Aircraft Carriers III

Jura said:

Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers Have Woefully Inadequate Close-In Air Defense Capabilities
December 22, 2017

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

just the link now as I'm leaving for a walk

Click to expand...

I believe that ultimately they will have there full CIWS aboard, which as I understand it will include 3 Phalanx 20mm guns and 2-4 30mm DS30M guns.

But even with that, I agree they should have either a RAM launcher or SEA Ram, and should probably also have ESSM like the US does.

@Obi Wan Russell is there more planned than just the three halanx for truw CIWS?

I agree that these ships should have more complete CIWS.

I know they will have the Type 45 DDGs and Type 22 and later the new FFGs. but more self defense aboard does seem warranted.

Is this more liberal MPs doing?

The original designs did include a fourth Phalanx but was dropped during the final round of 'Economy Measures' before the design was approved and construction started. Reinstating that fourth mount and it's associated sponson wouldn't be a huge problem, it's just a sign of how parsimonious politicians can be. The ships are effectively 'fitted for but not with' Sea Captor SAMs, they have type 997 radar, they have the Combat Management System, they just lack the launchers and it wouldn't be a huge job to fit them. It all comes down to money and the ever present lack of political will.

Obi Wan Russell said:

The original designs did include a fourth Phalanx but was dropped during the final round of 'Economy Measures' before the design was approved and construction started. Reinstating that fourth mount and it's associated sponson wouldn't be a huge problem, it's just a sign of how parsimonious politicians can be. The ships are effectively 'fitted for but not with' Sea Captor SAMs, they have type 997 radar, they have the Combat Management System, they just lack the launchers and it wouldn't be a huge job to fit them. It all comes down to money and the ever present lack of political will.View attachment 44323

Click to expand...

Agreed...and that's what I thought...I mean why have that radar without the missiles? I expect at some point we will see Sea Cepter on the QE...at least I hope so.

The Ford class has

3 x Phalanx
2 x Sea RAM (21 missiles each or 42 missiles)
3 x ESSM (8 missiles each or 24 missiles)

That's a good layered coverage from the carrier itself rom mid range all the way down to untra close range.

The QEs need the same.

Catapults are the way to go for carriers, like it or not, because of the substantial advantage it offers. Hopefully, Britain's decision to not equip the QE with cats will not come back and bite it in the rear.

BTW, Prince of Wales is now definitely in the water...the 2nd Royal Navy QE Class:

Jeff Head said:

BTW, Prince of Wales is now definitely in the water...the 2nd Royal Navy QE Class:

View attachment 44333 View attachment 44334

Click to expand...

A beautiful ship indeed, though it is interesting to chart its history. Originally the British Government planned to cut production to just one carrier for financial reasons, but after then they backtrack on the idea because the cost of breaching the contract with the shipyard would cost Britain more than the Prince of Wales itself.

Obi Wan Russell said:

The original designs did include a fourth Phalanx but was dropped during the final round of 'Economy Measures' before the design was approved and construction started. Reinstating that fourth mount and it's associated sponson wouldn't be a huge problem, it's just a sign of how parsimonious politicians can be. The ships are effectively 'fitted for but not with' Sea Captor SAMs, they have type 997 radar, they have the Combat Management System, they just lack the launchers and it wouldn't be a huge job to fit them. It all comes down to money and the ever present lack of political will.View attachment 44323

Click to expand...

inadequate armament would be the fault of the Admiralty, not of anybody or anything else (like of "politicians" or "political will" from your post)

Jura said:

inadequate armament would be the fault of the Admiralty, not of anybody or anything else (like of "politicians" or "political will" from your post)

Click to expand...

This is not necessariloy true, Jura. In any Republic, where the Ligslature have cntrol of the purse strings, they can exert influence over what is spnt, and on what. Certain piliticians who may see that they cannot stop a project from going through, can whittle away at it by using their influence, bvotes, and pressure to tie up those projects, and to whittle costs off of them.

It happens here in the US as well.

Sadly, it happens both ways too...some adding things that are not necessary because they happen t have the votes at the time, others who take away things that are needed because they have the ability to slow things down and tie things up.

All in all, when things like this happen, you can hope that people will speak out, people who have credibility with the voters, and that those necessary things an either go through without the hangups, or that thwe neessary thign can be added back in later.

Sad...but true.

With body guard

FORBIN said:

With body guard
View attachment 44406 View attachment 44407

Click to expand...

Here they are together!



I love that HMS Dragon bow art!