Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lizzie Zoom]

Yep been watching this-at last a decent programme worth watching.A lot of state of the art stuff and a crew of only 700 where the Americans have crews in the thousands.I was surprised that the upper deck guns they test fired on tonights episode aren't radar guided or something instead of being "hand held" as it were and aimed seemingly by eye.First thing I thought when they said she went to sea with 200 civilian workers aboard for finishing work was "Shades of Prince of Wales when she sailed with Hood to find Bismark" but no doubt plenty of ships have sailed with "civvies" on board.

And remember what happened to both of them.  Is this carrier as obsolete as they were at the time?

However, I am proud that our Royal Navy has it's big ship, aircraft carrier, policy back to project British power.  How long it would last in any conflict is another matter. I had a terrible sad feeling thinking that the young crew of 700 could perish very quickly in the vast areas of the ship given the history of such vessels.

[Lizzie Zoom]

Is it only us that'd invest all that time,effort and money in building an aircraft carrier and not have any actual aircraft to put on it?Pretty much like building a battleship without the guns.

I am more concerned about the lack of fleet protection for such a flagship vessel.  All my upbringing was with a father who continual spoke about the need for destroyer screening of such ships, and how they were used.  I could often imagine what he was telling me of one set of destroyers, at speed, travelling from port to starboard, then another line changing over (he used to use a technical phrase, now forgotten) to starboard to port at the same time.  A very complicated and dangerous manoeuvre, but he stressed the need to maintain full screening of the capital ship from submarine and aircraft attack.

Now, of course, times, practices and, importantly, technology has changed.  But do these major warships not now need that screening?  Is modern naval practice not in need of full protection screening not just two frigates?  Has the new navy re-discovered the old arrogance of the past when modern dangers were ignored as "they could fight their way through" ; like when the Captains of Baza's aforementioned Queen Elizabeth Class battleship HMS Prince of Wales, and HMS Repulse thought they didn't require screening from air attack, only to be sunk by Japanese aircraft in December 1941?  

Have we got the destroyer and frigate numbers to give HMS QE the full protection it needs?

I do wonder!

[BazaJT]

Surely Lizzie Prince of Wales was a new ship along with Duke of York and King George V with[if I remember rightly 10 14" main armament] Sadly I seriously doubt we have the ships to offer full screening for QE and isn't there supposed to be at least another carrier in the class?Whilst awaiting the delivery arrival of her aircraft compliment maybe the Fleet Air Arm museum could lend them their airworthy Swordfish?

[Lizzie Zoom]

Surely Lizzie Prince of Wales was a new ship along with Duke of York and King George V with[if I remember rightly 10 14" main armament] Sadly I seriously doubt we have the ships to offer full screening for QE and isn't there supposed to be at least another carrier in the class?Whilst awaiting the delivery arrival of her aircraft compliment maybe the Fleet Air Arm museum could lend them their airworthy Swordfish?

She was, but the captain of her and the captain of HMS Repulse, along with the heads of the Admiralty at the time, had not recognised that air power now, in 1941, ruled not heavy guns. It was Japanese planes that destroyed them.

The Americans and of course the Japanese had fully woken up to that fact, but the Royal Navy policy still relied on obsolete battleships and battlecruisers of the past. It was air power that killed off the old battleships at Pearl Harbour; the Bismarck was crippled by Royal Navy air power, both in 1941, and the Royal Navy itself destroyed most of the Italian fleet at Taranto in 1940 with air power.  The Royal Navy went into WWII with the minds they had in the 1914-18 war with insufficient numbers of aircraft carriers and reliance on capital ships.

Of course it was air power that changed the course of WWII with the majority of the Nazi (who did not have any aircraft carriers, although recognising the new major power of aircraft in other arenas of war) battleships and battlecruisers being sunk by the RAF. Only the Sharnhorst was sunk in a full, old fashioned, ship to ship engagement with the Royal Navy. Ironically it was the Japanesse naval fleet, with their numerous carriers, that also suffered from major air power attack from the US Navy, especially at the Battle of Midway in 1942 when the Japs lost 4 of their aircraft carriers.

Now in 2018, the Battle of Midway, along with the losses of British and American aircraft carriers later in WWII, should resonate in the minds of Royal Navy Admirals and planners. Are aircraft carriers, like the battleships of WWII, now in existence ignoring the vast development of air power and in particular missiles? The submarine that also sunk carriers, and battleships in the past, should also not be forgotten with enormous strides in that stealth technology as well.

[Rods2]

The new less capable Type 31s compared to the Type 26s are designed to give the Royal Navy more frigates as they haven't got enough for Queen Liz class escorts and other commitments. The MOD have stipulated a £250m build cost at 2017 prices for the 5 Type 31s compared to £1bn for each of the 8 Type 26s. The government has also hinted that they may increase the order from 5. Both the Type 26 and Type 31 are getting interest from other country's navies, with IMO the Type 31s more likely to get export orders.

[Lizzie Zoom]

Surely Lizzie Prince of Wales was a new ship along with Duke of York and King George V with[if I remember rightly 10 14" main armament] Sadly I seriously doubt we have the ships to offer full screening for QE and isn't there supposed to be at least another carrier in the class?Whilst awaiting the delivery arrival of her aircraft compliment maybe the Fleet Air Arm museum could lend them their airworthy Swordfish?

She was, but the captain of her and the captain of HMS Repulse, along with the heads of the Admiralty at the time, had not recognised that air power now, in 1941, ruled not heavy guns. It was Japanese planes that destroyed them.

The Americans and of course the Japanese had fully woken up to that fact, but the Royal Navy policy still relied on obsolete battleships and battlecruisers of the past. It was air power that killed off the old battleships at Pearl Harbour; the Bismarck was crippled by Royal Navy air power, both in 1941, and the Royal Navy itself destroyed most of the Italian fleet at Taranto in 1940 with air power.  The Royal Navy went into WWII with the minds they had in the 1914-18 war with insufficient numbers of aircraft carriers and reliance on capital ships.

Of course it was air power that changed the course of WWII with the majority of the Nazi (who did not have any aircraft carriers, although recognising the new major power of aircraft in other arenas of war) battleships and battlecruisers being sunk by the RAF. Only the Sharnhorst was sunk in a full, old fashioned, ship to ship engagement with the Royal Navy. Ironically it was the Japanesse naval fleet, with their numerous carriers, that also suffered from major air power attack from the US Navy, especially at the Battle of Midway in 1942 when the Japs lost 4 of their aircraft carriers.

Now in 2018, the Battle of Midway, along with the losses of British and American aircraft carriers later in WWII, should resonate in the minds of Royal Navy Admirals and planners. Are aircraft carriers, like the battleships of WWII, now in existence ignoring the vast development of air power and in particular missiles? The submarine that also sunk carriers, and battleships in the past, should also not be forgotten with enormous strides in that stealth technology as well.

Further to the above, I must emphasise when I say the Nazis had no aircraft carriers, they actually half built two, but then they were cancelled, along with Hiler's other Plan Z major warships. They never used a carrier, but used up vital resources that could have built many more U boats that would / could have changed the course of the war.

[scimmy_man]

Yet still only two thirds the Nimitz class!

What struck me, Chris, was the age of the junior crew members (some of them making their first trip to sea). They look like frightened school kids but, I'll bet, by the time it's ready for action, they'll be.......well, ready for action. 

Do you find that police officers are looking younger these days?.

I'm the same age as Ms.Dick.........which is an ironic name for a woman who prefers something other than dick.

the cop they spoke to is a mate of mine, small world?

[Rods2]

Surely Lizzie Prince of Wales was a new ship along with Duke of York and King George V with[if I remember rightly 10 14" main armament] Sadly I seriously doubt we have the ships to offer full screening for QE and isn't there supposed to be at least another carrier in the class?Whilst awaiting the delivery arrival of her aircraft compliment maybe the Fleet Air Arm museum could lend them their airworthy Swordfish?

The carriers have 3 Phalanx CIWS with radar guided 30mm Gatling guns, which provide 360 degree coverage, for last resort protection from incoming anti-ship missiles.

[BazaJT]

Did think it odd that such a vessel would only have hand held eyeball aimed guns,didn't know it also had the Phalanx shipped.

[BazaJT]

Yes Lizzie I'd agree about the mindset of the admiralty regarding the use of airpower.In fact I think most were still reliant on the fighting principles of the Nelsonian era[and probably before that]where capital ships would batter away at each other broadside to broadside.They even seemed oblivious to the idea that with the huge range of battleship guns the ships were now vulnerable to the "plunging shot"which I believe is what took Hood down.

[Lizzie Zoom]

Yes Lizzie I'd agree about the mindset of the admiralty regarding the use of airpower.In fact I think most were still reliant on the fighting principles of the Nelsonian era[and probably before that]where capital ships would batter away at each other broadside to broadside.They even seemed oblivious to the idea that with the huge range of battleship guns the ships were now vulnerable to the "plunging shot"which I believe is what took Hood down.

It did indeed Baza.  Although the sequence of Hood's demise is still debated by historians, it is believed that the German battlecruiser Prinz Eugin that was escorting the Bismark put up to four salvos over Hood, with a shell opening up a hole in the poop deck area over the aft magazine, with the next salvo from Bismark itself landing in exactly the same place causing the magazine to blow up, taking off the stern. Within a second or two the flash over from the aft magazine going up reached the forward magazine and that went up, taking off the bow. Within 3 minutes Hood was gone with 1415 men, just 3 left alive in the water.  Hood reflected the big flaw in the British battlecruiser design, with very weak deck amour relying on their great speed and heavy guns to hit the enemy before they could bring shells down on to the battlecruiser. But, even in 1916 at the Battle of Jutland that policy was proved to be flawed, but Hood entered WW2 without any significant changes to her deck armour.  The other weakness with the British battlecruisers, if no other, was fire control procedures.  It was common practice to leave the fire doors to the magazine compartments open whilst in battle so as to speed up the process of getting munitions from the magazines up to the guns. To compound this, large stocks of explosive wadding that propelled the shells was stored near the guns to save time in loading them. This policy cost three British battlecruisers at Jutland on 31st May 1916 and then Hood on 24th May 1941, with very few survivors.

[Lizzie Zoom]

The new less capable Type 31s compared to the Type 26s are designed to give the Royal Navy more frigates as they haven't got enough for Queen Liz class escorts and other commitments. The MOD have stipulated a £250m build cost at 2017 prices for the 5 Type 31s compared to £1bn for each of the 8 Type 26s. The government has also hinted that they may increase the order from 5. Both the Type 26 and Type 31 are getting interest from other country's navies, with IMO the Type 31s more likely to get export orders.

I just trust the Royal Naval emphase to the politicians what they really need now and in the future, for all eventualities and in event of regional or even global conflict in the 21st century, not 20th.  With two super carriers they require a large screening force which to me, yes an amatuer, but one with some naval and historic knowledge, means 4 destroyers/frigates for the two potential battle fleets led by HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, to provide a potent defence and allow for losses.  Our Daring Class destroyers and both the future Type 26 or 31 frigates have tremendous fire power, far in excess of a whole fleet of WW2 warships of all the navies put together.  But the potential enemy(ies) will have equal, or even greater fire power, so it is all relative, so hence the requirement for numbers of screening vessels still.

A repeat of the 'two power standard' for the Royal Navy would really be ideal as they may have to take on multiple enemies at once, but the politicians will surely say we cannot afford it. Can we afford not to though if we want a free and democratic Britain to exist in the future?

[Shackeng]

Sadly these carriers have been introduced without provision for full carrier support groups. No doubt the Admirals hope that these will be built once politicians realise how useless they are without them. Then there is the issue of the F35, still not guaranteed to perform as promised, and increasing in price by the second. My own feeling is that these carriers may, I repeat, may, in the worse case scenario, become white elephants. In any event, I believe better defensive value would have been to have invested the 7Bn(and counting) into home defence, such as missile shields, and more maritime recon a/c. Yes, my old squadron is shortly reforming with 9 Poseidon a/c, but we need at least 4 more for proper cover of our maritime patrol areas.
Some of you may be interested in this paper submitted by a former Shackleton colleague, Andy Roberts.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmdfence/110/110vw05.htm

[Lizzie Zoom]

Sadly these carriers have been introduced without provision for full carrier support groups. No doubt the Admirals hope that these will be built once politicians realise how useless they are without them. Then there is the issue of the F35, still not guaranteed to perform as promised, and increasing in price by the second. My own feeling is that these carriers may, I repeat, may, in the worse case scenario, become white elephants. In any event, I believe better defensive value would have been to have invested the 7Bn(and counting) into home defence, such as missile shields, and more maritime recon a/c. Yes, my old squadron is shortly reforming with 9 Poseidon a/c, but we need at least 4 more for proper cover of our maritime patrol areas.
Some of you may be interested in this paper submitted by a former Shackleton colleague, Andy Roberts.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmdfence/110/110vw05.htm

That is a fantastic paper and reflects, albeit from an aircraft and by other means surveillance point of view, at least two of the fundamental weaknesses of British defence policy which I touched on in my previous posts:
1.  The Royal Navy not being of a two power standard, sufficient to take on at least two enemies at once  (if not more) due to.......

2. An over reliance of the forces of the USA which we now cannot count on, and should not have to rely on if we are to be again a truly independent, confident and powerful sovereign state able to fight our corner as we once did without assistance from others.

We must keep defending our trade routes, in particular the shipping lanes across the Atlantic, and for that we should have the aircraft survelience aircraft that the paper suggests, along with the surface fleet, coupled with submarines, to protect those vital lines of supply.

The lessons learnt during both The Great War and WW2 will not have escaped the attention of both Russia and China, so they will know how to effectively cripple our Island!


 

[Rods2]

F35 will be fine, yes it has had significant development problems, but it was always a very ambitious project, it reminds me in many ways on the development of the F16 which was a ground breaking lightweight high performance fighter that certainly also had its development problems. Volume production and an increasing order book means that the F35 price per unit is beginning to drop and may do so further if the UK replaces Tornados with F35As and other expected orders happen. It is estimated that more than 3000 F35s will be built with UKs part being 15% which currently supports 24,000 UK jobs. With the Russian A2D threat from S300/S400 SAMs non-stealth aircraft even with standoff weapons are being expected to operate in an increasingly very tough at best and lethal one at worst environment.

CaMoron's destruction in 2010 of the Nimrod fleet was IMO an even bigger act of defence asset vandalism than the Wilson one with TSR2. In both instances they ordered the complete destruction of the aircraft which resulted in even greater long term expenditure. The fact that CaMoron only work experience was as a junior PR spiv and his post WWII lifespan showed his zero understanding and experience of the misery of war, when you cut defences and empower risk taking dictators.

The excellent paper you have provided the link for shows how much the lack of a maritime surveillance platform has not only hit hard on us controlling and protecting our back yard, but also being able to contribute these sort of capabilities further afield in a lot more areas than just defence and that as a maritime nation we are struggling to meet our international SAR obligations. Again it illustrates how the best make much more money and have much better careers in a range of top professions which includes our just about still world class military and how the majority (with a few exceptions) of our politicians are the useless flotsam, that are unable to do top jobs so they grasp the best they can by climbing any dirty greasy political pole that they can get their hands on to remind us on a daily basis how poor they are.

The cancellation of 7 & 8 Type 45s where there primary mission is anti-aircraft and anti-missile defence in the 2010 defence review I think was again a very short sighted decision which is now catching up with the UK. A carrier task force normally includes at least one nuclear powered hunter killer submarine. The fact that the Astute class currently only has 3 submarines with a 4th being commissioned this year on the basis you generally need 3 ships to have 1 continuously available means we could not currently support both carriers operating independently at the same time on this alone without considering the lack of other escorts.

With a resurgent and aggressive Russia under Putin we need to start increasing out defense expenditure back towards 4% of GDP again, like it was up till 1991 when the failed bank manager became PM and decided that Russia was no longer a threat so we could drastically reduce defense spending with a 'peace' dividend. Office Junior May has increased things slightly, but IMO our nuclear assets need to be removed from the general defence budget with their own funds like they were pre-CaMoron/Osborne.

Whether we should spend the defense budget on strong home defences or portable assets as a global trading nation means in reality that we need both. Russian exports of nuclear bomb & ICBM technology to DPRK who in turn are probably exporting some to Iran means that we do need an anti-ballistic shield which maybe partly provided by enhanced Aster 30 missiles as part of NATO's anti-ballistic shield.