You wouldn't get three smaller carriers or "through-deck whatevers" with any significant capability for the same price as two QECs. Smaller, cramped carriers with less capability and bigger headaches share the same need for expensive propulsion, power generation and weapons systems (including C4I), and the personnel to man and maintain them, as larger carriers. QNLZ's ships' company (her main through-life cost over the next 40-50 years) is little larger than that of CVS. Cost is not directly proportional to size and the expression 'steel is cheap and air is free' is not without some validity.

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.

OK, but when will this ship be combat ready and what fire power will it be able to deploy? I remain unconvinced that this package of ship and aircraft will ever offer the same punch and value for money compared to land based systems.

The UK's days of having any military role East of Suez are long over imo.

That's a relief as that is what was intended . . . (I don't do sensible as I found out that beyond the age of 65 I didn't have to grow up any more).

You are the RAF's version of Sharkey Ward and I claim my £5.

Planned IOC in 2020 and FOC in 2023. Carrier air wing of up to 40 aircraft (50 full load). Global reach, mobility, flexibility, higher sortie rates owing to closer proximity to target, strike, area air defence, LPH when appropriate, C4ISTAR, deterrence, visibility when required, soft power including HADR, broader range of political & military options, etc. In short, four acres of sovereign territory which can move over 500 miles per day and go anywhere there is ocean or sea. As a global trading nation, the UK's interests can be affected significantly by military or other events east of Suez.

P.S. As a member of PPRuNe since May 2001, why are you asking questions already answered in great detail? When all else fails, try this:

HMS Bristol for the 2020's................

A Somali pirate in a speedboat can sink a carrier with a missile. This is a guarantee if the side lift is down.

Not enough escorts available.

Thank you for your well-informed and technically convincing contribution. Freelancing from the Sunday Sport?

How would they do this exactly?

Jimlad, you clearly have not seen Hollywood block busters. The missile would careen off a bulkhead before flying down a corridor (sic) trailing flames as our hero and heroine run ahead of it. They just manage to step aside as . . .

Let's try to see where this floating overdraft arrangement fits into our future plans as a maritime nation:

It cost double her estimated build costs to complete.
It needs re-commissioned personel - drafted back into the navy - to safely man it.
It's running costs have almost certainly doubled since inception.
She has no FW.
When the FW arrive @ £140mil a pop, they will cost an inordinate amount of money to maintain and fly.
The Navy is still being targeted by the treasury.
There are only another 18 (EIGHTEEN) major combatent warships in the entire fleet :eek:
6 of them (destroyers), each costing £1000,000,000.....don't work in warm water :eek:.
The sister ship [HMS PoW] is (a) not due to be commissioned until 2020 and (b) will never go to sea at the same time as Lizzie. We can't afford it.
The Labour government is a government in waiting :mad:


This (carrier) programme was invented for a threat which (a) no longer exists and (b) the UK can no longer afford to operate simultaneously.

These ships are the dying cries of a once proud nation trying to fight above its weight. God help Great Britain. :\

TC - and to provide employment in Gordon Brown's constituency

Why? It's one thing to put a few jets on a small ship. It's entirely another to routinely launch and recover them in all weather conditions, and maintain them over a significant deployment period, and arm and fuel them during a shootin' war. For that you need something significantly bigger. Hence QE.

I believe (b) may be true, but does not have to be true, and seriously doubt (a) is true.

TC--

Sad but true. However, you have to give credit for UK inc. remaining at the cutting edge of technology . Britannia may no longer rule the waves , but a lot of brain power still resides on this tiny island.

Mind you, still wondering about that twin island design. Not the most elegant of looks for a carrier. Maybe new stealth technology....

And talking about stealth, I do wonder what these expensive F 35's will be targetting . There is a great book -"The Limits of Air Power"- talks about the billions of dollars spent on dropping assorted ordnance on Vietnamese paddy fields , all to no avail; we know how that turned out. Third world economies found pretty good (cheap) ways of downing first world jets.

KenV - didn't we manage ok with the Harriers on the TDCs

xxxxxxxx.... Running away at the mouth again are we?