Max Hastings is a moron - who seems to write to suit the agenda of the editor.

From here:

Guess who said that in 2007? Or this, in 2004 ?

Ponder who might have said this, in 2006..

Any guesses? Anyone....?

From here:

Why do you think it's worth sharing?

He makes some predictably poorly informed but biased comments such as quoting 36 a/c per platform reduced to 12. That isn't the case, the overall procurement of a/c hasn't reduced, what has changed are assumptions over how many should routinely operate from the platform apart from on specific tasking.

He bangs on about needing the entire fleet to support/protect it - which is simply ludicrous and fails to even consider operating with coalition/allied support.

He suggests cheap and cheerful steel late on top of tanker hulls for aircraft carriers - a clear indication he should stick to bottom-end journalism and leave others to Naval architecture! Even more stupidly he suggests buying low-tech aircraft - really? When in other parts he quotes the threat from a resurgent (and technically improving ) Russia!

We all know the CVF have absorbed large amounts of the EP and they are a struggle to man - that's symptomatic of the position the wider Navy is in, not just because of the CVF. The Armed Forces across the board are all finding manning an issue and I suspect will continue to do so.

As DM rants go, this is just puerile.

What about the bit that putting QE to sea will basically soak up all available RN surface fleet assets? Wake up and smell the roses WEBF, the carriers are a capability we cant afford and should have been sunk long ago (before they were built).

God knows what we are going to with them!

not ALL the rest of the Navy -

just quite a lot of it - all of which is currently overworked doing the day job...............

Was tempted to add 'Lets do the TIME WARP again' to the video but hey wot the hey... "just a jump to the left..." :}

Not the most attractive of vessels is it? The two islands make it look really odd. Who hasn't anyone else built an aircraft carrier with two separate islands?

It? IT? :=

SHE looks fantastic and I daresay similar things were said when the RN introduced other innovations such as the steam catapult, angled flight deck, mirror landing aids and the ski jump.

Having two islands provides redundancy (duplicate functionality at a pinch), more efficient access routes and a hugely reduced requirement for bulky horizontal ventilation and heat susceptible exhaust trunking among other benefits.

Belated thanks for your clear explanation.

Two islands!?
 

Round objects! Redundancy in what, pray? Is the idea that the aft island can act as some sort of ECP? Of course it can't, any more than the forrard island can manage the Flyco and ACR business.
I have always thought that the 2 island concept was one of the dafter ideas in a pretty daft overall concept. Clearly the brainchild of someone with little or no knowledge of naval aviation. All the FAA's long experience has shown that aviation and ship matters have to be integrated. Carriers are not "floating airfields". They are ships with a weapon system, and management of the two aspects are interlinked at every level, from manning (sorry, HR) through to ship handling. A simple and not predictable example: in HMS Eagle's first commission, they had the bright idea of having two wardrooms, one for the Air Group and the other for ship's company officers. This led to disastrous morale breakdown, and was dropped immediately in Ark and later in Eagle.

At a more operational level, anyone who has ever worked on the bridge of a carrier will know that there has to be a constant face-to-face dialogue between Cdr (Air), the Captain, the Navigating Officer and the Ops Officer, generally conducted around the Captain's chair, to resolve the inevitably conflicting demands of the Flypro (wind over deck, aircraft movements etc), navigation (ship safety, colregs etc) and tactical command (e.g. screen management). Conduct of negotiations with the parties in two entirely separate parts of the ship will be indescribably difficult. I know someone will say "Oh but they'll have excellent (Windows XP driven!) teleconferencing facilities", but that don't answer. How, over a video link can you stab your finger at a paragraph in a signal and say "But, sir, in Diamond's signal she says that ..."?

Poor Capt Kyd and his team.

Twin islands - I always thought (in moments of levity) that maybe it was becasue they had two design teams originally (BAe & VT systems) and they put the islands in different places on the deck.................... the compromise solution was to keep both.........

IIRC something like that happened with the design of the Moskva hotel in Moscow under J V Stalin.......................

PS how do two islands REDUCE air turbulance? Sure they are smaller but there must be more interference in the flow with two???

So incoming missiles just have to aim between the two islands if there is no cross painted in the middle of the deck?

No skin off my nose.

This forum is as open to opinionated ignorance (especially that of dyed-in-the-wool traditionalists) as anywhere else. ;)

Ten years ago? Strikes me that those in power still don't have a scooby even now....

This simplistic view reveals an underlying ignorance of modern day real politic.

The fore and aft island concept was lifted directly from the Italians. It anticipates the very real possibility of having to rapidly transit from full speed ahead to full speed reverse.

Typically this capability would come into it own when the political masters demand an instant reversal of policy without suffering the indignity of being seen to do a U-turn.

For much the same reason I understand that the ships are being fitted with an enhanced turning capability.

This is required in order that the ship can match the performance of its political masters. That is to say it can sail round in ever decreasing circles until it eventually disappears up its own a**e.

Indeed - but I have lived through 15 "Administrations" in the UK

Only two PM's were really first rate - Attlee & Thatcher - and even they had their off days

And some (Eden, Brown, May) have been really dreadful.............

Flipping innovation hey! Think aft tower is a bit more than an ECP. With those wonderful consoles they have full function, albeit Moreno limited visibility and space. This of course flips.

Get the need for animated discussion, but every war canoe I served on had an ops room away from the bridge. Skipper and PWO boss flip as required. Surely Cdr Air does not drive the flight deck himself, so will flip between towers based on the need. So I am sure finger pointing at the signal (on any tablet I assume :-)) will still happen.

Personally I am way away from the RN now, but "assume" your concerns have been well considered.

Plenty o'studies of those TWin peaKs with CFD analysis PDFs all over - here is one.

The Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers: Airwake Modelling and Validation for ASTOVL Flight Simulation
https://tinyurl.com/y7afq9k8 (PDF 1.8Mb)
OR
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...Simulation.pdf (1.8Mb)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...m.gif~original

The two islands are a reflection of the command structure.

The forward island will be run by the Navy to control the ship.

The rear island will be run by the RAF who have pretty much taken over naval aviation.

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.

An interesting mixture of truth and mis-information from the Russian Defence Ministry to Fallon reported on beeb. Pretty obvious which parts are true. :uhoh:

OAP

Where is he wrong?

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?

Assuming it's being accurately targetted, you just wait for it to be launched, and then move out of the way.

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'.

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" :E


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.

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

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.

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?

Britain’s New Aircraft Carrier Starts Sea Trials 29 Jun 2017 Chris Pocock
One for 'WEBF' & water carriers....

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

I'd take an aircraft carrier, anytime

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................

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.....

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...

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).:}

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

Thanks to Mr Boffin for that comprehensive answer.

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??

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.

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

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!!)