Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers.

With the cost of the 2 new aircraft carriers the UK is building going up to 7.2 billion pounds, I would like to know if people think they are worth the spending on them.

As they have no hull armour plating and only 1 of them has catapults, I think they aren't worth jack. In 2004 the navy asked for 3 25,000 ton carriers or 2 40,000 ton carriers, meaning by 2020 the UK could project 60 aircraft. So what did the government go and build 2 65,000 ton carriers? Which could project 70 aircraft, 10 more than needed and 20 less than they could fly because the UK can't afford more than 70 aircraft.

What I am saying is these carrier were stupid and badly thought out. They should have cost 8 billion tops, that includes catapults and armour. But because of contract changes they will cost 10 billion at least if we want the best ship we can get.

Carriers are needed, but the over spend is disgraceful.

 

OK, this once again goes to show how little you know or understand of how the military works.

Aircraft Carriers are not armored. And with the exception of a few odd-ball classes like the US Midway Class, they never have been armored. This is because they are not front line combat ships. They sit safely in the rear of the fleet, and the armored and armed ships are tasked to protect them.

What aircraft carriers are is fast. And that is achieved by keeping the weight as low as possible. Add armour, increase the weight and cost, and decrease the speed. Not gonna happen.

As for catapaults, what aircraft are they intending on carrying? Well, as you well know, they are going to have F-35 aircraft. The catapault version will have F-35Cs, and the non-catapault version will have F-35Bs.

And if you had done any research, you would see that the F-35B does not have the strengthened nose or the tailhook needed for conventional carrier operations.

And I fail to see the direction of this rant, since you have over and over stated that the UK needs 100,000+ ton carriers. So you are upset because they built larger carriers then you think they need?

 

Sorry but you keep seeing things in terms of the US Navy and not the Royal Navy.

The QE class needs armour, as the British fleet is small it will need to defend itself from attack and take some hits, the RN wants the best ship it can, it needs armour.

It's their shape and huge nuclear reactor that makes the US carriers the best in the world, but the QE class is diesel power and the ship is a different shape, so it is slower, at most 26 knots. So weight doesn't matter as much.

No they are fitting one with catapaults and one without, as they say we can't afford a contract change to fit Prince of Wales to fly the F35C. They are trying to keep the costs down of the F35 so they want to buy the less costly F35C, which will save them over £700 million, which is about the same as the cost of fitting 1 carrier with catapaults. And we get a better carrier, able to fly the better version of the F35.

I am saying the government is think of just scrapping the Prince of Wales, because it can't afford the aircraft. Which will cost over 5 billion.

This thread was really for British people annoyed that these 2 carriers have been cocked up. First we were not going to fly the F35 but Harriers, then we are going to fly the F35B, now it's the F35C. We were going to have 12 Type 45's which could defend them all year round, now just 6 which isn't enough for the all the jobs the navy needs them, so there will be times the carriers will have no defending ships. And all the contract changes have put the price up by over 2 billion, and if we want the carriers we want it will cost upwards of 10 billion. They should have just listened to the navy in the first place, and made smaller carriers which could carry almost as many aircraft.

I want the European defence pact to build 100,000+ carriers, because they have the money to do so, the UK does, and most people think it's better to have 6 25,000 tons carriers than 2 65,000 tons carriers.

 

Oh I am aware of this. And it is those nuclear reactors that make the US carriers so fast, even with their bulk. Because of the limitations of diesel engines, the ships have to be a great deal smaller in order to pull this off.

And once again, I give you an example and you do not bother to do any research on it.

The USS Midway was a unique class of aircraft carriers. Originally designed as a test bed in 1940, the Navy wanted to know if it would be possible to armor the flight deck of a carrier, to see if it was practicle. What they discovered was that by doing so, they cut the aircraft capacity roughly in half. This was unacceptable, so the plans of armour were dropped.

However, they did have the thickest armor ever placed on a carrier, 7.5 inches at the belt. To give you a comparison, the German "Pocket Battleships" (heavy armored cruiser) had 3 inches at the belt. This was done to protect the ship against artillery fire from other ships.

However, with the advent of anti-ship missiles, this became a mute point. Carriers have never been engaged in direct ship to ship fire, and over the years the decision was made to dump the armor. It simply was a waste, especially in the modern world.

Armor would be great, if you thought your ship might come under direct fire from another ship or a shore battery. If your ship is under attack from a missile, it does almost no good at all. If you wanted to have armor enough to protect from a missile, then you would have to jump up to what is considered to have been the only ship class to have the hull to withstand a missile strike, the Iowa class Battleships.

These ships were massive, having over 12 inches of hull armor. These were the only ships to have enough armor to deflect incomming anti-ship missiles (which was a main reason for their being recommissioned in the 1980's).

However, because of the increased capacity of Guided Missile ships in the 1990's, it became increasingly able to shoot down the incomming missiles instead of trying to armor ships against them.

This is why modern carriers of the world (including the UK) have Guided Missile Cruisers and Destroyers in their protective fleet. The Carrier does not get anywhere near where incomming artillery can strike at them. And their escort group protects them from incomming missiles.

Now if you want to have the carrier protect itself from incomming missiles, you are still going about it the wrong way. Instead of trying to armor the ship, the better solution is to do what the Soviet Union did. Instead of making them thickly armored, they put missile launchers on the Kiev class of carrier. Simply replace the anti-ship and anti-ground missiles, and arm it almost completely with anti-missile missiles. This way it can protect itself from missile fire, without the added weight of armor.

To give an idea, even the outdated Exocet missile (remember those?) was designed to penetrate 9-10 inches of armor. The HMS Sheffield was hit by a single missile in 1982, and the missile penetrated over half way through the vessel.

And even though the missile did not explode, the ship was still sunk because of the damage just from the impact and penetration. This is what you are going to have to armor your ship against. So you are not just going to have to amror it, you are going to essentially need to build a WWII class super battleship, with a flight deck on top.

And if you think this will be affordable, think again.

 

I was reading an article in a RN magazine about the QE carriers last night.

Firstly the first ship is well into contruction, and some of the modules are already being joined together.

The first of class is still expected to be completed by 2016, mind you when it will have the F-35 available on it is another matter, somewhere around 2020 is the expected date.

Yes, in the original design plans, industry teams had made provisions for the ship to have armour plating in places and strengthed bulkheads.....but these were cancelled on the grounds of cost.

As 'Mushroom' has stated, the belief that carriers can get away with some defensive systems omitted, is that the destroyer escorts would take care of any incoming air missiles, and the subs in the carrier group would take care of any underwater threat...........though i do think that if your spending billions on a warship it should be built as best as possible.
I mean no defence system is infallible, a missile or torpedo could get past a carrier groups defences, due to malfunction of a system onboard a destroyer or submarine. Then there's a case that a carrier could hit a mine!.

Anyway, as a compromise i believe as in Amercian carriers the ships vital depts have been designed well inboard of the vessel and that some sort of kevlar plating may be used as a level of protection.

'Antileftwinger'...........yes the carriers will be very expensive indeed, but when you see that they are designed to be in service for some 50 years, then the costs looks reasonable. Hopefully the economic crisis will calm down in the next few years and the UK will be able to keep both carriers, and in future refits, fit them out with the extra equipment needed.

 

Yes I though the ships were going to have their own anti missile capabilities, but it's just guns to attack other ships.

So yes you are right, it needs it's own anti missile system. Since the UK doesn't have enough type 45's, and Astute's. So I would still want the ship to have 4 inch of armour on the hull and 2 inch on the deck to stop other gun ships from getting in and bullets going through the ship. But I never want 15 inch of armour.

I would like the carriers to have been nuclear powered, but it's not cost effective, as the US reactors are much better than the British and French ones.

Would modern armour be any better at stopping missiles from sinking the ship?

Do you not think it's rather stupid to build a carrier and then change 3 times what sort of jet you want it to carry? Or build 65,000 ton carriers, when you really only needed 40,000 ton carriers, these carriers are made to carry and fly 45 aircraft, but the government is only fitting the carriers to carry 35, what's the point in building them, what I am saying is they are white elaphants.

 

I agree, we need the best carriers we can, no matter what the cost, but these 2 carriers aren't worth 7.2 billion, I would rather spend 11 billion on them and have the best ship we can, than spend 3.8 billion less and one of them get sunk by an anti jets missile because it has no armour if anti missile system. Plus the current carrier don't ever project as much airpower as they should. It's a cockup, but two useless governments.

 

Only the "last ditch" defense of CIWS style systems, nothing that can take out missiles at a safe distance.

And no, no guns. This is a carrier, not a surface combatant. The only guns are the 30mm CIWS systems, and some others like pintal mounted .50 cal for close in threats.

You have to realize, the Royal Navy operates much more like the US Navy then the Soviet or Russian Navy. Their Aircraft Carrying Heavy Missile Cruisers are unique, and they are designed to operate with a very small support fleet. They also carry about half the number of aircraft also.

It's aircraft and capabilities are designed more for defense then serious offensive capability. So you would have to take that in mind when deciding on what you want to do with it.

But why double the armour? A missile will still go through 4 inches like it was not there, so that is just a waste of weight.

Armour does not stop a missile from striking a ship, it just decreases the damage. And the best Naval armour is still good of steel. To protect from missiles, lots and lots and lots of steel.

Carriers are designed to last for so long, that most conventional carriers will go through several types of aircraft during it's lifespan. The USS Midway started with the Hellcat, and ended it's service with the F/A-18 Hornet. I think it went through a total of 6-8 main aircraft changes during it's lifespan. So that really is a non-issue.

And you keep going on about tons like that really matters. What matters is the mission it is designed to accomplish. As long as it accomplishes this mission, it is the right size.

 

No armour made can defend against modern missiles. Look back to my description of the USS New Jersey to see what I mean.

Unless you plan on 14 inch thick armour, forget about it. Nothing less then that would be effective against missiles.

And it is not the carrier's job to defend against missiles, that is the job of the Guided Missile Ships, like the Type 45 Destroyer you keep bringing up over and over again. It is the job of ships like this to defend the Carrier. Think of it like chess, and the Carrier is the King. It has almost no offense or defense in and of itself, all the other pieces are there simply to protect the King, and to take the battle to the King of the other side.

You want to create some kind of super-ship I guess. If you want an example of this, you only have to look as far as the Japanese Aircraft Carrier the Shinano. Built on a Yamato class Battleship hull, it was one of the largest carriers ever built.

But even that super thick armour for a carrier did not save her from a WWII era submarine torpedo.

I guess I am now picturing a ship with an Iowa class battleship hull, a protrusion out the side to mount the SAMPSON Radar so it does not get in the way of flight operations, a strongly slanted deck so it can still conduct flight operations, the front half taken up with missiles, and sponsons all down the side to carry 5" guns.

If this about what you envision?

 

So it will have guns then? For shooting up small boats and incoming aircraft.

No the Royal navy is more like the French navy, nothing like the US or Russian navies. Even then the British and French navies are very different.

No why wouldn't the carriers just have the same system the French carrier Charles de Gaulle? With the missiles from the type 45 I keep bringing up, because it's the best air defence ship in the world.

I would have armour to stop bullets going through the ship and make it harder for air plane missiles to badly damage the ship, I know it wouldn't stop and ship missiles, but hopefully protect the ship from other missiles.

So what happens when Prince of Wales is made without catapaults and in 30 years time needs them to fly a great new aircraft? So it is an issue, plus it costs much more to change something then, than it does when building. But then again, you don't care about costs just the best thing for the mission. When I talk about tons, I mean the navy didn't ask for ships this big, the government did, and it has been cocked up from the start. And tons matter as the bigger the ship the more 5 diffenent changes costs.

 

Why do the US carriers have armor?

I know defending the ship is the job of the type 45, but the UK doesn't have enough of them to defend both carriers at the same time 24/7, we would need 4 more to make that happen.

It's nothing like chess then, as the carriers job is using it's airpower attack the other side, while the other ship defend it. Am I right?

No I just want the best carriers the UK can have, with the best planes, crew and defence, so the carrier isn't sunk.

 

Yep 6 Type 45's is really the absolute bare minimum of Destroyers that the RN needs. I'd imagine in reality when the 2 Carriers are commisioned there would be probably 2 Destoyers allocated to each carrier group, as the remaining two Destroyers would be either in for maintenance (refit), or on some other duty. I presume in there early years the Carriers would also be escorted by a number of Type 23 Frigates.
These Frigates are continually being refitted with the latest version of Seawolf and updates to other weapons and electronics systems.
The VLS Sea Viper on the type 45's would be used for long range air defence, and for VLS Sea Wolf would be used to counter any air or missile threat that gets closer to the carrier group.
Its also handy that the Type 23's have the SSM Harpoon, which could take on any long range surface ship threat.

Generally though what is needed is a decent production run on the Type 26 Combat ship, which will have an even more advanced AAW missile system named CAMM (at present).

Incidently 65,000 tons is more than big enough for our Carriers, to be able to carry a sufficient number of aircraft to project an offensive force.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to money..........and unfortunately the current and previous UK goverments are (and were) somewhat sea blind.

'Antileftwinger'..........if you want upto date info on th RN.......then go down to a decent newsagent and buy the monthly 'WARSHIP' magazine, its packed with upto date news and articles on the RN, and all navies come to think of it!

 

Yes 6 type 45's really isn't enough, what if one brakes down, then what, Sand Woodwood said you need to of everything, so we really need 12. But right now I would take building 2 more, which I really hope happens and will be lobbying my MP and the Defence minister. Yes I like the type 23's, they will do a very good job until the type 26's are build in 2020, lets hope they build all 13 of them, and not sell of 3 to Turkey or Brazil.

Yes I know once these carriers are made they will be very good, but looking at it now they look a lot worse than they need to be. And I still don't see why we cut the Harriers, just to have few aircraft on the carriers and no jets until 2020, it's rather thick of this government.

Yes but this governments worse in my view because it could see all the mistakes the last government was making and it's making the military better but worse.

Ok then I will, which date of each month?

 

It looks like I have beaten mushroom.

 

No, actually you have not. I simply grow increaingly tired of essentially battling a person with no comprehension of what military equipment is used for, how it is used, and why it is designed the way it is.

We have gone around and around on this over and over again. I have decades of experience in this, a great deal of it actually inside the military. And in multiple branches, not just one. I tell you exact answers, and you respond either ignoring totally what is said, or trying to tell me I am wrong.

Let me tell you, once again. Adding 6 inches of armor will not help against missiles. And this makes no difference where they are launched from, a ship, a plane, a submarine, from a land position, or even a helicopter. The Exocet is over 30 years old, and one would have no problem penetrating the armour of almost any ship currently afloat.

You seem to obsess over the totally wrong things constantly. Where the missile comes from does not matter, they all have pretty much the same capabilities. And that is to target and strike a ship, and penetrate 9-10 inches of hull armor.

Period.

So unless you plan on putting 12+ inches of armour on your ships, it is not going to do any good at all against missiles. Your best defense then is to make a wide ring around the ship with as many defensive ships as you can, with the hope you can shoot the missile down long before it reaches you.

And the guns on a modern ship come in 2 varieties. One is the CIWS, a mini-gattling cannon, designed to be the last-ditch defense against an incomming sea skimming missile. This is not for use against ships, or people, only incomming missiles. And odds are if it is needed, the ship will still take significant damage from the "shotgun effect" of incomming high speed shrapnel. But this is lower then that of getting hit by the missile itself.

And the pintal and rail mounted .50 machine guns are generally used for 3 purposes. First is for defense when in a possible hostile port, like in Aden, Yemen where the USS Cole was struck. It is also used for cover during boarding operations, like against Somali pirates. And finally, it is the most common way of removing surface mines when they are detected.

These are all close-in weapons, and not designed for use against other ships.

This is why I largely tune out these debates in an increasing manner. We will lay things out for you, point everything out that you have wrong, and still you insist that you are right and we are wrong. I have absolutely no idea what your background is, but you have consistantly tried to tell many military veterans of many different branches that you are right and they are wrong.

With absolutely nothing to back it up at all. To you, this all seems to be a hobby of some kind. For many of us, it is our profession. One that we have studied and continue to study, in and out of uniform.

And I will tell you once again, research. You say to build 6 inch thick armour as missile defense, even though armor is not missile defense at all. And you say this will stop missile attacks, even though tit will not stop either attacks or ships being sunk from missiles.

 

I didn't say I want 6 inch of armour all over the ship, but 4 inch's on the hull and 2 inch's on the flight deck. And not to stop ship sink missiles, but bombs and other missiles. Most of the ships lost in the Falklands weren't sunk by Exocet, but other missiles and bombs.

Why do the US carriers have armour?

Your problem is you work on the wrong side of the Atlantic, I have also talked to people who were in the Royal Navy about this and they say it should have to armour protection.

 

For what the carriers will be used for, why on earth would they need armour plating? It will cost a fortune to do and serve little benefit, I think the above poster mushroom has explained it very well.

In some hypothetical war against a nation like China for example it would be highly likely aircraft carriers will be the first things sunk.

 

But these carrier aren't made for war with China, but interventions against weaker nations. Because of this they should have added protection from less effective bombs and missiles.

How much is a fortune? The armour would problerly cost £1 billion.

It's not just about the carriers, but also the fleet they will be in, which doesn't have enough ships to defend them.

Anyway the main problem I have with the Second carrier is, it's not being built with catapaults, so we have to buy the more costly F35C to fly from it. Or change it half way through costing 800 million. Plus the carriers will not have their own missile defence like the French carriers has. I just feel we are spending 7.2 billion on carriers that aren't worth it.

 

Thank you, at least somebody gets it.

Carriers are not supposed to engage other ships. They are not supposed to be anywhere near other ships. The ships destroyed in the Falklands were not Carriers. They were the Destroyers who were doing their exact job: to stand between the enemy and their capitol and other important ships (like troop transports), and take the damage to the more important ships survive.

If an enemy gets close enough to damage your carrier directly, you have already lost that battle. And no amount of armour will save you.

This is basically a zone defense. Think of it as several concentric rings, and on the outside edges you have your picket ships. These are normally fast destroyers, who are to detect and try to intercept any incomming threats, be they surface, subsurface, or air. This is a fairly loose circle, with the intention of catching some of the incomming enemy, but mostly to provide warning.

Then you have the inner circle, this is filled with heavier ships, closer together. This is your true defensive line. This is where you have your serious defenses, heavy missile boats, cruisers, and the like.

Between this line and the carrier you have the CAP (Combat Air Patrol). These are the aircraft, who go into a total defensive mode, trying to intercept and destroy any incomming threats.

Then in the center, you have the carrier. Almost no armour, no real defenses. It is so surrounded however that this makes little difference. Because no enemies should be able to penetrate this far.

 

Even weaker nations have air forces and air to ship missiles. Have you learned nothing from the Falklands?

Exocet, SS-N-22, Silkworm, P-15, Martel, the list goes on and on and on. And even "weaker nations" have these missiles, from Iran and Vietnam to Liberia, Indonesia, Morocco and Georgia use these missiles.

Dude, we live in the missile age. Look at what is being built in Palestine in small local garages. You are living in a cloud of delusion if you think that smaller nations have not invested heavily in missiles.

Care to give us a reference to justify that claim? And it is not just the armour. You also have to strengthen the superstructure to support the armour, and increase the power plants to power the vessel.

Then because it will have a deeper draft, you may have to modify beathing facilities to support it.

If you do not have enough ships in a fleet to defend a carrier, then you should not have a carrier.

And why does it need catapaults? It is flying an aircraft that does not need, and can't use them.

And can you tell me the last UK "conventional carrier"? I can, it was the HMS Hermes. Built in 1959, she served until 1984. That was 28 years ago.

If they have not needed a conventional carrier in almost 3 decades, why the big issue about 2 of them now?

 

Come on, people. Stop discussing stupid treads with no basement.

 

Yes I have learned from the Falklands where most of the ships were not sunk with ship sinking missiles. Smaller nations have them, but not I a large number, so they end up having to use older bombs and other missiles, that would find it much harder to go through armour. That's all I am saying, not 20 inch of armour so it can take hit after hit.

The Palestians get help, from Lebanon and Syria.

The hull designs are being planned for a 50-year service life and are currently being configured with a ski ramp for short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) operations. The carrier's service life is substantially longer than the 20-year service life of the selected F-35 STOVL carrier aircraft. The DPA has decided the carriers will be upgradeable to a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) design, so the option will be available to operate conventional maritime aircraft. The hull will be nine-decks deep plus the flight deck. Corus will supply the over 80,000t of steel plating required for the two ships at an estimated value of £65m.

A number of protective measures such as side armour and armoured bulkheads proposed by industrial bid teams have been deleted from the design in order to comply with cost limitations.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/

So no I can't say it would cost 1 billion, but they did want to have armour on the ships, which would have cost around £1,000 per ft. Plus all the other thing that would be need to be done, it would cost around 1 billion.

That's my point we need more ships, to have these carriers.

No it doesn't have catapaults because they government says we can't afford them, and the government wants to buy the cheaper F-35C, and not the F-35B.

That's what I am trying to say, why are we building two large carriers when we don't need them, it's not cost effective, but are we are building these carrier why are we not making them as good as they can by, and cutting bits off them, whats the point.

I think we agree overall, what's the point in these carriers. Better to have 3 smaller cheaper carriers, that can fly 30 aircraft.

 

If this thread was about the Russians building 65,000 ton carriers you would be all over it.

 

Why do the US carriers have armour?

 

Possible. However, I , at last, would try to cover my ignorance instead of saying BS about "carrier's armor". The only place actual carriers have armor is the reactor hull.

How old are you, BTW?