Reply With Quote
Very interesting, enjoyed that. Many years ago there was a similar series on the Ark Royal.
I've just been watching Britain's Biggest Warship on BBC2. This was episode II. Highly recommended! Perhaps on iPlayer?
Menno
Very interesting, enjoyed that. Many years ago there was a similar series on the Ark Royal.
Last edited by sestrel; 22nd April 2018 at 21:03.
I enjoyed the first episode, will have to catch up and watch episode 2 in the next few days
Very interesting program, some real go behind the scenes stuff
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I took these at Easter, one from the stern of Victory. Still very much a work in progress..
Last edited by sestrel; 22nd April 2018 at 21:28.
Interesting documentary. Life on board wouldn't be for me lol... too cramped but they seem to all gel together even though the ship is dogged with unreliability, however it's probably to be expected during sea trials.
I sailed past her in Portsmouth earlier this year, impressive ship.
(The Dockyard Police were a bit twitchy).
R
Last edited by ralphy; 22nd April 2018 at 21:44.
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
That is going to demand some impressive, surrounding defence infrastructure to preserve it's strike potential.
B
Been an interesting insight on what happens on board. Some awesome engineering but surprising how a little issue can cause havoc!
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
No catapult and no facility to land conventional aircraft such as the Rafael or F18. It can only take the F35 or helicopters.....What a White Elephant.
And we don't have the money for the F35's to go on board!
Originally Posted by nunya
Just as importantly, we don't have the money to build sufficient numbers of frigates and destroyers to act as her escort when she's out on deployment. I think it's safe to say she only be deployed to the seas around some third world country where there is little risk from anti ship missiles/hostile aircraft.
completely
Is this because there is no arrester gear?
You sound very knowledgeable on the subject...
It will be the usual story, lack of common sense and value for money option. MOD and DOD SOP’s.
He’s correct. And what’s worst it can only take F35B....the most expensive, least capable version.
Yes...he must be correct, what with all the data provided. Rafael & F18...
Least capable version? Do you mean least capable maritime version?
Source please.
By many measures, the F35B is the least capable version, but if one of your requirements is a STOVL aircraft then it’s clearly the most capable version.
In one!
STOVL is only a requirement because the carriers doesn’t have cats & traps! The RAF should have bought the F35A, the Navy the F35C.
But we gave up on catapults years ago (and aircraft carriers!). Surely a catapult system requires all the mechanisms neccessary with all the costs/training/space associated with it. The US are used to them but the cost of the build and the manpower requirement would have risen. Also the pilots have to requalify constantly for carrier landings
Why should the MOD have procured the F35C?
I realise they have to be built in that angular way nowadays to reduce the radar signature - but it's so ugly!
Cheers,
Neil.
The problem is that conventional cats and traps use steam. You'll note that the two main users of cats and traps, the US and the french, all do so on nuclear powered ships where steam is readily available. Without that (QE uses gas turbine) you need to install massive amounts of equipment hugely altering the design of the first two or three decks. At the time the ship was being designed, electromagnetic launch systems weren't close to being what they are today.
It's also worth mentioning that both the ship and the F35Bs will be capable of performing SRVL - shipborne rolling vertical landing. The jets won't have to come in dead vertical - they'll still move fast enough that the wings generate lift meaning that they won't have to dump fuel and weapons to get back on deck.
^^^ all good points, but of course the RN had loads of experience with cats on non-nuclear powered carriers, all lost once the previous gen Ark Royal was decommissioned.
Carrier variant...if we had cats / traps on the QE.
If required, that's when our NATO allies are there for support.
Where were they in 1982?
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Another for the Rafale and F18.
Heat would damage the deck...give me strength! It's not made of rice paper!
One of them was supplying the Argentinians with Exocet.
Do you think Maggie really wanted their involvement?
Last edited by halfpasttwothirty; 9th June 2018 at 09:55. Reason: Better wordage
She is a thing of natural grey beauty!
Mate, this applies to many a Defence Program.
HMS QE was designed around the F35B.
If you knew your history you would know France was not part of NATO at the time. It had supplied a previously friendly nation with highly efficient missiles. It declared an immediate embargo on weapon sales to Argentina as soon as the war started. Allowed access to French port facilities in Africa. It provided HM military with details of what Had been sold.
A French technical team disobeyed the embargo. Some people in France suggested it was treason. Aérospatiale (the maker of the Exocet) thought it was justified as it gave them access to intelligence within the Argentine Army. Objectivity forces to acknowledge that it also provided a great platform for future sales.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
France never left NATO. They were one of the original signatories to the treaty. They simply withdrew their contribution.
Good Googling, you certainly know your history...
Never mind...next time we can shop elsewhere: China.
Then why not rely on our NATO allies for air support when required ? The fact is, when you join the big boys in building an aircraft carrier it's not just the carrier you're building, it's the infrastructure needed to ensure the success of the carrier's operation. That entails ensuring you have the necessary support craft for close air defence, anti submarine warfare and if it comes to it, engaging hostile enemy ships. Relying on other countries to provide this support is a folly, as we are relying on the good grace of our allies to babysit our brand new expensive aircraft carrier. Furthermore, their operational requirements aren't always going to match ours.
Really enjoyable series, reminded me of Rod's from many years ago. The one thing that surprised was there were no Marines on-board. I expected a platoon of them just in case somebody tried some funny business. I saw the sailors' QRF but this is an expensive ship. Look forward to seeing HMS QE, the new, big dog in the neighbourhood, in the South China Sea. Hope they visit Melbourne one day.
I think it's safe to say, that fact has been factored in.
A folly? Have you firsthand experience? That reliance is the whole point of NATO.
In a mutual conflict scenario, NATO Member Nations requirements would match the UK's. Again, that's the whole point.
Very much and a good insight to the early stages of an Aircraft Carrier's life.
And hopefully Brisbane, though I feel that may be a few years away.
I think it's safe to say you or anyone else can't guarantee that for the lifetime of the carrier.
Again you go on about NATO, but the UK interests are not always going to match the interests and policies of other NATO countries. As mentioned earlier, the Falklands is the classic example. If you do put your complete reliance on escort ships from other countries protecting your billion pound carrier, then yes, it is a folly. This is not a frigate or a destroyer we're dealing with here, this is a status symbol of a nation's projection of power, or as the Russians like to call it, a large convenient target.A folly? Have you firsthand experience? That reliance is the whole point of NATO.
In a mutual conflict scenario, NATO Member Nations requirements would match the UK's. Again, that's the whole point.
P.S yes I do actually have firsthand experience, albeit in a different life.
Obviously. However:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/myth...raft-carriers/
Point 4.
Subject to serviceability.
I responded to your last post which was about NATO, the topic of our conversation. Do you even read your own posts?
The link above makes mention of sufficient surface ship coverage for any sovereign requirements.
I mentioned 'in a mutual conflict scenario...'
So we agree then that NATO cannot guarantee 24/7-365 support for the QE during during it's lifespan.
I suggest you look at the topic of the actual thread, for which I have responded and posted in the correct manner, if you so wish to start a specific thread on a particular topic, then of course you are free to do so. Until that time, this thread is about the QE in general, not about NATO.I responded to your last post which was about NATO, the topic of our conversation. Do you even read your own posts?
The link above makes mention of sufficient surface ship coverage for any sovereign requirements.
I mentioned 'in a mutual conflict scenario...'
THe above link does pose some interesting questions, especially as even right now the Royal Navy struggles daily to meet it's current obligations and cannot provide 24/7 coverage even for the British Isles. How do I know this? Simply because I sat and watched the Russian aircraft carrier Kuznetsov 'park up' just off the Scottish coast. It took the Royal Navy 24 hours to send a ship up to intercept it.
Now add in the added resources needed to escort an aircraft carrier, combined with it's other international obligations and also to defend the British coast, there is no way it can do all that with the current size of the surface fleet. It may do one thing but it will be at the sacrifice of the others. You also have to take into account those ships that are being repaired, re-fitted and not available for operations. That article does not account for that.
As for NATO, If you rely on NATO to provide core support for your expensive carrier then yes it is a folly, why ? Because you will always be at the mercy of having compliant foreign governments. Is that likely ? Who knows what foreign government policy will be like during the lifetime of the carrier, but let's take one current situation where a major foreign signatory to NATO changes government, it's new president suddenly changes his tact on NATO and questions the support they give to NATO. That's our main ally the USA. Then you have Turkey with it's islamic authoritarian regime in place and close ties with Russia. You still want to completely rely on NATO ?
Welcome to Real world politik. The world does not work in a 'mutual conflict scenario', If you are basing your defence policy on that statement then you are naive at best and a fool at worst. Even setting aside the issue of the Falklands, more recently you had the issue of Syria, where Turkey, a NATO ally, are arming and supporting rebels fighting against the UK /USA supported Kurds. Still want to rely on NATO ?I mentioned 'in a mutual conflict scenario...'
Essentially however, what your suggesting is that we have to play nice with our NATO allies, even when they don't play nice with us and when it may conflict with our own national interests.
Last edited by zippy; 10th June 2018 at 13:43.
[QUOTE]Russian aircraft carrier Kuznetsov 'park up' just off the Scottish coast./QUOTE] Probably just broke down, waiting for the RAC (Russian aircraft carrier (tug)) to tow it away
Just as an aside, it could be that there deliberately was no hurry, as the joint chiefs just didn't want the russians to think that we took their their vessel as a real 'threat'.
And, who knows what undersea vessels were closely monitoring the old tub....
[QUOTE=sestrel;4790245]Oh they were in a hurry, HMS York was at full steam for most it's journey.Russian aircraft carrier Kuznetsov 'park up' just off the Scottish coast./QUOTE] Probably just broke down, waiting for the RAC (Russian aircraft carrier (tug)) to tow it away
Just as an aside, it could be that there deliberately was no hurry, as the joint chiefs just didn't want the russians to think that we took their their vessel as a real 'threat'.
And, who knows what undersea vessels were closely monitoring the old tub....
I'm not criticising the Royal Navy, they do the best with the assets they have, but if the politicians want the navy to do all the requirements they ask of them, then they have to provide the navy with the necessary assets to do the job in hand.
It's called free discussion and related to the topic.
Take note of your own advice.
Colour pics or it never happened!
It was anchored 30 miles off the coast. Either you have Steve Austin eyes or you were sat in the air at the time.
This has been exacerbated with the shortfall in the RAF's maritime assets.
Enter, the below surface fleet...The Submarine Service!
The article does not explicitly talk on serviceability status of the fleet, however, I'm thinking CINCFLEET is all over his resource planning.
Sigh...this is painful.
My exact words were 'In a mutual conflict scenario, NATO Member Nations requirements would match the UK's'.
No mention of a 'World' working in a mutual conflict scenario. Stop adding your own stuff in and just comprehend what I have actually said.
I didn't suggest anything of the sort, please show me where I did. That may be your view on it, it's certainly not mine.
You're going to have to stop misquoting me and making up stuff!
You know we know when their ships leave port and when they’re coming this way? They don’t just turn up and we think oops, better get some ships over there!
Laughable but carry on, be good to get a bit evening sport under my belt.
Of course, as soon as you post a pic of yourself with CINCFLEETColour pics or it never happened!
Just the option of land or air.... ?It was anchored 30 miles off the coast. Either you have Steve Austin eyes or you were sat in the air at the time.
Enter, the below surface fleet...The Submarine Service!Let's not get started on the submarine fleet. As high a regard I have for our submariners, they are a finite resource which cannot be everywhere at once."I'm thinking"..... you're basing your argument on what you think now ? Oh dear....The article does not explicitly talk on serviceability status of the fleet, however, I'm thinking CINCFLEET is all over his resource planning.
It is, you haven't done very well on the aircraft part of the topic and you've now abandoned your NATO argument. Carry on though.Sigh...this is painful.
[/QUOTE]
No NATO here, but we do have the US Marines and the Singaporeans up north to guard the tactical retreat of Aus forces back to VIC to protect me.
Posting Permissions
