
• Nimrod AWACS - so embarrassingly rubbish that it is featured as a case study in MK2
• TSR-2
• BOWMAN
• Eurofighter Typhoon
• Enfield No.2 Revolver
• Combat 95
• Chaingun
• Clansman - although to be fair, when it was introduced in the early '80s was pretty good. The problem is that it is still in service some 25 years later.
• SA-80 bayonet
• Boots, Cardboard (several patterns)
• Straps, utility
• .303" ammunition
• Future Lynx
• L81A2 Cadet Target Rifle
• Churchill Tank - obsolete the day it was designed ... did make a valiant return as the basis of Hobarts AVRE Funnies

Near-misses that were almost foisted on the army include:

• Pattern 13 Rifle
• EM-2 Rifle (was supposed to work OK but it's still a bullpup)
• Burton magazine (ok, so this was a very long time ago)
• .402 Enfield-Martini ammunition

The opposite of the above are British Military Procurement Successes - these are very rare! When they do happen, generally something else gets in the way of effectiveness, such as mucking up the issue process or even getting rid of such items well before their time. Foreign Military Procurement Successes do happen occasionally, though.

[Skybird]

That is political boasting at best. Militarily against an enemy of same technical eye level such big ships do not make sense anymore.

The future is either submarines, or a huge fleet of much smaller vessels that have a very small quantity of flyables aboard, like helicopters aboard frigates today.

If you have just one or two capital ships, taking them out is easy for a submarine, and then the fleet is done. Having a much greater quantity of smaller ships that can add their individual resources for one greater swarm of aircraft, adds to redundancy of the whole fleet in case two or three ships get shot out of it. For that, aircraft with true VTOL capability of course are a must.

These superheavy platforms are for wars against minor, militarily inferior forces only: Asymmetrical wars. Terrorism. And that puts it somewhat ad absurdum, I think. And submarines are not the only threat to capital ships, but drones as well. Drone fleets are cheaper, and allow greater quantities.

Attacking the enemy's electronic infrastructure by virusses, and in general cyberwarfare not even mentioned. Carriers like these must not be touched by bombs are missiles. Getting into their electronics and their supportinmg electronics networks is a substantial alternative. I assume that is what the Chinese are primarily focussing on.

Has nobody learned the lessons from the early episodes of the new Battlestar Galactica series...?

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That is political boasting at best. Militarily against an enemy of same technical eye level such big ships do not make sense anymore.

The future is either submarines, or a huge fleet of much smaller vessels that have a very small quantity of flyables aboard, like helicopters aboard frigates today.

If you have just one or two capital ships, taking them out is easy for a submarine, and then the fleet is done. Having a much greater quantity of smaller ships that can add their individual resources for one greater swarm of aircraft, adds to redundancy of the whole fleet in case two or three ships get shot out of it. For that, aircraft with true VTOL capability of course are a must.

These superheavy platforms are for wars against minor, militarily inferior forces only: Asymmetrical wars. Terrorism. And that puts it somewhat ad absurdum, I think. And submarines are not the only threat to capital ships, but drones as well. Drone fleets are cheaper, and allow greater quantities.

Read this: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm
That hymn of carrier's obsolescence has been sung most part of its existence. ASCM (and before tham nukes) were supposed to make carriers part of history but they still need knowledge of where that carrier is. So far I haven't heard of such game changer that I would dismiss carrier as obsolete.

However carrier is not usefull if it doesn't have capable air wing. Handful of strike fighters (F-35B) and ASW helos (Merlin/Wildcat) is not enough. Current plans has no AWACS, no fixed wing ASW (better range and speed than helos), no EW, no tanker (buddy tanking is nice substitute) nor COD. So with its current air wing UK's carrier is of limited utility.

BTW how many of wars lately has been between peer powers?

Originally Posted by Skybird

Attacking the enemy's electronic infrastructure by virusses, and in general cyberwarfare not even mentioned. Carriers like these must not be touched by bombs are missiles. Getting into their electronics and their supportinmg electronics networks is a substantial alternative. I assume that is what the Chinese are primarily focussing on.

Has nobody learned the lessons from the early episodes of the new Battlestar Galactica series...?

This is where I partially agree with you. However all that fits nicely together with drones too...

[Wolferz]

Needs an environmental mod.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

Read this: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm
That hymn of carrier's obsolescence has been sung most part of its existence. ASCM (and before tham nukes) were supposed to make carriers part of history but they still need knowledge of where that carrier is. So far I haven't heard of such game changer that I would dismiss carrier as obsolete.

I'd rather have 10 frigate-sized vessels with each having 2 Harriers or F-35 aboard (if that thing ever gets reliable), than one carrier with 20 VTOLs aboard.

Sinking one ship either means the loss of 2 planes, or the loss of 20 planes and all aircover for the entire flotilla. It was Gorshkov making popular the idea that any war at sea in modern times will be ultrashort and ultra-hefty due to the overkill capacity of warheads and limited ammounts of ammo available at sea. So, redundancy is all. Against an equal enemy you need to expect loosing ships - but the Brits almost lost the Falkland war and their carrier if the Argentinian engineer would not have misconnected the torpedo wires. And that was a 206-class. - What do you think a carrier groups chances is against a modern Kilo, 212, Gotland?

Also, missile attacks, flooding the defences with more missiles than Aegis can pick out of the air, or the fleet can rearm in SM1s without going back to harbour.

Carriers are loud, noisy, fat targets. Not for the Taliban. But for any nation having access to modern technology, like Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Brazil, India. Use those in service until they have reached the end of their useful lifetime.l But do not build new ones. They now are what battleships were at the beginning of WWII. At least against enemies fighting on same technical eye level.

U32 has reached Florida some days ago. Those excercises with the US navy over the summer without doubt will prove my point. And if I were an enemy admiral needing to value the loss of a 212 against the enemy loosing one carrier plus one or two capital escorts or supply ships, I knew what my decision would be. Logics of war.

Next, submarines are excellent intel gathering and spec ops platforms. The smaller the boat, the closer to the landmass it can move. Invisibly.

Then there is the option to turn huge boats into SSGN cruise missile platforms, like the USN did with some Ohio boats. Again, with the platform remaining invisible.

But my preferred choice would be fewer capital ships of decisive importance, but a much bigger fleet size in general and the smaller ships all being equipped with 1-4 VTOLs. Small ships, but many of them, and all having a small air capacity that could be combined, where needed. Maybe still carriers as well: but much smaller ones: less expensive, but having more of them.

In war, I believe in numerical advantage. Technology can compensate numerical inferiority only to a certain degree - and not beyond. True in the air. True on land. True on the high seas. Rumsfeld and the US army learned that the hard way in Iraq.

You need sufficient numbers.

And I have not even started to discuss finances. Last time I checked, Britain's finances still were a mess.

And what finally should be considered: is the massively shrunken Royal Navy even capable to protect with its few platforms any high value assets at sea? By numerical size, the British navy is only a shadow of its former self. Already during the Falkland war they had problems to collect the number of ships needed and the logistical transport capacity needed.

Maybe the first sealord privately would be quite happy if there were no carriers at all that he had to worry about - worrying additionally to the already stressed resources of the Navy?!

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Attacking the enemy's electronic infrastructure ... I assume that is what the Chinese are primarily focussing on.

Right... the Chinese are not focusing on conventional warfare anymore...











Yea I really see this stuff as useful in low intensity cyber-warfare...

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Yea I really see this stuff as useful in low intensity cyber-warfare...

To be fair, they got the designs for most of that stuff through low intensity cyber-warfare...and wikipedia.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Oberon

To be fair, they got the designs for most of that stuff through low intensity cyber-warfare...and wikipedia.

And from 25-year old DOS games, judging by the camouflage pattern on that ZBD-04.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

And from 25-year old DOS games, judging by the camouflage pattern on that ZBD-04.

Special low resolution camouflage texture.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I'd rather have 10 frigate-sized vessels with each having 2 Harriers or F-35 aboard (if that thing ever gets reliable), than one carrier with 20 VTOLs aboard.

I wouldn't. It would be logistical nightmare. Such arrangement would either require each ship to carry same maintenance personnel as carrier would or constant airlifting of technical specialists from one ship to another. Also such smaller hull (even all ships combined) can't hold equal stores and fuel bunkerage as single larger ship would. There is reason why modern aircraft carriers are so huge.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Sinking one ship either means the loss of 2 planes, or the loss of 20 planes and all aircover for the entire flotilla. It was Gorshkov making popular the idea that any war at sea in modern times will be ultrashort and ultra-hefty due to the overkill capacity of warheads and limited ammounts of ammo available at sea.

Assuming that enemy finds its target. Didn't you read article? Its much easier to turn on your radar and tell enemy who and where you are than find enemy.

Originally Posted by Skybird

So, redundancy is all. Against an equal enemy you need to expect loosing ships - but the Brits almost lost the Falkland war and their carrier if the Argentinian engineer would not have misconnected the torpedo wires. And that was a 206-class. - What do you think a carrier groups chances is against a modern Kilo, 212, Gotland?

In my opinion you are over estimating submarines capabilities and utility - especially conventionally powered one.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Also, missile attacks, flooding the defences with more missiles than Aegis can pick out of the air, or the fleet can rearm in SM1s without going back to harbour.

Again assuming that enemy knows where the group is. Also you seem to think that only way to prevent hit is to destroy missile.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Carriers are loud, noisy, fat targets. Not for the Taliban. But for any nation having access to modern technology, like Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Brazil, India. Use those in service until they have reached the end of their useful lifetime.l But do not build new ones. They now are what battleships were at the beginning of WWII. At least against enemies fighting on same technical eye level.

Maybe its noisy but is it noisy enough to give it away half an ocean away? Remember that there is limited amount of submarines too and also that CSG is usually escorted by its own submarines.

Originally Posted by Skybird

U32 has reached Florida some days ago. Those excercises with the US navy over the summer without doubt will prove my point. And if I were an enemy admiral needing to value the loss of a 212 against the enemy loosing one carrier plus one or two capital escorts or supply ships, I knew what my decision would be. Logics of war.

Exercises restrict greatly where carrier can move and give submarine an edge. Unless CSG commander has unimpended freedom of movement I would take "results" with bulk carrier of salt.

Originally Posted by Skybird

<snip, reply is becoming ridiculously long...>

I agree that numbers are important but I see numerical factor more important in escort vessels than major capital ships such as carriers. Otherwise I think we have to agree to disagree.

[geetrue]

The end of the end is in sight ... surely this will be the end of modern warfare

as soon as they get it to work that is, but this they will do and then it will be the end.



http://fly.historicwings.com/2012/07...ht-into-space/

Published July 16, 2012
News Flash: The USAF and NASA have announced an air-launched, hypersonic research aircraft capable of flying from the lower atmosphere into space (achieving altitudes above 100 kilometers) and returning for a landing on a normal runway. The aircraft is air-launched and utilizes rockets to accelerate to atmospheric speeds of over 3,500 mph (and as high as Mach 6.7).

Air Force's WaveRider hits 3,500 mph in test

http://www.kansas.com/2010/05/27/133...hits-3500.html

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2010/05/27/133...#storylink=cpy

Since the 1960s, the Air Force has been flirting with hypersonic technology, which can propel vehicles at a velocity that cannot be achieved from traditional turbine-powered jet engines.

But the technology has been exceedingly difficult to perfect. Previous attempts produced very limited results including flights that lasted only a few seconds, said Peter Wilson, senior defense analyst with Rand Corp.

With the technology, the military could strike anywhere on the planet within an hour or less, said John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org, a website for military policy research.

"The WaveRider represents a major change that could have big implications on today's weapon systems," he said. "It can travel great distances at remarkable speeds, showing potential for a long-range cruise missile."

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2010/05/27/133...#storylink=cpy

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

the Chinese are not focusing on conventional warfare anymore...

That is not what I have said.

[Jimbuna]

A fat lot of use that submarine was for protection purposes, sailing on the surface.