UK's Largest Aircraft Carrier to Be Unveiled Next Month

With the US careening toward overt isolationism, Britain may have to go it alone someday. The QEs are not the instrument for that.

 

That all depends what Britain's interests are with the US not being around. The QE class could be the most useful asset we could have built, or a total mistake.

 

Noninterference and avoiding stupidity...is NOT Isolationism. Just because we are finally stepping back and no longer saving the world from itself, does not mean we aren't still here.

 

Think the QEs would be useful in regaining the Falklands again?

- - - Updated - - -

Taxcutter says:
Once government starts moving in any direction, its hard to stop continued motion. How big a jump is it from noninterference to real isolationism?

 

I don't suppose you realize that what we currently have off the coast of Iraq (which we just sent there)....would be more than enough to place a QE on the bottom of the gulf...do you?

Seems very isolationist to me.

 

Very much so. More to the point they would be very useful in taking the attack to Argentina with air srikes on their bases and movements. The larger replenishment ships will also be very useful for that sort of long-range operation. I do think the South Atlantic strategic command needs to be improved and be supported with more assets, aswell as the bigger carrier. We should really be able to defend the Falklands and South Georgia, rather than having to take them back.

I would rather the UK had full on carriers with capabilities like those of the conventional powered USS J.F.K and then had LHD's for amphibious operations. Though I am not one of the people who thinks ships built to do different jobs will be as good as ships built to do one job. I have no doubt the QE could do the job in the South Atlantic, Britain is still currently the major naval power in the South Atlantic with bases all along it. If Britain needed to build the capabilities needed to control it we could, I have no doubts about that either.

 

That doesn't really mean anything. As the QE isn't a proper carrier, as I have already said.

The US is becoming less interventionist and changing strategy, rather than isolationist.

 

I'm not going to claim I have the in depth knowledge of Britain's military that you have, but I was not impressed with the UK's performance on Libya. That was a relatively tiny military mission that Britain had to drag the US into in mere days. That tracks with my general impression that British military capability has been degrading considerably since the end of the Cold War, even taking into consideration a national draw down as the mission needs changed. We drew down and spent a lot less too (at least until 9/11) but we maintained most military capabilities.

In fact that's why I posted this thread. The details and descriptions of a new world class aircraft carrier ran counter to my general impressions of a degraded military capability. But it's apparent that, at least in your estimation, that Britain can't meet both it's NATO responsibilities and it's strictly national defense needs. Choose one.

 

Again with Libya the problem was lack of budget to conduct the operation, along with lack of trained pilots and logistical problems with things like spare parts for the older Tornado GR4's. We have the assets, but not the budget needed to support them and our people on operations. I would like to double the UK's defence budget to £70 billion a year, however this would only be political justified if the UK leaves NATO and no longer has the ability to spung of the US and other NATO countries. It is a hard problem, I very much value the alliance with the US, however I see no benefit in Britain being in the alliance for the UK. We are so very limited because if we trying and buildup forces and capabilities to defend our sphere of influence around us the US would move against the UK because it will be a threat to the US geo-politically. However being in NATO means we refuse to spend what is needed to be a right and proper partner to the US in military terms. I would choose to leave NATO and increase independent defence capabilities. However I think the UK political elite will continue spunging off the US because it means they can bribe more votes with handouts.

 

I think "lack of budget to conduct the operation, along with lack of trained pilots and logistical problems with things like spare parts" is the textbook example of degraded military capabilities.

But I don't see in what way you see that the US would "move against" the UK if they left the NATO alliance. I think the US political system would fight hard to save it because if the UK goes, the alliance is probably not going to outlast it by very long. But it would be a lot harder now to leave NATO than it would have been say, a year ago. Putin has revitalized NATO, at least in the eastern NATO members. Frankly, I'm hoping we start stationing troops in the Baltic countries and Poland permanently. Those chicks are banging hot and let's face it, thinner than their American counterparts.

 

A computer rendition of the aircraft carrier giving the sense of scale.



It's designed for STOVL aircraft which the F-35B should be suited for. Again though, as alluded...a carrier is only good as the aircraft stationed on it and an aircraft is only as good as the ability to survive while delivering ordnance. The carrier is an aircraft platform and the aircraft is a weapons platform. The carrier exists as the first link in putting ordnance on target. The broader discussion should entail the F-35B, which is not living up to design parameters thus far; thereby creating a weak second link in it's ability to survive while delivering ordnance. Operating BVR, Beyond Visual Range appears to be it's strong suit.

 

Taxcutter asks:
Am I missing something? Does this ship have arresting gear? If not it will be the first UK carrier since HMS Eagle to dispense with arresting gear and is a mighty commitment to V/STOL.

The embarked air wing seems awfully small for such a big ship.

 

The French are meant to be building an even bigger nuclear powered CATOBAR carrier with only 40 aircraft in the airwing. The French have had real problems on their current carrier because it is very small they can only operate 24 aircraft, sure it says on their website 40, but in reality they have never had that many embarked on operations. Aircraft must be moved around on the ship with limited space to do so, this limits the number of aircraft possible to operate. My understanding is the US carriers normally operate 60 aircraft, but can operate upto about 90 aircraft. I have also heard the US carriers could carry 130 F/A 18's, but they couldn't operate them. Anyway to start off with the UK will only have 12 F-35's onboard and 12 helicopters. So the 40 aircraft airwing must be reached and operated before we can try and bring the ship upto its design capability of 55 aircraft. My guess is that it could take 10 years for the UK to get 55 aircraft to put on the ship.

 

Your figures for US catapult carriers (130 F/A-18s in a ferry loadout and 60 in peacetime and and 90 in war loadout) are what I've heard.

These numbers will undoubtedly change as the air wings develop unpiloted aircraft.

If I were in the RN, I would still be concerned about the lesser capability of V/Stol vs catapulted aircraft - whether piloted or not.

 

Yeah, it seems we went through all that once before with the F-111. Tried to build a single airframe for both the Air Force and Navy, but it turned out to be too heavy for Navy carriers and it was too slow for the AF. The Pentagon said it had learned its lesson at the time.

 

Yes the UK will likely us its new Taranis UCAV from the carriers aswell. However it doesn't makeup for the less capable combat fighter jets and the limited AEW Merlin helicopter.

Listen if you were in the Royal Navy you would be over the moon, the Navy has wanted large carriers like these for 50 years. You finally have them they are far more capable than anything the Navy had before. However you would be worried about the lack of escort ships for your carrier and the lack of submarines, plus the lack of a long-range land based AEW aircraft to supplement the Merlin AEW with the now scrapped Nimrod MRA4. I am more worried about the operations and training budget for the pilots and aircrew to get really good at operating the F-35, it will eat into the UK's rather small budget.

 

The F35B is going to be operating off the Marine Corps new LHD's, which are far smaller than the new QE class carriers. Also one of the requirements of the STOVAL F35B is that she meets/met of vertical takeoff under full ordinance and fuel load.

 

You're seriously living in the past with that VSTOL vs. catapult argument, the F35B ain't no Harrier my friend.

 

Taxcutter says:
It ain't no F/A-18, either.

 

With limited capabilities, again.

These statement result in on of the following:
1)Those who wrote requirements are retarded
2)I do not know physics
3)You do not know physics
4)Your statement is BS

I really doubt №2 is correct, though.

Vertical takeoff uses lifting power of engine alone without aerodynamical surfaces. In other words it requires engine thrust to surpass weight of the aircraft. So tell me, how you are going to take of with maximal loading (about 27 tons), while engine generates about 19 tons of thrust? In fact, F-35B trust/weight ratio exceeds 1 only with 50% of fuel aboard. I am not even mentioning F-35B using afterburner to take off will finish of fly deck really fast. It is STOVL aircraft, not VTOL. Of course there is ventilator aboard, but I have no idea about it's effectiveness.

 

It is a VTOL, since you presume to believe only your propaganda, perhaps video evidence will serve better to prove it is a VTOL airframe???


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW28Mb1YvwY

 

VTOL comes at a price: Reduced payload and reduced fuel load.

 

Looking at the variants of the F-35, the VSTOL F-35B sacrifices about a third of the range and payload of the CATOBAR F-35C

The (land-only) F-35A and the (CATOBAR) F-35C offer an improvement in performance over the F/A-18. The (VSTOL) F-35B does not beyond VSTOL. Further the F-35B has a bigger infrared signature (due to vertical thrusters) and is only stressed to take 7g turns. The other versions and the F/A-18 are stressed for 9g turns. As a result the F-35B will be (like the A-10) limited to close air support missions.

Ditching the VSTOL F-35B, concentrating on the F-35A and F-35C and building an update of a (much cheaper) A-10 replacement would free up money to build out the F-22 fleet to designed strength levels.

The later-model F-16s and F/A-18s will have to soldier on as mainstays of US aviation for the foreseeable future.

 

Why does the U.K. even want an aircraft carrier?

 

The F-35B is supersonic (Mach 1.6) and can fly at 3x the speed of an A-10 to react with close air support if the need arises

I'm less concerned about the range when aerial refueling capabilities are considered.


The USAF has passed over 12.2 billion gallons of gas supporting GWOT. The folks in the tanker community are experienced professionals. Factor the new KC-46A multi-role tanker into the equation also, when that goes operational.