Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MSOCS,
The period between launching and sea trials will be filled with outfitting.
The launch will be of the hull it will then be taken to have systems, engines etc installed. The crew are due to embark in May 2016 with sea trial starting in the October. Formal handover will be in the first few months of 2017 barring any issues.
The period between launching and sea trials will be filled with outfitting.
The launch will be of the hull it will then be taken to have systems, engines etc installed. The crew are due to embark in May 2016 with sea trial starting in the October. Formal handover will be in the first few months of 2017 barring any issues.
remind me of the last time we needed an airforce.....?
) I think you've opened yourself up for a bit of ridicule there.....
I'm personally of the opinion that we haven't needed a carrier since 1982. We've also coped extremely well since we stopped putting fast air on CVS in 2010. ELLAMY didn't need it and neither would any immediate problem such as Syria, Iran or whatever. Again, my opinion.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BillHicksRules,
Thanks for some facts on the issue - appreciated. It does sound like a long time for outfitting to me, but I'm no ship builder.
Tourist,
The last time we needed an airforce - let me see..... Gulf War 1, The Balkans, Gulf War 2, Afghanistan and not to mention Libya which was by far and away a classic example of coercion and capitulation of a rogue government, ably assisted by Air Power - with the exception of Libya all of those also required a naval element. The last true time a carrier was essential, and I stress 'essential', was The Falklands War in my humble opinion. Saying you needed a carrier in Bosnia because the weather at a land base was a bit poor on the odd night isn't statistically relevant. What if one could prove that for all the other nights (bar one) the carrier was in fog and unable to contribute?? Give me hard facts to actually balance the 'moronic-ness' of my final paragraph Tourist. Please...go on... This is a debate after all.
Thanks for some facts on the issue - appreciated. It does sound like a long time for outfitting to me, but I'm no ship builder.
Tourist,
The last time we needed an airforce - let me see..... Gulf War 1, The Balkans, Gulf War 2, Afghanistan and not to mention Libya which was by far and away a classic example of coercion and capitulation of a rogue government, ably assisted by Air Power - with the exception of Libya all of those also required a naval element. The last true time a carrier was essential, and I stress 'essential', was The Falklands War in my humble opinion. Saying you needed a carrier in Bosnia because the weather at a land base was a bit poor on the odd night isn't statistically relevant. What if one could prove that for all the other nights (bar one) the carrier was in fog and unable to contribute?? Give me hard facts to actually balance the 'moronic-ness' of my final paragraph Tourist. Please...go on... This is a debate after all.
Last edited by MSOCS; 26th May 2014 at 16:39.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
The obvious retort is remind me of the last time we needed an airforce.....?
Just one example, others are available.
I agree though that the point you were trying so hard (but still failing) to offer a retort to was equally moronic.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THS, why?
It implies (to me at least) that you consider a CVS was essential for:
Gulf War 1
The Balkans
Gulf War 2
Afghanistan
Libya
Don't get me wrong - I strongly believe in a capable and significant Navy, Army and Air Force but a single big deck carrier with (at most) 12 aircraft aboard? If we could afford both and another 30 jets to join them afloat then yes, why not have them - it's a big stick to carry - but when we're likely to have one with such a small fleet of fixed-wing aboard it doesn't make sense to me.
With another rather large spending round looming next year, which will be replete with yet more cuts, why not ask the question "why?!"
It implies (to me at least) that you consider a CVS was essential for:
Gulf War 1
The Balkans
Gulf War 2
Afghanistan
Libya
Don't get me wrong - I strongly believe in a capable and significant Navy, Army and Air Force but a single big deck carrier with (at most) 12 aircraft aboard? If we could afford both and another 30 jets to join them afloat then yes, why not have them - it's a big stick to carry - but when we're likely to have one with such a small fleet of fixed-wing aboard it doesn't make sense to me.
With another rather large spending round looming next year, which will be replete with yet more cuts, why not ask the question "why?!"
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Wherever I'm sent
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, a CVS was not essential for any of those operations, although it would have been useful to varying degrees (Libya pretty handy, Afghanistan not so much). And that is a problem that the RN tussles with but doesn't like to talk about.
However a flexible carrier, such as the QE class, would have, and will, provide an enormous amount to defence. From defence diplomacy to NEOs, MSO, counter piracy, counter drugs etc, a carrier with 12 JSF and a selection of rotary will be useful pretty much every day that it isn't alongside, and even then, arguably its existence can still provide an effect.
And then there is the Falklands / Sierra Leone scenario. The RN constantly intimate that the chances of land basing in future conflicts is unlikely and it must be irritating that they are constantly proved wrong - but at the end of the day land bases aren't assured and some situations will arise where a carrier is the only realistic option hence a need for the flexibility that a carrier provides, particularly one that can offer either a rotary / FJ mix or a larger (24) FJ capability.
In short I believe the RN do overstate the case for a carrier but, as an RAF officer who has worked with both Land and maritime, I believe that the carrier will offer an enormous capability and flexibility across defence and we should certainly be getting 2 in order to have a 365 day capability.
Just so long as the RAF provide most of the FJ pilots.
Don't confuse "top trumps, lots of FJs, looks good on the military channel" with the reality of defence today, and in particular what the RN has to offer.
However a flexible carrier, such as the QE class, would have, and will, provide an enormous amount to defence. From defence diplomacy to NEOs, MSO, counter piracy, counter drugs etc, a carrier with 12 JSF and a selection of rotary will be useful pretty much every day that it isn't alongside, and even then, arguably its existence can still provide an effect.
And then there is the Falklands / Sierra Leone scenario. The RN constantly intimate that the chances of land basing in future conflicts is unlikely and it must be irritating that they are constantly proved wrong - but at the end of the day land bases aren't assured and some situations will arise where a carrier is the only realistic option hence a need for the flexibility that a carrier provides, particularly one that can offer either a rotary / FJ mix or a larger (24) FJ capability.
In short I believe the RN do overstate the case for a carrier but, as an RAF officer who has worked with both Land and maritime, I believe that the carrier will offer an enormous capability and flexibility across defence and we should certainly be getting 2 in order to have a 365 day capability.
Just so long as the RAF provide most of the FJ pilots.
Don't confuse "top trumps, lots of FJs, looks good on the military channel" with the reality of defence today, and in particular what the RN has to offer.
The time between dock flood-up (which is what I assume MSOCS is alluding to) and sea trials will be spent in finishing the outfit of those decks above the hangar deck and setting to work the systems.
The "engines" have been in the ship for nearly three years, depending on whether you're talking about the diesels, the gas turbines or the electric motors. What is happening now is that the various systems are being pressure tested, flushed and slowly set to work, in the same way that the mission systems will be calibrated, trialled, debugged and adjusted.
The original question is a little bit like asking what the Typhoon will be doing between delivery of the first production cab to the OEU (2005)and the declaration of IOC (2008).
As for the "at most 12 aboard" - that rather depends on whether the light blue decides to play joint properly this time....
The "engines" have been in the ship for nearly three years, depending on whether you're talking about the diesels, the gas turbines or the electric motors. What is happening now is that the various systems are being pressure tested, flushed and slowly set to work, in the same way that the mission systems will be calibrated, trialled, debugged and adjusted.
The original question is a little bit like asking what the Typhoon will be doing between delivery of the first production cab to the OEU (2005)and the declaration of IOC (2008).
As for the "at most 12 aboard" - that rather depends on whether the light blue decides to play joint properly this time....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God save the Queen, and all who sail in, on and above her.
F-35 fly past missing. Such a shame.
Oh, and congrats on yet another stupid, pointless dig at another service, n-o-b. time to stop that crap now. On this project you all sink or swim together.
Oh, and congrats on yet another stupid, pointless dig at another service, n-o-b. time to stop that crap now. On this project you all sink or swim together.
Totally wrong for UKMil IMO. Most of the Navy in one big(ish) ship with a few aircraft. Any enemy will know where to aim! This is not the future that the Royal Navy should have had. Don't expect the mix of navy lark for RAF personel will gel any better this time around either!
OAP
OAP
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
F-35 fly past missing. Such a shame.
The Financial Times reports that plans for a flypast by F-35 stealth fighter jets at the naming of HMS Queen Elizabeth today were cancelled because an engine fire has grounded all the jets in the US.
This article fails to mention that at no point have we confirmed that the aircraft would fly at the Queen Elizabeth carrier naming ceremony.
This article fails to mention that at no point have we confirmed that the aircraft would fly at the Queen Elizabeth carrier naming ceremony.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,021
Received 2,900 Likes
on
1,242 Posts
I believe a Spanish Harrier is attending Farnborough this year, couldn't they have whistled that up early.
