Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

HMS Queen Elizabeth Commissioned.

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

HMS Queen Elizabeth Commissioned.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 9th Dec 2017, 18:03
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 320
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HMS Queen Elizabeth Commissioned.

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....

p.s re the twin island configuration on this vessel , definitely an "unconventional" look . Maybe carrier aficionados/experts would care to comment.
Phantom Driver is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2017, 18:37
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 54
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
I enjoyed the subtitles.
Particularly when "28 Naval Airmen" became "28 neighbour lemon"!
Tashengurt is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2017, 19:36
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 320
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Subtitles ?! Not sure where they came from . Technology ain't wot it used to be. Must be fake news
Phantom Driver is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2017, 13:55
  #4 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 80
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Did anyone else note the nylon ensign? They used to be woven with each colour on a separate piece and sewn together.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2017, 14:14
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 80
Posts: 6,379
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
Wander00 is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2017, 14:23
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wander00
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)
MSOCS is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2017, 16:28
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 ****).
Brian W May is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2017, 17:09
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brian W May
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.
Obi Wan Russell is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2017, 17:32
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And the RAF who decided they'd rather have their Tornado force than a Harrier force
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2017, 21:36
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell
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?
Brian W May is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 08:01
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Future Carrier (Including Costs)

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
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 08:09
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell
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 is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 08:42
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
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..
glad rag is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 08:43
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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!
Bigpants is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 09:17
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bigpants
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...
glad rag is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 10:01
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brian W May
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.
eal401 is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 10:03
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bristol
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
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!
tigerfish is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 10:09
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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)
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 10:41
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,799 Likes on 1,192 Posts
Originally Posted by Wander00
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
NutLoose is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 10:49
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 819
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brian W May
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 is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.