She is the largest warship ever built for the Royal Navy.

[chanelyacht]

I think the current XP panic is a rehash of a rumour that went round two years ago when technicians working on the Queen Elizabeth were seen to have the XP "rolling hills" background on a screen. The story then was that it was an ironic screenshot background and that XP would not be used anywhere on the ships. Of course that might just be what they want Mr Putin to think ...

Understandable.

I'm sure Defence Procurement haven't specified anything as up to date as XP!

 

[Kukri]

The largest, and incontestably the ugliest...

Obviously designed by a committee ( that docking platform on the transom accessed by ladders - really?)

 

[Andrew E]

She met up with the QE today -

 

[Sandyman]

By some of the comments in this tread it is clear that many of you just speculate & talk bollox, sometimes for the sake of it. If you had any experience of Naval RN life you would realise just how stupid some of your statements are.

 

[NormanS]

By some of the comments in this tread it is clear that many of you just speculate & talk bollox, sometimes for the sake of it. If you had any experience of Naval RN life you would realise just how stupid some of your statements are.

It is, however, our taxes that are used to pay for this particular bollox. We are entitled to have a view.

 

[Sandyman]

It is, however, our taxes that are used to pay for this particular bollox. We are entitled to have a view.

Of course you are but speak facts not speculation & irrelevant rubbish.

 

[wully1]

White elephant meets botulism factory....

She met up with the QE today -

 

[NormanS]

Of course you are but speak facts not speculation & irrelevant rubbish.

The fact is that both these ships were ordered to secure Gordon Brown's position in Government, and are a complete waste of money. The biggest threat that the country faces just now is terrorism. Perhaps you would like to speculate just how these two carriers (without planes or adequate support screen) are going to be used?

 

[Resolution]

The fact is that both these ships were ordered to secure Gordon Brown's position in Government, and are a complete waste of money. The biggest threat that the country faces just now is terrorism. Perhaps you would like to speculate just how these two carriers (without planes or adequate support screen) are going to be used?

While I share doubts about the vulnerability of these two vessels, it is very short sighted to say that terrorism is the biggest threat the country faces. Terrorism is a threat to personal security, but statistically a pretty minor one. A longer view of history would perhaps conclude that major threats on a national basis occur in Europe about every second or third generation. As one of the "lucky" generation who seem to dominate this forum, I greatly fear that my grandchildren will not enjoy our peaceful lifetimes.
Depressing, isn't it?
Peter

 

[capnsensible]

The fact is that both these ships were ordered to secure Gordon Brown's position in Government, and are a complete waste of money. The biggest threat that the country faces just now is terrorism. Perhaps you would like to speculate just how these two carriers (without planes or adequate support screen) are going to be used?

Probably with planes and an adequate support screen. Back to staff college for you.

 

[Sandyman]

The fact is that both these ships were ordered to secure Gordon Brown's position in Government, and are a complete waste of money. The biggest threat that the country faces just now is terrorism. Perhaps you would like to speculate just how these two carriers (without planes or adequate support screen) are going to be used?

I prefer not to speculate.

 

[Frogmogman]

Probably with planes and an adequate support screen. Back to staff college for you.

Mmm. With only 6 destroyers and 13 frigates on the strength, once you've allowed for those undergoing maintenance work, it doesn't then leave much capacity for anything else.

What's more the much trumpeted taking back of British fishing grounds us going to be pretty hard to enforce as we only have 3 suitable patrol vessels.

The building of these two carriers against a background of years of cutting the Navy's strength to the bone doesn't make much sense. Either we need to accept that the days of the Empire are over, that Britain is no longer a military superpower, and equip our services as a defence force for the UK (for which we most certainly wouldn't need two massive aircraft carriers), or we should decide that if we wish to continue to project British power around the world, and pull our weight in Nato & the UN then we need to up the funding.

 

[capnsensible]

The RN operate four offshore patrol vessels with another five fitting out or under construction.

 

[Sandyman]

The building of these two carriers against a background of years of cutting the Navy's strength to the bone doesn't make much sense./QUOTE]

And just who do we blame for all the cuts ?

 

[Frogmogman]

Successive governments.

 

[Sandyman]

No the nasty party following the 2010 Strategic Defense Review. Tory bastards.

 

[NormanS]

Probably with planes and an adequate support screen. Back to staff college for you.

Aye, but when? I like the "Probably"

 

[capnsensible]

Aye, but when? I like the "Probably"

Flight trials next year, she is off to the US. Full operations in 2020 if all goes to plan. That's a busy and demanding schedule.

 

[Frogmogman]

No the nasty party following the 2010 Strategic Defense Review. Tory bastards.

You're being very selective. Tony Blair's government started cutting the Navy as early as 2002 to pay for his ill judged military land wars, with ships such as Ark Royal being retired prematurely, cuts in Sea Harriers from 2006, the loss of many other surface ships and cuts in personnel. The 2010 defense review merely continued the direction of travel.

 

[Grumpybear]

You're being very selective. Tony Blair's government started cutting the Navy as early as 2002 to pay for his ill judged military land wars, with ships such as Ark Royal being retired prematurely, cuts in Sea Harriers from 2006, the loss of many other surface ships and cuts in personnel. The 2010 defense review merely continued the direction of travel.

And also to pay the eye watering bills for buying far more of the obsolete, late, over budget Eurofighters than the RAF could ever use, so as not to upset our consortium partners -cancellations would increase the unit cost still further. Tha army's share of the pain was to lose infantry at a time when Blair's wars meant that boots on the ground were desperately needed. The cuts were selected and enforced by the Treasury, not the MoD who were then told to dress them up for public consumption. Hence Buff Hoon's feeble "Network enabled" strategy document.