Not upset at all on your comments. Nothing wrong with facts. Obviously an American carrier strike group is in another league, but the Royal Navy is still up there by global standards, and it's great to see Britain back in the carrier game. Would like to see extra defences on the carriers themselves too, and I'm sure if conflict with a state actor became inevitable then the UK would quickly refit them. Not ideal, but I'm just happy the Royal Navy is back. Our national identity *is* our navy, and though we will never be a superpower again, it's great to be allied with the Anglosphere and integrate our forces and intelligence with the Great United States. There is an argument in Britain, though it hasn't gained much traction as of yet, of reducing our 4 nuclear armed submarines to 3, and using the savings to put more hulls in the water for our carriers and NATO obligations. Not sure where I stand on that. I understand budgets so I'm not overly critical of our forces but it is *unacceptable* that France has a larger navy than us. We are an island nation. Yes, France has overseas territories and interests that need to be protected and patrolled, hence their considerable navy, but we should be floating at least the same number of destroyers as them. 6 is absolutely inadmissible. 8 should be the bare minimum, 10 the ideal. Frigates - anywhere between 13-18. I'd take 8 destroyers and 16 frigates if that was the only upgrade on offer. I'm actually fairly content with the number of submarines considering budgets always have to make their presence known somewhere. I think politicians in Britain find it hard to justify a larger navy when an allied nation such as the US dominates the waves so convincingly. But it's important and it's necessary, and I like to think that with the construction of these carriers the UK has illustrated its understanding that the Americans should not shoulder the burden alone. British overseas bases in Singapore and Brunei will make for excellent forward replenishment zones for deployment to the South China Sea due to their strategic location in the Straits of Malacca. The HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Prince of Wales and France's Charles de Gaulle will rotate deployments there from the early 2020s in a Franco-British effort to assert freedom of navigation in the disputed South China Sea. By the way, beautiful models
I have to disclaim that I am not an expert in the operations of the Royal Navy, I do however know some things that I have double checked myself with people I know who do serve in the Royal Navy, this is in no way a comment to criticize what you've said, just some corrections for some misconceptions. The Duke class / Type 23 Frigates, with the CAAMM VLS missile system can hold four Sea Ceptor Missiles in each VLS 'Silo' meaning that in a wartime 'Full-Load' the Duke class can utilise 124 missiles each, the HMS Argyll (F231) was the first to have the Sea-Ceptor upgrade and performed the tests proving that the multiple missiles in one silo system worked. The nitty-gritty details are not in the public domain, however publications reported that 'The System Works.' The tests were conducted in 2015 and the System was declared by the MOD to be 'In Service' in May 2018, all Type 23's in service with the Royal Navy are being upgraded to the new specification. The Daring Class / Type 45 Destroyers, do only have 48 missiles each, however unlike the American Naval doctrine which requires no less than two missiles to be used to guarantee a kill / intercept, the PAAMS / Sea Viper is a one hit one kill system capable of targeting a hostile as small as a cricket-ball / base-ball travelling at MACH 3 at 400+ Kilometres out. It's by doctrinal requirement that Arleigh-Burkes have to carry 90 / 96 missiles because you're firing two missiles at every target, that's forty five / forty eight guaranteed kills, depending on the flight model of the Arleigh Burke; whereas the Royal Navy is using one missile per target that's forty eight guaranteed kills, the results are about the same, its just PAAMS is a more cost effective system. Just to keep in mind as well that, the Royal Navy's roles for Frigates and Destroyers are different from those in the USN, frigates are Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) specialised, they are not meant for Anti-Air Warfare, they do however act as a second defensive screen if the enemy somehow manages to breach the Type 45's defences. This is only done in dire circumstances, as it is the Type 45's only mission to defend against air attack. Unlike Arleigh Burkes in the USN, Daring class / Type 45's are AAW specialised platforms, their Anti-Submarine and Anti-Ship fighting capabilities were sacrificed from the very moment they were designed, though provisions for bolt on wartime anti-ship missile systems (Harpoon Missile Systems) were put into the design in case of emergencies. The Arleigh Burke class on the other hand has equal capabilities in Anti-Air / Anti-Ship and Anti-Submarine making it and in no way am I slighting them when I say this. 'A jack of all master of none.' class of ship, capable of fighting off multiple threats surface and sub-surface at the same time. Its all about the doctrine, do you want a generalised navy capable of fighting all threats at once (the USN). Or a specialised one where each individual ship has one job but it is the absolute best at performing that one job (The RN). The QE class of "not so super" Super-Carriers (If you classify them using the American Definition of a Super-Carrier.) are two parts strike carrier one part Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH) these carriers were designed with the integration of the entire Royal Marine Commandos in mind, capable of carrying an entire commando brigade and its Head Quarters to any conflict around the globe comfortably. By utilising the hanger and deck parking the QE's are capable of carrying 70 F35-B Lightning fighters, this capability however goes directly against Royal Navy Doctrine, where every aircraft on the carrier must be able to be fit inside the hanger in transit, this is because the Royal Navy can ill afford to loose a bird by it going overboard in the harsh stormy climate of the Atlantic Ocean and North Sea, in which 80 to 90 percent of their missions will take place. Another thing to point out that while I agree 3 Phalanx CIWS is lacking in terms range interception capabilities four or five being far more suitable, RAM's have proven to be a hazard before in the Royal Navy where our two Invincible class carriers carried something similar on the bow during the Falklands war, it was reported that flight operations would be outright called off due to FOD whenever the launcher fired in defence. The launchers were stripped off midway through the war due to it being such an issue and the Royal Navy has avoided such systems like a plague believing it is the sole duty for the Carrier to launch as many sorties as possible, as it was not the duty of the carrier to engage in missile combat with the enemy. Like I've said at the beginning of the post this is no way me criticizing you, or rah, rah I'm British and I'm biased against what you've said, I'm not, I'd like to point out that you're right about our lack of long range AEW birds, but I also like to point out that when your destroyers have an unprecedented over the horizon radar capability very few navies in the world can match it does make the necessity of such aircraft less of a priority. Now I know I'm probably going to get some flak posting this, but I've consumed a good amount of whisky so I'm feeling brave. Thanks for the content, it's nice to see others perspectives.
@@TheFreshman321 Chemring PLC (Chemring Countermeasures UK) as far as I can gather provides the royal navy with the passive and active countermeasure systems, flares, chaff, IR spoofing equipment and though I can't confirm they may have possibly provided some architecture for the electronic warfare suite on the type 45's and the QE carriers. Any specifics is kept between Chemring and the MOD, so I can only make assumptions and I'd rather not post what could potentially be 1) misinformation or 2) an unintentional breach of the secrets act. What I do know is that the QE's Aircraft Carriers, Type 45 Destroyers, (Modernised) Type 23 Frigates, (Future) Type 26 Frigates, (Future on a budget) Type 31E Frigates and (Future) Royal Navy Auxiliary vessels have a system in place to network all of their computers and sensor suites to give the Carrier Strike Group unprecedented computing capability and data sharing. It has also been rumoured that the QE's have a dedicated Electronic Warfare Unit which is only accessible to the Officer In Command and the Special Intelligence Service (SIS) which is the joint body of both (MI-5 and MI-6) effectively making both the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales mobile headquarters for a section of the Five Eyes Organisation. (UK, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.) It's a pretty round about way of saying I don't know, I know but I can tell you if what is rumoured and speculated is true, then effectively every single ship in a CSG can provide to the milli-second data to the whole, which means the closer the threat is all the more accurate and saturated the counter is going to be, effectively we could short a missiles guidance system with so much false data that they'll cease to function and crash into the sea. If that isn't money saving measures at their finest, I don't know what is.
Liam Spruce thank you for the information you can share. In summary, the countermeasures that are not so obvious will play an important part complementing the hard kill option for the CSG. I do recall in the Falklands that chaff proved effective in a number of instances in seducing missiles away from fleet units.
Great video Jeff. I watched most of it live last night. I hope the RAF/RN opts for the AEW Osprey. They need it! The Merlin helicopter limits the ships airwing ablity.
Thanks Gerry! God bless you my friend! I was hoping you would stop by. I placed it on SD this morning and pinged you to it. As always, God bless you and yours my friend...and as always, thanks for your service too along with fellows like pawpawtx. You should get to know him. You guys would be great friends. Fair winds and a following Sea!
Great vid, and I totally agree with your assessment with regards the missile load out. I live close to Rosyth where the carriers were assembled, so am lucky enough to have seen both of them. Just one point, the Duke class is a type 23 frigate ( I have been fortunate enough to have been aboard HMS Montrose ) the type 22 was I believe the broadsword class
You are completely correct. Type 22 was my mistake. I have actually been on a Type 23 Duke class, and know them well. I was amazed to see them winch a Merlin in that hanger. Ido name them correctly in the description. Sorry for making such a "dumb" mistake. Fit with barely inches to spare...but fit it did. And that's a good thing. A Merlin is a GREAT AEW helo, probably among the best out there, though a CV-22 ASW Osprey would compete well with it. The two Seahawks is the US solution and it is as good a solution, but requires both helos. That way, we can keep a helo on any sub contact at all times without having to leave to either refuel or reload. The two helos shuttle one after the other until they put the enemy contact they have found down. A Merlin may well have plenty of fuel and ordinance to do the same...but a good CO on the sub might be able to save themselves until they had to refuel, in which case either another ship would have to send the 2nd helo, or they will lose the contact. All of the US Burke class (and that's about 70 ships now) nd the 22 Ticos all have two Sea Hawks...and the LCS and FFGs are capable of carrying two as well. Thanks for your service mate...God's speed to you and yours and a merry Christmas, as well as fair winds and a following sea.
It is a shame the configuration isn’t catobar but I do think conventional power vs nuclear power was the way to go for the Royal Navy’s budget. The ship has been designed so that it can be converted to catobar with relative ease but that would involve sourcing a steam generator as it doesn’t have the steam byproduct of nuclear propulsion. Which is going to cost a fair penny. I personally hope they covert it to use the electromagnetic catapults. What are your takes on the QEC design ? Such as the dual towers as opposed to the traditional single tower. Something that will come and go ? or an idea that will evolve to be the new standards for a carrier? Glad to see you got hold of the POW model !, the big gap in your previous video needed filling and it certainly does that!
Like most new technologies I believe everyone says its just a fad to begin with, it happened with the Mark IV Tanks, it happened with the first ever carrier, the dreadnoughts, machine guns and the plane, so when people say two bridge towers is just a fad it is almost a bloody guarantee that it'll become the new standard, history has proven this time and again, after all most if not all of those examples I gave are British, so I say double the odds at least.
Liam, the piping and machinery necessary for steam catapults is VERY extensive. If they hd put all of that in there to make it easy to convert, then they would have spent enough to just go ahead and make it full CATOBAR. I do not believe for a minute that they did. I do believe they had to do a significant redesign, nd that was costly. Costly enough that they ended up spending almost as much as the full CATOBAR would have cost...but they would have had to spend more for the resulting air wing...but that would have nmade the carriers even stronger, articularly with the E-2D Hawkeye which would have solved one of the biggest problems nd threats that they now have with thiese STOBAR carriers. Anyhow, as it is, these can still be great carriers...they will need something like the EV-22 AEW aircraft, and there id nothing else out there that brings that type of capability to VTOL operations. They also REALLY need to get some ships...maybe buy or build either the older four Tico cruisers and retrofit the VLS onto them, or better yet, work with Lockheed and S. Korea to build two KDX-III Se Jong destroyers which carry 160 missiles. One each for each carrier would double the number of missiles they had available to defend the carrier. Maybe not enough, but twice what they have.
Jeff Head I think I must of caught one of the headlines from an old article, that does indeed sound like a lot of work. Completely agree on the MV-22, I know they started looking into getting them but I imagine budget cuts were to factor. We definitely need more hulls, I’d put two more type 45 hulls out but double all the VLS cells for the 45s. Maybe working intercoolers this time but I don’t want to be greedy. Add on 4 more hulls for type 26 and keep to the 13 type 31e ‘s and we might have a carrier strike group we can actually support. How do the sortie rates compare for the QEC to a Nimitz or Ford Jeff? Can’t find much info on it.
Thanks. I am going to soon make a vdeo of all of my models. Have to do some house cleaning first. I have a total of 68 1/350 ships, 15 1/700 ships, and 51 1/72 aircraft. Also have one 1/192 scale ship...an all wood USS Constitution..."Old Ironsides".
I served on T45 Ships 2 and 4. Our first war simulation...we expended the entire armenant before lunch! The MFR is is an absolute killer and is second to none though. We just don't have enough of what we have. There are great multi role and ASW platforms like Type 23 as you show here, but again there are not many of them, same with T45 and will be the same with T26 (I work on this program), and T31e. The Artisan radar that QE and T23 has is very very good also. We just lack quantity to go with the quality. Apparently we when worked with the US, their subs look for a 'hole in the water' when hunting a T23. The Astutes are soooooo good as well, but like you say, there are not many of them.
Thanks, ans especially for your service. I pray we never need them for a major engagement. In the end it would be a disaster for the power that attempted it...but we would have to be so very careful and make sure NONE f the large ships are over exposed. I believe currently that the RN would have to pair with a Nimitz and its escorts if venturing into the hot zone. Wth 2 Ticos, 3 Burkes, two of the new USN Frigates and then the two T45s and twp &26s, altogether they would be able to defend two carriers US and UK quite capabaly, particularly with a couple of E-2D aloft, one near the group and the other out on the major threat axis.
@@JeffHead-IdahoUSA Hi Jeff. I agree. Against major combatants we may need to operate alongside a Nimitz or a Ford. The two groups would definitely compliment each other. Imagine that power to strike and project with a QE and US carrier...plus the group protecting them, and then the assets striking ashore from under the sea with TLAM! I think unless it was a comparable force, of which there are not many, if any, not much could scare a group of that power, or would even try. Launching combined 60-100 jets (one of them being gen 5!) and helos, plus the Prowlers, Hawkeyes and the Osprey, would be a devastating projection of power! Plus the shore bombardment capability from the battle group 5 inchers, shoving harpoons down the funnels of other surface ships and the T23s mopping up the submarine threat, it sounds pretty beefy!
The RN is squared away. In my engineering career, when working on defense projects, I had an opportunity a couple of times to work with them. My friends in the US Navy say the same thing. I just fear if there ever is a true near peer conflict...and we cannot ever rule that out, we have to be ready for it...then these carriers with a stronger AEW aircraft, and without enough missiles on those escorts are going to be very vulnerable. I am very grateful that the F-35 is working out so well. We had a President who stopped the F-22 program before they even built half of them. We were going to build 400 to 500 and ended up with 193. That was Obama. They said the Chinese wouldn't even have a prototype until 2025...then the next year they rolled out their first prototype. No matter how much better the quality ios...and there is no other aircraft on earth that can take on the F-22 in air dominance...the old saying that quantity has a quality all its own is true. If the Chinese build 800 of their J-20s, and we only have 185 F-22s to bring to the party, we will be in trouble. But the F-35 is better than the J-20 too, and is doing very good even against the F-22. its abilities in the information technologies, its stealth, and the maneuverability it has brings it real close...and we are going to build about 1,500 of the US Air Force version, 400 of the US Nay version, and 400 of the US MArine version...so 2,300 of them, and our allies are going to buy well over 1,000 more. In fact, I think they will end up buying more and we may too. I predict right now it will be the most prolific and most built 5th generation stealth aircraft in the world...and we may build more of them than we did of the F-16 and that would be just fine. You have to keep your defense up whenever there are despots and bullies around. If you don;t, sooner or later they will try and put you down. I am glad we have the UK as our great ally...I just wish your people would demand that the pols build more of what you may need. Thank God there was a Churchill back in the late 1930s and throughout WW 2. I fear that the Chamberlain syndrome has taken far too deep a root there now.
@@vxrdrummer + Makes little or no sense to have our carriers with a US strike group in a time of war, the hole point is to have multi groups active, not at in the same area of sea. They don't compliment each other at all, look at the range of the F-35b to the F-18.
I wish there was a way to send the heads of the Royal Navy your video to address the sub par defense. Merry Christmas Jeff and thank you for your work and videos.
I believe the Royal Navy are aware of the defensive issues, but it all comes down to cost. I'm certain that if a major global conflict broke out (where money is no longer an issue), the carriers would be refitted to address the defensive problems.
@@dean1039 This would need to be done in advance. The RN needs about 20 years to prepare for a full scale war (by building new escorts etc as the current fleet would be inedequate.)
Great model thank you for the video I am from the UK and I think its great we now have these two aircraft carriers and glad we chose the F35 type similar to to the harrier aircraft we had 10 years ago. We learned in the Falklands war you needed to turn to aircraft around quickly when at war that why the aircraft lifts are to the side of the ship and using the short take and landing is quicker when you need to get aircraft into the air quicker. I think it's a pity that France cancelled their one of the type and its a pity the CV01's were cancelled by the Labour Gov in the 1960's as with the F 1-11's and TSR2 aircraft. Did you build these models or just buy them in ?? Thank you.
Thank you Richard, we are glad to have our English cousins now, once again, able to form dual carrier strike forces with us, with the very capable (albeit smaller in number than we would have hoped). I would like to point out that a carrier of this size, if she had an angled deck and four catapults would be able to launch entire large sorties and air task forces than any carrier using a ski-jump. Do not get me wrong, I would much rather see the RN with to of these STOBAR carriers than no carriers. But four catapult each launching an aircraft in sequence and able to launch from all four cats will put out launching one every few seconds until the entire force is in the air in a very few minutes. Anyhow, God bless you and your country for putting these very worthy and capable vessels and task forces out, and I surely hope they are both maintained for operation, using regular maintenance periods, as opposed to holding one in a basically deactivated state for several years and really having only one available unless the ballons really go up. VEssels and rews need training and regular operations to be at the top of their game.
I love the video. I have been on both carriers and in an F-35 B. The model is really realistic and I think the carrier strike group is good. I think there are some more ships you need to add like the Tide class RFA and a RFA replacement ship. You got the Type 22 wrong it is the type 23 Iron Duke class. But great video.
I agree but there are no 1/350 scale models available for those other models. Also I did correct the mistake in the comments about the Type 22 and Type 23.
If Air Fix releases a 1/350th scale, I will own both carriers...sadly, this one is a little out of scale and would be a bit larger...but I still would get both and an entire group to escort it.
The Type 23 Frigates - if they have had the Mid Life Upgrade and carry Sea Ceptor, then the air defence radar atop the foremast is also changed out from 996 to Artisan
Thank uyou my friend. I am so glad I got this ship. Condition continues to deteriorate. Slowly though and so the good Lord keeps me here according to His will...and I am perfectly fine with that, His will. Thanks bro...we've been friends for well over 20 years now and I thank you for that and am glad you have been able to meet my better 3/4ths and a couple of the kids. We recently had our 15th grandchild! Have 8 boys and 7 girls now.
Definitely agree about the missile defence, but hopefully the new Type 26 Frigates & Type 83 Destroyers when they are commissioned will go a long way to address this issue, Beautiful work on the model 😁👍
This is awsome. Why do the type 45s have so little missles to compare to the Arleigh Burke? However i was watching a captain who is on a daring class type 45 and he said that they can knock out aircraft without even firing a missle. That could compensate for having less missle. The type 45s are more advanced than the Arleigh Burke.
The 45sa are newer and do have some advancements, but the US constantly upgrades the vessels (BUrkes and Ticonderogas). The US has so many because the threat continues to increase and the US wants to make sure it has more than enough for an all out attack by the Chinese (or anyone else). In a very high threat area and in war time (Like the SCS), you will see an American carrier strike group with one or two carriers, two Tico cruisers, four Bukes and four of the new FFG(X). See my video on the new FFG-80, the 1st FFG(X) which will start building next year and be commissioned in 2023, as the second one is launched.
@@JeffHead-IdahoUSA The Royal Navy continually upgrade there equipment also. I agree america does need to keep with with numbers and its tech in this uncertain world. The British government doesnt put enough energy in having larger numbers for the Royal Navy. Britain the 5th richest nation in the world, i dont believe we cant afford it. We can, we have the money, the government put it in the wrong place's
with the Sea Ceptor on the Type 23 they fit 4 missiles to a tube, so 128 missiles per Type 23. So 2x Type 23 gives 256 missiles, before we even touch on the Daring class or the carrier aircraft
@@henryvagincourt4502 It was reported in Aviation Weekly ages ago but I cant find it now. Image in this article suggests it would be quad packed in Mk 41 but can't now find reference to the Type 23's setup so perhaps the idea was dropped. (www.naval-technology.com/projects/sea-ceptor-missile-system/) Also, its to do with width not length...
I wonder why QE is so gigantic. You explained in the other video that it is 1/300 makes sense. I would really like to see a 1/350 QE alone side Nimitz or G. R. Ford next time!
Good video and good points on the carrier's self defence outfit. The destroyers are dedicated anti air vessels the only anti sub capability is with the single helicopter. I love the historic RN but the last 60 years they build generally good warships and then under arm them, the lessons from the Falklands should have jolted their 'logic'.
Thank you, and agree 100%, though with the bow-mounted medium-frequency Ultra/EDO MFS-7000 sonar, and especially the Merlin helicopter embarked, they have a credible ASW capability, though the RN will have to depend more on the Type 36 Global Combat hip (as they do now on the Duke class Type 23 FFGs) for the most credible ASW capability for the carriers or other large task forces or convoys.
The ship will have martel missiles on the 30mm cannons the martel has a range of 5nmi at shot down missiles drones aircraft and sink sucidal attak craft it will be on all royal navy vessels with 30mm cannon mountings
The martel missile was an Anglo/French anti radiation missile used by the RAF on Buccaneer and Jaguar aircraft. You are thinking of the martlet surface to surface missile for the RN it will be used on the wildcat helicopter and has been tested on HMS Sutherland as a point defence surface to surface missile. The army will use the marlet as a surface to air short range missile. If the carriers were to have surface to air missiles it would be sea ceptor, though there are no current plans to install them.
Also if I was hunting a carrier group I wouldn’t only engage the carrier fleet by air. I’d also have destroyers engaging the escorts @ the same time. So trying defend of another fleet whilst air wings are attacking. The RN ain’t surviving.
Amigo Jeff. Tienes un trabajo hecho muy bueno y te felicito. No sé si te pregunte pero, Cuanto tiempo te llevo armar esos buques? y, si tienes planes llevarlos a concursos?
Well, thank you very much for your kind words...they are very much appreciated. The destroyers and frigates take a total of 2-4 weeks depending on how much time I can spend each day or week on them. The carriers, if I build out the hanger deck and put lighting systems on them, can take 6-10 months, again depending on the time I have. I have not thought of putting them in shows, but certainly could. However, I have terminal bone cancer, and probably will not be able to do so. I prefer putting them out on my youtube channel. God's best to you and yours my friend.
Dear sir, I very much agree with your comments about the shortcomings of the RN CSG in the Anti-Air Missile systems. Pride tends to come before a fall... Why the RN does not seek the assistance of the USN from the Arleigh-Burke destroyers (92/96 AAMs). I do not know... They're superb! 👌 (from a son and grandson of WW1 and WW2 veterans)
I think originally our carriers were designed & intended to deploy in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, not the indo Pacific. But world events are changing the playing field, and we are not quite ready for it, doing the best we can though, hopefully in a decade we will have the newer & even more capable Type 26 Frigates & some of the Type 83 Destroyers ready for strike group duties 🤞😁👍
royal navy have just confirm that all 6 type 45 will get a major fire control software and hardware and upgraded missile with extra 24 more missile each before 2030 so the csg will get another 48 extra missiles.
Yes, well that was almost 80 years ago, and the jmsdf is a rel close lly now, and very capable themselves. They will soon have two carriers of their own (converting the two izumo class). Each of those will carry 24-32 F-35Bs and they will be a CSG to reckon with. With the F-35B, like you are getting in the UK for the carrier, they will be able to credibly threaten the carriers China is building. The US is converting for LHD Wasp and LHA AMerica class, two ech to do the same, and the Koreans are converting their Dokdo class as well. So very quickly, in the Pacific, we will have an additional six aircraft carrier, with a 5th generation stealth aircraft wing each, before the CHinese finish their third carrier. My guess is, that of the Chinese finish the 3rd and then proceed with more, which is a strong presumption, we will see the Japanese build a larger class carrier, and probably build two of them.
Very nice Nice model ....But the QE carriers also carry 4x30mm semi auto cannon as well as the phalanx? Also i read somewhere that U.S Arleigh - Burke class destroyers as a matter of procedure fire two missiles at a single target . The RN just fires one missile as it has a superior AESA radar missile combination compared to an Arleigh -Burke flight 1/2 radar thus halving its advantage to exactly the same as as type 45 at 48 intercepts. In addition to this An Arleigh - Burke routinely only carries 64 surface to air missiles out of the 96 loadout available . The balance of 32 being made up with anti surface and anti submarine missiles. The type 45 is not well equipped with the latter two systems as it was designed from the outset as a dedicated anti aircraft/missile escort. It can track and engage 32 targets simultaneously. The current Arleigh Burke SPY1-D radar cannot achieve this performance which is considered the benchmark of dealing with a saturation attack. The flight 3 AMDR radar may redress this balance though. When the type 45s are re -equipped with the CAMM sea-ceptor they will fit x4 in each of the present launchers giving a potential loadout of 192 missiles . If a flight 3 loads out its 64 launchers with x4 enhanced sea sparrow then it has a capacity for 256 intercepts regaining the advantage ....Assuming they only fire one missile per target !. Agreed the QE class should have its own dedicated missile defence such as the RAM you modelled. At best in the near future can see it getting the short range martlet missile, possibly x5 missiles attached to the 30mm cannon mounts which have already been test fired from a type 23 frigate.
The AB does generally fire two, depending on the threat...but when you are dealing with ship killers, it is best to be sure and not sorry. In addition, the number of missiles they carry and what types will depend on their mission. If they think they will need more AAMs they will carry them, and in a high threat environment to the carrier, that is something they will do. Typically, in high threat there will be three Burkes, one Tico, and two FFGs, and the new FFGs will be carrying more AAMs too. The RN will have two Type 24s and two Type 31s or Type 26s. This makes clear the issue...and the real, even bigger issue is the range of their AEW. The missiles they are going to want to intercept have a longer range than the AEW...meaning it is not likely they will intercept the aircraft, before they shoot. With the US, there is a much greater chance that they will, and then however many missiles are launched will have to run the gauntlet of passive and active ECM, and then and then probably over 400 missiles available...not including the Closie in RANs, carrier ESSNs, and the Phalanx. And in the not too distant future you can add lasers and rail guns to that inner ring too. I just with the RN had the Advanced E-2D Hawkeye, and enough Darings to go around to always have three of them with their carrier, along with three each of either the 31s or 26s. Time will tell. As it is, the US Navy will welcome them heartily as allies and friends on any joint operations.
@@JeffHead-IdahoUSA Given the continuous advancements in missile/radar technology much of what we have both said in fact becomes a mute point probably sooner rater than later . Here in the UK there is already half an eye being cast on T45s replacement , that possibly being a dedicated T26 air defence variant. Missile type and loadouts are going to change considerably over the next few years. We have an ingrained malpractice in the UK of "fitted for, not fitted with" due to cost constraints and defence cuts some of our major surface units have been woefully under armed over the years . Agree the T23s though probably represent the best all round capability in one hull we currently possess. The River class OPVs being the absolute worst case example of under arming . A 2000 ton vessel , in effect corvette sized hull armed with 1x 30mm cannon and various small arms . The RN seems happy just to get hulls in the water to keep the perceived fleet size up whilst ignoring the capabilities of the vessel itself. Operational experience in the Falklands taught us the value of shooting down a threat rather than decoying it (onto another target ) which led to the development of the T45 with its missile radar combination which I have to trust does what it says on the tin. A friend of mine in the Royal Artillery on exercise with US forces told me once his battery of 105s was tasked to take out a building on a range ...3 well placed rounds and the target was destroyed . The U.S battery took out the whole field to achieve the same goal . Both approaches you can argue have their own merit! ......The UK dropped the ball years ago when it withdrew from carrier operations maybe due to focusing to much inwardly on European / NATO affairs. We have hopefully largely unshackled ourselves from that situation and will now look outwards as a blue water navy again, and rejoin our U.S brothers in policing the world oceans and trade . We have so much catching up to do and I know our sailors and airmen have been working hand in hand with their U.S counterparts in exchange and combined operations for years . I absolutely agree though with your overall assessment of the RN carrier group as is . Sending a UK carrier strike group to the South China sea A/O circa 2021 makes me nervous with the current RN missile loadout ( in terms of numbers) and the lack of effective AEW which as you have outlined is the groups major achilles heel. I would imagine though for political and prestige reasons the UK has to demonstrate it can muster a fully capable strike group with its own ships and resources. The reality is I would imagine, and hope that given such a deployment a couple of U.S A-Bs would also accompany your suggested carrier group along with an America class AAS which would round out the groups capability nicely so the QE carrier can then focus its airwing on fixed wing capability rather than using capacity for various rotary operations. I'm not sure that we would see the proposed T31 attached to the group in far flung blue water operations as it is being designed more for low end operations such as drug interdiction etc etc . More T26 capability specific hulls are what we need Either way whatever is deployed im absolutely sure we will have each others backs as always .
It depend on what mission they take on as to the loadout. In a pure escort the carrier role, they will have a much larger percentage of Standard missiles for AAW. The US will not launch two missiles every time at an incoming. The E-2D will usually give them targets that allow them to see if the 1st missile is a hit. They can also set the AEGIS system up to make the decision based on certain parameters. The Type 45 will do the same type of thing. But if the missile is close enough in where there will not be time for a second shot, the US wil fire to, then comes the ESSM missile (again depending on range) then the RAM< and finally the CIWS. WHich allows the US to have a defense in depth with four weapons system t support it. As I have said, though I believe the carriers could have been better outfitted to be CATOBAR with the angled deck and the CT, and particularly the Hawkeye, I would far rather have the two STOBAR QEs, then no QE. ANd I know the RN will be squared away with whatever they bring, and we will be glad to see them.
I'm British English and I totally agree. But with what's been going on here in the UK due to funding and people signing up. We're good, but not as powerful as we use to be. The only bad thing I would say is (even though I love your models here) you put to many aircrafts on the Dock lol.
Yes, depending on the vessels it could help...but unless it was with US group, it would not be enough.. Because with a US carrier you would probably, in a high threat situation have 2 x Tics cruisers, those two carrying 250 missiles, three Burke class, those three carrying 300 missiles, and 2-3 of the new FFGs those carrying another 100, and then the carrier itself has about 100. That's about 750 missiles and that would be enough for the US carrier. You add the POW or the QE and you end up with another 200-250 and so for the two carrier group you have about 1000 missiles. And with the E-2D it is a very good chance that you will see a good bunch of those attackers and intercept them before they ever get to shoot. Which is very possible with the E-2D and the EV-22 as well. Remember the F-35s too...they will be able to seamlessly communicate with any E-2D, EV-22, P-8, MQ-4C or other US or allied aircraft and ships and network it all into one vast battle space that all F-35s see and take advantage of and heightens the likelihood of an intercept. But the RN alone could never get enough missiles alone. Even four Type 45s and four Type 26 FFGs (meaning eight escorts which the RN will never do) would still only being about 320 missiles tubes, 192 from the Darings. A US group with one Ticonderoga and three Burkes (which is the peace time escort) along with the frigates and the carrier itself would have over 500 missiles. If we put in a heavy load of two Ticos and four Burkes and four Frigates for a high intensity situation, that heavy war time load would have almost 850 missiles, which would be enough to take on regiments of attackers, especially with the very long range AEW the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye gives a US carrier group.
Hi, if you parked your carrier next to the Chinese coats you would be right on the lack of missiles. Even a US carrier would struggle. The Type 23s carry 36 not 32 missiles. The uSN have bigger magazines and they need them because the USN Fire 2 missiles per missile target. So you can halve the 96 on a us destroyer. So the US destroyer has effectively the same number as a Type 45. The type 26 will have 48 missiles. If the UK did go to war we would send more ships then the small group on your table. There might be up to 4 type 45s, 4 or 5 type 23/26. We would not park our carrier in range of Chinese land based fighters - nor would a US commander. On the matter of radar coverage. The Type 45s have a very long range radar coverage. The other ships in the fleet add to the radar picture as does the F35s. The AEW Merlins cover the over the horizon gap so that Sea Viper can engauge sea skimmers Below tge radar horizon. The type 45 could be fitted with at least 12 extra cells for anti-air missiles. Also the class could also be fitted to us Sea Ceptor - I think it is 3 per cell like the ESSM. So there are ways of upping the missile count if required. If the UK carrier was fitted with a missile system it would be Sea Ceptor not Sea RAM. Sea Ceptor is a much more capable missile - longer range and more accurate. In an emergency the land based Sky Sabre (land Sea Ceptor), could be mounted onto the ship... While I agree it would be better to have more weapons and platforms unfortunately the politicians do not see defence as a vote winner so will always be stingy. Good video though. You might wish to add a Tide class support ship to your fleet. I have a small scale RN task force at home with 5 type 23s, 3 type 45, 1 Tide class tanker and 2 SSNs..
The US launches one missile, then follows it up with a second if they need it. They usually do not automatically launch two missiles. They will have the time to do so too because the E2-D Advanced Hawkeye has such a long detection range. The Merlin will only give the UK about time to launch one, then it will come down to CIWS. The US will get two shots and then the CIWS, which the US Navy on its carriers and resorts has more of too. DO not get me wrong, I am very happy that the RN now has two large and effective carriers available, and I hope they keep both available and rotate both through maintenance. If the balloons go up in a big way, the US and UK will probably pair carriers anyway, which will help both nations a lot.
Fantastic models. Great hearing your input from the US and how the UK government is cutting corners with their missile defense. It wouldn't have a hope in the south China Sea without US escorts.
Its merely an over sized amphibious assault carrier - the RN hate it! But in saying that - thanks for building these models Mr Head, we in England appreciate the detail and effort you have put into these models and look forward to your future builds and very informative videos. Thanks again :)
@@henryvagincourt4502 they do! Just read an article by Nigel "Sharkey" Ward on the subject matter. The RN will like good sailors make do and perform but they wish they also wish they could have more say on matters as well
@@sufianansari4923 + Ex F126 (Falklands) F70, D89, Armilla and Gulf War myself mucker, I'd try joining up and doing abit, and reading a little less. The Navy are short on people.
@@henryvagincourt4502 Type 42's? Well as you were a professional sailor and rating in the RN let me ask you something please. Do you feel the government has funded and allowed it self to equip itself in order to comply with its mission statement? thanks
@@sufianansari4923 + My last ship was a type 42, simple answer "no" we are dreadfully short of escorts, no Harpoon replacement in sight, type 26/31 years off, type 23's with holes in there decks, shocking state of affairs.
Not upset at all on your comments. Nothing wrong with facts. Obviously an American carrier strike group is in another league, but the Royal Navy is still up there by global standards, and it's great to see Britain back in the carrier game. Would like to see extra defences on the carriers themselves too, and I'm sure if conflict with a state actor became inevitable then the UK would quickly refit them. Not ideal, but I'm just happy the Royal Navy is back. Our national identity *is* our navy, and though we will never be a superpower again, it's great to be allied with the Anglosphere and integrate our forces and intelligence with the Great United States.
There is an argument in Britain, though it hasn't gained much traction as of yet, of reducing our 4 nuclear armed submarines to 3, and using the savings to put more hulls in the water for our carriers and NATO obligations. Not sure where I stand on that. I understand budgets so I'm not overly critical of our forces but it is *unacceptable* that France has a larger navy than us. We are an island nation. Yes, France has overseas territories and interests that need to be protected and patrolled, hence their considerable navy, but we should be floating at least the same number of destroyers as them. 6 is absolutely inadmissible. 8 should be the bare minimum, 10 the ideal. Frigates - anywhere between 13-18. I'd take 8 destroyers and 16 frigates if that was the only upgrade on offer. I'm actually fairly content with the number of submarines considering budgets always have to make their presence known somewhere.
I think politicians in Britain find it hard to justify a larger navy when an allied nation such as the US dominates the waves so convincingly. But it's important and it's necessary, and I like to think that with the construction of these carriers the UK has illustrated its understanding that the Americans should not shoulder the burden alone. British overseas bases in Singapore and Brunei will make for excellent forward replenishment zones for deployment to the South China Sea due to their strategic location in the Straits of Malacca. The HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Prince of Wales and France's Charles de Gaulle will rotate deployments there from the early 2020s in a Franco-British effort to assert freedom of navigation in the disputed South China Sea.
By the way, beautiful models
I have to disclaim that I am not an expert in the operations of the Royal Navy, I do however know some things that I have double checked myself with people I know who do serve in the Royal Navy, this is in no way a comment to criticize what you've said, just some corrections for some misconceptions.
The Duke class / Type 23 Frigates, with the CAAMM VLS missile system can hold four Sea Ceptor Missiles in each VLS 'Silo' meaning that in a wartime 'Full-Load' the Duke class can utilise 124 missiles each, the HMS Argyll (F231) was the first to have the Sea-Ceptor upgrade and performed the tests proving that the multiple missiles in one silo system worked. The nitty-gritty details are not in the public domain, however publications reported that 'The System Works.'
The tests were conducted in 2015 and the System was declared by the MOD to be 'In Service' in May 2018, all Type 23's in service with the Royal Navy are being upgraded to the new specification.
The Daring Class / Type 45 Destroyers, do only have 48 missiles each, however unlike the American Naval doctrine which requires no less than two missiles to be used to guarantee a kill / intercept, the PAAMS / Sea Viper is a one hit one kill system capable of targeting a hostile as small as a cricket-ball / base-ball travelling at MACH 3 at 400+ Kilometres out.
It's by doctrinal requirement that Arleigh-Burkes have to carry 90 / 96 missiles because you're firing two missiles at every target, that's forty five / forty eight guaranteed kills, depending on the flight model of the Arleigh Burke; whereas the Royal Navy is using one missile per target that's forty eight guaranteed kills, the results are about the same, its just PAAMS is a more cost effective system.
Just to keep in mind as well that, the Royal Navy's roles for Frigates and Destroyers are different from those in the USN, frigates are Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) specialised, they are not meant for Anti-Air Warfare, they do however act as a second defensive screen if the enemy somehow manages to breach the Type 45's defences.
This is only done in dire circumstances, as it is the Type 45's only mission to defend against air attack.
Unlike Arleigh Burkes in the USN, Daring class / Type 45's are AAW specialised platforms, their Anti-Submarine and Anti-Ship fighting capabilities were sacrificed from the very moment they were designed, though provisions for bolt on wartime anti-ship missile systems (Harpoon Missile Systems) were put into the design in case of emergencies.
The Arleigh Burke class on the other hand has equal capabilities in Anti-Air / Anti-Ship and Anti-Submarine making it and in no way am I slighting them when I say this. 'A jack of all master of none.' class of ship, capable of fighting off multiple threats surface and sub-surface at the same time.
Its all about the doctrine, do you want a generalised navy capable of fighting all threats at once (the USN). Or a specialised one where each individual ship has one job but it is the absolute best at performing that one job (The RN).
The QE class of "not so super" Super-Carriers (If you classify them using the American Definition of a Super-Carrier.) are two parts strike carrier one part Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH) these carriers were designed with the integration of the entire Royal Marine Commandos in mind, capable of carrying an entire commando brigade and its Head Quarters to any conflict around the globe comfortably.
By utilising the hanger and deck parking the QE's are capable of carrying 70 F35-B Lightning fighters, this capability however goes directly against Royal Navy Doctrine, where every aircraft on the carrier must be able to be fit inside the hanger in transit, this is because the Royal Navy can ill afford to loose a bird by it going overboard in the harsh stormy climate of the Atlantic Ocean and North Sea, in which 80 to 90 percent of their missions will take place.
Another thing to point out that while I agree 3 Phalanx CIWS is lacking in terms range interception capabilities four or five being far more suitable, RAM's have proven to be a hazard before in the Royal Navy where our two Invincible class carriers carried something similar on the bow during the Falklands war, it was reported that flight operations would be outright called off due to FOD whenever the launcher fired in defence.
The launchers were stripped off midway through the war due to it being such an issue and the Royal Navy has avoided such systems like a plague believing it is the sole duty for the Carrier to launch as many sorties as possible, as it was not the duty of the carrier to engage in missile combat with the enemy.
Like I've said at the beginning of the post this is no way me criticizing you, or rah, rah I'm British and I'm biased against what you've said, I'm not, I'd like to point out that you're right about our lack of long range AEW birds, but I also like to point out that when your destroyers have an unprecedented over the horizon radar capability very few navies in the world can match it does make the necessity of such aircraft less of a priority.
Now I know I'm probably going to get some flak posting this, but I've consumed a good amount of whisky so I'm feeling brave. Thanks for the content, it's nice to see others perspectives.
Liam Spruce interesting. can you shed light on the chemring system. How that will improve anti missile defences?
@@TheFreshman321 Chemring PLC (Chemring Countermeasures UK) as far as I can gather provides the royal navy with the passive and active countermeasure systems, flares, chaff, IR spoofing equipment and though I can't confirm they may have possibly provided some architecture for the electronic warfare suite on the type 45's and the QE carriers.
Any specifics is kept between Chemring and the MOD, so I can only make assumptions and I'd rather not post what could potentially be 1) misinformation or 2) an unintentional breach of the secrets act.
What I do know is that the QE's Aircraft Carriers, Type 45 Destroyers, (Modernised) Type 23 Frigates, (Future) Type 26 Frigates, (Future on a budget) Type 31E Frigates and (Future) Royal Navy Auxiliary vessels have a system in place to network all of their computers and sensor suites to give the Carrier Strike Group unprecedented computing capability and data sharing.
It has also been rumoured that the QE's have a dedicated Electronic Warfare Unit which is only accessible to the Officer In Command and the Special Intelligence Service (SIS) which is the joint body of both (MI-5 and MI-6) effectively making both the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales mobile headquarters for a section of the Five Eyes Organisation. (UK, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.)
It's a pretty round about way of saying I don't know, I know but I can tell you if what is rumoured and speculated is true, then effectively every single ship in a CSG can provide to the milli-second data to the whole, which means the closer the threat is all the more accurate and saturated the counter is going to be, effectively we could short a missiles guidance system with so much false data that they'll cease to function and crash into the sea.
If that isn't money saving measures at their finest, I don't know what is.
Liam Spruce thank you for the information you can share. In summary, the countermeasures that are not so obvious will play an important part complementing the hard kill option for the CSG. I do recall in the Falklands that chaff proved effective in a number of instances in seducing missiles away from fleet units.
Thanks
Excellent comments.
Great video Jeff. I watched most of it live last night. I hope the RAF/RN opts for the AEW Osprey. They need it! The Merlin helicopter limits the ships airwing ablity.
Thanks Gerry! God bless you my friend! I was hoping you would stop by. I placed it on SD this morning and pinged you to it. As always, God bless you and yours my friend...and as always, thanks for your service too along with fellows like pawpawtx. You should get to know him. You guys would be great friends. Fair winds and a following Sea!
this is a great video thank you for explaining things about these different types of ships. great models also very detailed thank you
Damn thats impressive Jeff, i want it so bad
Great vid, and I totally agree with your assessment with regards the missile load out. I live close to Rosyth where the carriers were assembled, so am lucky enough to have seen both of them. Just one point, the Duke class is a type 23 frigate ( I have been fortunate enough to have been aboard HMS Montrose ) the type 22 was I believe the broadsword class
You are completely correct. Type 22 was my mistake. I have actually been on a Type 23 Duke class, and know them well. I was amazed to see them winch a Merlin in that hanger. Ido name them correctly in the description. Sorry for making such a "dumb" mistake. Fit with barely inches to spare...but fit it did. And that's a good thing. A Merlin is a GREAT AEW helo, probably among the best out there, though a CV-22 ASW Osprey would compete well with it. The two Seahawks is the US solution and it is as good a solution, but requires both helos. That way, we can keep a helo on any sub contact at all times without having to leave to either refuel or reload. The two helos shuttle one after the other until they put the enemy contact they have found down. A Merlin may well have plenty of fuel and ordinance to do the same...but a good CO on the sub might be able to save themselves until they had to refuel, in which case either another ship would have to send the 2nd helo, or they will lose the contact. All of the US Burke class (and that's about 70 ships now) nd the 22 Ticos all have two Sea Hawks...and the LCS and FFGs are capable of carrying two as well. Thanks for your service mate...God's speed to you and yours and a merry Christmas, as well as fair winds and a following sea.
My uncle served on 2 type 22 frigates Cornwall and Campbelltown and the type 23 frigate Grafton F80
Wow! A first class job!
It is a shame the configuration isn’t catobar but I do think conventional power vs nuclear power was the way to go for the Royal Navy’s budget. The ship has been designed so that it can be converted to catobar with relative ease but that would involve sourcing a steam generator as it doesn’t have the steam byproduct of nuclear propulsion. Which is going to cost a fair penny. I personally hope they covert it to use the electromagnetic catapults.
What are your takes on the QEC design ? Such as the dual towers as opposed to the traditional single tower. Something that will come and go ? or an idea that will evolve to be the new standards for a carrier?
Glad to see you got hold of the POW model !, the big gap in your previous video needed filling and it certainly does that!
Like most new technologies I believe everyone says its just a fad to begin with, it happened with the Mark IV Tanks, it happened with the first ever carrier, the dreadnoughts, machine guns and the plane, so when people say two bridge towers is just a fad it is almost a bloody guarantee that it'll become the new standard, history has proven this time and again, after all most if not all of those examples I gave are British, so I say double the odds at least.
Liam, the piping and machinery necessary for steam catapults is VERY extensive. If they hd put all of that in there to make it easy to convert, then they would have spent enough to just go ahead and make it full CATOBAR. I do not believe for a minute that they did. I do believe they had to do a significant redesign, nd that was costly. Costly enough that they ended up spending almost as much as the full CATOBAR would have cost...but they would have had to spend more for the resulting air wing...but that would have nmade the carriers even stronger, articularly with the E-2D Hawkeye which would have solved one of the biggest problems nd threats that they now have with thiese STOBAR carriers. Anyhow, as it is, these can still be great carriers...they will need something like the EV-22 AEW aircraft, and there id nothing else out there that brings that type of capability to VTOL operations. They also REALLY need to get some ships...maybe buy or build either the older four Tico cruisers and retrofit the VLS onto them, or better yet, work with Lockheed and S. Korea to build two KDX-III Se Jong destroyers which carry 160 missiles. One each for each carrier would double the number of missiles they had available to defend the carrier. Maybe not enough, but twice what they have.
Jeff Head I think I must of caught one of the headlines from an old article, that does indeed sound like a lot of work. Completely agree on the MV-22, I know they started looking into getting them but I imagine budget cuts were to factor. We definitely need more hulls, I’d put two more type 45 hulls out but double all the VLS cells for the 45s. Maybe working intercoolers this time but I don’t want to be greedy. Add on 4 more hulls for type 26 and keep to the 13 type 31e ‘s and we might have a carrier strike group we can actually support. How do the sortie rates compare for the QEC to a Nimitz or Ford Jeff? Can’t find much info on it.
Liam Spruce I have to agree Luke, my first thought after understanding the purpose of the dual islands was “why has no one done this yet ?”
Maaan, that setup is freaking awesome 👍
Thanks. I am going to soon make a vdeo of all of my models. Have to do some house cleaning first. I have a total of 68 1/350 ships, 15 1/700 ships, and 51 1/72 aircraft. Also have one 1/192 scale ship...an all wood USS Constitution..."Old Ironsides".
I served on T45 Ships 2 and 4. Our first war simulation...we expended the entire armenant before lunch! The MFR is is an absolute killer and is second to none though. We just don't have enough of what we have. There are great multi role and ASW platforms like Type 23 as you show here, but again there are not many of them, same with T45 and will be the same with T26 (I work on this program), and T31e. The Artisan radar that QE and T23 has is very very good also. We just lack quantity to go with the quality. Apparently we when worked with the US, their subs look for a 'hole in the water' when hunting a T23. The Astutes are soooooo good as well, but like you say, there are not many of them.
Thanks, ans especially for your service. I pray we never need them for a major engagement. In the end it would be a disaster for the power that attempted it...but we would have to be so very careful and make sure NONE f the large ships are over exposed. I believe currently that the RN would have to pair with a Nimitz and its escorts if venturing into the hot zone. Wth 2 Ticos, 3 Burkes, two of the new USN Frigates and then the two T45s and twp &26s, altogether they would be able to defend two carriers US and UK quite capabaly, particularly with a couple of E-2D aloft, one near the group and the other out on the major threat axis.
@@JeffHead-IdahoUSA Hi Jeff. I agree. Against major combatants we may need to operate alongside a Nimitz or a Ford. The two groups would definitely compliment each other. Imagine that power to strike and project with a QE and US carrier...plus the group protecting them, and then the assets striking ashore from under the sea with TLAM! I think unless it was a comparable force, of which there are not many, if any, not much could scare a group of that power, or would even try. Launching combined 60-100 jets (one of them being gen 5!) and helos, plus the Prowlers, Hawkeyes and the Osprey, would be a devastating projection of power! Plus the shore bombardment capability from the battle group 5 inchers, shoving harpoons down the funnels of other surface ships and the T23s mopping up the submarine threat, it sounds pretty beefy!
The RN is squared away. In my engineering career, when working on defense projects, I had an opportunity a couple of times to work with them. My friends in the US Navy say the same thing. I just fear if there ever is a true near peer conflict...and we cannot ever rule that out, we have to be ready for it...then these carriers with a stronger AEW aircraft, and without enough missiles on those escorts are going to be very vulnerable. I am very grateful that the F-35 is working out so well. We had a President who stopped the F-22 program before they even built half of them. We were going to build 400 to 500 and ended up with 193. That was Obama. They said the Chinese wouldn't even have a prototype until 2025...then the next year they rolled out their first prototype. No matter how much better the quality ios...and there is no other aircraft on earth that can take on the F-22 in air dominance...the old saying that quantity has a quality all its own is true. If the Chinese build 800 of their J-20s, and we only have 185 F-22s to bring to the party, we will be in trouble. But the F-35 is better than the J-20 too, and is doing very good even against the F-22. its abilities in the information technologies, its stealth, and the maneuverability it has brings it real close...and we are going to build about 1,500 of the US Air Force version, 400 of the US Nay version, and 400 of the US MArine version...so 2,300 of them, and our allies are going to buy well over 1,000 more. In fact, I think they will end up buying more and we may too. I predict right now it will be the most prolific and most built 5th generation stealth aircraft in the world...and we may build more of them than we did of the F-16 and that would be just fine. You have to keep your defense up whenever there are despots and bullies around. If you don;t, sooner or later they will try and put you down. I am glad we have the UK as our great ally...I just wish your people would demand that the pols build more of what you may need. Thank God there was a Churchill back in the late 1930s and throughout WW 2. I fear that the Chamberlain syndrome has taken far too deep a root there now.
@@vxrdrummer + Makes little or no sense to have our carriers with a US strike group in a time of war, the hole point is to have multi groups active, not at in the same area of sea. They don't compliment each other at all, look at the range of the F-35b to the F-18.
Great POW carrier model and good video thanks
THank you for the very kind words and taking the time to watc her.
I wish there was a way to send the heads of the Royal Navy your video to address the sub par defense.
Merry Christmas Jeff and thank you for your work and videos.
I believe the Royal Navy are aware of the defensive issues, but it all comes down to cost. I'm certain that if a major global conflict broke out (where money is no longer an issue), the carriers would be refitted to address the defensive problems.
@@dean1039 This would need to be done in advance. The RN needs about 20 years to prepare for a full scale war (by building new escorts etc as the current fleet would be inedequate.)
I agree with you not enough anti-air missiles in the battlegroup
It's called a Carrier Strike Group 👍
Great model thank you for the video I am from the UK and I think its great we now have these two aircraft carriers and glad we chose the F35 type similar to to the harrier aircraft we had 10 years ago. We learned in the Falklands war you needed to turn to aircraft around quickly when at war that why the aircraft lifts are to the side of the ship and using the short take and landing is quicker when you need to get aircraft into the air quicker. I think it's a pity that France cancelled their one of the type and its a pity the CV01's were cancelled by the Labour Gov in the 1960's as with the F 1-11's and TSR2 aircraft. Did you build these models or just buy them in ?? Thank you.
Thank you Richard, we are glad to have our English cousins now, once again, able to form dual carrier strike forces with us, with the very capable (albeit smaller in number than we would have hoped). I would like to point out that a carrier of this size, if she had an angled deck and four catapults would be able to launch entire large sorties and air task forces than any carrier using a ski-jump. Do not get me wrong, I would much rather see the RN with to of these STOBAR carriers than no carriers. But four catapult each launching an aircraft in sequence and able to launch from all four cats will put out launching one every few seconds until the entire force is in the air in a very few minutes. Anyhow, God bless you and your country for putting these very worthy and capable vessels and task forces out, and I surely hope they are both maintained for operation, using regular maintenance periods, as opposed to holding one in a basically deactivated state for several years and really having only one available unless the ballons really go up. VEssels and rews need training and regular operations to be at the top of their game.
Fantastic video. 👍
I love the video. I have been on both carriers and in an F-35 B. The model is really realistic and I think the carrier strike group is good. I think there are some more ships you need to add like the Tide class RFA and a RFA replacement ship. You got the Type 22 wrong it is the type 23 Iron Duke class. But great video.
I agree but there are no 1/350 scale models available for those other models. Also I did correct the mistake in the comments about the Type 22 and Type 23.
Hi Jeff, love the build mate. If Airfix never release their 1/350 kit (sure they will not) then you have one of the two kits of this class. Cheers 🇦🇺
If Air Fix releases a 1/350th scale, I will own both carriers...sadly, this one is a little out of scale and would be a bit larger...but I still would get both and an entire group to escort it.
Wow, that's pretty cool.
The Type 23 Frigates - if they have had the Mid Life Upgrade and carry Sea Ceptor, then the air defence radar atop the foremast is also changed out from 996 to Artisan
Very nice model, I live just down the road from where they built the HMS Prince of Wales
Woah nice did you see it?
@@Annonhshsh Yeah every other time I went to work it was extremely impressive
Very good video Jeff .......hope yer doing good. Merry Christmas Sir.
Thank uyou my friend. I am so glad I got this ship. Condition continues to deteriorate. Slowly though and so the good Lord keeps me here according to His will...and I am perfectly fine with that, His will. Thanks bro...we've been friends for well over 20 years now and I thank you for that and am glad you have been able to meet my better 3/4ths and a couple of the kids. We recently had our 15th grandchild! Have 8 boys and 7 girls now.
@@JeffHead-IdahoUSA You a good man indeed ..... Very lucky to know and watch you set the standards for others to follow ...... grateful
All that is missing is the two royal Fleet auxiliaries that are part of the strike group
Definitely agree about the missile defence, but hopefully the new Type 26 Frigates & Type 83 Destroyers when they are commissioned will go a long way to address this issue, Beautiful work on the model 😁👍
This is awsome.
Why do the type 45s have so little missles to compare to the Arleigh Burke? However i was watching a captain who is on a daring class type 45 and he said that they can knock out aircraft without even firing a missle. That could compensate for having less missle. The type 45s are more advanced than the Arleigh Burke.
The 45sa are newer and do have some advancements, but the US constantly upgrades the vessels (BUrkes and Ticonderogas). The US has so many because the threat continues to increase and the US wants to make sure it has more than enough for an all out attack by the Chinese (or anyone else). In a very high threat area and in war time (Like the SCS), you will see an American carrier strike group with one or two carriers, two Tico cruisers, four Bukes and four of the new FFG(X). See my video on the new FFG-80, the 1st FFG(X) which will start building next year and be commissioned in 2023, as the second one is launched.
@@JeffHead-IdahoUSA The Royal Navy continually upgrade there equipment also. I agree america does need to keep with with numbers and its tech in this uncertain world. The British government doesnt put enough energy in having larger numbers for the Royal Navy. Britain the 5th richest nation in the world, i dont believe we cant afford it. We can, we have the money, the government put it in the wrong place's
hi jeff head do the royal air force use the nv 22 osprey
with the Sea Ceptor on the Type 23 they fit 4 missiles to a tube, so 128 missiles per Type 23. So 2x Type 23 gives 256 missiles, before we even touch on the Daring class or the carrier aircraft
N
+ Not sure where you got that info from, but no so mucker, Sea Ceptor is longer than Sea Wolf, so is a one for one replacement 32 missiles.
@@henryvagincourt4502 It was reported in Aviation Weekly ages ago but I cant find it now. Image in this article suggests it would be quad packed in Mk 41 but can't now find reference to the Type 23's setup so perhaps the idea was dropped. (www.naval-technology.com/projects/sea-ceptor-missile-system/) Also, its to do with width not length...
I wonder why QE is so gigantic. You explained in the other video that it is 1/300 makes sense. I would really like to see a 1/350 QE alone side Nimitz or G. R. Ford next time!
Good video and good points on the carrier's self defence outfit. The destroyers are dedicated anti air vessels the only anti sub capability is with the single helicopter. I love the historic RN but the last 60 years they build generally good warships and then under arm them, the lessons from the Falklands should have jolted their 'logic'.
Thank you, and agree 100%, though with the bow-mounted medium-frequency Ultra/EDO MFS-7000 sonar, and especially the Merlin helicopter embarked, they have a credible ASW capability, though the RN will have to depend more on the Type 36 Global Combat hip (as they do now on the Duke class Type 23 FFGs) for the most credible ASW capability for the carriers or other large task forces or convoys.
The ship will have martel missiles on the 30mm cannons the martel has a range of 5nmi at shot down missiles drones aircraft and sink sucidal attak craft it will be on all royal navy vessels with 30mm cannon mountings
The martel missile was an Anglo/French anti radiation missile used by the RAF on Buccaneer and Jaguar aircraft. You are thinking of the martlet surface to surface missile for the RN it will be used on the wildcat helicopter and has been tested on HMS Sutherland as a point defence surface to surface missile. The army will use the marlet as a surface to air short range missile. If the carriers were to have surface to air missiles it would be sea ceptor, though there are no current plans to install them.
Would be interested to know where you got the aircraft kit from as I’m from the uk and am looking to build a uk fleet
Also if I was hunting a carrier group I wouldn’t only engage the carrier fleet by air. I’d also have destroyers engaging the escorts @ the same time. So trying defend of another fleet whilst air wings are attacking. The RN ain’t surviving.
The Type 45 is the best air defense destroyer in the world so good luck with that air attack
Amigo Jeff. Tienes un trabajo hecho muy bueno y te felicito. No sé si te pregunte pero, Cuanto tiempo te llevo armar esos buques? y, si tienes planes llevarlos a concursos?
Well, thank you very much for your kind words...they are very much appreciated. The destroyers and frigates take a total of 2-4 weeks depending on how much time I can spend each day or week on them. The carriers, if I build out the hanger deck and put lighting systems on them, can take 6-10 months, again depending on the time I have. I have not thought of putting them in shows, but certainly could. However, I have terminal bone cancer, and probably will not be able to do so. I prefer putting them out on my youtube channel. God's best to you and yours my friend.
Dear sir, I very much agree with your comments about the shortcomings of the RN CSG in the Anti-Air Missile systems.
Pride tends to come before a fall... Why the RN does not seek the assistance of the USN from the Arleigh-Burke destroyers (92/96 AAMs). I do not know...
They're superb! 👌
(from a son and grandson of WW1 and WW2 veterans)
I think originally our carriers were designed & intended to deploy in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, not the indo Pacific. But world events are changing the playing field, and we are not quite ready for it, doing the best we can though, hopefully in a decade we will have the newer & even more capable Type 26 Frigates & some of the Type 83 Destroyers ready for strike group duties 🤞😁👍
royal navy have just confirm that all 6 type 45 will get a major fire control software and hardware and upgraded missile with extra 24 more missile each before 2030 so the csg will get another 48 extra missiles.
The Imperial Japanese Navy sank the last HMS Prince of Wales in WWII. Interesting that a Japanese SH-60 is visiting.
Yes, well that was almost 80 years ago, and the jmsdf is a rel close lly now, and very capable themselves. They will soon have two carriers of their own (converting the two izumo class). Each of those will carry 24-32 F-35Bs and they will be a CSG to reckon with. With the F-35B, like you are getting in the UK for the carrier, they will be able to credibly threaten the carriers China is building. The US is converting for LHD Wasp and LHA AMerica class, two ech to do the same, and the Koreans are converting their Dokdo class as well. So very quickly, in the Pacific, we will have an additional six aircraft carrier, with a 5th generation stealth aircraft wing each, before the CHinese finish their third carrier. My guess is, that of the Chinese finish the 3rd and then proceed with more, which is a strong presumption, we will see the Japanese build a larger class carrier, and probably build two of them.
Still think was an odd name choice in view that history etc. Should have been Ark Royal (VI)
Very nice Nice model ....But the QE carriers also carry 4x30mm semi auto cannon as well as the phalanx? Also i read somewhere that U.S Arleigh - Burke class destroyers as a matter of procedure fire two missiles at a single target . The RN just fires one missile as it has a superior AESA radar missile combination compared to an Arleigh -Burke flight 1/2 radar thus halving its advantage to exactly the same as as type 45 at 48 intercepts. In addition to this An Arleigh - Burke routinely only carries 64 surface to air missiles out of the 96 loadout available . The balance of 32 being made up with anti surface and anti submarine missiles. The type 45 is not well equipped with the latter two systems as it was designed from the outset as a dedicated anti aircraft/missile escort. It can track and engage 32 targets simultaneously. The current Arleigh Burke SPY1-D radar cannot achieve this performance which is considered the benchmark of dealing with a saturation attack. The flight 3 AMDR radar may redress this balance though. When the type 45s are re -equipped with the CAMM sea-ceptor they will fit x4 in each of the present launchers giving a potential loadout of 192 missiles . If a flight 3 loads out its 64 launchers with x4 enhanced sea sparrow then it has a capacity for 256 intercepts regaining the advantage ....Assuming they only fire one missile per target !. Agreed the QE class should have its own dedicated missile defence such as the RAM you modelled. At best in the near future can see it getting the short range martlet missile, possibly x5 missiles attached to the 30mm cannon mounts which have already been test fired from a type 23 frigate.
The AB does generally fire two, depending on the threat...but when you are dealing with ship killers, it is best to be sure and not sorry. In addition, the number of missiles they carry and what types will depend on their mission. If they think they will need more AAMs they will carry them, and in a high threat environment to the carrier, that is something they will do. Typically, in high threat there will be three Burkes, one Tico, and two FFGs, and the new FFGs will be carrying more AAMs too. The RN will have two Type 24s and two Type 31s or Type 26s. This makes clear the issue...and the real, even bigger issue is the range of their AEW. The missiles they are going to want to intercept have a longer range than the AEW...meaning it is not likely they will intercept the aircraft, before they shoot. With the US, there is a much greater chance that they will, and then however many missiles are launched will have to run the gauntlet of passive and active ECM, and then and then probably over 400 missiles available...not including the Closie in RANs, carrier ESSNs, and the Phalanx. And in the not too distant future you can add lasers and rail guns to that inner ring too. I just with the RN had the Advanced E-2D Hawkeye, and enough Darings to go around to always have three of them with their carrier, along with three each of either the 31s or 26s. Time will tell. As it is, the US Navy will welcome them heartily as allies and friends on any joint operations.
@@JeffHead-IdahoUSA Given the continuous advancements in missile/radar technology much of what we have both said in fact becomes a mute point probably sooner rater than later . Here in the UK there is already half an eye being cast on T45s replacement , that possibly being a dedicated T26 air defence variant. Missile type and loadouts are going to change considerably over the next few years. We have an ingrained malpractice in the UK of "fitted for, not fitted with" due to cost constraints and defence cuts some of our major surface units have been woefully under armed over the years . Agree the T23s though probably represent the best all round capability in one hull we currently possess. The River class OPVs being the absolute worst case example of under arming . A 2000 ton vessel , in effect corvette sized hull armed with 1x 30mm cannon and various small arms . The RN seems happy just to get hulls in the water to keep the perceived fleet size up whilst ignoring the capabilities of the vessel itself. Operational experience in the Falklands taught us the value of shooting down a threat rather than decoying it (onto another target ) which led to the development of the T45 with its missile radar combination which I have to trust does what it says on the tin. A friend of mine in the Royal Artillery on exercise with US forces told me once his battery of 105s was tasked to take out a building on a range ...3 well placed rounds and the target was destroyed . The U.S battery took out the whole field to achieve the same goal . Both approaches you can argue have their own merit! ......The UK dropped the ball years ago when it withdrew from carrier operations maybe due to focusing to much inwardly on European / NATO affairs. We have hopefully largely unshackled ourselves from that situation and will now look outwards as a blue water navy again, and rejoin our U.S brothers in policing the world oceans and trade . We have so much catching up to do and I know our sailors and airmen have been working hand in hand with their U.S counterparts in exchange and combined operations for years . I absolutely agree though with your overall assessment of the RN carrier group as is . Sending a UK carrier strike group to the South China sea A/O circa 2021 makes me nervous with the current RN missile loadout ( in terms of numbers) and the lack of effective AEW which as you have outlined is the groups major achilles heel. I would imagine though for political and prestige reasons the UK has to demonstrate it can muster a fully capable strike group with its own ships and resources. The reality is I would imagine, and hope that given such a deployment a couple of U.S A-Bs would also accompany your suggested carrier group along with an America class AAS which would round out the groups capability nicely so the QE carrier can then focus its airwing on fixed wing capability rather than using capacity for various rotary operations. I'm not sure that we would see the proposed T31 attached to the group in far flung blue water operations as it is being designed more for low end operations such as drug interdiction etc etc . More T26 capability specific hulls are what we need Either way whatever is deployed im absolutely sure we will have each others backs as always .
It depend on what mission they take on as to the loadout. In a pure escort the carrier role, they will have a much larger percentage of Standard missiles for AAW. The US will not launch two missiles every time at an incoming. The E-2D will usually give them targets that allow them to see if the 1st missile is a hit. They can also set the AEGIS system up to make the decision based on certain parameters. The Type 45 will do the same type of thing. But if the missile is close enough in where there will not be time for a second shot, the US wil fire to, then comes the ESSM missile (again depending on range) then the RAM< and finally the CIWS. WHich allows the US to have a defense in depth with four weapons system t support it. As I have said, though I believe the carriers could have been better outfitted to be CATOBAR with the angled deck and the CT, and particularly the Hawkeye, I would far rather have the two STOBAR QEs, then no QE. ANd I know the RN will be squared away with whatever they bring, and we will be glad to see them.
I'm British English and I totally agree. But with what's been going on here in the UK due to funding and people signing up. We're good, but not as powerful as we use to be. The only bad thing I would say is (even though I love your models here) you put to many aircrafts on the Dock lol.
1/350 的女王确实不错，如果有厂家出品一定好好做一艘。
Would 4 destroyers and 1 frigate make a difference?
Yes, depending on the vessels it could help...but unless it was with US group, it would not be enough.. Because with a US carrier you would probably, in a high threat situation have 2 x Tics cruisers, those two carrying 250 missiles, three Burke class, those three carrying 300 missiles, and 2-3 of the new FFGs those carrying another 100, and then the carrier itself has about 100. That's about 750 missiles and that would be enough for the US carrier. You add the POW or the QE and you end up with another 200-250 and so for the two carrier group you have about 1000 missiles. And with the E-2D it is a very good chance that you will see a good bunch of those attackers and intercept them before they ever get to shoot. Which is very possible with the E-2D and the EV-22 as well. Remember the F-35s too...they will be able to seamlessly communicate with any E-2D, EV-22, P-8, MQ-4C or other US or allied aircraft and ships and network it all into one vast battle space that all F-35s see and take advantage of and heightens the likelihood of an intercept. But the RN alone could never get enough missiles alone. Even four Type 45s and four Type 26 FFGs (meaning eight escorts which the RN will never do) would still only being about 320 missiles tubes, 192 from the Darings. A US group with one Ticonderoga and three Burkes (which is the peace time escort) along with the frigates and the carrier itself would have over 500 missiles. If we put in a heavy load of two Ticos and four Burkes and four Frigates for a high intensity situation, that heavy war time load would have almost 850 missiles, which would be enough to take on regiments of attackers, especially with the very long range AEW the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye gives a US carrier group.
If you have added thing that are not there ! Then this is not correct !!
Hi, if you parked your carrier next to the Chinese coats you would be right on the lack of missiles. Even a US carrier would struggle. The Type 23s carry 36 not 32 missiles. The uSN have bigger magazines and they need them because the USN Fire 2 missiles per missile target. So you can halve the 96 on a us destroyer. So the US destroyer has effectively the same number as a Type 45.
The type 26 will have 48 missiles.
If the UK did go to war we would send more ships then the small group on your table. There might be up to 4 type 45s, 4 or 5 type 23/26. We would not park our carrier in range of Chinese land based fighters - nor would a US commander.
On the matter of radar coverage. The Type 45s have a very long range radar coverage. The other ships in the fleet add to the radar picture as does the F35s. The AEW Merlins cover the over the horizon gap so that Sea Viper can engauge sea skimmers Below tge radar horizon.
The type 45 could be fitted with at least 12 extra cells for anti-air missiles. Also the class could also be fitted to us Sea Ceptor - I think it is 3 per cell like the ESSM.
So there are ways of upping the missile count if required. If the UK carrier was fitted with a missile system it would be Sea Ceptor not Sea RAM. Sea Ceptor is a much more capable missile - longer range and more accurate. In an emergency the land based Sky Sabre (land Sea Ceptor), could be mounted onto the ship...
While I agree it would be better to have more weapons and platforms unfortunately the politicians do not see defence as a vote winner so will always be stingy.
Good video though. You might wish to add a Tide class support ship to your fleet.
I have a small scale RN task force at home with 5 type 23s, 3 type 45, 1 Tide class tanker and 2 SSNs..
The US launches one missile, then follows it up with a second if they need it. They usually do not automatically launch two missiles. They will have the time to do so too because the E2-D Advanced Hawkeye has such a long detection range. The Merlin will only give the UK about time to launch one, then it will come down to CIWS. The US will get two shots and then the CIWS, which the US Navy on its carriers and resorts has more of too. DO not get me wrong, I am very happy that the RN now has two large and effective carriers available, and I hope they keep both available and rotate both through maintenance. If the balloons go up in a big way, the US and UK will probably pair carriers anyway, which will help both nations a lot.
Agree with your analysis, but there is no votes in defence in the UK.
Unfortunately.
There is no such thing as "THE" HMS PRINCE OF WALES !! IT IS JUST HMS PRINCE OF WALES !! ALSO THERE WILL NOT BE 2 ASTUTE CLASS SSNs
Fantastic models. Great hearing your input from the US and how the UK government is cutting corners with their missile defense. It wouldn't have a hope in the south China Sea without US escorts.
The type 45 has room for 64 missiles.
Its merely an over sized amphibious assault carrier - the RN hate it! But in saying that - thanks for building these models Mr Head, we in England appreciate the detail and effort you have put into these models and look forward to your future builds and very informative videos. Thanks again :)
Sufian Ansari
+ I'm sure you know the Royal Navy hate it, (bull) mucker.
@@henryvagincourt4502 they do! Just read an article by Nigel "Sharkey" Ward on the subject matter. The RN will like good sailors make do and perform but they wish they also wish they could have more say on matters as well
@@sufianansari4923 + Ex F126 (Falklands) F70, D89, Armilla and Gulf War myself mucker, I'd try joining up and doing abit, and reading a little less. The Navy are short on people.
@@henryvagincourt4502 Type 42's? Well as you were a professional sailor and rating in the RN let me ask you something please. Do you feel the government has funded and allowed it self to equip itself in order to comply with its mission statement? thanks
@@sufianansari4923 + My last ship was a type 42, simple answer "no" we are dreadfully short of escorts, no Harpoon replacement in sight, type 26/31 years off, type 23's with holes in there decks, shocking state of affairs.