HMS Queen Elizabeth

Discussion in 'Taylor's Tittle-Tattle - General Banter' started by hornmeister, Jun 26, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hornmeister

    hornmeister Tired

  2. great stuff, we'll soon be able to declare war on france
     
    hornmeister likes this.
  3. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    How many Spanish trawlers can it eliminate in one go?
     
    hornmeister likes this.
  4. StuBoy

    StuBoy Forum Cad and Bounder

    These two aircraft carriers are the biggest white elephants since the Millennium Dome, and this is coming from someone who really supports investment in our military. So many reasons why they are a waste of money.
     
    hornmeister likes this.
  5. They are a monument to Tony Bliars vanity

    Still, they are impressive things
     
  6. GoingDown

    GoingDown "The Stability"

    Do we name everything after the Queen to confuse our enemies?

    ****, it's the Queen Elizabeth!

    The ferry or the warship?

    I DON'T KNOW SIR!
     
    BigRossLittleRoss likes this.
  7. oxhey67

    oxhey67 Squad Player

    It was confusing watching the ITV news bulletin at 6pm today.

    Firstly, a report where there was plenty of slavering and licking of lips at this mighty war machine named after Her Majesty, Queen 'Liz Eye-Eye.
    Following straight after a report from the service where the suicide bomber sliced through many innocents with his own body parts and molten pieces of shrapnel in the Manchester Arena foyer, all in the presence of His Majestic Charles Charlie Charles who looked sad and shook his head at such war like behaviour.

    The Royals, are they pro killing of people in the name of any given cause or are they anti killing of people?
     
  8. Roger Irrelevant

    Roger Irrelevant Reservist

    Nathan Ellington was better value for money.
     
  9. lord stan smith

    lord stan smith Academy Graduate

    Wonderful british engineering, and a great boost for the Roayl navy after twenty years of massive cut backs.

    A massive shot in the arm for British ship building. Well done to all involved, and to the crew on its maiden trip.
     
    @julesmckenzie and iamofwfc like this.
  10. @julesmckenzie

    @julesmckenzie Academy Graduate

    As an Island nation (soon to be isolated from the European mainland and its land bases) we have always prided ourselves on our Naval prowess for projection of military power. The Thatcher years firstly almost mothballed the Navy, and then realised after the Argies had hit the Falklands we really needed it!

    If you look at the composition of our forces, apart from ICBMs we have no long range first or retaliative strike capabilities.

    Our bomber fleet consisted of the V bombers and the Canberra all lacking in range and sophistication having been built in the 50s. When the Falklands were taken, our first stike was a lone Vulcan that needed to be refuelled 6 times on it mission from a base in the mid Atlantic. It managed to drop a single bomb on the runway at Port Stanley out of 20ish due to the bomb site taken directly from the Lancaster.

    We cannot afford to develop long range bombers and their support like the US so a mobile base makes sense. When (eventually) the Queen Elizabeth Class is equiped with the F35 it will offer us considerable projection around the world.

    Add its newly designed support vessels and the type 45 destroyer, along with the updated subs and we will have a modern Navy again. Not to mention the jobs that BAe have created from these machines and the future expertise in this field I think they represent good value long term.
     
  11. Bwood_Horn

    Bwood_Horn Squad Player

    And with an IT system powered by
    Windows XP
    according to R4 just a second ago.
     
  12. @julesmckenzie

    @julesmckenzie Academy Graduate

    Should have stuck with NT. Was solid.
     
    Bwood_Horn likes this.
  13. StuBoy

    StuBoy Forum Cad and Bounder

    I lot of what you say is true and makes sense; however, the trouble with these new (x2) carriers is that firstly, due to cuts we do not have enough of these new Destroyers to defend both of them and other assets we have. So essentially the carriers will be sitting ducks unless we can lean on our Allies to assist in their defence. Secondly, again due to cuts, we don't really have the sailors or technical support staff to maintain these two massive ships. Even the BBC article on them yesterday alluded to this as being a major reason as to why their deployment will be delayed to 2020 at the earliest, maybe even 2026. Whilst I will not deny the F35 is an excellent aircraft, the flip flopping of both the Labour and Tory governments about having these first setup as VTOL (vertical take off and landing), then catapult launch, then back to VTOL again has cost money and reduced capability. VTOL is probably not the most ideal route to take with these ships. In my mind VTOL makes them no different to the previous (much smaller) type of aircraft carrier we previously disposed of.

    So essentially, these carriers are an expensive, ill thought out mess, built for prestige only. They are a vanity project. The money would have been better spent on ordering the original number of type 45 Destroyers they wanted, and other support ships and equipment. I also heard a rumour that the second carrier the Prince of Wales could either be sold or shared with the French Navy.

    (they do look good though)
     
  14. GoingDown

    GoingDown "The Stability"

    "Wonderful british engineering"
     
    Bwood_Horn likes this.
  15. Bwood_Horn

    Bwood_Horn Squad Player

    ZX spectrums?
     
    @julesmckenzie likes this.
  16. @julesmckenzie

    @julesmckenzie Academy Graduate

    Amstrad CPC 464
     
  17. Carriers can't be shared with the French navy as they use fixed wing CATs launched aircraft.

    Who they can be shared with is the US marines, who also take the STOVL F35B, use many common munitions, and with whom we've had many years of combined operations and the integration that requires.

    STOVL aircraft make the carriers cheaper (don't need expensive CATOBAR) and aircraft in an emergency could be operated off anything big enough to fit them (HMS Ocean) or makeshift land bases. The only occasion fixed wing v STOVL went up against each other (Falklands) the Harriers mullered every fixed wing it came up against so the concept is sound. The downside is reduced weapons and fuel payload.

    The gov will buy 48 F35Bs, 2 carriers with that many aircraft is a premier league projection of power.

    I'd like to see:

    • Scrapping typhoons and instead both navy and airforce share the same f35b aircraft
    • wind down the army, no more foreign wars, instead maintain a smallish home defence force and a smallish marine/mobile force
    • Plough the budget into the navy to project power and security to the sea lanes around the uk and atlantic, more subs, more type 45s, more marine patrol, more everything....
     
  18. StuBoy

    StuBoy Forum Cad and Bounder

    Can't say I disagree with your thoughts there.

    As far as the carriers are concerned, I just don't think we'll have the money, enough crew and expertise in the future to keep both ships operational. At the very least one will always be in reserve. However, my main point is that I'm just not 100% sure we have the capability to defend these ships, whatever aircraft we have operating from them. If you don't have an adequate defence screen provided by your escort ships, you will be in trouble.
     
  19. Bwood_Horn

    Bwood_Horn Squad Player

    Yep. Also the days (well pre-Brexit anyway and we haven't left yet) of us on our own sending in "our boys (and girls)" to sort someone out are long gone. We do things with our partners (NATO) who will supply destroyers etc (and is why all "allied" navies have compatible comms and armaments).

    Many of the arguments about the white elephant nature of the carriers (and the F35 B) have been done to death here (even at over 400 pages long it's well worth labouring through).

    But @StuBoy you are correct about the Royal Navy's chronic recruitment (and retention) problems. Their last wheeze was to re-recruit ex-forces engineers offering them PO "rank" (and pay/TACOS/pension) from day 1 of signing up.
     
  20. Diamond

    Diamond First Team

    ZX-81. And is that 1 so small compared to the 8?
     
  21. @julesmckenzie

    @julesmckenzie Academy Graduate

    Its because you have put the RAM pack on. Makes it bigger.
     
    Bwood_Horn likes this.
  22. That's a 5 year old thread with 5 year old argument whilst staring down the barrel of the austerity gun

    Back in 2012 the argument if we had to have a carrier make it a budget one with catobar and cheap f16 / 18s had some momentum

    Fast forward to 2017 and the picture looks different, the F35b works, is in service with the US marines and they plan to replace all f18s and harriers

    The fundamental question does UK need carriers is a different question. But if we decide we need one we should give the brave lads and lasses in the forces the best equipment budget can allow and that means a gen 5 fighter
     
  23. Bwood_Horn

    Bwood_Horn Squad Player

    The thread started 5 years ago but it's always been very active. Virtually every argument about the ships (CATOBAR, steam or electric) and planes (even down to "...why can't we just use harriers..." let alone the F35B/C routes) have been made and exceptionally knowledgable comments have been written by people who actually know what they are talking about. As I said, as the thread's so old it's well worth wading through to get a full history of the project with running commentary.

    EDIT: Once in a while, the arrse throws up some very, very interesting and informative threads such as this one.
     
  24. hornmeister

    hornmeister Tired

    Yes and no. I think everyone can agree that the contract negotiations could have been handled differently. dont; forget it was all signed off when we had loads of money.

    That's why posted the link. I've always been interested in carriers, ever since Top Gun came out when I was a kid. It's a marvel of engineering even if we don;t necessarily agree with it's reasons for, or method of existence.

    With drone technology ever improving there will come a time that pilots will not need to be actually inside the plane. There's will be no need for the massive Nimitz class carriers in the future. Not being able to share them with the French is just a bonus.

    On the three points you raise I completely agree. I also suggest that we dumped the harrier way too early as is illustrated by the yanks buying up all our old stock at a discount and upgrading them.
     
  25. Bwood_Horn

    Bwood_Horn Squad Player

    Again, an old arrse thread that focuses on the F35 (really, really worth wading through as it is/was very frequently updated) and the "plane-that-shall-not-be-named" crops up quite a few times as does the "...why did we sell them to Yanks and not just upgrade them..." arguments.
     
  26. what is the point in throwing in a stupid childish line like that?

    ****
     
  27. Agree, although new labour had blown through the credit cards to pay for foreign wars and saving irresponsible bankers and there was little money left
     
  28. Bwood_Horn

    Bwood_Horn Squad Player

    Possibly because what seems like a pub debate with all of the "colourful" accoutrements that internet arguments have the people taking part in it are military pilots, military engineers, weapon specialists, military weapon/platform designers not interested amateurs nor internet warriors.

    [​IMG]

    Your turn.
     
  29. Stevohorn

    Stevohorn Watching Grass Grow

    I'm sure the Chinese will buy it.

    If not maybe it could be used as one of those Thames party boat things when not it service. Imagine turning up in one of those outside the houses of parliament.. giving it large with 1,600 of your mates :p
     
  30. Bwood_Horn

    Bwood_Horn Squad Player

    I haven't, I didn't and I wouldn't.

    This is beyond parody.
     
  31. You are so up yourself I image you look inside out

    Probably why all the sh1t is on the outside
     
  32. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    LTC - As someone catching up on this thread I have to admit I haven't interpreted Bwood's posts in the way you have.
     
  33. @julesmckenzie

    @julesmckenzie Academy Graduate

    Nor me. Unless there is some passive-aggressive undertone that has whooshed me.
     
  34. hornmeister

    hornmeister Tired

    That ended well.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page