Posted on 12/24/2017 8:27:26 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Sounds like an easy fix.
Jeeze, they can’t even make the deck flat. Don’t tell me they are using EEOC types to build these things.
I have always wondered why we have so little on our carriers, they are huge, a few thousand tons for tripling the amount of AA would be nothing.
is this the same carrier suffering from a failed prop shaft seal ?
“...Don’t tell me they are using EEOC types to build these things....”
Naaa...they’r problably using some of those highly sophisticated, intelligent muzzies they’ve been importing the last few years. You know, odongo’s boys.... /s
Modifying a ship for a function it was inadequately designed for could be colossally expensive. I think the technology is here for a couple of dedicated, AI enhanced, swarm ships that would cruise very close to the Queen Elizabeth on both sides, bow and stern. These small ships would be cheap enough to just swap out if the technology changes beyond whatever defenses they already have installed. Networked in with the entire fleet’s defenses they’d have a heads-up for attacks that might otherwise be out of their radar envelope due to their small size. The AI feature would allow them to begin firing in the right vicinity even before they could, themselves, see the incoming missile.
Bear in mind; modern missiles maneuver when they get in range of the target. Therefore whatever retrofitted system used by the QE would need to be very robust. Missiles are generally moving faster than the mechanical slew rate and projectile travel time of any weapons system.
I remember seeing photos of WWII battleships and aircraft carriers.
As the war progressed and newer ships were built and older ones refitted, they added huge numbers of anti-aircraft guns.
Ping
What they should do is purchase an American vessel. Or at least use the American design.
> “Jeeze, they can’t even make the deck flat.”
That’s a skateboard ramp for recreation.
They’d sail on the wrong side of the ocean and have learn to use imperial measurements.
Perhaps its AA upgrade will be a laser-based defense.
We’re not too far from deploying that operationally.
Despite the additional number of guns what made them most effective was the proximity fuze.
Quite so. Just as an example, a pre-war Fletcher-class destroyer had AA armament of a quadruple 1.1" gun mount and 6 .50 caliber machine guns. By the end of the war, it also had as many as 10 40mm Bofors AA guns and a dozen 20mm autocannons.
The US now spends 3.3% of GDP on defense, about $600 billion, under Obama, woefully inadequate for treaty & other military commitments.
We should be at least 4% which is roughly $800 billion.
The world average defense spending is 2.2% of GDP and rising.
The Brits spend just 1.9% of their GDP on defense, circa $50 billion, a ludicrous number and if they refuse to match US spending percent, then the difference should be paid to the US treasury for the invaluable service of keeping their sorry hindquarters safe.
That’s why they lost HMS Sheffield in ‘82...
FWIW, the Iowa and South Dakota class battleships could put up almost 49,000 pounds of lead a minute. I am pretty sure that this figured on cyclic rates and not operational rates.
A late WW-II Gearing class destroyer could put up almost 20,000 pounds a minute.
Citation...http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_aa.htm
Regards
alfa6 ;>}
LOL!
Well, heck, she has no aircraft, so why waste an ASM on her?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.