What's new

Britain’s jet-less aircraft carriers are a national embarrassment

beijingwalker

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
65,195
Reaction score
-55
Country
China
Location
China

Britain’s jet-less aircraft carriers are a national embarrassment​

HMS Queen Elizabeth is intended to carry 36 fighter jets. She has just eight aboard – and that isn't the end of the problems

LEWIS PAGE
22 September 2023 • 6:00am

TELEMMGLPICT000324828132_16953148466630_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqH8oGYaaASnJZUiuddQ1p_7mpu42r6n7OLzlToLFXwsU.jpeg


A fortnight ago, the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth left harbour, as flagship of the Royal Navy’s Carrier Strike Group. It’s the first time the group has deployed seriously since 2021: but rather than a show of strength, the cruise it is currently undertaking around Norway and the North Atlantic is becoming a national embarrassment.

The Queen Elizabeth displaces 65,000 tonnes, and has ample space to carry her intended air group of 36 fighter jets and four radar aircraft. The radar aircraft are critically important, to detect incoming threats far enough away to send fighters to deal with them. This was the bloody lesson of the Falklands.

But the “Big Lizzie” has a lot of problems. She has no catapults, meaning that she can’t have normal carrier jets. The only plane she can use is the F-35B, the sole vertical-thrust jet being made today. The fighter’s “jump jet” equipment means that it has limited range and weapons load.

The F-35B is also very expensive and we will never have many. Right now the Queen Elizabeth has just eight aboard: she only had eight back in 2021, too, when we sent her into China’s back yard. Usually our carriers don’t have any at all; in 2022, there were jets aboard ships less than 5 per cent of the time.

Worse, the Lizzie only has two “Crowsnest” radar helicopters aboard, meaning that she can’t maintain an airborne watch. And there’s more: a carrier strike group needs a solid stores ship if it is operating away from friendly harbours. Britain only has one, the Fort Victoria, currently laid up awaiting maintenance.

Without a stores ship and with a paltry handful of aircraft, it’s clear that the Carrier Strike Group is not actually operational. This “deployment” is no more than a show-the-flag cruise in safe waters.

Apparently this will all be sorted out in 2025 when our other carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, will deploy to the Far East with 24 F-35Bs. The Fort Vic will be serviceable by then. But the Prince will still be one-third empty. We’ll never see a British carrier with a full air group – let alone two.

The reason everything has turned out so badly is the 2012 decision not to equip the ships with catapults. Catapult carriers would have permitted us to buy cheap, powerful F-18 Hornet jets, as favoured by Tom Cruise in Top Gun: Maverick.

The decision against catapults meant that we wasted £1.6 billion delaying the carriers’ build to wait for the F-35B. It forced us to waste more billions buying F-35Bs that lack range and punch and cannot do air-to-air refuelling. The Hornet has all these things, is much cheaper and would have been in service, in numbers, years ago.

At the time of the no-catapult decision, a ridiculous claim was made that catapults for one ship would have cost £2 billion: as much as an entire new ship, and anyway barely more than was then wasted slowing the carriers’ build. Even if that claim had been true, we’d still have saved money and achieved greater naval power with catapults.

Despite desperate attempts by the Whitehall mandarins concerned to claim that they got everything right, the Navy has now openly stated that it needs to put catapults on the carriers. Of course it does.

Fortunately, the ships were designed so that they can have them added at any point. When HMS Queen Elizabeth gets back from her unarmed jaunt, she goes into refit: a perfect time to add this critical capability. After all, the F-18 production line is still open, and there are excellent deals to be had. It’s not too late to sort out this mess.

 
.
At the time of the no-catapult decision, a ridiculous claim was made that catapults for one ship would have cost £2 billion: as much as an entire new ship, and anyway barely more than was then wasted slowing the carriers’ build. Even if that claim had been true, we’d still have saved money and achieved greater naval power with catapults.
How much do catapults cost? UK may be thinking ahead to drones as aircraft.
 
. . .
UK should be replaced by India in the UNSC, in any case a hindu guy is a PM there and half the population is filled with India/Pak/BD migrants. Nothing exceptional is going to come from that country (apart from EPL).
 
.
UK should be replaced by India in the UNSC, in any case a hindu guy is a PM there and half the population is filled with India/Pak/BD migrants. Nothing exceptional is going to come from that country (apart from EPL).
China will defintely give a green light if India replaces either UK or France.
 
.
UK should have made one large CATOBAR carrier

They should have taken the help of French
Charles De Gaule AC can field a complement of 30 Rafale Ms , 4 AWACS and 6 ASW/attack Helis.

And it weighs just 45000 tons while being nuclear powered and having steam catapults.

A modified/ upgraded CDG class carrier would have been cheaper and capable of Operating Rafale Ms , F/A18 Super Hornets as well as the more capable F35Cs

It would have allowed them to have greater Inter operability with French Navy, US Navy and Even Indian Navy, since we are also buying Rafale Ms for INS Vikrant
 
.

Britain’s jet-less aircraft carriers are a national embarrassment​

HMS Queen Elizabeth is intended to carry 36 fighter jets. She has just eight aboard – and that isn't the end of the problems

LEWIS PAGE
22 September 2023 • 6:00am

TELEMMGLPICT000324828132_16953148466630_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqH8oGYaaASnJZUiuddQ1p_7mpu42r6n7OLzlToLFXwsU.jpeg


A fortnight ago, the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth left harbour, as flagship of the Royal Navy’s Carrier Strike Group. It’s the first time the group has deployed seriously since 2021: but rather than a show of strength, the cruise it is currently undertaking around Norway and the North Atlantic is becoming a national embarrassment.

The Queen Elizabeth displaces 65,000 tonnes, and has ample space to carry her intended air group of 36 fighter jets and four radar aircraft. The radar aircraft are critically important, to detect incoming threats far enough away to send fighters to deal with them. This was the bloody lesson of the Falklands.

But the “Big Lizzie” has a lot of problems. She has no catapults, meaning that she can’t have normal carrier jets. The only plane she can use is the F-35B, the sole vertical-thrust jet being made today. The fighter’s “jump jet” equipment means that it has limited range and weapons load.

The F-35B is also very expensive and we will never have many. Right now the Queen Elizabeth has just eight aboard: she only had eight back in 2021, too, when we sent her into China’s back yard. Usually our carriers don’t have any at all; in 2022, there were jets aboard ships less than 5 per cent of the time.

Worse, the Lizzie only has two “Crowsnest” radar helicopters aboard, meaning that she can’t maintain an airborne watch. And there’s more: a carrier strike group needs a solid stores ship if it is operating away from friendly harbours. Britain only has one, the Fort Victoria, currently laid up awaiting maintenance.

Without a stores ship and with a paltry handful of aircraft, it’s clear that the Carrier Strike Group is not actually operational. This “deployment” is no more than a show-the-flag cruise in safe waters.

Apparently this will all be sorted out in 2025 when our other carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, will deploy to the Far East with 24 F-35Bs. The Fort Vic will be serviceable by then. But the Prince will still be one-third empty. We’ll never see a British carrier with a full air group – let alone two.

The reason everything has turned out so badly is the 2012 decision not to equip the ships with catapults. Catapult carriers would have permitted us to buy cheap, powerful F-18 Hornet jets, as favoured by Tom Cruise in Top Gun: Maverick.

The decision against catapults meant that we wasted £1.6 billion delaying the carriers’ build to wait for the F-35B. It forced us to waste more billions buying F-35Bs that lack range and punch and cannot do air-to-air refuelling. The Hornet has all these things, is much cheaper and would have been in service, in numbers, years ago.

At the time of the no-catapult decision, a ridiculous claim was made that catapults for one ship would have cost £2 billion: as much as an entire new ship, and anyway barely more than was then wasted slowing the carriers’ build. Even if that claim had been true, we’d still have saved money and achieved greater naval power with catapults.

Despite desperate attempts by the Whitehall mandarins concerned to claim that they got everything right, the Navy has now openly stated that it needs to put catapults on the carriers. Of course it does.

Fortunately, the ships were designed so that they can have them added at any point. When HMS Queen Elizabeth gets back from her unarmed jaunt, she goes into refit: a perfect time to add this critical capability. After all, the F-18 production line is still open, and there are excellent deals to be had. It’s not too late to sort out this mess.

You’re a joke. How are chynas carriers aka Soviet refresh’s?
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom