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: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
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
PREV  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