Diego Garcia?

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: ...

Bring Deeps wrote:- That makes me slightly nervous after what happened to HMS Victorious. I do not think we should be worried about this for the QEC class, as they would neither be “Lengthened”, “Widened”, or “Heightened”, nor have to be re-boilered and re-engined and many other modernisation requi...

Perhaps the QEC (and Ford Class) could now best be described as CVEs as opposed to CVNs.

Have they Flown Off ?

Unless they have used up their already “topped-up” munitions, what is there to top up ?
Just possibly dis-embarking munitions, ready for handover of duties to PWLS as the “High Readiness” Carrier.

Since nearly Six years before Anthony58 joined ! So what did the last post (or for that matter what does this one) add to the debate ?

By the way, an average of C. 25 posts per page does not sound to bad to me !

So what is that:- 25 x Large / Support Ships. 25 x Escort Ships 50 x Minor Vessels In other words100 x ships over a 25 year cycle. Much too simplistic to me. IMHO I can see the following problems:- Are either the numbers of each vessel type, or the total number actually required, or realistic? A tot...

Fine as far as it goes, however what happens when either the MRSS Role 3 or the LHA//LHD goes in for a deep re-fit (especially if it is an LHD)? One solution to the Role 3 problem might be to modularise it, so that it could then be available aboard any of the 4 x MRSS as and when required. The only ...

Shame that she cannot accommodate McDonnell Douglas Phantoms on her Flight Deck (including embarkation and disembarkation of course).

Before or after crushing ?

Just one reason why 8 x T26 is not an adequate number.

I was thinking EMCAT actually, for the catapults along with the advanced arrestor gear. However, I submitted my post before I thought of adding it.

Angled Deck!

Don’t forget the increased number of ships likely to be lost, due to the mortar only having c. 33% of the range of the 5” Naval Gun.

Victorious and not Victorius.

Perhaps, if one had more RN and RFA ships it might.

Actually, it is rather what the Mods will accept it to be.

Who knows what lurks “beneath”!

Well they had better start work now on making Tempest “Carrier Capable” and make it snappy too, otherwise it will be of limited use. Of course the RAF would prefer this! A similar and predictable reaction to the Scrap Sea Harrier / Harrier GR9 and keep Tornado debacle. They are not a fit Service to ...

OK then …. Simples! Just build a 3rd QEC carrier instead. Let some (clever?) politician try and argue no reduction in capability if proposing to sell or scrap one of the carriers then!

Each boat would only need to be pushed back by about 2 years (c.27 years Service) to increase the number of boats in the (UK) SSN Flotilla. With eight, from commissioning of the first new (UK) boat, nine ought to be possible before 2040, reaching Ten by 2045 and the possibility of having Twelve by 2...

Quite! A collision with a tanker (or a container ship) can achieve it, as events in recent years have shown. I guess it could be put down to the current trend to want to wrap everyone (and everything) in cotton wool. A very grave error in itself.

That would represent an Audacious decision.

I do apologise, I appear to have missed out an “n”.

Turturtle Oh My! Now we have negative assertions of an Aircraft Carrier without Aircraft OR Missiles OR Guns! Whatever next! ………….. Perhaps we should have delayed the F35B, MV22 Osprey and Drone Trials for yet another 12 months (until next autumn)! To provide time for capability re-insertion periods...