Should The UK's Two aircraft carriers be fitted with her own missile defences
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 чер 2024
- The Invincible class carriers that preceded the Queen Elizabeth-class carrier in service were originally fitted with the GWS 30 Sea Dart designed to defend against high and medium altitude air attack. Should the Queen Elizabeth-class carrier be fitted with Sea Ceptor? The short answer is yes but the long answer is that it would be more complex than it may first appear.
- Навчання та стиль
Of course they should have there own defensive system
Some sort of missile system is needed.
The UK is obsessed with cost saving. You can't fight a war like that.
We have to save the money to take care of all the asylum seekers and dross who come to live here for free.
@@arthurbaldwin1804 £5 billion 475 million per year for illegals, £3 billion per year to Ukraine's nazis. Our mal-administered so called parliament , mis government and democracy has lost its mind. They speak of Defence and Security and yet we get invaded by criminals with no right to claim asylum since the 2023 laws, as they ramp up a war against Russia for no reason, in which we could all be killed. In the meantime we have victims of the illegals and their kind killing and raping, so much for defence, my cat is far more sensible, she actually defends herself her kittens AND me.
Would be nice if our ships could actually go to sea without breaking down, needing expensive new kit, like engines, and actually had the weapons to defend themselves while in harbour lol let alone on operations, helping everyone else except OUR homeland. Same goes for the "woke"RAF who cannot even get Instructors to train our own crews. yet we can help nazis, finance them, arm them, train them, NOT what my great uncle landed on D-Day as a Royal Marine Commando to do, he fought nazis to liberate the Europe that today craps on us, and backs up nazis aided by our non-entities in London. Totally agree with you
Well being woke is expensive
Tory Gov in one sentence, everyone else knows that but those greedy old misers care more about their pockets than spending on anything that might benefit the country.
Facts, you said it before I did.
Yes, of course they should have defensive missiles..
Simple answer is Yes the Royal Navy Aircraft Carrier, should have multilayered Air Defence Systems.
Including two ( one Port side and one Starboard side mounted) Advanced Automatic Short-range Low-atlitude Stand-alone Point Defence Fire-and-forget Mach 4 Anti-Missile / Aerial and/or Surface Drone 360-degree Launcher-turret (with 8 to 12 loaded Missiles) Systems.
Along with two banks of 12 to 18 Vertical Launch Systems, the likes of Mk.41 Missile-cells.
For 6 upto 12 loaded Advanced Medium-range Medium-atlitude Area Air Defence Mach 5 Missile (Man-in-the-Loop) Systems.
As well as 6 upto 12 loaded Advanced Long-range High-attitude Tactical Air Defence Mach 6 Missile (Man-in-the-Loop) Systems, the later having Anti-Hyphersonic / Ballistic Missile capability.
Leaving upto 12 spare VLS Missile-cells, for either upto 6 Advanced Short-range to Medium-range Mach 4 Anti-Submarine Torpedoe carrying Missile Man-in-the-Loop Systems.
Also upto 6 Advanced Long-range Mach 5 plus Hypersonic Cruise Land-Attack or Anti-Ship Missile Systems too.
Or just carry more Medium-range and Long-range Surface to Air Defence Missiles, as no Aircraft Carrier can totally depend on its Escorts for Air, or Surface or Sub-Surface Defence.
While the Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers, still keeping two of the three presently mounted, Phalanx CIWS (SEE-wiz) 20mm 6-barrelled 50-rounds-a-minute Galting-Gun Systems.
With the third Phalanx System, being replaced with a Advanced Short-range Low-atlitude Direct High Energy Weapon Defence System.
Though the Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers, equally require their own Advance Anti-Autonomous Underwater Vehicle / Anti-Sea -Mine / Anti-Tropedo Defence Interceptor System as well.
What are you waffling on about, there’s zero space for all this
@@cjjk9142There’s space for some of it. the aircraft carriers may be protected by frigates and destroyers and their own aircraft, but absolutely need a backstop system. A £20m anti missile system vs £4bn of carrier and aircraft. Memories of Grenfell in this where saving £50k on cladding during a £10m refurb cost 72 people their lives.
@@cjjk9142 Entirely wrong. There's abundant space for it.
25 million to protect a 5 billion assets seem a no brainer to me
It seems stupid not to enable the ships to defend themselves.
It is hugely irresponsible.
I said this for years for the aircraft carriers that it needs some kind of missile defence system cwis is only good for a last resort but only at very close range and only 3 are fitted so as even more protection and to help with the escorts type 45 destroyers it also can help with defence with her self and the type 45 as missile are not unlimited...
The UK bean counters stop the navy from protecting their ships correctly. All navy ships MUST have the Best armament available and especially the two carriers who should be able to protect themselves correctly.
Yes, goes without saying.
Cost. I'm sure they'll get some second hand sea cepters from type 23 when the ships are retired. Maybe when the type 45 gets their CAMM's.
The UK has barely any escort ships, and the ones they have has very few vls cells. They need all the self defences they can get :D
Fully deployed UK/NATO CSG has 424 missiles (factoring in upgrades in future)
The reduction in Type 45s is a huge issue for the Royal Navy
Unless they were part of a fully made up NATO battle group they wouldn't be put to sea in any war zone as their chances of survival with just the escorts the RN could provide would be zero with or without their own missile systems.
Our Westminster/Whitehall vermin do love their favourite "FFBNW" lie to help them save cash for 'important' things like wasting billions in overseas aid to 3rd world cesspits, by leaving major RN vessels half-armed at most.
@@cjjk9142 The UK has been bashing the whole of Europe for the brexit and her so hyped sovereignty and each time we discuss the UK carrier and the lack of support vessel (The UK has only one tanker left operational when it is not in maintenance) and all the fan boys keep arguing that we work in a coalition , of course but UK should be able to deploy alone it's strike group !! No excuse there the M.O.D is at fault !!
For goodness sake , just put SeaRAM systems on board. Self contained, can be installed on deck and doesn’t need to be integrated with the systems. Big expensive ships with even more valuable crew and aircraft need as much protection as possible and stop skimping on hard working men and women’s lives who you expect to place their lives at risk for your whilst you sit in an office in Whitehall.
I think they should be fitted with working aircraft first.
Yes, the more defensive positions the better, it should have installed in them when they were being built
Nothing like the Huf Hack videos I recall seeing a few years ago, it seems this channel has evolved.
For enemy coming in at 4 to 5 miles this would be good.
Close pretction gun's are good if missles miss their respective target
If the enemy is with 5 miles you’ve both lost because you’re both an incompetent navy
videos about the army would be interesting, don't you think?
Of course they bloody should. We lack our own task force support ships.
It's a no brainer, of course they need their own air defence and it should be a good system(s) too. How much cost and time will it cost to replace these ships if they are sunk. Look to history, how many past RN ships have been lost because of a lack of adequate air defensive armament.
they should have been fitted when they where built
Thought it would have its own missiles defence anyway ?
Too bad your bot can't pronounce the designations of the missiles.
It needs Sea Cepter and at least 48 - if it is only to carry 12 fighters it needs a huge swarm drone system
Think acquiring full carrier airwings for both ships should be top priority!
Only the UK Treasury could think that not spending a few million on their own missile defences for such valuable assets is in any way sensible. The Falklands war showed that in a war zone things go wrong all the time. People make mistakes, weapons systems become unserviceable or simply don't work as well as you thought they would , and above all the enemy doesn't do what you expect and has ways around your defences you hadn't expected.
I'd say yes and have it linked to the ship control bridge not the flight control bridge
They have already got 3 x Phalanx 1b CIWS to deal with low level Anti ship & cruise missiles.
What was needed was the full order of 12, Type 45 Destroyers (the order cut in half by Gordon Brown) to bodyguard them.
And to ensure that they had the 3 squadrons (36 aircraft) of F-35B Lightnings.
That their are NO versions of the V-22 Osprey, operating in the inflight refuelling Tanker role.
Nor an Airborne Early Warning version, that could fly much higher than the AW101 Crowsnest Merlin, limited to 15,000 feet.
While a CMV-22B version is limited to 25,000ft. That's 2 miles higher, giving a much greater range of detection.
Never understood why Sea Ceptor isn’t on the two ships
Space, cost, no need with escorts
@@cjjk9142 Wrong! ONE; That a major naval unit is routinely screened by one or more escorts is totally irrelevant to the issue of advisability of the vessel itself also carrying on-board area and point defence systems. TWO; The QE Class ships have all the space needed and fitting the relevant systems would not have any adverse impact on ANY other requirement re the ships' functions/capacities.
@@squirepraggerstope3591 not wrong, literally the reason they do not have them
@@cjjk9142 Bless! I'd no idea that I was addressing Capt. 'Redbeard Rum' from Blackadder.🤣🤣🤣
Of course they should have defensive missile systems. Our Navy’s failure to ensure the carriers lack serious defensive armament is criminal.
Great idea putting some minor defence next job some planes.
Yep. Two installations, one stbd, fwd and outboard of the fwd island; one port and aft. Each of 2x 3 cell ExLS units for 24 x quad packed Sea Ceptor would add a perfectly affordable AA/M immediate area + point defence capacity as part of a more comprehensive CIWS fit.
You can fit pretty much anything retrospectively to the QE class... Only reason they haven't already is due to cost.
Yes, I was saying it from the start she needed her own, I’m sure there’s room for RIM-116 that the Gerald R Ford has. She needs something, it’s worth while as it could be the difference between the ship surviving. Or 5Bn sinking, Not sure if we can fit Aster 15/30 onboard as that would integrate with her CSG better.
UK made a big mistake 4 NOT installing nuclear reactor. Going against Russia's Northern Artic bloody cold weather, high sea waves, artic rain, so call chilling freezing temperature, using refill ship in the middle dead night? UK never had intended to go war with Russian when bird brain, particularly *narrow minded people sailing around Pacific and Atlantic Seas, but NEVER contemplated in Artic War, which was naive thinking. I made comment during construction that UK carrier SHOULD made engine room to be able to convert to nuclear power engine when it becomes necessary! US
The QE class being nuclear would have been a hard sell as well far more costly
Yes , its cold up north but sending a carrier up north is advantageous for Russia than the UK
Even the US rarely sends carriers up north
The politicians who just go for cheap opinions never have to fight themselves or send their sons and daughters to fight in them. They were a cut price option from day one. They should have been nuclear powered with catapult launch capability. Which was dropped for cost.
If we had the old Ark Royal’s firepower in the Falkland operation we wouldn’t have lost the men and ships we did.
It was commented that the harriers could operate in rougher weather than the audacious class, both taking off and landing. You're right the fire power would've been advantageous, the gannet aew would've been a game changer, here's a video that answers 2 posts, inc the nuclear option: ua-cam.com/video/ObTKRHkIkgI/v-deo.html
It’s absurd absolutely , the UK isn’t ready
They are not already?
This should not be a up for debate they should have been fitted from scratch
totally agree....crazy it was not done..
Yes, it is absolute gross negligence on the part of our government to have cost cut in this way, for such a high value Naval Asset and all of the irreplaceable skilled lives who will sail on them. To my mind a combination of Sea Ceptor and or CAMM-ER for Short-Medium range defence coverage alongside Sea RAM Block 2 for Point-Defence should be procured and integrated with the QEC’s Combat Management System, Radars and EO Directors.
Yes it must be or it's useless for combat
That is obviously not the case when it has escorts like the Type 45. That said, if the carriers can have additional defences they should be implemented.
Heavens above! The carriers are getting aircraft on them, and now folk think they should also be able to defend themselves.... Crazy talk! They can always issue some old Stingers to the Marines and get them up on deck.
Fuck yes or course !!!!!! 🙄
US Navy CVNs have the Best escorts and 62 Fighters on the carriers and still have a 3 layered system of ESSM, RAM, 20mm CIWS they don't worry about cost !! 👍
Off course they should !! Even the French carrier is equipped with 32 VLS (2x16) for Aster 15 plus 12 short range Mistral (kind of equivalent to the Uk Starstreak) missiles fitted into 2x6 units + 8 F2 20 mm Gun + 3 Narwal autocannon 20 mm + 4 12.7 machine Gun , it is the bare minimum to protect such asset especially if they have no planes for long range detections ...
Errrr yeah we only have the TWO .. and they cost enough in the first place !! Hope they have a CIWS aswell ?? ...
If these ships are not going to have any aircraft to speak of adding a missile is good idea.
In the absence of adequate destroyer defence them without a defence system they are floating targets destined to Davy Jones' Locker
Does anyone else get the impression that a lot of these comments are bots? They all seem to have a particular way of speaking.
Yep
Yes I do think they should have their own self defence missiles. If a destroyer or missile defence ship gets taken out then the carrier is vulnerable to attack. I also think it was a bad idea to go none nuclear propulsion despite the advantages or trade offs. If the bulk refuser gets taken out then the air craft carrier is vulnerable to fuel starvation. I think for the country that invented aircraft carriers we still have a lot to learn and I think it was a bigger mistake to use fuel oil instead IC engines instead of nuclear and also it was a mistake to not go for catobar with the magnetic propulsion take of system - no steam needed.
Typical of every government. Design a great machine, the disable it by cost cutting. How about the responsibility under H+S to provide maximum risk prevention for its employees? Oh of course law doesnt apply to government, forgot that! 😡😡😡
Of course she should be fitted with the best defense missile system.
If we cannot afford them we should not have them.The fleet is diminishing in order to pay for these ships.
War is no joke even fully equipped, a ship of this size can still be hit ,damaged or even sunk, regardless what the experts say,more importantly many lives could be lost.Politicians don't really seem to care much for our armed forces.
Politicians cut the crap, and arm these ships with whatever is necessary for modern war. These ships are costing an arm and a leg,we should protect our investment.
Both ships still don't have their airwing up to strength.
Let us not repeat the deficiencies of the Falklands where most ships and missile systems were not suitably equipped for the conflict .
Luckily the resilience and determination of our Armed forces saw it through.
Lets take pride in our Armed Forces ,for its them that place their lives on the line ,and they deserve the best equipment we can buy .
If not lets send our ministers to war instead with little equipment,so they can show us how its done when lacking equipment and resources. lets see if they can do a better job.
What do you think?
Yes!
For defense against cheap drones, it needs to not be 3M$ per missile. Iron Dome is the way to go.
HMS Government know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
UK is the only nation to have domestically developed its own rocket launch system then given it up to buy from overseas. First nation to develop atomic power and first to give up that civilian capability. First nation to develop the tank, seem to be the first nation to be on the verge of giving up on that capability.
There is an implicit blindness in the British culture that is not able to imagine beyond the immediate and justify the cost for potential reward later.
It's like we invented marshmallows but cannot delay gratification. So once we make them, they're gone in moments.
It will all depend on cost , It may actually be cheaper for us to have a third carrier with cats and traps . I suppose we could even call ARK ROYAL.
You need to have some defensive missiles to your carriers cause without them your carriers become a giant basically defenseless targets
wow i didnt know they penny pinched that much
The simple answer is buying the RIM-116 and yes the QE class needs missile defenses
We need to learn and adapt very quickly from what is happening in the Black Sea.
Should have had them from the design stage. Penny pinching as usual. " RN, we need a 57mm All purpose gun." Government Accountants Ok, you can have a .50cal. In fact have 2. There are on sale at the moment. Needed 4 Phalanx systems.
The only thing that makes me laugh about this thought process with ppl constantly saying about cost savings & defences on the aircraft carriers is the fact firstly the 1 & only reason the type 45 was developed is to defend the the aircraft carriers & carrier group they were building/ creating so how's that cost saving? They will never sail without a type 45 which is widely agreed to b the best air defence destroyers & that's y they're air defence mainly for that reason!!! As well as phalanx systems they also have all the systems & hardware fitted when built for 4x bushmaster 2 automated cannons systems ready to install in times of needs if wsr breaks out etc but to say the uk cost saved when they built 6 of the best air defence destroyers only to escort the new aircraft carriers they was building at the time at a cost of over 6 billion pounds is just just cos if we hadn't planned to build the aircraft carriers they wudnt of been built either savings 6 billion!!!
Yes it should have Missiles . Air defence missiles
YES
Definitely these carriers cost a fortune and need better defence's, we're making far to many cutbacks to our armed forces . we'll soon just end up as a joke and will no longer be taken seriously 😡
The UK was too cheap to fit it. The defence white paper the tories dreamed up when they came to power was all about cost cutting for austerity Plus they decided that the Type 45 would be enough to defend it.
They should get them seaworthy first 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Missiles? No brainer.
The accountants in Whitehall know best, don’t they?🤣
Hell yes
Our carriers can't even function with a full force, we buying form us
They probably have but it is secret
A gun system would be useful.
This is classic us. Any excuse to save a few quid.
Maybe the UK navy should actually get their ships working reliably first.
No we have learned from the past this isn’t a good idea and pointless anyway with escorts
Big yes patriots and other defensive missles
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Don't you think they should have thought about this problem in the first place, just shows bad planning !
😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢
Aircraft be best to get first 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 both be scrapped by labour anyway
Define toy under armed.
one phrase sums it all up ...........................SICK JOKE
UK = cheap. Forget the woke garbage ......... protect the fleet.