Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: headdie on May 01, 2013, 12:17:27 pm
-
For those interested the Royal Navy have released aerial photos of the nearly finished hull for the under construction HMS Queen Elizabeth.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151584776763205.1073742049.188183478204&type=1
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/163530_10151584776843205_1421246768_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/946956_10151584776858205_2104389118_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/945745_10151584776838205_14921923_n.jpg)
-
Does it go fasta'?
-
No, since that would spill everyone's tea and be most undignified. :P
-
Why is there a lot of rust on the deck? I don't know much about ship construction, but wouldn't you want to avoid having the hull/other bits and pieces rust, at least before the ship is complete? Seems rather strange to me.
-
I doubt it really matters, since it'd just be surface rust, and they'd presumably sand it down and then paint/seal it afterwards.
-
are these the ones that won't have any aircraft to carry
-
are these the ones that won't have any aircraft to carry
:D
-
It's cute!
:p
-
I doubt it really matters, since it'd just be surface rust, and they'd presumably sand it down and then paint/seal it afterwards.
Yeah. When working near the sea, you must live with things sometimes literally rusting overnight, or blow a fortune on protective paint. It's better to leave metal that way until you're done with it, then paint it over once you're sure it's not going to be messed with anymore.
-
. . . apparently it carries point defenses that are actually designed to shoot down RPGs? (as opposed to CWIS, which apparently does an alright job at that task, given the pirate attack on an Arleigh Burke a few years back.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30mm_DS30M_Mark_2_Automated_Small_Calibre_Gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30mm_DS30M_Mark_2_Automated_Small_Calibre_Gun)
-
Shoot down what now? Pretty sure its just meant to shoot up boats that some jackass armed with an RPG could be in. Unless it can also intercept bullets. :confused:
-
Shoot down what now? Pretty sure its just meant to shoot up boats that some jackass armed with an RPG could be in. Unless it can also intercept bullets. :confused:
Intercepting 3" and up gunfire is, in fact, totally reasonable with modern CIWS systems.
-
Shoot down what now? Pretty sure its just meant to shoot up boats that some jackass armed with an RPG could be in. Unless it can also intercept bullets. :confused:
The system described in the wiki article certainly sounds more like a system to intercept small boats, not projectiles.
Also, I am reasonably certain that an RPG can not inflict more than superficial damage on a supercarrier.
-
yer it looks to be an anti small craft system, but then we have Sea Dart missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dart_(missile)#Withdrawal) which has a confirmed anti-missile strike which is being phased out with the new generation of escort warships which mount PAAMS "Sea Viper" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAAMS) in the same role, though I believe it has had testing issues if we get it sorted it will be a much more capable system
-
Also, I am reasonably certain that an RPG can not inflict more than superficial damage on a supercarrier.
Yeah, I wonder what would actually cost more. Fixing a dinky little hole from an RPG impact (not even that if we're talking a HE round), or firing the Phalanx for half a second it takes to shot down a round?
-
Also, I am reasonably certain that an RPG can not inflict more than superficial damage on a supercarrier.
Yeah, I wonder what would actually cost more. Fixing a dinky little hole from an RPG impact (not even that if we're talking a HE round), or firing the Phalanx for half a second it takes to shot down a round?
Problem there is that you need a CIWS mount that can depress low enough to engage the RPG, a radar and mount system that can turn fast enough to pick up the missile and engage it.....
The thing is that RPGs will be fired at such low ranges that I am reasonably sure it's more cost-effective to repair afterwards instead of trying to build an interception system.
-
Granted the mounting on a carrier is probably to high for it to depress and engage but Sea Whiz has intercepted RPGs at close range and with little warning.
-
Problem there is that you need a CIWS mount that can depress low enough to engage the RPG, a radar and mount system that can turn fast enough to pick up the missile and engage it.....
The thing is that RPGs will be fired at such low ranges that I am reasonably sure it's more cost-effective to repair afterwards instead of trying to build an interception system.
You don't need to invent a new CIWS system, some time ago there was a case of an USN ship (I don't remember then name) which was attacked by pirates, pretty much by mistake. It took out 3 out of 4 RPG rounds with a Phalanx system. It was a surprise, because nobody expected it to do that, but it preformed admirably. On the other hand, one round that did hit left a small dent that was quickly patched up, so I wonder if the burst didn't actually cost more than the patch for the hull. 20mm shells don't exactly come cheap, and Phalanx fires 75 of them per second.
-
Right, so the technical requirements are already covered, that's cool.
But, the point is, a CIWS mount on a Destroyer or Frigate has a good chance of being able to engage a shoulder-fired RPG since it is not that high above the waterline. On a Carrier, the PD mounts are situated much higher, and so it is entirely possible for an attacker to get inside the minimum range for those systems and fire his weapons (Thereby causing work for the Carrier's maintenance crew). Adding mounts able to protect the carrier at those close ranges strikes me as being not cost-effective (As well as your point regarding the ammunition expenditure).
-
Of course if somebody is able to plink a carrier with an RPG then somebody has failed horribly at their jobs.
-
so apparently carrier is to the brits what LHD is to the americans :P
-
so apparently carrier is to the brits what LHD is to the americans :P
the americans dont build carriers, even they classify what they build as supercarriers lol
-
Also, I am reasonably certain that an RPG can not inflict more than superficial damage on a supercarrier.
Yeah, I wonder what would actually cost more. Fixing a dinky little hole from an RPG impact (not even that if we're talking a HE round), or firing the Phalanx for half a second it takes to shot down a round?
If the RPG hits a walkway or any other exposed manned area, someone might get hit (are there shrapnel RPGs?) and die. I say it's worth firing the Phalanx.
-
There are HE projectiles for RPG. Though despite that, the RPG operator would have to be really, really lucky to actually hit a sailor on the ship. The whole point of armor on a ship is to protect the ship and it's crew, so they generally don't walk around outside without a good reason in conditions where an attack is expected (like near Somalia). Sure, this could happen, but I think the odds are minuscule.
-
Carriers are going to be part of some form of a CVBG. They aren't interdicting pirates off Somalia by themselves. If some asshole manages to get close enough to shoot it with a shoulder rocket then there has been a massive failure at all levels of the battle group. That's the entire point of escorts. Hell, after the Cole incident even in a harbor there should be an umbrella of protection between that ship and some RPG toting nut.
It's nice to know Sea Whiz can pick it up if necessary but treating it like a credible scenario is silly. If the RN actually allowed their flagship to get RPG'd then Horatio Nelson's corpse would rise from his sarcophagus trudge down to the Admiralty building and start slapping people with his one good arm.
-
so apparently carrier is to the brits what LHD is to the americans :P
Troo faxs: LHDs are actually CVEs in disguise.
-
so apparently carrier is to the brits what LHD is to the americans :P
Troo faxs: LHDs are actually CVEs in disguise.
Combustible, vulnerable, and expendable!?
-
Combustible, vulnerable, and expendable!?
Yup.
-
Carriers are going to be part of some form of a CVBG. They aren't interdicting pirates off Somalia by themselves. If some asshole manages to get close enough to shoot it with a shoulder rocket then there has been a massive failure at all levels of the battle group. That's the entire point of escorts. Hell, after the Cole incident even in a harbor there should be an umbrella of protection between that ship and some RPG toting nut.
It's nice to know Sea Whiz can pick it up if necessary but treating it like a credible scenario is silly. If the RN actually allowed their flagship to get RPG'd then Horatio Nelson's corpse would rise from his sarcophagus trudge down to the Admiralty building and start slapping people with his one good arm.
Yeah, but we were discussing the viability of using CIWS against RPGs in general. It's obvious that this particular ships is probably never going to be shot at with anything, much less an RPG.
Troo faxs: LHDs are actually CVEs in disguise.
Actually, an LHD is specifically meant to carry helicopters and STOVL aircraft, while a proper CVE or CVL should be able to carry normal naval aircraft. That's pretty much the only difference, though.
-
We have evidence that Sea Whiz can plink RPGs even with little heads up time, that was covered a while back.
As for the LHD, you could probably still launch and recover F4Fs off it. Does that count? :P
-
Actually, an LHD is specifically meant to carry helicopters and STOVL aircraft, while a proper CVE or CVL should be able to carry normal naval aircraft. That's pretty much the only difference, though.
See, your assumption is invalid considering the entire existence of the CVH category (Moskva and the Essexes at the end of their service lives) and the fact the Brits deployed only STVOL aircraft off their Invincibles which were generally considered CVs.
There have long been plans to deploy the Wasp LHDs with "Sea Control" complements that are heavy on the Harriers and a small ASW helicopter complement, in effect creating small CVs. It's also been suggested to deploy them with only a couple of Harrier flights and all the SH-60s that could be scrounged up, to provide a significantly darker sky for convoy escort, thus meeting the classic CVE role. Both of these have been done in exercises.
-
The fact that Invincibles launched only STOVL aircraft doesn't mean they couldn't launch normal ones. Essex-class carriers that server as helo carriers were renamed Boxer-class, which were LPHs. Moskva is a Russian vessel and thus hard to classify under the western system (Russian navy has a vastly different way of doing things than NATO). All other helo carrier classes were called "Amphibious Assault Ship" or some variation (LHD, LPH, LHA...). No carriers in there, sorry. Oh, and Harrier is a STOVL plane. My point still stands. The Wasp-class can indeed function like an escort carrier with proper loadout, but that alone doesn't make it a CV.
-
The fact that Invincibles launched only STOVL aircraft doesn't mean they couldn't launch normal ones.
Actually, it does. Without arrestor gear or catapults, launching conventional aircraft is kinda impossible when your flight deck is only 168 meters long.
-
You seem to want to limit the definition of "aircraft carrier" to STOBAR and CATOBAR ships only, but there isn't a single naval authority in the world who would agree with that definition. An aircraft carrier is a ship outfitted to carry and launch large numbers of aircraft. That's the definition everyone in the world but you uses, and the STVOL/VTOL carrier has been a recognized form of it since the Moskvas and includes some fairly important ships down the years in the Italian, Japanese, Indian, and Spanish navies.
They're not quite as capable as STOBAR ships, but they're more than sufficient to fulfill the traditional roles of carrier-as-fleet-escort: providing ASW aircraft and yeoman CAP. The difference between VSTOL and STOBAR ships in role and even capability is minimal. The real divide in carrier capability is between VSTOL/STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers, as the latter are capable of launching aircraft that are carrying heavy bombloads for strike work and hence can serve the carrier-as-power-projection role.
If you were going to make a "these are not aircraft carriers" argument you chose the worst possible place to put the dividing line.
-
(http://www.e-kalfakis.gr/images/products/21-78021_3.jpg)
I want to be a bird farm too!
-
apparently they also won't have any escorts
-
apparently they also won't have any escorts
There are six Type 45s and two QE's; they'll have a decent screen, though the 45's magazines are a little small.
-
tbh though, I think we are going through a period of naval evolution. In the current political climate there is little need for the traditional battle group as advanced nation vs advanced nation is unlikely due to both the economic implications and domestic political implications, making smaller deployments against low tech threats just as effective as a CBG with numerous frigates, destroyers and subs while allowing greater flexibility in deployment.
Also the UK and Europe is entering a phase of close co-operation in order to save cost while maintaining effectiveness, for example French and UK forces have on and off spent most of this year on joint training ops of one level or another in order to better facilitate future joint operations.
-
tbh though, I think we are going through a period of naval evolution. In the current political climate there is little need for the traditional battle group as advanced nation vs advanced nation is unlikely due to both the economic implications and domestic political implications, making smaller deployments against low tech threats just as effective as a CBG with numerous frigates, destroyers and subs while allowing greater flexibility in deployment.
Also the UK and Europe is entering a phase of close co-operation in order to save cost while maintaining effectiveness, for example French and UK forces have on and off spent most of this year on joint training ops of one level or another in order to better facilitate future joint operations.
I am reading a book about how this is exactly what people were saying before WWI :tinfoil:
-
Might as well dust off the Sumner/Gearings. Old 5-inch shells and 40mm Bofors would probably be the closest cost effective weapon for chasing pirates.
-
tbh though, I think we are going through a period of naval evolution. In the current political climate there is little need for the traditional battle group as advanced nation vs advanced nation is unlikely due to both the economic implications and domestic political implications, making smaller deployments against low tech threats just as effective as a CBG with numerous frigates, destroyers and subs while allowing greater flexibility in deployment.
Also the UK and Europe is entering a phase of close co-operation in order to save cost while maintaining effectiveness, for example French and UK forces have on and off spent most of this year on joint training ops of one level or another in order to better facilitate future joint operations.
I am reading a book about how this is exactly what people were saying before WWI :tinfoil:
lol, unfortunately I am not well enough read up to get into that discussion :(
-
tbh though, I think we are going through a period of naval evolution. In the current political climate there is little need for the traditional battle group as advanced nation vs advanced nation is unlikely due to both the economic implications and domestic political implications, making smaller deployments against low tech threats just as effective as a CBG with numerous frigates, destroyers and subs while allowing greater flexibility in deployment.
Also the UK and Europe is entering a phase of close co-operation in order to save cost while maintaining effectiveness, for example French and UK forces have on and off spent most of this year on joint training ops of one level or another in order to better facilitate future joint operations.
I am reading a book about how this is exactly what people were saying before WWI :tinfoil:
The world is so different now though that the comparison isn't even relevant, especially amongst G20 nations that would proabbyl fit the "advanced" descriptor. Even ignoring the interconnectivity of global trade and information (which is probably (conservatively) hundreds of times stronger than it was 100 years ago), which would be the biggest barrier, we still have to consider
- the decline of the concept of a colonial empire, and the loss of the moral acceptibility of wars of conquest generally,
- the decline of the role of the military in public life across pretty much all major nations,
- the decrease from 6 to 1 "great powers" (I don't think China quite counts just yet - 1.5 might be more accurate, or in a pinch 2 if you were willing to count Chna and Russia as half each),
- the existence of NATO, the EU, the UN and other international organizations (they might not seem like they do much, but membership in supernational organizations has been statistically correlated to decreased warfighting (though admittedly not quite causally AFAIK)),
- the decline in violence generally across western society (and, slower, in the east as well (outside of the muslim world))
- and, of course, the bomb.
WWI really, really isn't a modern precedent.
-
The fact that Invincibles launched only STOVL aircraft doesn't mean they couldn't launch normal ones.
Actually, it does. Without arrestor gear or catapults, launching conventional aircraft is kinda impossible when your flight deck is only 168 meters long.
Wait, it doesn't have arrestor gear? Strange, I was sure it had it. Catapults aren't needed for launching aircraft though (STOBAR aircraft can do with just a ramp).
-
tbh though, I think we are going through a period of naval evolution. In the current political climate there is little need for the traditional battle group as advanced nation vs advanced nation is unlikely due to both the economic implications and domestic political implications, making smaller deployments against low tech threats just as effective as a CBG with numerous frigates, destroyers and subs while allowing greater flexibility in deployment.
Also the UK and Europe is entering a phase of close co-operation in order to save cost while maintaining effectiveness, for example French and UK forces have on and off spent most of this year on joint training ops of one level or another in order to better facilitate future joint operations.
I am reading a book about how this is exactly what people were saying before WWI :tinfoil:
The world is so different now though that the comparison isn't even relevant, especially amongst G20 nations that would proabbyl fit the "advanced" descriptor. Even ignoring the interconnectivity of global trade and information (which is probably (conservatively) hundreds of times stronger than it was 100 years ago), which would be the biggest barrier, we still have to consider
- the decline of the concept of a colonial empire, and the loss of the moral acceptibility of wars of conquest generally,
- the decline of the role of the military in public life across pretty much all major nations,
- the decrease from 6 to 1 "great powers" (I don't think China quite counts just yet - 1.5 might be more accurate, or in a pinch 2 if you were willing to count Chna and Russia as half each),
- the existence of NATO, the EU, the UN and other international organizations (they might not seem like they do much, but membership in supernational organizations has been statistically correlated to decreased warfighting (though admittedly not quite causally AFAIK)),
- the decline in violence generally across western society (and, slower, in the east as well (outside of the muslim world))
- and, of course, the bomb.
WWI really, really isn't a modern precedent.
This is a detailed counterargument to an argument the book doesn't make; but given that I don't buy the argument it makes either I don't know what to say beyond 'yes'
:
-
Just can't help thinking it looks like the UK's Lego reserve has finally been put to use...
-
Just can't help thinking it looks like the UK's Lego reserve has finally been put to use...
:D this has barely scratched the surface lol
-
Not going to lie, everytime I saw LHD on the previous page, I kept seeing "LSD" instead
Things got really confusing at that point
Either way, seeing a Carrier being constructed is actually pretty cool. Are they going to periodically update this stuff? Creating some sort of time lapse?
-
here's a time lapse of the bow on the new Gerald Ford class under construction.
google CVN-78 and you'll find a lot more stuff, including the installation of the island.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iAfAatm3A-s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iAfAatm3A-s)
-
I don't get it... you can photograph the construction of state of the art warships, but if you take photos of the Gherkin, you're a potential terrorist. Odd people, those brits!
-
I don't get it... you can photograph the construction of state of the art warships, but if you take photos of the Gherkin, you're a potential terrorist. Odd people, those brits!
Uh... these aren't 'some guy on the street' taking pictures, they're officially released w/ permission of the Ministry of Defense.
-
unless they are planning on throwing a tarp over the whole damn thing while at sea, there wouldn't be much point in classifying anything externally visible. any sekret innard bits that might happen to be visible at any point during construction will be covered.
-
IIRC the length, beam and draft are publicly released info anyway.