HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
I believe that aircraft carriers normally sail in company of destroyers, frigates and subs as a 'carrier battle group'. Is the RN planning to build new escorts for the new carriers, or will the escorts need to come out of the much-depleted existing stock of ships (thus possibly weakening the Navy elsewhere), or will the carriers sail without escorts?
Hooli said:
Classic British build quality in those pics, it's already rusty 
You should see the Ford, it looks like the yanks are scrapping a carrier instead of building one.http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/worldwideaircraft...
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_...
Ayahuasca said:
I believe that aircraft carriers normally sail in company of destroyers, frigates and subs as a 'carrier battle group'. Is the RN planning to build new escorts for the new carriers, or will the escorts need to come out of the much-depleted existing stock of ships (thus possibly weakening the Navy elsewhere), or will the carriers sail without escorts?
That's more of a 'what they should do'; Unless Gideon presses the 'massive economic boom with benign come-down' button, the RN won't be able to afford to put aeroplanes on it and sail it around, so it will be flogged to someone who can afford it; Western Australia or India.Condi said:
Something on the BBC website about it now. Saddest part was that the original design was for 40 aircraft, although in reality it will carry about 12.
A hell of a lot of money to get 12 aircraft around the world....
The current design is for 40 aircraft, no carrier in the world carries a full warload unless necessary. If either of the CVF's were to be dispatched somewhere for combat then it can be filled up to surge load of 40 within a couple of days. They can carry a full load all the time but you will end up with many airframes being exposed to hostile sea conditions for no reason so it simply isn't done.A hell of a lot of money to get 12 aircraft around the world....
wildcat45 said:
And if you look at Pompey, Invince is also there on "death row" in the non-tidal baisin complete with props on deck.
... long since gone, the Ark has been parked in the same spot for getting-on for 2 years.Did you know there's a long-term project plan to drain and excavate 3 Basin (where the Ark lies) on the insistence of the Environment Agency; however nobody wants to get their teeth into it as there's untold ordnance lying in the mud just waiting to go pop and bite someone's arse
doogz said:
Ayahuasca said:
I believe that aircraft carriers normally sail in company of destroyers, frigates and subs as a 'carrier battle group'. Is the RN planning to build new escorts for the new carriers, or will the escorts need to come out of the much-depleted existing stock of ships (thus possibly weakening the Navy elsewhere), or will the carriers sail without escorts?
We've just built half a dozen destroyers, are building some new submarines, and in a couple of years will be building some new frigates. doogz said:
Our new carriers are replacing our old ones, who said anything about a net increase in ships? There are less 35s than 42s though, and will likely be less 26s than 22s and 23s.
This is my point - if there is not a net increase in ships, then the carriers will 'suck up' existing ships to protect them so RN resources will be depleted elsewhere. We could end up with a strong carrier group, but nothing anywhere else.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff