Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MigBuster

HMS Queen Elizabeth

Recommended Posts


65.000 tonnes for operating STOVL aircraft.......... An out of a maximun possible purchase of 138 F-35B's the UK has only confirmed by now 38 , of which I suppose the will operate with preference in the RAF and they won't be in service in a few years......

 

Excesive , a more "compact" solution should be made, in my opinion , if you want to make a supercarrier made a real CATOBAR supercarrier like the US but this is really expensive.....

 

Sincerely ,I think that the Royal Navy would have been built  a carrier with a smaller size,  like the size  of the Italian Cavour for example . As I said 65.000 tones for STOVL operations, I'm my opinion is excesive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But like the man says in the video you can fit 3 football pitches on it - our teams need all the practice they can get!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charle de Gaulle, 42.000 tonnes, laid down 1989, CATOBAR CVN

 

HMS Queen Elizabeth, 65.000 tonnes, laid down 2009, STOVL CV

 

 

Because fuck logic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charle de Gaulle, 42.000 tonnes, laid down 1989, CATOBAR CVN

 

 

 

Who else have them? Oh yes the USA..

Edited by FRPignon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really i don't know why they couldn't just add an angle deck and put cats that could shoot off the side like the American 3 & 4 cat to make her more functional .... best of both worlds of course there is a reason my work is tossing cases of beer and not designing warships for nations 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really i don't know why they couldn't just add an angle deck and put cats that could shoot off the side like the American 3 & 4 cat to make her more functional .... best of both worlds of course there is a reason my work is tossing cases of beer and not designing warships for nations 

 

Why? Money , with catapults and arresting wires the cost would rise a lot. And also the mainteneance of the ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Money , with catapults and arresting wires the cost would rise a lot. And also the mainteneance of the ship.

No, I get it,..but the ship seems to be build around the F-35(B) A real pricey... so fare unproven piece of equipment  why not go with say an F-18 a proven reliable platform they could probably get the squadron of F-18 add the cats and still have plunty of money left over for maintenance to get the airwings up and going...    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess there's 2 reasons

 

1) because stealth

(I've learn my lesson well)

 

2) to be sure that french navy Rafales won't hang around : )

 

jk

Edited by Cliff7600

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The legacy Hornet is out of production, and you don't buy used outdated planes for a new carrier. The Super Hornet is too big for that vessel. Look at what happened with the Kuznetsov and the Su-33...Russia is still kicking itself for not getting the MiG-29s from the beginning.

 

So the Super Hornet might've been a good idea IF they'd designed the carrier to be even bigger...like THAT idea would've flown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't realize - the Naming ceremony took place today:

 

 

Capture.JPG

 

 

That F-35 (model?) is the only things thats going to be on there for a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be the real plane as the 35B will participate in the RIAT on next weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This carrier inherits the name of a fine warship with a long career, yet having missed many opportunities to prove own valor during both Global Wars. Best wishes for this new Queen to win fame for her name...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this in a german forum:

 

 

 

2 islands? No kidding?

 

One is for ship operation and the other one for aerial operations. Our PA2 had this design:

 

dpa-line_2006.gif

 

In fact Thales made that adaptation from the original CVF for France. For futher reading (french):

 

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/PA_2

Edited by FRPignon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That ski jump really looks like it was bolted on as an after thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things i feel more concerning about this is the cost of keeping a time without pilots training in aircraft operations. They could have exchanges with friendly navies, but to me, that particular point seemed worse than the capability gap caused by delays in delivering the ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only us Brits can mess up in such a way - building an aircraft carrier which will not have planes when it is ready for service!!!  :doh: 

 

Rather like building a tank (Cromwell) in WW2 which had a pathetic gun that had no chance of penetrating an enemy Tiger!!! :doh:

 

What the hell are we doing??? :dntknw:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What the hell are we doing??? :dntknw:

 

I think you are not doing the things properly. You had an important budget cut during the last 6 years , I guess it was about more than a 10% during those years. And therefore that causes problems...

 

1) In 2006 the Sea Harrier fleet is retired , and then the joint force harrier is used insteand but now using Harriers with no radar with the task of defending the fleet among other missions, a few Sea Harrier with AMRAAM and the blue vixen radar would have been better to perform fleet defence rather than those Harrier Gr7/9 but during that time you still had fixed wing naval aviation.

 

2) At early 2011 all the Harriers are retired , about 72 aircraft? With no substitute , well yes the F-35.......

 

3) And many other capabilities:

 

* Maritime patrol aircraft

*Anti ship Missiles from aircraft (Sea Eagle)

*Anti radar Missiles from aircraft (Alarm)         (you rely too much on the Paveway IV system)

 

4) The F-35 must substitute not only the Harrier but also the Tornado, you have only bought the "b" version the less capable and more expensive of all of them and out of maximun of 138 only 48 are confirmed for both use of the RAF and the RN , so you must share about 48 between the RAF and the RN super carriers.... It is crazy they are very few aircraft.

 

5)  In the Royal Army you have according to The independent more horses than tanks... Only 156 tanks they said that they are in service, even Italy or Spain have more!!!

 

Sincerely, I'm from a country with a huge military tradition, like the UK, and during the past years I was complaning about the french military policy , but when I take a look to the UK m and I see what you had and what you have right now , I wonder... What did they do? 

 

It is just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Scotland really would vote for independence in autumn this year and it would become an own independent nation in some years, what would happen with the HMS QE. Will the ship be owned fully by the rest UK and Scottland will be paid for his share or will be the bow scottish and the stern english and the middle be owned by Wales and Northern Ireland?

Edited by Gepard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Scotland really would vote for independence in autumn this year and it would become an own independent nation in some years, what would happen with the HMS QE. Will the ship be owned fully by the rest UK and Scottland will be paid for his share or will be the bow scottish and the stern english and the middle be owned by Wales and Northern Ireland?

 

No I suspect England will own the whole thing regardless  :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect "independentists" are as cash driven everywhere in Western Europe...i´ll better not get started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..