Fascinating read, in conjunction with the very enlightening BBC TV programme. To a layman, it shows how staggeringly complicated these new-build ships and aircraft are, and highlights the need to establish boundaries for safe and efficient operations. No wonder it seems to take forever to get things into the front line.

These capabilities are not delivered by Amazon by Thursday!!

Possibly this complexity is the Achilles heel of the entire concept.
Weapons that take a generation to bring into service are not practical for warfare, as they cannot be replaced if lost.
The Falklands effort saw a lot of creative and immediate improvisation. It might be useful for the RN to try to build on that achievement, even if only in studies, to stay abreast of what might usefully be done using such non standard methods.

Maybe if you have functioning shipyards and a design that's not too old and you made one recently then replacements will not take as long?

I'm enjoying the TV series so far - they seem to be featuring an interesting spread of officers and ratings. I particularly liked the cheerful Muslim chef who got the ok from his imam to prepare pork as long as he wears gloves. Did I detect a note of regret when he explained that it's all right as long as he doesn't eat any!

So now she's holed up in sunny Portsmouth having new ballistic windows fitted to the bridge wings, a completely new anti slip decking surface fitted because the original wasn't prepared properly and is lifting.
NCO mess rebuilt cosmetically.

"Why should Britain tremble"

I can only assume (considering the size of our sodding navy) that a meeting was held all those years ago and NATO urged GB to take the lead on this to fill an ever increasing gap in the front line of the future. Are they contributing towards it? or are others doing their bit to hold NATO together?

So we have one of the biggest carriers in the world (without any aircraft of course - but they could always practice croquet or something) and 4 mickey mouse destroyers to protect it (half of which break down in the heat) and one nuke sub in trail.
So £6000million for the carrier, £1000 million each D class and £2000 million for the sub .
12 billion pounds and each piece of hardware keeps breaking down.
Be afraid world - be very afraid.

I detect a touch of negativity in that post. ;)

Should we all not be proud that it’s BRITISH? And built the British way, with errors such as the propellor shaft thrust bearing being incorrectly specified? At least the radar works (apparently) without a concrete insertion in lieu.

Problems? - Just wait until the jets arrive! :eek::eek:

Thomas coupling,

So, you managed to watch the two programmes so far but seemingly didn't listen to any of the words? All your myths and inaccuracies were addressed if you'd cared to have listened.

But then I guess that wouldn't fit your whinging agenda would it?

It was designed by the French - Thales.
It has Phalanx I suppose so a 40yr old close defence gun which could deter drones?
Noticeably the Phalanx discharges its 4500 rounds within 1 minute. Each magazine of 3 (1500 in each) costs $135,000 once discharged, averaging $30/round of depleted uranium shells.
On three previous occasions, the gun has engaged drones @ sea (killing two sailors) and taken out an Intruder A6. It also locked onto the Missouri launching chaff at a range of 3 miles, hitting the ship with atleast 4 rounds.
Overall I believe the ship was built to take the gun to sea - because the gun seems to have a better war time record than the ship :\

At £650,000/day, shes' going to milk the budget dry before firing one shot in anger.

Thomas coupling,

NO it wasn't! You are years out of date. That was the initial design, THIS is an Aircraft carrier Alliance design.

The UK's last big carrier, HMS Ark Royal was, as the RN's most powerful warship, only armed with three saluting cannon...

And prey tell me who was the lead design in the "Alliance"? Keep up.

I know because I was there...........2007

Wow. Your best argument against the ship is the CIWS that's installed on it. And then you got that essentially all wrong. The "defects" you refer to were resolved literally decades ago. The latest system version is Block 1B which is what is installed on the QE and the latest Phalanx round is the ELC (Enhanced Lethality Cartridge) which uses a tungsten (not depleted uranium) penetrator. And since you seem to be all worried about the price of the ammo, the latest electric gun version has multiple firing rates to conserve ammunition.

A very insightful post. But since you got it all wrong, your post provides insight into the author, and none at all into the ship or the weapons it employs.

Hmmmm. The Aircraft Carrier Alliance is a partnership of BAE Systems, Babcock International, Thales Group and the UK Ministry of Defence. LINK

Thales has no naval architects. None. Zero. Nada. Bupkis.
And when you were there in 2007, it was already a five year old design.

If you really were there in 2007, you should be aware that the original design (that won the competition) predates that date by around 5 years. That design was subsequently matured as a joint effort as part of the ACA.

You're also being a little shy as to which British design company provided all that design expertise under contract. You know the one - it begins with B and ends in MT. Strangely none of their NArchs were based over the channel IIRC.

A couple of images from last Wed (18th) as we headed for Bilbao from Pompey.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/824/4...b9ba6622_b.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/831/4...7a1f9b4a_b.jpg

You tell him cowboy.

I was there....
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/aircr...craft-carriers
"Thales is providing the communications systems on-board both carriers. The systems, from wireless on-board to satellite connectivity,.."
"Thales leads the Power and Propulsion element of the QEC programme..."

"...the long-range S1850M radar, which has been supplied by Thales ..."

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/unite...-success-story
"One of these is the leadership of the platform design and aviation teams..."

"... Thales has been deeply involved in the provision of the radar, communications, power and propulsion systems right from the start. ..."

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/unite...-years-service

Thales - A French MultiNational Company.

I was there..............................

While the company website may put those stories out - as well they might - others who were there in 2002 and earlier also remember whose badges the people actually doing the design wore.....

It does looks as if they're having to re-do the deck coating. It seems odd that the need for a heat-tolerant anti-skid surface seems to have been recognized so late in the game. The NAVFAC spec sheet for land-based VL pads was issued in early 2010, I believe. Anyone know why this wasn't sorted out earlier for the QE?

Seeing a carrier alongside in Portsmouth for an upkeep period usually involves seeing that same carrier with some BFO tenting on deck for flightdeck coating prep and application. Happened frequently with CVS and will happen for QEC as required. I'd suspect that it's less to do with late recognition, more to do with the last instance of preparation and application. It's a newly developed coating system and applying it at large scale will be a learning exercise to start with. Even mature coating systems like camrex (which btw forms a fair amount of QEC FD coating) are not immune from application defects.....