HMS Queen Elizabeth

[Daydream believer]

They are designed to be laid up two thirds of their life...but because there is only two they have to be stretched to be ready fifty percent of the time...and recently they have both been on active service together

When you say "active" service. Do you mean NATO exercises or actual service. if so where. Even that ended up in a farce.
The only place that we MIGHT have used them, is the Red Sea, but not having any French supply support vessels available for loan we could not be "Active".
There have been no reports of any action by our carriers elsewhere in the media.

 

[Bouba]

When you say "active" service. Do you mean NATO exercises or actual service. if so where. Even that ended up in a farce.
The only place that we MIGHT have used them, is the Red Sea, but not having any French supply support vessels available for loan we could not be "Active".
There have been no reports of any action by our carriers elsewhere in the media.

no, along side at Portsmouth....with the ability to be ready in a week or so

 

[Poignard]

I joined the Royal Navy in 1957.

From wandering into the recruiting office in Leeds to finding myself in a training establishment being shouted at seemed to take no time at all. A matter of weeks, as I recall.

One's feet hardly touched the ground, as they say.

 

[Daydream believer]

I joined the Royal Navy in 1957.

From wandering into the recruiting office in Leeds to finding myself in a training establishment being shouted at seemed to take no time at all. A matter of weeks, as I recall.

One's feet hardly touched the ground, as they say.

Which is how it should be

 

[dunedin]

no, along side at Portsmouth....with the ability to be ready in a week or so

Let’s hope they get two weeks notice of an incoming missile then. Oh and that the tides are right to get out

 

[Bouba]

Let’s hope they get two weeks notice of an incoming missile then. Oh and that the tides are right to get out

She’s not an anti missile ship

 

[Fr J Hackett]

She’s not an anti missile ship

Nice target though.

 

[Poignard]

Which is how it should be

Exactly!

Don't give them time to change their minds.

 

[Daydream believer]

They will be the first to go, even if just to prove a point. Just feel sorry for the crew. Only saving grace is that they probably will not be British ? Still lives lost though.

 

[Daydream believer]

Let’s hope they get two weeks notice of an incoming missile then. Oh and that the tides are right to get out

They will be the first to go, even if just to prove a point. Just feel sorry for the crew. Only saving grace is that they probably will not be British ? Still lives lost though.

 

[westernman]

Keeping a force of assisted take off aircraft requires around the clock training and is beyond the budget of the military.....vertical landing is easy to teach and doesn’t require as much practice.
Also at least one carrier might get equipped with a small catapult for drones....and the plan is to change that for a bigger then once again a bigger catapult....it’s all down to finance

Fighter aircraft are outmoded and not particularly useful any more.

Much better is several much smaller ships equipped with large numbers of small drones - which make most anti aircraft defense systems out of date as well.

May be large numbers of PTE boats if the range was big enough or there was a suitable way of getting them to the "theatre".

 

[Bouba]

Fighter aircraft are outmoded and not particularly useful any more.

Much better is several much smaller ships equipped with large numbers of small drones - which make most anti aircraft defense systems out of date as well.

May be large numbers of PTE boats if the range was big enough or there was a suitable way of getting them to the "theatre".

This is a difficult one because the future is happening at a speed too fast to absorb and the Black Sea is showing that a littoral navy is at high risk…but the carriers are about power projection far out to sea

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Fighter aircraft are outmoded and not particularly useful any more.

Much better is several much smaller ships equipped with large numbers of small drones - which make most anti aircraft defense systems out of date as well.

May be large numbers of PTE boats if the range was big enough or there was a suitable way of getting them to the "theatre".

That's the Iranians idea, it has yet to be tested though, several gunship helicopters and a few destroyers or frigates all with autonomous guns that fire hundreds of rounds a minute would almost certainly shred them. They aren't big enough to cary missiles that would breach a ships defences.

 

[capnsensible]

 

[capnsensible]

Sore heads and sore willy's no doubt as HMS POW leaves Rotterdam today....

Expected to pass Pompey harbour entrance mid day tomorrow.

 

[johnalison]

That's the Iranians idea, it has yet to be tested though, several gunship helicopters and a few destroyers or frigates all with autonomous guns that fire hundreds of rounds a minute would almost certainly shred them. They aren't big enough to cary missiles that would breach a ships defences.

Apparently not as easy as that according to this chap.

 

[capnsensible]

Out of service date for the carriers is 2069.

Any poster gonna organise a party?

Blimey that's 100 years from the fifties.... well nearly 120. Times change, eh?

 

[capnsensible]

Apparently not as easy as that according to this chap.

How far can they fly?

Let's say, for example, 100 miles offshore. Not long in an F35....

Be 101 miles offshore.

Worth remembering that thousands of people work daily to define risks and how to deal with them. As we speak....

 

[Frogmogman]

It’s worth remembering that we are not alone in this. The French carrier, the Charles de Gaulle has been plagued with technical issues and breakdowns throughout her service life.

She was originally destined to be named Richelieu, but Chirac decided to change her name to CDG. Some in France ascribe her problems to bad luck brought by the name change.

The intention was to build two of them, but cost considerations meant that the second one wasn’t built.

As the prospect of US disengagement from NATO seems a real possibility should Trump get back in, it makes it all the more important that the other nato powers, particularly the bigger players such as France and the UK should cooperate even more closely on this sort of thing.

 

[jac]

It’s worth remembering that we are not alone in this. The French carrier, the Charles de Gaulle has been plagued with technical issues and breakdowns throughout her service life.

She was originally destined to be named Richelieu, but Chirac decided to change her name to CDG. Some in France ascribe her problems to bad luck brought by the name change.

The intention was to build two of them, but cost considerations meant that the second one wasn’t built.

As the prospect of US disengagement from NATO seems a real possibility should Trump get back in, it makes it all the more important that the other nato powers, particularly the bigger players such as France and the UK should cooperate even more closely on this sort of thing.

Think also of the billions that has been spent on the Ford yet the real experts online always know how we can do things so much better