Can anyone shed light on what this first QEC Aircraft Carrier will do for the 3 years until the first sea trials, or indeed the 4 years until flight trials will take place?

Looks to me like an aircraft carrier not at sea is a aircraft carrier wasted (i.e. we need 2 not 1 so one can be in refit); it also means that it if it IS at sea, without aircraft on board, it's not really an aircraft carrier but a massive floating platform costing money but potentially not doing much. Sure we'll put helicopters on it. We know we need those.

All in all, it seems to be a really porked up situation. One thing is for certain, the carrier is impotent without the aircraft; the cost of F-35 to the UK pales into insignificance in comparison to these two behemoths. If we sold them, assuming someone would buy them (India, China, etc), we could certainly afford a weightier F-35 Force and it wouldn't have to be STOVL either......

I'm personally of the opinion that we haven't needed a carrier since 1982. We've also coped extremely well since we stopped putting fast air on CVS in 2010. ELLAMY didn't need it and neither would any immediate problem such as Syria, Iran or whatever. Again, my opinion.

You really like poking hornets nest with a very sharp pointy stick don't you!

The obvious retort is remind me of the last time we needed an airforce.....?

MSOCS,

The period between launching and sea trials will be filled with outfitting.

The launch will be of the hull it will then be taken to have systems, engines etc installed. The crew are due to embark in May 2016 with sea trial starting in the October. Formal handover will be in the first few months of 2017 barring any issues.

Tourist,

Very poor retort, bordering on stupid.

Whilst you have tried to be a bit 'left field' in many other threads (surprisingly a lot of which I agree with :eek:) I think you've opened yourself up for a bit of ridicule there.....

Fitting out. According to local scuttlebut she is being launched 'light' as otherwise there might not be sufficient displacement available in the dock. Of course, that could be cause and effect.


Sierra Leone and Bosnia are two examples that spring to mind (SHAR ops were conducted in the latter when the aircraft in Italy were grounded due to bad weather)

"bordering on stupid"

It's a lot worse than that!

Nope, I think I judged the level of moronic-ness just about right to balance MSOCSs final paragraph.

BillHicksRules,

Thanks for some facts on the issue - appreciated. It does sound like a long time for outfitting to me, but I'm no ship builder.

Tourist,

The last time we needed an airforce - let me see..... Gulf War 1, The Balkans, Gulf War 2, Afghanistan and not to mention Libya which was by far and away a classic example of coercion and capitulation of a rogue government, ably assisted by Air Power - with the exception of Libya all of those also required a naval element. The last true time a carrier was essential, and I stress 'essential', was The Falklands War in my humble opinion. Saying you needed a carrier in Bosnia because the weather at a land base was a bit poor on the odd night isn't statistically relevant. What if one could prove that for all the other nights (bar one) the carrier was in fog and unable to contribute?? Give me hard facts to actually balance the 'moronic-ness' of my final paragraph Tourist. Please...go on... This is a debate after all.

Those casevac runs I've been doing for a while now would take a lot longer if we had to wait for the RN or RFA to sail to landlocked Afghanistan and back.

Just one example, others are available.

I agree though that the point you were trying so hard (but still failing) to offer a retort to was equally moronic.

THS, why?

It implies (to me at least) that you consider a CVS was essential for:

Gulf War 1
The Balkans
Gulf War 2
Afghanistan
Libya

Don't get me wrong - I strongly believe in a capable and significant Navy, Army and Air Force but a single big deck carrier with (at most) 12 aircraft aboard? If we could afford both and another 30 jets to join them afloat then yes, why not have them - it's a big stick to carry - but when we're likely to have one with such a small fleet of fixed-wing aboard it doesn't make sense to me.

With another rather large spending round looming next year, which will be replete with yet more cuts, why not ask the question "why?!"

I agree, a CVS was not essential for any of those operations, although it would have been useful to varying degrees (Libya pretty handy, Afghanistan not so much). And that is a problem that the RN tussles with but doesn't like to talk about.


However a flexible carrier, such as the QE class, would have, and will, provide an enormous amount to defence. From defence diplomacy to NEOs, MSO, counter piracy, counter drugs etc, a carrier with 12 JSF and a selection of rotary will be useful pretty much every day that it isn't alongside, and even then, arguably its existence can still provide an effect.


And then there is the Falklands / Sierra Leone scenario. The RN constantly intimate that the chances of land basing in future conflicts is unlikely and it must be irritating that they are constantly proved wrong - but at the end of the day land bases aren't assured and some situations will arise where a carrier is the only realistic option hence a need for the flexibility that a carrier provides, particularly one that can offer either a rotary / FJ mix or a larger (24) FJ capability.


In short I believe the RN do overstate the case for a carrier but, as an RAF officer who has worked with both Land and maritime, I believe that the carrier will offer an enormous capability and flexibility across defence and we should certainly be getting 2 in order to have a 365 day capability.


Just so long as the RAF provide most of the FJ pilots. ;)


Don't confuse "top trumps, lots of FJs, looks good on the military channel" with the reality of defence today, and in particular what the RN has to offer.

Are these carriers going to have Nuke weapons on board? If not, they are undergunned!

OAP

The time between dock flood-up (which is what I assume MSOCS is alluding to) and sea trials will be spent in finishing the outfit of those decks above the hangar deck and setting to work the systems.

The "engines" have been in the ship for nearly three years, depending on whether you're talking about the diesels, the gas turbines or the electric motors. What is happening now is that the various systems are being pressure tested, flushed and slowly set to work, in the same way that the mission systems will be calibrated, trialled, debugged and adjusted.

The original question is a little bit like asking what the Typhoon will be doing between delivery of the first production cab to the OEU (2005)and the declaration of IOC (2008).

As for the "at most 12 aboard" - that rather depends on whether the light blue decides to play joint properly this time....

HMS Queen Elizabeth is named by Her Majesty The Queen

Now the real work starts.....

How sad that you just couldn't let it lie even when "she" was being named by the sovereign.

God save the Queen, and all who sail in, on and above her.:D

F-35 fly past missing. Such a shame.

Oh, and congrats on yet another stupid, pointless dig at another service, n-o-b. time to stop that crap now. On this project you all sink or swim together.

Wouldn't it be fantastic to have some aircraft for the aircraft carrier to carry!

Whirly birds don't count.

Fantastic ship all the same.

Totally wrong for UKMil IMO. Most of the Navy in one big(ish) ship with a few aircraft. Any enemy will know where to aim! This is not the future that the Royal Navy should have had. Don't expect the mix of navy lark for RAF personel will gel any better this time around either!

OAP