Future Carrier (Including Costs)
As previously stated, an attack on a UK asset of that magnitude will mean that the world is at war, and we are all in the "end" game. Who wins the last 10 minutes is irrelevant, the UK will have retaliated.
IG
IG
Returning briefly to the QE captain dismissal fiasco, what if he had already been warned about the use of the vehicle for "personal" purposes? Continuing to use the vehicle as described thereafter would be an altogether more serious matter, and would make his dismissal rather more understandable, even indeed reasonable. Just a thought.
Thread Starter
ASW is a carrier role. The carrier will provide helicopters for 24/7 dipping, working with frigates with towed array sonar. The predecessors of the Queen Elizabeth class were the Invincibles, which started life on the drawing board as through deck cruisers intended to embark up to ten ASW Sea Kings. The United Sates used to operate dedicated ASW carriers as well as attack ones, until the two roles were combined in the same ship and air wing in the seventies.
Back in the eighties, with less capable sonars aboard both ships and aircraft:
Our bread & butter was the so-called "Ripple 3"; 3 aircraft airborne all the time (2 on task, with 1 in transit to / from the scene of action) 100+ miles away from the carrier / convoy, sometimes for weeks at a time. I joined 820 NAS / Ark in late-86, and the first thing we did was a major NATO exercise escorting a convoy from Norfolk VA to Harstad in Northern Norway - we had 3 aircraft on task for over 3 weeks, non-stop. I shudder to think how many sonobuoys we "spat" in a 3000+ mile line across the Atlantic. [100+ miles away, by the way, because by then the Soviets had developed long-range missiles that they could fire from e.g. a Charlie class SSN, thus attacking the convoy without having to get all that close - [b]targeting info coming from Russian aircraft, which was one of the original reasons for procuring the Sea Harrier]. It was tiring, but possible to keep it up almost indefinitely - we had 14 crews, and 9 aircraft, so even if you had, say, 4 cabs broken at any time (not uncommon!), there were enough to keep the Ripple going. You got into a rhythm: wake up; eat; brief an hour before take off; fly for 4 hours; debrief [& file your records if you'd come across any real Soviet boats]; go to bed... 6 hours later repeat... and repeat... and repeat...
But if it's an airborne frigate, why do you need 2 on task? Because it gives you much more flexibility; for instance, one of the Soviet tactics was so-called "sprint & drift" - if it thought it had been detected (and if you flew too low they would hear you), the SSN would wind up to 30kts and shoot off 50 miles or so, and then suddenly go completely silent; slow right down and use natural salinity / temperature layers in the water to interfere with sonar. If you only had one aircraft, he would have to be incredibly unlucky for you to keep up with that - effectively his boat simply disappeared. But with two, provided you were worked up and in good practice, one of you could track the boat while it was fast (& noisy) and direct the other to fly ahead... and then swap. If they didn't know you were there, then over time it was possible to get a really accurate picture of where the boat was (all passively) - so one of you would run the plot, and use the other cab as the weapon carrier. Or, if in doubt, direct the other cab into a hover ahead of the target... ping... contact... weapon in the water within seconds before he has time to react.
At its worst, this was soul-crushingly boring. Stooging around for 4 hours at 6000'+ (nosebleed territory for helicopters) at maximum endurance speed (c.65 kts), in the dark so on instruments, spitting sonobuoys and finding... diddly squat. But when you were in contact - which was often with the real thing (e.g. on that 3 weeks crossing the Atlantic, we detected and tracked around 10 Russian SSNs [probably not 10 separate hulls, but 4 different types, so deffo not the same bloke 10 times!], since they were just as interested in watching us practice as vice versa) - it was 3-dimensional chess; it could be really exciting. Sometimes the SSN drivers would get bored, or decide to test their own tactics (we never knew), so they'd give up trying to be sneaky-beaky and stay silent, and instead try shaking us off with speed, big sudden changes in course, decoys etc. Tracking a fast nuke, in daylight, with 2 aircraft using both passive and active techniques - very, very demanding, but enormous fun.
From here.
Things have changed since then - active dipping sonar is the main ASW sensor. NATO has conducted major ASW exercises with a carrier at the centre of the task group in 2014 and 2016. NATO still depends on moving forces by sea, and having amphibious capabilities.
Back in the eighties, with less capable sonars aboard both ships and aircraft:
Our bread & butter was the so-called "Ripple 3"; 3 aircraft airborne all the time (2 on task, with 1 in transit to / from the scene of action) 100+ miles away from the carrier / convoy, sometimes for weeks at a time. I joined 820 NAS / Ark in late-86, and the first thing we did was a major NATO exercise escorting a convoy from Norfolk VA to Harstad in Northern Norway - we had 3 aircraft on task for over 3 weeks, non-stop. I shudder to think how many sonobuoys we "spat" in a 3000+ mile line across the Atlantic. [100+ miles away, by the way, because by then the Soviets had developed long-range missiles that they could fire from e.g. a Charlie class SSN, thus attacking the convoy without having to get all that close - [b]targeting info coming from Russian aircraft, which was one of the original reasons for procuring the Sea Harrier]. It was tiring, but possible to keep it up almost indefinitely - we had 14 crews, and 9 aircraft, so even if you had, say, 4 cabs broken at any time (not uncommon!), there were enough to keep the Ripple going. You got into a rhythm: wake up; eat; brief an hour before take off; fly for 4 hours; debrief [& file your records if you'd come across any real Soviet boats]; go to bed... 6 hours later repeat... and repeat... and repeat...
But if it's an airborne frigate, why do you need 2 on task? Because it gives you much more flexibility; for instance, one of the Soviet tactics was so-called "sprint & drift" - if it thought it had been detected (and if you flew too low they would hear you), the SSN would wind up to 30kts and shoot off 50 miles or so, and then suddenly go completely silent; slow right down and use natural salinity / temperature layers in the water to interfere with sonar. If you only had one aircraft, he would have to be incredibly unlucky for you to keep up with that - effectively his boat simply disappeared. But with two, provided you were worked up and in good practice, one of you could track the boat while it was fast (& noisy) and direct the other to fly ahead... and then swap. If they didn't know you were there, then over time it was possible to get a really accurate picture of where the boat was (all passively) - so one of you would run the plot, and use the other cab as the weapon carrier. Or, if in doubt, direct the other cab into a hover ahead of the target... ping... contact... weapon in the water within seconds before he has time to react.
At its worst, this was soul-crushingly boring. Stooging around for 4 hours at 6000'+ (nosebleed territory for helicopters) at maximum endurance speed (c.65 kts), in the dark so on instruments, spitting sonobuoys and finding... diddly squat. But when you were in contact - which was often with the real thing (e.g. on that 3 weeks crossing the Atlantic, we detected and tracked around 10 Russian SSNs [probably not 10 separate hulls, but 4 different types, so deffo not the same bloke 10 times!], since they were just as interested in watching us practice as vice versa) - it was 3-dimensional chess; it could be really exciting. Sometimes the SSN drivers would get bored, or decide to test their own tactics (we never knew), so they'd give up trying to be sneaky-beaky and stay silent, and instead try shaking us off with speed, big sudden changes in course, decoys etc. Tracking a fast nuke, in daylight, with 2 aircraft using both passive and active techniques - very, very demanding, but enormous fun.
From here.
Things have changed since then - active dipping sonar is the main ASW sensor. NATO has conducted major ASW exercises with a carrier at the centre of the task group in 2014 and 2016. NATO still depends on moving forces by sea, and having amphibious capabilities.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 6th Jun 2019 at 14:14.
Hmmm - not sure - are you sure that someone sinking a single British aircraft carrier would get the UK PM to press the button? I doubt it TBH - you aren't going to risk incinerating 65 million voters for that
JTO, your excoriating post re official MT reminds me of similar blatant misuse of same. I was away defending Queen and Country in some 4 or 5 star hotel somewhere down route when Mrs C receives news from one of her brothers that their father has just died. The duty RAFP that has passed the message on is so alarmed at her distress (she was the youngest of five siblings) that he calls my boss. (all this at 0'C***** hundred am). What does she want to do? Go to Miami to meet brother and fly on to Lima (the family home). Right, get packed and I'll be there shortly (our OMQ being at Hullavington, his at Lyneham). Bundles her into his official mini and sets off at high speed across Wiltshire and Oxfordshire to a top secret airbase to catch the daily Washington VC10 (already booked compassionate for her). She remembers a large yellow flag on the car fluttering the whole way which enables him to drive straight onto the apron and to the foot of the airstairs. Quick goodbyes, ensures baggage on board, doors and hatches closed, start up, taxy out, and he's off to Lyneham having alerted Flight Commander to run the show in his absence.
More mis-use of official resources followed as he informed brother of her arrival at Washington and requested he arrange a ticket from there to Miami, and contacted BDLS Washington requesting her to be met and escorted between the two Washington airports. Resumes duties as CO only to remember me, sends signal informing me wife enroute LIM, and will meet me on arrival Lyneham. He is first onboard and looking worried. Did I get his message? Yes boss, thanks. And did he do the right thing? Well absolutely, Sir. Thank you!
Now not so sure and feel greatly relieved at this opportunity to reveal this scandal. I'm ready to give evidence, just as long as I don't get any blame for it of course...
More mis-use of official resources followed as he informed brother of her arrival at Washington and requested he arrange a ticket from there to Miami, and contacted BDLS Washington requesting her to be met and escorted between the two Washington airports. Resumes duties as CO only to remember me, sends signal informing me wife enroute LIM, and will meet me on arrival Lyneham. He is first onboard and looking worried. Did I get his message? Yes boss, thanks. And did he do the right thing? Well absolutely, Sir. Thank you!
Now not so sure and feel greatly relieved at this opportunity to reveal this scandal. I'm ready to give evidence, just as long as I don't get any blame for it of course...
IG
I agree that is the legal case - they are part of the UK and there would be a lot of reaction - but to use N weapons? I don't think so........
I don't think may people would see it as "a major challenge to our very existence as a nation". Now if the pesky Russians suddenly took a block booking on Eurostar and cross-channel ferry's ... maybe
You're not going to take the risk of killing 65 million people and turning the UK into a charred cinder over 1500 or so deaths I'm afraid - there'd be a lot of posturing and maybe a lot of cruise missiles fired off but, as ever, the poor bloody soldiers, sailors and airmen are likely to be sacrificed. It's the same the whole world over
You're right about First Use - from Wiki:-
In March 2002, British defence secretary Geoff Hoon stated that the UK was prepared to use nuclear weapons against "rogue states" such as Iraq if they ever used "weapons of mass destruction" against British troops in the field.[28] This policy was restated in February 2003.[29] In April 2017 Defence Secretary Michael Fallon confirmed that the UK would use nuclear weapons in a "pre-emptive initial strike" in "the most extreme circumstances".[30] Fallon stated in a parliamentary answer that the UK has neither a 'first use' or 'no first use' in its nuclear weapon policy so that its adversaries would not know when the UK would launch nuclear strikes.[3
I don't think may people would see it as "a major challenge to our very existence as a nation". Now if the pesky Russians suddenly took a block booking on Eurostar and cross-channel ferry's ... maybe
You're not going to take the risk of killing 65 million people and turning the UK into a charred cinder over 1500 or so deaths I'm afraid - there'd be a lot of posturing and maybe a lot of cruise missiles fired off but, as ever, the poor bloody soldiers, sailors and airmen are likely to be sacrificed. It's the same the whole world over
You're right about First Use - from Wiki:-
In March 2002, British defence secretary Geoff Hoon stated that the UK was prepared to use nuclear weapons against "rogue states" such as Iraq if they ever used "weapons of mass destruction" against British troops in the field.[28] This policy was restated in February 2003.[29] In April 2017 Defence Secretary Michael Fallon confirmed that the UK would use nuclear weapons in a "pre-emptive initial strike" in "the most extreme circumstances".[30] Fallon stated in a parliamentary answer that the UK has neither a 'first use' or 'no first use' in its nuclear weapon policy so that its adversaries would not know when the UK would launch nuclear strikes.[3
Thread Starter
So why do you think the Russians would go for a pre-emptive nuclear attack?
Anyway, I stumbled upon this from the US Navy whilst looking for carrier related stuff:
The Carrier Strike Group is a flexible naval force that can operate in confined waters or in the open ocean, during day and night, in all weather conditions. The principal role of the carrier and her air wing within the Carrier Strike Group is to provide the primary offensive firepower, while the other ships provide defense and support. These roles are not exclusive, however. Other ships in the strike group sometimes undertake offensive operations (launching cruise missiles, for instance) and the carrier's air wing contributes to the strike group's defense (through combat air patrols and airborne anti-submarine efforts).
Does a one of the escorts acting as Red Crown, carrying out interdiction operations with merchant shipping, or naval gunfire support count as offensive? The Strike Group could act as escort for a convoy or an amphibious force.....
Anyway, I stumbled upon this from the US Navy whilst looking for carrier related stuff:
The Carrier Strike Group is a flexible naval force that can operate in confined waters or in the open ocean, during day and night, in all weather conditions. The principal role of the carrier and her air wing within the Carrier Strike Group is to provide the primary offensive firepower, while the other ships provide defense and support. These roles are not exclusive, however. Other ships in the strike group sometimes undertake offensive operations (launching cruise missiles, for instance) and the carrier's air wing contributes to the strike group's defense (through combat air patrols and airborne anti-submarine efforts).
Does a one of the escorts acting as Red Crown, carrying out interdiction operations with merchant shipping, or naval gunfire support count as offensive? The Strike Group could act as escort for a convoy or an amphibious force.....
Thread Starter
It appears someone has decided that it is a good idea to point out that when used in a defensive role, carrier based aircraft protect the entire task group (including amphibious forces, logistics convoys, etc being escorted):
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 28th Jun 2019 at 07:55.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality check
Now think again.
Last edited by weemonkey; 29th Jun 2019 at 12:21.
I have not studied the price of "eggs" but sooner or later the cost becomes irrelevant and you must break a few. I acknowledge it would be quite an omelette.
IG.
IG.
" an attack on a UK asset of that magnitude " but what magnitude of attack?
If someone sneaks up when she's in port and explodes a large change and sinks her? or an unidentified mine or drone from someone who doesn't claim the credit??
You're not going to fry a substantial part of the world on a guess
If someone sneaks up when she's in port and explodes a large change and sinks her? or an unidentified mine or drone from someone who doesn't claim the credit??
You're not going to fry a substantial part of the world on a guess
I am not referring to a terrorist strike but a major conventional war..By the time an attack on that ship has occurred, many other assets will have been destroyed including onshore bases.
I would suggest that frying a large part of ones adversary might well be in order.
IG
I would suggest that frying a large part of ones adversary might well be in order.
IG
Thread Starter
Hopefully somebody will have the good sense to say that carrierborne aircraft flying air defence sorties are protecting the entire task group, which includes things such as amphibious forces, a Ro Ro full of armoured vehicles, ASW or troop carrying helicopters being threatened by enemy MiGs, a Mines Countermeasures force trying to open up a port....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,754
Received 2,738 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
as per previous I'm sure there is a lot more e to this than anyone is saying..............
maybe we'll get his side of the story in a couple of years time when he's safely in anew job in civi street
maybe we'll get his side of the story in a couple of years time when he's safely in anew job in civi street
Sprung a leak.................
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-48933881
The UK's new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, has returned from sea trials early after a leak was found.
The Royal Navy's future flagship left Portsmouth Naval Base last month for five weeks of sea trials and training. A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman described the leak as "a minor issue with an internal system" on Britain's biggest and most powerful warship. The £3.1 billion ship returned to Portsmouth as a precautionary measure after the leak was found on Tuesday.
The water was pumped out and the 900ft (280m) long warship returned to port. The MoD said: "An investigation into the cause is under way."
This latest problem follows a number of other issues including a shaft seal leak, which caused water to pour into the ship, and the accidental trigger of the sprinklers in the hangar.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-48933881
The UK's new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, has returned from sea trials early after a leak was found.
The Royal Navy's future flagship left Portsmouth Naval Base last month for five weeks of sea trials and training. A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman described the leak as "a minor issue with an internal system" on Britain's biggest and most powerful warship. The £3.1 billion ship returned to Portsmouth as a precautionary measure after the leak was found on Tuesday.
The water was pumped out and the 900ft (280m) long warship returned to port. The MoD said: "An investigation into the cause is under way."
This latest problem follows a number of other issues including a shaft seal leak, which caused water to pour into the ship, and the accidental trigger of the sprinklers in the hangar.
Sounds like it was quite a big leak........ but then have the RN ever built a ship that didn't have a leak?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-48947455
A leak which forced the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier to return to port saw water rise "neck-high" in flooded areas, the BBC has been told. The biggest and most powerful warship ever built in Britain experienced the leak during sea trials on Tuesday. It was believed to have come from a ruptured pipe which caused some internal damage, the BBC learned.
The Royal Navy described it as a "minor issue relating to water from an internal system" on the £3.1bn ship. On Wednesday a Royal Navy statement said the ship had returned early from sea trials as a "precautionary measure" with an investigation into the cause underway. It said: "At no point was there damage or breach to the hull. The issue was isolated as soon as possible and all water has now been pumped out. "
The BBC's defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said the leak was "more serious than most". He added: "A source told the BBC that in some compartments the water was neck high."
The BBC has contacted the navy for further details.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-48947455
A leak which forced the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier to return to port saw water rise "neck-high" in flooded areas, the BBC has been told. The biggest and most powerful warship ever built in Britain experienced the leak during sea trials on Tuesday. It was believed to have come from a ruptured pipe which caused some internal damage, the BBC learned.
The Royal Navy described it as a "minor issue relating to water from an internal system" on the £3.1bn ship. On Wednesday a Royal Navy statement said the ship had returned early from sea trials as a "precautionary measure" with an investigation into the cause underway. It said: "At no point was there damage or breach to the hull. The issue was isolated as soon as possible and all water has now been pumped out. "
The BBC's defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said the leak was "more serious than most". He added: "A source told the BBC that in some compartments the water was neck high."
The BBC has contacted the navy for further details.
did he say anything about the leak?