Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales
giblets    2/9/2004 5:06:30 AM
The two Uk aircraft carriers are alreay named, and that is about the only thing that is definite at the moment. In terms of size, apparently the RN has decided that the ships are indeed going to be 280m, 65,000 toners, after previously looking at smaller 260m 55,000 toners. Apparently it was thought that to get a decent 55 tonne vessel, and keep the operational effectivness would require too much new technology and risk. The new vessels are likely to cost £5billion for the pair, which, whilst far higher than the original MOD price of £3billion, is still FAR cheaper the the USN at £6.6billion for one carrier (CVN21). It is still up in the air as to whether the French Navy will still seek to aquire a new ship based on the UK design, which could lower costs.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
gf0012-aus    HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales   2/9/2004 5:22:05 AM
any prelimimary designs in place?
 
Quote    Reply

InFuSeR    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales   2/9/2004 5:36:59 AM
wasnt the HMS Prince of Wales a battle ship sunk by japen?
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales   2/9/2004 5:52:09 AM
Yes the HMS Prince of wales was a 42,000 tonne battleship, sunk on 10 December 1941, she participated inteh Bismarck Action, and the Malta convoys. HMS Queen Elizabeth was a WWI Battleship, and took part in teh Gallipoli campaign, and then in WWII was in the Mediterranean before going to the Pacific Fleet later on before being sold as scrap in 1948. link The new designs can be seen here, though are obviously subject to change! :) link
 
Quote    Reply

Final Historian    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales   2/9/2004 6:19:05 PM
Yes it was, near Singapore I believe. Sign of things to come...
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales   2/9/2004 10:16:38 PM
Right. Prince of Wales and the Repulse. Both had participated in the sinking of the Bismark, were sent to the Far East to support defense of the region against Japan, and were dead meat to Japanese air attack. Along with the disaster at Pearl Harbor, their loss pretty well marked the end of the battleship- as-capital-ship era.
 
Quote    Reply

shawn    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales   2/9/2004 10:43:04 PM
The battleship the Prince of Wales was a relatively new King George Class with IRRC 10 x 14in main guns, and took part in the sinking of the Bismarck. She and the battlecruiser Repulse were sent to Singapore to reinforce the British forces defending Malaya. Within days of arriving in Singapore, the two ships were sent to intercept a rumored Japanese troop convoy supporting the invasion of Malaya. The troop convoy didn't exist, but the ships were spotted by the Japanese (I think a sub) and were intercepted of the East Malaysian town of Kuantan by Japanese aircraft and sunk. Their lost was due to a combination of bad intelligence, overconfidence, lack of air cover, and good fortune on the Japanese part, as their planes were about to turn back. The wrecks lie in waters accessible to technical divers. The last I read aout the CVF program, both joint partners Thales and BAE systems) of the design had said that going to 55kTons from 65kTons would have reduced the complement of JSF from 50 to 35 with little comparable reduction in cost. This was blamed on the requirements to enable the CVFs to launch the CTOL JSF, if Britian decided to purchase them. I think this requirement is what the British MoD called 'future proofing' in order to keep the design flexible enough to upgrade. naval-technology.com has a relatively good write-up: link
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales   2/10/2004 3:26:05 AM
They have no decided to make them 65tonners again.
 
Quote    Reply

Jack Tar    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, Giblets   2/10/2004 3:53:46 AM
I don't doubt your info, but is there a site where you got this information? (I wouldn't mind having a look) BTW, The attack on the Prince of Wales and the Repulse was the first successfull attack by aircraft on battleships (OK, 1 x BB, 1 x BC) underway! (Just something interesting to note!)
 
Quote    Reply

shawn    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales   2/10/2004 4:19:57 AM
I ran into the following article while doing a websearch on an upcoming article I just sent in to HTMW. COST OF UK AIRCRAFT CARRIERS BLOWS OUT: The British Ministry of Defence (MoD) is scrambling following revelations that the costs of two new aircraft carriers it has ordered for the Royal Navy from a Thales/BAE consortium has blown out. The two contractors have informed the MoD Chief of Procurement that they are unable to meet the governmentÕs budgeted price of £2.9bn ($A6.6bn) for the ships with the capabilities the MoD has specified, despite having already shaved 10,000 tonnes off the projected weight of each ship from the original 65,000 tonnes, reducing the length of the ships from 295m (900ft) to 265m (810ft), and reducing the aircraft capacity from 50 to 35 JSF type fighters. The current projected cost for the ships has been reported as being between £3.5bn ($A7.9bn) and £3.8bn ($A8.6bn). The cost blowouts have been attributed mainly to the integration of the JSF, in particular the MoDÕs insistence that they be able to operate both the conventional and the STOVL versions of the aircraft from the ships, rather than just one or the other, according to reports. Negotiations are continuing, however it is believed that contracts are unlikely to be signed by April 2004 as had been hoped, resulting in other deadlines on the project, including the planned in service dates, slipping. The website is: link
 
Quote    Reply

Jack Tar    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - Shawn   2/10/2004 5:21:56 AM
Interesting read, thanks for that Shawn. I'd be surprised if they do cut the weight/dimensions of the carriers as the 1SL (First Sea Lord) is a firm advocate of building bigger platforms, 'steel is cheap and air is free'. Just depends on how much weight his word carries with the bean counters. Ah well, we'll wait and see!
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy