HMS QE and PoW to become dual role Carrier/Amphibious ships, with landing craft

[FIGHTS ON]

EMALs works very well. Issue was thru' life costs, more so for the extra people (+ those in training) that would be required. No one had considered the true cost of the other end of that equation, the wires. USN CVNs not only change their wires every 100 traps, but have staff on board, with degrees in metallurgy to re-work them etc (= yet more costs). BAe were suggesting this could all be done by contractors..........Having seen the size of the logistical tail to keep a CVN bombed & fueled up to mount continuous OPS against ISIS, the QE class are really going to swallow up a huge chunk of the UK Defence budget, but deliver (if we do it properly) a punch way, way above our current capability.

 

Now here's an anonymous fact for you: QE with 40 x F-35 = approx 70%  of a CVN with 60. With no requirement for organic tankers (i.e thrashing your own hornets around as gas stations) AND converting MV-22's to act as COD & TANKER (fly away price currently on offer to UK at $70 million (cheaper than chinook)) then we could be on the verge of a really good thing. 

I know it's ugly, but trust me when I say the F-35 is really, really a game changer. There's a reason the crabs have jumped in on the programme so as to NOT be left behind.

 

Now mixing Amphib & Carrier Strike is a BAD idea. trying to operate jets on a flight deck with booties preparing grenades etc just isn't gonna work. Just as the 1st wave of helos return to deck to collect more ammo etc, the jets will be recovering (I assume we will try & operate cycle times like the USN). I think the suggestion is to have the QE class ready for both roles in Peacetime, then make your final dealer's choice as you go out-the-door.

 

So for your modeling projects - work on the MV-22s!!!! 'cause although they'll be bought on the argument of COD, they'll end up doing SF insertion, AAR etc....therefore the question is will they be painted USMC grey or RN pale grey????? (& work on the 40 jets constantly embarked - might be USMC with their Osprey at times, but it WILL be 40 jets)

[colin]

Does the UK government really have the funds and commitment for this, I sincerely hope so

[PLC1966]

On 22/11/2016 at 7:16 PM, FIGHTS ON said:

EMALs works very well. Issue was thru' life costs, more so for the extra people (+ those in training) that would be required. No one had considered the true cost of the other end of that equation, the wires. USN CVNs not only change their wires every 100 traps, but have staff on board, with degrees in metallurgy to re-work them etc (= yet more costs). BAe were suggesting this could all be done by contractors..........(Contractors will do anything for a price, you know and I know if we go down this route, the Navy will pay for the guys to be trained and they will upsticks for a brighter place.....)                                                                      

 

Having seen the size of the logistical tail to keep a CVN bombed & fueled up to mount continuous OPS against ISIS, the QE class are really going to swallow up a huge chunk of the UK Defence budget, but deliver (if we do it properly) a punch way, way above our current capability. (I think most of the RN will be swallowed up by the cost of the carriers in the long run (even more so than the ships sacrificed already)

 

Now here's an anonymous fact for you: QE with 40 x F-35 = approx 70%  of a CVN with 60. With no requirement for organic tankers (i.e thrashing your own hornets around as gas stations) AND converting MV-22's to act as COD & TANKER (fly away price currently on offer to UK at $70 million (cheaper than chinook)) then we could be on the verge of a really good thing.   

 

I know it's ugly, but trust me when I say the F-35 is really, really a game changer. There's a reason the crabs have jumped in on the programme so as to NOT be left behind.  Did the RAF really jump on the F-35 programme any more than the Cod Squad ?  However as the Air Environment is paying for the jet it is only fair they are lead for this...Think its nice the RAF will let any WAFU's near the F-35 !!!  (you little tinker...) 

 

Totally agree the F-35 is going to be one hell of a jet, and over the 50 years it will be in service it will be at the vanguard of Combat Aircraft Development.  And agree that it is ugly.

 

Now mixing Amphib & Carrier Strike is a BAD idea. trying to operate jets on a flight deck with booties preparing grenades etc just isn't gonna work. Just as the 1st wave of helos return to deck to collect more ammo etc, the jets will be recovering (I assume we will try & operate cycle times like the USN). I think the suggestion is to have the QE class ready for both roles in Peacetime, then make your final dealer's choice as you go out-the-door.  (Can't see it will do both task at the one time).

 

So for your modeling projects - work on the MV-22s!!!! 'cause although they'll be bought on the argument of COD, they'll end up doing SF insertion, AAR etc....therefore the question is will they be painted USMC grey or RN pale grey????? (& work on the 40 jets constantly embarked - might be USMC with their Osprey at times, but it WILL be 40 jets) (Not so sure on the MV-22 in UK Military colours.  I think it will be on the long list of nice to have but can't afford projects).

 

Good post fella.

[JohnT]

Colin

On the matter of cash - According to the BBC today our hunter killer subs are not at sea on operations at present.  With no asw aircraft I guess we are a bit bare in the cupboard when it comes to anti sub capability.  

[colin]

John, seems we are a bit bare in the cupboard with most things military at present it seems.

[davecov]

A bit off-topic but I'm currently working on a "what-if" 1/600 scale HMS Queen Elizabeth amphibious ship/aircraft carrier. Thing is, it is a conversion of the Airfix 1/600 RMS Queen Elizabeth 2:

 

Lifts are stowed in the upright position:

 

Here you can see the stern door:

 

Hardest bit is getting the air wing together - just like the modern HMS Queen Elizabeth!

 

Dave

[FIGHTS ON]

Dave, 

 

that looks amazing - really thinking outside the box. "7" Spot looks a bit dodgy to me, unless it isn't in fact intended for helicopters but rather the assembly point for the embarked Royal Marine Band?

[davecov]

Thanks!

 

Spot 7 is where the BBQ grills go.

 

Dave

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Smashing model Dave.....But make sure to give it plenty of CIWS, or it will be adding 'submarine' to it's capabilities really fast in the smart supersonic cruise-missile age. 

 

 

[Head in the clouds.]

On 10/11/2016 at 6:33 PM, Mikemx said:

Maybe they should be fitted with Harpoons, 4.5 inch guns and the AA missiles from the Type 45's as well, so they can be called Aircraft Carrying Assault Cruisers......

 

thanks

Mike 

 

Fit seats to the decks and a mobile bar or two and we can go cruising on them as well, or maybe a derrick or two and they can carry plastic dog s##t back to China in containers...oh, I could go on forever, what a joke our procurment system has become.

And the best of it is that they will be moaning and scratching their heads when the cost over runs kick in wondering how such a tight run programme could possible go over cost

I am going in to the corner now to laugh !

[Panzer Vor!!!]

So which numptie decided that two of the Royal Navy,s  biggest assets would be ok to park off a beach , when most countries have truck launched anti ship missiles ?? 

 

Fisher must be crying his eyes out at the state of  our navy 

[grahamwalker]

Oh dear looks like bae had better get its plans for the Harrier out and update them

[Albeback52]

2 hours ago, grahamwalker said:

Oh dear looks like bae had better get its plans for the Harrier out and update them

Or dig out and dust off the old M R C A (Must Refurbish Canberra Again) plans!

 

Allan

[Whitewolf]

On 12/02/2017 at 10:08 PM, Panzer Vor!!! said:

So which numptie decided that two of the Royal Navy,s  biggest assets would be ok to park off a beach , when most countries have truck launched anti ship missiles ?? 

 

Fisher must be crying his eyes out at the state of  our navy 

Simply put, that ain't gonna happen. All this waffle about using a QE as an LPH is nothing more than a poor attempt at trying to justify decommissioning HMS Ocean. Furthermore the QEs will not carry any form of landing craft, they will serve only in the strike carrier role. I suspect that unless Ocean becomes an RFA effectively replacing Argus, Argus will be used as a make shift LPH in an emergency. Albion will be back in business shortly with Bulwark in extended readiness.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Whitewolf

[Dave Fleming]

On 18/02/2017 at 0:47 PM, Stealthman said:

Simply put, that ain't gonna happen. All this waffle about using a QE as an LPH is nothing more than a poor attempt at trying to justify decommissioning HMS Ocean. Furthermore the QEs will not carry any form of landing craft, they will serve only in the strike carrier role. I suspect that unless Ocean becomes an RFA effectively replacing Argus, Argus will be used as a make shift LPH in an emergency. Albion will be back in business shortly with Bulwark in extended readiness.

 

As I recall, Argus didn't make a particularly good LPH last time she was used as such. A replacement for Argus has been slated for so long, I'm beginning to wonder if she'll just be quietly allowed to be retired in 2024.

 

The idea of converting Ocean to replace her sounds like a good one to me

[Whitewolf]

There are many who feel the answer to retaining Ocean is to turn her into an RFA. But the only problem with that is the cost of upgrading the accommodation - the RFAs have a higher standard of accommodation than RN warships. Parting with Ocean would be the dumbest thing the RN has done in a very long time, but a crisis in manpower means they can't crew POW and Ocean. Mothballing POW until such time as manpower levels rise and we have aircraft to put on her is the correct and logical way to go!