Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Question suggestion: 'What colour is the ward room carpet and curtains?' !
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I would like to know how many Chinese men/women will be working below doing the laundry??
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Pink so the spilled pink gin won't show a stain?SKB wrote:Question suggestion: 'What colour is the ward room carpet and curtains?' !
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Aviation week article US marines based on QE
http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-mari ... operations
Full article
http://www.w54.biz/showthread.php?19-Ro ... ers/page71
http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-mari ... operations
Full article
http://www.w54.biz/showthread.php?19-Ro ... ers/page71
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
...............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Don't know how I really feel about that, knowing that there are marine F-35's at the ready for our carriers the MOD might be a little bit more conservative on the amount of F-35's it will buy.
Obviously a big win for the marines should it happen having the ability to field a considerable number of aircraft will only give them more options and could do away with their reliance on the US navy's big carriers, also I wonder if they will bring any of their MV-22 along for refuelling purposes as well
Obviously a big win for the marines should it happen having the ability to field a considerable number of aircraft will only give them more options and could do away with their reliance on the US navy's big carriers, also I wonder if they will bring any of their MV-22 along for refuelling purposes as well
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Now that would make the arrangement usefulJdam wrote:also I wonder if they will bring any of their MV-22 along for refuelling purposes as well
I am generally OK with the idea of having a marines squadron permanently attached to the carriers. They are a big powerful expensive asset to the UK so it makes sense to maximise the capability of such an asset. Teaming with the marines could be a great way to achieve this without laying down the cash our self. As long as this is seen as an addition to the UK's capability, not replacing it then it should work out great.
As the article states, coalition ops are the norm now so what a better way to cooperate with our most powerful ally, by embedding them within us and sharing equipment to benefit us both. I also assume we would pick up and develop best practices from each other with potential cash savings on both sides. Perhaps we could even get some Burke's to make up for our woeful escort numbers.
I think the concerns about the British politicians thinking we don't need to buy as many are valid. I think it needs to be clear we are enhancing our capability by working with the marines, not the marines using our ships as a taxi because we built the things and cant afford to operate them properly.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
It wouldnt surprise that after some time the U.S. marines find merit in the ski jump for their own vessels after spending time on the Queen Elizabeth class carriers
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I'm sure they're already aware of that. I believe whenever Marine pilots deployed on the Invincible's from time to time they always commented on how great the ski-jump was. But then CVS was intended for a different mission to the LHD/LHAs that they usually operate from. If you were to put a ski-jump on a LHA/LHD you lose at least one parking spot for helicopters and that would therefore affect the primary mission of those vessels which is to get marines to the shore as quickly as possibly and increasingly from over the horizon (where helicopters or MV-22s are key).seaspear wrote:It wouldnt surprise that after some time the U.S. marines find merit in the ski jump for their own vessels after spending time on the Queen Elizabeth class carriers
So a ski-jump would go down really well with the Harrier and now F-35 pilots but would detract from the main mission of the launch platform.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
After they fit them to their own ships they will claim they invented them too.seaspear wrote:It wouldnt surprise that after some time the U.S. marines find merit in the ski jump for their own vessels after spending time on the Queen Elizabeth class carriers
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I seem to recall the advantage of the ski launch was extra payload and or range that could make up for one less spot.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Yep D'SWO will most probably jump in here in regards to the Gators, being that fixed wing ops are secondary to helo ops in Amphiboius operations, not even sure they could use SRVL for weapons bring back.seaspear wrote:I seem to recall the advantage of the ski launch was extra payload and or range that could make up for one less spot.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
What "reliance on the US navy's big carriers?" There are a couple of things one needs to understand about the USMC and its relationship with its sea service brethren. A) Every Marine, commissioned or enlisted, man or woman, is first and foremost a rifleman. It is their ethos, and one they buy into with every fiber of their beings. Everything else is secondary. B) The USMC is almost entirely tooth with very little tail. With the exception of their lawyers, they have virtually no staff corps. No doctors, no dentists, no nurses, no chaplains, no this, no that, not even battlefield medics, who are all USN Hospitalmen who serve with the Corps. Hell, even their forward NGFS and forward air controllers are naval officers. C) USMC pilots are, by definition, Naval Aviators. They wear the same "wings of gold," and attend pre-flight training classes together, basic flight training together, carrier qual together, if assigned advanced training by aircraft type, they do that together too.Jdam wrote:Obviously a big win for the marines should it happen having the ability to field a considerable number of aircraft will only give them more options and could do away with their reliance on the US navy's big carriers, also I wonder if they will bring any of their MV-22 along for refuelling purposes as well
If the Marine Corps is reliant upon the Navy it is by their choice. The less of that tail for which they are responsible, the happier they are. Now down to brass tacks as it were; your statement was wholly fallacious not only on its face, but upon the sort of scrutiny I bring to the table. So, do Harriers routinely fly off of Nimitz-class carriers? No; they do not. They fly from LHA/LHD-class ships. Therefore, one can expect the F-35Bs to fly almost always from those same LHA/LHD-class ships. The USMC aircraft that are reliant "on the US navy's big carriers," are designed to be reliant upon those big decks, to wit: F-18E/F Super Hornets, EF-18G Growlers, and F-35C Lightning IIs. Can any of those aircraft types fly from an LHA/LHD-class ship? No; they cannot.
So tell me again about the Corps can "do away with their reliance on the US navy's big carriers." Really, I'm all ears.
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now . . ."
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
desertstwo, you are 100% right in all of those statements, but there is another (doctrinal) angle that makes the Marines glad to have maximum numbers of F35Bs.
It's not that they don't like the big carriers, after all their real strike power is flying off (backed up by USN A2A punch) those carriers. It is a fact that carrier numbers (even though currently confirmed well into the future) have been under constant budgetary threat. Hence, it has become a non-certainty that there would always be a carrier (or two) in the area where Marine ops will be undertaken.
- therefore, the more F-35Bs, the happier they are... simply because the a/c can do so much more than their version of Harrier
It's not that they don't like the big carriers, after all their real strike power is flying off (backed up by USN A2A punch) those carriers. It is a fact that carrier numbers (even though currently confirmed well into the future) have been under constant budgetary threat. Hence, it has become a non-certainty that there would always be a carrier (or two) in the area where Marine ops will be undertaken.
- therefore, the more F-35Bs, the happier they are... simply because the a/c can do so much more than their version of Harrier
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I'm just looking for all those CATOBAR fanatics that claimed that STOVL carriers can't do cross-decking.
@Seaspear it's one less helicopter spot. For the marines (like the RM), maximizing the number of men that can be landed in one wave of helos is critical. Taking one helo spot away would bite a big chunk out of that. Unacceptable.
By the way, in my experience, the USN always give the RN full credit for angle decks, steam catapults & the hurricane bow. It's kinda rude to suggest otherwise.
@Seaspear it's one less helicopter spot. For the marines (like the RM), maximizing the number of men that can be landed in one wave of helos is critical. Taking one helo spot away would bite a big chunk out of that. Unacceptable.
By the way, in my experience, the USN always give the RN full credit for angle decks, steam catapults & the hurricane bow. It's kinda rude to suggest otherwise.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
The USMC operated their Harriers off both Ark Royal and Illustrious, and they loved it, but part of that was being able to operate as the primary air group for a change on ships configured for Harrier ops rather than playing 2nd fiddle to helo ops. Pretty sure it was covered in a documentary as they rather liked our bacon butties (and possibly the ward room for a proper drink if allowed).
Pretty sure if a Marine F-35B squadron get a regular stint on a UK QEC it will be treated as a prime posting, although it makes you wonder if they willl be UK based with either the USAF at Lakenheath who are scheduled to get F-35A or the nearby RAF Marham wil the RAF/FAA ?
Pretty sure if a Marine F-35B squadron get a regular stint on a UK QEC it will be treated as a prime posting, although it makes you wonder if they willl be UK based with either the USAF at Lakenheath who are scheduled to get F-35A or the nearby RAF Marham wil the RAF/FAA ?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Damn straight it would (be viewed as a prime posting) although I've never yet met an American that likes bangers let alone mash. British food tastes rather bland to an American set of taste buds. British beer on the other hand ....Geoff_B wrote:The USMC operated their Harriers off both Ark Royal and Illustrious, and they loved it, but part of that was being able to operate as the primary air group for a change on ships configured for Harrier ops rather than playing 2nd fiddle to helo ops. Pretty sure it was covered in a documentary as they rather liked our bacon butties (and possibly the ward room for a proper drink if allowed).
Pretty sure if a Marine F-35B squadron get a regular stint on a UK QEC it will be treated as a prime posting, although it makes you wonder if they willl be UK based with either the USAF at Lakenheath who are scheduled to get F-35A or the nearby RAF Marham wil the RAF/FAA ?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Warm and flatRon5 wrote: British beer on the other hand ....
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
If you check the standard kit of USMC members, you will find a large bottle of Tabasco Sauce, or for those members who hale from south of the border, or anywhere near the Mekong River and its tributaries (sort of our version of the Gurkhas), a bottle of something so hot you'll be pleading for your mates to put one of those NATO 5.56 rounds through your brain pan! Their food is never bland.Ron5 wrote:Damn straight it would (be viewed as a prime posting) although I've never yet met an American that likes bangers let alone mash. British food tastes rather bland to an American set of taste buds. British beer on the other hand ....Geoff_B wrote:The USMC operated their Harriers off both Ark Royal and Illustrious, and they loved it, but part of that was being able to operate as the primary air group for a change on ships configured for Harrier ops rather than playing 2nd fiddle to helo ops. Pretty sure it was covered in a documentary as they rather liked our bacon butties (and possibly the ward room for a proper drink if allowed).
Pretty sure if a Marine F-35B squadron get a regular stint on a UK QEC it will be treated as a prime posting, although it makes you wonder if they willl be UK based with either the USAF at Lakenheath who are scheduled to get F-35A or the nearby RAF Marham wil the RAF/FAA ?
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now . . ."
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I want to take this opportunity to publicly apologize to one and all, but most especially Jdam for the tone of my response to him vis-a-vis USMC aviators and CVNs. There is no excuse; as an officer and a "gentleman" (by an act of Congress ), one should show more restraint. I can only plead that it was early, I hadn't had my first three Diet Cokes, and the Gabapentin and Oxycodone that keep me sane in the face of a collapsing skelletal infrastructure hadn't kicked in yet. Seriously, please do forgive me.
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now . . ."
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Mmmmmm perfect!R686 wrote:Warm and flat
@LandSharkUK
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
seaspear wrote:chilled only never flat
I remember years ago a mate of mine from the old dart had his first cold beer in the winter and could not believe we drink it cold, but he soon converted in the summer when it regularly got in the mid 40's
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I believe you can throw the Fresnel Lens into that pile for which the RN has always gotten full credit from us. Just sayin'.Ron5 wrote:I'm just looking for all those CATOBAR fanatics that claimed that STOVL carriers can't do cross-decking.
@Seaspear it's one less helicopter spot. For the marines (like the RM), maximizing the number of men that can be landed in one wave of helos is critical. Taking one helo spot away would bite a big chunk out of that. Unacceptable.
By the way, in my experience, the USN always give the RN full credit for angle decks, steam catapults & the hurricane bow. It's kinda rude to suggest otherwise.
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now . . ."