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

[bootneck]

Just seen this announcement, that PoW (first) then QE will be converted to have Assault Ship facilities as well as their carrier roles.  As PoW is still fitting out, she will have the work done before commissioning; with QE to be converted at first refit.  Scroll down the link for reference to having "light landing craft" added.

Now, do I wait for kits to come out for the carrier version and get two, one of which to convert; or do I scratchbuild a carrier and a carrier/amphib?

[Panzer Vor!!!]

HMS  Ocean and Bulwark are to be withdrawn that's why this work is being done

[old thumper]

In which case I hope Airfix haven't spent a fortune moulding kits of these ships!

 

[bootneck]

At least it will mean a larger and more varied choice of aircraft to put on the models, when kits do eventually appear.

[davecov]

3 minutes ago, old thumper said:

In which case I hope Airfix haven't spent a fortune moulding kits of these ships!

 

I'd rather have something slightly inaccurate than nothing at all!

 

Funny how times change. When I handed over my model of HMS Queen Elizabeth to the ship for the naming ceremony in July 2014, I was told by staff of the shipbuilders that the then current plan was for HMS Prince of Wales to receive "cats and traps" during her first refit....

 

Dave

[old thumper]

2 minutes ago, davecov said:

I'd rather have something slightly inaccurate than nothing at all!

 

Funny how times change. When I handed over my model of HMS Queen Elizabeth to the ship for the naming ceremony in July 2014, I was told by staff of the shipbuilders that the then current plan was for HMS Prince of Wales to receive "cats and traps" during her first refit....

 

Dave

 

Absolutely and so would I, but you know how picky some people are.

 

[Jeepboy]

Oh I bet it has been a fun time at the MOD/contractor meetings.   It's bad enough on building projects when a client wants an additional electric socket or window.  This must have been a fun meeting with pound signs rolling like a fruit machine and Directors quietly looking at smart phones under the table to see what colour choice Aston Martins have...  

(NOT a political comment, just an observation on contract variations from life experience)

[davecov]

It is a wonder that anything gets into service although to be honest often the piece of kit is obsolete before they have decided which biscuits to eat at their meetings.

 

Dave

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

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 

[davecov]

Or Through-Deck "we can't make up our minds what we want" Vessels.

 

Dave

[bootneck]

1 hour ago, Jeepboy said:

Oh I bet it has been a fun time at the MOD/contractor meetings.   It's bad enough on building projects when a client wants an additional electric socket or window.  This must have been a fun meeting with pound signs rolling like a fruit machine and Directors quietly looking at smart phones under the table to see what colour choice Aston Martins have...  

(NOT a political comment, just an observation on contract variations from life experience)

Yep,  I had a couple of projects at Northolt.  Poor old MoD couldn't even comprehend the speed that technology was changing around them, even before the first ducting and cable runs were started..  

[Panzer Vor!!!]

Scrap the lot and build more tanks

[bootneck]

Tanks would sink, or at least go very rusty

[JohnT]

It seems that procurers at MOD seem doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.  The carrier saga , like so many others, beggars belief.  Repeated specification and role changes just result in late delivery, cost over runs and the end piece of kit not doing the job as well because the end product has been trimmed time and again in attempts to address the cost inflation caused by delay and spec changes.

 

It's simple.  You do a specification to meet a requirement, build and buy that kit and get it into service quickly.  Of course requirements change over time.  But if it takes the length of time to agree and build like it did for the Typhoon then the world has moved on by the time it's ready. 

 

We have been messing this up for half a century.  TSR2, Nimrod, assault rifles, the list goes on.  It's not even "political" in that it happens on every party's watch and seems to be a congenital "system" defect.

 

Still, only taxpayers money so not like it hurts anyone really and nobody loses their job or pension.  Promotion anyone?

 

PS  Sod the landing craft.  let's up armour them, add 3 triple sixteen inch turrets up the pointy end and call em Nelson and Rodney while we are at it.  The flying things can hop on and off the back if we ever manage to get them.  That's a joke for anyone from MOD procurement that stumbles across this .  Thought I should explain - just in case.

[Simon Cornes]

I recall Bulwark and Ocean being built to commercial ship standards, not RN. I wonder if that has anything to do with their out of service dates, i.e. would they have lasted longer if they had been built to HM Dockyard spec? As far as carrying landing craft, well thats only the same as the Invincibles but I suppose they were designed  as assault carriers before the SHAR became a reality? Wonder whether they'll cut the transom off and give the QE and POW a rear dock like the LPD's. Probably just hang some big davits off the hull sides so the can have some dangly bits to do the job!! 

[bootneck]

15 minutes ago, Simon Cornes said:

................. As far as carrying landing craft, well thats only the same as the Invincibles but I suppose they were designed  as assault carriers before the SHAR became a reality?

The Invincibles never carried landing craft, nor were they designed as assault carriers; unless you know something we don't?  Their designation was classed as a Through Deck Cruiser provisionally with her air assets being the Sea King in the ASW role.

[Simon Cornes]

I stand corrected!!

[dambuster]

So now we are in the game of sending our (arguably) most valuable RN assets close in-shore where they will be vulnerable to any number of ground based threats.  Re-defines the meaning of Force projection.

 

Peter

[davecov]

I was thinking the very same thing last night. Foolhardy to say the least! Can you imagine one of these ships in San Carlos Water trying to disembark her landing craft?

 

Dave

[JohnT]

1 hour ago, dambuster said:

So now we are in the game of sending our (arguably) most valuable RN assets close in-shore where they will be vulnerable to any number of ground based threats.  Re-defines the meaning of Force projection.

 

Peter

 

 

Sorry Peter - can't agree.  They will be surrounded by our surface assets giving them more than ample threat protection.  Look at all the frigates and destroyers we have in our carrier groups.

 

Edit - sorry - thought this was the USN we were discussing for a minute and not the RN.  Silly me. We of course dont have enough surface assets for that.  Will have two nice big carriers though.  Better keep them in port perhaps if its all gets sticky though.  Cant lose another POW the same way after all.  Spot on Peter.  

 

PS wasn't the "Through Deck Cruiser" designation only a thin disguise intended to placate politicians who did not want to see carriers?  I have read that somewhere several times I think but am not sure how reliable/accurate that is

[davecov]

You are right, John. Aircraft Carriers were no longer allowed so the RN called them "Through Deck Cruisers" instead so that they could get approval for them being built.

 

Dave

[Flankerman]

20 hours ago, davecov said:

 I was told by staff of the shipbuilders that the then current plan was for HMS Prince of Wales to receive "cats and traps" during her first refit....

 

I thought that the new carriers couldn't have steam catapults - because their gas-turbine power plants can't make steam !!!!!

 

EMALS is not yet a mature system - so how else are they going to catapult the aircraft off ??

 

When the Cameron coalition came into power in 2010, didn't they have a very expensive investigation into making the carriers conventional cat-and-trap and ordering F-35C's ??

 

The conclusion was - no, they couldn't be 'converted' because A). they were too far along in construction and 2). No steam making facility

 

Ken

[Paul E]

 

20 hours ago, bootneck said:

Just seen this announcement, that PoW (first) then QE will be converted to have Assault Ship facilities as well as their carrier roles.  As PoW is still fitting out, she will have the work done before commissioning; with QE to be converted at first refit.  Scroll down the link for reference to having "light landing craft" added.

Now, do I wait for kits to come out for the carrier version and get two, one of which to convert; or do I scratchbuild a carrier and a carrier/amphib?

You need not worry there will be no outward change in detail apart from the helicopters on the flightdeck being green instead of grey. You will not be able to see the Landing Craft as they will be on the boat davits which are hidden in the sponsons.

 

And in response to John T's comment about change of roles, this was always in the design and is not a big change.  The design and size of the boat davits were always in consideration that they might need to carry LCVPs and internal accommodation and facilities also considered the carrying of a large embarked force if necessary.

 

To me this seems a sensible use of these assets and is better than having one of these ships laid up in Portsmouth slowly rusting away. Which in reality is what will happen as there won't be enough sailors to get these ships off the wall!

 

 

[Paul E]

3 minutes ago, Flankerman said:

 

I thought that the new carriers couldn't have steam catapults - because their gas-turbine power plants can't make steam !!!!!

 

EMALS is not yet a mature system - so how else are they going to catapult the aircraft off ??

 

When the Cameron coalition came into power in 2010, didn't they have a very expensive investigation into making the carriers conventional cat-and-trap and ordering F-35C's ??

 

The conclusion was - no, they couldn't be 'converted' because A). they were too far along in construction and 2). No steam making facility

 

Ken

I had the opportunity to talk to Dr Fox about this during the 2010 election campaign. I did tell him it was too late in the design and the cost would be prohibitive. He obviously didn't listen.

 

As for the steam issue that was not much of a problem as space allocation had been considered for auxiliary boilers.

[JohnT]

Ken

 

I recall reading that too.  If I recall as well it also raised the whole question of operating with other nations in joint exercises and the impossibility of cross decking even in emergencies.  The whole ship/concept relies upon the VTOL version of the F-35 working and the aircraft being viable for as long as the carrier is in operation.   

 

Paul

 

Glad to hear that it is being done by design rather than as an afterthought.  It does make sense to ensure that the carriers (should we still be calling them that?) will be capable of other roles.  It does however raise the concern that if they are going to have a secondary amphibious operations role will they be sailing into harms way as Peter (aka Dambuster) has said?  Personally I worry about muddled thinking and trying to do too much without adequate funding to make it all work properly and safely when push becomes fighting.  I think having two carriers is a good idea.  Three better.  But not sure that I would have gone for such a unique concept which must surely limit operational effectiveness even if the F-35 turns out to be a wonder plane.