QE Class Carrier - BBC Article

[disco1]

Not a bad article, love the rendering of how it will look in dry dock compared the the current invincible class, looks massive! With a bit of luck by the time the 2nd one is built we'll have our national debts in order enabling us to put it to sea.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12308437

[fergywales]

fking Yanks still have to have the biggest!

[AshVX220]

fergywales said:

fking Yanks still have to have the biggest!

Don't worry, we are bigger than the French.

[anonymous-user]

So the RN will end up having just one of them and a couple of submarines?

[Gillet]

It is a shame that we've lost our current carriers and the Harrier's that lived on them, but when you see that photo of the 2 together you can't help but realise that this is most definately progress. Looks like its gonna be one impressive ship.

[Mojocvh]

Why do we need carriers?

[disco1]

Mojocvh said:

Why do we need carriers?

Answer A) How else are we going to pound blokes hidding in caves with a camel and AK?

Answer B) They look cool

Answer C) It's ringfencing £6 billion from scrouging Jeremy Kyle types

[Mr Whippy]

disco1 said:

Answer B) They look cool

Answer C) It's ringfencing £6 billion from scrouging Jeremy Kyle types

The two best points

It's nice to see the UK building something that isn't so limp-wristed like the old Ark Royal class!


£6 billion worth of jobs in there too, which might get some of those JK types into jobs one way or another!

Dave

[Simpo Two]

Mojocvh said:

Why do we need carriers?

Same reason we didn't need them in the 1930s.

[Mojocvh]

disco1 said:

Mojocvh said:

Why do we need carriers?

Answer A) How else are we going to pound blokes hidding in caves with a camel and AK?

Answer B) They look cool

Answer C) It's ringfencing £6 billion from scrouging Jeremy Kyle types

As current ops demonstrated, we can do all that from mainland UK, with overseas basing options under NATO agreement, no need for the ships steaming around in circles [without any aircraft to fly off them].

What project, that would be MOST beneficial to the UK's defence, would benefit from a 6 billion (?) cash injection

How about keeping the manning levels as they are, doing a Maggie and improving/restoring the pay, condition and allowances for UK servicemen/women.

JUST A THOUGHT.

[Mr Whippy]

I for one think it's bloody great we are getting some new kit.

War is nasty business, but it happens, and in this world you need a big stick! To pretend we don't need this stuff is just being an ignorant fanny to be honest.

Dave

[disco1]

Mr Whippy said:

......might get some of those JK types into jobs one way or another!

Target for gunnery practice?

Flame retardant suit test dummy?

Ejector seat tester?

Man overboard drill tester?

Afterburner quality control technician?

Catapult launch tester?

With the amounts of JK types we have in the UK our ships will be the best prepared ships in the high seas.

[Simpo Two]

Mojocvh said:

As current ops demonstrated, we can do all that from mainland UK, with overseas basing options under NATO agreement

Quoting one trivial military task to justify a complete military strategy for decades is silly.

[Mr Whippy]

disco1 said:

Target for gunnery practice?

Flame retardant suit test dummy?

Ejector seat tester?

Man overboard drill tester?

Afterburner quality control technician?

Catapult launch tester?

With the amounts of JK types we have in the UK our ships will be the best prepared ships in the high seas.

You never know, some of them might just be terminally lazy but not half bad at manning a security gate, or cooking spuds in the kitchens on-board, or something?!

Dave

[Mojocvh]

doogz said:

Mojocvh said:

;;;As current ops demonstrated, we can do all that from mainland UK, with overseas basing options under NATO agreement, no need for the ships steaming around in circles [without any aircraft to fly off them].

What project, that would be MOST beneficial to the UK's defence, would benefit from a 6 billion (?) cash injection

How about keeping the manning levels as they are, doing a Maggie and improving/restoring the pay, condition and allowances for UK servicemen/women.

JUST A THOUGHT.

So, the best thing we can do to aid out countries defences, is not to build 2 aircraft carriers, with a complement of aircraft, but to leave ourselves with no aircraft carriers, no overseas aerial strike capability, but instead to give everyone a pay rise?

I'm glad you're not in charge tbh.

I think you are missing the point, to be effective the millitary needs trained, experienced manpower, something that the bean-counters and others completely fail to grasp.

Taking MPA for an example, never mind the loss of aircraft, it's the loss of EXPERIENCE that will ensure that we never have an effective MPA force again.

Now take that across the entire spectrum of skills in all 3 services, from operators to maintainers to cooks to logs.

If you stop and think about it, the collapse of the military covenant is far more damaging than whether we have shiny large grey toys [sans aircraft] to float about the oggin.

[Munter]

Mojocvh said:

Taking MPA for an example, never mind the loss of aircraft, it's the loss of EXPERIENCE that will ensure that we never have an effective MPA force again.

Then how did we get one in the 1st place? We worked out how to do it once. We can work out how to do it again.

Not efficient for a short term strategy I grant you. But you can't say we'll never be able to do it again.

[Mojocvh]

Simpo Two said:

Quoting one trivial military task to justify a complete military strategy for decades is silly.

Why is it silly when it's effectiveness is proven, costs far less and makes good TV??


You really think the prollies are ever going to go at it like a terrier after a rat, alone, or without the UN sanctioning action??

What of our new found military allies in Europe? What if they don't feel action would be in THEIR national interest, [ Like the Germans over libya] what then?

They have the conduit to avoid ANY responsibility for military action and I doubt that we will ever be in a position to go it alone ever again.

[Mojocvh]

doogz said:

Mojocvh said:

doogz said:

Mojocvh said:

;;;As current ops demonstrated, we can do all that from mainland UK, with overseas basing options under NATO agreement, no need for the ships steaming around in circles [without any aircraft to fly off them].

What project, that would be MOST beneficial to the UK's defence, would benefit from a 6 billion (?) cash injection

How about keeping the manning levels as they are, doing a Maggie and improving/restoring the pay, condition and allowances for UK servicemen/women.

JUST A THOUGHT.

So, the best thing we can do to aid out countries defences, is not to build 2 aircraft carriers, with a complement of aircraft, but to leave ourselves with no aircraft carriers, no overseas aerial strike capability, but instead to give everyone a pay rise?

I'm glad you're not in charge tbh.

I think you are missing the point, to be effective the millitary needs trained, experienced manpower, something that the bean-counters and others completely fail to grasp.

Taking MPA for an example, never mind the loss of aircraft, it's the loss of EXPERIENCE that will ensure that we never have an effective MPA force again.

Now take that across the entire spectrum of skills in all 3 services, from operators to maintainers to cooks to logs.

If you stop and think about it, the collapse of the military covenant is far more damaging than whether we have shiny large grey toys [sans aircraft] to float about the oggin.

I don't think i missed the point tbh, i don't think you made it.

A minute ago it was that you think we should be paying these guys more, now it's that we have no maritime patrol aircraft, which apparently means we'll never ever have any again. Not quite sure why that is though, you don't make it clear.

So... don't buy them equipment, give them payrises. But you're also saying, don't get rid of the equipment, because then we won't have the skills to operate this equipment. That we don't have.

You mind clearing this up a bit, i'm confused by exactly what your point is supposed to be.

Simples, look after the people we have just now rather that investing in some ineffective barges that are probably going to be sold on....

[petemurphy]

how many tankers / typhoons could we buy for the same money?

[dafeller]

fergywales said:

fking Yanks still have to have the biggest!

Don't have to, as you imply, simply to have it. But in the projection-of-power programme, it's rather essential that you have the power to project. The QE-class will certainly allow the UK to do that, with it's 12 f-35s. Wait, is that right? 12 F-35s on the QE? Well, you'll be able to project power over the Falklands probably.

I'm a little more concerned about the BBC's title: the Mind Boggling Job of building a 65,000 ton AC. Good thing you're not building the Ronald Reagan. Heads wouldn't boggle, they'd explode.