Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers

[desertswo]

Originally Posted by Maximinus Thrax

DesertSWO, my friend, I did not think you were angry but you did make a valid point about lazy labelling.

I hope I didn't jab you with the "point." On the subject of luck, I've had my share, but in truth, I rigged the deck to make it so. I don't know of too many successful commanders who don't. Having the experience yourself, I know you know what I'm talking about. At the risk of being kind of ridiculously cheesy, the creators of Star Trek kind of got it right when Kirk cheated to beat the "no win scenario" in the Kobayashi Maru training problem; like so:



You do whatever you have to do to kill all of theirs, and bring yours back alive; or you damn well better die trying.

Not to get off on another tangent, but roughly 20 years ago, we used to get into these interesting discussions around the wardroom table, to wit: "Kirk or Picard?" In other words, were the COs you worked for, or wanted to be, more like Kirk or Picard. You should all be very proud that Picard won more often than not. We used to get into some pretty deep philosophical shit, but it was sort of instructive in an odd way, because we were really seeing what was being modeled in the fleet, reflected in a stupid TV show. It truly was life imitating art, and vice versa.

By the way, as I'm writing this, I'm Kenneth Branagh's Henry V is on my tube. God I love that production. You know, a few years ago I was coaching the defensive line for the local high school (US) football team, and the head coach having heard me recite lines from the play before while sitting around ruminating asked me to actually do the St. Crispin's Day Speech before a playoff game. I had a good teacher in Branagh. We won; so I must have done something right!

Originally Posted by Maximinus Thrax

Harry Patch was indeed a very memorable character, his twighlight years and those of his dwindling band of brothers were followed very closely by the media here.

Believe it or not, Harry, God love him, and the couple of our own were followed over here as well. You know, I'm old enough to have known a lot of men who served in that war; including several uncles and my wife's grandfather. It seems strange somehow that they are all pretty much gone. Hell, my mother was born in Ireland in 1918, and she and my grandparents were sort of stuck until war's end, before they could immigrate to the States.

Originally Posted by Maximinus Thrax

It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall at one of your lectures on the Great War (it was always the 'Great War' to my parents and grandparents, never World War One). The reason being that over here the Great War is almost entirely myth rather than history, it is taught in schools and popularly understood through the lens of the poets howling their despair, or revisionist drama concentrating on chateau Generals, or shell shocked troops executed for desertion.

Oh Lord, the literary halls of the Lost Generation are long and have deep book shelves. You sort of sift through things, and eventually you find "truth." It may not be the truth one wants, but some reasonable facsimile is always there. I just try to provide the facts and let people draw their own conclusions. It's really amazing how Americans don't really understand the context of the term "British" when discussing the troops that fought for King and Country in the Great War. You start naming off the troops from the far reaches of the Empire, from Canada to our north, to the Gurkhas of Nepal and you see this dawning realization on their faces of how the world was really changed by those events. Entire villages of men in England for instance who joined together, essentially wiped out. We had the same experience in our Civil War so it's not something with which we are unfamiliar.

Originally Posted by Maximinus Thrax

It is a retrospective defeatism that paints the British soldier as a naively patriotic victim. This is a view that would have been wholly unfamiliar to the veterans throughout the 1920's who took pride in their victory and who turned out in their thousands to pay their respects at Haig's funeral (he is buried an hour's drive from me, with a plain Commonwealth War Graves Commission headstone).

There was a book that was required reading at the War College about the Great War, and it was an historical fiction about an officer based on Haig. Damned if I can remember it now. In any event, it was used as an instructive piece on leadership.

Originally Posted by Maximinus Thrax

Prof Gary Sheffield of Birmingham University has written extensively on the subject and is worth a read.

I know his work. He's very good.

[Maximinus Thrax]

DesertSWO, Branagh's Henry V is indeed awesome and has the peerless Paul Scofield acting mad as Charles VI, without seeming...well...mad!

You must compare Branagh's St. Crispin's Day speech to Olivier's however. Both versions are excellent but - made during the war - the Olivier version just, well, rocks!

[gothicform]

Just a convivial observation that with all these people at the flag and general officer level, one needs to be prepared to accept the baggage they bring with them. I’ve known and worked with many, including an Air Force Brigadier that absolutely insisted I call him by his first name. Now, one needs to understand that in the US Navy and Marine Corps especially, that just isn’t done. I mean, I say it as a joke, but I had young officers from the Air Force asking me, “What should I call you, Sir?” To which my response was invariably, “Why, Captain lad, whatever else?” I laugh about it now but it was rather perplexing. I was as close to the CO for whom I served as XO as it was possible to be. There wasn’t a confidence that we didn’t share, but I would never in my wildest dreams call him “Ralph.” He was Billy Ralph Malone from Laredo, Texas and he was a real, no shit cowboy; but he was still “Captain” to me.

reminds me of the time prince andrew, then a junior officer in the navy introduced himself to an admiral - "you can call me andy." "and you can call me sir" came the reply

'Luck' was a bad choice of word and I did not mean to imply that Patton's success was some fluke, or the result of a favourable horoscope (or praying to the right God for that matter!), he was undeniably the Allies' finest offensive commander and could handle armour like no other. That said, Patton, like all men, exists within the limits of his own character. Montgomery re-fought Great War battles using many of the techniques developed by the victorious BEF in 1918...to great effect. His one attempt at 'elan' resulted in Market Garden. Patton's relentless pressing of the enemy - I believe his 3rd army was in continuous combat for nearly 300 days - means that there was more time for him as a commander to make a plaster god of his own percieved virtues as a leader. In other words, aggression becomes the doctrine not the driving-force behind sound tactics. That this did not happen is a tribute to the man, but I believe that eventually it could have.

i agree entirely. i also believe patton would have done better with market garden than monty did. market garden though turning out the way it did was in part due to luck, bad weather stopped jumps and for some absurd reason none of the radios worked when they should have. what if there hadn't been fog over holland?

As to who would win between Monty and Patton, that’s a bit like the “What ifs?” played in this country about, “What would happen if the 1963 San Diego Chargers played the 2006 team?” It’s bullshit; players are bigger, stronger, and overall faster now days, plus the rules have changed fairly significantly. So with some of you, foolishly in my opinion, claiming luck as a factor, I have to ask the following: Does Patton get the Afrika Korps, which was roughly half the size of the force Monty had at 2nd Alamein and lacked air superiority, or does he get the US Third Army and the 9th US Air Force, tactical naval air from the US Navy escort carriers, the full weight of that US logistics train (which was a tit off which Monty also suckled), and access to Bletchley Park and all the really cool stuff going on there, or are you going to hamstring Patton with no SIGINT and with the same interdiction of the supply train that plagued Rommel? See, it doesn’t come down to “luck,” as much as some of you keep wanting to push it that direction. While von Moltke the elder was correct, in that all planning goes for naught after the first shot is fired, it serves its purpose nonetheless.

how about patton gets the mess of the british eighth army ... he then has to do operation crusader and that was without the help of the americans as they hadn't joined the war at the time. i'm pretty sure that patton would have performed as well as rommel, he was a cavalry officer, but the defects in the sort of general he was would have led to many of the mistakes rommel made. we can see from his actual performance he was able to charge in well, but what if he got bogged down? sadly we missed him fighting through the bocage in normandy, and in sicily he got the easy bit whilst monty had to grind his way through the best german units. when patton arrived at the bulge with his army the germans were already a spent force, and he had luck on his side (there's that probably apocryphal scene where he has a chaplain make him a prayer for good weather) - the weather cleared at the same time and the allies were able to launch air support again. i don't think patton was much of an attritional commander really, but if you wanted a 100 mile lightning advance i can't think of anyone better.

to use an example there is the siege of tobruk to compare him with rommel. if my memory is correct rommel decided after a while to not bother with the frontal attacks and to leave it as an encircled pocket behind his lines, he was more interested in advancing, that "dash to the wire". i believe patton would have done the same. it meant that rather than lay siege and take it and eliminate the pocket whilst using the time to improve your supply lines he raced off ahead. in the end the british sallied from tobruk and attacked whilst his advancing force was also attacked.

[blahblah]

Appledore celebrates another warship milestone



SHIPBUILDERS in Appledore have celebrated the latest chapter in their ongoing involvement with the construction of two huge aircraft carriers.
The two 400 tonne bow sections that sailed out on the high tide at Friday teatime formed the fourth shipment to leave the Babcock facility since 2009.
The steel sections of the HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carrier are being dispatched by sea going barge to Babcock’s sister yard at Rosyth in Scotland.
The HMS Prince of Wales and her sister ship HMS Queen Elizabeth will be the largest ships ever built in the British Isles.

http://www.northdevongazette.co.uk/n...tone_1_1233545

[SO143]

CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND CARRIER BEGINS AT PORTSMOUTH

Portsmouth, United Kingdom: Production on HMS PRINCE OF WALES, the second Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier, has started today at BAE Systems in Portsmouth Naval Base – the future home of the Queen Elizabeth Class.


Work on the forward section of the hull, known as Lower Block 02, commenced as Commander-in-Chief Fleet Admiral George Zambellas cut the first steel in a ceremony at the company’s production facility. The huge section, which will weigh around 6,000 tonnes upon completion, will house the ship’s machinery spaces, stores and switchboards, as well as some of the accommodation, including 85 cabins.

Commander-in-Chief Fleet Admiral George Zambellas, said: ““As Commander-in-Chief Fleet, I am honoured and delighted to be asked to cut the steel that will form part of the mighty hull of HMS PRINCE OF WALES, the second of the Royal Navy’s new 65,000 tonne aircraft carriers. Along with HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH, these two ships – each of which will be in service for over 50 years - lie at the heart of our national security posture. With the equipment that will operate from them, they will be pivotal to the UK’s ability to project power at range for decades to come.”

Mick Ord, Managing Director at BAE Systems’ Naval Ships business, said: “The steel cut for Lower Block 02 demonstrates the steady progress which continues to be made on the carrier programme. As home of the Royal Navy’s surface fleet, everyone here is hugely proud to be involved in one of the largest engineering projects in the UK today and excited that the ships will return to Portsmouth, as their home port once complete.”

As a member of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, BAE Systems is working in partnership with Babcock, Thales UK and the Ministry of Defence to deliver the biggest and most powerful surface warships ever constructed in the UK. The company has an overarching role in managing the QE Class programme, as well as playing a central role in the design and build of the ships.

Construction of the forward island, which will control vessel navigation and house the ship’s bridge, is also underway at Portsmouth, while work continues on Lower Block 02 and the stern section (known as Lower Block 05) of HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH. Both sections are in the advanced stages of outfit, with the team focusing on preparing the blocks for their transit to Rosyth later this year, where all of the units and sections of the carriers will come together to be assembled in the dry dock.

Integration and testing of the ship’s complex mission system is currently underway at the company’s Maritime Integration and Support Centre on Portsdown Hill, whilst teams of engineers from BAE Systems and Thales are testing the advanced communications systems for the ships. Elsewhere in the Hampshire region, Southampton-based Kempsafe Limited has contracts to supply galley and laundry equipment on the vessels and Portsmouth-based Selex Communications is involved in the design of the Identification Friend or Foe system.

A significant plan of investment is underway to enhance the Naval Base, which will become the home of the two aircraft carriers when they enter service. The plan, which will cost approximately £140 million, includes dredging the existing channel to Portsmouth to make it deeper and wider, and refurbishing the base's jetties to ease access for both the QE Class and Type 45 fleet.

Each 65,000 tonne aircraft carrier will provide the armed forces with a four acre military operating base which can be deployed worldwide. The vessels will be versatile enough to be used for operations ranging from supporting war efforts to providing humanitarian aid and disaster relief.

The QE Class will be the centre piece of Britain’s military capability and will routinely operate at least 12 of the carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter jets, allowing for unparalleled interoperability with allied forces.

http://www.baesystems.com/article/BA...-at-portsmouth

[madjackmcmad]

Well it's beginning to look more and more like the government will do a u turn on a u-turn at the end of march and revert back to the F35B.

I've seen reports of the cost of carrier conversion put at £1.8bn! Which would put conversion of the 2nd carrier out of the question. It's going to be really really embarrasing for the government to announce this and Labour will have a field day with it (despite the fact they are also to blame for the complete feck up of this project politically).

Confirmed by a USN Vice Admiral that its very much under consideration
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...l-says-1-.html

Personally, although the C model is more capable I think F35B probably represents the best hope of getting both carriers into service - particularly as it rules out the much vaunted co-operation with the French.

Going to love seeing Hammond explain about the Harriers they've just sold to the USMC, perhaps the only way they can save face is by announcing their entry into service earlier in about 2017-8.

[blahblah]

Yes it was a complete fuck up from the start. With hindsight, they should have been CATOBAR from the start, which would have at least given us the option to run some second hand F/A18 Super Hornets or something as a stop-gap until the F35s were ready.

What matters now is getting both boats into service, and into service with serviceable aircraft on them so we can at least get the use from the investment.

[AdmiralAnthony]

This is getting ridiculous. Thye carriers will have to get cat and trapped at some later point anyway, we should just stick with cat and traps and buy F18's instead. I'd rather we have something capable of flying off the carriers and have both carriers CATOBAR from the start.

If we cannot afford F35 we should pull out of it altogether. We need the two carriers more than we need the F35's.

[SO143]

these people are terrible at managing the defense budget. why don't the politicians just bring all the troops home and this will save tons of billions. a-stan people should tackle their own national issues, those are their problems not ours. the vital thing is to protect the british overseas territories where the britons live for eg like the falkland islands, on top of that they better stop pouring massive amount of billions into the evil zone via the imf and giving (£bn) in aid to china, india and the rest of rising countries needs to be stopped as well, by taking these actions you will find a lot of billions of £ for the carriers and f-35

[Splish]

Originally Posted by SO143

these people are terrible at managing the defense budget. why don't the politicians just bring all the troops home and this will save tons of billions. a-stan people should tackle their own national issues, those are their problems not ours. the vital thing is to protect the british overseas territories where the britons live for eg like the falkland islands, on top of that they better stop pouring massive amount of billions into the evil zone via the imf and giving (£bn) in aid to china, india and the rest of rising countries needs to be stopped as well, by taking these actions you will find a lot of billions of £ for welfare

Fixed.

[desertswo]

Originally Posted by SO143

these people are terrible at managing the defense budget. why don't the politicians just bring all the troops home and this will save tons of billions. a-stan people should tackle their own national issues, those are their problems not ours. the vital thing is to protect the british overseas territories where the britons live for eg like the falkland islands, on top of that they better stop pouring massive amount of billions into the evil zone via the imf and giving (£bn) in aid to china, india and the rest of rising countries needs to be stopped as well, by taking these actions you will find a lot of billions of £ for the carriers and f-35

Kind of makes one wish that Jacky Fisher still danced on the quarterdeck, no?

[blahblah]

I'd be happy to settle for MOD Civil Servants who can do basic maths to be honest.

[gothicform]

Going to love seeing Hammond explain about the Harriers they've just sold to the USMC, perhaps the only way they can save face is by announcing their entry into service earlier in about 2017-8.

entry into service earlier? they'll still not have planes though!

[madjackmcmad]

Originally Posted by gothicform

entry into service earlier? they'll still not have planes though!

It's a cunning plan!

[John Robinson]

Originally Posted by madjackmcmad

It's a cunning plan!

...to lull the Argies into a false sense of security!

[AXISPAW]

BBC News:
Ministers have debated a possible U-turn over the choice not to buy the F-35 fighter plane, the BBC understands.
In 2010 the government decided it would not order the Short Take Off, Vertical Landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, also known as the F-35.
David Cameron argued another plane was more suitable.
But costs have risen and Defence Secretary Philip, understood to prefer reverting to the original choice, is thought to have met the prime minister.
The decision could have a major impact on BAE Systems, which is involved in the F-35's development.'Cats and traps'
The prime minister's spokesman refused to comment on whether a meeting had taken place
But he said Mr Hammond would make a statement to Parliament soon.
He said: "The MoD look at their budget on an annual basis. They will be looking at their equipment plan. That means reviewing all their programmes to keep an eye on costs and to ensure that any risks are properly managed.
"The defence secretary makes a statement to Parliament each year setting out the outcome of that process. The plan is that he will do so before Easter."
The cost of two new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers - originally ordered under the last Labour government - has already risen from £3.5bn to around £7bn.
Labour had originally proposed to buy a vertical landing variant of the new Joint Strike Fighter plane, also know as the F-35, which would be launched from a "ski jump" fitted on the new carriers and then land vertically.
The system is similar to that used by the Harrier jump jet on HMS Ark Royal - both of which were scrapped following the strategic defence and security review.
However, as a result of the government's defence spending review, it said in October 2010 that it would change its F-35 order to one for a different "carrier" variant.
This would have a longer range and would be "inter-operable" with the US and French Navy, it was argued.
It would also require significant modifications to the design of the aircraft carriers, including ships being fitted with catapults and arrestor gear - or "cats and traps" - to launch and recover the planes.
However, the estimated costs of fitting these have since risen.
It is now believed that Mr Hammond favours reverting to ordering the Short Take Off, Vertical Landing variant of the fighter.

Old news I know but in the news again.

[uk2030]

I hope this is the case as HMS QE will actually be able to operate when it comes into "service" and it would be more likely both the aircraft carriers would be operational.

[AdmiralAnthony]

We should just purchase 40 F18's instead

[madjackmcmad]

Originally Posted by uk2030

I hope this is the case as HMS QE will actually be able to operate when it comes into "service" and it would be more likely both the aircraft carriers would be operational.

I tend to lean towards this thinking even if I am incredibly dubious about the £2bn cost of converting a carrier that was supposed to be designed to be easily converted in the first place! If that truly is the case then we'd never have afforded the 2nd conversion.

There are downsides in that this probably ties us into running on F35B until the CVF's themselves are knackered as I don't see another STOVL aircraft planned after this one. They may try and bring an F35B purchase forward but I guess the budget is against this and we are still looking at CVF & Aircraft both entering service in late 2019.

Of course if the government truly were forward thinking they would spend the upfront costs now from the foreign aid budget and make sure future British governments had the choice for the next 50 years. No such luck or strategic planning though I guess.

[Pironi]

Originally Posted by AdmiralAnthony

We should just purchase 40 F18's instead

Hell no, rather launch a program to make EFs a decent bomber as well and by that you also have just one pattern in your flight stock, which should decrease maintenance costs.