Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier class ( Program CVF ) on active duty

Meant to post on this subject yesterday.

www.bbc.com

Royal Navy serviceman dies in training exercise

A Merlin Mk4 helicopter ditched during night-flying exercises and two of the three crew on board were rescued, the navy says.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

www.bbc.com

Royal Navy service member dies after Merlin helicopter ditches in English Channel

Prime Minister Keir Starmer says he's "deeply saddened" after the Merlin Mk4 helicopter ditched near Dorset during night flying exercises.
www.bbc.com


www.telegraph.co.uk

Royal Navy service member dies after helicopter ditches in Channel

Merlin aircraft went down near Dorset while conducting night flying exercises with HMS Queen Elizabeth
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

www.telegraph.co.uk

Royal Navy serviceman killed when helicopter crashed in Channel named

Lt Rhodri Leyshon’s family pay tribute to ‘talented and loyal’ son
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk


www.somersetlive.co.uk

Investigation continues into cause of fatal Navy helicopter crash

It has been reported they were based at the Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton in Somerset
www.somersetlive.co.uk www.somersetlive.co.uk

Rest In Peace. :(
 
Am I the only one who thinks that having the only two UK CVs in port at the same time is somewhat naive? The USA learned this sort of thing in 1941
 
We really needed more QE carriers than the two that we eventually got perhaps four would have been enough for the Royal Navy, but then I can dream.
 
FighterJock said:
We really needed more QE carriers than the two that we eventually got perhaps four would have been enough for the Royal Navy, but then I can dream.
Click to expand...
You really need at least 3 to keep one at sea 24/7. And there have been times that even with IIRC 6 ships all were stuck in port due to issues.

The US, with 12 carriers, only has 4 available to use.
 
That is bad for the US Scott Kenny, only four carriers for use out of a total of twelve? What is wrong with the others dry dock maintenance? Or other issues.
 
FighterJock said:
That is bad for the US Scott Kenny, only four carriers for use out of a total of twelve? What is wrong with the others dry dock maintenance? Or other issues.
Click to expand...
Operational cycles. One carrier is at sea, one is in shipyard just back from sea (fixing everything that broke while at sea), the third is in port getting ready to go to sea (making sure that all the fixes hold and training the crew up).
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yeah, so?

If you have a need for two carriers deployed, you need 5-6 carriers in total.
Click to expand...
That would require Australia and Canada to link defence budgets and even then difficult. There's no way the UK alone can afford 6 carriers when the US only has 11. We need to be realistic here. Yes we need to spend more, but there are sensible limits. When you say the UK needs 6 carriers, you may as well say they need 6 Protogen Amun-Ra Class Stealth Frigates, since both are equally likely to happen.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
That would require Australia and Canada to link defence budgets and even then difficult. There's no way the UK alone can afford 6 carriers when the US only has 9. We need to be realistic here. Yes we need to spend more, but there are sensible limits. When you say the UK needs 6 carriers, you may as well say they need 6 Protogen Amun-Ra Class Stealth Frigates, since both are equally likely to happen.
Click to expand...
If your strategic situation that the politicians have put you into requires 2 deployed carriers, the politicians need to put their money where their warmongering mouth is and pay for it.

End of discussion.
 
Not the first country with a disconnect between stated aims and the measures to achieve them. Certainly not the only one.
Unlikely to be the last one.
 
I missed that bit about warmongering too, come to think of it. Is this about the current UK government? Or about any other recent UK government?
 
You gotta have deterrence, the UK really has to figure out how large of a carrier fleet they need. The US has been a blue-water Navy for a very, very long time and its going to remain that way for a very, very long time. Europe primarily has to deal with Russia. The US has to deal with the globe, unfortunately.
 
Forest Green said:
There's no way the UK alone can afford 6 carriers when the US only has 11.
Click to expand...
Errr there's no way the UK can afford such a fleet AND a massive Army on the continent of....anywhere.

It's always come down to a choice and traditionally the Navy gained over the Army.
 
Hydroman said:
You gotta have deterrence, the UK really has to figure out how large of a carrier fleet they need.
Click to expand...
Carriers aren't built for deterrence.

If you try, no one will give you money.
Can UK have a 6 carrier navy?
Well, I hope things one can reassemble UK defense budget that way. Though, as I half-joked above - you'll have to design a completely different aircraft to make it affordable, which in modern conditions would equal to disbanding RAF.
As well as ~triple destroyer and support fleet somehow, when even current ones are hard to man properly.

But without global empire and fears of Spanish/French/German invasion, what's exactly the point?
Russia? China? North Korea?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yeah, so?

If you have a need for two carriers deployed, you need 5-6 carriers in total.
Click to expand...
UK planning has always been for a maximum of two operational going back to the Cold War. The Invincibles assumed one active, one in workup/light refit, one in reserve/deep refit, so two operational and a surge capacity to three (with plenty of lead time). The QEs were built around steel is cheap, and assumed one active, one in refit to pay for the larger ship. They seem not to have factored in the larger air group cost, perhaps assuming that could be slid over to the RAF, or less Austerity focused governments (planned under Blair's New Labour which was keen on the fleet, outfitted under Cameron's Tories, which was keen on Tax Cuts keeping Fleet Street happy).

The reality seems to be both QEs active some of the time, which is better some of the time, but vulnerable to both being caught dockside. The shift back from engagements east of Suez probably helps with that in that they're mostly wanted close to home rather than on six month cruises in the Indian Ocean. That's a different deployment pattern to the US because they're not forward deployed, so can mix things like working up the airgroup and operations which isn't really possible if your training and operational environments are a hemisphere apart.
 
Having a six carrier Royal Navy I think is far too much, where would we base them all given the fact that the Rosyth naval base was closed back in the 1990s and is now used to build and maintain ships.
 
I think we should stick to old 3-rules royal navy usually follow. Cold war / WW2 / pre-WW2

"6" carriers we actually need

2 type carrier we really need

3x carriers QE hybrid stobar, angle with 2x Uav / uacv (CCA) "mini" EMCLS (wish we build 3rd will solved long term) project royal ark

So we able welcome other allies aircraft STOBAR / CATBAR (I'm think they can Takeoff by ramp without Catapult launcher. Or we could portable catapult for them use modular line up ramp angle to extra kick power?

3x primary drone carriers / secondary roles LHS with stern dock for amphious assault forward and backward compatible - fearless class or multi-purpose carrier class similar one bfns show few months ago or old concept UXV combatants (I like this more but improvement so can handle long runway for sea protector/CCA.)

support QE carrier and free up space for more F35 in wartime (128 F35 "B") 46 each 3 QE or 72 in wartime on deck/under deck without Sea protector / CCA as move them to drone carrier will action Drone & Helicopter carrier.

escort fleet contains 1 QoE HC + 1 drone carrier
2x Type 83 for ASW+AAW+AICBM
+ 2x type 26 ASW
+ 2x type 45 upgrade AAW+ASRBM
2x type 31/32 (modular multi purpose mission)
+ 2x Future Attack submarine (aukus)
2x MRSS ELLIDA 195m

For 3 fleet each 4 months rotation (2 active (peace time - 1 training and 1 exercise 1" home rest / upgrade / repair")

Split half 3 main fleet (cold war or war active) into 6 mini fleet in peace time for humanity mission / training / quick response / pirate / escort trade ship

Wish thought we extra fleet
"4th fleet UK home defence fleet" active / reverse stand by to replace for repair or other reason (no carrier back up) so we could full swap / replace as look at type 45 only 1/2 active on sea which not good look as we need avoid this happened.

Especially USA threat to bailed out NATO European theater so we need take roles protected our North Sea / Norwegian sea, Irish sea, English channel threat

2x Type 83 + 2x type 26 + 2x type 31/32 (modular mission) + 2x FASM (aukus) 4x to 8x corvette (NEW - recommended SIGMA 9113: Corvette type replacement river class with USCV boat) 2x MRSS ELLIDA 195m

Cover by p-8 and sea protector version, for ASW
e-7 and sky protector, for AEW
tempest (GCAP), CCA escort GCAP, And CCA support AEW / ASW and for Antiship mission & air QRA, Air Patrol

(Separate Extra fleet for 3 of Royal Marines Littoral Response Group (LRG) ships required and Falklands / Gibraltar etc other reason I want get corvette support type 31/32)

Right on, I need stop waffle (sorry) maybe I go find thread for this

Anyway I would like see more QE class news and discuss especially Project Royal Ark back on track as we need it to improves our carrier to more flexible multipurpose carriers with Sea protector AEW and ASW roles launch from carriers and full f35 + CCA. That main thing we need focus.

I know these would impossible as not enough manpower and money, especially currently political cut. We need change this for future sake or we stuck same problem.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
Carriers aren't built for deterrence.

If you try, no one will give you money.
Can UK have a 6 carrier navy?
Well, I hope things one can reassemble UK defense budget that way. Though, as I half-joked above - you'll have to design a completely different aircraft to make it affordable, which in modern conditions would equal to disbanding RAF.
As well as ~triple destroyer and support fleet somehow, when even current ones are hard to man properly.

But without global empire and fears of Spanish/French/German invasion, what's exactly the point?
Russia? China? North Korea?
Click to expand...
USS Enterprise was a very good deterrent during the Cuban Missile Crisis. US carrier battle groups are pretty good at deterrent diplomacy I think. Why do you think the US constantly deploys its carriers globally, because no one else can, unfortunately. Europe has to worry about Russia, they can be a wild card and potentially China, the way they have been growing their capabilities, China has a global outlook. North Korean troops have and had been fighting in the Russia-Ukraine war.
 
Hydroman said:
USS Enterprise was a very good deterrent during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Click to expand...
Uss Enterprise during Cuban missile crisis carried a wing of strategic bombers. Also, it wasn't considered something primary by Soviets, ballistic missile and SAC bombers were.
This carrier role is mostly outdated(french keep it barely alive to some degree, of course). It was growing outdated right then, in fact, with shift to Polaris fleet.
Also, being blunt, UK economy is incapable of 6-carrier navy with such airwing.
Hydroman said:
US carrier battle groups are pretty good at deterrent diplomacy I think. Why do you think the US constantly deploys its carriers globally, because no one else can, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Deterrent against whom?
You need to grow back global empire to do gunboat diplomacy, as to deter someone against relevant action x.
Otherwise it'll look like QE in SCS again: rather pitiful, yet expensive geopolitical show. About as relevant as Italian performances on China station in 1930s.
Hydroman said:
Europe has to worry about Russia, they can be a wild card and potentially China, the way they have been growing their capabilities, China has a global outlook. North Korean troops have and had been fighting in the Russia-Ukraine war.
Click to expand...
None are direct UK threats.
The closest one, Russia, isn't a naval threat, and carriers can have any primary relevance against Russia(i.e. when they're more impactful than other means) only when it has a navy. In modern era, it doesn't.
Massive UK investment into a stretched surface fleet is basically the best scenario for Russia...

China is a bit far away, and is a bit stronger.

DPRK is further still, and again, it just doesn't care about UK carrier power, 1 carrier or 16. They already live with hostile air force right over the border, twice the size of RAF.

Like, look at what you're doing. The only two entities you can negatively affect with 6-6 navy (funny historical parallels) is US and EU. Girls scandal isn't a big enough fallout to burn Washington just yet.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Okay, hyperbole. But the politicians are still wrapping you up into a situation that requires 5-6 carriers to meet the political objectives, without actually putting the money to support those objectives.
Click to expand...
What situation? Land conflict/defence in Europe arguably doesn't require carriers. Russia only has one and that's a smoking wreck.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Okay, hyperbole. But the politicians are still wrapping you up into a situation that requires 5-6 carriers to meet the political objectives, without actually putting the money to support those objectives.
Click to expand...
Arguably the politicians are wrapping the UK into a situation that requires a massive RAF, long range fires, artillary, ISTAR, drones, SAM units and... Boots.
Aircraft Carriers not so much.
 
Forest Green said:
What situation? Land conflict/defence in Europe arguably doesn't require carriers. Russia only has one and that's a smoking wreck.
Click to expand...
In Europe it mostly doesn't. Barring keeping the Russian subs out of the North Atlantic.

It is needed for Middle East and points east.
 
Scott Kenny said:
In Europe it mostly doesn't. Barring keeping the Russian subs out of the North Atlantic.

It is needed for Middle East and points east.
Click to expand...
Which isn't really worth 6 carriers.

Come to think of it, there's an intersection point - airgroups.
Significant additional F-35Bs order(from expanded budget) is a reasonable way to give the new US admin its money.

QEs themselves without CATOBAR setup themselves are affordable(at least POW was). Problem of course is infrastructure and the rest of the fleet, as was mentioned above.
 
Scott Kenny said:
In Europe it mostly doesn't. Barring keeping the Russian subs out of the North Atlantic.

It is needed for Middle East and points east.
Click to expand...
The main focus for European militaries is Europe right now though, especially with the US's pseudo withdrawal.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom