Jump to content
tanknet.org

Hms Queen Elizabeth


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nice to see the Marines will only be a part of the air wing. My initial understanding was that the first cruise would all-American. That would just be wrong.

Edited by shep854
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, im not sure what happened. I think perhaps they pushed back the first deployment for a year. Which makes sense, after all we have to train the ships crew and the F35 crews up. There is no sense in rushing it.

 

Ive a vague memory that Cameron was trying to bring the first deployment forward, and the Navy turned round and told him they were not going to be rushed. Which is the way to do it really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

USN, but germaine to the Queen Elizabeth's mission:

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20191122.aspx

Naval Air: Mini-CV Works

"The U.S. Navy carrier fleet has shrunk to ten CVN type 100,000 ton carriers, which is often not sufficient to meet all demands for air support at some distant hotspot. This shortage can be made up somewhat by the construction of more LHAs that are capable of carrying up to twenty F-35B fighters."

Edited by shep854
Link to post
Share on other sites

During the War on terror, the USN were using LHA's in this way as mini aircraft carriers for Harrier off Iraq. Supposedly it worked quite well.

 

There is a fantastic autobiography of Admiral Zumwalt out there, and he was trying to push a mini CV as long ago as the early 1970's for much the same reasons the USN faces now, aging carriers, too many threats. Its fortunate that so many allies seem to be stepping up with analogues of the Queen Elizabeth, even South Korea is considering one.

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/korea-watch/south-korea-getting-aircraft-carrier-armed-f-35s-68757

Link to post
Share on other sites

During the War on terror, the USN were using LHA's in this way as mini aircraft carriers for Harrier off Iraq. Supposedly it worked quite well.

 

There is a fantastic autobiography of Admiral Zumwalt out there, and he was trying to push a mini CV as long ago as the early 1970's for much the same reasons the USN faces now, aging carriers, too many threats. Its fortunate that so many allies seem to be stepping up with analogues of the Queen Elizabeth, even South Korea is considering one.

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/korea-watch/south-korea-getting-aircraft-carrier-armed-f-35s-68757

The Sea Control Ship of the '70s was intended to be a force multiplier against the Soviet Navy, sort of a modern CVE. Prior to this, the USN used the last Essex-class carriers for ASW and limited strike. The modern iterations put greater emphasis on strike.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Control_Ship

Edited by shep854
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, thats the one, good find. Interesting that on the Rockwell XFV-12, id not heard of that one before. You kind of wonder why they didnt look at rolling landings, like the F35B.

I was in college at the time, and followed as closely as I could, given the available sources. It sounded good, but the cost per ship wasn't really much cheaper than big-deck carriers, while the capabilities were far less. It was my impression that this gave the RN the idea for the through-deck cruisers, since HM gov't was officially getting out of the carrier business.

I'd like read Ken Estes' take, since he was active duty Marine Corps at the time, so much more on the inside.

Edited by shep854
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its fortunate that so many allies seem to be stepping up with analogues of the Queen Elizabeth, even South Korea is considering one.

 

It may also be a CATOBAR design. Whether London would sell one to Korea is anyone's guess, but I don't see any actual political or economic barriers to it doing so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its fortunate that so many allies seem to be stepping up with analogues of the Queen Elizabeth, even South Korea is considering one.

 

It may also be a CATOBAR design. Whether London would sell one to Korea is anyone's guess, but I don't see any actual political or economic barriers to it doing so.

 

The idea is not that we will sell them a completed vessel, only the design and oversight work. I think the ability to build any more has already been lost, though it might be reactivated at the right price. I think like us the South Koreans would want to do that themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Its fortunate that so many allies seem to be stepping up with analogues of the Queen Elizabeth, even South Korea is considering one.

 

It may also be a CATOBAR design. Whether London would sell one to Korea is anyone's guess, but I don't see any actual political or economic barriers to it doing so.

 

The idea is not that we will sell them a completed vessel, only the design and oversight work. I think the ability to build any more has already been lost, though it might be reactivated at the right price. I think like us the South Koreans would want to do that themselves.

 

 

I would not like to see the Koreans being sold anything, including British design and oversight that they would naturally adopt and refine, but I would actually understand it, as there is nothing that Japan could realistically do to prevent it, and the Koreans could certainly afford it, unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't understand ROK's study into getting a carrier which has two contending options, a 40,000 class and a 70,000 class. And I honestly think there is a political correct foundation for criticizing South Korea. K2 tank and K9 arty made sense and both are great pieces of military hardware. Domestic cruise missiles and domestic anti-missiles make sense as well. But 70,000 ton class carrier? Their stealth fighter program also doesn't make much sense since it doesn't look to be better than F-35 in any way. However, geopolitics lookght be what makes them work. Korean stealth just for cheap international market and alternative to US F-35 but still roughly in US camp as oppose to a country like Russia. 70,000 ton carrier still can't imagine except for publicity pride. 40,000 ton might be more realistic if joined up in a coalition of sorts assuming that ROK is thinking of becoming more active in blue waters.

 

At any rate, regardless of degree of actual intention vs publicity, ROK announcing a fuller well rounded carrier makes it easier for Japan to announce such an intention to make one I would think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats right, and its the last surviving British built battleship anywhere. Unless you count the Prince of Wales, and the chinese scrappers have been well into her, the bastards.

If you count Prince of Wales as surviving, you also has Audacious, Royal Oak and Barham... Barham should be in worse condition than Prince of Wales though.

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...