Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Oversized warships?  (Read 13730 times)

Bob K

  • Bob K
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,686
  • Location: Windsor
Oversized warships?
« 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?
Logged
HMS Skirmisher (1905), HMS Amazon (1906), HMS K9 (1915), Type 212A (2002), HMS Polyphemus (1881), Descartes (1897), Iggle Piggle boat (CBBC), HMS Royal Marine (1943), HMS Marshall Soult, HMS Agincourt (1912)

Rottweiler

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,160
  • Location: Carharrack Cornwall
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #1 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!
Logged

Netleyned

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 8,979
  • Location: Meridian Line, Mouth of the Humber
    • cleethorpes mba
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #2 on: May 10, 2013, 09:48:48 pm »

Music Hall ditty surely

Ned
Logged
Smooth seas never made skilful sailors
Up Spirits  Stand fast the Holy Ghost.
http://www.cleethorpesmba.co.uk/

Rottweiler

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,160
  • Location: Carharrack Cornwall
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #3 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"
 
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,263
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #4 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
 
 
Logged

carlmt

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,321
  • Figurin' it out........slowly!!!
  • Location: Redditch, Worcestershire
    • Linkspan Models
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #5 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  %)   <*<

gingyer

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,602
  • Location: Glasgow
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #6 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
Logged

derekwarner

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,830
  • Location: Wollongong Australia
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #7 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
Logged
Derek Warner

Honorary Secretary [Retired]
Illawarra Live Steamers Co-op
Australia
www.ils.org.au

raflaunches

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,247
  • The Penguins are coming!!!
  • Location: Back in the UK, Kettering, Northants
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #8 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! :-))
Logged
Nick B

Help! The penguins have stolen my sanity, and my hot water bottle!

Illegitimi non carborundum!

Netleyned

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 8,979
  • Location: Meridian Line, Mouth of the Humber
    • cleethorpes mba
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #9 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
Logged
Smooth seas never made skilful sailors
Up Spirits  Stand fast the Holy Ghost.
http://www.cleethorpesmba.co.uk/

Netleyned

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 8,979
  • Location: Meridian Line, Mouth of the Humber
    • cleethorpes mba
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #10 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
Logged
Smooth seas never made skilful sailors
Up Spirits  Stand fast the Holy Ghost.
http://www.cleethorpesmba.co.uk/

Circlip

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,803
  • Location: North of Watford, South of Hadrians wall
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #11 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.
Logged
You might not like what I say, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
 
What I said is not what you  think you heard.

raflaunches

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,247
  • The Penguins are coming!!!
  • Location: Back in the UK, Kettering, Northants
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #12 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.
Logged
Nick B

Help! The penguins have stolen my sanity, and my hot water bottle!

Illegitimi non carborundum!

Circlip

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,803
  • Location: North of Watford, South of Hadrians wall
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #13 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.
Logged
You might not like what I say, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
 
What I said is not what you  think you heard.

raflaunches

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,247
  • The Penguins are coming!!!
  • Location: Back in the UK, Kettering, Northants
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #14 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.
Logged
Nick B

Help! The penguins have stolen my sanity, and my hot water bottle!

Illegitimi non carborundum!

gingyer

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,602
  • Location: Glasgow
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #15 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

Logged

Bob K

  • Bob K
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,686
  • Location: Windsor
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #16 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.
Logged
HMS Skirmisher (1905), HMS Amazon (1906), HMS K9 (1915), Type 212A (2002), HMS Polyphemus (1881), Descartes (1897), Iggle Piggle boat (CBBC), HMS Royal Marine (1943), HMS Marshall Soult, HMS Agincourt (1912)

unbuiltnautilus

  • Portsmouth Model Boat Display Team
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,071
  • Location: Portsmouth, England, third rock from the Sun....
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #17 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 :}
Logged
Listen politely, nod approvingly, then do what you want, works for me!

Netleyned

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 8,979
  • Location: Meridian Line, Mouth of the Humber
    • cleethorpes mba
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2013, 04:00:53 pm »

And the same shade of Grey  %%

Ned
Logged
Smooth seas never made skilful sailors
Up Spirits  Stand fast the Holy Ghost.
http://www.cleethorpesmba.co.uk/

Stu

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 158
  • Location: Bourne, Lincs
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #19 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/
Logged

DavieTait

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,132
  • Location: Fraserburgh
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #20 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
Logged
Davie Tait,
Scotland

Antipodes

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 106
  • Location: The other side of the world, near the Antipodes. Dunedin, New Zealand
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #21 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
Logged
"Water is best tasted chilled and flavoured with hops"
KiwiCachers

BarryM

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,689
  • Location: West Lothian
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #22 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
Logged

Shipmate60

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,577
  • You bark - I will bite!!!
  • Location: Fareham
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #23 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


Bob
Logged
Officially a GOG.

hmsantrim

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 733
  • Location: U K
Re: Oversized warships?
« Reply #24 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 
 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up