Future Carrier (Including Costs)

[Just This Once...]

Originally Posted by Haraka

Could one of you experts perhaps tell me how you can confidently protect such a high value target from a Surface-to-Surface long or intermediate range (possibly Nuc. from an emerging nation in the coming years ) ballistic missile coming down from above at terminal velocity?

Why use something so dramatic given the almost total absence of self-defence fitted to the UK carrier?

This high value target relies on others for protection, so we must hope that this works out ok. Such reliance on others has never been tried before so I guess we need to keep our fingers crossed.

After fitting 'yesterday's CIWS' to the ship I guess we are ready to defend against 'yesterday's anti-ship missiles'.

[sandiego89]

Originally Posted by keith williams

.....More seriously, the two islands permit the lifts to be located out of the take-off strip, so a jammed lift will not prevent running take-offs.

I don't think it was just for the elevators (lifts). Many carriers have deck edge elevators and the traditional single island.


IIRC the twin islands also allow:
- Better visibility for the ships navigation crew being farther forward, and better visibility for the aviation team seeing the flight deck and directing operations from the rear island.
- Reduced trunking for main engine intakes/exhaust, vice having to route all this from the two engine room into a single stack. Turbines needs lots of air. Not a concern for nuclear carriers.
- Better spacing of antennas/radar.
- Reduced burble from hot air exhaust.
- better weight distribution/balance.
- More room for "goofers"


Cons:
- Likely increased overall weight and cost.
- likely increased radar signature (not that the ship is designed as stealthy)
- Diminished coordination between ship navigation and aviation teams.


Interestingly the FORD seems to have gone to the other extreme with a single small island, very far aft.

[2805662]

Originally Posted by Haraka

Could one of you experts perhaps tell me how you can confidently protect such a high value target from a Surface-to-Surface long or intermediate range (possibly Nuc. from an emerging nation in the coming years ) ballistic missile coming down from above at terminal velocity?

Move it - just like a fixed air base. Oh, wait!

[kbrockman]

Originally Posted by Haraka

Could one of you experts perhaps tell me how you can confidently protect such a high value target from a Surface-to-Surface long or intermediate range (possibly Nuc. from an emerging nation in the coming years ) ballistic missile coming down from above at terminal velocity?
Last edited by Haraka; 29th Jun 2017 at 20:04.

There is always a chance that someone cripples or sinks a high value target.
In this case it will mean a having available top of the line, highly powerful weapon almost solely available to nations, certainly talking nuclear.

Now ask yourself, what will the political implications be for such a nation if they
decide on doing something drastic like that?
It means a declaration of war, nothing less and will almost certainly mean retaliation
with minimally the same consequences, probably even much more than that.
when talking nuclear expect at least a nuclear strike as an answer to something absolutely crucial (a big military base, a seaport, a major city).

Carriers are not just any other military ship, they are much more than that.
Their presence, size, value and large military complement (1000-s of sailors) is a protection in itself, somebody deciding to attack it surely must expect a devastating
response.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Originally Posted by Torquelink

Where is he wrong?

You might be interested in this thread over on ARRSE which covers the idea of fitting anti ship/anti air missiles to a carrier at the expense of aircraft.

Also the Russians have to worry about the Montreux Convention.

Do you think Moscow might being trying to undermine the West perhaps?

[SpazSinbad]

Britain’s New Aircraft Carrier Starts Sea Trials 29 Jun 2017 Chris Pocock

"...Blount [ Rear Admiral Keith Blount, assistant chief of the naval staff for aviation] said that the UK is aiming for “the greatest possible inter-operability” with the U.S. Marine Corps’ fleet of F-35Bs, and that a formal initial agreement had been signed. HMS Queen Elizabeth will go to the U.S. later next year for more trials that will likely embark USMC as well as British F-35Bs...." http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...rts-sea-trials

One for 'WEBF' & water carriers....

You Tube

[peter we]

Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic

Do you think Moscow might being trying to undermine the West perhaps?

Bull**** and lies are Russians first line defense.

I'd take an aircraft carrier, anytime

[Heathrow Harry]

Hmmm..we've never had a real war (except the Falklands) between a carrier equipped force and a large modern littoral nation since 1945.

I'd expect that, as usual, there would be some horrible surprises................

[Not_a_boffin]

Originally Posted by sandiego89

Interestingly the FORD seems to have gone to the other extreme with a single small island, very far aft.

The Ford doesn't need a large set of uptakes and downtakes to feed diesel and gas turbine generators.


Four things drove the two-island configuration :


1. Minimise flightdeck area lost. Not something UK has traditionally been good at (see Eagle and CVS for examples).
2. Provide separation/redundancy for up/downtakes. It's a bit pointless having a split power system if you end up with single point failure in way of the up/downtakes. As noted elsewhere, it also reduces the impact of those up/down takes - particularly with the positioning of the two GTs.
3. EMI/EMC. Topside space for antennae is at a premium. The Ford has got round this by a super-doper new integrated set of radars and comms systems, with planar arrays etc. UK didn't have the money to do that, so opted for more topside area - but still trying to minimise loss of FD area.
4. Navigation. The nav's view from Ford must be shocking. The RN didn't fancy that - particularly given the tight entry to Portsmouth.


there will undoubtedly be limitations - particularly wrt OOW/Wings co-ordination - but the RN will work through those, just as the RAF will have to learn to work aboard ship.....

[pr00ne]

Just This Once,

"This high value target relies on others for protection, so we must hope that this works out ok. Such reliance on others has never been tried before so I guess we need to keep our fingers crossed."

Er, you are totally ignoring history, and fairly recent history at that. For the whole of its life with Phantoms and Buccaneers HMS Ark Royal was armed with nothing more lethal than ceremonial saluting cannon. Yet nobody questioned its vulnerability, in fact it was widely publicised as the most powerful warship in the history of the Royal Navy.

So I guess it has been tried before. And in a era where we only had 8 destroyers and the average Frigate was armed with 4.5 inch guns and manually aimed Seacat...

[ACW342]

Nukes, Pink Gin & Heineken

KBROCKMAN, I think you can forget the nuclear response from us if the leader of Her Majesties Loyal Opposition sends the tories into opposition at the next general election.

On the other hand, if there is an embarked air wing of the USMC (Semper Fi!) I think the White House reaction would be more appropriate than Jeremys.

Speaking of embarked US Marines, I think that they will enjoy the refreshments available in Ward room and mess decks a little more refreshing than Gatorade (other non alcoholic drinks are (sadly) available).

[steamchicken]

I'm sure talking made the Russians feel better about it.

[George K Lee]

Thanks to Mr Boffin for that comprehensive answer.

[Green Flash]

If there is a US Marine Sqn embarked, will the Donald insist that an Aegis cruiser and/or other US floaty-bang stuff will also be in attendance??

[idle bystander]

Thanks to Mr Boffin for that comprehensive answer.

Yes, an interesting response, and seemingly from "la bouche du canasson" as someone said on another thread, so a good explanation of the rationale. But I remain sceptical. Previous attempts (from 1918 onwards) by the RN to separate WAFU business from fish-head business have had led to unhappiness all round.

[George K Lee]

I think the key bit is the location of the turbine-generator sets. I suspect (and The Golden Dustman* can correct me) that there would be no dual islands if the boat was not turbine-electric.

*Dickens, Our Mutual Friend

[ACW342]

Fish-Heads & Crab Meat

When I was starving....oops serving at Lossie, 75 -78 I believe there was an invite from 849 Sqn to the RAF to attend a dinner in "The Wardroom" where the RAF were served Crab meat sandwiches. The RAF reciprocated with a serving of Fish heads (or possibly the other way round. it's a long time since I last saw double Mamba fast pursuit ship!!)

[SpazSinbad]

You Tube

[LowNSlow]

So the latest and greatest Fisheries Protection vessel enters service! Now we can patrol the North Sea effectively and stop the Dutch stealing our fish!!

European fishing chief says Britain has no control of UK waters amid Royal Navy threat | UK | News | Express.co.uk

Britain risks becoming a ?laughing stock? if it cannot police its fishing waters, former Navy chief warns - Yorkshire Post

[Wokkafans]

Spaz - the Merlin wasn't the first rotary to land on QE

https://twitter.com/VAdmJWoodcock/st...84253910810624