PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   Queen Elizabeth Carrier (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/536816-queen-elizabeth-carrier.html)

4Greens 27th Mar 2014 08:21

Queen Elizabeth Carrier
 
Was appalled to read an article in the Business section of the Telegraph about the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier as it raises a great deal of concern. The high level of automation so that fewer sailors are needed, is heavily praised and emphasised. In addition, the idea of the crew finding their way round the ship using Platform Navigation instead of knowledge is close to risible. It should be kept in mind that this is a warship and thus subject to battle damage. Aicraft carriers are particularly vulnerable in the days of the missile and the word redundancy did not feature in the article. When the lights go out, sailors are desperately needed.

Wensleydale 27th Mar 2014 08:27

The article also went on to criticize the moratorium on the use of the silent letter "u" in order to save money on printing ink.

Bengo 27th Mar 2014 09:05

4Greens

You are right, of course, just as one needs sailors for Disaster Relief after hurricanes et al. Unfortunately, sailors appear in the defence costs every year whereas equipment only appears when it is being bought.

So, if you want Defence on the cheap but with shiny new ships/aircraft they are going to have very few expensive boys and girls to drive and maintain them. Any army is going to be small and backed up by part timers.

The fact that this is not really a Defence capability is fine by the politicians and seems to be fine by voters. It's the future, until someone wants to fight.

N

Not_a_boffin 27th Mar 2014 10:17

The Platform Navigation system is more for familiarisation during the build of the ship and for new joiners. I doubt anyone expects it to replace knowledge of how to get to compartment 9DN from 2HF once you've been aboard for a while. Think of it as a more modern version of the engineering or WE handbook.

As BEngO says, matelots are not cheap, so the need to keep that under control is crucial to actually having the capability. Aircraft carriers are no more vulnerable to missiles than any other ship (or indeed base) and while no-one would suggest you can automate shoring, casevac, concrete repairs etc, you can do an awful lot by reducing the need for compartment rounds and initial damage surveys via sensor networks and the use of fixed firefighting systems where appropriate.

woptb 27th Mar 2014 10:22


When the lights go out, sailors are desperately needed.
4Greens,speak for yourself old chap !

Wensleydale 27th Mar 2014 10:30

The platform navigation system is also there to act as a ship-wide modem to allow the sailors to connect their I-pods to I-tunes on a 24/7 basis. No doubt, the contractor has already bought shares.....:E

Wensleydale 27th Mar 2014 10:44

I will add that the air wing will consist of single seat jets, including some flown by ex-Harrier fighter pilots, so an automatic navigation system will almost certainly be needed, together with low-level light-up walkways to direct them to the Wardroom! As was said by AOC 1 Group at a talk he gave yesterday: fighter pilots are perfectly capable of forming a loving, caring and bonding relationship....its just that no other individual is involved.

teeteringhead 27th Mar 2014 11:14


to allow the sailors to connect their I-pods to I-tunes on a 24/7 basis
... surely these days jamming of iTunes would be a cruel and unusual tactic contrary to the Rules of War and the Additional Protocols (1997) to the Geneva Convention! ;)

From the ICRC Website (my bold):

The methods and means used in military action must be proportionate to the military objective. Tactics or the excessive use of power or force that cause unnecessary death or destruction among civilians is prohibited. So too are methods and means that cause unnecessary suffering to enemy combatants.


NutLoose 27th Mar 2014 12:18

I note the pretty picture shows Chinooks above and below deck

HMS Queen Elizabeth: Britain's new aircraft carrier in detail - Telegraph

Ironic they show a comparison in size against the Titanic :p

The result of the Queen Elizabeth's technological advances is that just 32 sailors can do the work that once required 200

Automation is fine until you are hit and lose power... then you are stuffed.

pr00ne 27th Mar 2014 12:22

These ships will have a core crew of 679 which will rise to around 1,600 when a full airwing is embarked. That's hardly comparable with a modern supertanker in terms of lean manning. Don't see what folk are moaning about.

Wander00 27th Mar 2014 12:35

I suspect that they would have had difficulty in saving HMS Nottingham if she had been so leanly manned.

melmothtw 27th Mar 2014 13:14

Loving the comments beneath the story:



The old ones are always the best.

FlapJackMuncher 27th Mar 2014 16:22

According to the Telegraph photo, she's going to sail into Portsmouth 'Full Stern Ahead'.
:uhoh:

brakedwell 27th Mar 2014 17:33



According to the Telegraph photo, she's going to sail into Portsmouth 'Full Stern Ahead'.
This will give the Commanding Officer an excellent view from his suite without leaving his scratcher :}

sandiego89 27th Mar 2014 17:39

Good catch Flapjack! :)

I heard Portsmouth is a little rough around the edges.... perhaps she is escaping.

NutLoose 27th Mar 2014 17:56

No doubt the reduction in crew and the size of the ship will have absolutely no bearing on the accommodation available, I bet they will still be crammed into the some pokey little hole where hot bedding is the norm.

As for the Telegraphs story


In exactly 100 days, the Royal Navy’s biggest ever warship will be named by the Queen, who will smash a bottle of champagne on the 65,000 tonne aircraft carrier’s bow and name the vessel after herself.
Does the Queen do Smashing? One would have thought breaking would sound more upmarket.. :O

Dysonsphere 27th Mar 2014 18:05

Guess whoever wrote the piece and did the graphic has never been to Pompey

vascodegama 27th Mar 2014 18:48

I thought it was the first Queen Elizabeth.

brakedwell 27th Mar 2014 19:22


I thought it was the first Queen Elizabeth.
Nah, I saw her lying on the bottom of Hong Kong harbour.

NutLoose 27th Mar 2014 19:30

Was Bond there too?

Did they not drop the 2 off the end to stop people mixing it up with the holiday cruise liner?


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:59.


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