UK Defence Forum

It is a shame that we have not preserved at least one warship from the Falkland's War as a memorial/museum. But then again few vessels have ever been preserved and those you can count on one hand.

From the Falklands, we still have HMS Bristol (D23) at Whale Island, Portsmouth. Now used as a static training ship.
HMS Conqueror's periscopes, Captain's cabin and control panel are at Gosport's Royal Navy Submarine Museum. Conqueror herself is at Devonport awaiting dismantling....

It's 38 years to the day since HMS Hermes (and HMS Invincible) left Portsmouth for the Falkland Islands.

Comparing Hermes to the current QE class carriers it just seems to me that even though the ramp is an afterthought on Hermes it just appears to have nicer lines overall the the current UK carriers

Did not have to think so much about Radar Signature reduction in those days!

R686 wrote:Comparing Hermes to the current QE class carriers it just seems to me that even though the ramp is an afterthought on Hermes it just appears to have nicer lines overall the the current UK carriers

I have stated previously that although the QE Class are undoubtedly fantastic warships, good lookers they are not but they are built to fight not to win any fashion show.

Just my opinion of course.

HMS Victorious my favourite carrier with a proper carrier bow..



HMS Queen Elizabeth


Spot the difference.
Its always seemed to me that originally QE was meant to have had a bow like Victorious or indeed Hermes but someone came along needing to save money and decided that chopping 5-10 meters off the bow was the way to do it. Probably not the case but it would have been aesthetically more pleasing if the bow looked more like Victorious, even with the ramp.

Sorry problems attaching the pic of HMs Victorious which is very annoying.

whitelancer wrote:HMS Victorious my favourite carrier with a proper carrier bow..



HMS Queen Elizabeth


Spot the difference.
Its always seemed to me that originally QE was meant to have had a bow like Victorious or indeed Hermes but someone came along needing to save money and decided that chopping 5-10 meters off the bow was the way to do it. Probably not the case but it would have been aesthetically more pleasing if the bow looked more like Victorious, even with the ramp.

Maybe the bow section was on a different set of construction drawings and someone spilled their coffee over them, threw them away and didn't replace them. That's why the bow is missing?

The front of Hermes' ramp has a streamlined rounded wing-edge look about it. Was it designed that way to generate aerodynamic uplift for Sea Harriers?
Or to reduce drag (slowing the ship) from a simpler slab-fronted QE style ramp? I also like the way Hermes' ramp sides follow the contours of the upper hull.
Very elegant.

Enough of the non Hermes related fantasy chat please.

You're correct Jake, the CdeG is too small for the F-35C.

Ron5 wrote:You're correct Jake, the CdeG is too small for the F-35C.

By how much?

Digger22 wrote:Could the F35C operate from a Hermes sized carrier? It was deemed unsuitable for F4. F35C has greater thrust/weight ratio? Shorter, but wider wingspan though, higher Max Weight countered by thrust/weight ratio? If so shouldn't QE class have been a class of Four Cat and Trap 30k Carriers? Operating the C would have been better than a two type mixed fleet of A and B's.

Thrust to weight ratio is a metric most associated around aircraft acceleration or climb performance. Lift to weight, thrust to drag is the common steady state flight. In this instance lift to weight being the most relevant in so much that your looking at Cl max for landing. Low observable aircraft do not like apertures of any kind and so the flaps on f35c where constrained by design this lead to the requirement for a bigger wing to achieve the desired Cl for acceptable field performance. This drives approach aoa and speed which for f35 is higher I think around 144kts, which with max a/c landing weight, arrestor wire effects and the time for the engine to spool to go around speed will determine landing distance requirements. You can always dial back a/c weight (less fuel and ordnance) to improve these metrics or make the ship go faster. You can then work of if it gives you something that is operationally relevant. Field performance is a massive driver in a/c design.

Deleted the off-topic posts. Keep it related to HMS Hermes in this topic please.

Very sad but was always going to happen one day however she did well to stay a creditable asset for the best part of 60 years and a war vet to boot

SKB wrote:
The front of Hermes' ramp has a streamlined rounded wing-edge look about it. Was it designed that way to generate aerodynamic uplift for Sea Harriers?
Or to reduce drag (slowing the ship) from a simpler slab-fronted QE style ramp? I also like the way Hermes' ramp sides follow the contours of the upper hull.
Very elegant.

This is a great picture and shows off the deck angel and lay out given Hermes was 225 x 43 meters it will be interesting to see what China will do given the proposed lay out of the type 076 is very similar plus looks to be 240 x 40 meters

SKB wrote:

Maybe the Chinese will buy it to turn into a casino

One last ride on the HMS Hermes preservation rollercoaster:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 425379.cms

Since the ship was bought as scrap in an auction, aspiring buyers would also need to procure a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the Ministry of Defence to buy the ship now, Shree Ram Group Chairman Mukesh Patel said on Thursday.

"I bought this warship just out of my love for my country. Now, a Mumbai-based company wants to convert this ship it into a museum. Since they are also doing it out of patriotism, I agreed to sell the ship to them," he said.

Only a very slim chance but there might be hope for the old girl yet!

Going, going....

The Worlds Greatest ever Carrier?? Poor old girl.