Hms Queen Elizabeth

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

According to teh interwebz, the UK is looking to have F-35B's to fly off of her in 2023. What's she going to be doing for the next 5 years or so?

She will be flying US Marine F-35s

That's pretty... sad. Proud of Royal Navy will be just parking for yankees.

 

Not really. The whole country was performing the same role for the 8th Air Force from 42-45.

 

If our roles are aligned, I dont see the problem personally. There is no point disagreeing with an ally just to display national independence. The French have never learned that lesson.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

Well the RN's problem was finding enough crew full stop. I gather they have been trying to retain older sailors in the service and thats paying off.

 

Bear in mind, the RN is about the only major navy since 1945 to be shot at. Im pretty sure they have still taken the lessons of the Falklands to heart. They even still have a first rate trainer for battle repair skills.

 

There was a tendency in the USN to have heavy manning for battle repair reasons. Even they over the past 20-30 years have recognised they cant afford that kind of manning have moved increasing towards automation. Even the Soviets whom were crazy for overbuilding their designs to make them more resistant to damage, eventually had heavy automation in their submarine designs, eventually crewing them heavily with officers. So its nothing really new.

 

Surely you jest?

 

Wasn't the USN fired on in the Gulf of Tonkin Incident???

 

There were also a few incidents in the Persian Gulf (missiles and mines), not to mention a couple of terrorist strikes and collisions--that we know about...Bubbleheads have tales of their own.

 

 

Thats true, you had an LPH (converted to a Helicopter minesweeping role) damaged by a mine in the Persian Gulf, and of course there is the USS Cole and the USS Stark. That said, Its fair to say the RN is the only one that lost warships due to hostile action since the war, and if nothing else that has imprinted a series of lessons.

[Ken Estes]

USS Stark would have sunk but for its well trained crew, no credit to its captain who was a four-striper assigned from staff duty. Her action postdates the Falklands.

[2805662]

Don't forget Samuel B Roberts, Cole. Lots of battle damage repair experience.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Samuel_B._Roberts_(FFG-58)

[shep854]

In the sense of getting into a real shootfest, Stuart IS correct.

[TonyE]

That said, Its fair to say the RN is the only one that lost warships due to hostile action since the war, and if nothing else that has imprinted a series of lessons.

 

 

Eh....i don`t know Stu.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_Naval_War_of_1971

[Ken Estes]

What was the shoot fest at the Falklands? The RN had naval superiority owing to its submarine force, suffered losses from inexperienced land aircraft attack for which it was found ill-prepared. It faced no surface combatants except for CL Belgrano, which never knew what hit her. The Argentines were then overwhelmed ashore.

[Jeff]

 

An article containing some interesting comparisons between HMS QE and USS GHWB.

 

 

 

Observing both ships at close quarters they are very different workplaces. QE benefits from a 10 year advance in technology and a design philosophy aimed at reducing manning to a minimum. It is slightly unfair to compare a seasoned 8-year-old ship that has been in action for 6 months and inevitably looks battered, with a brand new vessel. QE feels like a more comfortable ship with automation everywhere, while the Bush has a more workman-like interior. A good example is a comparison between the Chief’s mess aboard the Bush and the equivalent Senior Rates dining hall on QE. Both are cafeteria-style eating areas but QE’s is far larger, has carpets and a suspended ceiling. On the Bush the deckhands and pipework are all exposed, whitewashed bulkheads and a lino floor make for a tough, utilitarian atmosphere.

 

I remember the first time I entered a CH-53E and was surprised to see that all the cables, pipes, etc were exposed. I realized that this is actually a plus, as it makes finding damaged stuff and fixing it easier (I guess). I think the same applies to ships.

 

As for the automation, I wonder if there's enough crew to conduct damage control....

 

And all of those drop ceilings and carpets aren't going to be helpful if there's damage, especially fire. It depends on whether it's a warship or a yacht. It's amazing how quickly hard earned lessons can be forgotten. One of the issues with LCS and the US Navy's attempts to dramatically decrease crew size is that even regular maintenance falls by the wayside let alone damage control. Things go TU even in peacetime.

[shep854]

While not at the level of WWII engagements, ships were attacked and defended themselves, too often unsuccessfully. That's a shoot fest in my book. It goes without saying that a US task force would not have been badly discomfited When since WWII has the USN engaged in action that 'exciting'? The Tonking Gulf Incident is debated, of course.

----

Jeff, hopefully the RN hasn't forgotten the Falklands lesson, that conventional combat can still occur in the Nuclear Age.

[rmgill]

I'#d be interested to see how the drone pilot managed to keep visual contact with his drone at all times during the landing. And no, looking through an on-board camera doesn't count.

 

The sooner the navy gets point defence lasers the better. (You all know that the USS Ponce has one, and that thus the US has the theoretical capability to back up their military drone exclusion policy and the threat to shoot down any attempts to overfly.

 

Further: this gives more weight to the plans to order licensing for all drones over 250g in the UK and is yet another reason why "we can't have nice things".

Gonna be a lot of dead birds around RN ships in harbors....

 

If someone is intent on actually causing a problem for a ship, they're not going to license it.

 

Did car licenses stop knuckle heads in Iraq driving car bombs?

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

That said, Its fair to say the RN is the only one that lost warships due to hostile action since the war, and if nothing else that has imprinted a series of lessons.

 

 

Eh....i don`t know Stu.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_Naval_War_of_1971

 

 

Alright, the only one that matters, dammit!

 

I actually read about the submarine sinking a Frigate when I was researching Type 14 class ASW frigates so i really have no excuse I guess.

[Stuart Galbraith]

What was the shoot fest at the Falklands? The RN had naval superiority owing to its submarine force, suffered losses from inexperienced land aircraft attack for which it was found ill-prepared. It faced no surface combatants except for CL Belgrano, which never knew what hit her. The Argentines were then overwhelmed ashore.

if you read up on some recent evidence, one Argentinian Submarine (Type 209 San Luis) actually got within torpedo launch distance of HMS Alacrity, and would likely have sunk it if the SST-4 didnt display the same remarkable qualities of not functioning correctly that its German WW2 forebears did. Turns out a few years later they discovered they had all sorts of problems with the Torpdeo's, that the manufacturers at the time denied existed. Just like owning far too few Exocet, not having a functioning submarine torpedo might have cost them the war. Because if we had found there had been an extant submarine threat within range of the task force, we would have gone all in on it. Maybe even pulling back those SSN's from the Argentinian coast to hunt it down, which were proving incredibly useful in raid warning. So no, I dont think we had naval superiority to the degree we needed. Even the SSN fleet at the time were seriously deficient in the matter of armament, which is why Conqueror didnt use Tigerfish to sink the Belgrano, but use straight running Mk8's. Their ability to sink submarines in that period has been questioned, not least by the commanders themselves.

 

As for damage control, we lost 6 warships in the falklands, and might have lost several more if it hadnt been for competent damage control. In fact, I remember seeing a good documentary on the bomb disposal team on HMS Antelope. There is a good case for saying that she would have been saved, if someone on the harbourside hand not removed the equipment the BD team had put on board the task force for removing fuses. They had to use a .50 cartridge as a squib to rotate the unlocking ring to remove the fuse (it worked kinda like a catherine wheel), and there wasnt any in the task force. They had to use a smaller one and the bomb went off. Expensive lesson.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

I'#d be interested to see how the drone pilot managed to keep visual contact with his drone at all times during the landing. And no, looking through an on-board camera doesn't count.

 

The sooner the navy gets point defence lasers the better. (You all know that the USS Ponce has one, and that thus the US has the theoretical capability to back up their military drone exclusion policy and the threat to shoot down any attempts to overfly.

 

Further: this gives more weight to the plans to order licensing for all drones over 250g in the UK and is yet another reason why "we can't have nice things".

Gonna be a lot of dead birds around RN ships in harbors....

 

If someone is intent on actually causing a problem for a ship, they're not going to license it.

 

Did car licenses stop knuckle heads in Iraq driving car bombs?

 

'You cant use that car bomb here, it doesnt have an MOT!'

 

HMS Queen Elizabeth arrives in Portsmouth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-40936071

[Stuart Galbraith]

Incidentally, as far as damage control, this is as viable a lesson as a war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711)

 

I was not implying nobody else had these lessons now. Im just saying that for the RN, lowering manpower size on a capital warship I dont believe is a concern over damage control, because if nothing else we had more than enough lessons on the subject from 1982. There are still senior officers whom were there in 82, and I dont think they would take chances on something like that. If nothing else, the lesson of HMS Nottingham has just reinforced the idea..

 

As far as moving a taskforce at war over a large area through a submarine force and under air attack, and having to deal with the consequent combat damage at sea without any external support, I dont believe anyone else has done that. The USN came close in Vietnam when doing shore bombardment (and even shot down aircraft via Talos missile) but ive not read of any receiving combat damage as a result. Neither had the RN since 1953, which makes their pulling it off all the more remarkable.

 

Interestingly, I was reading the other day an article on one of the lead architects of CV01, the new design to replace HMS Ark Royal in the 1970's, and he said he was glad she was cancelled. Because according to him, they were cutting so many corners in so many areas to make it affordable, it would likely have ended up a dogs breakfast.

[rmgill]

 

 

Did car licenses stop knuckle heads in Iraq driving car bombs?

 

'You cant use that car bomb here, it doesnt have an MOT!'

 

 

 

Seriously, you can get one shipped to your door in the post. Are we going to require they only be sold by licensed dealers and not at the Sharper Image in the shopping center or out of the Delta Sky Mall magazine?

[Stuart Galbraith]

I know Ryan, ive been flirting with getting one myself. I actually bought a book at Maplins (our replacement for the late lamented Tandys/Radioshack stores) and picked up a book on Drone operation, and it had a chapter on how to make one yourself out of wood, some motors and some speed controllers. Its far easier than building a model aeroplane.

 

I really dont see any realistic way of controlling it. There HAS been a good idea someone had of ensuring that the control system of them can only be unlocked if you input a digit code from having a licence, which means the drone is kind of bound to the owner. I do think that is just going to be a target for hacking by those inclined to do so, or more likely, robbery of those that have them.

 

I mean I can see that something needs to be done about things like this. An few creative placements of mesh screening would probably do the job I would have thought.

[DB]

On topic.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-hampshire-40937149

[Jeff]

Incidentally, as far as damage control, this is as viable a lesson as a war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711)

 

I was not implying nobody else had these lessons now. Im just saying that for the RN, lowering manpower size on a capital warship I dont believe is a concern over damage control, because if nothing else we had more than enough lessons on the subject from 1982. There are still senior officers whom were there in 82, and I dont think they would take chances on something like that. If nothing else, the lesson of HMS Nottingham has just reinforced the idea..

 

As far as moving a taskforce at war over a large area through a submarine force and under air attack, and having to deal with the consequent combat damage at sea without any external support, I dont believe anyone else has done that. The USN came close in Vietnam when doing shore bombardment (and even shot down aircraft via Talos missile) but ive not read of any receiving combat damage as a result. Neither had the RN since 1953, which makes their pulling it off all the more remarkable.

 

Interestingly, I was reading the other day an article on one of the lead architects of CV01, the new design to replace HMS Ark Royal in the 1970's, and he said he was glad she was cancelled. Because according to him, they were cutting so many corners in so many areas to make it affordable, it would likely have ended up a dogs breakfast.

We did have a couple of very serious accidents on carriers during the Vietnam War. We learned that dedicated fire crews can get wiped out in secondary explosions so everyone has to be trained in fighting fires. A few extra bodies can come in handy when secondaries take out a whole chunk of the crew.

[shep854]

It's always been standard procedure that all hands receive and practice damage control training.

Edited August 18, 2017 by shep854

[Chris Werb]

The government are bringing in some legislation around drones - basically you'll need to pass a theory test to be awarded a licence to own one. The technology is so ubiquitous now (I have a friend locally here in the middle of nowhere who has a successful business making accessories for drones) that I can't see it being excessively legislated here or in the States. The thing is it really lends itself to misuse in a whole variety of ways which terrorists here fortunately have yet to discover. That said, there are far simpler technologies that could cause massive dislocation and death which only require a little imagination - something indoctrinated terrorists fortunately tend to lack.

[shep854]

The Rus are on it:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a27511/russia-drone-thermite-grenade-ukraine-ammo/

[Stuart Galbraith]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-getting-ready-build-new-aircraft-carrier-fighter-21591

 

Russia is examining the possibility of building a new aircraft carrier along with a new short takeoff/vertical-landing (STOVL) fighter toward the end of its 2018-2025 state armament program.

The new vessel—which would be a “heavy aircraft carrying cruiser”—would be a revival of an old Soviet concept that was embodied in the massive Project 1143 Gyrfalcon—or Kiev-class—vessels. Like the Kiev-class of old, the new ships would carry STOVL aircraft similar in concept to the Yakovlev Yak-41 (sometime called the Yak-141) Freestyle supersonic vertical takeoff/landing (VTOL) multirole fighter that was cancelled in August 1991 shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union itself.

Russian deputy defense minister Yuri Borisov floated the revival of the Kiev-class concept along with the idea of reviving a Yak-41 like STOVL/VTOL multirole at the MAKS-2017 airshow in Zhukovsky just outside Moscow on July 18 according local reports. Presumably, like all Russian “heavy aircraft carrying cruisers,” the new vessels would carry a full complement of air defenses, cruise missiles and other weapons.

[GARGEAN]

Fucking morons.

[Josh]

They already have an aircraft carrier-ish ship, why don't they move forward instead of backward? But this is most likely vaporware anyway.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Because we have two? Its probably that simple.

 

They could probably build a flattop Cruiser, I believe they would find that difficult, but not impossible to build something along the lines of the old Invincible Class. I think it inconceivable they could revive the Yak 141 at this late date, and even if they could they would end up with a machine about 20 years inferior to the F35. Which gives them nothing but bragging rights.

 

As a fleet going ASW cruiser it would have some utility of course. Strikes me they would get a lot more out of a modern Moscow class Helicopter cruiser than they would a Kiev.