UK Defence Forum

easydiver wrote:Here is a nice video of the new tug, SD Tempest, that is now in Pompey awaiting the carriers: http://www.forces.net/news/new-tug-prep ... t-carriers

Just wondering if anybody has seen any further mention of the Large data display screens that appeared in the artwork for the CVF which were mounted on the Island to give the flight deck teams an overview of the flight deck operations ?

I would have expected to have seen them being trialled and tested by now or are they a concept that's been quietly dropped now due to either cost or practicality - Not readable, can't be seen in direct sunlight, too bright in dim conditions or even a distraction that reduces safety on the flight deck (if your trying to read a screen 100 m away you ain't looking at what's immediately around you ! )

In order to save costs, they're looking at recycling redundant signs from Britains A roads instead

your right I think they have been quietly dropped hopping nobody will notice ,look at hms price of wales twitter artwork not on that rendering at top of page ,just a thought

Does anybody know how many Royal Marines will be permanently stationed on the carriers as part of the crew, was wondering as manning levels and cuts to the Royal Marines in the last few weeks announced.

None would contribute to the core crew, but in assault mode there will be quite a few, HMS Ocean recent deployed with 150 marines alongside her core crew.

Escorts sometimes have a troop from the Fleet Protection Group attached for boarding operations, but the carriers won't be doing that.

Is there still a hand full of Marine fixed wing pilots?

[quote="Thorvicson"]Just wondering if anybody has seen any further mention of the Large data display screens that appeared in the artwork for the CVF which were mounted on the Island to give the flight deck teams an overview of the flight deck operations ?

You can see the mounting points and access hatch's for them on the ACA flicker photo stream there def there

Is these a handrail for that accommodation ladder ?

seaspear wrote:Is these a handrail for that accommodation ladder ?

That was my thought as well. Even a knotted length of rope down it would help. Harbour Pilots are a tough bunch though, probably wouldn't bother them in the slightest.

seaspear wrote:Is these a handrail for that accommodation ladder ?

HMQ Queen Elizabeth responds:

The seamanship department fit them before embarking/disembarking personnel.

http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/exclusi ... -deterrent

This shows a big reason why the QEs have had such a slow and cocked up build, it also gives good reason to the run down of the ASW assets the cock ups in the T26 and the scrapping of nimrod, and far more besides.

This should never be allowed, needs to be reversed and the politicians involved sent down

Well i logged in today to give an update, but I found this so I won't bother

Jake1992 wrote:http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/exclusi ... -deterrent

This shows a big reason why the QEs have had such a slow and cocked up build, it also gives good reason to the run down of the ASW assets the cock ups in the T26 and the scrapping of nimrod, and far more besides.

This should never be allowed, needs to be reversed and the politicians involved sent down

I agree it should never be allowed. But what shouldn't be allowed is absolute bollocks like this published and claimed to be true.

Lets pick a few points shall we?

A simple Internet search on the subject of an EU army reveals entry after entry

So that is the solid research showing it is all happening is it?

Its bad that the German army is bigger than the UK one, but also bad that the EU navies (French aside) are smaller than the RN. Uh?

Repeated cuts to the size of the Royal Navy by scrapping frigates, destroyers, submarines and serviceable aircraft carriers and operational Maritime Patrol Aircraft so as to bring the RN to greater parity with the French, and particularly to weaken traditional RN operations of scale with the US

So that's why we are building 2 carriers way bigger than CDG and buying P-8s then is it? Of course that was the reason they scrapped the Nimrods. Nothing to do with the fact that they were unsafe or the new wings didn't fit or the cost kept rising

It is highly significant that the new UK aircraft carriers have been jointly designed with the French

How many times does this myth need to be shot down. NO THEY WERE NOT.

And don't go accusing the QEC build of being slow and cocked up. The only cock-ups were political, and still not as cocked up as that mess of myths, half truths and conspiracy theories you linked.

Am I going overboard in decrying this rubbish? No, this is how Trump's false news works.

Your link is a load of rubbish.

Enigmatically wrote:Well i logged in today to give an update, but I found this so I won't bother
.

Bugger the Conspiracy theorist clap trap, the rest of us really want to hear your Update on the QEC's as we must be getting close now... Please

Enigmatically wrote:Well i logged in today to give an update, but I found this so I won't bother

Jake1992 wrote:http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/exclusi ... -deterrent

This shows a big reason why the QEs have had such a slow and cocked up build, it also gives good reason to the run down of the ASW assets the cock ups in the T26 and the scrapping of nimrod, and far more besides.

This should never be allowed, needs to be reversed and the politicians involved sent down

I agree it should never be allowed. But what shouldn't be allowed is absolute bollocks like this published and claimed to be true.

100% agree. I would hope that whoever writes this tirade of drivel is kept away from matches and sharp objects for their own safety.

Enigmatically - I, for one, am still interested in the update you were planning to give us.

Same here! C'mon, do we really need to beg? OK, then: please, please may way have an update, Enigmatically?

Enigmatically wrote:Well i logged in today to give an update, but I found this so I won't bother.

Can I just ask, is the wardroom carpet still planned to be 'Jointery Purple' or have they gone back to 'Navy Blue'?

zanahoria wrote:Same here! C'mon, do we really need to beg? OK, then: please, please may way have an update, Enigmatically?

Secret negotiations are to rebuild the BPF using a Queen Elizabeth carrier as its center piece, Australia and New Zealand will form an Anzac Squadron ACFas part of a joint command under the auspice of demonstrating unity within the FPDA.

That should totally happen from time to time.

Enigmatically wrote:Am I going overboard in decrying this rubbish? No, this is how Trump's false news works.

Nope you're not. That is some seriously weapons grade conspiracy bullshit.

What worries me most is the susceptibility of so many useful idiots for this nonsense. They lack the insight, desire or understanding to check anything they read and accept everything at face value. It's like they missed some lessons at school that the rest of us attended and will forever be left behind in a befuddled state.

I agree with the general consensus in relation to the notorious article. No merit, whatsoever.

Not a single Defence related mention for the impact of:

1: the 2008 financial crisis and quantitative easing.
2: how one particular government left no money in the kitty after losing a general election and failed to provide sufficient costs for many of its Defence programmes.
3: The subsequent austerity measures on Defence by a follow on government that lead to drastic cuts in manpower, training and equipment.
4: Ongoing difficulties in recruitment and retention after unpopular wars due to poor political leadership and voter apathy.
5: How any of the above has possibly affected the CVF programme.

What people that are denoucing the article neglect is that the Lisbon treaty states that all signing member commit to ever close Union in political financial economic and militarily, they also neglect the calls from the head of the EU commison the most powerful office in the EU for a bespoke EU military ( I believe first stated by the office on the 25th June 2016 ), also neglected is the vote in the EU parliament for the creation of a purpose EU military budget which was passed in July 2016.

Now I am not say that everything the article says is truth and by any means a lot of what is stated in it is over streachong at best, but to concluded that any EU military is a conspiracy and the creation of such an organisation would have no effect on our of military while we remain members is blinde at best and ignorant at worst.

As for stating that the there was not collaboration with the French of the QEs is just daft take one look at the French Pa2 design it is a cat and trap QE that was meant to be started at a similar time to ours but due to the financle crises has been put on hold indefinitely.
If it was not a collaborated effort it's one hell of a conincedence or the mod has a big leak either way very unlikely.

As for the QE build not being slow or cocked up at parts is once again deining that facts, the QE build was slowed down politically that has added to the cost and been well documented, cocks up such the outed hull paint and the problems that were had with the deck coating are just a few and then the political cock ups with switching there minds of what set it should cats and traps or stick to the original plan, as well as the modifications now being need to PoW.
Now yes any first of class build on this scale will have proplems along the way but to say ( don't say it's slow or cocked up ) is just ignorant of how this project has gone in parts, it does not take 10 years to build and commission a carrier the US have shown the with GrF which was started a few years after the QEs and is already on sea trails

So much wrong with your post.

But as we're leaving the EU no-one needs to go through it in detail....has the EU ordered that we use less punctuation as well?

The U.K. has always vetoed an EU military other than through NATO.