Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CVF and Carrier Strike thread

Yes, never launched aircraft in combat in it's career.

Out of interest the Frogs were building another carrier late 1930's, not complete by the time the Boxheads pitched up and broken by them for scrap. Note, said Boxheads did not seem all that interested in carriers, theirs almost complete never in service and captured by Russians, who in the end sank it.

 
If the cousins, with their many years of experience with large CV ops, are still having issues, what's the chance that BAES hasn't delivered a world-beating design with the QEs?

'The military’s priciest aircraft carrier — worth $13.2 billion — is still suffering technological malfunctions three years after it was delivered to the U.S. Navy, according to a report.

'The issues on the USS Gerald R. Ford “remain consistent” with those from previous years, according to a Pentagon assessment obtained by Bloomberg News.

'The carriers’ issues include problems getting jets off the deck and issues with the landing systems.

“Poor or unknown reliability of new technology systems critical for flight operations,” including the carriers’ electromagnetic launch system worth $3.5 billion could affect its ability to generate sorties, Bloomberg reported, citing the assessment.

'The so-called supercarrier was delivered late and at way over the initial cost estimates, The Post reported back in 2016.'


 

Yokel

LE
If the cousins, with their many years of experience with large CV ops, are still having issues, what's the chance that BAES hasn't delivered a world-beating design with the QEs?

'The military’s priciest aircraft carrier — worth $13.2 billion — is still suffering technological malfunctions three years after it was delivered to the U.S. Navy, according to a report.

'The issues on the USS Gerald R. Ford “remain consistent” with those from previous years, according to a Pentagon assessment obtained by Bloomberg News.

'The carriers’ issues include problems getting jets off the deck and issues with the landing systems.

“Poor or unknown reliability of new technology systems critical for flight operations,” including the carriers’ electromagnetic launch system worth $3.5 billion could affect its ability to generate sorties, Bloomberg reported, citing the assessment.

'The so-called supercarrier was delivered late and at way over the initial cost estimates, The Post reported back in 2016.'



Just think - people who should know a little about System Integration have claimed repeatedly that if the UK had got F-35C or F/A-18 and gone for a conventional carrier we could have regenerated Carrier Strike faster. Really? Just like people who argued that Typhoon should have been navalised - NO!

I wonder if the new light aircraft carrier the US Navy is planning will inherit any features from the QEC? It looks like the Korean one will. Has the Bedford Array technology been sold to anyone - I thought the Americans were considering using it to improve landing accuracy and I expect it would be useful to French pilots landing aboard the CDG?

Without jets, the Ford can still act as a flagship, conduct ASW operations with the MH-60R, and possibly embark either F-35B or AV-8B. You do have to expect problems with so many new systems being fitted at the same time,

Incidentally, the RN/RAF F-35B Lightning will be equipped with SPEAR3 for use against ground and maritime targets - including enemy warships.
 
Without jets, the Ford can still act as a flagship, conduct ASW operations with the MH-60R, and possibly embark either F-35B or AV-8B. You do have to expect problems with so many new systems being fitted at the same time,

Yes, but that's not what all that money was spent for. If you want a C2/ASW platform, it's available for a far lower cost.
 

Yokel

LE
Yes, but that's not what all that money was spent for. If you want a C2/ASW platform, it's available for a far lower cost.

Command and ASW are critical roles that a carrier contributes to, amongst others. You would still want fighters to keep the enemy fighters from interfering with your helicopters, and to fend off hostile aircraft doing reconnaissance or over the horizon targeting.

Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW), Anti Air Warfare (AAW), and Anti Surface Warfare (ASuW) all overlap.

As long as said 'warships' are FIACS and such like. It's only got the warhead out of Brimstone.

True - but a lightweight missile can be fired in numbers, and multiple hits will degrade the enemy vessels ability to fight.
 
Last edited:

Mattb

LE
If the cousins, with their many years of experience with large CV ops, are still having issues, what's the chance that BAES hasn't delivered a world-beating design with the QEs?

'The military’s priciest aircraft carrier — worth $13.2 billion — is still suffering technological malfunctions three years after it was delivered to the U.S. Navy, according to a report.

'The issues on the USS Gerald R. Ford “remain consistent” with those from previous years, according to a Pentagon assessment obtained by Bloomberg News.

'The carriers’ issues include problems getting jets off the deck and issues with the landing systems.

“Poor or unknown reliability of new technology systems critical for flight operations,” including the carriers’ electromagnetic launch system worth $3.5 billion could affect its ability to generate sorties, Bloomberg reported, citing the assessment.

'The so-called supercarrier was delivered late and at way over the initial cost estimates, The Post reported back in 2016.'


You could argue that the QEs are less technically risky than the Fords - we’ve been operating GT-powered STOVL carriers for a while, whereas they’ve not had a an EMALS one before, for example. Other than the handling systems, how much of the kit on a QE is of completely new design?
 

Mattb

LE
Can’t be carried 8 at a time internally though.
 
If the cousins, with their many years of experience with large CV ops, are still having issues, what's the chance that BAES hasn't delivered a world-beating design with the QEs?
I assume you mean their first new design in 40 years? The actual DOT&E report due this week will probably identify that specific issues of reliability remain with the EMALS, EAR and Munition lifts. All of which are new systems and necessarily so. There are some elements of those systems designs that will need refinement as they are used. While far from perfect now, they'll get there and in five years, people will wonder what the fuss is about.

QEC has one or two systems snags being worked through. Again - nothing that can't be sorted idc.
 
Hrmmmm, the Ford Class weapons handling looks pretty awesome:

A lift and trolley:
The end point for both systems is still a trolley with built up weapons on a lift going up to the flightdeck.

Ours removes the vast majority of bombheads from the mags, allowing them to concentrate on weapons build-up. That may have its own drawbacks procedurally, but allows reduced manning. Its a trade-off.
 
one issue the RN has and really needs to get a grip on, is its lack of a modern ASM carried in quantity.

Is it really an issue at this time,

Spear 3 is far more likely to be needed and id suggest theres a better case for sticking spear 3 on a joint LMM /30mm mount accross the fleet than there is for a heavy weight ASM.

If needs be a UOR for whatever our allies using could be issued, but for now in light of budgets its best left on the nice to have list
 

Latest Threads

Top