Her Majesty the Queen names HMS Queen Elizabeth

TeeCeeCee

Lantern Swinger
#82
Readers of sensible newspapers will have seen that the new aircraft carriers are being called White Elephants and it is difficult to disagree. All they really are, are enlarged versions of the Invicible class with some STOVl aircraft, when they are ready that is, and some helicopters. As they will be the only carriers operating the F35B is does not do much for their interoperation abilty with carriers of either the US or France. Assuming that the F35 survives it's engineering costs and scheduling it will be uncompetitive against the new generation of Russian and Chinese weapons. The overweight, underpowerd and understealthed F35B will be outmatched if it is not already. It could have so different had we bought the EMALS (Electromagnetic Air Launch Sytem) from the US this would have allowed all types of aircraft to use the deck which would also include the Hawkeye AWACS. It would also have allowed the lease or purchase of the F18 Super Hornet or the Rafalef from France both of which are superior to anything currently in use. Both these aircraft are tried and tested and would have been available immediately. That would allow the carriers to be operational while waiting for the F35C or preferably a Naval version of the F22 Raptor.
While I take your points on EMALS and the 35B in general, isn't air-warfare and dog-fighting all about the missiles?

2 oposing aircarft meet and, broadly speeking, it's the first to fire and hit with their missle wins. So superior missile technology would trump aircraft performance in this scenario, right?

After misslie expenditure and if dog-fighting begins with machine guns (if fitted), super-sonic speed is useless unless you are fleeing. The view of an oponent at top speed is brief and the G forces in jinking would have the pilot blacking out. Jets need to slow down to successfully dogfight. I bring it up just to point out that a jets top speed isn't neccessarily a deal-breaker if it's a few hundred MPH slower than an oponent. Acceleration is maybe more important?

Regards EMALS and why go with the 35B over the cat & trap version chosen by the USN: I think it a duff decision too. The defence industry are past masters at extracting £ from our Government. In any area where a organisation has a monoply (or cartel) when supplying a 2nd party, there is always room to take advantage.
 

pg55555

Lantern Swinger
#84
.

Goodwinch95,

IF you remember correctly you will recall that the idiot Cameron DID decide to have at least one of the carriers re-configured for "cat-and-trap" (as this was SUPPOSEDLY always part of the design options). Unfortunately when he did so it "suddenly" appeared that the design was not so convertible as BAE advertised - the costs forecast was stupendous and so Cameron did a slow (and expensive) about turn. This (as well as Cameron's other ridiculously expensive decision to slow down construction) have contributed to the grossly inflated costs of our 2 (????) vessels.

Of course one problem this did reveal is that we are almost certainly barred from the "wishlist" option of a mid-life upgrade to the carrier(s) to make them into, at least, drone operating capable.

HOWEVER, all this is just part of the forever ridiculous story that the CVF has been (and seemingly will forever be). Whatever respect ordinary members of the public and service personnel MIGHT have had for the quality of MOD and BAE management has disappeared after the decades of farce that the CVF programme is.

.
 
#85
Just to correct a couple of fallacies :

All they really are, are enlarged versions of the Invicible class with some STOVl aircraft, when they are ready that is, and some helicopters. As they will be the only carriers operating the F35B is does not do much for their interoperation abilty with carriers of either the US or France.
This is to confuse the statements often made about only going to sea with 12 f/w as a cast in stone fact, when the actuality is that you can get 30+ f/w aboard the ship when needed and more importantly, operate that deck with significantly fewer people than you could on a CVS or LHD-style deck. Not something that could be done with a smaller ship and vastly in excess of any capability we've had, arguably since the war, given that Eagle and Ark could just about fit 24 fast jets aboard by fillling the whole deck.

As for the often quoted cross-decking, with the exception of Ark embarking the USMC for a few days on her last deployment, we have never operated another nations cabs. Even in the days of the old Ark and Eagle, "cross-decking" was usually about proving that we could recover, refuel and launch a handful of USN cabs. Trap, spot of lunch, brief and shoot. Nothing else. Operating is less about the launch and recovery method than the maintenance tracking, arming and spares supply.

There will never be a naval variant of F22 btw. Production line shut several years ago and design never suitable for carrier ops. Nearest thing might be the F/A XX due sometime in the 2030's, maybe.

Then there's this.

IF you remember correctly you will recall that the idiot Cameron DID decide to have at least one of the carriers re-configured for "cat-and-trap" (as this was SUPPOSEDLY always part of the design options). Unfortunately when he did so it "suddenly" appeared that the design was not so convertible as BAE advertised - the costs forecast was stupendous and so Cameron did a slow (and expensive) about turn.
Both carriers remain perfectly convertible to CTOL ops if required. The spaces on 2 deck are clear if you know where to look. The issue with the conversion was twofold - firstly while the ships were and are designed to be convertible, as in sufficient size and margin, with compartments allocated, MoD had never contracted for the detailed design elements (ie the actual seatings, compartment installation drawings, fabrication drawings etc), because until SDSR2010, STOVL was always the preferred option and spending additional money on something unlikely to be done at build was not seen as a good idea. Secondly, what that meant was that when the question was asked in SDSR2010, to produce that information would have meant a substantial delay in the build of PoW. Under the terms of the TOBA, it appears that MoD would have had to pay the costs of the work force doing nowt waiting for the design info before recommencing build. Makes perfect sense if you remember that MoD had forced the Carrier Alliance to consolidate to produce the ships on condition of guaranteed work (which prevents them contracting for anything else) and is the only explanation for the ludicrous conversion cost value, which involves more manhours than were needed to build HMS Illustrious in entirety.

(as well as Cameron's other ridiculously expensive decision to slow down construction)
I think you'll find that decison was made by the short-lived Jim Hutton, SoS Defence to the Great Financial Genius G Brown esquire. The one-eyed Scottish genius who was primarily responsible for delaying/denying funding for the ship almost from the start in 2001.

Of course one problem this did reveal is that we are almost certainly barred from the "wishlist" option of a mid-life upgrade to the carrier(s) to make them into, at least, drone operating capable
Aside from the minor issue that "drones" on a carrier are far from a done deal (X47B or not), the ships remain perfectly convertible. It will be interesting to see whether free from TOBA assumptions, the cost comes down in future years. Interestingly, the electrical generation / distribution software reputedly already includes a mode to allow for transient EMALS loads on the grid. One of the harder and more expensive parts to worry about, already fixed.
 
G

guestm

Guest
#86
.

HOWEVER, all this is just part of the forever ridiculous story that the CVF has been (and seemingly will forever be). Whatever respect ordinary members of the public and service personnel MIGHT have had for the quality of MOD and BAE management has disappeared after the decades of farce that the CVF programme is.

.
Really? Which 'ordinary' members of the service have you been speaking to (who have any actual knowledge) are those then?

Different circle to mine clearly. There's not a huge deal of love for BAE but the idea that CVF is 'decades of farce' is seemingly not the view from the informed within.

Keep booing from the cheap seats whilst we just get on with it. Ta.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Seadog

War Hero
Moderator
#87
This must be the only forum where you cannot post a reply which disagrees with a senior member who has spent too much time in Vernon.
But you can, because you did and your post is untouched by the mean, nasty moderators.

There is enough ungoverned space on the internet where bell ends can post ill-informed pish ( it's Jock week ) uncontested. Ill informed pish is usually allowed to remain intact on Rum ration because they give the responses from those nearer the centre of gravity an enhanced effect.
 
#88
But you can, because you did and your post is untouched by the mean, nasty moderators.

There is enough ungoverned space on the internet where bell ends can post ill-informed pish ( it's Jock week ) uncontested. Ill informed pish is usually allowed to remain intact on Rum ration because they give the responses from those nearer the centre of gravity an enhanced effect.
To the target in front . . . go on.
 
G

guestm

Guest
#89
As QE is now afloat in the tidal basin. Where have all the 'we'll never get the new carrier' PSOFs gone?

Are they warming up to drip about type 26?
 
#91
This must be the only forum where you cannot post a reply which disagrees with a senior member who has spent too much time in Vernon. The truth on the Navy carrier debacle? Industry got away with murder ? The Register. I would suggest that you read the link, it might help.
It's not just me. ARRSE's best response so far to the incessant trolling of Goodwinch95 aka IronDuke99:
ottar said:
IronDuke99 said:
"Initial flight trials of the F-35B, including SRVLs, are expected in 2018."

Sigh...
But as you are, in no way qualified, experienced or knowledgeable on the subject, who cares what you think?

You are an arrogant crank, that has engaged in a little conclusion led research on the internet. You are so full of your own self-importance that you believe your uninformed, inaccurate and occasionally contradictory conjecture dressed as fact trumps the knowledge and judgements of those on the sharp end of the project.

It is interminably dull.
 
Last edited:
#92
Senior RAF officer discusses 'carrier controversy' on condition of anonymity

Seen on PPRuNe. Guess who a journalist happened to find who was willing to discuss 'the controversy' surrounding the RN's new carrier and its aircraft:
AIN 18 July 2014 said:
...What is beyond question is that the B version has struggled with weight issues, sacrifices range and payload for STOVL capability and costs more to acquire and operate. For this reason, the MoD is studying a mixed fleet of F-35As and F-35Bs, a senior RAF officer told AIN, on condition of anonymity...
 
#94
There's an article by Sharky Ward in this month's (October) Warships magazine. He talks about how the government has been mainly advised by the crabs and how this could effect the QE2 class.

Before you ask why an ex chef would be reading 'Warships', I get a paper copy as part of my roll ( see what I did there :)) in school.
 
#95
I don't think that the Buccaneer flown by the RAF gentleman (for thus was my pater in WW2 --214 Sqdn) was threatened with diversion to Lossie , but rather somewhere in southern England ?? Talking of Crabs flying FAA cabs ; one of 899 (Eagle's) Vixens had to divert to Addu Attoll (RAF GAN) in the Maldives in September / October 1967 .He overshot the runway,rolled down the beach and came to rest in the Indian Ocean. The crab firecrew etc raced to the scene, laughing their heads off, until the RAF F/O or Flt/Lt pilot climbed out !! We had to enter the lagoon (tricky !) to retrieve the salty wreck . Sadly, the officer concerned was killed some years later,flying with the Red Arrows.
 

Purple_twiglet

War Hero
Moderator
#99
The problem is that PTT is a laughable excuse of a thinktank which descends quickly into a 'the RAF is shit, I hate crabs, in fact I hate anyone who isn't me'.

Anyone who sends a letter to the Foreign Secretary bemoaning how appalling RAF Transport Command is, bearing in mind it was scrapped roughly 50 years ago, shows their lack of credibility.

Sharkey had a good war and was incredibly brave and did things I know I could not do. But he has squandered his reputation and ability to get those at the very highest levels who were listening to him to take note, to instead descend down a road of shouting loudly with ever fewer senior or other people giving him time. Its a real shame as he could add a lot if he perhaps let some of his prejudices about the RAF go.
 
The problem is that PTT is a laughable excuse of a thinktank which descends quickly into a 'the RAF is shit, I hate crabs, in fact I hate anyone who isn't me'.

Anyone who sends a letter to the Foreign Secretary bemoaning how appalling RAF Transport Command is, bearing in mind it was scrapped roughly 50 years ago, shows their lack of credibility.

Sharkey had a good war and was incredibly brave and did things I know I could not do. But he has squandered his reputation and ability to get those at the very highest levels who were listening to him to take note, to instead descend down a road of shouting loudly with ever fewer senior or other people giving him time. Its a real shame as he could add a lot if he perhaps let some of his prejudices about the RAF go.
At least Sharkey has a good name and reputation but then, you also have the latter I suppose, albeit not of the same order and qualitatively dissimilar.
By the way, from your, "...a sad end...", I take it you know something we don't, i.e. he has passed on?
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top