Jump to content
tanknet.org

Hms Queen Elizabeth


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Are there any serious plans for a hot war to last longer than weeks? Beyond that, it will either go nuclear or go broke.

 

I could imagine an extended war at sea, more than one at land. Although TBH, I dont see the Russians Navy, other than its submarines, lasting beyond a week.

 

China I think, is the one to be worried about at sea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A war at sea between the US and China would only persist past a few weeks if both sides refrained from striking each others ashore infrastructure and ships in port. If it's open season on land based facilities, the fight is largely going to be against what ever was at sea at outbreak of hostilities. Both sides have sufficient missiles and targeting to hold most any static target in theater at risk. While the PRC would be limited mostly to engaging shore targets inside the 7th Fleet AO, that would be enough to prevent additional USN units from other regions from significantly reinforcing outside SSNs.

Edited by Josh
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2019/october/24/191024-f-35-fully-loaded

A British F-35 Lightning stealth fighter ‘tooled up’ for the first time on the deck of a Royal Navy aircraft carrier.

Loaded on to this state-of-the-art jet from 17 (Trials and Evaluation) is the weaponry it would typically carry on a strike mission: 22,000lb of destructive and defensive power.

In this case the ‘bombheads’ on HMS Queen Elizabeth – red-surcout-wearing air engineer technicians – carefully loaded inert Paveway laser-guided bombs and ASRAAM air-to-air missiles (for taking out aerial threats) on to the external pylons and bomb bay.

 

I'm going to call B-S on that. Please give me a credible loadout for an F-35B, including weapons the RAF/FAA will use that comes to anything remotely near 22.000lb.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are there any serious plans for a hot war to last longer than weeks? Beyond that, it will either go nuclear or go broke.

 

I could imagine an extended war at sea, more than one at land. Although TBH, I dont see the Russians Navy, other than its submarines, lasting beyond a week.

 

China I think, is the one to be worried about at sea.

 

 

For us, I honestly Russia is the one to worry about - at least in the short term, because:

 

1. The scope for our (the UK) getting into a tussle with them, whilst remote, doesn't escape into the realms of Tom Clancy level insanity.

 

2. Their nuclear subs are much better than the Chinese ones and much closer to us and they have very good DE boats too, well within range to cause mayhem..

 

3. They can hit our home base conventionally from their home soil very easily.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh indeed, I dont think the RN should give China a second thought. Russias surface fleet probably wouldnt last long and the Diesels either run across a near uncrossable choke point or sortie back and forth from Murmansk (something thats got to be a little painful in a kilo). But those nuke boats could easily be at large for months without leaving the theater. The major limitations are food and weapons, whichever runs out first. And I bet the food part could really be stretched in war time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh indeed, I dont think the RN should give China a second thought. Russias surface fleet probably wouldnt last long and the Diesels either run across a near uncrossable choke point or sortie back and forth from Murmansk (something thats got to be a little painful in a kilo). But those nuke boats could easily be at large for months without leaving the theater. The major limitations are food and weapons, whichever runs out first. And I bet the food part could really be stretched in war time.

https://www.historyextra.com/period/cannibalism-at-sea-sailors-ate-the-cabin-boy/

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2019/october/24/191024-f-35-fully-loaded

A British F-35 Lightning stealth fighter ‘tooled up’ for the first time on the deck of a Royal Navy aircraft carrier.

Loaded on to this state-of-the-art jet from 17 (Trials and Evaluation) is the weaponry it would typically carry on a strike mission: 22,000lb of destructive and defensive power.

In this case the ‘bombheads’ on HMS Queen Elizabeth – red-surcout-wearing air engineer technicians – carefully loaded inert Paveway laser-guided bombs and ASRAAM air-to-air missiles (for taking out aerial threats) on to the external pylons and bomb bay.

 

I'm going to call B-S on that. Please give me a credible loadout for an F-35B, including weapons the RAF/FAA will use that comes to anything remotely near 22.000lb.

 

 

I dont believe it either. I could believe the aircraft AND the weapon load approachs 22000lb, which is of course another thing entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh indeed, I dont think the RN should give China a second thought. Russias surface fleet probably wouldnt last long and the Diesels either run across a near uncrossable choke point or sortie back and forth from Murmansk (something thats got to be a little painful in a kilo). But those nuke boats could easily be at large for months without leaving the theater. The major limitations are food and weapons, whichever runs out first. And I bet the food part could really be stretched in war time.

 

One UK admiral (comfortably retired) said that with the new Carriers we could take on the Russian navy at sea, defeat it and it would be home for tea and medals. Which is bellicose, but scarcely less so then what the Russians have been claiming about the carriers.

 

I think it depends on how much of a Global Force China aspires to be. Its already doing exercises in the Med, its sailing ships on occasion through the English Channel. There may come a day when, if we dont confront it in the South China sea, we will be facing it down in the Med, maybe even the South Atlantic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Are there any serious plans for a hot war to last longer than weeks? Beyond that, it will either go nuclear or go broke.

 

I could imagine an extended war at sea, more than one at land. Although TBH, I dont see the Russians Navy, other than its submarines, lasting beyond a week.

 

China I think, is the one to be worried about at sea.

 

 

For us, I honestly Russia is the one to worry about - at least in the short term, because:

 

1. The scope for our (the UK) getting into a tussle with them, whilst remote, doesn't escape into the realms of Tom Clancy level insanity.

 

2. Their nuclear subs are much better than the Chinese ones and much closer to us and they have very good DE boats too, well within range to cause mayhem..

 

3. They can hit our home base conventionally from their home soil very easily.

 

 

 

1 I like Tom Clancy. :)

As said about China, they are getting very keen to operate in waters formerly denied to them.

https://news.usni.org/2015/05/14/why-the-chinese-navy-is-in-the-mediterranean

2 Its funny, when I said this some 6 months ago, I was told that I was being hyperbolic about Russian submarine capablities. :D Indeed the new Severodvinsk is very good indeed. But they only have 2 of them, and their latest spending bill coming to an end in 2020, for all we know it may only ever be 2 they have. They would cause complete chaos till they get through their onboard cruise missile load, and then they are back to torpedos, making them much easier to locate and sink.

3 Yes, by overlying several NATO nations whom presumably also will be under bombardment at the same time. Why is it the Russians are ONLY going to fight us and not the rest of NATO?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it the Russians are ONLY going to fight us and not the rest of NATO?

 

 

Maybe not Spain or Italy at first, but ask Poland, romania or the baltic states. Germany is easily in range too etc. etc. Not to forget ICBMs that can reach nearly any point on the globe. There is a world outside your little island and all of ANTO area is threatened. Just like any point in Russia is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. So those cruise missiles flying towards us are going to go over Denmark, maybe Belgium, Germany. I cant help but think they are going to have a vote in their using their airspace. :)

 

I suppose there is a contradiction in that we have these for our own independent policy. The irony is, and Ive no idea of the accuracy of this, they were actually built to give European defence policy a greater punch. The only reason it didnt work out that way is the perfidious French bottled out.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2019/october/24/191024-f-35-fully-loaded

A British F-35 Lightning stealth fighter ‘tooled up’ for the first time on the deck of a Royal Navy aircraft carrier.

Loaded on to this state-of-the-art jet from 17 (Trials and Evaluation) is the weaponry it would typically carry on a strike mission: 22,000lb of destructive and defensive power.

In this case the ‘bombheads’ on HMS Queen Elizabeth – red-surcout-wearing air engineer technicians – carefully loaded inert Paveway laser-guided bombs and ASRAAM air-to-air missiles (for taking out aerial threats) on to the external pylons and bomb bay.

 

I'm going to call B-S on that. Please give me a credible loadout for an F-35B, including weapons the RAF/FAA will use that comes to anything remotely near 22.000lb.

 

 

I dont believe it either. I could believe the aircraft AND the weapon load approachs 22000lb, which is of course another thing entirely.

 

 

What I think happened is that someone pointed out the F-35B could carry as much a a typical Lanc would carry on a typical mission. Probably either a 4000lb or 8000lb LC cookie and another 8000 or 4000lb of incendiaries for about 12000lb IIRC. They then forgot that and had to look up the max bomb load a Lanc ever carried in combat and found it was a 22000lb Grand Slam. That's my guess anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Are there any serious plans for a hot war to last longer than weeks? Beyond that, it will either go nuclear or go broke.

 

I could imagine an extended war at sea, more than one at land. Although TBH, I dont see the Russians Navy, other than its submarines, lasting beyond a week.

 

China I think, is the one to be worried about at sea.

 

 

For us, I honestly Russia is the one to worry about - at least in the short term, because:

 

1. The scope for our (the UK) getting into a tussle with them, whilst remote, doesn't escape into the realms of Tom Clancy level insanity.

 

2. Their nuclear subs are much better than the Chinese ones and much closer to us and they have very good DE boats too, well within range to cause mayhem..

 

3. They can hit our home base conventionally from their home soil very easily.

 

 

 

1 I like Tom Clancy. :)

As said about China, they are getting very keen to operate in waters formerly denied to them.

https://news.usni.org/2015/05/14/why-the-chinese-navy-is-in-the-mediterranean

2 Its funny, when I said this some 6 months ago, I was told that I was being hyperbolic about Russian submarine capablities. :D Indeed the new Severodvinsk is very good indeed. But they only have 2 of them, and their latest spending bill coming to an end in 2020, for all we know it may only ever be 2 they have. They would cause complete chaos till they get through their onboard cruise missile load, and then they are back to torpedos, making them much easier to locate and sink.

3 Yes, by overlying several NATO nations whom presumably also will be under bombardment at the same time. Why is it the Russians are ONLY going to fight us and not the rest of NATO?

 

 

They have more then enough to do a crapload of damage to us and the rest of European NATO. It really wouldn't be necessary to hit many aimpoints to really screw us all over. What's changed is precision and the highly economical nature of cruise missiles vs conventional air attack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

That seems like a rather cramped hanger deck for a ship that size.

 

 

I'm surprised the wings don't fold. Then again AV-8 and Sea Harrier don't have folding wings either.

 

 

I was going to say the roll controling ducts probably can't be folded, but actually looking at the wing the ducts fall well short of the wing tips so some degree of folding would be possible. Of course the AV-8 had landing gear in the wing tips so that would probably have been a bad idea.

 

https://www.airforce-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/09/3-f35-stovl.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

That seems like a rather cramped hanger deck for a ship that size.

 

 

I'm surprised the wings don't fold. Then again AV-8 and Sea Harrier don't have folding wings either.

 

 

I was going to say the roll controling ducts probably can't be folded, but actually looking at the wing the ducts fall well short of the wing tips so some degree of folding would be possible. Of course the AV-8 had landing gear in the wing tips so that would probably have been a bad idea.

 

https://www.airforce-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/09/3-f35-stovl.jpg

 

 

I wondered if it was because it might compromise the low-observable nature of the design.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...