Model Boat Mayhem - Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8   Go Down

Author Topic: HMS Queen Elizabeth  (Read 31061 times)

Bob K

  • Bob K
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,678
  • Location: Windsor
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #150 on: December 07, 2017, 12:42:20 PM »

Thanks Bob, just caught it! Liked the model carrier cake - now that's what I call a defence cut.

Very interesting to see the sheer size of the hangar too.

Colin

Well said Colin.  So nice to see the White Ensign flying on her at last.  Makes you feel so proud.
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)

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10,129
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #151 on: December 07, 2017, 12:47:33 PM »

Yes, watching that White Ensign fly free was quite emotional really.

I hope there is an opportunity for the public to visit the ship next year.  Mrs B and I have just renewed our annual dockyard passes.

Colin
Logged

dreadnought72

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,854
  • Wood butcher with ten thumbs
  • Location: Airdrie, Scotland
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #152 on: December 07, 2017, 11:52:30 PM »

Call me cynical. In 2016's money...


HMS Victory (1765) would cost just over ten million. Hard to get quality oak, these days, though.
HMS Majestic (1895), 120 million.
HMS Dreadnought (1906), 200 million.
HMS Ark Royal (1935), 200 million.
HMS Vanguard (1941), 530 million.
HMS Dreadnought (1963), 490 million.
HMS Invincible (1977), 1055 million.

In today's money, we've just spent 3000 million on an aircraft carrier with no aircraft, built for no conceivable purpose, that is a big fat sitting target with limited carrier group support, and we will spend the same again on her twin that will (most likely) be then immediately mothballed/reserved/eventually sold off cheap.

I know Mayhem does not - quite rightly - support political postings, and that politicians often fund, procure and build for "previous" wars, but - were I First Admiral -I'd sooner have a few dozen anti-sub frigates than this ship.

What's its point?

Andy, bemused.
Logged
Enjoying every minute sailing W9465 Mertensia

rnli12

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 631
  • Location: Cornwall
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #153 on: December 08, 2017, 07:11:33 AM »

British built, British jobs and supports the national shipbuilding strategy with global reach capability  %%
Logged
Regards,

Rich

McGherkin

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 376
  • Location: Plymouth
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #154 on: December 08, 2017, 07:59:00 AM »

Call me cynical. In 2016's money...


HMS Victory (1765) would cost just over ten million. Hard to get quality oak, these days, though.
HMS Majestic (1895), 120 million.
HMS Dreadnought (1906), 200 million.
HMS Ark Royal (1935), 200 million.
HMS Vanguard (1941), 530 million.
HMS Dreadnought (1963), 490 million.
HMS Invincible (1977), 1055 million.

In today's money, we've just spent 3000 million on an aircraft carrier with no aircraft, built for no conceivable purpose, that is a big fat sitting target with limited carrier group support, and we will spend the same again on her twin that will (most likely) be then immediately mothballed/reserved/eventually sold off cheap.

I know Mayhem does not - quite rightly - support political postings, and that politicians often fund, procure and build for "previous" wars, but - were I First Admiral -I'd sooner have a few dozen anti-sub frigates than this ship.

What's its point?

Andy, bemused.


Projection of power. Simple as that.


Yes, she doesnít have any jets at the moment, but once she is carrying F35s she will be a very capable ship.


Even as a force in being, having that sat off your coast would present a serious threat, as she could launch a decent first strike.
Logged

Capt Jack

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 223
  • Location: Southampton
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #155 on: December 08, 2017, 08:07:58 AM »

Call me cynical. In 2016's money...


HMS Victory (1765) would cost just over ten million. Hard to get quality oak, these days, though.
HMS Majestic (1895), 120 million.
HMS Dreadnought (1906), 200 million.
HMS Ark Royal (1935), 200 million.
HMS Vanguard (1941), 530 million.
HMS Dreadnought (1963), 490 million.
HMS Invincible (1977), 1055 million.

In today's money, we've just spent 3000 million on an aircraft carrier with no aircraft, built for no conceivable purpose, that is a big fat sitting target with limited carrier group support, and we will spend the same again on her twin that will (most likely) be then immediately mothballed/reserved/eventually sold off cheap.

I know Mayhem does not - quite rightly - support political postings, and that politicians often fund, procure and build for "previous" wars, but - were I First Admiral -I'd sooner have a few dozen anti-sub frigates than this ship.

What's its point?

Andy, bemused.


Ok, your cynical !!
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10,129
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #156 on: December 08, 2017, 08:48:41 AM »

  A lot of the extra cost is down to politics, chopping and changing the specification to meet changing perceptions of need and drawing out the construction process to maintain employment.
 The original concept was for 16 Type 45 destroyers to support the carriers and act as air defence ships. This envisaged dealing with conventional military threats. As the project proceeded it was decided that, actually Russia and China etc. would no longer constitute a threat in future and that military funding should be directed towards involvement in 'brushfire conflicts' such as Afganistan, Iraq etc. As a result, a defence review imposed drastic cuts on the navy which was given the option of continuing with the carriers or cutting the destroyer programme in half with other building programme reductions and scrapping ships in service such as Ark Royal, and latterly Illustrious. A bit stupid really as the carriers and destroyers are complementary but that's politics for you. The Admirals took a calculated risk and decided to press ahead with the carriers on the basis that once built, money would have to be found to provide sufficient vessels to support them. Basically that is where we are now. Suggestions that the second carrier should be built and then immediately mothballed or sold as being surplus to defence needs have of course now been rethought due to the resurgence of Russian seapower and the rise of the Chinese navy so we are back to conventional threats taking precedence again.
 The sorry story of the F35 is a separate issue, we should probably have bought something less sophisticated although I gather the US jets on their carriers are no longer produced. I did read that there is a French aircraft that might be suitable though and a lot cheaper.
 Looking on the brighter side, the RN will have two decent sized flat top platforms which will function with essentially the same size crew  as the older Invincible class and should be good for 40 years or so. They can be adapted to changing needs over that period. The RN has traditionally suffered from having ships designed down to a price and often borderline obsolescent on entering service. They have then been too small to be upgraded with more modern systems and had short service lives as a result which is an expensive way to run a navy. Despite the well known power problems of the Type 45 destroyers (again an example of 'saving' money by installing only just enough capacity with no margin) these ships are big enough physically to accommodate future upgraded weapons systems - if the money can be found. Upgrading an existing ship is much cheaper than building an entirely new one!
 As always, the killer influence on defence is a poor understanding of what is needed by politicians, short term thinking and the inability to effectively manage procurement programmes which are subject to constant emergency budget cuts. There is nothing new about any of this but nobody seems to ever learn!

Colin

 
Logged

raflaunches

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,612
  • The Penguins are coming!!!
  • Location: Back in the UK, Kettering, Northants
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #157 on: December 08, 2017, 10:35:02 AM »

To sound like the military man that I am, we need proper aircraft carriers to simply project air power. (Wow, I have been listening to the lectures!) The Invincible class was just too small to carry a proper air wing, The Falkland War confirmed this as they had to drag Hermes from the verge of the scrapyard to carry more aircraft. Secondly once the carriers have their jets (and no, I still havenít seen a real one yet either!) they will have at last a carrier force with similar capabilities as the Ark Royal IV. The Harriers were a good aircraft but lacked that key aspect essential to CAS role- supersonic speed. I know that F-35 is only capable of Mach  1.6 but itís a lot faster than the 560mph of the Harriers.
Logged
Nick B

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

Illegitimi non carborundum!

jarvo

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 681
  • Etherow model boat club
  • Location: Bredbury Stockport Cheshire
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #158 on: December 08, 2017, 09:54:44 PM »

IF, the F35 ever reaches an operational condition, they will be out of date. Why cant the eurofighter be adapted for carrier use??? looking at brit jobs etc


Mark
Logged
Tugs are for pulling

dreadnought72

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,854
  • Wood butcher with ten thumbs
  • Location: Airdrie, Scotland
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #159 on: December 08, 2017, 10:00:19 PM »

Ok. I AM cynical, but I'm trying to understand this.


So it's 'projectable airpower' is it? That's the reason?


And in ten/fifteen years, when we have supersonic 'sons-of-Reapers' (drones able to pull multi-multiple G - fatal to a pilot, easy for a robot, and be refuelled in the air, and/or launched from corvette-sized vessels) what's the QE's role then?


...I like the suggestion 'build this part of the set, and we have to cough up for the rest', but the whole situation is changing: these are not weapons with a conceivable purpose against any near-future adversary.


Andy
Logged
Enjoying every minute sailing W9465 Mertensia

madrob

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,099
  • Location: Swinton ..Rotherham
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #160 on: December 08, 2017, 10:03:29 PM »

Is it fitted with any type of ciws?
Are the generators big enough?   :embarrassed:
Logged

Shipmate60

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,236
  • You bark - I will bite!!!
  • Location: Fareham
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #161 on: December 08, 2017, 10:05:48 PM »

It is more about the projection of power not just air power.
These large assets will always be impressive and highly capable for relief operations or evacuations.
Soft power can be more useful than just hard air power projection.


Bob
Logged
Officially a GOG.

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10,129
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #162 on: December 08, 2017, 10:08:43 PM »

Quote
these are not weapons with a conceivable purpose against any near-future adversary.
Code: [Select]

So why does the USA maintain 11 of them?

Colin
Logged

raflaunches

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,612
  • The Penguins are coming!!!
  • Location: Back in the UK, Kettering, Northants
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #163 on: December 08, 2017, 10:10:17 PM »

Thing is they are a long way off from super sonic drones at the moment so at the moment we need fast jets. We had an interesting brief where it was admitted that all western air forces were drastically short of fast jets because of the belief that drones would be able to do everything. Problem is they are slow, susceptible to possible jamming and canít carry what a conventional fast jet can.
On another note in theory they can carry out high g manoeuvres but like any aircraft if you do too many of them the aircraft structure will fail eventually. And finally there is nothing better than the Mark 1 eyeball for confirming what the cameras are Ďseeingí.


WRT navalised Typhoons they were going to do a joint scheme with the Indian Navy but it fell through because the Indians chose to buy Russian.
Logged
Nick B

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

Illegitimi non carborundum!

unbuiltnautilus

  • Portsmouth Model Boat Display Team
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,977
  • Location: Portsmouth, England, third rock from the Sun....
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #164 on: December 08, 2017, 10:10:58 PM »

I believe that in the 1950s it was stated that with the advent of the nuclear ballistic missile, the new wonder weapon of its age, that the aircraft carriers days were numbered. They are still about, front and centre on a daily basis.
They represent a national asset that can be used for many purposes, from soft power, flying the flag, humanitarian relief, right through to hard fighting operations.


As an aside, what makes the F35 'out of date' by the time it reaches service?
Logged
Listen politely, nod approvingly, then do what you want, works for me!

dreadnought72

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,854
  • Wood butcher with ten thumbs
  • Location: Airdrie, Scotland
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #165 on: December 08, 2017, 10:24:53 PM »

It is more about the projection of power not just air power.
These large assets will always be impressive and highly capable for relief operations or evacuations.
Soft power can be more useful than just hard air power projection.


For sure, Bob. But you could fly helicopters and supplies off a requisitioned container/cargo ship for much less.


Andy
Logged
Enjoying every minute sailing W9465 Mertensia

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10,129
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #166 on: December 08, 2017, 10:27:46 PM »

Yes, and you could use the Isle of Wight ferry for amphibious landings but somehow it doesn't quite have the same credibility....

Colin
Logged

raflaunches

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,612
  • The Penguins are coming!!!
  • Location: Back in the UK, Kettering, Northants
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #167 on: December 08, 2017, 10:37:36 PM »

Yes you could but Iím pretty sure that if the hired ship was attacked and damaged (if not sunk) the real owners wouldnít be very happy! Military vessels are military for a reason- apart from ownership they have self defence systems and sensor arrays to search the airspace which protect the ship. Prime example is the Atlantic Conveyer.
The entire reason for an aircraft carrier is to be a mobile airfield which is capable of delivering AirPower where it is required. Itís alright to fly out to the target area such as an humanitarian emergency but what happens when the airfield has been destroyed by forces of nature? Itís bad enough when they have been bombed to kingdom come (believe me  Iíve seen and been to enough of them) but Mother Nature isnít kind.
Logged
Nick B

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

Illegitimi non carborundum!

McGherkin

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 376
  • Location: Plymouth
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #168 on: December 08, 2017, 10:41:32 PM »

IF, the F35 ever reaches an operational condition, they will be out of date. Why cant the eurofighter be adapted for carrier use??? looking at brit jobs etc


Mark

Completely different aircraft with completely different roles. People complain about the F35's lack of ability to dogfight - That's what the EF's for. Yet nobody seems to realise that the EF is about as stealthy as a gigantic sign saying 'HERE I AM'. Which is pretty useless if you're trying to take out enemy SAM sites on a first-day strike.... which incidentally is what the much stealthier F35 is for.

Is it fitted with any type of ciws?
Are the generators big enough?   :embarrassed:

Will be R2D2s when they eventually get them fitted. Shame that Goalkeeper is being ditched as it's a more effective system but it requires several decks' worth of machinery rooms under the mount, so you can't easily mount them on wings off the side of the ship like you can with Phalanx.

Ok. I AM cynical, but I'm trying to understand this.


So it's 'projectable airpower' is it? That's the reason?


And in ten/fifteen years, when we have supersonic 'sons-of-Reapers' (drones able to pull multi-multiple G - fatal to a pilot, easy for a robot, and be refuelled in the air, and/or launched from corvette-sized vessels) what's the QE's role then?


...I like the suggestion 'build this part of the set, and we have to cough up for the rest', but the whole situation is changing: these are not weapons with a conceivable purpose against any near-future adversary.


Andy

F35s are not designed for dogfighting. Even if they do have to engage drones, it will be the same as any other aircraft - their stealth allows them to get close enough to the enemy to attack, without being detected themselves (except usually for the brief moment the stores bay doors are open). Make a drone smaller to try and evade detection and you also limit its' radar capability too.

The carrier's primary role is to be able to launch a first-day strike on an enemy country which disables that country's air defences, and then either act as a base of operations for continued strikes or to support heavy, longer range aircraft.


For sure, Bob. But you could fly helicopters and supplies off a requisitioned container/cargo ship for much less.


Andy

Such as the RFA Point Class? We have some of those ;)
Logged

derekwarner

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 7,953
  • Location: Wollongong Australia
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #169 on: December 09, 2017, 05:16:19 AM »

Well I asked the question here on the 30th of October.....

"Appears that her CIWS are still yet to be installed :((....so watch out for Drones"  :embarrassed:

Even our RAN vessels have Raytheon Phalanx CIWS installed....the US Navy must have 1000 such systems installed......why?.......because they are still the superior technology for their purpose in 2017

Goodness..... ..nothing is complicated, I supervised maintenance on such Phalanx CIWS systems 30 years ago
In those 30 years, the rotating cannon is essentially unchanged.......the computer control & radar interface is a few upgrades up O0........
Logged
Derek Warner

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

rnli12

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 631
  • Location: Cornwall
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #170 on: December 09, 2017, 06:28:08 AM »

Now the QE has been commissioned you will start to see the equipment and weapons being installed.
Logged
Regards,

Rich

JimG

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 607
  • Model Boat Mayhem is Great!
  • Location: Dundee
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #171 on: December 09, 2017, 01:03:35 PM »

For those who wonder why we can't use navalised Typhoons of the new carriers there is a simple reason. They would never get off of the deck. The carriers do not have the catapults needed for a conventional aircraft to take off which is why they need the vertical take off F35.
Steam catapults can't be fitted as there is no boiler to provide steam. American carriers can do this as they have a big boiler powered by a nuclear reactor. They are however banned from many of the commonwealth ports that our carriers would like to visit so nuclear is out.
While electromagnetic catapults are in development they are still highly experimental and even the Americans have still not put them into service. (I have seen a comment online that they produce a massive energy pulse in use that would lead the carrier open to detection for long distances.)

Jim
Logged
Dundee Model Boat club

jarvo

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 681
  • Etherow model boat club
  • Location: Bredbury Stockport Cheshire
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #172 on: December 09, 2017, 03:03:49 PM »

Thanks Jim, just wondering why we seem to have shot ourselves in the foot again, a brilliant pair of ships that cant fly anything other than Vtol,


Mark
Logged
Tugs are for pulling

Shipmate60

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,236
  • You bark - I will bite!!!
  • Location: Fareham
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #173 on: December 09, 2017, 03:11:53 PM »

She has been fitted "for but not with" Electromagnetic Catapults. The space and power requirements are built in. We have had a prototype of this system developed but not an operationaly capable unit yet.


Bob
Logged
Officially a GOG.

Rob47

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 462
  • Model Boat Mayhem is Great!
  • Location: Gloucester
Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
« Reply #174 on: December 10, 2017, 07:31:09 PM »


F35 is already operational with US Marines and Israel declared theirs operational


Bob


IF, the F35 ever reaches an operational condition, they will be out of date. Why cant the eurofighter be adapted for carrier use??? looking at brit jobs etc


Mark
Logged
I will finish this model
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8   Go Up