The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

www.navylookout.com

Mechanical issue prevents HMS Queen Elizabeth from sailing on NATO exercise - Navy Lookout

During last-minute checks ahead of sailing for NATO exercise Steadfast Defender, it has been discovered that HMS Queen Elizabeth has a significant issue with her starboard propeller shaft. The ship will not sail on 4th February as planned and instead, HMS Prince of Wales will be readied to...
www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com

HMS Prince of Wales will take over sooner then schedule as RN flagship. According to this article the schedule supposedly on later part of the year. However problem with shaft in QE prompt RN to ready PoW to take over QE role in next NATO exercise.

So far two carrier readiness to back up each other seems still on track. At least this situations seems also being use by RN to shown benefits of two carrier strategy. This perhaps compare to French that continue decided to work on CVN but with only one carrier strategy.
 
Ananda said:
www.navylookout.com

Mechanical issue prevents HMS Queen Elizabeth from sailing on NATO exercise - Navy Lookout

During last-minute checks ahead of sailing for NATO exercise Steadfast Defender, it has been discovered that HMS Queen Elizabeth has a significant issue with her starboard propeller shaft. The ship will not sail on 4th February as planned and instead, HMS Prince of Wales will be readied to...
www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com

HMS Prince of Wales will take over sooner then schedule as RN flagship. According to this article the schedule supposedly on later part of the year. However problem with shaft in QE prompt RN to ready PoW to take over QE role in next NATO exercise.

So far two carrier readiness to back up each other seems still on track. At least this situations seems also being use by RN to shown benefits of two carrier strategy. This perhaps compare to French that continue decided to work on CVN but with only one carrier strategy.
Click to expand...

Having a single asset like a carrier is quite difficult to understand as a strategy.

Two Is the bare minimum, and still (obviously) carries a risk of none availability.

Let's hope that the current problem is from an abundance of over cautioness and the problem is nowhere near the one on PoW.

Many people in the media here in the UK oppose the carriers (bizarrely the right wing media lead the charge), and use every opportunity to belittle their abilities and the capabilities of the planes that they carry.

Can you imagine where these people would be if they were Chinese citizens in China and they expressed such views about the current Chinese carriers???
 
Redshift said:
Can you imagine where these people would be if they were Chinese citizens in China and they expressed such views about the current Chinese carriers???
Click to expand...

If looking on their forums and their Weibo's, they are some criticism on Chinese online publics toward Chinese Carrier program. However not on why the need of carriers, but more on why the program so far only getting 3 carrier and not 6 as many Chinese publics hoping for as minimum against US Pacific Fleet. Different expectations, but doesn't means no criticism on Chinese Weibo's.
 
Ananda said:
If looking on their forums and their Weibo's, they are some criticism on Chinese online publics toward Chinese Carrier program. However not on why the need of carriers, but more on why the program so far only getting 3 carrier and not 6 as many Chinese publics hoping for as minimum against US Pacific Fleet. Different expectations, but doesn't means no criticism on Chinese Weibo's.
Click to expand...

Really? That isn't criticism of the woefully inadequate capability of the carriers though is it? Or any comments on faults or lack of operational capability. Nope that would definitely get you into trouble.

Is Chinese Weibo the equivalent of The Daily Telegraph or the Daily Mail? Or the internet in general? How many senior Chinese politicians make regular comments on this topic?

Honestly, comparing anything on the highly controlled and deeply censored Chinese Weibo, to Western Media and the "real" internet (mainstream or otherwise) is unreasonable.

Criticism of the sort you describe here is hardly comparable, as it is closer to jingoism, "we need more carriers to fight the USA" just isn't quite the same as "we don't need carriers".
 
Redshift said:
Having a single asset like a carrier is quite difficult to understand as a strategy.

Two Is the bare minimum, and still (obviously) carries a risk of none availability.

Let's hope that the current problem is from an abundance of over cautioness and the problem is nowhere near the one on PoW.

Many people in the media here in the UK oppose the carriers (bizarrely the right wing media lead the charge), and use every opportunity to belittle their abilities and the capabilities of the planes that they carry.

Can you imagine where these people would be if they were Chinese citizens in China and they expressed such views about the current Chinese carriers???
Click to expand...
What's the alternative the french had?

Being dependent on US CVN AEW? Or Land based AEW thus limiting the expedition range of the CSG?

CDG CSC won't be a reaction force most of the time but at least it can do independent planned expeditionary missions.

And as someone said on the french forum probably they know we got their back when the CSC would be away.
 
Meriv90 said:
What's the alternative the french had?

Being dependent on US CVN AEW? Or Land based AEW thus limiting the expedition range of the CSG?

CDG CSC won't be a reaction force most of the time but at least it can do independent planned expeditionary missions.

And as someone said on the french forum probably they know we got their back when the CSC would be away.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand your point here, I wasn't really talking about the French choice but the UK one.

The UK wanted carrier availability pretty much almost all of the time, thus the two carriers not one.
 
Meriv90 said:
My bad, being the french the ones with the single carrier class I thought you were referring to the CDG vs POW situation.
Click to expand...

Not at all , they are very different beasts, personally I wish that we had three and that you had two but as it is, we have the right number for NATO between us.
 
Ananda said:
If looking on their forums and their Weibo's, they are some criticism on Chinese online publics toward Chinese Carrier program. However not on why the need of carriers, but more on why the program so far only getting 3 carrier and not 6 as many Chinese publics hoping for as minimum against US Pacific Fleet. Different expectations, but doesn't means no criticism on Chinese Weibo's.
Click to expand...
OFF on a tangent, but feel that this blog has hit the proverbial nail on the head & should help some people understand the logic

See the Pacific from China's perspective
 
John Fedup said:
A globe is indeed the best way to look at this issue. I wonder what China's reaction would be to similar sea areas that a number of nations could deem sovereign? The same applies to the US as well.
Click to expand...

Are there any similar claims, where nations claim vast swathes of sea practically up to the coast of other nations as sovereign territorial waters?

Personally I would welcome a Chinese carrier group here in the North Atlantic, or even the North sea as these are international waters.

They would pose no threat whatsoever so come on over let's take a nice close look!
 
The UK Government scrapped it's Harrier force at the same time as HMS Invincible and Hermes.

The new carriers are built and ready to go (mostly) but the air wing of F35Bs is building up very slowly for a variety of reasons, and the ones we have won't have a full weapons suite until late this decade, potentially early next decade.

In the meantime the USMC seems to be deploying Harriers with great effect in the Red sea.

theaviationgeekclub.com

With 7 confirmed Houthi drones shot down, this AV-8B USMC Harrier pilot could be the First American ace since the Vietnam War: Meet USMC Captain Earl Ehrhart V

With 7 confirmed Houthi drones shot down, this USMC Harrier pilot could be the First American ace since the Vietnam War
theaviationgeekclub.com theaviationgeekclub.com

If only we had kept ours (they went to the US for spare parts) we would have a much more convincing Carrier Strike Group with the F35Bs as stealth air superiority fighters and Harriers as ground strike.
 
Redshift said:
Are there any similar claims, where nations claim vast swathes of sea practically up to the coast of other nations as sovereign territorial waters?

Personally I would welcome a Chinese carrier group here in the North Atlantic, or even the North sea as these are international waters.

They would pose no threat whatsoever so come on over let's take a nice close look!
Click to expand...
Oh sorry that was not meant to Be a reply to your post John I clearly don't have the hang of these forums!!!
 
Redshift said:
The UK Government scrapped it's Harrier force at the same time as HMS Invincible and Hermes.

The new carriers are built and ready to go (mostly) but the air wing of F35Bs is building up very slowly for a variety of reasons, and the ones we have won't have a full weapons suite until late this decade, potentially early next decade.

In the meantime the USMC seems to be deploying Harriers with great effect in the Red sea.

theaviationgeekclub.com

With 7 confirmed Houthi drones shot down, this AV-8B USMC Harrier pilot could be the First American ace since the Vietnam War: Meet USMC Captain Earl Ehrhart V

With 7 confirmed Houthi drones shot down, this USMC Harrier pilot could be the First American ace since the Vietnam War
theaviationgeekclub.com theaviationgeekclub.com

If only we had kept ours (they went to the US for spare parts) we would have a much more convincing Carrier Strike Group with the F35Bs as stealth air superiority fighters and Harriers as ground strike.
Click to expand...

The UK sold the Harriers back in November 2011 & while the Marines operate the AV-8B's they are NOT identical, although they do share a multitude of common parts. The harriers were well used aircraft & the airframes were reaching the end of their operational lives, with costs around physical operation, maintenance / training & spares driving some of the choices made to sell them on.

However, the decisions around the carrier replacements / the F35B & general operations / dealing with military activities in the 2020's, actually revert back to decisions made in the late 90's / early 00's.

Successive govts (post 9-11 & the GWoT), have had to make hard choices with limited funds & this meant 'deferring' delivery dates for F35's to the right, hence why we have a limited number at this time.

Sometimes hindsight is a wonderful thing & lack of budget can make UK Govt PLC do strange things that seem logical at the time (to save money), but look incredulous 10 years after the event (Go & look at the Nimrod story as an example of 40 years worth of ineptitude, for instance, failing that Go & look up the US's A-12 aircraft story). I am sure that in the mid / late 2030's, someone who isn't knowledgeable of the whole story / big picture from 1990 till 2025, will look at what is happening right now & ask WHY we did what we have.

Military procurement takes time, planning & LOTS of funds, so it's not quite like walking down to B&Q / Home Depot & asking for 50 wheel-barrows, because we're gonna move 25 tonnes of top-soil by hand over a weekend.

SA
 
Systems Adict said:
Successive govts (post 9-11 & the GWoT), have had to make hard choices with limited funds & this meant 'deferring' delivery dates for F35's to the right, hence why we have a limited number at this time.
Click to expand...

It's far more than just lack of funds and deferring dates, and to be honest we are right to slow down the procurement of F35Bs right now as the block 4 upgrade is so late and the new engine is also not here. And consequently no Spear 3, no Meteor and assorted other weapons will be available for a long time to come.

A large upfront purchase could have filled the decks of the carriers but the munitions for any sort of ground strike would have been limited to Paveway for some considerable time to come. We would also have been enforced to endure considerable upgrade cost to old and aging airframes by the time block 4 and the engine became available.

And yes no doubt that our Harriers were run a lot harder than The US, Italian, Spanish and Indian ones but many of those are still in service some 13 years after got rid of ours.

Whilst true that the design of the carriers, their intent and purpose goes back a long way, the absolute only other fixed wing jet that could ever have operated from them was the Harrier ( we won't go into the debacle of hitting cats and traps early in the coalition government). This it was surely reasonable to consider the possibility of F35B being late? And look at keeping the only possible substitute. Yes I know that the Harriers were scrapped do that the RAF could maintain it's Tornado fleet.

At the end of the day only two fixed wing jets could ever have operated from the carriers and all our eggs were hatching into F35bs. Three if we could get hold of Russian Yaks lol.
 
It looks like the Royal Navy's test launch of a Trident SLBM has failed again.
The previous test launch also failed.
I am not sure when the last successful British Trident launch was but it must be at least a Decade.
The Government is playing this down but when Trident is your only Nuclear delivery system this is a major concern!






 
MARKMILES77 said:
It looks like the Royal Navy's test launch of a Trident SLBM has failed again.
The previous test launch also failed.
I am not sure when the last successful British Trident launch was but it must be at least a Decade.
The Government is playing this down but when Trident is your only Nuclear delivery system this is a major concern!






Click to expand...


Hardly - Trident has something like 202 launches with a total of around 10 or 11 failures, giving something like a 94% success rate.It looks bad and the usual suspects will harp on about it but the truth is, if the Trident missile is one of the most tested and demonstrated ICBMs ever built.
 
StobieWan said:
Hardly - Trident has something like 202 launches with a total of around 10 or 11 failures, giving something like a 94% success rate.It looks bad and the usual suspects will harp on about it but the truth is, if the Trident missile is one of the most tested and demonstrated ICBMs ever built.
Click to expand...
As you point out Trident has a very good success rate. The failure of the recent test launch from HMS Vanguard is put into context in an article on Navy Lookout. A relevant part of the article says "The Trident II D5LE missiles are shared by the UK and US from a common stockpile and are maintained by Lockheed Martin Space Systems with US Atlantic fleet and RN boats embarking the missiles at the Kings Bay facility in Georgia. (Northrop Grumman manufactures the rocket motors for all three stages of the Trident missile). This is a US industry failure as much as it is a UK problem as they are responsible for selecting the missile and preparing for the test."
 
StobieWan said:
Hardly - Trident has something like 202 launches with a total of around 10 or 11 failures, giving something like a 94% success rate.It looks bad and the usual suspects will harp on about it but the truth is, if the Trident missile is one of the most tested and demonstrated ICBMs ever built.
Click to expand...
What is the success rate of Trident when launched by the Royal Navy?

If the overall success rate of Trident test launches is 94%.
That means the probability of an individual test failure is 6%.
So the probability that two consecutive UK tests would both fail, by chance, is 0.36%.
So the question is whether the RN is just unlucky or there is a problem?

To quote Mathew Saville from the RUSI in The Times
the “demonstration of a credible, ie functioning, capability is an important part of deterrence”.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top