Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Perhaps they were waiting 4the results of the SRVL trials 2c if it worth the cost ?
These users liked the author serge750 for the post:
Scimitar54

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by bobp »

Talk of the QE going to US, and also mentions a shaft coupling failure on the PWLS...............


https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defen ... wn-3827697

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by bobp »

More on coupling failure here......

https://www.navylookout.com/hms-prince- ... r-tasking/
These users liked the author bobp for the post:
wargame_insomniac

PhillyJ
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:27
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by PhillyJ »

Nipper said earlier they are due back in Pompey soon, but he didn't say anything about the nature of the failure or timeframe to fix.
These users liked the author PhillyJ for the post:
serge750

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »

These users liked the author SKB for the post (total 3):
donald_of_tokyoScimitar54serge750

PhillyJ
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:27
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by PhillyJ »

Wouldn't be surprised if my nipper asks for a transfer to QNLZ, he really doesn't want to go back to Rosyth and agreed to an extension on PWLS knowing the America trip was happening...but shite happens! I very much doubt he will get it approved.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by inch »

I wouldn't be surprised if all the ships company ask to be transferred tbh ,and I wouldn't blame them at all , sorry for your nipper and his shipmates , things like this do nothing for retention,years of waiting and planning and training just for a oh well chaps never mind next time eh ,they should transfer as many as is possible for the trip in my view if at all humanly possible
These users liked the author inch for the post (total 2):
PhillyJserge750

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by serge750 »

looks like a night time crest swap & re-spray is on the cards........he he
These users liked the author serge750 for the post:
PhillyJ

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »



* Starboard propeller shaft coupling damaged.
* Starboard propeller damaged.
* Superficial damage to starboard rudder.
* PoW to return to Portsmouth briefly, then to Rosyth for dry docking and repair.
* QE to leave Portsmouth "next week" to fulfill elements of PoW's duties in the US.
These users liked the author SKB for the post:
serge750

PhillyJ
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:27
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by PhillyJ »

Times confirmed today, nipper said that all crew assuming they will be going to Rosyth with the ship. I've already said I'll pop up and visit some Scots castles when he is up there with him, I love old castles!
Screenshot_20220903-130832.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
These users liked the author PhillyJ for the post:
serge750

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Obviously more complicated - but it does seem a shame that they cant just swap crews for the US trip ! should be 45 years of service left POW so plenty of time for it though
These users liked the author serge750 for the post:
PhillyJ

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »

PoW IoW 03Sep2022.jpg
PoW 3Sep2022.png
PoW 3Sep2022 17.11.jpg
PoW 3Sep2022 17.12.png
PoW 3Sep2022 17.24.jpg
PoW 3Sep2022 17.34.jpg
PoW 3Sep2022 17.43.jpg
PoW 3Sep2022 17.52.jpg
PoW 3Sep2022 18.57.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
These users liked the author SKB for the post:
bobp

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

PhillyJ

You might like to visit the odd distillery as well, whilst you are there. ! :D
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
PhillyJ

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SKB wrote: 03 Sep 2022, 00:06 * QE to leave Portsmouth "next week" to fulfill elements of PoW's duties in the US.
Thats why you need two! (Ideally three).
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
PhillyJ

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 04 Sep 2022, 10:52
SKB wrote: 03 Sep 2022, 00:06 * QE to leave Portsmouth "next week" to fulfill elements of PoW's duties in the US.
Thats why you need two! (Ideally three).
:thumbup: 3 CSGs with lower level forward presence vessels and a ASW Frigate squadron for the North Atlantic feels about right for the RN surface combat fleet.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
Dahedd
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Dahedd »

This shows why it ought to have been a 3 ship class. Also shows why any future replacements for Ocean, Albion/Bulwark, Argus etc should be an F35b capable LHD .
These users liked the author Dahedd for the post (total 3):
Scimitar54CaribbeanJensy

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Ought to have been a 3 ship class anyway, but due to deteriorating world situation, I am giving serious consideration to the viewpoint that if we heed the warnings it now should really become a class of 4! (2 more REAL National Flagships). :lol:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
Jensy

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Scimitar54 wrote: 04 Sep 2022, 20:08 Ought to have been a 3 ship class anyway, but due to deteriorating world situation, I am giving serious consideration to the viewpoint that if we heed the warnings it now should really become a class of 4! (2 more REAL National Flagships). :lol:
Firstly we can barely crew the ships we have got. Monmouth was retired early to be able to crew Somersetcoming out of Lifex, and timing of Montrose early retirement will presumably be aligned for when Iron Duke comes out of Lifex. They are going to have to juggle crews between final T23's coming out of Lifex and each of the five remaining T45's going through PIP. We are pushing the escorts to the limit to be able to protect 2 carriers as is, let alone 3 (and I am assuming suggesting a 4th carrier was equivalent of gallows humour).

Secondly we don't even have enough F35B's currently for one carrier.....
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
Bring Deeps

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Answer: Money, together with the Will and Determination to adequately defend ourselves and our allies is what is required along with a “Can Do” attitude, instead of the current bunch of “hand wringers” and “Snowflakes” who are frightened of stepping in a puddle, in case they get wet. The First Duty of a Government is the Defence of it’s people, territory and trade. If it can’t or won’t do that, then it is really not a government at all. If the threat level I ndicates that a certain level of defence is required, then it MUST be provided. If necessary, other “convenient” spending will have to be curtailed and so called professionals will have to work to ensure that “all required services are provided” whilst at the same time, cutting out the “nice to have’s”. Lack of people ……….. that was a government “own goal” ……… They would HAVE TO fix it. :idea:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post (total 2):
PhillyJserge750

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by topman »

Politicians do things that are politically popular and/or easy, the voting population aren't interested in defence hence its not given massive amounts of money.

I'll believe it when i see the latest round of promises.

I think they'll be quietly dropped as the government is about to spend tens of billions on people's fuel bills (one way or the other)
These users liked the author topman for the post (total 2):
serge750Dahedd

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by inch »

The only way to get MPs to spend on defence of the nation is to make MPs personal accountable for the state of our defence,ie if a party of house was found not providing adequate equipment/troops/training/money etc they would be personally affected thru financial or custodial sentence,that's the only language that an MP would listen too

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SW1 »

When you take about “defence and security” and what is rolled into that bracket is why percentages are of little value. Energy and food security will be important going fwd and I would suspect investments in the these areas will be rolled under said title.

Of course commentators associate there form of robust defence with protection of their favourite sacred cow project/service. If we we are simply talking about actual defence of the UK there the force structure would be greatly changed and the current budget more than sufficient.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SW1 »


topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by topman »

SW1 wrote: 05 Sep 2022, 17:24 When you take about “defence and security” and what is rolled into that bracket is why percentages are of little value. Energy and food security will be important going fwd and I would suspect investments in the these areas will be rolled under said title.

Of course commentators associate there form of robust defence with protection of their favourite sacred cow project/service. If we we are simply talking about actual defence of the UK there the force structure would be greatly changed and the current budget more than sufficient.
I wonder what bring more security, another ship/brigade/sqn or another LPG terminal?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SW1 »

topman wrote: 05 Sep 2022, 21:36
SW1 wrote: 05 Sep 2022, 17:24 When you take about “defence and security” and what is rolled into that bracket is why percentages are of little value. Energy and food security will be important going fwd and I would suspect investments in the these areas will be rolled under said title.

Of course commentators associate there form of robust defence with protection of their favourite sacred cow project/service. If we we are simply talking about actual defence of the UK there the force structure would be greatly changed and the current budget more than sufficient.
I wonder what bring more security, another ship/brigade/sqn or another LPG terminal?
It is a great question and one that those in power will need to make. We’ve seen it the last few years with drug and ppe manufacture, now with energy and food and if we are wise looking at information network and probably Finland as a major strategic partner there. But more importantly what would happen and what would it affect if similar sanctions were applied to China in the event of conflict with Taiwan that would be of far far more importance than any military contribution we would offer there.

Post Reply