Tech Guy,

Still a huge improvement on HMS Ark Royal who had a defensive armament consisting entirely of saluting cannon, yet up until her retirement in 1978 was still trotted out as "the RN's most powerful warship ever!"

This is what the Chinese put on their carrier:

https://www.navyrecognition.com/imag...ft_Carrier.jpg

That's an eleven-barrel 30-mill firing at 170 rounds per second. Can we say "supersonic wall of steel"?

USS Gerald R Ford - newest CVN:

2 x RIM-162 launchers for Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles.
2 x RIM-116 for Rolling Airframe Missiles.
3 x Phalanx CIWS.

4 x M2 .50 cal guns.

JEngO, you may unwittingly have hit the nail on the head..

It's a complex subject, with many variables, but a UTH beam rider has a number of advantages, least of all burn through and HOGE; ah well, dream of Sea Flash.. along with Sea Sparrow, a relatively cheap as chips alternative =more bangs per pound sterling, post brexit..now about that missing angled flight deck etc..

Barrels look pretty well clamped down so moa will be down to tracking and hysteresis in control systems...on that shot though no sign of the Phalanx money maker IR tracker..

You're welcome. Say hello to my little friend, Mr Plastic Cruise Missile.

PS I'm not sure I'd like to get into a Chinese warship's keep-out zone with a RHIB either.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/34/86...3659febcbd.jpg

The idea of arming carriers with missiles (various) in lieu of aircraft was discussed a year ago over on ARRSE.

Aircraft Carriers, their use and how Britain should use them

Some of you might find it an interesting read. You will note those with practical experience were not convinced it was a good idea. There is also the usual selection of strange and ill informed comments.

So does Great Britain.

Rather more cheaply, and with a much greater range of alternates.

Airstrip One, as it was called by a bloke called Blair.

Appropriately named Mr Lee.

I hope they carry a lot of ammunition... 170 shots per second is quite a burn rate

They build'em big.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/imag...ype-055_17.jpg

Appropriately named Mr Lee.

You've got me there. I am of course descended from a famous Chinese commander.

http://www.theimaginativeconservativ...bert-e-lee.jpg

It says quite a lot when we have to compare it to a vessel ordered during WWII. Originally fitted with AA guns (around 50) befitting of the times. In later life the guns had gone but she was fitted for (but I don't think with) Seacat missiles.

The RN's optimism regarding air threats does indeed go a long way back. One presumes that the RN thinks that US / China / Russia / France have misjudged matters when providing a layered defence on their carriers including extensive EW and missiles... and unlike the RN they don't plan on operating in the littoral as a helicopter carrier!

well of course they'll be accompanied by a T45 - if there is one available

And that means anywhere warm is an unlikely destination for a while either...............

But Portsmouth will be pretty well defended against enemy air........

The rub is that the small number frigates and destroyers have always been needed for other tasks. When a carrier deploys then either these tasks are actually not needed or the carrier sails on its own.

As to how the RN will be able to muster a mixed fleet of frigates, destroyers, RFAs etc at the same time to support sequential carrier deployments remains a mystery. RN manning and RN ports are not exactly used to such events; launching vessels as and when is considerably less taxing than supporting a carrier cycle. The RN will need more money to make this capability actually work.

Just a couple of points, which will no doubt be ignored as most of my comments are:

This thread has been running 11 years now. Given that these carriers are supposed to be build with an intended 50 year lifespan (working seals permitting), can we expect to still read comments here in 40 years time? If so I suggest the title of the thread is changed from "Future" Carrier.

The main gate decision to build these carriers was taken in November 2006. At the time the target In Service Dates for the ships were 2012 and 2015. I said at the time that these were wildly optimistic! I believe that HMS Queen Elizabeth was commissioned on 7th December 2017, with Initial Operating Capability in 2018, but an In Service date? Even if it's 2018, that's a 6 year delay on a 6 year target (yes, I know people will go at length about delays caused by decision of what aircraft type to use, conventional vs VSTOL, and subsequent redesigns - but it's still been 12 years instead of 6, and 6 was never going to be met in my opinion).

How very prophetic of you.

Aah yes you can tell by the eyes, though I doubt he was quite so pro Chinese as you seem.

But as you have pointed out these super-weapons are protecting China’s new carriers so they must be good and the carriers completely invulnerable.

The official line is that when in a high threat environment the carrier will be normally be accompanied by two ASW T23/T26s (out of eight), two T45s (out of 6), an RFA (probably one of four Tide class currently coming on stream) and an Astute. In practice two of the escorts may well comprise a French asset and a US asset, reflecting collaborative arrangements that have been in place for some time now. If the one front line carrier does one peacetime overseas deployment per year that ought to be achievable, albeit at a fuller stretch than is ideal. And I certainly wouldn't deny that the RN could do with a few more escorts.

Yes, a good part of the delay was indeed added in deliberately by the politicians. By way of comparison, Typhoon was delivered in 2003, some 4.5 years late and IIRC it achieved limited IOC some four years after that. Concept work on what has evolved into the Type 26 frigate (now due in service in the mid 2020s) began in 1994. What became the Type 45 destroyer was originally envisaged as entering service around 2000 but actually entered service in 2009. Nimrod MRA4 was ordered in 1996 with a planned ISD of 2003. The project was binned in 2010 by which time the ISD had slipped to 2012. You could also have some fun looking at the tale of the army's armoured vehicle plans over the last 20 years or so. At least with the carriers we are now on the cusp of gaining a couple of highly capable and flexible assets, the biggest problem to have emerged with the first vessel being a dodgy propshaft seal.