Tim the Tank Nut Posted July 14, 2017 Posted July 14, 2017 had heart though, lots of heart... as in: "hey, lets chase these smaller, more maneuverable DDs up this fjord and wipe 'em out"orwhat shore guns? get closer and keep shooting...
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 14, 2017 Posted July 14, 2017 Perhaps, but there is a noteable trend in British warship design, that the uglier the ship, the more effective it is. For example, HMS Belfast or HMS Warspite. Compare and contrast with the Hood or the ships of 6th Battlecruiser Squadron and you will see what I mean. I dont think we have built a pretty effective ship since we moved on from sail. Heresy! Belfast is pretty. And interwar destroyers were handsome and efficient design. And even then, the pretty ships were copied from the French... The Russian proposal is hilarious, 2 ski jumps?? with such a length, I guess adding a catapult is too challenging. It does have catapults, in the angled deck. It's an Ulyanovsk follow-up. She WAS pretty, till the mine broke her back and they had to bolt her back together with a giant splint down the side. The enclosed Bridge they added postwar didnt help any either. By contrast, her unaltered and arguably prettier sister Edinburgh got sunk, so there kind of a pattern forming here.... Re French warships, I recall hearing from the tour guide on HMS Victory that the RN just loved to Capture French Warships, which were apparently better built than their British counterparts (I think they point to this in 'Master and Commander'). The problem seemed to be not the ships, which were damn well built, they just didn't know how to operate them.
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 14, 2017 Posted July 14, 2017 Perhaps, but there is a noteable trend in British warship design, that the uglier the ship, the more effective it is. For example, HMS Belfast or HMS Warspite. Compare and contrast with the Hood or the ships of 6th Battlecruiser Squadron and you will see what I mean. I dont think we have built a pretty effective ship since we moved on from sail. I don't know, I think Warspite was a bit of a looker in her youth. Fast, sleek and powerful, almost like a battlecruiser. She definitely got a bit dumpy in her old age though. She looked better with the double funnels. The big single one and the bit solid bridge from the later refit gave a kind of 'supermonitor' look to her. Damn tough old gal though. In actual fact, so was her SSN namesake which withstood a very serious collision with a Soviet Submarine, or an 'iceberg' depending on how you look at it.
2805662 Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 Ah RETAC - you're correct! I didn't look close enough
DougRichards Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 Perhaps, but there is a noteable trend in British warship design, that the uglier the ship, the more effective it is. For example, HMS Belfast or HMS Warspite. Compare and contrast with the Hood or the ships of 6th Battlecruiser Squadron and you will see what I mean. I dont think we have built a pretty effective ship since we moved on from sail. The Rodney and Nelson also come to mind as not pretty.
Adam_S Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) Perhaps, but there is a noteable trend in British warship design, that the uglier the ship, the more effective it is. For example, HMS Belfast or HMS Warspite. Compare and contrast with the Hood or the ships of 6th Battlecruiser Squadron and you will see what I mean. I dont think we have built a pretty effective ship since we moved on from sail. Heresy! Belfast is pretty. And interwar destroyers were handsome and efficient design. And even then, the pretty ships were copied from the French... The Russian proposal is hilarious, 2 ski jumps?? with such a length, I guess adding a catapult is too challenging. It does have catapults, in the angled deck. It's an Ulyanovsk follow-up. She WAS pretty, till the mine broke her back and they had to bolt her back together with a giant splint down the side. The enclosed Bridge they added postwar didnt help any either. By contrast, her unaltered and arguably prettier sister Edinburgh got sunk, so there kind of a pattern forming here.... Re French warships, I recall hearing from the tour guide on HMS Victory that the RN just loved to Capture French Warships, which were apparently better built than their British counterparts (I think they point to this in 'Master and Commander'). The problem seemed to be not the ships, which were damn well built, they just didn't know how to operate them. The French ship in Master and Commander was supposed to be "Yankee built". I think she was supposed to be a big, heavy frigate, a bit like USS Constitution. French ships of the line had, supposedly, better lines underwater which made them faster than their British counterparts. It's also a bit hard to learn how to crew your ships effectively when they spend their entire time blockaded in port by the Royal Navy. Edited July 15, 2017 by Adam_S
RETAC21 Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) Moving to sailing ships, truth is that British ships were not bad but were extremely conservative, allowing the French to improve on them albeit with a lighter build, so they were weaker. Crews in the Spanish and French navies depended on the drafting of fishermen and merchantmen for the lower deck so training for combat was poorer in constrast to HMS ships were a significant portion were volunteers, on top of that, sanitation and health was also worse so an epidemic could and did away with mani grandiose projects. Officers, while the Bourbons were in power, were equal in quality but degraged quickly with the revolution. Higher command, relying on connection and "noblesse" was uniformly worse. Edited July 15, 2017 by RETAC21
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 Perhaps, but there is a noteable trend in British warship design, that the uglier the ship, the more effective it is. For example, HMS Belfast or HMS Warspite. Compare and contrast with the Hood or the ships of 6th Battlecruiser Squadron and you will see what I mean. I dont think we have built a pretty effective ship since we moved on from sail. Heresy! Belfast is pretty. And interwar destroyers were handsome and efficient design. And even then, the pretty ships were copied from the French... The Russian proposal is hilarious, 2 ski jumps?? with such a length, I guess adding a catapult is too challenging. It does have catapults, in the angled deck. It's an Ulyanovsk follow-up. She WAS pretty, till the mine broke her back and they had to bolt her back together with a giant splint down the side. The enclosed Bridge they added postwar didnt help any either. By contrast, her unaltered and arguably prettier sister Edinburgh got sunk, so there kind of a pattern forming here.... Re French warships, I recall hearing from the tour guide on HMS Victory that the RN just loved to Capture French Warships, which were apparently better built than their British counterparts (I think they point to this in 'Master and Commander'). The problem seemed to be not the ships, which were damn well built, they just didn't know how to operate them. The French ship in Master and Commander was supposed to be "Yankee built". I think she was supposed to be a big, heavy frigate, a bit like USS Constitution. French ships of the line had, supposedly, better lines underwater which made them faster than their British counterparts. It's also a bit hard to learn how to crew your ships effectively when they spend their entire time blockaded in port by the Royal Navy. Ah thats right Id forgot that. But it kind of illustrated that British ship design was lagging behind. Its a trend I noted reading in DK Brown, that the RN prefered not to be the innovator, but to wait till someone developed the technology then buy it of the shelf complete. Which seems certainly to have been the case with the ironclads. I think I read somewhere that the British Seventy Four were based on a French design that we captured?
Adam_S Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 It's worth bearing in mind that the RN had different needs for frigates than the USN. The RN needed lots of smallish, cheapish hulls to police the world's oceans. The USN frigates were more like battlecruisers - big, fast and powerful and almost able to be used as ersatz capital ships. It's quite analogous to the two forces at the battle of the River Plate in a way. The RN did produce a number of Razees - older ships of the line which had their top gun deck cut away to produce a heavy frigate. They weren't really a match for the USN heavy frigates but they were able to carry heavier guns than a conventional frigate. Incidentally, the real life HMS Indefatigable, the ship made famous by Hornblower's escapades, was a Razee, having been cut down from a 64.
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 17, 2017 Posted July 17, 2017 Some of these concerns were aired in the Times the other day I believe. Its difficult to know if these are real concerns or a concerted effort to rearrange the furniture in the Cabinet.http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-defence-cuts-mean-priciest-war-jet-ever-f-35-lightning-ii-wont-work-properly-1630537Defence cuts may mean the next-generation warplane that Britain is shelling out billions of pounds for will be unable to function properly.A litany of setbacks have reportedly beset the British plans to buy from manufacturer Lockhead Martin the F-35 Lightning II, which has a price tag of up to £100m each.The 'stealth' jet apparently cannot transmit data to British ships or older planes without revealing its position to the enemy.Also its £12bn software system is prone to cyberattack and the defence department in charge of computer networks the plane needs will face £400m worth of cuts this year.It also emerged that taxpayers may have to pay up to £50m more for each of the aircraft due to extras not included in the published price tag, such as software upgrades and spare parts, the Times reported.In addition, Britain's main aircraft carrier has a broadband connection four times weaker than an average British household's, meaning that the F-35 cannot send data on enemy threats while in flight.Formerly in charge of the military's information networks, Sir Richard Barrons, told the newspaper that the fighter plane's advantage came from its 'brainpower' which makes it capable of 400 billion operations per second.But defence staff are worried that there is no system allowing the plan to communicate with other aircraft without giving its location away. Though one has to say, is that a broad connection in London, or out here in the Styx? Because if the former, its about level pegging with mine and I seem to manage.
shep854 Posted July 17, 2017 Posted July 17, 2017 HOW is an aircraft supposed to radiate any energy without exposing itself??
GARGEAN Posted July 17, 2017 Posted July 17, 2017 HOW is an aircraft supposed to radiate any energy without exposing itself??Radiate it with narrow beam?
Josh Posted July 17, 2017 Posted July 17, 2017 Directional radiation and spread spectrum transmission. Its no guarantee you won't be detected but it mitigates detection. The problem is that F-35 lacks link 16 (at least in USAF usage) and legacy aircraft lack the MADL data link that F-35s use to talk to each other. In the USAF this is mitigated by the TALON pod which basically is a multi platform/format data link pod that can convert Link16 and MADL and vice versa (among other formats). It is to be carried by F-15s. I think the E-2D can talk to F-35s and convert their data to its link 16 in USN usage. There also have been successful experiments with F-35 talking directly to specially equipped Aegis. I've no idea why the Brits have problem adapting a ship sized platform to receive data in a new format.
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 17, 2017 Posted July 17, 2017 Austerity? That and they added several million pounds to the cost of the project by axing the F35B, committing to the C, committing to fit a catapult to the carriers, then rethinking the cost, and backtracking to the original decision. Looked at like that, im amazed this is about the only problem we have.
mnm Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 Due to Austerity the follow-up Queen class carrier HMS Freddie Mercury will have to sacrifice one island. Will HMS Northern Ireland have to go the same way HMRS Alaska did?
DougRichards Posted July 28, 2017 Posted July 28, 2017 (edited) Well the Colossuses are heading down under: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/27/britains-new-aircraft-carriers-to-test-beijing-in-south-china-sea sending Britain’s newest and most expensive ships to the region to carry out manoeuvres similar to those conducted by the US navy could be seen by Beijing as provocative.At 280 metres and 65,000 tonnes, the UK’s newest aircraft carrier, the HMS Queen Elizabeth, is the largest ship ever built for the Royal Navy. It is undergoing its maiden sea trials off the coast of Scotland and is expected to be accepted by the navy towards the end of the year. The second ship in the class, the HMS Prince of Wales, is being fitted out in the Rosyth dock and will be officially named in September. Speaking in Sydney after discussions with his Australian counterpart, Julie Bishop, Johnson said the UK and Australia had reaffirmed “our shared dedication to the rules-based international system that has been the guarantor of stability and, of course, also of prosperity for the last 70 years.”He added: “In a volatile and unpredictable world it is more important than ever to nurture the friendships that we know best and that matter to us the most and with people we trust the most.” Bishop said the ministers had discussed the South China Sea as one of the pressing “challenges” of the Asia-Pacific region. “We had a long discussion about the Pacific and the opportunities for deeper British engagement in our part of the world … we also see the United Kingdom as being a natural partner with us in the development and security of the Pacific,” she said.In a speech in Sydney later in front of hundreds of politicians and businesspeople, Johnson reiterated the pledge to send the carriers.“If you look at those vessels – you will see that they are not only longer than the entire Palace of Westminster but, I think you will agree, they are more persuasive than most of the arguments deployed in the House of Commons,” he said Edited July 28, 2017 by DougRichards
Stuart Galbraith Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 Well the Colossuses are heading down under: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/27/britains-new-aircraft-carriers-to-test-beijing-in-south-china-sea sending Britain’s newest and most expensive ships to the region to carry out manoeuvres similar to those conducted by the US navy could be seen by Beijing as provocative.At 280 metres and 65,000 tonnes, the UK’s newest aircraft carrier, the HMS Queen Elizabeth, is the largest ship ever built for the Royal Navy. It is undergoing its maiden sea trials off the coast of Scotland and is expected to be accepted by the navy towards the end of the year. The second ship in the class, the HMS Prince of Wales, is being fitted out in the Rosyth dock and will be officially named in September. Speaking in Sydney after discussions with his Australian counterpart, Julie Bishop, Johnson said the UK and Australia had reaffirmed “our shared dedication to the rules-based international system that has been the guarantor of stability and, of course, also of prosperity for the last 70 years.”He added: “In a volatile and unpredictable world it is more important than ever to nurture the friendships that we know best and that matter to us the most and with people we trust the most.” Bishop said the ministers had discussed the South China Sea as one of the pressing “challenges” of the Asia-Pacific region. “We had a long discussion about the Pacific and the opportunities for deeper British engagement in our part of the world … we also see the United Kingdom as being a natural partner with us in the development and security of the Pacific,” she said.In a speech in Sydney later in front of hundreds of politicians and businesspeople, Johnson reiterated the pledge to send the carriers.“If you look at those vessels – you will see that they are not only longer than the entire Palace of Westminster but, I think you will agree, they are more persuasive than most of the arguments deployed in the House of Commons,” he said Australian politicians also seem to be considerably more intelligent. We seemed to view it as a financial millstone, rather than the opportunity it clearly is.
2805662 Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 Australian politicians also seem to be considerably more intelligent. We seemed to view it as a financial millstone, rather than the opportunity it clearly is.They're not. They're idiots.
Stuart Galbraith Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 Australian politicians also seem to be considerably more intelligent. We seemed to view it as a financial millstone, rather than the opportunity it clearly is.They're not. They're idiots. Im not saying they are not, im just saying they evidently on a higher mental capacity than our own. Its not such a big achievement you know.
Adam_S Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 Australian politicians also seem to be considerably more intelligent. We seemed to view it as a financial millstone, rather than the opportunity it clearly is.They're not. They're idiots. Im not saying they are not, im just saying they evidently on a higher mental capacity than our own. Its not such a big achievement you know. They're really, really not. Trust me. One of them recently got the boot because his mum filled out an Italian citizenship form for him when he was 25.
Adam_S Posted August 2, 2017 Posted August 2, 2017 (edited) First flight operations. Sadly it's a Merlin so no fast jets taking off through the mist at dawn just yet. Apparently there are British pilots flying F-35B's off of USN gator carriers though. Does anybody know when the first QE's get their first F-35B's? Edited August 2, 2017 by Adam_S
Adam_S Posted August 2, 2017 Posted August 2, 2017 Also, I think that perhaps one reason the Aussie politicians are so enthusiastic about QE making a visit to the region is that our own carrier-like things are broken at the moment. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-19/navy-cant-rule-out-design-faults-as-cause-of-ships-problems/8542382
Corinthian Posted August 2, 2017 Posted August 2, 2017 First flight operations. Sadly it's a Merlin so no fast jets taking off through the mist at dawn just yet. I find the soundtrack of that first vid laughable. I mean, soundtrack sounds so epic, but we see only helos taking off from the CV. It is as if the soundtrack is overcompensating for the meh of the flight ops bwuhahahahahaha
Dark_Falcon Posted August 2, 2017 Posted August 2, 2017 An article containing some interesting comparisons between HMS QE and USS GHWB.
shep854 Posted August 2, 2017 Posted August 2, 2017 Every time I see those huge windows on her islands, I can't help but think of people being flayed by flying glass if she takes a hit.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now