Skeleton crew

File: CATOBAR-STOVL.jpg (80KB, 960x568px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 960x568px

>>31173285
More than the standard crew of the QE class (679).

You can't skeleton crew nuclear reactors.

>>31173285
Does the skeleton crew haw a skeleton key?

>>31173356
I'm really hoping we get some decent videos/documentaries about the Queen Elizabeth class automation.
I've only heard a little about it but apparently the space where it takes place is about the size of a frigate and it's like watching an automated factory in motion

>>31173459

The space of two frigates actually. Pretty crazy, imagine two frigate sized space entirely sealed off behind armoured bulkheads.

There's a lad who posts here, that's actually been on a tour of the QE. Want me to find his post series for you?

>>31173490
Yea, I'd like a read. I wonder if it's the same guy who posts on reddits /r/warshipporn
/u/ruperthackedmyphone
If you troll through his posting history he has tonnes to say about her as well as some great pictures since he works there.

>>31173490
>Pretty crazy, imagine two frigate sized space entirely sealed off behind armoured bulkheads.
Its called a hangar, most carriers have them.

File: 1404607543159.jpg (49KB, 599x499px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 599x499px

>>31173529

https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/29931241/#29935454

There's one or two older threads with him, just search the term "HMWHS" and you'll find his posts.

>>31173534

I'm not talking about the hanger, I'm talking about the HMWHS.

File: HMWHS.jpg (76KB, 736x612px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 736x612px

>>31173459

HMWS is massive, and it will work in all sea conditions. You tell the system what weapons you want and how they are to be fused and after a few minutes, they appear on deck ready for the flight crew to load. The whole process is faster than refueling the jet.

QE is all about maximising sortie rate not maximising the number of aircraft carried. You could go for an old fashioned weapons handling system and probably squeeze another 20 - 30 planes in.

But very early on the RN picked 36 jets as the optimum between large alpha strike and efficient long-term operations. Since then the whole planning process has been about getting ships on and off deck ASAP - something CATOBAR would have hampered.

>>31173561
I actually was the OP of that thread, that's where I heard about the hangers I think.

smaller crew and automation means more luxury on a naval ship no?

Hows the galley?


Its funny how Chinas galley on their aircraft carrier has those paintings and aesthetics of a chinese buffet.

>>31173646
Luxuary has always been pretty good on British ships and carriers compared to elsewhere.
I remember reading about how the US Marines loved being onboard illustrious. Getting a drink, getting a proper bar that serves french fries and an easier take off for their harriers to boot.
They are even carpeted (although there taken up when going into combat)

>>31173646

I'm not chef, but it looks pretty spacious for a warship.

https://youtu.be/kYJiHfdcucE?t=56s

>>31173375
Yes.

>>31173605
People give the bongs shit for having a ramp but that is cool as fuck, is the Gerald-Ford getting anything like that?

>>31173936

Not as current, but I'm sure something down the line will come.

>>31173936
It doesn't have a warehouse-style system, just alot of streamlining they learned from lessons on the Nimitz class. I think the general assumption is supposed to be an increase of ~40 sorties a day over the Nimitz, partly because of the streamlining and partly thanks to EMALS and AAG.

>>31173285

define 'operate'

File: nimitz-ops04.jpg (238KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1500x1000px

So carrier thread. What's the appropriate amount of self-defense capability a Carrier should possess? Most nation's carriers seem to be in the range of 2-4 gun-based CIWS and 40-80 anti-air missiles. Then you have the Kuznetsov with an absurd 14 gun-based CIWS and ~200 missiles, and the QE which only carries 3 Phalanx systems to defend itself.

>>31174629

Nothing more or less than two or three CIWS(s), three or four 30mm/40mm guns and a 16 cell VLS (quadpacked).

>>31174629
Carrier should be apart of a battlegroup.

A carrier by itself is doin it wrong (lookin at you, russia)

In other words, minimal self defense.

>>31174545
Sail around, repair eventual damage (caused by time, not enemy action), and generally keep it in working order. We won't include launching and maintaining aircraft.

>>31174807
Surely there's nothing wrong with a carrier having it's own defense systems though. More missiles and illuminators increases the saturation limit.

>>31174991
Yes there is, you waste space you should be spending on aircraft.

>>31174991
>illuminators

Go back to the 20th century where you belong.

>>31174807
Russians due to lack of money use their hybrid cruiser carrier as a missille delivery system where the aircraft is really more for CAP.

File: Seagull torpedo.jpg (48KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 700x467px

>>31174807
Agree with this guy. Carriers shouldn't have to pull self defense. They are an offensive weapon. Besides specialization is better always.

Honestly 100 Sailors could do it if it's goal was to sail across the Atlantic.

>>31173285
Oh, dang. I was there for the big commissioning of that ship or whatever, in Norfolk (I believe it was).

Really nice day, except for the rain.

File: Minimum crew requirement.png (51KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x282px

>>31173285
1 i suppose

File: George_Washington_Carrier_Strike_Group.jpg (2MB, 2082x1474px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2082x1474px

>>31174629
>What's the appropriate amount of self-defense capability a Carrier should possess?

A CSG

File: HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_alongside_her_new_berth_large.jpg (58KB, 714x535px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 714x535px

>>31173936
The main reason behind having so much automation is to reduce crew size. USN doesn't have that issue but the Royal Navy is really struggling with recruitment.
It's actually one of the main reasons, behind cost, that they decided against nuclear and catapults. They just don't have the manpower to support them.
It's shocking to believe but the Royal Navy has at the moment many US coastguard sailors on loan to help them keep their ships running.
But with this automation the Queen Elizabeth only has a crew of about 670 (1300 when the airwing is embarked)

>>31179086
What is the reason behind this "manpower shortage" then? I've seen it in alot of arguments that western countries are having manpower shortages.

>>31174807
Imagine how many more carriers you could have if you didn't have to crew & field all these other subs or destroyers or cruisers

>>31179086
>It's shocking to believe but the Royal Navy has at the moment many US coastguard sailors on loan

Source? I refuse that my tax dollars be employed to maintain the redcoats afloat. I'm gonna mail my representative about it asap.

No taxation without representation, no coastguardation without queen elizabeth sucking my hairy cock and telling me how gratefull she is to have a ship named after her kept running by my fellow burgermates.

>>31179157
The US would have serious manpower shortages too if they weren't able to fill ships with non-whites

File: image.png (86KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 500x282px

>>31173285
Well one I suppose

>>31179157
Most of this is what I personally believe, so take it as you will.
In this country we do not have the same kind of hero worship that goes on in the states. Most people have the attitude of "fuck that" when it comes to the navy.
The military in america is in movies, tv shows all over the news and recruitment drives at schools on graduation. In the UK we have next to none of that, infact off the to of my head I think it's illegal for recruiters to target school leavers.

We have very few museum ships, nothing larger than a destroyer left over from ww2 and then only a handful. In America you can't go more than few hours drive without tripping over an awe inspiring Battleship.

Despite all this, the Royal Navy refuses to skimp on quality and the training process still has a fairly large fail rate as the Americans might know about, given that we train all your submarine captains using the infamous punisher course where if the candidate fails he can no longer serve on a submarine for the rest of his career.

Much is being done to change this however, huge pay incentives are inplace, last I heard, offering around £26,000 for Navy personnel to retrain as engineers.

File: image.jpg (20KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x360px

>>31176729
So the allegations that these ships are made to just hold as many planes and seamen as possible with no regards for safety are unfounded?

>>31179196
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=US+coastguard+serving+in+royal+navy

>Plan is to have 36 working in the south coast town by end of 2016

>>31179212
As long as the front doesn't fall off.

>>31173356
>679
Holy fuck thats fuckall!

>>31179423
USS Occurrence Border

>>31179257
>>31176729
>that fucking video

my sides are in low orbit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM

>>31179255
>given that we train all your submarine captains using the infamous punisher course where if the candidate fails he can no longer serve on a submarine for the rest of his career.

What do you reckon will happen to the cadet who crashed into that trawler?

>>31173356
I can't see why it should be any different than a normal ship, as long as it's not engaged in combat operations.

I'd say 7-9 guys, but then you would probably need to call some service technicians when you reach port.

>>31173285
1 I guess

>>31179943

Desk job attached to the RAF Regiment.

>>31179976
Need far more than that. Nuclear reactors are not something you can just park anywhere, many countries don't like them in poet and those that due insist on maximum security. Ive no idea about numbers but I imagine it's quite a lot (another reason Queen Elizabeth doesn't have nuclear reactors)

>>31179086

Eh, 36 engineers isn't something crazy.

>>31182001
36 more than we should have needed!
I'm all for exchange programs but this isn't a good sign of things to come.
The Royal Navy is shooting blanks!

>>31183714
The USN has P8 posideon crews made up entirely of RAF personal.

Exchange programs are not cost saving measures, nor are they to fill recruitment gaps.

>>31179157

Welp. Military career in most Euro countries isn't glamorous, or even well-paid. The best you get afterwards is a shitty job as a security guard, at best, and no one cares that you were "defending the country" ("against what" would be the common response).

Plus, the terrible state of most euro economies means that the focus is on cutting, cutting, cutting. You get pilots who can't fly, ships who have no ammo and no fuel, and programs built to throw away people from the service ('cause soldiers are expensive and "useless").

What a peculiar world we live in.

>>31183714
36 Personel is fucking nothing

>>31184138

What a dumb generalisation.

>>31183758
I mean, the Coast Guard one is. Admiral Zambellas himself said it was due to "manpower pressure".

The P8 is a different situation, the RAF is training on the aircraft in the US so they have the experience to run them when they buy them.

I don't think CG sailors serving on RN vessels is a bad thing exactly, but that and the P8 crews is not an equivalent situation.