Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Plenty of advertising space available on side of ship to reduce running costs lol

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

RetroSicotte wrote:Haggis isn't something's stomach silly.

You catch haggis.
A lot of haggis is farmed these days. Some say it doesn't have the same subtle flavours that you get with wild haggis but I think it's fine.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 510
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by jimthelad »

Yes they have also bred out the longer leg on one side to allow for housing in flat landscapes. This has led to problems when anti-vivisectionists etc have released captive Haggi into the wild and inevitable cross breeding with wild types. Sadly we in the veterinary profession do not yet have the answer.

User avatar
Phil R
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:10
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Phil R »

It is a shame the lowland haggis became extinct, it's ability to hover avoided any issues associated with it's leg length.


User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7943
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »

Anyone know of any news or information of when Portsmouth's Victory Jetty will be upgraded for a second carrier? Victory Jetty is only 9 metres deep and cannot presently berth another carrier.

User avatar
cockneyjock1974
Member
Posts: 537
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:43
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by cockneyjock1974 »

SKB wrote:Anyone know of any news or information of when Portsmouth's Victory Jetty will be upgraded for a second carrier? Victory Jetty is only 9 metres deep and cannot presently berth another carrier.
Yes

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7943
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »



Dutch Royal Navy's Karel Doorman berthed today at Victory Jetty, Portsmouth, before it heads to Saint Marten.

Adam
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 17 Oct 2016, 20:39
South Africa

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Adam »

Are the carriers built to naval shock standards and will they undergo shock testing?

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

I dont believe they undergo the same shock testing as U.S.N ships which would make a great picture , e.g. large nearby plume of water near carrier , and lots of sensors registering impact inside ship

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2324
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by R686 »

Well I'll say one thing, when it comes to paying the carriers off and if they don't get sold to another country I hope one becomes a museum piece and the other a dive wreck. But I won't be around to see it happen

User avatar
2HeadsBetter
Member
Posts: 206
Joined: 12 Dec 2015, 16:21
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by 2HeadsBetter »

"But I won't be around to see it happen" - Have more faith in the RAF :D

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Opinion3 »

I think the Landrover / Jaguar story and that of the ACA alliance provide an interesting business and engineering comparison.

Back in the 80's and 90's they were both a rather sad story. Their finished product and workforce was misguided and aging.

With investment, a better understand on how to be successful and a story that is going from strength to strength it sort of gains a momentum of its own.

Enigmatically
Member
Posts: 345
Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Enigmatically »

Did he just say I was ageing even in the 80s and 90s? I must be well decrepit now then
:)

albedo
Member
Posts: 179
Joined: 27 Jun 2017, 21:44
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by albedo »

Opinion3 wrote:I think the Landrover / Jaguar story and that of the ACA alliance provide an interesting business and engineering comparison.....With investment, a better understand on how to be successful and a story that is going from strength to strength it sort of gains a momentum of its own.
While JLR design and marketing has got a lot better in recent years, the same can't be said for their quality/reliability/dealer standards, by all accounts. Just look at eg an F-Pace forum and see the level of issues there. Hopefully this isn't a parallel to ACA.

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Opinion3 »

Interesting point. I am not sure we hear about reliability issues.....

There are issues but they seem to be clouded in a cloak of secrecy and blamed as a design issue. T45 overheating (money saved by conducting computer simulations and shutting down a testing facility), Astute lack of speed (I assume this is due to a lack of power but no idea really), Foxhound overheating and reliability (do these things go through the same sort of hot / cold testing as a BMW?)

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Opinion3 »

Enigmatically wrote:Did he just say I was ageing even in the 80s and 90s? I must be well decrepit now then
Well yes I did sort of, but more in reference to an aging industry and workforce struggling to cope with a changing economic landscape. I find it incredible just how much industry we have lost, and how few of my friends or family actually make anything....

A trip to the North just illustrates how clever some of the engineers were, particularly the Scots.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Opinion3 wrote:
Enigmatically wrote:Did he just say I was ageing even in the 80s and 90s? I must be well decrepit now then
Well yes I did sort of, but more in reference to an aging industry and workforce struggling to cope with a changing economic landscape. I find it incredible just how much industry we have lost, and how few of my friends or family actually make anything....

A trip to the North just illustrates how clever some of the engineers were, particularly the Scots.
Man when your in a hole you just keep digging don,t you LOL

Enigmatically
Member
Posts: 345
Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Enigmatically »

Opinion3 wrote:
Enigmatically wrote:Did he just say I was ageing even in the 80s and 90s? I must be well decrepit now then
Well yes I did sort of, but more in reference to an aging industry and workforce struggling to cope with a changing economic landscape. I find it incredible just how much industry we have lost, and how few of my friends or family actually make anything....
I find it incredible how common this myth is.

UK Manufacturing output has increased in real terms since WWII and continues. For example
Image

All that has happened in the meantime is that the Service industries have in increased even faster so as a % of GDP it has decline.

In the meantime our manufacturing has oriented more to the high tech high value added end:
Space; cars (including of course racing cars); aerospace; pharmacueticals; defence.
The UK is a very big player in all of those and others.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2324
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by R686 »

Enigmatically wrote:
Opinion3 wrote:
Enigmatically wrote:Did he just say I was ageing even in the 80s and 90s? I must be well decrepit now then
Well yes I did sort of, but more in reference to an aging industry and workforce struggling to cope with a changing economic landscape. I find it incredible just how much industry we have lost, and how few of my friends or family actually make anything....
I find it incredible how common this myth is.

UK Manufacturing output has increased in real terms since WWII and continues. For example
Image

All that has happened in the meantime is that the Service industries have in increased even faster so as a % of GDP it has decline.

In the meantime our manufacturing has oriented more to the high tech high value added end:
Space; cars (including of course racing cars); aerospace; pharmacueticals; defence.
The UK is a very big player in all of those and others.


UK manufacturing has decreased in real terms since the end of WW2, but as you say what is left is high end and with automation the value has increased to the detriment of the workforce

User avatar
Zero Gravitas
Member
Posts: 293
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:36
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Zero Gravitas »

E's graph is in real terms. It's in fixed prices.

albedo
Member
Posts: 179
Joined: 27 Jun 2017, 21:44
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by albedo »

Zero Gravitas wrote:E's graph is in real terms. It's in fixed prices.
Well, yes, but it would make things considerably clearer if: (1) the chart covered eg 1945-2017 (as implied by the text in the post and not 1959-2007, chosen who knows why?); and (2) showed total economic growth in addition, so that the progressively decreasing proportion of GDP attributable to manufacturing showed up clearly.

Yes, sorry, I know this isn't strictly on-topic, but it's right at the heart of why the defence budget is going to be under such severe strain in the years to come - we've hardly seen the start of it as yet IMO.

User avatar
Zero Gravitas
Member
Posts: 293
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:36
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Zero Gravitas »

albedo wrote:
Zero Gravitas wrote:E's graph is in real terms. It's in fixed prices.
Well, yes, but it would make things considerably clearer if: (1) the chart covered eg 1945-2017 (as implied by the text in the post and not 1959-2007, chosen who knows why?); and (2) showed total economic growth in addition, so that the progressively decreasing proportion of GDP attributable to manufacturing showed up clearly.

Yes, sorry, I know this isn't strictly on-topic, but it's right at the heart of why the defence budget is going to be under such severe strain in the years to come - we've hardly seen the start of it as yet IMO.
Not sure it's quite that easy to generate random charts. Pretty certain the story is the same from roughly 1955. Real terms increase / proportional decrease.

Which is what Enigmatically said.

If only we had a resident, shy, expert who could help us. :roll:

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1377
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

I'm losing track now. Is this the haggis thread, the weather thread, or the economic output thread?

Enigmatically
Member
Posts: 345
Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Enigmatically »

I used that graph because I found it easily. This article has one that goes back to 1948 if that helps.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/2 ... g_figures/

Of course, if you have any evidence to show that the position changed dramatically recently or in the 3 years before that graph then please do show.

None of this is to say however that manufacturing is more virtuous in any way than the service industries as some suggest. That article above points out that manufacturing is more volatile than primary or tertiary industries. And why would their decline case a reduction in defence spending?
Defence has itself got far more technologically complex, far more than most, even on here, appreciate, so much of what goes into building a warship, such as an aircraft carrier ( I am trying to bring it back on track) is along way removed from the traditional metal-bashing.

Post Reply