Call a spade a spade
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
![HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-Portsmouth-1014x487[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/40azsv9.jpg "HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-Portsmouth-1014x487[1].jpg")
Since there is a current lack of "are carriers obsolete" posts today I thought I'd try and open discussion on the worlds third largest carrier class, The Queen Elizabeth.
While we all know it's garbage as a Super Carrier without nuclear power and the lack of CATOBAR has meant she wont have any aircraft until the F-35B is ready.
Instead of calling her a Super Carrier she should have been classified as a Super Amphibious Assault ship, this is especially relevant given the British Ministry of Defences recent news that one of the carriers will be "upgraded" to better carry out the role of amphibious assaults!
Instead of a "money saving" super carrier which is barely more than an embarrassment to the Royal Navy as they are forced to pretend it's matching the US carriers she would become -the- top tier of her role, a huge notable step up from the America class and fit into a more fitting place in history, for herself and the Royal Navy.
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/britain-to-upgrade-one-of-the-royal-navy-s-new-aircraft-carriers-to-back-amphibious-assaults-1-7278901
Why didn't those mother fuckers just get Maersk to produce them 20-30 supercarriers built to commercial standards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn5v7tEBYn4
Like this except without the bridge in the middle, giving you a 1400 ft flight deck, more than sufficient to operate STOL aircraft off it.
If emals catapults are ever reduced in cost, then they could be included as well.
I believe they estimated 400 million for one of these ships.
>>29709802
is this a meme allready?
>>29709842
The OP was a meme.
Forced memes are not memes. Like Milhouse.
That said, CATOBAR was supposed to be an upgrade option until the Treasury dept. Gutted the design to 'save money'.
A carrier does not need to be nuclear powered, it is only as fast as its escorts and has the same endurance. So conventional power is fine as long as there are enough oilers to support the task group.
After 2008 the intention was to mothball the PoW as soon as it was completed. Putting it to sea as an LPH / Commando carrier is an improvement.
>>29709993
>Putting it to sea as an LPH / Commando carrier is an improvement.
Its going to sea as a full carrier.
>>29709993
The US is paying like a billion dollars a carrier just for the new catapults & arrestor system.
Plus the Brits would have had to completely change the design of their carrier to fit the catapults
Had no money for that
>>29709802
This anon is right. A fleet of COTS lake freighters could get the job of a Gerald Ford done while costing only $200 million each give or take. The savings will be re-invested into EMALS catapults strong enough to launch unpowered glider fighters up to their operating altitude.
>>29710038
>Plus the Brits would have had to completely change the design of their carrier to fit the catapults
Not completely, they're designed to be modified to take catapults in a 5,000 ton upgrade.
The reason the expense got so high for the change was because they were pretty much almost completely underway in construction by the time Labour finally got the boot and a government who actually wanted cats got into power, but by that time it was too late, the aircraft purchases were approaching done and the project was too far along to stop the machine. But more than anything, it was the "breach of agreed contract" that would have cost too much. Labour being the complete fuckwits they are signed an agreement that said "no changes or we pay basically double". So during that phase the costs would have skyrocketed.
Subsequent modification wouldn't be anywhere near as expensive in future, hence why the Tories stuck with STOVL, ensure that both carriers are acquired, and then find an oppurtunity down the line. Better two now with better later, than one late and a second scrapped while also costing more.
Then Labour went and fucked it even more by deliberately delaying it for a year simple to make it go over budget to leave the Tories (who they knew would get in) with an overbudget program, because they're bitter fucks who wanted to play games instead of have a good program.
The ACA however, managed to take it on the chin and the second carrier is actually ahead of schedule now, thanks to Rosyth being fucking god tier constructors. The turn around they made to it gets no-where near enough credit.
The whole thing will make a good book someday about the dangers of Labour in power.
>>29709540
What an interesting and novel topic for a thread. Bravo, OP.
>>29710085
Well Labour are leftists, all their policies are disasters, thats the nature of leftists.
>>29709540
Ah, yes Listerinefag are we asking why a country with only a $56.2bn budget doesn't have the same capabilities as a country with a $597.5bn dollar budget?
>>29709993
>That said, CATOBAR was supposed to be an upgrade option until the Treasury dept. Gutted the design to 'save money'.
Eh, that's not actually true. The design allows for later upgrades and conversion for cats.
>After 2008 the intention was to mothball the PoW as soon as it was completed.
No, it was being considered to be mothballed. Nobody exactly knew what the plan was until SDSR2015 said that both carriers would be used.
>>29710085
Absolutely right.
The NAO (UK equivalent of the GAO), produced a report showing that converting to Cats right now was utterly retarded after the decision was changed back to STOVL.
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/10149-001-Carrier.full-report.pdf
>>29710167
Op here, the carriers are top tier for what the British can afford especially when factoring in incompetent bullshit politics going back to the scrapping of their carrier program in the 1960's.
That being said, while the Queen Elizabeth doesn't match up to a Nimitz in capability it is a huge step forward from the invincible class and as an amphibious assault ship would be second to none, even the US wouldn't build one as advanced and large as Queen Elizabeth because they have the larger more capable super carriers and on that point the British can say to be world leaders rather than stragglers desperately trying to keep up with the Nimitz and Ford classes.
>>29709540
A FUCKING RAMP
>>29710437
> not having a ramp on your amphibious assault ships making your STOVL aircraft weaker because your brass are too afraid congress might think they work better thus endangering your super carriers.
>>29710085
>Labour being the complete fuckwits they are signed an agreement that said "no changes or we pay basically double".
That's pretty reasonable when you look at Labour's history with PFI.
Best of all, we're still fucking using it!
>>29710085
>The whole thing will make a good book someday about the dangers of Labour in power.
Not really, any future Labour government (definitely after 2025, quite possibly never.)
(I mean it'd be a good, interesting story, it'd just be no use as a warning because whoever Labour had trying to lead them to government would probably have been in School when Blair/Brown were in charge.)
>>29710132
>Labour are leftists
New Labour were more incompetent idiots than they were leftists.
>b-but the spending!
Idiots. Centrists and right wingers can piss away money too.
The implosion of New Labour, especially what it managed to do to their heartlands (Scotland the most visual example) is one of the most enjoyable stories there is. Perhaps that's something both actual leftists, and right-wingers can agree on.
>>29709540
>gee liz, how come your government lets you have TWO islands?
>>29710755
Well, you aren't wrong. I do wonder if Labour will swing back to New Labour on the political graph anytime soon given Comrade Corbyn driving it into the dirt.
>>29710770
Because SOMEONE threw all the fucking tea in the harbour so now we need a dedicated dredging command deck on board to find it, thank you very fucking much, spams.
Also too little actual pictures in this thread.
>>29710755
Why do you bongs spell Labor with a silent "u"? Stop butchering the American language. It doesn't make you special, just stupid.
>>29710827
Because MPs "work for you/u", but Labour sure fucking doesn't.
That's why.
>>29709540
>Super Carrier without nuclear power and the lack of CATOBAR
Super Carrier = huge (longer = faster, thanks fluid dynamics), nuclear, and CATOBAR.
>>29710883
Only definition is by tonnage which the QE meets.
>>29710804
>I do wonder if Labour will swing back to New Labour on the political graph anytime soon given Comrade Corbyn driving it into the dirt.
Their problems go deeper than being too left wing (on actual policy Corbyn's rapidly turned into Miliband, though he's perceived more lefty). A lot of New Labour strategy as "Wales, The North, and Scotland don't have anywhere else to go, so we can move the Labour party rightwards and ignore them to focus on swing-seats."
And then the SNP won Scotland.
And then the swing-seats went Tory.
And UKIP started posing a credible threat in the north.
New Labour was a very contextual thing, simply moving rightwards wouldn't help them significantly right now (it'd perhaps even hurt them by poisoning the grassroots.) because their core vote is rotting away and they're facing down a boundary review that'll remove some inbuilt Labour-bias in the system.
Unless the EU referendum really does something quite scary to the Tory party, Labour are doomed for a long time and nobody from comrade Corbyn to laissez-faire Liz can turn the sinking ship around.
Like the HMS invincible, which Argentina totally sunk 10 times during the Falklands you guys!!!
>>29709802
That is a logistics ship not a war ship.
>>29710428
>That being said, while the Queen Elizabeth doesn't match up to a Nimitz in capability it is a huge step forward from the invincible class and as an amphibious assault ship would be second to none
thats the thing I dont get with the criticism, sure they arent as good as the Nimitz or Ford class in sortie rates or sheer capacity, but they are better than everything else afloat CdG included, as well as being remarkably flexible and the entire project including building infrastructure to build them came in at less than the cost of a Ford class.
they might not be the best carriers in the world, but the only ones better are in allied service and they are significantly better than anything any likely opponent posseses
>>29711082
When exactly has anyone put fleet carriers in harms way in the last..... 60+ years?
>>29711241
Any conflict in the past 60 years that has involved carriers.
>>29710770
>>gee liz, how come your government lets you have TWO islands?
funnels mean it as to have the two protrusions into the deck, both are being used for the functions that suit the position, the forward for navigating and ship control, the aft island for air group control, and unlike previous conventional designs they arent building anything in the intervening space using it instead as a lift. its actually a pretty smart design choice for a conventional carrier, better than the long islands seen on any other conventional powered carrier
>>29711255
We have radars on aircraft now, theres no way for carriers to be caught off guard
They can sit 400 miles away
Theres no need to cripple capabilities by making them "warships" aka 20 times the cost
>>29711268
Falklands War and Gulf War disagree with your thinking.
>>29711281
?
No carrier there was shot at, let alone hit
>>29709802
>>29709842
I guarantee the cargo ship aircraft carrier fag is the same as the glider fag.
>>29711241
>What is the Falklands?
>>29711312
But that's not what you said.
You asked if carriers had been put "in harms way", which they had in both the Falklands and Gulf War.
Those Exocets that hit the Atlantic Conveyor, were intended for HMS Hermes.
Although, USS Iowa is not a carrier, she certainly got the carrier treatment with having AAW escorts being placed around her, which thankfully saving her after being shot at by two Iraqi Silkworms.
>>29711494
>>29711550
Gulf war is not carriers, like you said, and iowa's wouldn't have been scratched by Silkworms
In the falklands the issue was, the brits didn't enough space aboard their carriers for proper CAP, strike, ISR etc
And since they were small, the only fixed wing aircraft they could operate were shitty harriers.
Save serious money by purchasing super carriers built to commercial standards
Then you'll have more than enough room aboard ship for appropriate numbers of aircraft
So that unlike the brits, you wouldn't be getting constantly surprised by low altitude attacks
As well, the ships could double as amphibs, resupply, Helicopter carriers, hospitals, etc. Since they will just be so damn big, and you'll have so many of them.
>>29711268
>We have radars on aircraft now, theres no way for carriers to be caught off guard
>>29709802
You know, this makes a twisted kind of sense.
Disposable carriers.
Use it once, then scrap it if it survives the mission.
Hell, you could save a ton more money by crewing it with temps from a staffing agency. Why are we not doing this?
>>29710883
>Super Carrier = ...nuclear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Hawk-class_aircraft_carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrestal-class_aircraft_carrier
>>29711323
Lol, glider fag here.
>>29712897
>carriers built to commercial standards
>with a self-defense armament of 12 x 16"/50 Mk.7
You are so right. And the aircraft complement needs to ditch those heavy turbine motors for an all-glider force. The weight savings will result in air superiority fighters with superior low cost and wing loading. This difference in wing loading is what makes the difference between a "can't run can't turn" F-35 and the world-beating Su-35, which can perform the cobra maneuvers.
>>29709540
No one in the RN or MoD ever said she was a match for the US super carriers. Why do you come on to the internet to tell lies?
These are the biggest carriers outside the US. What crawled up your ass?
>>29710066
glorious
>>29710428
>That being said, while the Queen Elizabeth doesn't match up to a Nimitz in capability
it's 40 000 tons lighter, since fucking when did anyone expect it to, design it to, or say it did? what is this fucking strawman?
>>29712897
And they could put modular 20 inch guns on them that fire modern Rattel super-tanks filled with killer bees
>>29714349
Clappers get triggered when you call it a supercarrier, so resort to such strawman arguments.
>>29710827
Lol
>>29714270
>>29714349
>>29714428
Op here, first of all I'm British and have followed the carrier program since its inception with awe and pride for what they actually are.
If you're Brits yourselves you'd have seen that in every single news article or program relating to the class they are compared with the Nimitz, every Internet discussion focuses on the capabilities they don't have. They are referred to as super carriers constantly and I've had the displeasure of watching Royal Navy personnel squirming in interviews when justifying the cuts on their specs.
It is this embarrassment that I refer to in the op, if we (media and Internet posters alike) just stop pretending they're a match for a Nimitz the Elizabeth class could be seen as something far more than a political blunder and more the technological marvel that we last saw when US marines occasionally trained their harrier pilots on Invicible.
>>29714561
>They are referred to as super carriers constantly and I've had the displeasure of watching Royal Navy personnel squirming in interviews when justifying the cuts on their specs.
Super carrier isn't even a real term, so frankly, nobody cares.
And what interviews? Royal Navy personnel except Admiralty, do not discuss these things publicly because in the armed forces there's a common mantra: "Don't comment above your pay grade", so I really don't know what you mean by "interviews".
>It is this embarrassment that I refer to in the op, if we (media and Internet posters alike) just stop pretending they're a match for a Nimitz the Elizabeth class
Really, again, nobody is pretending that a $4.6bn carrier is the same as a $10.4bn carrier.
Things can be compared to each other without having to be the same.
>>29714561
>every single news article
Well there's your problem, anon.
You expect the fucking media in THIS country to get shit about defence right?
>>29714561
Its referred to as a supercarrier, because it IS one.
The fact that its even compared to a Ford/Nimitz class should tell you that is impressive, not an embarassment.
>>29714873
The media in the UK cannot get a single thing right.
>>29713705
>Hell, you could save a ton more money by crewing it with temps from a staffing agency. Why are we not doing this?
We could save even more by using a mixture of /k/ posters and redditors.
>>29711211
>thats the thing I dont get with the criticism, sure they arent as good as the Nimitz or Ford class in sortie rates or sheer capacity,
But VSTOL ships have higher sortie rates than CATOBAR anon.
>>29715299
look at that nosegear goddamn
>>29715339
4 cats put the nimitz/ford slightly ahead, but 2 cat carriers are behind
>>29710085
>Labour being the complete fuckwits they are signed an agreement that said "no changes or we pay basically double". So during that phase the costs would have skyrocketed.
This is actually pretty smart. Knowing how retarded the government is they'd change the requirement for no god damn reason, inflating costs to an absurd degree. This is a great way to prevent price inflation, saving the tax payer money.
If they need cats, they need additional capability beyond what was originally ordered, so they might as well buy new carriers to deploy along side.
>>29715592
>so they might as well buy new carriers to deploy along side.
that would almost certainly cost more than fucking with the existing ones. instead of "beyond what was initially ordered" they may have no use for what was originally ordered, making it pointless to keep.
>but you'd have more overall capability!
which we don't need. sure, it's nice to have, but if you'd save the taxpayer £20 by not building an extra ship that's still a £20 saving.
(obviously there are proper ways to quantify whether the saving is worth it, so there does come a point when extra ships is preferable, but keeping at simple cost is better for example purposes.)
