The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 21, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
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     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
gf0012-aust    RE:Oblique carrier reference - Shawn   2/10/2004 9:26:40 PM
OMG, three free tickets to hell... lol. Must be the biorythms, you are normally as straight as a freemasons sword. ;)
 
Quote    Reply

Jack Tar    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - BSL   2/11/2004 1:40:49 AM
<> I'm only quoting the 1SL Sir Alan West when I said 'Steel is cheap and air is free', but what do I know?!! Larger ships obviously cost more, but not by as much as we think, especially for a multi-billion pound project, and the benefits far outweigh the slightly bigger cost. Everyone else on this thread: I'm not going to get into a flame war regarding other carrier projects, BUT, you can all draw your own conclusions. ;) (hehe)
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales + HMS ????   2/11/2004 3:17:11 AM
The point made was that in order to get the same amount of usage (launch and recoverey rates) from a smaller ship, systems would have to be developed in order achieve this,w hich entails a lot more risk, and therefore money (especially as military projects have a tendency to balloon!). A larger ship is probably financially a safer bet for cost,a nd it is better we look at a realistic figure now, than later, when everyone will omplain about another cost overrun! As for the thrid carrier, will this not be far less likely with the increased cost? Especially if the larger ship does not create interest from the French (therefore making four sister ships).
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - BSL   2/11/2004 4:31:48 AM
< If you find someone arguing that a 65ktn carrier would cost no more than a 50ktn carrier, keep tight hold of your wallet and don't appear interested when he asks if you'd like to buy a bridge. >> I mentioned the fact that Queen Elisabeth 2 passenger liner cost 900 million $ with 120 000 t displacement.To add 15 000 t to the carrier don't cost a lot if systems are the same.
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - French Strategy   2/11/2004 5:30:51 AM
Strategy, what do yout hink of the chances of France buying one of these? Especially now the price has gone up? And you last carrier was 41,000tonnes?
 
Quote    Reply

the British Lion    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - French Strategy   2/11/2004 10:54:15 AM
" Costs have already been reduced by scaling back some of the ship?s defensive systems. ?The reality is that these ships will never leave port without being in a taskforce, including submarines and destroyers to protect them,? said the official. " is it just me, or does that sound like famous last words?
 
Quote    Reply

the British Lion    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales   2/11/2004 10:57:04 AM
oops, posted last reply under wrong heading. and does anyone know what proportion of aircraft there will be? how many F-35's and choppers and AEW aricraft ect... also by how much the loadout would be increased in time of crisis...
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - Shawn   2/11/2004 8:09:13 PM
"the 65kt carrier will do more, more flexible and future proof, than the 55kt carrier for the additional cost" This, otoh, is a good argument. There's a reason that American carriers have grown so large.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales + HMS ????   2/11/2004 8:12:13 PM
"A larger ship is probably financially a safer bet" IF you don't lose a hull in the process, go for it. You wouldn't want to be forced back to one large carrier, however. When numbers drop this low, the difference between one and two is HUGE and a third also adds a large increment of flexibility.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - French Strategy   2/11/2004 8:13:25 PM
"is it just me, or does that sound like famous last words" Ah, another cynic. 8^)
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - French Strategy   2/12/2004 4:04:11 AM
The carrier will support up to 150 aircraft sorties per day with an air group of up to 50 aircraft in a time of crisis. Normally the carrier will have 40 aircraft, comprising typically 30 multi-role F-35 STOVL fighter aircraft, six helicopters and four airborne and early warning (AEW) platforms.
 
Quote    Reply

Jack Tar    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales    2/12/2004 4:24:20 AM
" Costs have already been reduced by scaling back some of the ship?s defensive systems. ?The reality is that these ships will never leave port without being in a taskforce, including submarines and destroyers to protect them,? said the official. " This isn't as crazy as it seems at first sight. I believe this is the RN's way of making sure they get the hulls in the water, then they would get the 'scaled back defensive systems' at a future refit.(With the possible benefit of more advanced systems than they would originally have recieved?!) This way, costs are spread out as well. It's not ideal, but at least the RN gets it's carriers. (Standing by for flame attack!)
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales    2/12/2004 7:51:13 AM
Think it is improtant to get the hulls first as you say, looks like the british and French MOD are working together to ensre they both get their ships, as has been mentioned on many projects, it is far more difficult to get out of! link
 
Quote    Reply

Jack Tar    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales    2/12/2004 8:36:24 AM
If they can agree 'lock in's/penalties' as they did with the Eurofighter contracts, then co-operation with the French on the carrier project could work, however, see below. This is my reply to the same news in the 'The Royal Navy' thread. HMMmmm. I wonder how long this Anglo-French Naval project will last? (Hint, they don't have a good record when it comes to joint naval projects) Saying that, The UK Carrier project has come quite a long way, so there's not a lot the French coming onboard (pun intended) can do to upset it. We'll wait and see.
 
Quote    Reply

shawn    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales    2/12/2004 12:20:20 PM
Some interesting triva: CV-41 USS Midway - 62k ton, 298 metres length, aprox. 70 aircraft (not F-14), 4800 crew. CV Charles de Gualle - 41k ton, 261 metres, aprox. 40 aircraft, 1700 crew LHD-1 Wasp, 41k ton, 257 metres, aprox. 35 aircraft, 3000 crew & 3 LCAC CVF HMS Queen Elizabeth - 58k ton, 285 metres, aprox 50 aircraft, 1200 crew (current proposal with 3 units: 2 British, 1 French) I listed the above because its an interesting contrast between the CVF and carriers of roughly similar size and air group. This seems to say that for it's more modern design and reduced manning requirements, the CVF is 17k tons heavier and 24 metres longer than the CdG, yet can carry only 10 more aircraft. Conversely, the CVF is only 4k tons lighter and 13 metres shorter than the modernised Midway (launched 1945), and has a quarter of Midway's complement, yet carries 20 aircraft less ( the 70 is an approximation of Midway's last combat air wing: 48 F/A-18s, 20 A-6. Add E-2Cs & helios, and its closer to 80) This disparity is even more prevalent when compared to the Wasp, which is even smaller than the CdG, yet hauls around 35 aircraft, 3 LCAC, 1894 Marines and their equipment and vehicles! And it has a well deck as well. Does any one have any idea on the disparity? I would assume improved automation resulting in a reduced crew size would increase the amount of space for aircraft, yet the quoted aircraft figure seems very low, although it may take into account the STOVL version, which apprently has a ski-jump that occupies the entire bow section, thus lossing valuable parking real estate. I raised this question because my understanding of carriers is that their principle task is to carry aircraft, and that from American experience, a large flight group of around 70 is optimum to deal with most crisis in today's world.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.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