HMS Queen Elizabeth

[The Basket]

Would go for a Jag...but the price of petrol is a killer.

Still like French cars. They aint saying nuffink. Just a car.

Ah the British car Industry...ahhh.
The British was once a byword for engineering excellence.

Including our Battleships. The new carriers will be our flagships to the greatness our Historical right to have British Naval Power.

 

[pbfoot]

The British was once a byword for engineering excellence.

.

not in automobiles for the average guy they weren't

 

[Freebird]

what happened to this thread...arent we supposed to be discussing the new British carriers????

Or are we on the wrong thread?

I think I started this thread and it is supposed to be about the new British CVs. To get back on track, I believe that the influence of sea power may be greater today than ever before. Hopefully the US will continue to keep it's fleet up to date and Britain will put into commission those new CVs.

Yes I think that the F-35's look to be a big step up from Harriers.

Why "beg" after all we are NATO buddies

Thanks, Kruska, but we can't "mooch" off of others forever...

If there is a major problem, the foreign aircraft will be sent first to support it's own nation's troops. The only real solution is to provide your own cover.

IIRC there was a plan to refit cargo ships or naval tenders in order to deploy the F-35 and helicopters. Holland was one of these proposers, what happened to this interim aircraft carrier idea? And wouldn't it serve the purpose just as well?

Interesting question, I hadn't heard of that plan. Of course the original CVE's were converted merchants. But for long overseas deployments I would think that purpose built CVL's would be more efficient?

Unless one would be a USS America with all the defensive equipment and units around it, (which Canada or England could never afford) the carrier would have to be located positioned in a safe spot anyway.

Not so. Canada has a half dozen Destroyers or Frigates + some support ships, so a task force with a CVL + few other ships would work just fine. Of course it would likely be deployed in the Persian Gulf or somewhere like that, combined with other US UK vessels, to provide mutual protection.

I would think the primary purpose would be to provide ground support to Canadian troops, opponents such as Iran or Syria or whoever are not likely to be able to send large numbers of modern aircaft against the fleets. I would think that a small CVL group should be able to defend itself without too much difficulty.

Since Canada and England are so close with the US, why not just rent a US carrier – incorporated into a USN fleet and equipped with the F-35 and other existing winged or rotary aircrafts.

I dont think any are available now....

 

[parsifal]

any one know what the projected deckload will be, and what are the vital stats of the new ships. Are the brits finally going to utliae a decent AA system. And do they intend to provide proper AAW DD support as well???

 

[parsifal]

If countries like Australia, Thailand, India and Spain put small carriers to sea, why cant the germans. Now that the imminent threat of invasion from the east has receded, surely it is time for the Germans to act more as a team player and contribute to the collective defence obligations currently being shouldered by a few nations for the benefit of the many??

 

[Freebird]

any one know what the projected deckload will be, and what are the vital stats of the new ships. Are the brits finally going to utliae a decent AA system. And do they intend to provide proper AAW DD support as well???

What are your thoughts on a good defensive armament? A couple of twin 4" or 4.5" turrets for duel AA/anti-ship? What kind of missiles?

I suppose it depends on the latest doctrine, if it is assumed to always be part of a task force, it might rely on the support ships for that. But I somehow doubt it will have the "Lexington" style 8" guns...

If countries like Australia, Thailand, India and Spain put small carriers to sea, why can't the Germans. Now that the imminent threat of invasion from the east has receded, surely it is time for the Germans to act more as a team player and contribute to the collective defence obligations currently being shouldered by a few nations for the benefit of the many??

Good point. Maybe the French could send a "DeGaulle" task force too?

 

[Kruska]

If countries like Australia, Thailand, India and Spain put small carriers to sea, why cant the germans. Now that the imminent threat of invasion from the east has receded, surely it is time for the Germans to act more as a team player and contribute to the collective defence obligations currently being shouldered by a few nations for the benefit of the many??

Germany is still bound to its constitutional laws (A present by the Allied in 1949) that make deployment of military units an almost unsolvable political issue. To change these respective laws Germany would need a 68% parliament vote in favor.
Look at German troop deployments today – more or less they are confined to transporting food and water or help to train the foreign police forces and set up Kindergartens and hospitals.

Germany and the NATO should partner with respect to a European defense force and in return the others take over the so called out of area deployments. Big NATO members such as Spain, France, Italy or England could therefore reduce their European commitments (e.g. Serbia) and free resources for these out of area deployments.

But the "mistrust" among European countries will not make a country such as England reduce its military "backup" towards Europe – Germany.

Regards
Kruska

 

[parsifal]

not in automobiles for the average guy they weren't

yes i spent more time UNDER my Healey than in it, but still on those occasions that it did work, it was a charm to drive

 

[parsifal]

Germany is still bound to its constitutional laws (A present by the Allied in 1949) that make deployment of military units an almost unsolvable political issue. To change these respective laws Germany would need a 68% parliament vote in favor.
Look at German troop deployments today – more or less they are confined to transporting food and water or help to train the foreign police forces and set up Kindergartens and hospitals.

Germany and the NATO should partner with respect to a European defense force and in return the others take over the so called out of area deployments. Big NATO members such as Spain, France, Italy or England could therefore reduce their European commitments (e.g. Serbia) and free resources for these out of area deployments.

But the "mistrust" among European countries will not make a country such as England reduce its military "backup" towards Europe – Germany

Kruska

Are you saying they are prohibited by treaty from deplying carriers in a defensive role? I was not aware of that. I also thought the peace treaty with the western nations dated from 1952, not 1949, and it was this 1952 that finally allowed the Federal Republic to bear arms for "defensive" purposes

 

[parsifal]

What are your thoughts on a good defensive armament? A couple of twin 4" or 4.5" turrets for duel AA/anti-ship? What kind of missiles?


I am no expert in this area at all. The creme de la creme is the US Aegis system as deployed on the Arleigh Burkes. But this has the problem of being very expensive. australia has opted for the far cheaper (but less capable) Spanish AAW DDAs. As I understand these basic systems could be transferred to a different hull. So I guess if the Brits are looking for something affordable, like the Australians, then the Spanish system appears to the second best system available.

The really big challenge facing AAW is the threat from surface skimming cruise missiles. Since they broke onto the scene in 1982, they have advanced steadily. Back in my era of the '80s, the solution was a mixture of the CIWs (like Vulcan) and the British Anti missile system for longer ranged protection (name escapes me right now). The Brits were kicking themselves back in '82 for not having invested in the NCDS system, that essentially allowed the weapon system of one platform, to be controlled by the detection systems and processing capability, from other sources. For example, if your trackers were plotting the progress of a distant strike, they could directly plug into the computers of a support DDG to "guide" the anti-missile missile over the horizon, which is the great problem in tracking and shooting down cruise missiles



I suppose it depends on the latest doctrine, if it is assumed to always be part of a task force, it might rely on the support ships for that. But I somehow doubt it will have the "Lexington" style 8" guns...
Agreed, but some things have not changed since WWII, a TF is a carefuly selected conglomerate of ships selected for an expected threat. Where the threat is unknown, or multi-dimensional, it has to respond accordingly

Good point. Maybe the French could send a "DeGaulle" task force too

If that means supporting the US, I have serious doubts that they will

 

[Freebird]

The really big challenge facing AAW is the threat from surface skimming cruise missiles. Since they broke onto the scene in 1982, they have advanced steadily. Back in my era of the '80s, the solution was a mixture of the CIWs (like Vulcan) and the British Anti missile system for longer ranged protection (name escapes me right now).

That was the "SeaWolf" system IIRC. Also there was the "SeaCat" which I think was supposed to be dual SSM/SAM

If that means supporting the US, I have serious doubts that they will

Perhaps things will be different after the US election.....

 

[renrich]

Don't the Brits have some surface ships with AA missile capabilities? I don't believe that conventional 4 or 5 inch guns are effective any more in AA defense. I may start a thread about cars in the past.

 

[Freebird]

Don't the Brits have some surface ships with AA missile capabilities? I don't believe that conventional 4 or 5 inch guns are effective any more in AA defense. I may start a thread about cars in the past.

They have quite a few DDG's missile Frigates that do. Probably will just have light AA guns, and rely on the DDG's which still have the 4" guns I think.

I would think that the CV would have only the light AA and light SAM's, but will be nice to hear more info on it...


I guess the theory is that there are times when the escort DDG's are elsewhere or otherwise engaged, so it is a good idea to have an inherent AA capability on the carriers

 

[Kruska]

Kruska

Are you saying they are prohibited by treaty from deplying carriers in a defensive role? I was not aware of that. I also thought the peace treaty with the western nations dated from 1952, not 1949, and it was this 1952 that finally allowed the Federal Republic to bear arms for "defensive" purposes

Hello parsifal,

Since I do not want to "pollute" two threads please refer to my post #13 at UK casualties in Afghanistan if you should be interested in my answer regarding your above post.

Regards
Kruska

 

[Glider]

A general comment on RN SAM's. Generally the SAM missiles deployed by the RN have been as good as the best at the time of deployment.

Seacat
The first small SAM for deployment on frigates and othr small vessels. There were a number of versions of differing complexity but it was deployed in about 19 navies.

Sea Slug
Not the most attractive missile but it had a good range and was very accurate. They ran out of targets during the development but it was big, heavy and expensive.

Sea Dart
Again a sophisticated system with good range and a capable surface to surface missile.
The only missile in the world to shoot down an anti shipping SSM in actual combat

Sea Wolf
A short range missile but arguably the most accurate in the world. In a number of tests it has shot down cannon shells in flight.

Aster
A european missile which is being used on the Type 45 Destroyer to escort the new carriers.

 

[Freebird]

A general comment on RN SAM's. Generally the SAM missiles deployed by the RN have been as good as the best at the time of deployment.

Seacat
The first small SAM for deployment on frigates and othr small vessels. There were a number of versions of differing complexity but it was deployed in about 19 navies.

Sea Slug
Not the most attractive missile but it had a good range and was very accurate. They ran out of targets during the development but it was big, heavy and expensive.

Sea Dart
Again a sophisticated system with good range and a capable surface to surface missile.
The only missile in the world to shoot down an anti shipping SSM in actual combat

The Sea Slug Sea Cat were also SSM capable like the Sea Dart correct?

Are all of these types still in use today?

 

[Glider]

The Sea Slug Sea Cat were also SSM capable like the Sea Dart correct?

Are all of these types still in use today?

The Sea Slug didn't have a chance against SSM's and whilst in theory the last of the Sea Cats did have a chance, in practice it was slim.

It depended on a modification which meant that the missile wouldn't fly into the sea no matter what input it was given. The idea then was that the Seacat would be launched at the incomming missile at minimum altitude (6ft if I remember correctly) until the two met.
There have been some reports that when HMS Glamorgan was hit by an Exocet in the Falklands the Seacat deflected it up so it hit the deck by the hanger instead of lower down the hull, but there is no evidence one way or the other. The ship was turning towards the missile and healing over which could equally have had a similar effect.

The Sea Slug is no longer in service and I believe that most of the Sea Cats have also been removed.

Lots of missiles claim to be capable of anti SSM but very few are. The interesting thing about the Sea Dart is that they didn't claim to be anti SSM but when the chips were down it worked. This was much to the delight of the USS Missouri which was the target, and the USS Jarrett who missed it with their Phalanx.
Another interesting thing about the Sea Dart is that it was a pretty good SSM itself. In trials it blew 50ft off the bows of the target ship. Not enough to sink it but more than enough to put anyone off.

 

[HealzDevo]

With Russia, the real big threat everyone forgets is not Russia but China, its next door neighbour. China has the world's largest airforce and is modernizing its military forces. So the question still remains, what is China doing that it needs to modernize its military forces for? Therefore NATO is still needed not to focus on Russia but to keep an ultra close eye on China.

 

[parsifal]

China is building its navy for one primary purpose, to take back Taiwan. They need to hold the straits long enough to get their ground forces acreoss safely.

A secondary concern is the containment of india, who has a navy worth worrying about.

The Chinese at this point are not thinking of mounting any sort of direct challenge to US naval supremacy.

 

[Kruska]

Hello parsifal,

I really don't think so. China is building up its navy due to its vast coast line and to exert pressure in order to secure their resources and shipping lanes within their territorial boundaries.
They are doing nothing else than any other country, such as the UK, the USA, India or Russia.

HealzDevo: They don't even have the largest air force on paper, and in practical efficiency their present air force capability couldn't even match the combination of Germany and France. At the present spending rate, it will take China more then 25 years to catch up with present NATO strength – not including the USA with Japan and Korea plus India and Russia. Oh yes sorry plus Australia .

Regards
Kruska