timefactors watches
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 89

Thread: The Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier

  1. #1
    Master Webwatchmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Torquay, Devon. Great place to work and relax. Love flying and lots of great sea walks.
    Posts
    1,368

    The Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier

    A hugely expensive white elephant.
    I have to laugh. Described by the Russians as a 'Large convenient target'.
    I'd say so.
    You could probably hit it from Mars !!

    Brendan

  2. #2
    Yep, quite sure they will just leave it sat out there with a large target on it and no means to defend itself.

  3. #3
    Master Der Amf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    London
    Posts
    6,916
    Repeating unfriendly sneers designed to lower national morale doesn't seem very patriotic

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Der Amf View Post
    Repeating unfriendly sneers designed to lower national morale doesn't seem very patriotic
    Sorry, mine should have been in green font.

  5. #5
    Master snowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    7,908
    Just wait until we spend considerably more on nuclear submarines the Americans command...

    At least an aircraft carrier has plenty of practical uses...

    M

    Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    Master -Ally-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    4,472
    May God bless her and all who sail in her.

  7. #7
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Thame England
    Posts
    221
    Have we any aircraft for her?

  8. #8
    Grand Master Saint-Just's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ashford, Kent
    Posts
    12,316
    Quote Originally Posted by bwest76 View Post
    Have we any aircraft for her?
    Donít be ridiculous!
    Well, everybody in Casablanca has problems. Yours may work out.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by snowman View Post
    Just wait until we spend considerably more on nuclear submarines the Americans command...

    At least an aircraft carrier has plenty of practical uses...

    M

    Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
    We are already spending on the subs.

    Genuinely interested here, why do you think our subs are under US command or control?

  10. #10
    Master snowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    7,908
    Quote Originally Posted by scottbombedout View Post
    We are already spending on the subs.

    Genuinely interested here, why do you think our subs are under US command or control?
    I meant the replacements that are long overdue.

    M

    Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by snowman View Post
    I meant the replacements that are long overdue.

    M

    Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
    So you mean Dreadnought class will be under control of the US?

  12. #12
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    11,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Webwatchmaker View Post
    A hugely expensive white elephant.
    I have to laugh. Described by the Russians as a 'Large convenient target'.
    I'd say so.
    You could probably hit it from Mars !!

    Brendan

    Like every other carrier on the planet, that's why they're protected by carrier groups.

  13. #13
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Thame England
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by Saint-Just View Post
    Donít be ridiculous!
    Itís pointless anyway all the sailors are guarding Buckingham palace so whoís going to crew it?

    The armyís down to about 10 men and the RAFs sulking because they arenít the senior service.

    All in all things arenít looking so good.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by snowman View Post

    At least an aircraft carrier has plenty of practical uses...

    M

    Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
    Somewhere to temporarily park containers waiting to enter post Brexit Britain?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #15
    Master Webwatchmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Torquay, Devon. Great place to work and relax. Love flying and lots of great sea walks.
    Posts
    1,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Der Amf View Post
    Repeating unfriendly sneers designed to lower national morale doesn't seem very patriotic
    Come on !!!
    You gotta laugh !!
    Self depracation is a very British illness Der Amf !

    Brendan

  16. #16
    Grand Master SimonK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    15,851
    The captain of a US super carrier - maybe the Theodore Roosevelt, can't remember which one - did say he wondered why the Royal Navy had no carriers (after the decommissioning of the Ark Royal), as he reckoned if he, i.e. his ship, had been involved in the Falklands War it would have been over in a day.

  17. #17
    Built it, and am building the 2nd one now.
    Very high tech ship, much more advanced than any other carriers out there.

    I don't think we can afford it however.
    Government tried to cancel the 2nd one but it was too late.

    FYI Parts of the "Trident II" are being built in the same location, not seen anything of them though.

  18. #18
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire
    Posts
    3,310
    Quote Originally Posted by bwest76 View Post
    Have we any aircraft for her?
    We have 14 F-35Bs that could fly off her currently. Not many pilots yet though...

  19. #19
    Grand Master TheFlyingBanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bedfordshire and your back garden
    Posts
    12,775
    Quote Originally Posted by watchlovr View Post
    Built it, and am building the 2nd one now.
    Very high tech ship, much more advanced than any other carriers out there.

    .

    Donít the onboard systems run on Windows XP?

    Iím not joking here.
    So clever my foot fell off.

  20. #20
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southern Spain
    Posts
    19,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Der Amf View Post
    Repeating unfriendly sneers designed to lower national morale doesn't seem very patriotic
    Like patriotic is gůůd!!
    When the going gets tough, the DAF gets going.

  21. #21
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Posts
    935
    In reply to the first comment, interesting from the Russians who recently had a lot of publicity for sending their aircraft carrier through the Channel to the Med to project air power off the coast of Syria.

    The ship itself is superb, with a great aircraft coming to operate off it. The real question is do we need one in today's world? What are our armed forces for? Protection of the UK or a way to try and stay a 'world power' and maintain influence off the back of it?

    Similar question for Trident replacement.

  22. #22
    Master KavKav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Warwickshire.
    Posts
    5,607
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by -Ally- View Post
    May God bless her and all who sail in her.
    Exactly so!

  23. #23
    Not sure that we need it at all but my only observation on seeing it was "it's a bit smaller than the competition '. 😁

    Sent from my SM-G920F using TZ-UK mobile app

  24. #24
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    sussex uk
    Posts
    12,872
    Quote Originally Posted by -Ally- View Post
    May God bless her and all who sail in her.
    Indeed.

  25. #25
    May God bless her and all who sail in her
    ^^^First this.


    I once saw the Ark Royal and last year I spotted the Charles de Gaulle in Toulon. I was (and am) seriously impressed by the sight.

    When I was a little lad, my father took me to the wharf where the HMS Vengeance was transformed into the Brasilian Minas Gerais. On deck, they tested the steam-powered catapults. His workshop and crew had built the steam system: boilers, pipes, valves. They used truck chassis with a pontoon (floating device) were ejected from the deck into the harbour with the steam catapult. There were 5 or 6 of these pontoons on the deck or in the water at the same time. Not really high tech at the time but it made a life-long impression on me!


    Menno
    Last edited by thieuster; 8th December 2017 at 07:49.

  26. #26
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Thame England
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by -Ally- View Post
    May God bless her and all who sail in her.
    Yes agreed,That should have been my first reaction.

    I went to Malta this year, to visit the museums etc. looking into the Malta convoys.
    My grandfather helped form the convoys escorting the merchant ships to Gibraltar for the run in to Malta.
    My mother had found his Navy record when she moved house which helped me trace what he had done in WW2 and before.
    At one stage I ended up on a harbour tour with an old German couple who kept mentioning the war and the convoys.
    Last edited by bwest76; 8th December 2017 at 07:47.

  27. #27
    Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Penicuik, Midlothian, Scotland
    Posts
    3,077
    Quote Originally Posted by KavKav View Post
    Exactly so!

    Aye, my pals son is on that ship.

    maseman

  28. #28
    Grand Master TheFlyingBanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bedfordshire and your back garden
    Posts
    12,775
    I think it's a great shame we retired our Harriers and Sea Harriers - we could have had them ready to operate from the Queen Elizabeth right now rather than waiting years for aircraft to put on it.
    So clever my foot fell off.

  29. #29
    Master snowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    7,908
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingBanana View Post
    I think it's a great shame we retired our Harriers and Sea Harriers - we could have had them ready to operate from the Queen Elizabeth right now rather than waiting years for aircraft to put on it.
    As I understand it, this is no great surprise - The ship has just completed her sea trials and will then undertake operational trials with the aircraft before going into full service.

    It's not a case of simply building it and dumping a load of planes on board and off you go... Although I appreciate it would have been a shorter turnaround to use Sea Harriers, but they're 30 years out of date now and you would have to switch to newer planes some time.

    If this was the bearpit and I frequented said place, I'd ask wonder what the position of those denigrating the ship was to Brexit... but that (and the issue of how much control we have over 'our' nuclear weapons) is not for the G&D.

    Personally, I think it should be a source of national pride that we have a proper aircraft carrier again and can provide both military AND humanitarian support around the world more effectively - If we ever get into a shooting war with the Russians, I don't think aircraft carriers will be our big concern!

    M.
    Last edited by snowman; 8th December 2017 at 09:27.

  30. #30
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire
    Posts
    3,310
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingBanana View Post
    I think it's a great shame we retired our Harriers and Sea Harriers - we could have had them ready to operate from the Queen Elizabeth right now rather than waiting years for aircraft to put on it.
    Whilst it was an emotive decision to retire the Harriers, and remains so, in hindsight it was the right thing to do.

    If we hadnít done it then, weíd be looking to do it now. There was never a good time to retire such a much loved aircraft.

    I share the view of those questioning what exactly the carrier and its aircraft will be for, against the nature of the threats we will face going forward.

    With Chinaís Ďcyber armyí now exceeding the size of our regular army, you have to wonder how a carrier and some piloted aircraft will help...

    I see a role for it in terms of humanitarian assistance and as a floating sales platform though.

  31. #31
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    1,903
    Quote Originally Posted by paule23 View Post

    The ship itself is superb, with a great aircraft coming to operate off it. The real question is do we need one in today's world? What are our armed forces for? Protection of the UK or a way to try and stay a 'world power' and maintain influence off the back of it?

    Similar question for Trident replacement.
    I think the comment about the aircraft is open to debate and indeed has been debated at extreme length on this very forum. Unless you mean the Merlin which is pretty good I guess.

    Maybe if the French borrow the second ship (POW) and find a way to fly Rafales off her we might be able to borrow it back now and then.

  32. #32

    Red face

    I watched a news documentary a couple of years ago where they stated that the Polaris nuclear subs relied totally on American targeting technology and systems - i.e. without the Yanks, the cruise missiles would not be able to hit anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by scottbombedout View Post

    Genuinely interested here, why do you think our subs are under US command or control?

  33. #33
    Master snowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    7,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Padders View Post
    I think the comment about the aircraft is open to debate and indeed has been debated at extreme length on this very forum. Unless you mean the Merlin which is pretty good I guess.

    Maybe if the French borrow the second ship (POW) and find a way to fly Rafales off her we might be able to borrow it back now and then.
    Will they rename the POW, "La Belle Carla" if they do?

    M

  34. #34
    Bit short sighted to make it diesel powered isn't it? Maybe an upgrade to plug in hybrid will be required in a few years.

  35. #35
    Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,485
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Huertecilla View Post
    Like patriotic is gůůd!!

    Patriotism is not the same as nationalism. Seems nowadays that most people don't recognise that.

  36. #36
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Thame England
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingBanana View Post
    I think it's a great shame we retired our Harriers and Sea Harriers - we could have had them ready to operate from the Queen Elizabeth right now rather than waiting years for aircraft to put on it.

    The old adage dirty oils better than no oil comes to mind.

    I feel this country is now woefully under protected militarily.

    Edit spell checking the spell check.
    Last edited by bwest76; 8th December 2017 at 12:51.

  37. #37
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    1,903
    I know a couple of former Harrier pilots who were flying them to the end. They were basically unsafe (the planes not the pilots), the rate of attrition through failures was getting scary, they were just too old to be much use going forward (again the planes not the pilots). Militarily it would have been good to have kept them for another 10 years but at the rate of losing something like 1 a month to engine failure etc it wasn't a practical proposition unless you want to give all your pilots MB ties and bury a few. Hawks glide rather well and there have been cases of them being landed safely with a failed engine. That wasn't an option with the Harrier so it was bang out or die. The choice to voluntarily opt out of fleet air cover/attack capability for over 10 years was a poor one for sure but keeping the existing Harrier fleet going without massive investment wasn't really an option. The decision was made to spend the money for the future not the present. The pot has only got smaller since.
    Last edited by Padders; 8th December 2017 at 11:09.

  38. #38
    Grand Master TheFlyingBanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bedfordshire and your back garden
    Posts
    12,775
    Quote Originally Posted by bwest76 View Post
    The old adage dirty oils better than no oil comes to mind.

    I feel this country is now whofully under protected militarily.

    Would that be under the protection of Doctor Who?
    So clever my foot fell off.

  39. #39
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    11,882
    It gives us a decent capability, and once the F35s are up and running it should provide options for the future, especially in support of NATO operations and so on.

    What is needed though is the support for the carriers, so having working Type 45s, the type 26s being in place and so on.

  40. #40
    Capability for what? In an age of asymmetric warfare, this sort of expensive BS just ends up being a white elephant.

  41. #41
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Thame England
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by Padders View Post
    I know a couple of former Harrier pilots who were flying them to the end. They were basically unsafe (the planes not the pilots), the rate of attrition through failures was getting scary, they were just too old to be much use going forward (again the planes not the pilots). Militarily it would have been good to have kept them for another 10 years but at the rate of losing something like 1 a month to engine failure etc it wasn't a practical proposition unless you want to give all your pilots MB ties and bury a few. Hawks glide rather well and there have been cases of them being landed safely with a failed engine. That wasn't an option with the Harrier so it was bang out or die. The choice to voluntarily opt out of fleet air cover/attack capability for over 10 years was a poor one for sure but keeping the existing Harrier fleet going without massive investment wasn't really an option. The decision was made to spend the money for the future not the present. The pot has only got smaller since.
    Informative I didnít know that, it changes the whole story.

    So for 10 years we are hoping we wonít have any bother,have the conservatives looked at the world around them?
    The Falklands should have been enough of a warning,you canít predict everything and you donít know what forces or equipment you might need.

  42. #42
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Ruislip, UK
    Posts
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingBanana View Post
    Donít the onboard systems run on Windows XP?

    Iím not joking here.
    Not a problem:

    https://msofficeworks.co.uk/product/...BoCk7QQAvD_BwE

  43. #43
    Master snowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    7,908
    Quote Originally Posted by bwest76 View Post
    Informative I didnít know that, it changes the whole story.

    So for 10 years we are hoping we wonít have any bother,have the conservatives looked at the world around them?
    The Falklands should have been enough of a warning,you canít predict everything and you donít know what forces or equipment you might need.
    Mrs Thatcher : "What about the Ark Royal?"
    Defence Minister : "You scrapped it..."

    M.

  44. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by bwest76 View Post
    The old adage dirty oils better than no oil comes to mind.

    I feel this country is now woefully under protected militarily.

    Edit spell checking the spell check.
    I guess that depends on what you view as the threats.

  45. #45
    Although there is no doubt these aircraft carriers are impressive pieces of real estate and if you put to one side the issue of the aircraft and inevitable snagging issues, what I'd be concerned with is the serious lack of escort ships which will be needed wherever they sail. The Americans practically set sail with a mini armada whenever one of their own carriers set sail, so how are the QE carriers going to protect themselves from a serious adversary ?

    There are even rumblings that the marines will loose their amphipious assualt ships in the next round of defence cuts and the next generation of frigates have already had their numbers slashed. This is at a time when the Royal Navy don't even have enough surface ships to protect the UK coastline 24/7.

    I just have the feeling the priorites are all wrong having a big new shiney ship when what is needed are the more mundane bread and butter type destroyers and frigates.

  46. #46
    Master -Ally-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    4,472
    More ships would require more manpower.

    Without conscription it ainít going to happen.

  47. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by -Ally- View Post
    More ships would require more manpower.

    Without conscription it ain’t going to happen.
    I disagree with you on that point, there's currently a year long waiting list to join the navy and we're not talking WWI or WWII levels of manpower needed to crew a modern ship.

  48. #48
    Master -Ally-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    4,472
    Quote Originally Posted by zippy View Post
    I disagree with you on that point, there's currently a year long waiting list to join the navy and we're not talking WWI or WWII levels of manpower needed to crew a modern ship.
    For what roles are there year waiting lists ? Source ?

    They are offering £27k joining bonuses because they are so desperate for semi-educated people.

  49. #49
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    1,903
    There hasn't been conscription since the 50s and yet in the 60s and even 70s the Navy ran multiples of the number of ships we have now including several proper Catobar aircraft carriers etc. Shortages of Manpower are not the reason we have what is approaching a third world navy (in terms of fleet size), it is shortage of investment.

  50. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by -Ally- View Post
    For what roles are there year waiting lists ? Source ?

    They are offering £27k joining bonuses because they are so desperate for semi-educated people.
    General ratings, I assume the bounty is for officer/ engineering/skilled positions which need specific training and the Royal Navy has suddenly the need to crew a rather large ship in a short space of time. The QE class needs 600+ crew to operate her, a destroyer, circa 200.

    Shortages of Manpower are not the reason we have what is approaching a third world navy (in terms of fleet size), it is shortage of investment.
    Agreed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •