Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier sets sail tonight

Firestar_3x said:
Remind me again why the ship would be using a very powerful radar in a populated area when docked at a "home port"?
Click to expand...

Yea, we're lucky we don't have any terrorists on UK soil ;)

But seriously, I did a little more reading around this and isn't it that radar isn't calibrated to be sensitive enough to pick up something of this size, else it would just throw up a jumble of noise as it detected every bird flying by? (genuine question)
 
I have no idea and you will never find the proper answer on the open internet since performance of such things is classified, alternatively you could ask the Chinese they will know.
 
Housey said:
Who cares, they have big guns and look ace!
Click to expand...

Oh, I concur. :D

I would love to see a modern Naval doctrine that could justify the construction of modern day Battleships. (Though obviously the role would be very different from the traditional one (And even then the traditional role was always a bit of a myth really))

Even in this day and age, I would have thought that there still may be a practical use for the ability to drop a shell the weight of a Ford KA on a target 25 miles away or so (Shore Bombardment perhaps)
 
I believe the US have such a system, and it cost an incredible amount per shell, as they eventually ordered so few shells as the role was virtually useless, but it was offshore non-missile bombard combat support role.
They invented a new weapon system, then didn't buy enough of it to make it worthwhile.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
I believe the US have such a system, and it cost an incredible amount per shell, as they eventually ordered so few shells as the role was virtually useless, but it was offshore non-missile bombard combat support role.
They invented a new weapon system, then didn't buy enough of it to make it worthwhile.
Click to expand...


Well, The Americans can always be guaranteed to make everything ten times as complex and a hundred times as expensive as it needs to be to do the job. :p
 
Nasher said:
WW1 and 2 all over again.
Click to expand...

Will probably be more like Falklands all over again, cheaping out on the carriers will cause us to look like a soft target and somebody will start something, then when our navy/army are sent in they will suffer terrible losses all because we couldn't afford to use catapults >.>
 
ubersonic said:
Will probably be more like Falklands all over again, cheaping out on the carriers will cause us to look like a soft target and somebody will start something, then when our navy/army are sent in they will suffer terrible losses all because we couldn't afford to use catapults >.>
Click to expand...

Yes but over the next decade catapult launched fighters will start to become obsolete. The next generation of carrier based fighters won't need it. Once the F-35 proves itself that is how they will all be.

This carrier has been built to last 50 years or more. By then we will most likey have it launching 100s of remote VTOL drones which won't even need the runway.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
Yes but over the next decade catapult launched fighters will start to become obsolete.
Click to expand...
Wha..

America uses CATOBAR
France uses CATOBAR
Brazil uses CATOBAR (they bought a carrier France was binning)
Russia uses STOBAR but their next gen carrier will be CATOBAR
China uses STOBAR but their next gen carrier will be CATOBAR
India uses STOBAR but their next gen carrier will be CATOBAR

We are currently the only country trying to save money by building STOVL carriers, it was a stupid idea 50 years ago that came back to bite us big time, it's a stupid idea today that may come back to bite us.
 
I still can't get my head around the fact that we managed to launch a carrier in 2017 which runs on diesel. Unbelievable.
 
ubersonic said:
Will probably be more like Falklands all over again, cheaping out on the carriers will cause us to look like a soft target and somebody will start something, then when our navy/army are sent in they will suffer terrible losses all because we couldn't afford to use catapults >.>
Click to expand...

I wish I could say you were wrong.
 
Did some Googling. Seems reasonable it's Diesel.

  • Numerous countries will not permit a nuclear powered vessel to enter their territorial waters, or canals. Egypt imposed a ban on nuclear powered vessels using the Suez canal in 1987, New Zealand 1984. Access to these territories and ports outweighs the 5 knot speed advantage a nuclear reactor offers. Being able to use the Suez Canal saves a month of sailing time from say Cyprus to the British Indian Ocean Territory.
  • Aircraft carriers only carry a month’s worth of aviation fuel, including the US and French nuclear beasts, so need to be refueled monthly anyway. Taking on diesel at the same time, from a tanker, is feasible.
  • A reactor adds 280% to the lifetime costs of a ship.
  • A reactor requires specialist personnel, and facilities, that are expensive to acquire and maintain. While diesel generators, and turbines require just a good motor mechanic.
  • It's harder to resell a nuke powered design / vessel, than a conventional one, so impacts the book value of an asset.
  • The UK, unlike France, has its own oil fields, so has a secure supply of fuel. Neither has it's own supply of uranium.
  • There are 10 laid up nuclear subs sitting in Faslane, and another 7 that will join them in the next few decades. The subs or at least their reactor cores will need to be kept secure for the next 10,000 years.
 
Roar87 said:
Numerous countries will not permit a nuclear powered vessel to enter their territorial waters, or canals. Egypt imposed a ban on nuclear powered vessels using the Suez canal in 1987, New Zealand 1984. Access to these territories and ports outweighs the 5 knot speed advantage a nuclear reactor offers. Being able to use the Suez Canal saves a month of sailing time from say Cyprus to the British Indian Ocean Territory.
Click to expand...

Haven't checked to be sure but I saw some youtube comments couple of days ago saying that doesn't actually apply in respect to Egypt, etc. in the case of military vessels.
 
Roar87 said:
Did some Googling. Seems reasonable it's Diesel.

  • Numerous countries will not permit a nuclear powered vessel to enter their territorial waters, or canals. Egypt imposed a ban on nuclear powered vessels using the Suez canal in 1987, New Zealand 1984. Access to these territories and ports outweighs the 5 knot speed advantage a nuclear reactor offers. Being able to use the Suez Canal saves a month of sailing time from say Cyprus to the British Indian Ocean Territory.
  • Aircraft carriers only carry a month’s worth of aviation fuel, including the US and French nuclear beasts, so need to be refueled monthly anyway. Taking on diesel at the same time, from a tanker, is feasible.
  • A reactor adds 280% to the lifetime costs of a ship.
  • A reactor requires specialist personnel, and facilities, that are expensive to acquire and maintain. While diesel generators, and turbines require just a good motor mechanic.
  • It's harder to resell a nuke powered design / vessel, than a conventional one, so impacts the book value of an asset.
  • The UK, unlike France, has its own oil fields, so has a secure supply of fuel. Neither has it's own supply of uranium.
  • There are 10 laid up nuclear subs sitting in Faslane, and another 7 that will join them in the next few decades. The subs or at least their reactor cores will need to be kept secure for the next 10,000 years.
Click to expand...

Good info. Makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom