"Whither Britain's Queen Elizabeth Supercarrier?" Topic

"Britannia will rule the waves once again (together with Uncle Sam) when her new Queen Elizabeth-class flat-tops put to sea. That is what some in the defense community have contended, adding that the two 70,600-ton behemoths will propel the United Kingdom back into the big league of traditional strike-carrier nations. However, as I argue in an earlier RealClearDefense article, things are not so clear-cut. Just because the British will deploy large-deck carriers for the first time in decades and with a new, advanced naval jet in the F-35B Lightning II to boot does not automatically mean that the Royal Navy (RN) will acquire the capability to project power in considerable measure.

Central to this is the fact that the Queen Elizabeth carrier's Sunday Punch – its F-35B complement – is likely to be significantly understrength in the initial years of the platform's service. Having only a dozen or slightly more of the attack fighter renders the mother ship relatively prostrate to carry out force-projection missions in the face of credible anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) threats. Things are not helped by the F-35B's shortfalls in performance, the lack of a carrier-based fixed-wing Airborne Early Warning aircraft, and the relatively shallow missile magazine capacities of the escorts that will screen the RN's crown jewels. Bearing these in mind, is the Queen Elizabeth flat-top that potent as made out to be?…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

F-35s can't really carry enough weapons to "project power", assuming they ever get clearance for operational combat, LOL.

Yes, I know that the latter will probably happen, eventually, but it is embarrassing to see how slow this rollout has been, which is especially ridiculous, given the high costs of them.

In a 'real war' situation, no doubt the carriers would take on extra aircraft as in the Falklands. Likewise, early warning I wonder what is planned for the future in the way of unmanned craft?

Are there plans to "navalize" the Typhoon?

@ Geraldstoner49
Navalising the Typhoon is not relevant. The carriers are not fitted with, or designed to have, catapults. Retro fitting would be extremely expensive and necessitate re-design. It's now too late in the process I believe.
Perhaps we would be better off pooling our resources with American aviation and designing a new Super Harrier?.

The new Super Harrier is the F35B

F35Bs can carry 15,000lbs externally, which is plenty of boom. Just as much kaboom as an F18E Super Hornet, in fact, once you count the 3000lbs internal.

So yeah, F35s can project power as long as you don't need to worry too much about stealth.

Hi All

Note that the carried design takes into account a future installation of cats/traps if deemed necessary at a later date.

This would be part of a refit and would not be cheap.

To build a carrier that large and then not give it catapults or nuke power, and have it operate with roughly as much fixed-wing capability as an America-class LHA but at twice the per-unit cost…

That's a pretty impressive procurement boondoggle. Shoulda just bought 4 LHA's from the US for the same money. Which would probably drop the procurement cost slightly for both navies. Then the Royal Navy might be able to afford some more Type 45s to escort them.

I guess these sorts of inefficiencies are just part and parcel with trying to maintain a less-than-competitive domestic defense industry.

That's a pretty impressive procurement boondoggle. Shoulda just bought 4 LHA's from the US for the same money.

Nations have been there and done that- including the Kanimbla/Manoora and FFG7 sagas in the RAN. The RN would have noticed- even if it was just to point and laugh. Uncle Sam's Used and New Warships doesn't have that good a reputation any more. If a country is going to waste that much money on a semi-useless Floating Palace then they may as well give the money to a local builder, one who will later "donate" to local politicians.

Dal.

Uncle Sam's Used and New Warships doesn't have that good a reputation any more.

On the contrary. I'd argue building and operating big flattops is perhaps the only field where the US is utterly peerless in technical skill and experience. We've built ~65 CVs/CVLs, 100+ CVEs, and ~25 LHA/LHD/LPHs (more than DOUBLE the combined total of the UK and Japan, the only other major players, historically), have operated them continuously for 90 years, and know more about damage control than anyone else from saving numerous nearly-lost carriers.

*Some might say 5th-generation fighters are a unique US skill but if the Chinese deploy the J-31 before we work the bugs out of the F-35 I'm taking our "Stealth Fighter" points away.

Hopefully, the Chinese clones will have incorporated all the bugs of the F-35 system.

On the contrary. I'd argue building and operating big flattops is perhaps the only field where the US is utterly peerless in technical skill and experience.

Sorry, did I touch a nerve?

How far over budget and over-due IOC, OT&E and final acceptance will the new, made-in-the-USA super-duper ship be? Add the fact that the foreign vessels can be "bumped down the queue" at any time (note that's not a criticism- the US must look after itself first and that means US equipment must have priority in US manufacturing- but it's a factor to be considered by foreign governments) and reliability of delivery goes out the window. Nevantia, BAE Systems, Howaldtswerke-Deutsche and Blohm & Voss may not be right at what the USN considers the cutting edge, but they're close enough for most nations. Nor should you forget that other navies have different needs to the USN, so what's right for the USN may not be right for the RAN, KM, etc.

Or if a nation buys pre-loved ex-USN ships then there's no guarantee that the ships which were inspected and accepted will be the ships delivered. Kanimbla and Manoora weren't isolated cases- it's not just that Aussies are all socialist, freedom-hating, anti-US sods that our latest ships have not come from the US.

So no, US-built is not always the best idea. At times it's not even on the short list.

Dal.

Sorry, did I touch a nerve?

Um, no. Not really.

How far over budget and over-due IOC, OT&E and final acceptance will the new, made-in-the-USA super-duper ship be?

CVN-78 Ford is 2 years behind schedule. CVN-79 is 5 years behind schedule. The Telegraph just calls the QE CVs "years" behind schedule without being specific, so I don't have a data point for comparison. The Ford class features a bunch of cutting edge technologies. Hence my suggestion of the America-class: the tech in them is pretty mature, they are just slightly bigger and optimized versions of our previous LHD class.

Add the fact that the foreign vessels can be "bumped down the queue" at any time

The US is buying and building Americas one at a time. But the Pascagoula shipyard can support two carrier-sized projects (LHD-5 and LHD-6 had overlapping construction dates). So getting worked into the queue should be much easier compared to Norfolk, where I don't think we have excess capacity for building big ships.

Nevantia, BAE Systems, Howaldtswerke-Deutsche and Blohm & Voss may not be right at what the USN considers the cutting edge, but they're close enough for most nations.

HDW: Never built a warship >10,000 tons, and certainly never built a carrier or large-deck amphib.

Blom&Voss: Another frigate builder. Although they did build the Bismarck…

BAE: Some experience with amphibs, albeit small ones.

Navantia: The most credible, having built the decently-sized Juan Carlos family of amphibs.

One of the most important metrics for a carrier is its sustainable sortie generation rate. And that is heavily dependent on the efficient layout of the hangar deck and its unique flight operation systems (things like aircraft elevators and ordnance lifts). It's like optimizing a factory assembly line, but with really unique considerations due to the nature of ordnance handling and aircraft maintenance at sea.

Technically the Russians have more naval aviation experience, and we've seen what the results were: the Kuznetsovs, as aviation platforms, are terrible. Unfortunately I can't for the life of me find a really good article I read critiquing their flight ops and why building a carrier is so difficult.

Nor should you forget that other navies have different needs to the USN, so what's right for the USN may not be right for the RAN, KM, etc.

I'll admit to ignorance of the unique operational objectives of the UK/Australia for things like submarines/ transports/destroyers….but we are talking specifically about fixed-wing naval aviation here. And we are all planning to fly the same crappy STOVL aircraft too. If you look at the LHA-6 design in particular, it costs less than the QE's, and carries roughly the same number of F-35Bs.

Tell me this: what are the requirements of the RN that the LHA-6 *doesn't* meet?

Tell me this: what are the requirements of the RN that the LHA-6 *doesn't* meet?

Built in Australia.

I'm kinda surprised that nobody has copied the Midway-class hulls with a scaled down Nimitz flight deck layout. Reliable, tough-as-nails hull (how many ships last 50+ years of constant operations?), with a very good aircraft-handling layout.

G'day, Noble.

No, this week the RAN is definitely not getting F-35B's, so the LHD will just have choppers. Who knows what the decision will be next week, though?

As for the other builders, these days stepping up into the next class of ship isn't as fraught with problems as it used to be (though BAE Systems' cockups with the RAN's AWD show it's far from a minor risk). And all of those companies have had greater or less experience (prime contractor or sub-contractor status) in the build of big hulls, even if they were not naval. It's a starting point, especially when it's politically expedient to encourage a home-based builder, eg as with the Australian Submarine Corporation. That company alone probably encompasses all the advantages and disadvantages that result from boot-strapping an industry.

Tell me this: what are the requirements of the RN that the LHA-6 *doesn't* meet?

I've always been a passenger, not a sailor, so I can't begin to guess what the specifics of the RAN would be, let alone the RN. However Lion has it partly right- it's massive expenditure that politically and economically (sometimes) makes sense to have the ship built at a home facility. That's why foreign designs have to be built in the US with US "partners". When there's money to spend and "considerations" to be offered, pollies like things to happen at home.

Built in Australia.

Lion, I'd hate to see the RN's reaction if one of their ships was built in Oz. They'd probably burn it, exorcise it and then scatter the ashes. But yes, building the big ticket items at home will always be a decider in acquisition tender reviews.

Cheers.

Dal.

A pity to pay all those extra tens of millions per copy, for a stealth jet, and then strap bombs underneath the wings, totally negating that capability.

Man, if the bean-counters, and/or the general public find out about that, they'll be going crazy……..