UK Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Maikeru

Maikeru

Major
Registered Member
FireyCross said:
I honestly can't get my head around the wankfest over the QE class ships. The level of delusion is off the scale. In what world are they anything more than glorified versions of the Wasp or Izumo class helicopter carriers? No arrested landing capability, not even a ski-jump let alone catapults. Self defence capability is a a solitary CIWS - there is zero layered defence ability. Amphibious capabilities (originally a big part of the package) pretty much went out of the window.

Even the size is a bit of a joke. At 65,000 tons, it carries a max of 24 F-35Bs, but can just about squeeze in 36 if everything else gets thrown out. Seriously, WTF? The Charles de Gaulle is a third smaller and can deploy more aircraft, has a full CATOBAR setup, *and* nuclear propulsion, *and* has proper layered self-defence systems. I'd love to know what they did with firstly, all the space, and secondly, all the money. It seems it all went on building a big hull, and had nothing left to put in it.

Apparently, the British were obsessed with having "inter-operability" with the American forces, but for all the Brits talking about a "super carrier", the only American forces it can actually inter-operate with are the Wasp class. Says it all really.

In all honesty, if I were the RN, I'd have gone for a single more advance ship based on the Charles de Gaulle and operated a combined Anglo-French carrier group. France originally wanted a two carrier setup but found it unaffordable. The Brits will have the same problem. Together they could have had a genuinely capable presence that was much more flexible, and much more affordable, than either have been able to manage by themselves. The US inter-operability really is just pie in the sky English exceptionalism. The Americans have more real, actual carriers than they can shake a stick at. They really don't give a shit what the Brits are playing around with, as long as they aren't getting in the Americans way or causing them grief.

Utterly delusional.
Click to expand...
QEC has 3 x CWIS and can carry up to ~70 aircraft using deck parking, which is not historically RN practice. The usual maximum complement would be 36 x F35B + AEW & ASW helos. All this apparently at the behest of USN:

"The reason that we have arrived at what we have arrived at is because to do the initial strike package, that deep strike package, we have done really quite detailed calculations and we have come out with the figure of 36 joint strike fighters, and that is what has driven the size of it, and that is to be able to deliver the weight of effort that you need for these operations that we are planning in the future. That is the thing that has made us arrive at that size of deck and that size of ship, to enable that to happen. I think it is something like 75 sorties per day over the five-day period or something like that as well... I have talked with the CNO (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) in America. He is very keen for us to get these because he sees us slotting in with his carrier groups. For example, in Afghanistan last year they had to call on the French to bail them out with their carrier. He really wants us to have these, but he wants us to have the same sort of clout as one of their carriers, which is this figure at 36. He would find that very useful, and really we would mix and match with that.

— Admiral Sir Alan West, evidence to the Select Committee on Defence, 24 November 2004"

Agreed though that the defensive armament could do with beefing up, and the ships should have been CATOBAR.
 
P

Pusser01

Banned Idiot
FireyCross said:
I honestly can't get my head around the wankfest over the QE class ships. The level of delusion is off the scale. In what world are they anything more than glorified versions of the Wasp or Izumo class helicopter carriers? No arrested landing capability, not even a ski-jump let alone catapults. Self defence capability is a a solitary CIWS - there is zero layered defence ability. Amphibious capabilities (originally a big part of the package) pretty much went out of the window.
Click to expand...
Ummm, so what do you call that ramp on the bow if it isn't a ski-jump?
 
Gatekeeper

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
FireyCross said:
I honestly can't get my head around the wankfest over the QE class ships. The level of delusion is off the scale. In what world are they anything more than glorified versions of the Wasp or Izumo class helicopter carriers? No arrested landing capability, not even a ski-jump let alone catapults. Self defence capability is a a solitary CIWS - there is zero layered defence ability. Amphibious capabilities (originally a big part of the package) pretty much went out of the window.

Even the size is a bit of a joke. At 65,000 tons, it carries a max of 24 F-35Bs, but can just about squeeze in 36 if everything else gets thrown out. Seriously, WTF? The Charles de Gaulle is a third smaller and can deploy more aircraft, has a full CATOBAR setup, *and* nuclear propulsion, *and* has proper layered self-defence systems. I'd love to know what they did with firstly, all the space, and secondly, all the money. It seems it all went on building a big hull, and had nothing left to put in it.

Apparently, the British were obsessed with having "inter-operability" with the American forces, but for all the Brits talking about a "super carrier", the only American forces it can actually inter-operate with are the Wasp class. Says it all really.

In all honesty, if I were the RN, I'd have gone for a single more advance ship based on the Charles de Gaulle and operated a combined Anglo-French carrier group. France originally wanted a two carrier setup but found it unaffordable. The Brits will have the same problem. Together they could have had a genuinely capable presence that was much more flexible, and much more affordable, than either have been able to manage by themselves. The US inter-operability really is just pie in the sky English exceptionalism. The Americans have more real, actual carriers than they can shake a stick at. They really don't give a shit what the Brits are playing around with, as long as they aren't getting in the Americans way or causing them grief.

Utterly delusional.
Click to expand...

Ignore their rose tinted glasses. It's not worth it.
 
Mr T

Mr T

Senior Member
Honestly, some people have been unnecessarily triggered by a throw away comment on a private website. I don't know if that's because they're insecure or have some sort of chip on their shoulder. People make claims all the time. Why the need to put one claim under the microscope?

Anyway why not actually look at the comment - second most powerful carrier force. The point is not that the Queen Elizabeth class is the second best aircraft carrier in the world, or that a carrier group using HMS QE or PoW is the second best in the world. It's that because the UK has two active aircraft carriers that makes it the second most effective group overall. That may not be true, but there are grounds to argue it.

CDG is a good aircraft carrier, but there's only one of it. So if it requires maintenance or refit France has no aircraft carrier available at all. Same with the Kuznetsov (and that thing is much less reliable). So that leaves the PLAN, which although has two carriers commissioned are of questionable effectiveness given the lack of transparency over the Chinese military.

But most important of all, it really doesn't matter if the Royal Navy is not the second most powerful carrier force in the world. Having two commissioned carriers that can in principle operate at the same time is a huge deal.

As for Crowsnest, it is a limitation but the chances of the Royal Navy operating by itself against a peer nation where we need something like Hawkeye is virtually zero. Plus there was recent news that the RN is looking for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, so it may be that we switch to unmanned surveillance in the not-so-distant future.
 
Mr T

Mr T

Senior Member
Andy1974 said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

it’s only a matter of time before…
- RN and PLAN exercise
- QE carrier visits Chinese port
- UK signs BRI
Click to expand...
When you say it's only a matter of time, you mean like by 2100?

Anything is possible, but the current state of Sino-British relations and Beijing's relations with the UK's friends in the Indo-Pacific means all of that is very unlikely for the foreseeable future. It's certainly far from inevitable.
 
O

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Andy1974 said:
RN and PLAN exercise
Click to expand...
Highly unlikely

Andy1974 said:
QE carrier visits Chinese port
Click to expand...
Highly unlikely

Andy1974 said:
UK signs BRI
Click to expand...
Extremely unlikely

The state of the relations is such that all of the above are unlikely to happen unless Britain wants to do some PR for being "Global" Britain.

However it is encouraging that the lines of communication between the UK and Chinese military are open. It seems that this talk was ok or at least not a disaster so thats a positive in this tense global environment
 
B

Bob Smith

Junior Member
Registered Member
Mr T said:
Honestly, some people have been unnecessarily triggered by a throw away comment on a private website. I don't know if that's because they're insecure or have some sort of chip on their shoulder. People make claims all the time. Why the need to put one claim under the microscope?

Anyway why not actually look at the comment - second most powerful carrier force. The point is not that the Queen Elizabeth class is the second best aircraft carrier in the world, or that a carrier group using HMS QE or PoW is the second best in the world. It's that because the UK has two active aircraft carriers that makes it the second most effective group overall. That may not be true, but there are grounds to argue it.

CDG is a good aircraft carrier, but there's only one of it. So if it requires maintenance or refit France has no aircraft carrier available at all. Same with the Kuznetsov (and that thing is much less reliable). So that leaves the PLAN, which although has two carriers commissioned are of questionable effectiveness given the lack of transparency over the Chinese military.

But most important of all, it really doesn't matter if the Royal Navy is not the second most powerful carrier force in the world. Having two commissioned carriers that can in principle operate at the same time is a huge deal.

As for Crowsnest, it is a limitation but the chances of the Royal Navy operating by itself against a peer nation where we need something like Hawkeye is virtually zero. Plus there was recent news that the RN is looking for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, so it may be that we switch to unmanned surveillance in the not-so-distant future.
Click to expand...
People talk on forums. You're getting unnecessarily triggered by people talking about this issue. Are you insecure or have a chip on your shoulder?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top