Space Commander Travis Posted July 2, 2017 #26 Share Posted July 2, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, The Russian Hare said: I think that reflects smaller air crew, air wing alone on Nimitz class is about 1500 Possibly less complex due to conventional vs. nuclear power, maybe in other ways as well, could also be heavier reliance on automation Yes, the air wing is responsible for a very large proportion of the crew on carriers (not so much aircrew, but support personnel). Plus they need all them on American carriers to line up on deck in the shape of the Stars & Stripes or spelling out messages that say "We love you, Mr. President" or "Mission Accomplished" or whatever on special occasions. Edited July 2, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Area Posted July 2, 2017 #27 Share Posted July 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said: Yes, the air wing is responsible for a very large proportion of the crew on carriers (not so much aircrew, but support personnel). Plus they need all them on American carriers to line up on deck in the shape of the Stars & Stripes or spelling out messages that say "We love you, Mr. President" or "Mission Accomplished" or whatever on special occasions. Plus the room for kenny loginns and his entourage. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Monk Posted July 2, 2017 #28 Share Posted July 2, 2017 (edited) On 2017-6-28 at 3:00 PM, stevewinn said: HMS Iron Duke a type 23 Frigate as teamed up with HMS Sutherland also a type 23, in helping protect the carrier from Russian interests (Submarine) as we know at least one is in the neighbourhood. video two below. The Russian ships are merely passing through the Channel on the way to or from Syria, rather than go the long way around. There really is no need for our depleted navy to be escorting such ships and for sabre-rattling reports in the media every time one merely passes through the world's busiest shipping lane. Edited July 2, 2017 by Black Monk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted July 2, 2017 Author #29 Share Posted July 2, 2017 21 minutes ago, Black Monk said: The Russian ships are merely passing through the Channel on the way to or from Syria, rather than go the long way around. There really is no need for our depleted navy to be escorting such ships and for sabre-rattling reports in the media every time one merely passes through the world's busiest shipping lane. The question is what intelligence and electronic information are the Subs gathering as they pass. On the surface it looks like its just merely passing by all innocent but far, far more is happening. both Navies will be detecting what electronic soft-kill sensors and systems are being used, be they old or new, But then again it could be just passing by. The Russians will no doubt have at least one Sub trying to get close enough to pick up QE's acoustic signature. its expected we do the same to Russian boats/ships. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted July 2, 2017 Author #30 Share Posted July 2, 2017 14 hours ago, The Russian Hare said: I think that reflects smaller air crew, air wing alone on Nimitz class is about 1500 Possibly less complex due to conventional vs. nuclear power, maybe in other ways as well, could also be heavier reliance on automation Its a number of things, which you've hit upon, but ultimately the reduced numbers stems from the design, the remote monitoring systems, the Automated weapons handling system, The better design around survivability allows for damage control and fire-fighting, all these systems help reduce the overall crew numbers required. The damage and control/fire fighting system must be something special because the numbers for the size of ship seems on the low side. As the ship goes to action stations every man and his dog as his place. if the ship is hit/damaged/flooded the platform needs to still operate, this is where the extra numbers come in handy. (its the only area of the project i have doubts about) When you compare crew numbers the USA seem to always have "extra" people for the size of vessel. the Zumwalt class are the exception and this class of ship uses a similar automated weapons/palletised system used on the QE class. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skookum Posted July 7, 2017 #31 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Looks like the F35 is coming along nicely. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4662704/F-35-firing-weapons-upside-latest-test.html The stories about a plane that can't fly or maneuver seem to have been quashed at the Paris Airshow with an impressive performance. Of course armchair Generals are claiming the Rafael and Russian SU35 look more impressive at airshows but the F35 is a multi role aircraft that is designed to destroy the enemy before they see it coming. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted July 7, 2017 Author #32 Share Posted July 7, 2017 On 07/07/2017 at 4:15 PM, skookum said: Looks like the F35 is coming along nicely. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4662704/F-35-firing-weapons-upside-latest-test.html The stories about a plane that can't fly or maneuver seem to have been quashed at the Paris Airshow with an impressive performance. Of course armchair Generals are claiming the Rafael and Russian SU35 look more impressive at airshows but the F35 is a multi role aircraft that is designed to destroy the enemy before they see it coming. I stopped listening to all the guff about the F35 and started listening to those involved in the programme, the criticism comes from the problems and overruns during the build, but people fail to realise when you push the envelope in terms of technology you run into problems no one as encountered before. that's the price you pay, what you end up with is top end Fifth Gen radar limiting stealth fighter. the electronics in the plane is mind blowing, situational awareness is unparalleled, The pilots helmet, well, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted August 8, 2017 Author #33 Share Posted August 8, 2017 Little update: HMS Queen Elizabeth still on sea trials off Scotland. She had a couple of visitors. namely US Nimtz Class Carrier - USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) Along with Royal Navy Type 23s, US Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga class, middle ship is Norwegian frigate. USS George H.W Bush and escorts on their way to take part in Saxon warrior 2017. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted August 8, 2017 Author #34 Share Posted August 8, 2017 @keithisco Word is HMS Queen Elizabeth is due in Portsmouth 18th August. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted August 8, 2017 #35 Share Posted August 8, 2017 Just now, stevewinn said: @keithisco Word is HMS Queen Elizabeth is due in Portsmouth 18th August. Will definitely go down after I've finished my work at Shoreham (Portsmouth is on my way home)!!! Will get some piccies to post 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted August 8, 2017 #36 Share Posted August 8, 2017 Do you know what the names of the American ships are? I saw the cruiser in the Solent when the GHW visited Portsmouth but I was never able to find what it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted August 9, 2017 Author #37 Share Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) 15 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said: Do you know what the names of the American ships are? I saw the cruiser in the Solent when the GHW visited Portsmouth but I was never able to find what it was. USS Donald Cook. destroyer USS Philippine Sea. cruiser https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGtxsP5XkAE955t.jpg:large Name of those in the photos above. HMS Queen Elizabeth. Carrier HMS Westminster Frigate. HMS Iron Duke, Frigate USS George.H.W.Bush Carrier. USS Donald Cook. Destroyer USS Philippine Sea. Cruiser. HNoMS Helge Ingstad Frigate (Norwegian) Saxon Warrior 2017. will comprise of 15 War Ships. 4 Submarines. 9,000 Sailors and Airmen. 100 fast jets and 20 rotary. simulating attacks on Allied Carrier group. close up of USS George W.H Bush https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGuaT5gW0AA42Tc?format=jpg&name=large Edited August 9, 2017 by stevewinn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted August 9, 2017 #38 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Thank you. I can make a note of that now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted August 9, 2017 Author #39 Share Posted August 9, 2017 As we regain our skills in large deck carrier operations, We asked the US for assistance, for the last four years they've been helping out with Royal Navy personnel embedded with their US counter parts, as we near full carrier operations we asked the US to take part in Exercise Saxon Warrior, The Royal Navy expected the US contribution to be two destroyers, the fact they sent their supercarrier USS George H.W. Bush and escorts showed the generosity and act of friendship better than words could. The lessons from Saxon warrior will stand us in good stead for the future. https://twitter.com/AdmPhilipJones/status/895345170799104004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugenonegin Posted August 9, 2017 #40 Share Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) Unfortunately, N Korea will blast it out of the water in 10 minutes. This craft is just propaganda. All surface craft are vulnerable, and a waste or resources, they are just to show strength and bargaining chips .The late,great military historian John Keegan has described all this in the "Price of Admiralty" ( a great book that I highly recommend). It is just sabre-rattling. Logic tells us we don't need floating airfields to destroy an enemy. We could use drones flown from 10k miles away, or stealth bombers. The large aircraft carriers are supposed to strike fear and awe. If an enemy laughs at our fear and awe, we are scuppered. They will just launch an attack on the craft and the planes will have nowhere to land. The next great naval warfare will be fought underseas:http://newatlas.com/future-submarines-modern-warfare/49896/ Edited August 9, 2017 by eugeneonegin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugenonegin Posted August 9, 2017 #41 Share Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) On 07/07/2017 at 4:15 PM, skookum said: Looks like the F35 is coming along nicely. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4662704/F-35-firing-weapons-upside-latest-test.html The stories about a plane that can't fly or maneuver seem to have been quashed at the Paris Airshow with an impressive performance. Of course armchair Generals are claiming the Rafael and Russian SU35 look more impressive at airshows but the F35 is a multi role aircraft that is designed to destroy the enemy before they see it coming. I "liked" your post because I thought you were being sarcastic,sorry. Yes, coming along nicely, the enemy wont see this bird coming, it will have destroyed itself and its crew long before it reaches the enemy coastline:https://gizmodo.com/the-f-35-amazingly-has-even-more-problems-than-we-thoug-1791285476 Not being sarcastic, but give the crew parachutes, and it crashes,something to throw over the parapet, maybe it is the type of weapon to cause some mayhem in a land battle if the debris lands on peoples heads. Edited August 9, 2017 by eugeneonegin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted August 10, 2017 #42 Share Posted August 10, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, eugeneonegin said: Unfortunately, N Korea will blast it out of the water in 10 minutes. This craft is just propaganda. All surface craft are vulnerable, and a waste or resources, they are just to show strength and bargaining chips .The late,great military historian John Keegan has described all this in the "Price of Admiralty" ( a great book that I highly recommend). It is just sabre-rattling. Logic tells us we don't need floating airfields to destroy an enemy. We could use drones flown from 10k miles away, or stealth bombers. The large aircraft carriers are supposed to strike fear and awe. If an enemy laughs at our fear and awe, we are scuppered. They will just launch an attack on the craft and the planes will have nowhere to land. The next great naval warfare will be fought underseas:http://newatlas.com/future-submarines-modern-warfare/49896/ I also hold the same views on modern navies and their vulnerability to advanced missiles, EW and eventually lasers. I think that real power projection will be land based and from remote islands and territories. To be eventually replaced by space based assets. Countries like Britain, France, USA and Russia will hold massive advantages over their foes. Both in territories and technology. Bombers, drones, missiles and lasers will make navies obsolete. Submarines will act as moveable, hard to tract insurance policies with their nuclear missiles. I believe this is why China is building artificial reefs and Islands. Edited August 10, 2017 by Captain Risky 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted August 10, 2017 #43 Share Posted August 10, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Captain Risky said: I believe this is why China is building artificial reefs and Islands. Stationary targets which one tactical nuke would destroy or render combat ineffective. Once they start throwing nukes at us, the kid gloves come off and we're never out-gunned. Edited August 10, 2017 by Hammerclaw 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted August 10, 2017 #44 Share Posted August 10, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, eugeneonegin said: Unfortunately, N Korea will blast it out of the water in 10 minutes. That would require a degree of accuracy that would seem somewhat improbable from what we've seen so far. The point of these is that they're mobile, and an ocean is a very big place to hide something even this size. Particularly for a nation that has no practical long-range precision strike capability. Logic tells us we don't need floating airfields to destroy an enemy. We could use drones flown from 10k miles away, or stealth bombers. Logic tells us that drones are a horrendously inaccurate way of hitting a target (the criteria for success in the U.S. Govt's drone strikes is whoever they hit within a 300 yard radius, call them the target), and the operators have to rely on either what they can see through their cameras or some kind of forward air controller near the target, while pilots of piloted aircraft can see the situation right in front of them and decide and react accordingly. A drone is very slow and not very manoueverable, having to rely in the reactions of a pilot thousands of miles away, and would be an easy target for any effective air defences. Stealth bombers are an enormously expensive and extravagant way of doing something that tactical aircraft could do much more flexibly, and that's why they're usually used against static high value targets rather than against targets on the battlefield. Edited August 10, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted August 10, 2017 #45 Share Posted August 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said: Stationary targets which one tactical nuke would destroy or render combat ineffective. Once they start throwing nukes at us, the kid gloves come off and we're never out-gunned. Yes and no. A stationery target in the middle of the Indian Ocean would have a larger surface area to host more defences and offensive capabilities. They can draw enemy fire away from populated areas. A tiny garrisoned island with drones and satellite down stations can control massive areas. They can host smaller naval forces, increasing response times and decreasing troop numbers. The old colonial powers with their outposts and territories have an advantage that China doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted August 10, 2017 #46 Share Posted August 10, 2017 3 hours ago, Captain Risky said: I also hold the same views on modern navies and their vulnerability to advanced missiles, EW and eventually lasers. I think that real power projection will be land based and from remote islands and territories. To be eventually replaced by space based assets. Countries like Britain, France, USA and Russia will hold massive advantages over their foes. Both in territories and technology. Bombers, drones, missiles and lasers will make navies obsolete. Submarines will act as moveable, hard to tract insurance policies with their nuclear missiles. I believe this is why China is building artificial reefs and Islands. Secret superlaser bases in secret islands and inside volcanoes? And then space based assets. You seem to be basing your strategic analysis on Bond films from the Connery/Moore era. Why would an easily located, static target be a better idea? These bombers would need very large fixed facilities to operate from (on, for example, islands such as Guam); why would that be an advantage over facilities that can move anywhere? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted August 10, 2017 #47 Share Posted August 10, 2017 And all this completely ignores the main historical function of navies throughout history; to protect trade (hence the interest in the South China Sea and Persian Gulf, which could easily be blocked to trade should China or Iran decide to take a position similar to N. Korea). Would drones and stealth bombers flying all the way from the US be a more effective and flexible response there than mobile assets right on the spot? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted August 10, 2017 #48 Share Posted August 10, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Captain Risky said: Yes and no. A stationery target in the middle of the Indian Ocean would have a larger surface area to host more defences and offensive capabilities. They can draw enemy fire away from populated areas. A tiny garrisoned island with drones and satellite down stations can control massive areas. They can host smaller naval forces, increasing response times and decreasing troop numbers. The old colonial powers with their outposts and territories have an advantage that China doesn't. ? A stationary target with larger surface area would somehow be an advantage now because you can put more weapons on it? It would also be a much easier target- and any enemy would know exactly where to find it. drones would be useless against any defended target, as I've explained earlier. Edited August 10, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoofGardener Posted August 10, 2017 #49 Share Posted August 10, 2017 8 hours ago, eugeneonegin said: Unfortunately, N Korea will blast it out of the water in 10 minutes. This craft is just propaganda. All surface craft are vulnerable, and a waste or resources, they are just to show strength and bargaining chips .The late,great military historian John Keegan has described all this in the "Price of Admiralty" ( a great book that I highly recommend). It is just sabre-rattling. Logic tells us we don't need floating airfields to destroy an enemy. We could use drones flown from 10k miles away, or stealth bombers. The large aircraft carriers are supposed to strike fear and awe. If an enemy laughs at our fear and awe, we are scuppered. They will just launch an attack on the craft and the planes will have nowhere to land. The next great naval warfare will be fought underseas:http://newatlas.com/future-submarines-modern-warfare/49896/ Remind me again... how many "stealth bombers" does the UK have ? And how many satellites do we possess in order to operate "drones" at a 10,000km range ? Oh... and.... if we DID manage to buy a satellite, how would we actually GET a drone 10,000 Km away in the FIRST place ? Oh.. wait... no.. I've just had a brilliant idea. How about we launch it from.... an Aircraft Carrier ? For the price of each of those aircraft carriers (each of which can carry 30 multi-role jet aircraft, plus a whole HEAP of helicopters, plus a Marine deployment group etc), we could have bought a whole THREE B2-Spirit stealth bombers. Except we wouldn't be allowed to buy them ANYWAY. Seems to me that the aircraft carriers are a bargain. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted August 10, 2017 #50 Share Posted August 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said: Secret superlaser bases in secret islands and inside volcanoes? And then space based assets. You seem to be basing your strategic analysis on Bond films from the Connery/Moore era. Why would an easily located, static target be a better idea? These bombers would need very large fixed facilities to operate from (on, for example, islands such as Guam); why would that be an advantage over facilities that can move anywhere? I hate most James Bond movies with the exception those staring Craig Daniel. Best JB ever. Certainly more realistic with his flawed personality. And more importantly no silly story plots. Most islands and territories can easily accommodate bombers and defensive armaments. What makes you think they can't? With pilotless craft and vertical takeoff tech it will only get easier to scatter forces around the globe. Like I said before... it's pretty hard to destroy an island with one bomb and very easy to sink an aircraft carrier with a single torpedo. You mentioned Guam. The U.S. Sends a couple of carrier battle group to China and they will not last 24 hours in a conventional war without back up from Guam. I think Guam could carry on attacking Chinese shipping and aircraft on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now