Originally Posted by
Asturias56
I'm waiting to see what positive spin WEBF puts on this embarrassment
I had no idea that I was in charge of Public Relations or whatever it is called these days. Positive spin? Embarrassment? A very unusual failure of a part that cannot be inspected or maintained by the ship's company, and I assume will be subject to in depth engineering investigation
Originally Posted by langleybaston
Yes, "is" in my opinion. Much rather have more frigates and hunter-killers.
I am not sure how many frigates and SSNs that the QEC spend would have bought, or how you would justify them to the politicians, or indeed were the SSNs could be built.
The other question is what for? Do you really think a task group without a carrier can more effectively counter air, surface, and submarine threats? To quote Not_a_Boffin from the dark days just after SDSR10:
A fleet of DD/FF has little in terms of balanced capability because it cannot go anywhere where there is an air threat, unless it has maritime air cover - something that has proved virtually impossible to supply from land cost-effectively. That air threat could be as low capability as a Thai carrier with AV8As, but because (relatively) it can command the maritime airspace, it trumps a T45 or a helo carrier because it can hold the helo at threat. A DD/FF force is therefore limited to an area of influence not much further than the horizon. There is no use for a DD/FF heavy force with no maritime air. The nearest example is the JMSDF and they are structured to defend the sea of Japan and not much else. We (allegedly) don't have a threat to home waters anymore, certainly not one that justifies hordes of DD/FF.
Against the submarine the two most effective systems are the towed array sonar which provides long range detection, and the dipping sonar equipped ASW helicopter which provides precise location and long range weapon delivery. It is easier to coordinate and support constant ASW operations with multiple helicopters from a carrier than for flights aboard different ships to coordinate their activities.
CSG21 last year was an example. In the Mediterranean, F-35B Lightnings from HMS Queen Elizabeth intercepted Russian jets thirty times. I have no doubt that the Type 45 destroyers played a part in controlling intercepts, but they simply could not intercept with a missile! In combat, the aircraft can engage at a far greater range - and provide the means for shooting the archers, not the arrows. In the Mediterranean Russian submarines took an interest, as did Chinese ones in the South China Sea. The Type 23 frigates provided long range detection and cued the ASW Merlins from the carrier - keeping them at arm's length. Imagine that the task/strike group had been escorting crisis response shipping or an amphibious force, or perhaps acting as a barrier to stop hostile naval and air forces.
Originally Posted by WB627
In the absence of cat and traps on our BIG carriers, I'd rather have some amphibious assault ships that can operate F35B's like the US Marines.
It is unlikely we will ever have enough F35C's to fill one QE class carrier, let alone two of them!!!
F-35Cs? The UK has F35B.
Just out of interest, HMS
Queen Elizabeth is putting to sea tomorrow. Initially she was sail to the Western Atlantic to pick up some of the WESTLANT22 tasking, before returning to carry on with her planned deployment to the Mediterranean, which coincides with the LRG (North) Deployment.