Britannia rules the waves: Inside brand new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth

The Daily Mail ^ | 19 June 2014 | GAVIN MADELEY

[The KG9 Kid]

You think that someone would design and build a sub-launched strategic naval weapon that delivers forty individual measures of a half kilo of plastic explosive with the intention of sinking an aircraft carrier?

I suspect that you think one pound of RDX plastic explosive does quite a lot more damage than it really does.

In any case, this weapon system of yours would be a sub-launched missile bigger than a Tomahawk that delivers 40 pounds of explosive -- in forty separate packages that somehow all need to be independently controlled to the target by micro helicopters. Even 40 pounds of TNT delivered in a single lump isn't going to knock the license plate off an aircraft carrier.

You're describing a very unlikely weapon to even make it off the drawing board.

[allendale]

Remember given the optics of direct satellite observation, those drones can be directed to almost anywhere on a ship. A fully armed aircraft on the deck of a carrier hit by a drone carrying 300 grams of CD4 would create quite a conflagration. Until you prove that the concept is not feasible, if you are a navy planer, you are better off assuming that such a weapon system can and will be implemented. There are usually over 5,000 sailors on those carriers.

[The KG9 Kid]

I see, and thought about it before I responded of course, but my point is that you're proposing a multi-billion dollar naval weapons system that would ultimately deliver piddly amounts of explosives in one pound doses via a hobby shop toy.

I can't imagine anyone going for that.

Practically, I think that the damage caused by your imaginary weapons system would be less than randomly attacking the outer surfaces of an aircraft carrier with about a half-dozen common hand grenades; hardly even likely to abrade the paint or knock some rust off. Capital ships take far more structural damage than that on a daily basis just navigating the ocean in the normal course of duty in peacetime.

[tanknetter]

Not exactly. The ship is smaller than US carriers and its STOVL airwing lacks all sorts of important capabilities, including airborne electronic warfare/recce (EA-18G Growlers) and offensive airborne command and control (E-2 Hawkeyes. The RN’s current Sea King and projected furture Merlin AEW are mainly defensive in nature).

That having been said, the ships are better and more capable than the Invincibles and all the other STOVL/STOBAR carriers, and only slightly less capable than the French Charles deGaulle (when it actually works). They’ll work well operating independently in low to medium threat environments, and in conjunction with US CVNs in high threat ones.

[The KG9 Kid]

Perhaps we could run your idea by the ACME® Corporation? ;-)

[CodeToad]

They already are. Maneuverable ICSM/SLBM warheads made aircraft carriers obsolete decades ago. The Navy and Air Force simply had the Military Industrial Complex scare everyone into spending ridiculous money on it. Congresscritters of all kinds since 1945 have been on the take and voting for the spending to benefit their States.

[allendale]

LOL. Given the fact that the US Navy currently has two of the big blue water carriers in the narrow shallow waters of the heavily fortified Persian Gulf , for the sake of the 8-10,000 brave young American sailors on those ships, certainly hope you are correct about the amount of punishment those ships can absorb.