Royal Navy Capabilities

[Ryan UK]

Hi im new to the forums, and lately ive been thinking about the Royal Navy and its Illustrious Past.

So My question is that how do the ships in service or being built compare to their counterparts in the other Naval powers of the world.

Could a Trafalgar compete with a Victor 3?

How modern and well equiped are the new frigates compared to the top of the range american ships?

Will the future carrier be at the same standards of the Nimitz or will it be inferior?

thanks for any replies

 

[ASFC]

There is an RN discussion thread in this section of Defence Talk, so you might be better off starting in there for answers.

And beware a 'this vs. that' thread is against the rules.

 

[Ryan UK]

There is an RN discussion thread in this section of Defence Talk, so you might be better off starting in there for answers.

And beware a 'this vs. that' thread is against the rules.

ok thanks.

i didnt think these sorts of questions would bring out nationalism and pointless arguments but thanks for the heads up

 

[Sea Toby]

ok thanks.

i didnt think these sorts of questions would bring out nationalism and pointless arguments but thanks for the heads up

I would think the new Queen Elizabeths would be better than an old Midway class carrier, and the old Ark Royal and Eagle just because they will be slightly larger and have newer sensors, along with a new generation of aircraft. But I would hold the line there, the new Gerald Fords will be larger and have newer sensors as well, the older Nimitz are larger and carry many more aircraft including similar F-35 Lightning II aircraft.

Having said that, and considering the sizes of British drydocks, I do think these ships would be welcomed in any International UN Task Groups as equals. They will have the ability to defend the carrier task groups as well as being able to strike targets ashore or at sea. Nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of. The Americans have been downsizing their carrier air groups below 80 aircraft down to 60, the British will be increasing their carrier air groups up to almost 50, and with room to add more when necessary. Of course, the Americans could increase theirs as well.

I like the word interoperability. A British F-35B squadron could fly off an American carrier despite not having a ski jump, there would be a longer runway, and a American Marine F-35B squadron could fly off a British carrier.

 

[StevoJH]

I would think the new Queen Elizabeths would be better than an old Midway class carrier, and the old Ark Royal and Eagle just because they will be slightly larger and have newer sensors, along with a new generation of aircraft. But I would hold the line there, the new Gerald Fords will be larger and have newer sensors as well, the older Nimitz are larger and carry many more aircraft including similar F-35 Lightning II aircraft.

Having said that, and considering the sizes of British drydocks, I do think these ships would be welcomed in any International UN Task Groups as equals. They will have the ability to defend the carrier task groups as well as being able to strike targets ashore or at sea. Nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of. The Americans have been downsizing their carrier air groups below 80 aircraft down to 60, the British will be increasing their carrier air groups up to almost 50, and with room to add more when necessary. Of course, the Americans could increase theirs as well.

I like the word interoperability. A British F-35B squadron could fly off an American carrier despite not having a ski jump, there would be a longer runway, and a American Marine F-35B squadron could fly off a British carrier.

Either way, you wouldn't take on a QE group with a single Nimitz, just like you wouldn't take on a Nimitz group with a single QE group. Would be suicide if they had a strong cap up waiting for you.

Only thing the Queen Elizabeth is in need of in my opinion is a decent AEW system, though i have to admit i have no idea how good the current search water radar system on the Sea Kings is.

The Queen Elizabeth class should be the Third most powerful Carrier in the world after the Ford and Nimitz class when it commissions. CdG loses out on Sortie rate, Rafale rather then F-35 and because of its problematic nuclear plant.

 

[Sea Toby]

As far as AEW, the British have no choice at the start but to go with the Sea Kings, or eventually a Merlin helicopter version. However, I have not given up on an Osprey version in the long run. If not a rounded searchwater radar, possibly a smaller MESA, Wedgetail version of an Osprey could be built. And if the rotors are the problem, possibly a VSTOL jet version of a Hawkeye/Greyhound aircraft. How about a VSTOL Viking? Surely a non fighter simple aircraft design can absorb the F-35B Lightning II VSTOL concept. Research and tons of funds should be able to solve this.

 

[kev 99]

Research and tons of funds should be able to solve this.

I think you've identified the problem right there.

 

[windscorpion]

It'd be cheaper, quicker and carry far less risk to make the carriers CTOL than develop a new VTOL platform to be honest.

What about an AEW version of the F-35? (If you have to go down the jet route of course, i suspect Seaking/Merlin will be [or judged to be] sufficient.)

 

[Sea Toby]

The truth of the matter is that the British developed the helicopter searchwater Sea Kings fairly quickly and cheaply during the Falklands War. Any other solution is going to be more expensive, much more compared to using a helicopter.

When operating with American carriers, or the French carrier(s), the Hawkeye will be available. Frankly, I do not see a need to do much more than what the helicopter provides. Who knows, in thirty years the British may acquire Hawkeye, or thier future replacement when they change their carriers with catapults and arresting gear.

 

[harryriedl]

It'd be cheaper, quicker and carry far less risk to make the carriers CTOL than develop a new VTOL platform to be honest.

What about an AEW version of the F-35? (If you have to go down the jet route of course, i suspect Seaking/Merlin will be [or judged to be] sufficient.)

there is also the problem of training 60+ crew and all the deck crew means your talking about 600+ people to train which if join the USN training would be quite expensive and time consuming and the UK the world leader in STOVL. Merlin's also can do 8 hours unrefuled(with extra tanks) which is competitive with the Hawkeys (yes you lose out on range and radar ability and speed) but you can operate it of much more vessels

 

[FluffyThoughts]

Surely the accompanying two T45s would take care of most of the air-space monitoring? So adding a couple of Sea-Kings/Merlins to the mix is sufficient...?

It's a shame we cannot fund a navalised aircraft for the CVF. I'd prefer a simple solution to the Osprey. How much work would be involved in adapting an Islander for naval use...? [Ok, folding-wings may be an issue...! ]

 

[StevoJH]

Surely the accompanying two T45s would take care of most of the air-space monitoring? So adding a couple of Sea-Kings/Merlins to the mix is sufficient...?

It's a shame we cannot fund a navalised aircraft for the CVF. I'd prefer a simple solution to the Osprey. How much work would be involved in adapting an Islander for naval use...? [Ok, folding-wings may be an issue...! ]

At 10,000ft you will see Sea Level at ~122miles, which is about what height you'd probably expect from a AEW helo. If the range figures from Wikipedia can be trusted (too tired to look elsewhere) the Type 45 can cover the high altitude coverage out to ~250 miles.

How much would it cost to develop a STOVL or STOL UAV and fit it with some sort of synthetic aperture radar?