Jump to content
tanknet.org

Hms Queen Elizabeth


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was expexting better from Mark Urban, we all know the QE has two islands already (1) - by the way, here in this Grate Sight we never reached an agreement on what their names ought to be - but calling this a totemic carrier (2) makes no sense at all unless the islands were superimposed (a geologial possibility, I'll grant but even then rare) but that is clearly not the case as anyone can judge by the actual photos.

 

(1) Carrier

 

 

(2) Totem

 

 

This is surely a Fleet Air Arm totem, it comes with wings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So we go to the expense of building an aircraft carrier to give ourselves an independent naval air capablity, then have to depend on a foreign air wing to fly off it?

 

The only other alternative was to develop a carrier variant of the European EF-2000, and carrier would have to be modified as it is not STOVL.

 

I find that F-35 fighter program has been extremely ambitious, which has led to over costs and delays. Maybe a more conservative program*, without the STOVL variant would have been cost efficient and would have avoided some of the sacrifices in performance.

 

* Like F-18E/F Super Hornet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All the article really tells us is that there is another Strategic Defence & Security Review coming next year (i.e. another round of defence cuts) and that the knives are out for inter-service fighting over who loses what. In this case it's the BBC's pet ex-Army officer quoting other (ex-)Army officers briefing against a maritime capability. Expect more of the same until the cuts are announced in the next Parliament.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, i think F18E would have been a more sensible choice from the start.

I think alejandro proposes a more conservative future (naval) fighter programme, not abandoning naval aircraft development at F/A-18E. It would never have made sense for the UK to buy F/A-18E as whatever the US developed instead of F-35 would still be available in roughly the right time frame to give us a latest generation aircraft to operate from the new carriers.

 

The big "mistake" (calculated capability gap) leading to not having aircraft and carriers ready at the same time was premature retirement of Sea Harrier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So we go to the expense of building an aircraft carrier to give ourselves an independent naval air capablity, then have to depend on a foreign air wing to fly off it? Slightly confused thinking on the MODs part that. :)

 

Well its only short term, though you cant think if someone hadnt been so keen to divest themselves of the Harrier force, we wouldnt need to do it at all.

 

What makes you think it's "only short term."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't we looking at this the wrong way? After all, an aircraft carrier is just a fancing floating airfield (hence captains of USN Carriers having to be aviators - the carrier serves the aircraft, not the other way around).

 

If the USMC operates off the Her Majesty's Ship Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth (should that be HMS HM QE ?) , does not that mean that the Royal Navy is functioning as the base for the USMC? The HMS HM QE will be joining the Marines, rather than the Marines joining the Royal Navy. (How ignominious!)

 

Perhaps the ship could be re-named the "USS Robin" when carrying USMC aircraft?

Edited by DougRichards
Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem is the utility of a carrier is the air wing. Without that you have several thousand tons of steel that is bugger all use to man or beast. So in the event that there is circumstances where HMG has a war they want to give and nobody else wants to come, we have a problem. Admittedly a short term problem in that its not envisaged for those aircraft to not be availble for long, but its not something you would expect any other navy in the world to tolerate, fitted for but not with a carrier air wing. :)

 

The MOD have this current fetish for letting capablities lapse, then buying back into them later. Which in my view is not only potentially dangerous in that if you do without something for 6 years, you might continue to do without it, but also the loss of skills and practices take time to reassemble. Its not good practice.

 

Im still waiting for the MOD to get back to me about my stringbag stealth bomber concept, they really are being most tardy in responding to that......

 

Falklands may be a problem with USMC kites on board.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The MOD have this current fetish for letting capablities lapse, then buying back into them later.

The government of the 2000s made those choices for budgetary reasons, not a current "MOD fetish". Have the current lot actually cut anything since tidying up the mess with the last SDSR? Are we now to expect 5 years of relative stability between rounds of cuts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The RN will need refresher training in the practice of operating a CV before risking its own air group on board.

I believe the RN has both aircrew and shipcrew currently working up their skills with the French and American Navies flat tops. The issue being, no where near enough. As already mentioned; ditching SHAR's is going to cost us so much more, than the savings the SDSR 2010 envisioned, IMO.

I cannot see the RN being ready for full on seagoing ops with a CVG any time before 2025 :angry: . I do hope I'm proved wrong, but time will tell.

 

Charles

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The real problem is the utility of a carrier is the air wing. Without that you have several thousand tons of steel that is bugger all use to man or beast. So in the event that there is circumstances where HMG has a war they want to give and nobody else wants to come, we have a problem. Admittedly a short term problem in that its not envisaged for those aircraft to not be availble for long, but its not something you would expect any other navy in the world to tolerate, fitted for but not with a carrier air wing. :)

 

The MOD have this current fetish for letting capablities lapse, then buying back into them later. Which in my view is not only potentially dangerous in that if you do without something for 6 years, you might continue to do without it, but also the loss of skills and practices take time to reassemble. Its not good practice.

 

Im still waiting for the MOD to get back to me about my stringbag stealth bomber concept, they really are being most tardy in responding to that......

 

Falklands may be a problem with USMC kites on board.

 

Just renew "Lend-Lease", The Marines leave and the MOD shoves anybody trained to fly or maintain a F-35 on board. Any destroyed or unrepairable planes gets replaced or paid for. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think of it as the RN getting a loan of air assets from the Corps, but of the USMC getting itself it's own carrier complete with squids to run it by hook or by crook.

Edited by rmgill
Link to post
Share on other sites

Blind optimism? :)

 

I admire your blind optimism in the face of a lost war against increased defense cuts and short-sighted decision making by the MoD. :P hehehe

 

In the end, it might as well be sold to Russia. :lol:

Edited by Corinthian
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Royal Marines, that is. :P

 

English is the language spoken in England, by English people. Any claims that anything else is English (without modifiers or qualification) immediately & catastrophically fail the ridiculousness test, & will be laughed at by all right-thinking people.

 

In other news, Germans speak German & French people speak French.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Royal Marines, that is. :P

 

English is the language spoken in England, by English people. Any claims that anything else is English (without modifiers or qualification) immediately & catastrophically fail the ridiculousness test, & will be laughed at by all right-thinking people.

 

In other news, Germans speak German & French people speak French.

 

And We Yanks Speak, What Exactly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
And We Yanks Speak, What Exactly?

 

It is a dialect of English commonly known as Yankchain, one which is exclusive to the North American continent. Mayor Ed Koch of New York City was the first to identify it as being a specific dialect native to certain areas of New England and Pennsylvania; and later Governor Chris Christie began promoting it as the standard English dialect for New jersey. It has gained wide acceptance since then, especially in the media and in the world of sports.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...