Date: 2024-05-15 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00016491 | |||||||||
Military | |||||||||
|
Burgess COMMENTARY Peter Burgess | |||||||||
| From Your Digest Why did Britain recently build two large aircraft carriers, given that it has lost almost all of its empire and even informal spheres of influence (e.g. the sterling area)? Richard Cownie Richard Cownie, aviation in the family, but staying on the ground Answered 4d ago The Queen Elizabeth-class carriers are an interesting design. In terms of dimensions and displacement, they’re very big, at 280m and 65000 tonnes (compared to the Nimitz class at 333m and ~105000 tonnes), but in other respects they are designed to give a lot of strike capability at relatively low cost. A Nimitz-class carrier has a crew of about 3500, plus an airwing of about 2500 people and 90 aircraft. It’s a floating town. But a QE-class has a crew of only 679, and berths for 1600 total, implying an airwing of only about 900, with 40–50 aircraft. It’s only a village. You get about half the aircraft of a Nimitz-class, at about half the construction cost, but with only just over a quarter as many people. That is achieved in part by using more modern systems, and in part by simplicity - gas turbines and diesels instead of nuclear reactors; no catapult in the initial configuration, instead relying on the STOVL (short takeoff, vertical landing) capability of the F-35. However, the hull is designed for the possibility of adding CATOBAR equipment in future if the next generation of aircraft need it, so that presumably influenced the choice of hull size, displacement, and propulsion. But really the answer is that the QE-class represents the intersection of capabilities that are actually useful in conjunction with US carrier groups, and the relatively small amount of money that the UK can afford to spend. It’s arguable that the UK should just give up on trying to maintain an independent capability for military operations outside Northern Europe. But if you think you need that capability, the QE-class is a reasonable way to do it for several decades into the future at moderate cost. 2.5k Views · View Upvoters Peter Burgess Recommended All Ryan Brewis Ryan Brewis Tue · 4 upvotes including Richard Cownie It's not all that bad if you think about it. 60% of the tonnage with a fifth of the crew, half the aircraft for just a third the air crew. Not bad. Reply · Upvote · Downvote · Report Richard Cownie Richard Cownie Original Author · Tue · 1 upvote Yes. From what I’ve read about it, reducing the manpower requirements was a major goal - and of course that carries through to all kinds of cost savings, in that fewer people means less space needed for berths and dining halls and messes and bathrooms and galleys and food storage, allowing a smaller hull volume with a higher percentage for hangars and weapons and fuel. I’m still a little skeptical about the F-35’s effectiveness and reliability - the fans for STVOL capability seem like a lot of complexity and a tricky thing to keep running safely. But if it works the way it’s supposed to, the benefits for the whole aircraft-carrier system are considerable. Zack Hill Zack Hill Thu · 1 upvote The Royal Navy have an ongoing recruitment crisis at so this was probably a factor in the manpower Reply Ron Armstrong Ron Armstrong 8h ago · 2 upvotes I’m a Canadian “Nautical Nut” who writes history. It is easy for me to wax eloquent about the successful marine weapons of various eras, from British battleships of WW1, to Canadian Corvettes of WW2, to U-boats and Fleets conducting undersea warfare, to the deadly elegance of seaborne British, Japanese and American fighter-bombers. But…..all navies in democracies are subject to contemporary parliamentary or congressional policies and priorities. For the life of me I can’t see the Royal Navy’s role in 2020 and beyond. If another Baltic conflict breaks out, either NATO or the UN(better choice vs. a vs. Russia)should task any and all the nations around the Med to deal with it. If Russia tramps on its neighbours(Ukraine,etc.) that is a problem for the US military. Unless Trump has compromised that option with his bizarre overtures to Putin. So these two carriers are the result of some excellent design work and a strive for efficiency that even American planners might envy. But, if at the end of the day, they are just highly sophisticated air and sea combat teams with nobody to shoot at, nobody to rescue, and no call to stop “nimnogs” from twisting the British Lion’s tail……..what is their point? Even our small Navy exercises the purely Canadian Frigates and ex-Brit submarines all over the Pacific and Indian Oceans,. Whether part of American Task Forces(where our boats continue to sneak up to giant carriers without detection(!) or intercepting pirates in the Arabian Gulf pirates and protecting huge supertankers., our men and women know why they are there and what is expected of them. | |||||||||