Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier

43 replies to this topic
imperialman
  • imperialman

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2011

#1

Posted 22 September 2013 - 06:27 AM

The Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers, Britain's new supercarriers, will be the biggest and most powerful surface warships ever constructed for the Royal Navy and will represent a step change in capability. They will be the most capable carrier class outside of the US Navy.

Key Facts

- Two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are currently under construction, the first of which is expected to be delivered in 2016.

- They will displace 70,600 metric tons and when built will be the third largest supercarrier class in service.

- Standard peacetime fixed-wing complement will be 12 F-35's with 36 being the number the ships were designed around. They are physically able to hold around 60 F-35's but this would severely limit operational capability.

- The carriers will have a maximum speed in excess of 25 knots. At a speed of 15 knots the range is 10,000 nautical miles.

- The carriers will support joint combat aircraft carrying out up to 420 sorties over five days and be able to conduct day and night time operations. The maximum sortie rate is 110 sorties in a 24-hour period (as compared to the Nimitz Class sortie generation rate of 120 sorties in a 24-hour period).

- The maximum launch rate is 24 aircraft in 15 minutes and the maximum recovery rate is 24 aircraft in 24 minutes.

- The projected cost of the programme is £5.9 billion.

HMS-Prins-of-Wales-Queen-Elizabeth-class

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#2

Posted 23 September 2013 - 03:53 AM

nice try you limey dogs.

but aircraft carriers are sooooooo 1989.

 

get with the times.

nowadays it's all about nuclear submarines.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#3

Posted 23 September 2013 - 06:56 AM

We've got loads of those.


imperialman
  • imperialman

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2011

#4

Posted 23 September 2013 - 07:11 AM

Yes, the UK does have nuclear submarines too, quite advanced ones.

RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Try to Run, Try to Hide

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#5

Posted 23 September 2013 - 08:32 AM Edited by RoadRunner71, 23 September 2013 - 08:33 AM.

You may have aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines but I rather to stick to the classic lil Nimitz...

paperboat_01.jpg

Look at that, with that angles it can surely confuse the enemy radars.
  • Adler and Sting4S like this

ExtremoMania
  • ExtremoMania

    Just a dose of metal everyday

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2012
  • Philippines

#6

Posted 23 September 2013 - 11:39 AM

It's still 3 years away. And I've heard this project many times already, but the question is, is the F-35 available now? It's still on production and that aircraft carrier would be sitting duck without it's fighters.

JakartaMafiaFamily
  • JakartaMafiaFamily

    Jakarta Most Wanted

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Sep 2013

#7

Posted 23 September 2013 - 11:43 AM

F-35 still have problems to be solved, and now the Price Unit are Far more expensive compared to the price when F-35 rolled out for the First Time


lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006

#8

Posted 23 September 2013 - 01:48 PM

What does the U.K. need to waste all that money for when the U.S. will protect it ?

They should give the money to the World Court to pursue the convictions of World Class Criminals. (Like the U.S. Presidents :) )

Putting all that effort and expense into One ship, that will be a target for modern missiles from smaller craft? I foresee an emergence of a new class of Motor Torpedo Boat as fast hard to hit missile launchers.

I wonder, it's about time for another 'Titanic' catastrophe, isn't it? Or maybe like the 'Wasa'.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#9

Posted 23 September 2013 - 02:39 PM

We've had fast missile boats as a primary combat ship in smaller navies since the Yom Kippur war of '73. They're great for coastal and littoral defence but not brilliant in open seas, and the size of boat limits the range of the missiles. The advantage with an aircraft carrier is that it maintains full strike capability from a range of about 800 miles, which means it becomes very difficult for smaller combat ships (read anything smaller than about destroyer sized) to get into a range where surface to surface anti-ship missiles are actually useful. Submarines are three biggest threat-that and long range, stand off missiles delivered from large aircraft which dramatically out range most surface to surface non-ballistic missiles.

imperialman
  • imperialman

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2011

#10

Posted 23 September 2013 - 02:48 PM

It's still 3 years away. And I've heard this project many times already, but the question is, is the F-35 available now? It's still on production and that aircraft carrier would be sitting duck without it's fighters.

 

The first of class hits the water in July, it'll get its F-35's after sea trials.

 

F-35 still have problems to be solved, and now the Price Unit are Far more expensive compared to the price when F-35 rolled out for the First Time

All aircraft have development problems and the cost for the F-35 is starting to decrease.

What does the U.K. need to waste all that money for when the U.S. will protect it ?
They should give the money to the World Court to pursue the convictions of World Class Criminals. (Like the U.S. Presidents :) )
Putting all that effort and expense into One ship, that will be a target for modern missiles from smaller craft? I foresee an emergence of a new class of Motor Torpedo Boat as fast hard to hit missile launchers.
I wonder, it's about time for another 'Titanic' catastrophe, isn't it? Or maybe like the 'Wasa'.


Firstly it needs them to support many global obligations that its allies do not share. Secondly, it's a two ship class. Thirdly, it'll be escorted by an array of platforms designed to protect it.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006

#11

Posted 23 September 2013 - 04:27 PM

You mean like the Ark Royal, Audacity, Avenger, Courageous, Eagle, Glorious, Hermes, Bismark Sea, Block Island, Gambler Bay, Hornet, Langley, Lexington, Liscome Bay, Ommaney Bay, Princeton, Saint Lo, Wasp, Yorktown all of which were protected by state of the art weaponry?

 

http://www.heritage....ks-from-the-sea

 

The U.K. along with France doesn’t do anything unless ‘urged and approved’ by the U.S. We can’t stop the spending for wars, but the U.K. should, hardly anybody (except maybe old Israelis) hates the U.K. for interfering.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#12

Posted 23 September 2013 - 04:39 PM

You are aware that no aircraft carrier has been sunk or damaged in combat conditions since the end of the second world war? Or that aircraft carriers had the lowest rate of attrition of any naval vessels even then?

No-one is claiming they're invincible (fnar).

Lucchese
  • Lucchese

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#13

Posted 23 September 2013 - 05:03 PM

We've got loads of those.

 

You do? 

 

I'll give you a tenner for one?


.2D
  • .2D

    Look at the Flowers.

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2009
  • United-Kingdom

#14

Posted 23 September 2013 - 05:48 PM

I'm glad we're building them. As far as I know we only have one, small carrier at the moment so it's good to hear we're building a couple, even if it's expensive. I suppose they'd be pretty useful if it ever kicked off over the Falklands again. 

  • Mister Kay likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#15

Posted 23 September 2013 - 06:08 PM Edited by sivispacem, 23 September 2013 - 06:10 PM.

I'm glad we're building them. As far as I know we only have one, small carrier at the moment so it's good to hear we're building a couple, even if it's expensive. I suppose they'd be pretty useful if it ever kicked off over the Falklands again.


We don't have any actual carriers. We've got one amphibious assault ships though (HMS Ocean).

-EDIT

Scratch that, that isn't quite true. HMS Illustrious, which is one of the proper Invincible-class carriers, is still in operation but re-purposed as an amphibious assault ship whilst Ocean is refitted. So we still technically have the capacity to operate STOVL or VTOL carrier aircraft, albeit without any actual aircraft to operate.

imperialman
  • imperialman

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2011

#16

Posted 23 September 2013 - 08:54 PM

The U.K. along with France doesn’t do anything unless ‘urged and approved’ by the U.S. We can’t stop the spending for wars, but the U.K. should, hardly anybody (except maybe old Israelis) hates the U.K. for interfering.

If you say so but my years as a defence journalist tend to disagree.

 

You are aware that no aircraft carrier has been sunk or damaged in combat conditions since the end of the second world war? Or that aircraft carriers had the lowest rate of attrition of any naval vessels even then?

No-one is claiming they're invincible (fnar).

Agreed.


Backfire6
  • Backfire6

    ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2013

#17

Posted 23 September 2013 - 11:05 PM

Makes no sense. It'll just collect dust, because there is never going to be a war.
All it will ever do is collect dust and sit in the water doing NOTHING.


ExtremoMania
  • ExtremoMania

    Just a dose of metal everyday

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2012
  • Philippines

#18

Posted 23 September 2013 - 11:26 PM

Makes no sense. It'll just collect dust, because there is never going to be a war.
All it will ever do is collect dust and sit in the water doing NOTHING.


Today's combat was now actually based on regular guerilla and terrorist fighting against their opposing country's military in parts of Middle East. Remember the number of sorties France and UK sent on Libya at one time to topple Gaddafi by helping the radical movement, that's one particular international issue they claim as a threat. Also even if there's no war, countries such as US, Russia, China, etc. doesn't seem to stop re-arming themselves and continues to develop advanced weaponry just to keep their enemies on deterrence

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#19

Posted 24 September 2013 - 05:43 AM

The U.K. along with France doesn’t do anything unless ‘urged and approved’ by the U.S. We can’t stop the spending for wars, but the U.K. should, hardly anybody (except maybe old Israelis) hates the U.K. for interfering.

None of this is true.


Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I see nothing but good things for you my boy.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India

#20

Posted 24 September 2013 - 05:47 AM

 

The U.K. along with France doesn’t do anything unless ‘urged and approved’ by the U.S. We can’t stop the spending for wars, but the U.K. should, hardly anybody (except maybe old Israelis) hates the U.K. for interfering.

None of this is true.

 

 

I agree. Why would the UK and France want approval from the US? It's not like the US are ruling the whole world.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#21

Posted 24 September 2013 - 07:06 AM

 

Makes no sense. It'll just collect dust, because there is never going to be a war.
All it will ever do is collect dust and sit in the water doing NOTHING.


Today's combat was now actually based on regular guerilla and terrorist fighting against their opposing country's military in parts of Middle East. Remember the number of sorties France and UK sent on Libya at one time to topple Gaddafi by helping the radical movement, that's one particular international issue they claim as a threat. Also even if there's no war, countries such as US, Russia, China, etc. doesn't seem to stop re-arming themselves and continues to develop advanced weaponry just to keep their enemies on deterrence

 

 

If there's one thing that recent conflicts- Libya, Mali et at- have taught us, it's that aircraft carriers are really, really useful in long-range stand-off interventions of the type you routinely see in irregular conflict. Post-invasion operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been entirely reliant on close air support and there's no reason to believe that anything other will be the case in the future.

  • ExtremoMania likes this

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006

#22

Posted 24 September 2013 - 07:56 AM

 

The U.K. along with France doesn’t do anything unless ‘urged and approved’ by the U.S. We can’t stop the spending for wars, but the U.K. should, hardly anybody (except maybe old Israelis) hates the U.K. for interfering.

None of this is true.

 

 

 

 

 

The U.K. along with France doesn’t do anything unless ‘urged and approved’ by the U.S. We can’t stop the spending for wars, but the U.K. should, hardly anybody (except maybe old Israelis) hates the U.K. for interfering.

None of this is true.

 

 

I agree. Why would the UK and France want approval from the US? It's not like the US are ruling the whole world.

 

Simple: They Don't. But the way the U.S. President acts and talks he would seem to be the Great Leader of the Universe, except for insurgents and terrorists. We in the U.S. don't hear of the great world powers doing anything unless it's to 'backup' the U.S. plans. We in the U.S. are propagandized to believe the U.S. is the only 'real' country interested in correcting the worlds ills. Unless it doesn't involve Oil. You don't see the U.S. poking around in arid Afrika or the Philippines. Seems the U.S. is also quite silent regarding Pirates, except tor one spectacular incident.

But still, except for great press does any country really need a super carrier? For indiscriminate killing can't Drones do the job just as well as an on the scene piloted aircraft? Wedding parties, new automobiles, any group of people in the street... Will a pilot from a super expensive ship discern and call off the attack?


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#23

Posted 24 September 2013 - 10:05 AM

Well, unless you count Libya, Mali, Algeria, Chad or Mauritania as "arid Africa" anyway. Or for that matter anywhere else where AQIM, the Signed in Blood Batallion or al-Shababb operate.

GunWrath
  • GunWrath

    Needs More Beer

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2012
  • United-States

#24

Posted 24 September 2013 - 12:44 PM

I would say countries need AC's .. It's a means of closer deployments, enemy deterrence and keeps an eye on waters surrounding the country.

 

As far as UK needing approval from us.. that's a crock of sh*t. UK is quite capable of making their own decisions.. we're just allies.. we may offer help or advice but it's up to UK's top officials to make any calls.

 

OT:

 

Looks like a sharp carrier.. is that just a concept image or will that be the final design of the carrier? 5.9 billion.. whew.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#25

Posted 24 September 2013 - 01:30 PM

That's a render but given it's about half finished up at ACA in Rosyth I think it's probably an accurate one.

ExtremoMania
  • ExtremoMania

    Just a dose of metal everyday

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2012
  • Philippines

#26

Posted 24 September 2013 - 01:55 PM

Makes no sense. It'll just collect dust, because there is never going to be a war.
All it will ever do is collect dust and sit in the water doing NOTHING.


Today's combat was now actually based on regular guerilla and terrorist fighting against their opposing country's military in parts of Middle East. Remember the number of sorties France and UK sent on Libya at one time to topple Gaddafi by helping the radical movement, that's one particular international issue they claim as a threat. Also even if there's no war, countries such as US, Russia, China, etc. doesn't seem to stop re-arming themselves and continues to develop advanced weaponry just to keep their enemies on deterrence

 
If there's one thing that recent conflicts- Libya, Mali et at- have taught us, it's that aircraft carriers are really, really useful in long-range stand-off interventions of the type you routinely see in irregular conflict. Post-invasion operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been entirely reliant on close air support and there's no reason to believe that anything other will be the case in the future.


Correct. Aircraft carriers can serve a variety of purposes on war times and peacekeeping operations, most esp. for countries having domestic problems.

imperialman
  • imperialman

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2011

#27

Posted 24 September 2013 - 02:52 PM

I would say countries need AC's .. It's a means of closer deployments, enemy deterrence and keeps an eye on waters surrounding the country.

 

As far as UK needing approval from us.. that's a crock of sh*t. UK is quite capable of making their own decisions.. we're just allies.. we may offer help or advice but it's up to UK's top officials to make any calls.

 

OT:

 

Looks like a sharp carrier.. is that just a concept image or will that be the final design of the carrier? 5.9 billion.. whew.

Yeah, that's final. Here's what it looked like in May.

Spoiler

 

That's a render but given it's about half finished up at ACA in Rosyth I think it's probably an accurate one.

Yeah it is, the first in class will be structurally complete in December


GunWrath
  • GunWrath

    Needs More Beer

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2012
  • United-States

#28

Posted 24 September 2013 - 03:11 PM

I worked at a shipyard here locally in the past.. they used to build the mine hunters here for the US Navy, at the time the yard was called Intermarine, then Palmer Johnson bought it out and I worked for PJ for about 6mos whenever I was home on leave building some nice multi-million dollar yachts. I would love to be on that bid for the carrier welding.. I can imagine it's top pay.. government contract as well.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#29

Posted 24 September 2013 - 03:37 PM

Rosyth is a truly amazing place. I've had the privilege of spending a couple of days at the ACA/Babcock Marine site there, it's like an open-air laboratory on an absurd scale.

Lucchese
  • Lucchese

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#30

Posted 24 September 2013 - 03:58 PM

Rosyth is a truly amazing place. I've had the privilege of spending a couple of days at the ACA/Babcock Marine site there, it's like an open-air laboratory on an absurd scale.

 

You've obviously never had the pleasuring bliss of visiting the more urban areas of Rosyth. Place is 30 mins from me, and it's a f*cking junkie riddled sh*te-hole. But the views of the Forth bridges are nice.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users