The shrinking Royal Navy

[TomE]

As per the link on the previous page, the two carriers are the first RN ships to use BAe's proprietary operating system, Shared Infrastructure, from launch. XP is only used during the install & testing phase. 

 

Shared Infrastructure will be rolled out to the rest of the surface fleet over the next few years, so there will be no usage of any sort of Windows at all eventually. 

 

All this talk of XP is just typical Daily Mail shoddy journalism at its inaccurate worst. 

 

Tom. 

[jjb1970]

There will be all sorts of software on these ships, just about all the key systems rely on embedded software in controllers and given how long the ships have taken to build and the fact that such software is not cutting edge to start with (it doesn't need to be) I'm guessing there'll be all sorts. The engines are electronically controlled and were out of warranty many years ago and most systems beyond the most basic level will have some degree of plc control.

[Torper]

I'm sure that this is a terrific ship - but isn't it also a rather vulnerable target?  I'm pretty unconvinced that vessels of this size will survive for long in modern warfare or, like the Kuznetsov's recent sortie, is it just going to be used to support operations against an enemy that has no real means of retaliation?.

 

DT

[The Stationmaster]

I'm sure that this is a terrific ship - but isn't it also a rather vulnerable target?  I'm pretty unconvinced that vessels of this size will survive for long in modern warfare or, like the Kuznetsov's recent sortie, is it just going to be used to support operations against an enemy that has no real means of retaliation?.

 

DT

 

Just about any potential enemy has 'some means of retaliation' even if it's no more than a suicide inclined nutter in a fast motor boat full of high explosive or a similarly 'equipped' light aircraft.  And all warships are vulnerable to something, or many things, in a shooting war ranging from mines and torpedoes to missiles and even gunfire, and the latter can just as easily be from field artillery ashore if a ship gets close enough (not that a vessel like QE would).   The answer to any such threats is to have the necessary weapon systems and fleet support to counter them and all large warships need that sort of protection including the handful we already possess (which are actually far more likely to operate close inshore so represent potentially simpler targets.

[pete_mcfarlane]

... and the latter can just as easily be from field artillery ashore if a ship gets close enough (not that a vessel like QE would).   T

Didn't an RN carrier do some shore bombardment in the Korean War? That was back in the days when carriers had 4.5" guns.

 

The QE class has the same lack of defensive missiles as the Invincibles after their mid-life refit. I don't seem to recall any online speculation about those ships being destroyed by an anti-ship missiles.

[Torper]

So basically our new £3billion plus carrier has no defence against missiles such as Russia's Granit, far less the new 3M22 Zircon?

 

DT

[Ohmisterporter]

Looking at the two bridge structures on the QEC I was struck by the contrast with the USS Gerald Ford whose bridge looks to be too far towards the stern. Obviously the USN knows what it is doing and a forward bridge would take up deck parking space, perhaps reducing the size of the air wing. The size of Ford's bridge looks to be smaller than those on QEC which makes me wonder why those structures are so big especially as Ford's bridge has the double function of navigation and air operations. Perhaps the double bridge will be the way forward.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier#/media/File:USS_Gerald_R._Ford_(CVN-78)_arrives_at_Naval_Station_Norfolk_on_14_April_2017.JPG

[Ohmisterporter]

From the Bring the heat, bring the stupid blog is this video showing trials of a new stand off missile being developed jointly for the US Army and Navy, potentially as a new anti-ship missile. If you like to see missiles hitting targets this should please.

 

http://blog.xbradtc.com/2017/06/splodey-1.html

[jjb1970]

Part of the reason for the twin island layout was to reconcile the different requirements for air and ship ops and position of the deck structures.

 

On defence, the QEC is not totally defenceless as it has CIWS but the RN has always considered that the weapons carried by a carrier are its aircraft. They will be escorted by T45 destroyers in service (and most likely, warships from allied navies such as USN DDGs) and if an enemy air attack gets through the air defence screen and saturates the escorts then it’s likely that the carrier is finished anyway. Some of the Soviet carriers were very heavily armed but it consumes space. Most navies seem to limit carrier weapons to final layer defensive weapons. That said, personally I think it might be wise to install a small Sea Ceptor system (or even Sea RAM) on the QEC.

[jamie92208]

Looking at the two bridge structures on the QEC I was struck by the contrast with the USS Gerald Ford whose bridge looks to be too far towards the stern. Obviously the USN knows what it is doing and a forward bridge would take up deck parking space, perhaps reducing the size of the air wing. The size of Ford's bridge looks to be smaller than those on QEC which makes me wonder why those structures are so big especially as Ford's bridge has the double function of navigation and air operations. Perhaps the double bridge will be the way forward.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier#/media/File:USS_Gerald_R._Ford_(CVN-78)_arrives_at_Naval_Station_Norfolk_on_14_April_2017.JPG

Perhaps the difference is that the Gerald Ford is nuclear powered and thus doesn't need engine room exhausts. From pictures of QE under way there seems to be exhaust from both stacks.

 

Jamie

[TomE]

I'm sure that this is a terrific ship - but isn't it also a rather vulnerable target? I'm pretty unconvinced that vessels of this size will survive for long in modern warfare or, like the Kuznetsov's recent sortie, is it just going to be used to support operations against an enemy that has no real means of retaliation?.

 

DT

It will, eventually, be fitted with Close In Weapons Systems (CIWS), but no carrier is designed to be able to completely defend itself without the rest of the carrier strike group, which in our case will be formed of Type 23 for anti submarine and Type 45 for air defense. I imagine there will more often than not be an Astute lurking close by.

 

As for the newer Russian anti shipping missiles, I'm sure there will be 'top men' working on defensive systems to deal with these, but the US Navy's new $12 billion carrier is just as vulnerable as our £3.1 billion carrier.

 

Tom.

Edited June 29, 2017 by TomE

[TomE]

Perhaps the difference is that the Gerald Ford is nuclear powered and thus doesn't need engine room exhausts. From pictures of QE under way there seems to be exhaust from both stacks.Jamie

I believe the twin island design stems from the location of the two main powerplants, which are directly under each Island and dictate the position of the exhausts. They could have had one Long Island like the Invinciables, but you would then loose deck space that can be better utilised. It also has the advantage of offering some form of redundancy should one Island be rendended out of action for any reason.

 

Tom.

[Bon Accord]

It will, eventually, be fitted with Close In Weapons Systems (CIWS), but no carrier is designed to be able to completely defend itself without the rest of the carrier strike group, which in our case will be formed of Type 23 for anti submarine and Type 45 for air defense. I imagine there will more often than not be an Astute lurking close by.

 

Tom.

 

CIWS is of course last gasp/last line of defence along with lines of matelots out on deck armed with SA80s trying to hit incoming missiles.

At the moment we don't normally have a spare 23/45 available outwith normal commitments, so unless those commitments change or we add more hulls (neither of which are likely at least in the short term) then from I what hear it'll just be a single RN escort (probably T45) with some "help from our friends". That being something I'd first heard mooted as long ago as 2006, and we had more ships then.

Personally, I tend to believe that unless we invest in enough ships so that we can at least mount and adequately protect a carrier/amphibious group without slashing all other activities to the bone then to me the QE class are really just an expensive white elephant whose main purpose in life is political willy waving.

[robert17649]

the problem with gurt big botes like this is that tichy itsy aeroplanes can sink them mighty quickly as demonstrated many times in the 2nd world war, submarines are pretty good at that as well, you dont need fancy weaponry, you do need a big enough navy to protect big ships.

 

basically nice as it is the Queen Elizabeth is a damn great white elephant. I agree totally with Bon Accord, especially as we know all prime ministers need a willy.

Edited June 29, 2017 by robert17649

[Legend]

I think we have a habit of under protecting and under arming our ships. Has she already got CIWS installed , if not , why not . What do you call an Aircraft Carrier without aircraft ........a sitting duck! So we also need these F35s on there and let's do the job properly . She needs to defend herself properly and project power . Let's not go off half cocked as we usually do

[Bon Accord]

I think we have a habit of under protecting and under arming our ships. Has she already got CIWS installed , if not , why not . What do you call an Aircraft Carrier without aircraft ........a sitting duck! So we also need these F35s on there and let's do the job properly . She needs to defend herself properly and project power . Let's not go off half cocked as we usually do

 

The RN/RFA has faced a shortage of CIWS for years, such that as soon as a ship goes into layup/reserve it's normally the first thing that's robbed - this is all down to budget of course. All this in stark contrast to the US where you'll find most of their reserve fleet warships (which will probably never sail again and number the many dozens) still have theirs fitted, rusting away. The same can be said about anti-ship capability, all the type 45 had in that area was the main gun, as they were "fitted for, but not with" Harpoon anti ship missiles. Once the T22 batch 3 were decommissioned, their Harpoon launchers were cannibalised and are at last being fitted to 4 out of the 6 type 45 destroyers.

After the gaping AAW/close in protection shortcomings shown up during the Falklands, that in this day and age any of our very small fleet of large RN/RFA units go to sea without CIWS is nothing short of scandalous. What makes it worse is that the money to pay for this to be put right on our existing fleet (and which we're constantly told isn't available) will cost less than the partial loyalty of a couple of DUP MPs.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Bon Accord

[Legend]

The RN/RFA has faced a shortage of CIWS for years, such that as soon as a ship goes into layup/reserve it's normally the first thing that's robbed - this is all down to budget of course. All this in stark contrast to the US where you'll find most of their reserve fleet warships (which will probably never sail again and number the many dozens) still have theirs fitted, rusting away. The same can be said about anti-ship capability, all the type 45 had in that area was the main gun, as they were "fitted for, but not with" Harpoon anti ship missiles. Once the T22 batch 3 were decommissioned, their Harpoon launchers were cannibalised and are at last being fitted to 4 out of the 6 type 45 destroyers.

After the gaping AAW/close in protection shortcomings shown up during the Falklands, that in this day and age any of our very small fleet of large RN/RFA units go to sea without CIWS is nothing short of scandalous. What makes it worse is that the money to pay for this to be put right on our existing fleet (and which we're constantly told isn't available) will cost less than the partial loyalty of a couple of DUP MPs.

 

Completely agree Jim !  You know to an extent I think we just play at defence in this country.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Legend

[Guest]

I think all we need in terms of naval defence is just a sufficient number of small warships to protect our own shores. As long as those in power feel the need to cosy up to the Yanks and go off and fight wars that have sod all to do with us, we'll be overstretched. The general public certainly seem to have lost their appetite for overseas intervention and "flag-waving". I am patriotic, but there is a limit.

[brack]

The Russian carriers have traditionally had plenty of anti ship missile capability, but have been rather useless as an actual carrier. If you look at the last voyage of the kuznetsov and it's accompanying salvage fleet it was essentially pointless - they ferried a couple of aircraft to somewhere that Russia already had land based planes operating from an airbase, and those planes could have flown there on their own in a few hours instead of being carried around. Making a statement is all its about. I'm not saying our carriers are unnecessary, they'll be very handy in the event of a Falklands (or Gibraltar?) incident and they're good at reminding people that we're still here or running military interventions like the Sierra Leone one (which was pretty much successful, non controversial and aside from liberty and peace gave us proof of the survival of some lovely locos). Like the nuclear subs, we have them in the hope that they never need to be used, they help us retain our position and influence (such as we have left after recent events) in the world and their existence reduces the likelihood that they'll be needed.

[The Stationmaster]

So basically our new £3billion plus carrier has no defence against missiles such as Russia's Granit, far less the new 3M22 Zircon?

 

DT

 

The intention is to fit three Phalanx sets although the matter of chaff launchers seems to be left unmentioned so far although another system is mentioned in some online reports (but it is not a permanent fit and could allegedly be shipped fairly easily.  They will also be able to deploy lighter weapons although I would question the effectiveness of those apart from making a lot of noise with a high rate of fire of small calibre ammunition although they might well be effective in stopping the close approach of small craft.

[TomE]

White Elephant....

 

I'm inclined to disagree, I think the 2 carriers will prove their worth across several fields, not just carrier strike capability, but I guess time will tell on that front. Who knows what is around the corner these days! 

 

I do agree however that we do not have anywhere near enough escorts, and would like to see that addressed, but history shows that defence is always a very large political football. With governments of the day reluctant to commit to expending the kind of money that these projects invariably require for fear of backlash over the cost, we end up in the kind of situation we saw in the early days of the carrier program when constant delays to procurement simply resulted in more money being required in the end. What we desperately need is well laid out long term procurement plan with some wriggle room for unforeseen future requirements. Will the UK National Shipbuilding Strategy provide that? If the politicians don't eff it up then hopefully, but when you consider that from concept to contract we've gone from 2 years for the Type 21, to 19 years for the Type 26, it has a lot to address!

 

As for CIWS & aircraft, worth noting that the American's put their $12billion super carrier to sea after launch without either also, so it's not like we're the only ones sending expensive new ships out on trials with no onboard defensive capability. I understand QNLZ's CIWS will be fitted on arrival in Portsmouth and the sets are ready & waiting (for both carriers).

 

Tom.  

[Hroth]

Much of contemporary naval architecture is a study of the grotesque. The USS Zumwalt come to mind though it's growing on me too.

Ye gods!

 

That bow is straight out of the 19th Century!

[TomE]

[Bon Accord]

The Russian carriers have traditionally had plenty of anti ship missile capability, but have been rather useless as an actual carrier. If you look at the last voyage of the kuznetsov and it's accompanying salvage fleet it was essentially pointless - they ferried a couple of aircraft to somewhere that Russia already had land based planes operating from an airbase, and those planes could have flown there on their own in a few hours instead of being carried around. Making a statement is all its about. I'm not saying our carriers are unnecessary, they'll be very handy in the event of a Falklands (or Gibraltar?) incident and they're good at reminding people that we're still here or running military interventions like the Sierra Leone one (which was pretty much successful, non controversial and aside from liberty and peace gave us proof of the survival of some lovely locos). Like the nuclear subs, we have them in the hope that they never need to be used, they help us retain our position and influence (such as we have left after recent events) in the world and their existence reduces the likelihood that they'll be needed.

 

The carriers would be of no value in a Falklands type scenario. This is simply because even if both of them could be scrambled into service and both had full allocations of F35 (no chance of that for perhaps another 10-20 years), the RN/MN fleet required to support and sustain any large overseas military operation of a Falkland scale does not exist, nor has it existed for the best part of 30 years. On top of that, after continuous cutbacks over the past 25 years the physical manpower numbers amongst the RN, Marines and Army no longer exists to be able to contemplate such an operation or it's aftermath.

As for the suggestions made in certain segments of the press that we would ever contemplate a serious military operation against the Spanish over Gibraltar, the fact that reasonable and sensible people believe that would or could ever occur astonishes me.

Trident is pointless, principally because it doesn't deter anyone (and it's questionable if it ever has) for a whole multitude of reasons, it's existence purely means we keep a seat on the security council and little more. Whether that still has value is also questionable.

Any nuclear war that may occur in the future shall occur - or not - regardless of whether or not this small island possesses (a very small amount of) nuclear weapons - we are not major players in the nuclear arena and haven't been for a half century, to the extent that in both strategic and physical terms we are damn near an irrelevance.

The UK's big problem in living memory has been our total inability to accept that we have been a continually declining power since 1918 - that decline is going to continue, regardless of how many "big ticket" military items we procure.

Quite simply we do not have the money to provide or support the military capability dreamed of here and elsewhere, and there is absolutely no chance of that changing. Hence we need a collective dose of realism to take stock of our place in the world and adjust our spending priorities accordingly.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Bon Accord

[Ozexpatriate]

That bow is straight out of the 19th Century!

Amazingly advanced minimal radar cross sections those ironclads had.