You probably need to visit the "Carrier" exhibit. Still very good, even after nigh-on twenty years....

If you go to YL, don't follow the signs to the museum, go the other way. You'll come across the plinth that a landing aid used to be on, until somebody drove over it. I'm unsure if the museum has the 4-tonne truck. :E

HMS Queen Elizabeth has put to sea for trials. See her Twitter feed.

HMS Queen Elizabeth

Looking at the RN website.....

Helicopters join HMS Queen Elizabeth as she sails on first aircraft trials

Captain Jerry Kyd, the Commanding Officer of HMS Queen Elizabeth, said: "After the excitement of our commissioning ceremony in December, my ship's company and our industry partners are looking forward to taking the ship to sea to conduct first of class rotary wing flying trials.

"These trials will involve operating different types of helicopter from the ship in all weather conditions and fully testing the myriad of on board systems that are designed to support aviation. This is an important milestone in the ship's progression towards embarking the F35-B Lightning jets later this year, and ultimately the achievement of carrier strike capability."

Just (12.OO) took a stroll along the prom here in Penzance and there she was out at sea heading east.

Has been moored up in Mounts Bay off Penzance all morning. Couple of Chinooks on deck, and had a couple of Merlins flying around.

It has been interesting, and heartening, to see that despite the naysayers on both this future carrier (no longer) thread. and the F-35 canellation, both projects are ongoing and progressing despite the undoubted opposition both these programs have received.

In these uncertain times, in truth when have they ever been certain, being prepared for war is in itself a robust part of keeping the peace.

The success of development is never assured, but that is not an excuse not to to attempt it. Both the carrier and F-35 have been hugely expensive but not to have an effective defence can prove more so.

Our armed services have historically ensured our survival and success as a nation and to neglect it in a haze of self congratulation in the civility of our modern world is misguided myopic stupidity.

That both these programs are ongoing and developing reason for a modicum of relief for the slightly more cynical amongst us.

Will not do!
 

Sorry but your comment is just optimistic whistling in the wind. The Carrier and F35 debacle is part of a wider procurement catastrophe which has dogged HM Armed Forces for decades.

It has got to the point where we have not had a Maritime Patrol Aircraft for years, the Harriers long gone and if a Russian Cruiser transited the channel next week the RN might be reduced to sending out a minesweeper.

As of today, we have wasted £ Billions on big ticket defense projects that either do not work or which come into service so late and over budget as to cripple the service they are meant to serve.

Meanwhile Lord West tucks into another good lunch in the House of Lords.

Fully agree. I have been saying for some time now that the MoD ought to be funding equipment necessary for the 'day job'. That is to say buying and maintaining equipment primary to protect the UK and its people. Yes I know that traditionally the intent was to push the fight as far from our shores as possible. However, if we can not afford to defend this way then we should focus on desuading potential agressors by bolstering our self defenses.

You do realise that the requirement for that looks a lot like 5 sqns of FJ or less to do QRA, some AEW, some MPA, some SSK, some MCMV, some fishery patrol ships and a bunch of light infantry/SF for counter-terrorism. If you want to keep CASD you could add in a half-dozen towed array frigates.


Anything beyond that exceeds the requirement for national self-defence, given the direct threat.

A Russian cruiser in the Channel does not require a warship or submarine to escort/destroy/cripple it .. a few of those raf type chaps would enjoy dismantling it if required

Can I assume you're referring to HC3, MRA4, Typhoon, A400M, FSTA - all of which meet the criteria above? Or are you a single-service naysayer?

I am not a military analyst and neither I suspect are you. I also don't understand some of your abreviations (apart from QRA/AEW). Nevertheless, you missed the point about desuading potential agressors which infers the capability to either prevent an attack on us or to strike back.

Are you suggesting a carrier cannot do this? Why not?

How do you escort a ship with aircraft?

Why does it need "escorting" - you can watch it from afar -and if it suddenly turns into Portsmouth, guns blazing, you hit it with a couple of missiles......... do we think they're going to start dispensing drugs, illegal immigrants or Red Propaganda as they sail down Channel??

One of us has actually done that job in town and elsewhere - and can spell. Your supposed point is covered by a national defence force structure - with CASD if you really want to avoid having to "strike back".

Is a project a success in isolation or do you count the effect that the cost of that eventual success has on the whole system?

Lets say there's a series of problematic projects: does that mean it's understandable for the latest project to be the same or worse in spite of the amount of experience that should have been gained thus far?

I have no idea what you are wittering on about! :ugh:

Perhaps you can elaborate.

My hero....

Good lad. Stick to small words that you can spell.

Yes
 

Yes by no means a single service basher I would cut future defense spending because while I admire those who serve I have no patience with the Lords and Masters of MoD waste billions then demand more or we will have to cut.......insert here.....the Royal Marines etc.