Model Boat Mayhem

The Shipyard ( Dry Dock ): Builds & Questions => Navy - Military - Battleships: => Topic started by: Bob K on May 10, 2013, 09:33:21 pm

Title: Oversized warships?
Post by: Bob K on May 10, 2013, 09:33:21 pm
I am a bit confused here. 
 
HMS Dreadnought of 1906 was built in just 336 days, at 18,000 tons one of the most revolutionary warships of her era.

The present HMS Illustrious weighs in slightly more, 22,000 tons, and built in under two years.  A very compact aircraft carrier, her designed role involved STOL / VTOL harriers of which she carried up to 22.

What I really canít understand is why the new 65,600 ton HMS Queen Elizabeth will take nine years from being laid down to sea trials, has been reverted to carrying STOL aircraft instead of the catapult launched planes her huge size was designed for, and which news reports this week state that although her hanger could accommodate 40 aircraft she will carry only a dozen. 

In hindsight why did we not build more Invincible class instead?
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Rottweiler on May 10, 2013, 09:44:03 pm
 There is an old naval ditty titled "Blimey,what a Navy!" I think the title alone says enough!
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Netleyned on May 10, 2013, 09:48:48 pm
Music Hall ditty surely

Ned
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Rottweiler on May 10, 2013, 09:55:41 pm
 Lyrics by one of the crew of HMS RAMILLIES,and adopted by a few other ships of that era.Sung to the tune of "Bobby Shafto"
 
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Colin Bishop on May 10, 2013, 10:50:18 pm
Quote
What I really canít understand is why the new 65,600 ton HMS Queen Elizabeth will take nine years from being laid down to sea trials, has been reverted to carrying STOL aircraft instead of the catapult launched planes her huge size was designed for, and which news reports this week state that although her hanger could accommodate 40 aircraft she will carry only a dozen. 

In hindsight why did we not build more Invincible class instead?

It's always politics. HMS Dreadnought was only built in 'a year and a day' because she used material intended for other ships.
If you have ever been aboard an Invincible class you will be aware of just how small the hangar is. These ships were always compromises despite their successful service.
The Navy are playing a long game with the QE class. Once they have got them built then the 'decks' will justify themselves and will provide versatility over their service lives.
At the moment the reality is that you don't really need state of the art catapult launched carrier aircraft to project power, the STOL aircraft will do an adequate job but over the 40 year life of the ships there is scope for upgrading to meet future requirements.
In the past the problem has always been that ships have been built to meet current minimum requirements and thus unable to accommodate significant upgrading such as the Type 42 destroyers. The Daring class are much bigger and are designed to be able to be upgraded in preference to building new ships. This is a much more cost effective policy. The size of the new carriers offers future versatility and I would bet that ten years done the line we will be thanking our lucky stars that we have them.
Colin
 
 
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: carlmt on May 10, 2013, 10:56:53 pm

It's always politics. ............
 
 The size of the new carriers offers future versatility and I would bet that ten years done the line we will be thanking our lucky stars that we have them.
Colin

Or we will have sold them to a foreign power because we couldnt afford to keep upgrading them  %)   <*<
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: gingyer on May 11, 2013, 12:22:24 am
Put it into context,
The tenth and last Nimitz class has taken 6years to build
And the 1950s ark royal took 12years


So 9 years with bits built all across the uk isn't bad going and the first time
We have built a ship this big in such a way you expect it to be taking a bit longer to
Get rid of unforeseen issues


When it comes to the number of aircraft carried etc
1 squadron is 12 aircraft normally so on general deployments you would only
Send 1 squadron of fighters and some helicopters
Obviously in a war role you would take as many as you can
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: derekwarner on May 11, 2013, 01:43:17 am
Guys.....I think to be fair we should acknowledge
The Nimitz class of ten hulls were built as modular construction  but off one basic set of plans [yes with modifications] between each successive build
In the 50's & 60's ......did the UK not complete only three carrier hulls?....Ark, Lusty & Invincible?...[I am sure someone will correct me here]...& were they not built as conventional hulls as opposed to the mass produced welding together of modules?
The important thing with modular construction is that each individual manufacture work of the same set of plans  >>:-( and measure the final dimensions at the same temperature  O0 .....Derek
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: raflaunches on May 11, 2013, 09:03:26 am
The QE class aircraft carrier program is actually 6-9 months ahead of schedule. The reason why she won't be conducting full sea trials until 2018 is because the first active JSF (Lightning II) squadrons will not be delivered to the RAF and RN until then. She will conduct normal sea trials as a ship but won't be able to test her aircraft group.
Speaking to my boss the other day and he told me the reason why it has taken so long to build her is because successive governments keep changing their minds about which version of JSF they want. Originally the QE carriers were designed to have a new electro magnetic catapult system and was integral to the ships design but when the government took a u turn changing from the JSF F-35B to F-35C VTOL meant that the important part of the ship had to be removed costing the program £74 million. The other reason I was told is because the development of the catapult system would have cost a fair bit too and they were supposed to be fitted to the new Ford class aircraft carriers the USA were building but have delayed them resulting in that the QE class would be the first to have them. In this time of no money to spend on the military the government decided that we would not be the test and trials ships for the US Navy!
In comparison to the older Illustrious class built in the late 1970s they were not technically aircraft carriers but designated 'through-deck cruisers' to get them through parliaments approval! The true test came in 1982 during the Falklands conflict when the carrier group of Invincible and Hermes didn't have the capabilities that the RN had three years earlier with the Ark Royal IV. The aircraft squadrons were too small to deal with a enemy with more aircraft even though the Harrier pilots did Stirling service imagine how much easier it would have been to have supersonic Phantoms loitering around between the Falklands and Argentina with Buccanneer strike aircraft on standby and airborne early warning Gannets warning of incoming bogies? This is what the RN want to have back again, a true blue water navy.
In my own opinion however, I agree with some people that the QE class is too big for what we want but as Colin Bishop mentioned this is probably for future upgrades, but I would have thought three 48,000 ton carriers (the size of the Ark Royal IV) would have been more beneficial to the Navy so they could operate with three ships instead of two.
The JSF program is still being developed and the first three British prototypes have been delivered to the RAF 17 Sqn which if I'm very lucky could be posted to in the next year! :-))
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Netleyned on May 11, 2013, 09:06:26 am
Lyrics by one of the crew of HMS RAMILLIES,and adopted by a few other ships of that era.Sung to the tune of "Bobby Shafto"


Thanks for the info Rottweiler,
When I played in HMS Eagle's Folk Group we researched hundreds of old matelot's dittys but never heard that one.
Having said that, there were a lot of ditties particular to just one or two ships that were never heard beyond the ship or
flotilla/squadron.
Learning something every day.
Cheers


Ned
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Netleyned on May 11, 2013, 09:33:27 am
Ark started life at 45,000 tons and ended up in
company with Eagle at 54,000 tons after many modifications
and refits.

Ned
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Circlip on May 11, 2013, 09:40:27 am
And the latest news is that the JSFs won't be able to land in warm weather if "Bombed up".
 
  Regards  Ian.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: raflaunches on May 11, 2013, 09:49:05 am
And the latest news is that the JSFs won't be able to land in warm weather if "Bombed up".
 
  Regards  Ian.


That's the VTOL version because of the added weight of the lift fan, the conventional version is quite spritely in comparison but I still think a navalised Typhoon would have been more effective.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Circlip on May 11, 2013, 10:12:12 am
But we've lost the vertical landing facility of the Harrier. A very expensive "Upgrade"

 And are we going to be "Allowed" sight of ALL the software??????
  Regards  Ian.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: raflaunches on May 11, 2013, 11:14:46 am
Sorry Circlip, my mistake


The JSF will take off as a STOL not VTOL but land supposedly like a Harrier!
I personally thought before the SDR we were going to keep the Harrier force until 2018 when the JSF would take over, but politicians 'seem' to know more about military requirements then the real military does!
WRT the software, BAe Systems has insisted that we can see all software because the UK is the only primary partner with the US for the JSF project, if we pulled out of the deal the project would collapse. Also BAe is making most of the electronics, it appears, so the US has to show their stuff or risk loosing their future strike aircraft. Considering that they can't afford the F-22 Raptors anymore they have to rely on partnerships like the UK has been doing for the last 30 odd years.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: gingyer on May 11, 2013, 02:18:06 pm
I personally thought before the SDR we were going to keep the Harrier force until 2018 when the JSF would take over, but politicians 'seem' to know more about military requirements then the real military does!


The problem is they were done, ready to fall out the sky
everyone keeps banging the drum about keeping them but the sad fact was the engines were damaged so badly flying in Afghanistan they all required brand new shinny engines. they had been overhauled but could not be repaired properly enough to make them safe to continue flying to 2018.
this was money the MoD couldn't afford as it would also require rolls royce to start a new production line of these engines and that was the real killer blow
The best bit of business we have done in along time was selling the harriers to the americans who are going to use them as spares to keep theirs flying BUT NOT the engines as they are done

Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Bob K on May 11, 2013, 03:41:46 pm
I for one will be immensely proud to see this ship in Portsmouth Harbour, even if they have to paint it in China Station livery and equip it with tusks and a trunk. 
The one technical problem the MoD have not considered is whether the British public will take this ship to their hearts when at 1/96 scale it simply will not fit in our cars.
Maybe we're expected to build it in modular form, like the original, and weld it back together at the lake.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on May 11, 2013, 03:49:43 pm

The one technical problem the MoD have not considered is whether the British public will take this ship to their hearts when at 1/96 scale it simply will not fit in our cars.
Maybe we're expected to build it in modular form, like the original, and weld it back together at the lake.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there. With the lack of a 1/96 scale airgroup as well, we may have to consider building bigger ships to accomodate a larger, 1/72 scale airgroup.
On the subject of the modular construction, I only hope the bits built in the shed fit the bits built upstairs and that they are of a similar build quality :}
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Netleyned on May 11, 2013, 04:00:53 pm
And the same shade of Grey  %%

Ned
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Stu on May 11, 2013, 04:11:45 pm
I don't know if this of intrest to anyone but I have been following the build here


http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: DavieTait on May 11, 2013, 04:58:06 pm
Some people questioned why the new Astute class SSN's were so much larger than the Trafalgar class boats , simple fact was that large hulls meant better access for maintenance ( meaning considerably cheaper through life costs ) and makes it easier to keep them quiet as well as add in additional capability

The new carriers were designed originally as STOVL class carriers but designed for CTOL conversion during a refit if that was needed ( meaning its going to be a lot cheaper and quicker to alter them to CTOL if needed than having to do an almost complete upper hull rebuild to take cats and traps )

Larger hulls mean maintenance is always going to be a lot easier and cheaper to do as well as plenty of additional unused space for new systems to be slotted into besides steel is one of the cheapest costs in any new building program so better to do it at the design stage than have to redesign and rebuild later
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Antipodes on July 08, 2013, 05:41:48 am

Or we will have sold them to a foreign power because we couldnt afford to keep upgrading them  %)   <*<


 <*< Just be thankful you are not like the RNZN where thanks to severe government interference we no longer have the manpower to keep four patrols boats at sea!!  %% %%


http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6922584/Navy-reassures-public-over-staff-shortages (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6922584/Navy-reassures-public-over-staff-shortages)
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: BarryM on July 08, 2013, 07:48:55 pm
Will 'them what know' advise if we have sufficient escorts to cover both carriers without leaving other areas vulnerable and also if sufficient logistics support exists to do likewise?
Barry M
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Shipmate60 on July 08, 2013, 09:12:05 pm
No we will not have a complete battle group.
Shortfalls are expected to be made up from NATO.
Not the best idea for free ranging sea power.
If we operate alone we have to use reduced depth of defence cover.
Even though the Type 45's are as capable as an old Cruiser WHEN FULLY OPERATIONAL.


Basic Battle Group:  http://science.howstuffworks.com/carrier-group2.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/carrier-group2.htm)


Bob
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: hmsantrim on July 09, 2013, 07:08:13 am
 I suppose they will operate them like the last lot  one on ops and the other "in the wash" {-)
 Frank 
 
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: BarryM on July 09, 2013, 08:09:33 am
Sounds like we have the gun but no bullets.
Barry M
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Snowwolflair on July 09, 2013, 03:59:00 pm
Is it me or does this caption from the web page strike anyone else as odd.
 
"Aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk launching a radar-guided, air-to-air missile during a live-fire exercise"
 
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: dougal99 on July 09, 2013, 05:28:49 pm
Is it me or does this caption from the web page strike anyone else as odd.
 
"Aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk launching a radar-guided, air-to-air missile during a live-fire exercise"


just wrong, written by a sub-editor who has probably only heard about air-to-air missiles ergo all missiles are air-to-air  >:-o
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Snowwolflair on July 09, 2013, 05:30:28 pm
The last time a US carrier got airbourne was on Dope off the coast of Vietnam. 8)
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: ardarossan on July 09, 2013, 07:57:16 pm
Is it me or does this caption from the web page strike anyone else as odd.
 
"Aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk launching a radar-guided, air-to-air missile during a live-fire exercise"

U.S.S. Akron (ZRS-4) and her sister ship, U.S.S. 'Macon' (ZRS-5) were both U.S. Navy aircraft carriers equipped with Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk biplane fighters. Therefore, I spropose that they would also have been capable of launching air-to-air missiles (if they had been invented).

Andy
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: raflaunches on July 09, 2013, 10:06:27 pm
Just seen a picture at work today from a BAE collegue of the 750 ton aft island being lowered into position, its amazing that they can lift that much with one crane! :o
I saw a list of fittings for the Queen Elizabeth which included over 1000 lockers, looks like the lads and lasses who will serve on her will have plenty of room compared to the older ships.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Bob K on July 22, 2013, 11:10:40 pm
There is no truth in the rumours that our second QE Class carrier is about to be renamed Prince of Cambridge, unlikely to reach full commisioned status until at least 2090.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Marmoi on July 26, 2013, 02:55:55 pm
If it's not gong to be commissioned till 2090, then it would probably be called "HMS King George VII"  {-)
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: TailUK on July 26, 2013, 03:21:38 pm
He may not be known as George VII!  It has been a custom (although not a rule) for a monarch to choose a Regnal name.  The last King, George VI was using one of his middle names as opposed to his christian name, Albert!
Charles, Prince of Wales could also choose to use the name George. (Charles Philip Arthur George) As King Phillip is a little spanish,  King Arthur would be risable. King Charles III would work but as the first had his head lopped off and the second let London burn down he might choose not to tempt fate.  The Prince of Cambridge would be in a similar cleft stick.  King Alexander? Perhaps not or if he enjoyed the Jungle Book, King Louis.  Pretty safe bet he'll choose to be a George but perhaps George VIII because his Grandad was George VII.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Snowwolflair on July 26, 2013, 03:41:50 pm
Perhaps he is going to take a leaf out of the music world and be called  (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Prince_logo.svg) formerly known as Prince.
 
 
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: dodes on July 26, 2013, 09:18:47 pm
I do not know where the idea of 22 harriers came from for the Lusty, as I believe 6 harriers were the complement, although during the Falkland's escapade they manage to squeeze 12 onto Invincible. But I do know when she was at the Kosovo incident, after the first day and night there the Americans removed her out of the central hot area to guard the south borders due to her large size but relative small punch. I fact Invincible spent so much time buzzing around the Western Med half the fleet was harbour bound as she used up the fleets quota of fuel.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: raflaunches on July 27, 2013, 08:54:04 am
I do not know where the idea of 22 harriers came from for the Lusty, as I believe 6 harriers were the complement, although during the Falkland's escapade they manage to squeeze 12 onto Invincible. But I do know when she was at the Kosovo incident, after the first day and night there the Americans removed her out of the central hot area to guard the south borders due to her large size but relative small punch. I fact Invincible spent so much time buzzing around the Western Med half the fleet was harbour bound as she used up the fleets quota of fuel.


Hi Dodes


They could carry up to 22 Harriers but a normal complement of aircraft was 12 Sea Harriers and 10 Sea Kings. I wouldn't believe too much about the Americans removing her from the central hot spot, she was a relatively capable aircraft carrier that whilst they could not carry the same amount of aircraft as the American carriers, the Sea Harrier FA2 and the Blue Vixen radar they carried made up for the supposed loss of numbers. Not to have too much of a pop at the American navy but they did loose a lot of aircraft in the history of their super carriers, the F14 Tomcat is one example where they lost 50% of all aircraft flown in its entire service history! Not a very good track history really! Over Bosnia I think we only lost a couple of Harriers, how many aircraft did the Americans loose? The Harrier Carriers were not originally designed to be a true aircraft carrier but pushed through parliament disguised as through deck cruisers! Hopefully the new QE class will bring back the full capabilities of the old Ark Royal IV.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: frankv on July 27, 2013, 11:15:17 am


Not to have too much of a pop at the American navy but they did loose a lot of aircraft in the history of their super carriers, the F14 Tomcat is one example where they lost 50% of all aircraft flown in its entire service history! Not a very good track history really! Over Bosnia I think we only lost a couple of Harriers, how many aircraft did the Americans loose?





Not to be argumentative, but could you site your references for US losses in Bosnia and the service data for the TomCat?  My research has Tomcat losses at 19.8% over 20 some years.  (not bad when you consider the cutting edge design and how much the US flies its aircraft.)  [size=78%]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat  [/size][/size][size=78%]http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-serial-loss-st.htm[/size]
[/size]
In Bosnia I believe our losses were 1, F-16 and 1 F-117.  ( I could be wrong).


Regards,
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: raflaunches on July 27, 2013, 05:23:22 pm
Hi Frankv


Not at all, those mentioned in Wikipedia are aircraft that were shot down by enemy forces, the loss rate that I'm referring to include landing/take off accidents, mysterious structural failures or engine failures or even pilot error. The Tomcat had one of the worst loss rates of any US Navy aircraft, almost as bad as the F86 sabres which used to mysteriously explode after take off!  The problem the American navy suffered from was that their aircraft manufacturers would design a new aircraft and build maybe one or two prototypes but be accepted into service without thorough testing, therefore the Navy or Air Force would effectively test the aircraft for them but suffer all the accidents and losses incurred with any test aircraft from 1950s to 1980s that the USA built. The Tomcat was no different being designed and built in the 1970s I may have exaggerated the percentage however loosing almost twenty percent is an awful loss rate for any aircraft, see the following link for tomcat losses from 1970 to 2006;


http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-serial-loss-st.htm


If we lost that many type of aircraft there would be serious investigations into it!
Compared say to a Tornado GR 4 of which there are 142 examples which are flown on a regular basis, eg two sorties a day for about 60% of the aircraft in service with the RAF, there have been only one shot down (ironically by an US Patriot missile) and about two or three crashed due to accidents. The Tornadoes have been in service for over 30years of which 228 in RAF service originally built as GR1s of which 8 were shot down in the Gulf War. Considering as well that the Tornado in RAF service have achieved over 1000000 flying hours for a far lower number of aircraft built and has never achieved the loss rate of the US Navy F14s which achieved 141 losses in just over 20 years! Most of the information I have posted is from the world selling Aeroplane and FlyPast magazines.


Not to say that Americans don't build good aircraft just some of the ones built for their Navy could have been tested and developed better for them without loosing so many aircraft and sometimes aircrews.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: frankv on July 27, 2013, 08:51:29 pm
Hi Nick,

http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/f14a/f14aloss.htm

I think if you read the wiki, you will find that the losses are mostly from accidents. 

As far as combat losses are concerned, I wasn't aware of any.  However, after a few googles. I see there was one combat loss.  Not a bad record.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat

"The U.S. Navy suffered its only F-14 loss from enemy action on 21 January 1991 when BuNo 161430, an F-14A upgraded to an F-14A+, from VF-103 was shot down by an SA-2 surface-to-air missile while on an escort mission near Al Asad airbase in Iraq. "

I can't claim to be an expert on what is acceptable as far as loss rate is concerned.

But considering the design dates from the Vietnam war, and was one of the first fighters to have variable geometry wings.  I think the planes record needs to be taken in contex.

Also, consider the number of sorties.  700 aircraft operating off of as many as 11 of 13 active carriers (in the 1980's) (note: base on what i have read, of the 13 active carriers in the 80s only the FDR and Midway were to small to operate the F-14.)

Anyhow , I realize this is mainly a U.K. Site, so I hope my defense of the F-14, and the US Navy's safety and combat record will not be taken as combative or trolling.

Regards,

Frank

PS: I have been lurking on this site for a while.  I should start posting some of my builds.  They would have been a more positive introduction to the community.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: raflaunches on July 27, 2013, 08:58:09 pm
Don't worry about it Frank


After all its only a friendly debate- we all have our opinions and we are entitled to them, there have been some debates that have got quite out of hand over the years but it's nice to talk to someone with similar interests.
Hope you enjoy the forum and I look forward to your build threads.  :-))
Regards


Nick
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: dodes on July 29, 2013, 09:00:26 pm
Hi Nick, the RMAS divers, gathered a lot of Rolex watches from lost pilots when recovering lost planes etc. The RAF kept the Salvage dept going.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Netleyned on July 29, 2013, 09:26:40 pm
Hi Nick, the RMAS divers, gathered a lot of Rolex watches from lost pilots when recovering lost planes etc. The RAF kept the Salvage dept going.




???


Ned
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Pondweed on July 30, 2013, 01:33:38 am
I am a bit confused here. 
 
HMS Dreadnought of 1906 was built in just 336 days, at 18,000 tons one of the most revolutionary warships of her era.

The present HMS Illustrious weighs in slightly more, 22,000 tons, and built in under two years.  A very compact aircraft carrier, her designed role involved STOL / VTOL harriers of which she carried up to 22.

What I really canít understand is why the new 65,600 ton HMS Queen Elizabeth will take nine years from being laid down to sea trials, has been reverted to carrying STOL aircraft instead of the catapult launched planes her huge size was designed for, and which news reports this week state that although her hanger could accommodate 40 aircraft she will carry only a dozen. 

In hindsight why did we not build more Invincible class instead?


IIRC, Dreanought (1906) had over a 1000 men on her within a day or 2 of keel-laying and all the long-lead items had been laid on prior to this. In fact, it was like a giant mecano project as things like the  frames, etc, were pre-fabricated and ready to hand for assembly.

Other dreadnoughts not under similar political will to complete quickly took about 2 yrs from keel laying to completion.

I'd bet they could shorten the carrier build times if they put more men on her.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Colin Bishop on July 30, 2013, 12:17:50 pm
I think there was a deliberate decision taken to extend the building time in order to retain continuity of work and skills in the building yards. This has been done in the past as once you disband a core workforce it is very difficult to rebuild the skills base. That is why the UK no longer build large passenger vessels.
 
The Invincible class are very cramped ships, it is surprising just how small the hangar is and of course the flight deck is narrow. It's no accident that aircraft carriers are referred to as platforms as there is no substitute for deck area and hangar space to maximise operational versatility.
 
Colin
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: raflaunches on July 30, 2013, 07:19:57 pm
Another thing to consider is the UKs total yearly spenditure for defence in 1905 was just under 25%! A lot different to today's figures which also helps speed up building time considering the secrecy of the Dreadnought.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: ballastanksian on April 24, 2014, 10:03:57 pm
The Dreadnaught had the main turrets from the Lord Nelson class Semi-dreadnaughts.  The turrets and guns often took as long as the rest of the ship to build due to their complexity. Another lamentable example from not having a battleship as a museum is that we cannot see the sheer intricacy of all the internal fittings for loading and handling ammunition etc as well as manoevring the turret.

A human/mechanical sybiotic relationship.

IMHO despite Britain not being the super power we were a century ago, we punch above our weight as regards helping others out, and these large carriers will be very useful for humanitarian work given their capacity. I hope that there will be found a need for one or two different types of specialist aircraft for early warning etc as the Americans have, just for modeling interest sake!
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: McGherkin on April 25, 2014, 05:42:35 pm
But we've lost the vertical landing facility of the Harrier. A very expensive "Upgrade"

 And are we going to be "Allowed" sight of ALL the software??????
  Regards  Ian.

Not true. The Harrier was STOVL - Short Take Off Vertical Landing. It couldn't take off vertically when loaded, hence the ski jump. After a mission when the bombs have been dropped and fuel has been used up, the Harrier would be light enough to land vertically.

The F35 Lightning II is exactly the same in that respect, it can still land vertically after a mission but instead of using a ski jump the deck is now long enough to do without. Most importantly the F35 is now able to fly supersonic. The Harrier never could get through the sound barrier. Also the stealth technology on the F35 is far superior, and it is designed to acquire a target from long range, shoot it down then 'disappear' from radar again. With the Harrier it was a constant case of shoot and avoid being shot. I am a great fan of the Harrier, but the F35 is superior in most ways - the only thing it can't do is VIFF, but as it's not a close range aircraft it's not a problem.

Will we get the full range of software with it? Yes. It's the Joint Strike Fighter and designed so that aircraft from the allied countries can fight together and be maintained/operated by the same people. So for example an RAF F35 breaks down and lands at a USAF airbase but the maintenance crews there are able to work on it, and vice versa. Also a lot of the systems were developed by BAE.


A lot of the delay with the QE class, as mentioned above, is due to the mid build attempt to change to CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off Barrier Arrested Recovery). Politics.

For ballastanksian the Advanced Early Warning system is provided by Sea Kings for the moment but I believe the intention is to 'dangle the cherry' from the Merlin in future.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Bowwave on April 25, 2014, 06:42:09 pm
The Fleet air Arm and RAF  could have has a fully  mach 2 capable VTOL  fighter back in the 1960s . This was the P1154  but the project was cancelled in 1966 . The F35 lightning  thrust vectoring system  has more in common  with the Soviet Yak 143 and Mirage 111V  than the original P1127   kestrel  design later known as the Harrier  and for the record  both the Soviet and French designs where later discontinued .
Bowwave 
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: raflaunches on April 25, 2014, 07:47:51 pm
For everyone's reference the F35 RAF/RN purchased prototype will be flying at RIAT at Fairford and Farnborough Airshows this July, since I might be working on this aircraft in the near future I'll try to be attending these Airshows.


The aircraft carriers still have a ski ramp for take off due to heavy weight of fully fuelled and 'bombed up' condition that the JSF will be flying in. I must admit I do have my doubts about the aircraft considering my experience with modern aircraft and the little electrical problems they can suffer, the amount of micro switches required to get the JSF to hover must be horrendous to ensure that are all working, just one failure and it'll refuse to hover. That's why the bifocating jet exhaust is controlled with fuel-draulics- one less thing to go wrong!


Still it'll be one impressive aircraft to see when it's operational, and who knows I might go on a carrier one day- I hope ;)
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Shipmate60 on April 25, 2014, 10:06:33 pm
The Harrier COULD take off vertically.
It was originally designed as a land-based fighter-bomber which could be serviced/refueled and rearmed in a forest clearing and take off vertically.
The reason for the ski ramp was for fuel efficiency on a fully loaded aircraft which would need additional range from a carrier than from a local forest clearing.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: dodes on April 26, 2014, 08:35:58 pm
My main concern with this entire project is can the country actually afford to run them fully operationally. The old carriers ( not the CVH's ) were finally stopped because we could not afford them, because of the specialised support train, the regular loss of aircraft and pilots on each commission, maintenance of the specialised aircraft required for them and that does not include the battle group required to protect them. Also is the day of large carriers coming to an end as the Chinese have had for a few years a shore based long range anti ship missile and 9 tons and travelling fast vertically there is virtually no protection from it, it is estimated that it would blow the bottom plates off an American super carrier or at least so disable it, it is none combatable. As to air borne radar, the new radar on the 45's bend to the earths curve and is phenomenal. 
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Bowwave on April 26, 2014, 09:36:34 pm
I think the days of the carrier are far from over .As an instrument of power projection in an unstable world it remains   one of the best options. At least   you   reduce your reliance on so called friendly states for overfly rights  or   politically sensitive  over seas bases.    The days of fighting a Midway  type of battle have long gone  and the   modern super carrier may be a big target but it's no push over . The new generation of Anti ballistic missiles available to the USN are more than capable of  dealing with any  present  threat  to a carrier battle group  at least for the time being.  Who knows what the future may bring  especially  in  particle   beam   and rail gun technology  .
Bowwave 
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: derekwarner on April 26, 2014, 10:22:29 pm
 :o & Bowwave says....... "Who knows what the future may bring  especially  in  particle   beam   and rail gun technology"

I thought they were already here O0..... Derek
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Pondweed on April 27, 2014, 12:23:33 am
My main concern with this entire project is can the country actually afford to run them fully operationally. The old carriers ( not the CVH's ) were finally stopped because we could not afford them, because of the specialised support train, the regular loss of aircraft and pilots on each commission, maintenance of the specialised aircraft required for them and that does not include the battle group required to protect them. Also is the day of large carriers coming to an end as the Chinese have had for a few years a shore based long range anti ship missile and 9 tons and travelling fast vertically there is virtually no protection from it, it is estimated that it would blow the bottom plates off an American super carrier or at least so disable it, it is none combatable. As to air borne radar, the new radar on the 45's bend to the earths curve and is phenomenal.

The Chinese are also building a carrier navy. I've just seen film of their copy of a Russian 4+ generation fighter taking off over a carriers ramp.

It is a guide to the future.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: BarryM on April 27, 2014, 12:35:48 pm
Given that the RN has recently had to mobilise a ship from Portsmouth to investigate Russian warships off the Moray Firth and, until it arrived, had to rely on phoning local fishing vessels for info on the Russian movements, how long would it take to mobilise an escort group and a supply group for just a single RN carrier and allow it to proceed on operations?

Barry M
PS. I suppose they could have sent a Nimrod or its replacement to check on the Russians but - oh dear, I forgot - the MOD got rid of them too.



Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: dodes on April 27, 2014, 02:48:34 pm
Hi Barry, yes you have a good point, back in the late 1970's I was based at Great Harbour on the Clyde and the RMAS Rollicker spent a lot of time on AGI duties. This was going out and relieving RFA's etc. which were shadowing Russian spy trawlers, I remember spending 14 days in the Irish Sea when the wind moderated to a NE force 8 for a few days otherwise it was force 10 to 12, the RFA would not sail from Faslane as it said it was too dangerous to sail, but Com Clyde ordered her to sea, we was only supposed to be there for 5 days. As you say Nimrods regularly overflew the areas patrolling for East Block vessels and the RN kept one or two frigates on 24 hours notice to sail and shadow foreign warships in areas of interest to us. My brother nearly missed Christmas because they thought a large Russian warship was going to sail close to the Faeroes, but she diverted at the last moment and my brother returned to Devonport very late Christmas eve. But then the RN although quite small still had a small fleet, today it should be termed more of a flotilla.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: raflaunches on April 27, 2014, 02:53:47 pm

PS. I suppose they could have sent a Nimrod or its replacement to check on the Russians but - oh dear, I forgot - the MOD got rid of them too.



What really annoyed me watching PMQ's a few weeks back that some of the MPs want to discuss a replacement for the Nimrod Maritime Patrol aircraft as part of the 2015 SDR (Strategic Defence Review)!!!


I have spoken to the BAe personnel building the MR4s and they were disgusted with the government for cancelling the requirement of the MR4. Considering that they were ready to enter service within weeks of that announcement is beyond sanity. Somebody had a hidden agenda.  >>:-( >:-o
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Bowwave on April 27, 2014, 04:18:01 pm
Sadly nothing changes .   As I mentioned in a previous post we could have  saved tax payers   funds  by not spending  vast sums on  the F35  project when our own P1154 was on the cusp of   fruition back in the mid 1960s .   All we are doing is playing catch up .  At least the P1154 would have given us  that real leap forward in  supersonic  VTOL.   Now    add the TSR2  and the MRA-4 to that long and inglorious list , not forgetting the CV-01 and here we are back were we started.   It's a great pity,  we get the right projects  and the wrong level of funding and cost overruns just sore away into the blue yonder  giving the bean counters  no option  but to pull the plug. 
Bowwave 
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Netleyned on April 27, 2014, 04:38:15 pm
Dodes, you brother was lucky.
We deployed from Pompey 20 Dec 1980 to suss out
a Red Carrier .
We spent Christmas day in a force 9 trying to find a Lee
around Iceland to ras from a small German Tanker.
Never did see said Carrier but we were back for New Year :-))

Ned
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: ballastanksian on April 27, 2014, 07:13:10 pm
Re the Seaking/ Merlin I just wondered if they would comission or purchase a fixed wing long range early warning aircraft and perhaps a small in flight refueller to allow the F35s to take off light and fuel up once in flight, and perhaps a small cargo carrier to allow reinforcements and supplies to be flown in whilst away and too far away for helicopters to reach the carrier.  Like wot the Americans have had aboard their carriers for decades.

I think we need at least two carriers for otherwise, when a singe carrier is in for refit etc, the aircrews may become rusty, or the MOD will have to rent time on other carriers to keep the pilots tip top, like the French do I believe.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: warspite on April 28, 2014, 08:03:02 am
I would like to know when the public is going to wake up to the incompetence of those that are elected, charged with supplying the specifications etc, cost over runs on the nimrod was reported to be an ever changing specification, if they stopped meddling and built the equipment as initially ordered and when completed then deploy and build in update capable racking, so that if they do improve a piece it can be swapped out, same goes for carriers, knowing those who are supposed to be qualified will ultimately have the vessels in constantly for 'upgrades' (or in actual fact putting right what they din't get right in the first place).
 
We will never have competent people doing the job that relies on the defence of this country (i.e. politicians and civil servants), russia is posing to reassert its world dominance with a large militry to bully its way into old realms and if they succeed, may go on to move into other less defended countries using the same tactic, and with the dithering likes of cameron, will let them. I could just see it now - camden council offices have been taken over by russian seperatists and by next week is annexed by russia - or any other so called super power.  >>:-(  oooo, its monday and thats got that little rant out of the way  {-)
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Bowwave on April 28, 2014, 10:52:23 am
Almost  all countries  experience levels of incompetence  or interference  in military   procurement , some  having the luxury  to be accountable to no one  but just spend the money .  Yet   the Chinese Navy has taken delivery of its  83rd Type 022 stealth missile corvette for coastal  defence and operations in the South China Sea  . One of these  fast  little blighters  costing  $15million  each  and at  250 tons  packs a considerable punch for its size  and capable  of defeating  much larger warships . Eventually  over 100 of the  022s will be commissioned into the  PLAN Chinese Navy.   The Question is as an  island nation what do we have to defend our coast line  with? .
Bowwave 
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: warspite on April 28, 2014, 12:25:33 pm
at this rate, disused 18th century shore batteries  {-) , or in this technicalogical age, a couple of trabajes slinging a couple of scrap priuses at oncoming ships, SHORE based BATTERIES ya get it, boom boom  :embarrassed: , i'll pack my wardrobe for that one.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Bowwave on April 28, 2014, 01:14:36 pm
If history reminds us of anything  is big ships don't always mean  your nation state is safe . The last time  we learned  that  lesson  was the  from the Dutch  in 1667 when   Admiral de Ruyter  sailed up the river  Thames  and  Medway  and as they say had a field day and helped himself to the  pride of the English fleet  .  hope we don't need another lesson in defending our coast line.
Bowwave 
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: ballastanksian on April 28, 2014, 07:07:50 pm
It would be fair to say that today we have an airforce as well as a Navy, so we can project a multi level detterant. Unless the Chinese come through the north passage once the ice sheets have melted enough, I cannot see how the Chinese will threaten us militarily unless they lure the worlds navies into their home waters and unleash havoc. I just cannot see who would threaten us as we get on with all our coastal neighbours and Russia is just far enbough away for naval forces to be detected and met in reasonable time.

If something does hit the fan then I expect our Government will be tearing off a number of blank cheques to express the delivery of new vessels and the refits of existing ones. Ironically, the way they are buidling the new carriers is risky until all the bits have been welded together as it would be embarrassing if an enemy fleet sank a bit in transit leaving us with a ship with no bow, stern or middle.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: Bowwave on April 28, 2014, 08:54:36 pm
The trouble with peace is we take it for granted.   We have very few warships patrolling  UK waters  and surprisingly  we still rely very much on overseas trade to survive  as we have done since the days of de Ruyter .   Not to mention our reliance on gas and oil production  in the North sea .   As for mustering new ship in times of real concern  I doubt we would be in an position to rely on the limited  construction   facilities we have allowed ourselves to be reduced to.  Admirals , like  those in government like prestige projects that  give the appearance  of naval power  but in reality  mean very little  when it comes to defending home turf.  Sadly we can't even  shoo away the troublesome  Spanish from   Gibraltar's  territorial waters.  I think that alone speaks volumes as to how we are able to defend our own coast from a determined  aggressor  and not all ships with hostile intent  would  be advertising  their presence .  If we can't show we are willing at least to defend our own coast line  with a suitable naval presence then one day a  de Ruyter will be  paying a return visit.
Bowwave
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: dodes on April 30, 2014, 04:16:56 pm
Here is a pic of Gib Airport in about 1986, at least 6 buccaneers plus others to keep the Spanish at bay.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: dodes on April 30, 2014, 04:17:59 pm
Another pic using a longer lens.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: dougal99 on April 30, 2014, 08:19:18 pm
Yea but there was a NATO exercise on then and Dink Lemon was in his element  :police:
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: dodes on April 30, 2014, 10:14:35 pm
Exercise or not, every time the Spanish boats approached Gib waters, the Buccaneers would fly very low around Gib skimming the breakwaters, a really lovely sight to behold.
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: raflaunches on April 30, 2014, 10:27:12 pm
The buccs proved very helpful during the Belize problem in 1970ish, they over flew the capital at 250ft several times just to prove that the big fleet carrier Ark Royal IV could reach the area and strike if necessary. A good read of the Belize problem can be read in Phoenix Squadron by Roland White. 
Title: Re: Oversized warships?
Post by: gingyer on April 30, 2014, 10:33:05 pm
The buccs proved very helpful during the Belize problem in 1970ish, they over flew the capital at 250ft several times just to prove that the big fleet carrier Ark Royal IV could reach the area and strike if necessary. A good read of the Belize problem can be read in Phoenix Squadron by Roland White.


Great book I loved when the bucc was being intercepted on its return to ark royal by the US
And it just left the US plane behind as it hit the deck and went for it  :-))