England's New Super-Carriers

I think it will be for 2 ships as 60,000 to 70,000 tons is full displacement, and that includes stores, fuel, equipment etc

From the Royal Navy website
8,600 tonnes of fuel
1,000 tonnes of food
embarked aircraft to over 1,000 tonnes
The combined weight of the Diesel Generators is 800 tonnes
Weapons
The rest of the equipment must take up a good amount.
Also there is ballast as well which is needed due to the high and wide flight deck. more so if it's fitted with a cat.

triple post!



[edit on 6-3-2008 by deckard83]

triple post



[edit on 6-3-2008 by deckard83]

I think the US used England as a Supercarrier in the 40s....

Funny you should mention this about England being a supercarrier per se.

I do recall when temporarily stationed at RAF Mildenhall for three months, I saw ,in one of the offices ,a map of England. To the south east the country side was dotted with little air strips. And I mean dotted...like everywhere. I surmised that many of them were unfinished ..grass strips.
In trips about the countryside with a friend it became quickly obvious as there were in fact grass strips in many locations. It appears that many of these were for the purposes of keeping aircraft properly dispersed as well as emergency strips for damaged aircraft returning from missions to the continent. There had to be many days when it was literally an Armada of aircraft departing England on missions, as well as numereous crippled/damagaed aircraft desperately limping their way back...both the Brits and ourselves.
I saw at least two small grass strips between RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath. These bases are not that far apart.

I also surmise that many of these strips were from the time of the Battle of Britian or before but no doubt that when the Yanks came many more were built. I am certain that England became literally an "Armed Island Fortress " during that time and in those days.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Hey Orangetom,

I've got a question for you. What are modern navy's doing to prevent submarine based attacks on carrier groups these days? I know most grade A navy's have a encyclopedias worth of tricks to try and stop or prevent subs from attacking carrier groups, but the submarine has always carried the edge. I think that edge is getting even sharper and bigger with each year of tech advancements for submarines.

These new carriers, and our older ones all still seem (I say seem, because things are never what they look like on the inside of these navy vessels as they do on the outside) to be very vulnerable to enemy subs, and with the push by adversarial navy's to produce really quite and hard to defend against diesel subs, and nuclear ones too (I'd imagine) we must be developing something to defend against these threats and keep the well honed edge (I hope) of the US naval fleet sharp and much more effective than our adversaries.



Any thoughts?

Also, a little off topic here but in your opinion. The whole Scorpion incident. Human error and mechanical failure on the Scorpions side, or sunk by Soviet sub for reprisals against the "unresolved" sinking of their sub a few months earlier. As for me I don't know what to believe. I could go either way. which is why I ask experts like you.
Also, are the test depths for our subs really much deeper than we report them to be? Just curious.

Hello BASSPLAYR,

Good to see your posts again. HOpe all is well with you and your house out west.

What I know about what we are doing to protect out surface fleet is better submarine technologhy. Also better systems on surface ships and aircraft/helicopters. These are coming on line slowly with the exception of submarines. I believe the fourth Virginia class is now delivered to the Navy.
There is going to be, if not already in place quietly, some UUV technology to work with surface ships and submarnes. Unmanned Underwater Vehicles for recce work in advance of the subs or surface ships.

I have always thought that properly used this would be a way to work more effeciently under the ice packs.
UUV Technology and advancements are a field you dont hear as much about as does one in the area of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Probably for good reasons.


These new carriers, and our older ones all still seem (I say seem, because things are never what they look like on the inside of these navy vessels as they do on the outside) to be very vulnerable to enemy subs, and with the push by adversarial navy's to produce really quite and hard to defend against diesel subs, and nuclear ones too (I'd imagine) we must be developing something to defend against these threats and keep the well honed edge (I hope) of the US naval fleet sharp and much more effective than our adversaries.

YOu tend to see these post on all these war games on ATS. I dont get all excited over the latest press release concerning these maneuvers. When they carry out these exercises...they have ROE. Rules Of Engagement by which they must operate. Much of this is simply for safety. We are not privy to the ROE and they are not explained in the press releases. In a real shooting war all this civility is out the window. Do not ever believe that our skippers do not know how to take the boxing gloves off and go bareknuckled with maneuvers which are not exactly in the books. It is the same for other nations skippers.
So you see ..you or I dont know how the boats are forced by the ROE to operate or not operate during exercises.
Dont get all excited over these Naval excercises....much to do with them is a learning curve necessary for all to hone their skills. YOu do not find the specifics of this arena in the press releases.

As to the Scorpion incident...I personally dont believe the official Navy press release. That is just me...you dont have to buy into that one.
Years ago in the local newspaper the Navy put out a huge two page explaination of what they thought happened. It was a very long and expensive explaination to purchase two pages for public consumption. When I realized this after reading the two page article ...I sat back and looked at the two pages from a distance ...and thought...this is the companly line. This is what we are supposed to think. Not necessarily what happened out there.
But that is just me. YOu dont have to buy into that.

In contrast ..when Thresher went down ..this caused huge shockwaves in the Submarine community as well as the indusrty. The fruits of what they learned in the Threasher loss are still taught and reinforced today. Threasher was a failure of the industry and the Navy in thier construction processes. Huge changes were instituted in how things were done. These changes are still in force today.

OH..I am not an expert. I only work in the industry.

As to test depths ...that information/informations is classified. For the safety of our people serving in uniform and our nation I will refrain from discussing in this area. It is the same for operational speeds.
Best I can do in that arena BASSPLAYR. It will have to suffice.

Thanks for your post.
Orangetom

Orangetom,

Thanks for your insight. SO UUV's are possibly sent out as a picket force. lurking quitely in the deep analyzing the background for any type 93's snooping too close to our carrier groups. A sorta UUV version of sosus but also like a stalking captor mine. Interesting.

Also as to the test depths for these boats. One with a less advanced hull integrity managed to get down to 8,000 feet before it crushed. no doubt hull integrity was comprimised several thousand feet higher in the boats decent, but I feel that most subs ours and others included can get deeper than 1,400 feet safely. I'm thinking closer to test depths of 3,500 feet to be able to always exploit the thermocline or whatever that laminar layer is called that shifts in depth through out the day. that the boats use to hide.

I won't push that issue any farther.

Regarding the Scorpion, I'm on the same page with you on that one. Something happened beyond human error in my opinion.

So here's my next question. MHD for boats. wouldn't that cast one heck of a larg EM signature that would be visible from an Orion or some other ASW aircraft. I could only imagine what EM coils of that size and power output would look like on sat. images. Could very well be wrong though.

SO to stay back on the topic of the UK carriers. why do you feel that the UK has never decided to build a huge carrier along the size and capacity of the US carriers. I'd imagine that the same demands could easily be brought on the UK navy as the Us navy during a conflict and that they would want their carriers to be like ours. SO what is the primary difference in your opinion between the stratagy for utilizing, developing, and designing UK carriers vr's US carriers. Does the UK prefeer smaller carriers working in tandum. or do they wish to have some behometh like our carriers. Hopefully my question makes some sense, as I am typing fast and multitasking while at work and keep loosing my point and train of thought.

reply to post by BASSPLYR

---

MHD would still make massive amounts of power, right, even if it's acoustically quiet and electromagnetically noisy. How does one get massive amounts of power silently?

BASSPLYR,

England, though a natural to be a seapower in being an island, has never been able to man or field supercarriers as do we simply because of costs.

Remember that such a carrier..in addition to construction costs...we are also talking about manning costs. In addition to this we are also talking about the costs of outfitting. How much toilet paper goes on board. Food. Pencils, paper clips..etc etc etc. laundry detergent etc etc..
To put this another way or manner ...the whole economy of England goes into getting a carrier ready for sea. It is no different for us here in the States.

All these sailors have to be trained and qualified...adding further costs. Spare parts, lubricants fuels, Literally the whole English economy goes into putting a carrier to sea. THe turn around in personel alone is simply staggering. People enter the Navy ..retire, get out after only one tour. I never took stock of how much of a huge dynamic personel alone is for which to keep track. Someone is doing it obviously or no carrier would be able to put to sea with enough qualilfied personel. People alone must be a huge task to keep organized and manned. REmember ...this is not simply bodies..but trained and qualified people. Some with very very specific training.

They simply cannot afford a large super carrier and the associated costs...much less two or four of them. The costs are staggering ..for only one carrier!! Much less..two carriers.
But in reality we are not just talking about carriers..we are also talking a Navy...meaning support ships..oilers, Sub tenders, Submarines, destoryers, and a whole host of other ships and skills to boot.
When you take in the larger picture of a whole Navy..this also contributes to what any given nation can afford.
The French are no different, Nor the Italians or any other nation with a carrier fleet.

What most Americans do not know or have no inkling of is the prohibitive costs to us here. However..for the time being our economy can handle it better than the UK economy.

If out dollar keeps retreating into the tank..neither will we wont be able to afford it much longer.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 19-3-2008 by orangetom1999]

Looks like the contracts are about to be signed? and 6-8 years before they are expected in service and given the delays that seem to hit every thing our MOD seem to buy who knows when they will be really ready?



BBC

reply to post by solidshot

---

6-8 years is actually a very reasonable timeframe for construction of a large, first-in-class, combatant, especially a carrier. Consider that the first steel for the first Gerald R Ford class supercarrier was cut in late 2005 and she's expected to be in service in 2014. That's with no delays, which might not be an accurate assumption based upon recent history in US Naval shipbuilding.

Looks like France expects to get their step-sister ship to UK's Queen Elizabeth in 2015 and they're not expected to cut steel until next year, 2009.

Glad to see my hard earned tax pounds are going into a worthwhile venture. You can't have too many 'Death Boats' or Subs or those Trident thingy’s. Anyway, I sleep better knowing that if they do have to use these in anger say to help defeat an oil rich country then my enslavement to the UK tax system hasn’t been in vain

All I can think of in reply is some latin I picked up from school. I think it describes in full what I think of your rant.

Also my friend, a weaponry thread is not the BEST thread to rant about the Afghanistan or Iraq war. Do try BTS - I did and now feel so much better and, surprisingly, more enlightened.

Accipere quam facere praestat injuriam

[edit on 21-5-2008 by fritz]

I am just thrilled another country besides the US is getting a SuperCarrier. And who better to get them but the UK.

BBC News

Really neat video of HMS Queen Elizabeth

So there we go. The contracts have been signed with the shipbuilders, the steel & the aircraft lifts have been ordered. No getting away from it now ... UK plc will have 2 state of the art aircraft carriers & in only a few years time too.

reply to post by orangetom1999

---

Remember that the Royal Navy's role post WW2 was to help counter the Warsaw pact nations. Since their coastline was quite close to HMS UK, large carriers were seen as redundant and the RN's role was switched to anti-submarine and mine warfare in which the UK excels in. Our role was to stop the Russian Navys submarines from breaking out into the Atlantic.

It is only post-cold war that the UK's armed forces have now switched over to expeditionary-type forces.

As you pointed out, any nation with a military defence budget the size of the US's could have a fleet of large carriers.