Print

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

[STEMO]

......In at the deep end? HMS Queen Elizabeth sea trials tonight in part two. It's one fickin big boat.

[Shackeng]

Yet still only two thirds the Nimitz class!

[STEMO]

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. 

[biggriffin]

Guessing only poor hard up pensioners, can afford to watch it, not on my 5  channels.

[Viral_Jim]

Yet still only two thirds the Nimitz class!

Been lucky enough to see these “in the metal” twice; once in Hong Kong and once in San Diego. Awe-inspiring both times!

[Mr Gav]

Yet still only two thirds the Nimitz class!

Been lucky enough to see these “in the metal” twice; once in Hong Kong and once in San Diego. Awe-inspiring both times!

I went round the USS Nimitz in a boat when it was anchored off Portsmouth when I was a kid with my dad, it was frickin huge 

[STEMO]

Guessing only poor hard up pensioners, can afford to watch it, not on my 5  channels.

I'll keep it simple for the..........simple. It's on number 2, that's the one between 1 and 3. 

[Rods2]

Guessing only poor hard up pensioners, can afford to watch it, not on my 5  channels.

I'll keep it simple for the..........simple. It's on number 2, that's the one between 1 and 3. 

Radio 2 it is then.

[BazaJT]

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.

[STEMO]

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.

It's a fickin floating disaster area, nothing works.  Put out of action for weeks by a stray lobster pot. Hope Vlad wasn't watching, he might go for it with a whole string of pots. 

[BazaJT]

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.

[Kevin Wood]

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 could lend them a glider if they want...

Oh, hang on. BAE says it'll cost another £100Bn for the glider winch option.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

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.

[STEMO]

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.

I can't really say, I haven't seen a police officer for a couple of years.

[Rods2]

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.

The UK has taken delivery of 14 F35Bs so far and they are still all in the US as the pilots are being trained there at the moment. The carrier landing and take-off trials will start this year. The pilot skills required for carrier operations are more demanding than virtually any other type of flying, so at about $100m an aircraft taking their time to get them fully operational is perfectly reasonable.

The UK going for the VTOL version with the carrier having no catapults or arrestor gear is also sensible considering the size of our defence budget and the amount of additional training required for this type of operations. Russian carrier attrition rates shows what happens if you don't have sufficient regular training, where they lost two aircraft in carrier accidents during their short Syrian deployment.

[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.

[Marks DTM Calib]

Yet still only two thirds the Nimitz class!

Actually with respect to length etc., that's a myth, Nimitz class carries are about 50m longer (1/5) with more crew but, that's totally down to the fact the Nimitz is very obsolete and labour intensive tech. 

[Marks DTM Calib]

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.

Its the default, on every ship made, I always have guys on the first sailings and sail aways and its a must on sea trials.

[LC0112G]

Volume production and an increasing order book means that the F35 price per unit is beginning to drop and

F-35 production costs have dropped every year since first flight - with the exception of 2015. In 2009 they were $111M each, 2017 was $96.8M and 2019 is targeted to be $83M.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procurement

The version we've chosen is the most expensive, least capable version, to go on the largest carriers the UK has ever operated. Barking.

may do so further if the UK replaces Tornados with F35As and other expected orders happen.

And who's going to pay to replace the entire RAF tanker fleet so the RAF can buy F-35A? Our shiny new Voyager tankers are hose and drogue only, whereas the F-35A is USAF style boom refuelling only and cannot be modified with a probe.  The RAF don't own the Voyagers - Airtanker do under a PFI, and they have an exclusive contract to supply AAR assets to the RAF for (IIRC) 25 years. Undoing that contract is going to cost Bn$

What should have happened (as was supposed to between 2010-2012) was HMS PoW was fitted with CATOBAR, and both the RAF and RN switched to F-35C - which is probe and drogue. The reported £2Bn cost of the PoW retrofit will seem like beer money once the costs of operating two types (F35A and F35B) and retrofitting/replacing the Voyagers is taken into account. 

Nimrod MR4 was a clusterwhatsit from day one. The tech may have been good but the implementation was awful and I knew people who were jumping ship at BAe as long ago as 2000 because they could see what was happening - much the same as the Nimrod AEW3 program. The need for replacement MPA has nothing to do with SAR - the primary role is to protect the Nuclear Deterrent subs as they leave port on patrol. At the moment we have to ask NATO allies - the USN, French Navy and Canadian Forces to help out by supplying P3/P8/Atlantique and CP-140's whenever a boat leaves. If you can't get a boat out to sea without it being followed by an enemy hunter killer sub, then the deterrent is useless. Sure P8 will be useful for SAR and Fisheries protection etc, but these are secondary roles the RAF isn't responsible or funded for.

[Rods2]

Good points on the advantages of the F35C over the F35A.

I agree that the Nimrod development was a problematic mess from day 1 but I thought by 2010 most of the development problems at vast overrun time & cost had been sorted.

[Lizzie Zoom]

As I have stressed before, my concerns are over the availability of warships to give adequate screening for these new super carriers given the lack of numbers we have already, but then the fact that any fleet will have a high percentage, say 20%, tied up in port undergoing repairs or refits.

Nelson no less had to send 6 ships of his fleet, that is about 20%, to replenish their supplies at Gibraltar just before he was to engage with the larger combined fleet, but due to Nelson's famous tactics on the day he still gained a massive victory. It could have been very different though.

At Jutland HMS Queen Elizabeth, , the Queen Elizabeth Class leader of the five supper-dreadnoughts, so 20% of the force, was in port for a refit just as the Royal Navy Grand Fleet was to finally meet the German High Seas Fleet, with an indecisive outcome to the Battle. The fifth super-dreadnought could have made a vital difference as the rest of the class of the Fifth Battle Squadron, rescued the remains of the First Battlecruiser Squadron and could  have gone on to destroy the German fleet.  However, in this case things went wrong for the RN on the day, with a mixture of mistakes made and bad luck,  and the RN commanders were not able to take advantage of their far superior fire power with losses sustained. 

During WW2 the aforementioned Battle of Midway destroyed 4 Japanese carriers due to a lack of adequate air protection and sunk the hopes of that nation to gain a victory over the USA, which went on to win the War against them,.

These are all past events, but what I am emphasizing is the crucial need for numbers and quality of naval units to not only successfully protect the flagships of each battle group, but go on and destroy the enemy.  This just is not the case today, with this website reflecting the true state of affairs, with the usual level of protection warships out of service due to refits and maintenance, but also, very worryingly, a lack of crew:
http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/ongoing-manpower-issues-revealed-by-status-of-royal-navy-surface-escorts/

 

[Lizzie Zoom]

..................................These facts reflect a far higher rate of "out of service" than the 20% I see as the bench mark of a standard, or acceptable, state of affairs for the adequate protection of the fleet.



 
[/quote]

[LC0112G]

..................................These facts reflect a far higher rate of "out of service" than the 20% I see as the bench mark of a standard, or acceptable, state of affairs for the adequate protection of the fleet.



 

[/quote]

With only 2 carriers, it's difficult to have more than 50% of your main assets in service at any one time. The French have just one carrier (although it is a proper one with CATOBAR!) so have that problem much of the time.

The USN are supposed to maintain 11 carriers, but in reality rarely have more than 10 operational carriers at any one time (currently CVN68-CVN77). Of these 2 or 3 are on station at any one time, with 2 in immediate reserve, and the rest in work up or re-fit.  So even with 11 carriers, the yanks struggle to put more than 5 or 6 to sea at any one time.

A USN Carrier battle group typically includes another 5 or 6 combat ships, including one air defence ship, two anti sub ships and a hunter killer sub. The Royal Navy supposedly has 6 Destroyers (T45), 13 Frigates (T23/Duke) and 6 HK Subs. Therefore even if 50% of those are in refit or work-up at any one time the RN should be able to escort a single carrier - although it doesn't leave much spare to do the other stuff the Govt ask the RN to do.  T45 and the HK's are well regarded (when they're working!).

Yes, we should have more of all the above, but even with more the new RN carrier battle groups would have been so much more potent if we were able to put AEW, ECM and AAR aircraft on board too - like the E2C Hawkeye, EF18G and KA6/F18F. Even the old Ark had Gannet and Buccaneer for these tasks. But we've gone for Jump Jets and Ski Jumps similar to Invincible, which rules all that out so we're limited to Helicopter AEW, no blue water AAR and range limited F-35B. As I said - Barking.

[LC0112G]

I agree that the Nimrod development was a problematic mess from day 1 but I thought by 2010 most of the development problems at vast overrun time & cost had been sorted.

Yes, by 2010 most of the tech gubbins was working - or at least there was high confidence it would work in the very near future. In-fact I'm told much of it is now in P8. But Nimrod was doomed from 2005 when XV230 went bang over Afghanistan, and the investigation basically showed the Nimrod airworthiness was suspect - or at least there was little or no documentation to say it was airworthy. The MAA then starts demanding all sorts of proof that the various mods are 'safe' which BAe can't/won't produce, and you're left with an airframe that no-one will sign is safe for flight or even release to service. That's the problem when you try and refit a 1960's aircraft and try to apply 2010 safety standards to it - the documentation just doesn't exist.

Don't ask how the RAF got approval to new operate 'new' RC-135's  that all first flew in the early 1960's

[Kevin Wood]

I agree that the Nimrod development was a problematic mess from day 1 but I thought by 2010 most of the development problems at vast overrun time & cost had been sorted.

Yes, by 2010 most of the tech gubbins was working - or at least there was high confidence it would work in the very near future. In-fact I'm told much of it is now in P8. But Nimrod was doomed from 2005 when XV230 went bang over Afghanistan, and the investigation basically showed the Nimrod airworthiness was suspect - or at least there was little or no documentation to say it was airworthy. The MAA then starts demanding all sorts of proof that the various mods are 'safe' which BAe can't/won't produce, and you're left with an airframe that no-one will sign is safe for flight or even release to service. That's the problem when you try and refit a 1960's aircraft and try to apply 2010 safety standards to it - the documentation just doesn't exist.

Don't ask how the RAF got approval to new operate 'new' RC-135's  that all first flew in the early 1960's

Exactly where the air cadets glider fleet ended up!

[Lizzie Zoom]

To simply sum up what you are saying LC0112G we have very little defensive capability, let alone anything at the offensive level for a non-nuclear conflict, and I totally agree!

All this must change, but without me shouting off in detail about politics, hospitals and schools must take second place behind the defence of the Realm.

...oopppps, there I go, showing my right wing colours!
 

[Shackeng]

Yet still only two thirds the Nimitz class!

Actually with respect to length etc., that's a myth, Nimitz class carries are about 50m longer (1/5) with more crew but, that's totally down to the fact the Nimitz is very obsolete and labour intensive tech. 

You may have misunderstood my comment, I was merely pointing out that here we bragging about building two 'super' carriers, yet they are only two thirds the gross weight of the, now obsolete, Nimitz class laid down nearly 40 years ago. Even the Forrestal class from the '50's was bigger, shipped up to 90 aircraft, with IIRC, 4 deck side lifts.
I am in no way decrying these carriers, I just hope that common sense prevails, and they are not put into use without the required a/c and escort groups.

[Rods2]

When I worked for the MOD part of that was working with the Fleet Air Arm and their rule of thumb was needing 3 ship to guarantee one always being available and with Trident 4 as that allows for one being deployed and then the other returning to port from deployment while having one on station.

To have one available, one of them at any time one will be typically going through repairs, maintenance or a refit and a second, training and working up to full fighting efficiency and finally one fully operational and normally on a deployment or exercise.

At the time a good example of this was the three Invincible class carriers, (or 'through deck cruisers' for political purposes where the Labour Government at the time of their proposal and design would not allow the RN to have a new class of carriers ), so they always had one available. As the class was designed for helicopter operations when Harriers were added the maintenance facilities got very cramped with having to have the extra spares, test equipment and repair facilities for them.

Where the RN now has so few escorts unscheduled maintenance causes major scheduling and deployment problems with Type 45 engine troubles being a good example.

The first Type 26 frigate HMS Glasgow won't be operational until 2025 and not in service until 2027. A full 7 years after the first carrier is in service. We used to be able to build ships much faster than this with Admiral John 'Jackie' Fisher making sure that HMS Dreadnought was build in only 12 months, so it was finished before the politicians had a chance to cancel it where there was much opposition to such a new radical ship design. Without his vision, drive, bluntness, experience and political skills it would probably not have been built.... and then of course the rest is history, so from that point onwards where the design was so revolutionary you had older pre-dreadnought and then dreadnought battleships and the UK / German battleship arms race on the run up to WWI. Where it was the first of a new design it did not have a long service life where they found it had several major operational problems which were corrected on later designs.

[Lizzie Zoom]

When I worked for the MOD part of that was working with the Fleet Air Arm and their rule of thumb was needing 3 ship to guarantee one always being available and with Trident 4 as that allows for one being deployed and then the other returning to port from deployment while having one on station.

To have one available, one of them at any time one will be typically going through repairs, maintenance or a refit and a second, training and working up to full fighting efficiency and finally one fully operational and normally on a deployment or exercise.

At the time a good example of this was the three Invincible class carriers, (or 'through deck cruisers' for political purposes where the Labour Government at the time of their proposal and design would not allow the RN to have a new class of carriers ), so they always had one available. As the class was designed for helicopter operations when Harriers were added the maintenance facilities got very cramped with having to have the extra spares, test equipment and repair facilities for them.

Where the RN now has so few escorts unscheduled maintenance causes major scheduling and deployment problems with Type 45 engine troubles being a good example.

The first Type 26 frigate HMS Glasgow won't be operational until 2025 and not in service until 2027. A full 7 years after the first carrier is in service. We used to be able to build ships much faster than this with Admiral John 'Jackie' Fisher making sure that HMS Dreadnought was build in only 12 months, so it was finished before the politicians had a chance to cancel it where there was much opposition to such a new radical ship design. Without his vision, drive, bluntness, experience and political skills it would probably not have been built.... and then of course the rest is history, so from that point onwards where the design was so revolutionary you had older pre-dreadnought and then dreadnought battleships and the UK / German battleship arms race on the run up to WWI. Where it was the first of a new design it did not have a long service life where they found it had several major operational problems which were corrected on later designs.

It was built in 12 months by using many components from builds parts already available "in stock".

What is interesting is that HMS Dreadnought was very revolutionary at the time in 1906, but by the Battle of Jutland in 1916 it was obsolete, with the super-dreadnoughts of the Queen Elizabeth being the true trend setters, and very advanced compared to any other nations battleships. These took 3 years to build from designing in 1912 to the first of the 5 built commissioned in 1915.  The most famous of these, despite many scrapes with calamity, was HMS Warspite that was in service up to the end of WW2 before being scrapped after she ran aground under tow to the breakers yard. Only one of the class, HMS Barham, was lost in action during WW2 being infamously filmed capsizing after being torpedoed then blowing up.

They were considered to be the best battleships ever built by Britain, and I hope that the new Queen Elizabeth carriers last as long and are as successful

[Lizzie Zoom]

......I must emphasis that it was due to the foresight and advanced action by Fisher that many parts were availble to build HMS Dreadnought before it's build had been approved. This ship certainly started a massive arms race with Germany, which in British terms meant the priority was to build many dreadnoughts ready for what was seen to be the inevitable war with the former, and further advance the British policy in force since 1897 to create an advanced Royal Navy to a two power standard.

 That "fever" and need is what is missing now, as it seems we are not preparing for what I see as an inevitable conflict to come.

[Rods2]

......I must emphasis that it was due to the foresight and advanced action by Fisher that many parts were availble to build HMS Dreadnought before it's build had been approved. This ship certainly started a massive arms race with Germany, which in British terms meant the priority was to build many dreadnoughts ready for what was seen to be the inevitable war with the former, and further advance the British policy in force since 1897 to create an advanced Royal Navy to a two power standard.

 That "fever" and need is what is missing now, as it seems we are not preparing for what I see as an inevitable conflict to come.

That was part of his strategy, so it could be built fast enough before the politicians had chance to cancel it, where it was an 'unofficial' project. Like many shapers in society he didn't like 'no' as an answer and would bully and press on regardless to get the result he wanted. A winning combination of good vision and bloody minded determination. During one animated conversation with the king, the king had to ask him to stop waving his pointed finger in his face. He could see the danger from Germany and predicted in 1911 that the next European war would begin once the Kiel Canal was finished, he was one month out on the start of WWI.

[Lizzie Zoom]

......I must emphasis that it was due to the foresight and advanced action by Fisher that many parts were availble to build HMS Dreadnought before it's build had been approved. This ship certainly started a massive arms race with Germany, which in British terms meant the priority was to build many dreadnoughts ready for what was seen to be the inevitable war with the former, and further advance the British policy in force since 1897 to create an advanced Royal Navy to a two power standard.

 That "fever" and need is what is missing now, as it seems we are not preparing for what I see as an inevitable conflict to come.

That was part of his strategy, so it could be built fast enough before the politicians had chance to cancel it, where it was an 'unofficial' project. Like many shapers in society he didn't like 'no' as an answer and would bully and press on regardless to get the result he wanted. A winning combination of good vision and bloody minded determination. During one animated conversation with the king, the king had to ask him to stop waving his pointed finger in his face. He could see the danger from Germany and predicted in 1911 that the next European war would begin once the Kiel Canal was finished, he was one month out on the start of WWI.

Indeed, Fisher was an exceptional man and certainly drove the development of the Royal Navy at the start of the new century.  He was so disappointed when the 'Der Tag' at Jutland did not result in the full decisive battle he and everyone expected.  He never forgave the Admiral of the Grand Fleet, Sir John Jellicoe, for a missed opportunity to destroy the German High Seas Fleet as Nelson had destroyed the combined fleet at Trafalgar.

[BazaJT]

Last of the three programmes on tonight,so worth the watching.Then here's another one for Lizzie[OOooer missus ]probably a repeat but on BBC4 at 9pm tonight Battle of Jutland:The Navy's Bloodiest Day could well be worth a look see.I'll certainly be watching

[Lizzie Zoom]

Last of the three programmes on tonight,so worth the watching.Then here's another one for Lizzie[OOooer missus ]probably a repeat but on BBC4 at 9pm tonight Battle of Jutland:The Navy's Bloodiest Day could well be worth a look see.I'll certainly be watching

Thanks Baza!

Yes, I have watched that before, but no doubt will be watching it again!

The documentary claims to uncover fresh information on the Battle, but actually most, if not all, has already been discussed by historians. The Royal Navy flaws, at many levels, showed on the day, but still the ultimate aim was achieved; the Grand Fleet remained the supreme naval power and Germany never again challenged the Royal Navy to any real degree for the rest of WW1.

My favourite read, of all the books on the Battle, is  Steel.N & Hart.P  Jutland 1916 Cassell 2003. It combines explanation of what happened coupled with numerous contemporary witness statements, that are priceless to any historian. The answers to the many questions about the event are all there

[Lizzie Zoom]

..........................PS that may be an historical event, but what was learnt about how Royal Navy commanders "manage" their command and use their brains with the resources available, still applies to the modern fleet.

If HMS Queen Elizabeth of 2018 is to have a successful career and deal with the 'eventualities' or conflicts that arise with the achieve the results desired, it is vital that commanders of the Royal Navy learn from the past.  New technology is one thing, but nothing will replace that skill and 'gut' nature of a true leader that shows in battle, famously with Nelson, but although it can be there in many, sometimes it is being 'trained out' of them, such as with, it is argued, many commanders at Jutland, the main example being Sir John Jellicoe. A cautious nature took over a few and disappointed many.

[BazaJT]

Thanks for the book info Lizzie,I shall seek out and buy a copy of that.One of Nelsons great attributes was in calling his captains together outlining his attack plan and ultimate goal and then knowing how a sea fight could change due to weather and other factors,he'd trust them to use their initiative and judgement to "put their ship alongside that of an enemy" to achieve the desired outcome.

[Lizzie Zoom]

Thanks for the book info Lizzie,I shall seek out and buy a copy of that.One of Nelsons great attributes was in calling his captains together outlining his attack plan and ultimate goal and then knowing how a sea fight could change due to weather and other factors,he'd trust them to use their initiative and judgement to "put their ship alongside that of an enemy" to achieve the desired outcome.

Exactly right. But that is what did not happen at Jutland with a rigid following of 'the book'. Apart from the very bold action by Vice Admiral Sir David Beatty of the First Battlecruiser Squandron, who, maybe recklessness to some, did lead his battlecruisers to do what they were meant to do and attack the enemy, with him then, after losing three ships, bravely leading the German fleet towards the main body of the Grand Fleet. But due to mistakes, including Beatty leaving the Fifth Battle Squadron (4 super-dreadnoughts) behind when they should have been covering Beatty's ships; the weaknesses of the battlecruisers already described; then Admiral Sir John Jellicoe turning his fleet away from the confrontation with the High Seas Fleet when Beatty had succeeded in his aim, and the rigidness of other commanders, a wonderful opportunity to destroy the German fleet was not taken. Nelson took risks; Beatty took risks, but Jellicoe did not and (hotly argued both ways by naval commanders and historians alike with the possible effects of German submarines and mines to be taken into account) either did the right thing by not risking his vastly superior fleet, or missed the golden moment to decimate the enemy as the First Sea Lord, Sir John Fisher had intended when he built up the 'two power standard' Grand Fleet, as much as the German Admiral Alfred Von Tirpitz had developed the High Seas 'Risk Fleet'. Everyone wanted Der Tag to finally prove who could achieve the most with their respective fleets.

The Royal Navy not only had problems with commanders being too cautious, and unlucky, but they even failed to attack the retreating German fleets as those units passed through British llines of heavy ships because it was night time; the Royal Navy at that time was NOT trained to fight at night, and so many captains of the British ships let the Germans pass!  British destroyers, with typical captains who did take risks, did bravely attack some of those heavy ships of the German fleet, but unfortunatly suffered losses; 8 destroyers sunk and 532 crew killed. If the heavy ships of the Grand Fleet had taken the risk and fought at night these losses could have been avoided, and the German 'escape' with relatively light casualties, could have been very different. But, history is history and little but discussing what transpired can happen now.

[Lizzie Zoom]

Another book in my collection on Juland  Baza, that I also find useful to understand the Battle, with very good illustrations, is:  Bonney G.  The Battle of Jutland 1916 Sutton Publishing 2006 (paperback edition).

It, like the previously mentioned book Jutland 1916, gives a good account of the arms race and build up from 1897 to the Battle

[Rods2]

Although Jutland was a missed opportunity for a tactical victory and was an indecisive battle and on numbers and casualties IMO a UK tactical loss, what must be considered is that is was a strategic victory where the much worse outcome for the RN would have been a real loss and the German Grand Fleet breaking the RN blockade which was a factor in Germany running out of money and resources where the blockade held and the German fleet did not challenge the RN again. My grandad was a CPO and fought in the Battle of Jutland, but suffered from PTSD whhich got so bad in the 1920's and wasn't understood or treated, he spent the rest of his days a volunteer in a mental hospital, where the easiest thing at that time was to remove and forget about people with post WWI mental problems. I also can't find his RN records as many were destroyed in the 1940 Blitz where I have for my other grandad where he fought on The Somme and wounded and disabled during a German attack when the person next to him dropped a Mills bomb in their trench and he had the presence of mind to kick it around the corner of the castellated trench, but his foot was still near it when it went off, but he saved himself and those beside him. He was lucky as earlier in the war when he had been going along a communications trench with two other people where they were a bit more exposed than they realised and a German machine opened up and as he swung the gun around the spacing in the bullets shot in the head and killed the person in front of him and the person behind him.

After the spring 1918 German Ludendorff campaign almost succeeded where he broke through allied lines on the hinge of British anf French troops and made the biggest advances since 1914 in the hope of reaching the Channel before American troops were committed it failed on a combination of German logistics where they couldn't get enough supplies to the attacking front and American reinforcements. From that point onwards it was a year of victories for the allies using superior troop numbers, creeping artillery barrages and tanks, so Germany had no choice but to sue for peace.

Another indecisive battle which was a tactical draw (but claimed as a victory by the French) was the Battle of Malage in 1704, where the UK had recently taken Gibraltar and a combined French-Spanish fleet was launched to attack a combined UK-Dutch one. The battle saw no ships lost by either side but they both suffered heavy damage and casualties, with the French-Spanish fleet slightly more so, but they returned to Toulouse and didn't attack the British again. which is why Gibraltar is still (much to the Spanish displeasure) a British Crown Dependency.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_M%C3%A1laga_(1704)

Those that are interested in well researched fiction in a series of books called the Dawlish Chronicles by Antoine Vanner and what I find even more interesting and not well known are his true historical RN exploits written about in the Dawlish Chronicles blog and newsletter and can be viewed at:

https://dawlishchronicles.com

[BazaJT]

I think the main problem with Jutland was that the Royal Navy,Admiralty,government and the population not only expected but demanded nothing less than a complete victory-another Trafalgar moment if you will-although as said it was a victory in as much as the High Seas Fleet never challenged the Royal Navy en masse againand I think the next time the High Seas Fleet put to sea as a fleet was when they sailed with their crews into captivity at Scapa Flow.