PDA

View Full Version : HMS Queen Elizabeth Commissioned.


Phantom Driver
9th Dec 2017, 18:03
Is it just me or was it rather surprising that RN only managed to field a few helos for the flypast ? While I've got nothing against our rotary friends, perhaps a little more " noise " was warranted for what, after all , is to be the pride and joy of the Senior Service.

Presumably few F 35's readily available right now, but surely one could have been made available to make an appearance ( with the Reds on either side , as we've seen with Concorde , the Vulcan etc, etc.). Ok, the Arrows belong to the "crabs", but so what ? It's the thought that counts.

In the meantime , always nice to revisit some nostalgia when Britannia really used to rule the waves....

https://youtu.be/olD4iMIAovk?t=282

p.s re the twin island configuration on this vessel , definitely an "unconventional" look . Maybe carrier aficionados/experts would care to comment.

Tashengurt
9th Dec 2017, 18:37
I enjoyed the subtitles.
Particularly when "28 Naval Airmen" became "28 neighbour lemon"!

Phantom Driver
9th Dec 2017, 19:36
Subtitles ?! Not sure where they came from . Technology ain't wot it used to be. Must be fake news :)

Pontius Navigator
10th Dec 2017, 13:55
Did anyone else note the nylon ensign? They used to be woven with each colour on a separate piece and sewn together.

Wander00
10th Dec 2017, 14:14
The Russian comment about a nice fat target seems to have some logic to it. Probably been discussed before but I wonder why we did not have more, smaller, through-deck whatevers instead

MSOCS
10th Dec 2017, 14:23
The Russian comment about a nice fat target seems to have some logic to it. Probably been discussed before but I wonder why we did not have more, smaller, through-deck whatevers instead

Yes, the Russian comment is a typical response but it works both ways - their rotten Kuznetsov is equally as vulnerable and the West have the means to sink her if required. IF anyone had the balls to attack QNLZ or USS Ford, then it’s all-out conflict again and everything is fair game. I’d also say that a considerable number of defence measures would to have be overcome for that to happen.

Oh, and killing T-50s would be a complete turkey shoot with F-22 and F-35. I also think the UK diversifying their F-35 to a shore-based element (F-35A) is a good idea. IF the Carrier was sunk, you don’t lose all your eggs (cough, Atlantic Conveyor, cough)

Brian W May
10th Dec 2017, 16:28
So . . . we're going to call it a 'carrier' on account we've got no aircraft for it . . .

Never considered a helicopter to be an aircraft (unless it was dragging me out of the ****).

Obi Wan Russell
10th Dec 2017, 17:09
So . . . we're going to call it a 'carrier' on account we've got no aircraft for it . . .

Never considered a helicopter to be an aircraft (unless it was dragging me out of the ****).

Congratulations, you win a subscription to the Daily Fail, for repeating their nonsense. We currently have 14 F-35Bs as of this month and more on the way. 617sqn stands up next year, will you and the others still be spouting that nonsense then?

How about a historical parallel, when the previous generation of RN Carriers arrived on the scene it was the same. HMS Invincible started her builders trials in 1979, but there were no active Sea Harrier sqns ready to fly from her deck. Just a trials unit (700A NAS) with a handful of airframes (less than the number of F-35Bs we have now.

Calamity Calamity! We have no planes to fly from our new carrier! Said nobody actually. People had a bit more sense back then apparently.

Invincible commissioned in 1980 along with the first Sea Harrier frontline sqn (800NAS) and all was well.

We [I]did[I] have a force of aircraft ready to fly from the QECs decks, Joint Force Harrier. We spent a £Billion upgrading the 74 airframes to GR9 standard to see them through to the early 2020s if needed, and just as the last few emerged from the factory with the paint still wet, the Disaster Twins Cameron and Osbourne threw them away for scrap value. If you want to point fingers, there you go.

Heathrow Harry
10th Dec 2017, 17:32
And the RAF who decided they'd rather have their Tornado force than a Harrier force

Brian W May
10th Dec 2017, 21:36
Congratulations, you win a subscription to the Daily Fail, for repeating their nonsense. We currently have 14 F-35Bs as of this month and more on the way. 617sqn stands up next year, will you and the others still be spouting that nonsense then?

How about a historical parallel, when the previous generation of RN Carriers arrived on the scene it was the same. HMS Invincible started her builders trials in 1979, but there were no active Sea Harrier sqns ready to fly from her deck. Just a trials unit (700A NAS) with a handful of airframes (less than the number of F-35Bs we have now.

Calamity Calamity! We have no planes to fly from our new carrier! Said nobody actually. People had a bit more sense back then apparently.

Invincible commissioned in 1980 along with the first Sea Harrier frontline sqn (800NAS) and all was well.

We [I]did[I] have a force of aircraft ready to fly from the QECs decks, Joint Force Harrier. We spent a £Billion upgrading the 74 airframes to GR9 standard to see them through to the early 2020s if needed, and just as the last few emerged from the factory with the paint still wet, the Disaster Twins Cameron and Osbourne threw them away for scrap value. If you want to point fingers, there you go.

I have absolutely no idea what the papers say because I don't read their biased ****.

However, Mr Putin does have a point, it's a bloody big target and we don't have the support ships or Maritime Patrol aircraft to protect it.

Bloody great white elephant. Wow, 14 fighters? That many?

Politicians and gutless senior officers in the Armed Forces have overseen the disasters that plague this country. What role is this magnificent very pale elephant going to fulfil then?

Heathrow Harry
11th Dec 2017, 08:01
https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/221116-future-carrier-including-costs-235.html

has 235 pages and 4600++ posts of discussion which can be summed as

A. It will put us in the Big League again and give us immense power projection capabilities - worth every penny

B. It's the biggest turkey ever built and will drain what is left of the blood of the Navy like Dracula

glad rag
11th Dec 2017, 08:09
Congratulations, you win a subscription to the Daily Fail, for repeating their nonsense. We currently have 14 F-35Bs as of this month and more on the way. 617sqn stands up next year, will you and the others still be spouting that nonsense then?

How about a historical parallel, when the previous generation of RN Carriers arrived on the scene it was the same. HMS Invincible started her builders trials in 1979, but there were no active Sea Harrier sqns ready to fly from her deck. Just a trials unit (700A NAS) with a handful of airframes (less than the number of F-35Bs we have now.

Calamity Calamity! We have no planes to fly from our new carrier! Said nobody actually. People had a bit more sense back then apparently.

Invincible commissioned in 1980 along with the first Sea Harrier frontline sqn (800NAS) and all was well.

We [I]did[I] have a force of aircraft ready to fly from the QECs decks, Joint Force Harrier. We spent a £Billion upgrading the 74 airframes to GR9 standard to see them through to the early 2020s if needed, and just as the last few emerged from the factory with the paint still wet, the Disaster Twins Cameron and Osbourne threw them away for scrap value. If you want to point fingers, there you go.

Those F35 are among the 250 odd with the manufacturing defect and good for the airshow circuit then?

glad rag
11th Dec 2017, 08:42
And the RAF who decided they'd rather have their Tornado force than a Harrier force

RN should have put their hand in their pocket then. After all it was them who wanted GR rather than FA..

Bigpants
11th Dec 2017, 08:43
How about some hard facts for a change please? As of this morning, what is the fire power of HMS Queen Elizabeth? What offensive weapons system are on board and functional? What aircraft are available with crews to operate from her and what offensive weapons are they trained and cleared to deliver?

I suspect the answer is very little and that the situation will remain this way for years. One might as well hoist 14 British Army M270s aboard to beef up its hitting power!

glad rag
11th Dec 2017, 09:17
How about some hard facts for a change please? As of this morning, what is the fire power of HMS Queen Elizabeth? What offensive weapons system are on board and functional? What aircraft are available with crews to operate from her and what offensive weapons are they trained and cleared to deliver?

I suspect the answer is very little and that the situation will remain this way for years. One might as well hoist 14 British Army M270s aboard to beef up its hitting power!

Nope. You forgot about the ££££££££££ deck coating...

eal401
11th Dec 2017, 10:01
Never considered a helicopter to be an aircraft

Struggling to find a sensible response to this, but I am afraid all I can do is roll on the floor laughing.

tigerfish
11th Dec 2017, 10:03
Sadly I fear that the idea of having two big carriers like that is totally misplaced. Where will all the staff to man them come from? I predict that we will never see both in commission at the same time. As was said earlier what we really needed was another three carriers to replace the three we just scrapped. They were about the right size to be capable of being deployed to incidents (Disasters as well as conflicts) world wide.
Remember too that the Royal Navy is not just about carriers, we also need to man up one or two frigates and smaller vessels too!

Heathrow Harry
11th Dec 2017, 10:09
2300 posts on the other thread agree with you and 2300 disagree (saying the whole point of T45's is to defend carriers etc etc)

NutLoose
11th Dec 2017, 10:41
The Russian comment about a nice fat target seems to have some logic to it. Probably been discussed before but I wonder why we did not have more, smaller, through-deck whatevers instead

Surely a target is a threat, and a Carrier without any aircraft is not a threat, simply a large RN cruise ship

FODPlod
11th Dec 2017, 10:49
So . . . we're going to call it a 'carrier' on account we've got no aircraft for it . . .

Never considered a helicopter to be an aircraft (unless it was dragging me out of the ****).

Last Wednesday, QNLZ was still an 'industrial site' run by a civilian trials master with contractors embarked and civilian working rules applied. Her service personnel weren't even allowed booze or family visitors on board. She had undergone basic harbour and sea trials to check she could float, move, navigate, communicate and satisfy the myriad conditions laid down by SOLAS, the H&SE and dozens of other international and national agencies; also that her onboard systems could accommodate and sustain the hundreds of people manning her at sea.

On Thursday, QNLZ was accepted by the RN as a vessel satisfying these basic requirements and work will start in the New Year to make her ready to accept aircraft and operate them safely including the embarkation and storage of fuel, ordnance and the extra manpower involved. Volumes of trials schedules, running to tens of thousands of pages, will take many busy months to complete before she achieves full operational status in 2023 for a career stretching 40 or 50 years into the future.

The UK takes delivery of its 14th F-35B this month and has had RN and RAF personnel in the USA being trained in their operation and maintenance for several years. More F-35Bs, containing the latest software updates and hardware, are in the pipeline. Despite all this, much 'opinionated ignorance' will still be expressed about QNLZ's lack of fixed wing aircraft even though she is not yet licensed to receive them, let alone ready to operate and maintain them.

FODPlod
11th Dec 2017, 10:53
The Russian comment about a nice fat target seems to have some logic to it. Probably been discussed before but I wonder why we did not have more, smaller, through-deck whatevers instead

Sadly I fear that the idea of having two big carriers like that is totally misplaced. Where will all the staff to man them come from? I predict that we will never see both in commission at the same time. As was said earlier what we really needed was another three carriers to replace the three we just scrapped. They were about the right size to be capable of being deployed to incidents (Disasters as well as conflicts) world wide.
Remember too that the Royal Navy is not just about carriers, we also need to man up one or two frigates and smaller vessels too!

You wouldn't get three smaller carriers or "through-deck whatevers" with any significant capability for the same price as two QECs. Smaller, cramped carriers with less capability and bigger headaches share the same need for expensive propulsion, power generation and weapons systems (including C4I), and the personnel to man and maintain them, as larger carriers. QNLZ's ships' company (her main through-life cost over the next 40-50 years) is little larger than that of CVS. Cost is not directly proportional to size and the expression 'steel is cheap and air is free' is not without some validity.

Bigpants
11th Dec 2017, 12:41
Despite all this, much 'opinionated ignorance' will still be expressed about QNLZ's lack of fixed wing aircraft even though she is not yet licensed to receive them, let alone ready to operate and maintain them.

OK, but when will this ship be combat ready and what fire power will it be able to deploy? I remain unconvinced that this package of ship and aircraft will ever offer the same punch and value for money compared to land based systems.

The UK's days of having any military role East of Suez are long over imo.

Brian W May
11th Dec 2017, 13:41
Struggling to find a sensible response to this, but I am afraid all I can do is roll on the floor laughing.


That's a relief as that is what was intended . . . (I don't do sensible as I found out that beyond the age of 65 I didn't have to grow up any more).

FODPlod
11th Dec 2017, 14:15
...Despite all this, much 'opinionated ignorance' will still be expressed about QNLZ's lack of fixed wing aircraft even though she is not yet licensed to receive them, let alone ready to operate and maintain them.

OK, but when will this ship be combat ready and what fire power will it be able to deploy? I remain unconvinced that this package of ship and aircraft will ever offer the same punch and value for money compared to land based systems.

The UK's days of having any military role East of Suez are long over imo.
You are the RAF's version of Sharkey Ward and I claim my £5.

Planned IOC in 2020 and FOC in 2023. Carrier air wing of up to 40 aircraft (50 full load). Global reach, mobility, flexibility, higher sortie rates owing to closer proximity to target, strike, area air defence, LPH when appropriate, C4ISTAR, deterrence, visibility when required, soft power including HADR, broader range of political & military options, etc. In short, four acres of sovereign territory which can move over 500 miles per day and go anywhere there is ocean or sea. As a global trading nation, the UK's interests can be affected significantly by military or other events east of Suez.

P.S. As a member of PPRuNe since May 2001, why are you asking questions already answered in great detail? When all else fails, try this:
Answers to your questions (http://bfy.tw/FVJZ)

Heathrow Harry
11th Dec 2017, 15:01
HMS Bristol for the 2020's................

4Greens
11th Dec 2017, 18:53
A Somali pirate in a speedboat can sink a carrier with a missile. This is a guarantee if the side lift is down.

Not enough escorts available.

Not_a_boffin
11th Dec 2017, 19:11
A Somali pirate in a speedboat can sink a carrier with a missile. This is a guarantee if the side lift is down.

Not enough escorts available.



Thank you for your well-informed and technically convincing contribution. Freelancing from the Sunday Sport?

Jimlad1
12th Dec 2017, 12:29
A Somali pirate in a speedboat can sink a carrier with a missile. This is a guarantee if the side lift is down.

Not enough escorts available.

How would they do this exactly?

Pontius Navigator
12th Dec 2017, 13:09
Jimlad, you clearly have not seen Hollywood block busters. The missile would careen off a bulkhead before flying down a corridor (sic) trailing flames as our hero and heroine run ahead of it. They just manage to step aside as . . .

Thomas coupling
12th Dec 2017, 22:45
Let's try to see where this floating overdraft arrangement fits into our future plans as a maritime nation:

It cost double her estimated build costs to complete.
It needs re-commissioned personel - drafted back into the navy - to safely man it.
It's running costs have almost certainly doubled since inception.
She has no FW.
When the FW arrive @ £140mil a pop, they will cost an inordinate amount of money to maintain and fly.
The Navy is still being targeted by the treasury.
There are only another 18 (EIGHTEEN) major combatent warships in the entire fleet :eek:
6 of them (destroyers), each costing £1000,000,000.....don't work in warm water :eek:.
The sister ship [HMS PoW] is (a) not due to be commissioned until 2020 and (b) will never go to sea at the same time as Lizzie. We can't afford it.
The Labour government is a government in waiting :mad:


This (carrier) programme was invented for a threat which (a) no longer exists and (b) the UK can no longer afford to operate simultaneously.

These ships are the dying cries of a once proud nation trying to fight above its weight. God help Great Britain. :\

Wander00
13th Dec 2017, 07:39
TC - and to provide employment in Gordon Brown's constituency

KenV
14th Dec 2017, 18:13
...Probably been discussed before but I wonder why we did not have more, smaller, through-deck whatevers insteadWhy? It's one thing to put a few jets on a small ship. It's entirely another to routinely launch and recover them in all weather conditions, and maintain them over a significant deployment period, and arm and fuel them during a shootin' war. For that you need something significantly bigger. Hence QE.

KenV
14th Dec 2017, 18:17
This (carrier) programme was invented for a threat which (a) no longer exists and (b) the UK can no longer afford to operate simultaneously.I believe (b) may be true, but does not have to be true, and seriously doubt (a) is true.

Phantom Driver
14th Dec 2017, 19:10
TC--

Let's try to see where this floating overdraft arrangement fits into our future plans as a maritime nation:

It cost double her estimated build costs to complete.
It needs re-commissioned personel - drafted back into the navy - to safely man it.
It's running costs have almost certainly doubled since inception.
She has no FW.
When the FW arrive @ £140mil a pop, they will cost an inordinate amount of money to maintain and fly.
The Navy is still being targeted by the treasury.
There are only another 18 (EIGHTEEN) major combatent warships in the entire fleet :eek:
6 of them (destroyers), each costing £1000,000,000.....don't work in warm water :eek:.
The sister ship [HMS PoW] is (a) not due to be commissioned until 2020 and (b) will never go to sea at the same time as Lizzie. We can't afford it.
The Labour government is a government in waiting :mad:


This (carrier) programme was invented for a threat which (a) no longer exists and (b) the UK can no longer afford to operate simultaneously.

These ships are the dying cries of a once proud nation trying to fight above its weight. God help Great Britain. :\

Sad but true. However, you have to give credit for UK inc. remaining at the cutting edge of technology . Britannia may no longer rule the waves , but a lot of brain power still resides on this tiny island.

Mind you, still wondering about that twin island design. Not the most elegant of looks for a carrier. Maybe new stealth technology....

And talking about stealth, I do wonder what these expensive F 35's will be targetting . There is a great book -"The Limits of Air Power"- talks about the billions of dollars spent on dropping assorted ordnance on Vietnamese paddy fields , all to no avail; we know how that turned out. Third world economies found pretty good (cheap) ways of downing first world jets.

Wander00
14th Dec 2017, 22:22
KenV - didn't we manage ok with the Harriers on the TDCs

glad rag
15th Dec 2017, 01:52
Why? It's one thing to put a few jets on a small ship. It's entirely another to routinely launch and recover them in all weather conditions, and maintain them over a significant deployment period, and arm and fuel them during a shootin' war. For that you need something significantly bigger. Hence QE.

xxxxxxxx.... Running away at the mouth again are we?