HMS Queen Elizabeth Commissioned.
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!
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!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK's days of having any military role East of Suez are long over imo.
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:
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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 . . .
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
6 of them (destroyers), each costing £1000,000,000.....don't work in warm water.
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
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.
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
6 of them (destroyers), each costing £1000,000,000.....don't work in warm water
.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
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
TC--
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.
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
6 of them (destroyers), each costing £1000,000,000.....don't work in warm water.
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
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.
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
6 of them (destroyers), each costing £1000,000,000.....don't work in warm water
.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
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by glad rag; 15th Dec 2017 at 02:05.
