Max Hastings is a moron - who seems to write to suit the agenda of the editor.

From here:

Guess who said that in 2007? Or this, in 2004 ?

Ponder who might have said this, in 2006..

Any guesses? Anyone....?

From here:

Why do you think it's worth sharing?

He makes some predictably poorly informed but biased comments such as quoting 36 a/c per platform reduced to 12. That isn't the case, the overall procurement of a/c hasn't reduced, what has changed are assumptions over how many should routinely operate from the platform apart from on specific tasking.

He bangs on about needing the entire fleet to support/protect it - which is simply ludicrous and fails to even consider operating with coalition/allied support.

He suggests cheap and cheerful steel late on top of tanker hulls for aircraft carriers - a clear indication he should stick to bottom-end journalism and leave others to Naval architecture! Even more stupidly he suggests buying low-tech aircraft - really? When in other parts he quotes the threat from a resurgent (and technically improving ) Russia!

We all know the CVF have absorbed large amounts of the EP and they are a struggle to man - that's symptomatic of the position the wider Navy is in, not just because of the CVF. The Armed Forces across the board are all finding manning an issue and I suspect will continue to do so.

As DM rants go, this is just puerile.

What about the bit that putting QE to sea will basically soak up all available RN surface fleet assets? Wake up and smell the roses WEBF, the carriers are a capability we cant afford and should have been sunk long ago (before they were built).

God knows what we are going to with them!

not ALL the rest of the Navy -

just quite a lot of it - all of which is currently overworked doing the day job...............

Was tempted to add 'Lets do the TIME WARP again' to the video but hey wot the hey... "just a jump to the left..." :}

Not the most attractive of vessels is it? The two islands make it look really odd. Who hasn't anyone else built an aircraft carrier with two separate islands?

It? IT? :=

SHE looks fantastic and I daresay similar things were said when the RN introduced other innovations such as the steam catapult, angled flight deck, mirror landing aids and the ski jump.

Having two islands provides redundancy (duplicate functionality at a pinch), more efficient access routes and a hugely reduced requirement for bulky horizontal ventilation and heat susceptible exhaust trunking among other benefits.

Belated thanks for your clear explanation.

Two islands!?
 

Round objects! Redundancy in what, pray? Is the idea that the aft island can act as some sort of ECP? Of course it can't, any more than the forrard island can manage the Flyco and ACR business.
I have always thought that the 2 island concept was one of the dafter ideas in a pretty daft overall concept. Clearly the brainchild of someone with little or no knowledge of naval aviation. All the FAA's long experience has shown that aviation and ship matters have to be integrated. Carriers are not "floating airfields". They are ships with a weapon system, and management of the two aspects are interlinked at every level, from manning (sorry, HR) through to ship handling. A simple and not predictable example: in HMS Eagle's first commission, they had the bright idea of having two wardrooms, one for the Air Group and the other for ship's company officers. This led to disastrous morale breakdown, and was dropped immediately in Ark and later in Eagle.

At a more operational level, anyone who has ever worked on the bridge of a carrier will know that there has to be a constant face-to-face dialogue between Cdr (Air), the Captain, the Navigating Officer and the Ops Officer, generally conducted around the Captain's chair, to resolve the inevitably conflicting demands of the Flypro (wind over deck, aircraft movements etc), navigation (ship safety, colregs etc) and tactical command (e.g. screen management). Conduct of negotiations with the parties in two entirely separate parts of the ship will be indescribably difficult. I know someone will say "Oh but they'll have excellent (Windows XP driven!) teleconferencing facilities", but that don't answer. How, over a video link can you stab your finger at a paragraph in a signal and say "But, sir, in Diamond's signal she says that ..."?

Poor Capt Kyd and his team.

Twin islands - I always thought (in moments of levity) that maybe it was becasue they had two design teams originally (BAe & VT systems) and they put the islands in different places on the deck.................... the compromise solution was to keep both.........

IIRC something like that happened with the design of the Moskva hotel in Moscow under J V Stalin.......................

PS how do two islands REDUCE air turbulance? Sure they are smaller but there must be more interference in the flow with two???

So incoming missiles just have to aim between the two islands if there is no cross painted in the middle of the deck?

No skin off my nose.

This forum is as open to opinionated ignorance (especially that of dyed-in-the-wool traditionalists) as anywhere else. ;)

Ten years ago? Strikes me that those in power still don't have a scooby even now....

This simplistic view reveals an underlying ignorance of modern day real politic.

The fore and aft island concept was lifted directly from the Italians. It anticipates the very real possibility of having to rapidly transit from full speed ahead to full speed reverse.

Typically this capability would come into it own when the political masters demand an instant reversal of policy without suffering the indignity of being seen to do a U-turn.

For much the same reason I understand that the ships are being fitted with an enhanced turning capability.

This is required in order that the ship can match the performance of its political masters. That is to say it can sail round in ever decreasing circles until it eventually disappears up its own a**e.

Indeed - but I have lived through 15 "Administrations" in the UK

Only two PM's were really first rate - Attlee & Thatcher - and even they had their off days

And some (Eden, Brown, May) have been really dreadful.............

Flipping innovation hey! Think aft tower is a bit more than an ECP. With those wonderful consoles they have full function, albeit Moreno limited visibility and space. This of course flips.

Get the need for animated discussion, but every war canoe I served on had an ops room away from the bridge. Skipper and PWO boss flip as required. Surely Cdr Air does not drive the flight deck himself, so will flip between towers based on the need. So I am sure finger pointing at the signal (on any tablet I assume :-)) will still happen.

Personally I am way away from the RN now, but "assume" your concerns have been well considered.

Plenty o'studies of those TWin peaKs with CFD analysis PDFs all over - here is one.

The Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers: Airwake Modelling and Validation for ASTOVL Flight Simulation
https://tinyurl.com/y7afq9k8 (PDF 1.8Mb)
OR
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...Simulation.pdf (1.8Mb)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...m.gif~original

The two islands are a reflection of the command structure.

The forward island will be run by the Navy to control the ship.

The rear island will be run by the RAF who have pretty much taken over naval aviation.

More seriously, the two islands permit the lifts to be located out of the take-off strip, so a jammed lift will not prevent running take-offs.

An interesting mixture of truth and mis-information from the Russian Defence Ministry to Fallon reported on beeb. Pretty obvious which parts are true. :uhoh:

OAP

Where is he wrong?