We're more than happy to build a couple of QE's for you to permanently have Skippy onR686 wrote:Agree it looks shit, better replace it with Skippy
http://www.navy.gov.au/history/traditio ... l-insignia
Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Quite happy to do that old son, but I think that old silver haired blokes who currently resides in the Lodge is waiting for another UK fire sale, to pick it up on te cheap again.Little J wrote:We're more than happy to build a couple of QE's for you to permanently have Skippy onR686 wrote:Agree it looks shit, better replace it with Skippy
http://www.navy.gov.au/history/traditio ... l-insignia
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I was wondering if there is any definitive information on the differences between the two carriers ,it has been published that some corridors are widened on the P.O.W for its troop carrying role but not how much and and the expense of what areas,there have been claims of a heavier weight without being exact or specifically why and if these differences effect any differences comparing the capabilities in how these ships operate or other measures e.g. stores carried , sortie rate of rotary aircraft ?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Odd... S.S. Great Britain flying the White Ensign.
-
- Member
- Posts: 34
- Joined: 25 May 2015, 08:38
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
The Great Britain always has the White Ensign flying.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Aha! From Wikipedia:
"Brunel's SS Great Britain, although a merchant ship, appears to have worn (and still wears, in dry dock) the White Ensign, apparently because its first master James Hosken (an ex-Royal Navy man) brought it with him."
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Apologies if I missed this, but I agree with the whole premises of the article.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/is-ther ... -carriers/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/is-ther ... -carriers/
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Regardless of whether one agrees with the views or not, Richard Beedall's texts are always superb.
HMS Eagle out in 1972 and in "April 2023(!) 809 Naval Air Squadron (NAS) will re-commission with Lightening’s"
HMS Eagle out in 1972 and in "April 2023(!) 809 Naval Air Squadron (NAS) will re-commission with Lightening’s"
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 had a chuckle when I read this little bit,
might have been good if they were thinking Super Tucano's or something similarWe therefore plan to replace our current aircraft carriers with two larger vessels in the second decade of the next century. Present thinking suggests that new carriers might be of the order of 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes and capable of carrying up to 50 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters.
-
- Member
- Posts: 345
- Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
R686 wrote:Apologies if I missed this, but I agree with the whole premises of the article.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/is-ther ... -carriers/
I must disagree. I cannot agree that his text his superb when he repeatedly gets the name of the aircraft wrong. It is named after the discharge of electrical energy from the sky, not a process of removing weight. So it is Lightning, not Lightening. Even if I could overlook the other spelling mistakes (e.g. miss-use), such a fundamental mistake as this seems bizarre.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Regardless of whether one agrees with the views or not, Richard Beedall's texts are always superb.
HMS Eagle out in 1972 and in "April 2023(!) 809 Naval Air Squadron (NAS) will re-commission with Lightening’s"
Furthermore he overlooks many factors that are well known. He says that the QEC ships are too big, partly because of the number of crew. He then lauds the America class as more the correct size, despite the fact that it has a bigger complement, and was not designed from the start for F-35Bs. Automation to reduce crew takes space. So does the equipment required to make maximum use of the F-35Bs information systems.
Apparently QEC is too big and thus too expensive (even though he starts with the principle that steel is cheap and air if free), and over-equipped but under-armed.
He also gets the costs wrong
So he ignores too many basic facts and has too many internal contradictions for me to think that article is "superb". Indeed IMO it is of a poor quality compared to much of his work.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I believe they are insightful in the overall premise of the subject matter at handArmChairCivvy wrote:Regardless of whether one agrees with the views or not, Richard Beedall's texts are always superb.
HMS Eagle out in 1972 and in "April 2023(!) 809 Naval Air Squadron (NAS) will re-commission with Lightening’s"
well we all cant be Rhodes Scholars can we, I'm certainly far from itEnigmatically wrote: I must disagree. I cannot agree that his text his superb when he repeatedly gets the name of the aircraft wrong. It is named after the discharge of electrical energy from the sky, not a process of removing weight. So it is Lightning, not Lightening. Even if I could overlook the other spelling mistakes (e.g. miss-use), such a fundamental mistake as this seems bizarre..
He is far from saying that they are too big in the role the ship was initially designed for.(Strike Carrier)Enigmatically wrote: Furthermore he overlooks many factors that are well known. He says that the QEC ships are too big, partly because of the number of crew.
He is comparing the roles in which they now find themselves in, not the doctrinally how the RN & USN compare when crewing a shipEnigmatically wrote: He then lauds the America class as more the correct size, despite the fact that it has a bigger complement, and was not designed from the start for F-35Bs.
what he is comparing it too is ships built for approx. half the price in the role that the QECV are being pushed into, its like saying that the USN will put the new Ford Class CVN in the same tactical position as a Wasp/America class ship, the USN just would not do itEnigmatically wrote: Apparently QEC is too big and thus too expensive (even though he starts with the principle that steel is cheap and air if free), and over-equipped but under-armed.
Even the best of us sometime muddle things up.Enigmatically wrote: He also gets the costs wrong
So he ignores too many basic facts and has too many internal contradictions for me to think that article is "superb". Indeed IMO it is of a poor quality compared to much of his work.
But the context of the article is if you had a crystal ball and saw how badly effected the overall capability of the RN would find itself in, would you still build QECV or would you build something that gives the 80% solution to funding and overall balanced capability. I cant say for certain he's right or wrong, but there is no doubt that the QECV have placed the RN in a difficult position to the overall balance of the RN.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
For me the biggest thing is that it is pushing the idea the carriers are the cause of the funding woes when in fact it is the 31 billion pound of the CASD program that is killing the MOD
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Why do people seem to think it's the QEs that have put the fleet out of balance when clearly they a remarkably cheap for what they are, espaily when compared to other carrier costs around the world.
What has through the fleet out of balance is the constant cuts to the budgets over the times of these projects.
Let's look at it like this, if I asked you to build me a couple of high end super cars 4 standard cars and say 10 bikes over 15 odd years and said at the start you have a £2m budget, but then over the year I kept cutting that budget first to £1.75m then £1.5m and Finaly to £1m and I also said you had to fund the cost of my existing super car and its replacement in to the same budget. Things would obviously have to give.
It's not the QEs that have upset the balance its the fact that the budget for that balanced fleet has been cut over and over.
It's gone from 12 T45s, 20 T26s, 12 Astutes, 2 QEs and ocean.
Down to what we have today, and at the same time the budget has gone from around 3.2% of GDP to around 1.6-1.7% of GDP coincidence ? I think not
What has through the fleet out of balance is the constant cuts to the budgets over the times of these projects.
Let's look at it like this, if I asked you to build me a couple of high end super cars 4 standard cars and say 10 bikes over 15 odd years and said at the start you have a £2m budget, but then over the year I kept cutting that budget first to £1.75m then £1.5m and Finaly to £1m and I also said you had to fund the cost of my existing super car and its replacement in to the same budget. Things would obviously have to give.
It's not the QEs that have upset the balance its the fact that the budget for that balanced fleet has been cut over and over.
It's gone from 12 T45s, 20 T26s, 12 Astutes, 2 QEs and ocean.
Down to what we have today, and at the same time the budget has gone from around 3.2% of GDP to around 1.6-1.7% of GDP coincidence ? I think not
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
That's part of it I'm sure, as is persistent under-estimation of likely programme costs (it's almost like every new programme proposal should have a 30% contingency automatically built in).Tempest414 wrote:For me the biggest thing is that it is pushing the idea the carriers are the cause of the funding woes when in fact it is the 31 billion pound of the CASD program that is killing the MOD
But what's the answer - abandon CASD? But please, let's leave moving the CASD budget back out of the MoD out of consideration - that just ain't going to happen; there's no political will at all in the present austere climate and little rationale either, truth be told.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I disagree. The huge cuts in the defence budget are the problem.Tempest414 wrote:For me the biggest thing is that it is pushing the idea the carriers are the cause of the funding woes when in fact it is the 31 billion pound of the CASD program that is killing the MOD
Beedall's article is a poor one.
The original decision to build CVF was the same one to build CVA01 carriers, that is to provide the ability to strike land and surface ship targets anywhere in the world within reach of the sea and at the same time provide air cover to the carrier itself and its supporting fleet.
Interesting enough, even though both decisions were so far apart, the capacity of both carriers are approx the same. 50 aircraft in a mix of strike, air defence, AEW & ASW.
The smaller carriers he proposes would not be capable of doing that. Period.
As for the ability to build more Type 45's & Type 26's if the UK didn't have strike carriers, I would ask what would be the point of building expensive escorts with nothing worth that level of escort?
P.S. the biggest single contributor to the cost of the CVF program was the Gordon Brown decision to postpone their completion by two years.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Were I to write with the same clarity at his age (spelling apart) I would be a happy bunnyEnigmatically wrote:such a fundamental mistake as this seems bizarre
- like the authorative history, with all the fact-checked facts, written over the many years when the carrier prgrm took shape (thru many twists and turns)?Enigmatically wrote:Indeed IMO it is of a poor quality compared to much of his work.
- the point, actuallyR686 wrote:He is comparing the roles in which they now find themselves in
+
R686 wrote: he is comparing it to[o ,] is ships built for approx. half the price in the role that the QECV are being pushed into
- neither can I, but good to ask the question?R686 wrote: would you still build QECV or would you build something that gives the 80% solution to funding and overall balanced capability. I cant say for certain he's right or wrong
- absolutely correct (not to mention that there was a "make work" aspect embedded from earlier)Ron5 wrote:P.S. the biggest single contributor to the cost of the CVF program was the Gordon Brown decision to postpone their completion by two years.
- hence the VFM question... with a longer batch (than 2... or 1!) such delay would not have been necessary and VFM would have been better
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)
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I am not saying that CASD should be abandoned but what ever happens if HMG want it they needed to pay for it by upping the budget or moving the program out of the Budget as for it not being moved there is more pressure to do so. also lets remember that the cost was moved over to the MOD in 2010 and it is this that has been unbalanced the fleetalbedo wrote:That's part of it I'm sure, as is persistent under-estimation of likely programme costs (it's almost like every new programme proposal should have a 30% contingency automatically built in).Tempest414 wrote:For me the biggest thing is that it is pushing the idea the carriers are the cause of the funding woes when in fact it is the 31 billion pound of the CASD program that is killing the MOD
But what's the answer - abandon CASD? But please, let's leave moving the CASD budget back out of the MoD out of consideration - that just ain't going to happen; there's no political will at all in the present austere climate and little rationale either, truth be told.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
The deterrent has always been funded from within the Defence Budget. The wording of CSR07 seems to have started the thinking that capital costs of the Trident replacement would come from outside the allocated budget, and it is that line of thinking Osborn quashed in 2010, not a change in previous policy. No idea if there is a designated top up line for the deterrent from the treasury, but it has always sat in defence.Tempest414 wrote: I am not saying that CASD should be abandoned but what ever happens if HMG want it they needed to pay for it by upping the budget or moving the program out of the Budget as for it not being moved there is more pressure to do so. also lets remember that the cost was moved over to the MOD in 2010 and it is this that has been unbalanced the fleet
This document seems to have the detail https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... fullreport
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Shame that there will not be an HMS Duke of York in the picture as well
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Duke of Edinburgh surely.
Rumored to be the name of CVA02. CVA03 being Prince of Wales.
Rumored to be the name of CVA02. CVA03 being Prince of Wales.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I have no objection to Having four of them! ............ Even though the lack of escorts & aircraft would be even more problematic for the politicos.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I would prefer King George VI if a third was to come along
-
- Member
- Posts: 300
- Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Just under three weeks to go... Same month that QE sails for her date with the jets it seems to be all coming together rather nicely now
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
So if the jets are coming here, why is the QE bothering going to the US?