HMS Queen Elizabeth

[aeropilot]

AshVX220 said:

considering that production of F-35b is pretty much fully flowing now and the UK is taking new delivery's one a pretty regular basis.

What regular basis...?

We only took delivery of the fourth and final test and development a/c last spring.

We haven't taken delivery of any production aircraft at all yet, and we've only contracted to 10 of the first 14 UK production aircraft so far!!

[jmorgan]

Ayahuasca said:

If it is named 'Queen Elizabeth' and not 'Queen Elizabeth II' then it is named after ELizabeth I, who was quite fighty, albeit having the body of a weak and feeble woman.

Although Warspite, Vindictive, Revenge, etc sound much better.

I would have gone for 'Temeraire'

Wonder how many know the significance of that name.

Re royals on the side of ships, point taken and I should have known better

[dnb]

HMS Temeraire is a shore facility in Portsmouth so is already in use.

[FourWheelDrift]

dnb said:

HMS Temeraire is a shore facility in Portsmouth so is already in use.

Unsinkable.

[MartG]

Sounds like QE may need a quick drydock visit...

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-supercarrier-f...

[wildcat45]

Apart from her presently occupied building dock, where else in the UKcan she be taken out of the water?

[paul789]

MartG said:

Sounds like QE may need a quick drydock visit...

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-supercarrier-f...

Did they outsource the painting to Audi?

[paul789]

paul789 said:

MartG said:

Sounds like QE may need a quick drydock visit...

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-supercarrier-f...

Did they outsource the painting to Audi?

Looks glorious though.

[hidetheelephants]

Is this a new paint problem or the same paint problem they had a while ago being regurgitated by tt MPs and lazy journos?

[Simpo Two]

'A Royal Navy spokesperson said: “There are areas of the hull of HMS Queen Elizabeth where the top-coat of paint has not adhered to the undercoat.'

This is what annoys me about 'progress'. 100 years ago we could do this. Now we can't

[Munter]

Simpo Two said:

'A Royal Navy spokesperson said: “There are areas of the hull of HMS Queen Elizabeth where the top-coat of paint has not adhered to the undercoat.'

This is what annoys me about 'progress'. 100 years ago we could do this. Now we can't

No we couldn't. Cockups like that will have been commonplace throughout human history. And will continue into the future.

[mcdjl]

hidetheelephants said:

Is this a new paint problem or the same paint problem they had a while ago being regurgitated by tt MPs and lazy journos?

The first one was caused by a rush job to get the ship looking good for an open day, while that was fixed whats the betting that it was fixed as quickly as possible and with fingers crossed? As i understand it its a new type of paint(epoxy?) that is meant to last the life time of the ship/much longer than the old paint. Lets hope someone got a good warranty....

[baldy1926]

mcdjl said:

The first one was caused by a rush job to get the ship looking good for an open day, while that was fixed whats the betting that it was fixed as quickly as possible and with fingers crossed? As i understand it its a new type of paint(epoxy?) that is meant to last the life time of the ship/much longer than the old paint. Lets hope someone got a good warranty....

Dont be silly its the mod they would not negotiate anything like that into the contract.
They will probably have to refund the contract price as they always seem to do things back to front

[aeropilot]

mcdjl said:

The first one was caused by a rush job to get the ship looking good for an open day, while that was fixed whats the betting that it was fixed as quickly as possible and with fingers crossed? As i understand it its a new type of paint(epoxy?) that is meant to last the life time of the ship/much longer than the old paint. Lets hope someone got a good warranty....

I'm sure the paint maker will likely be able to say/prove....
"Nothing wrong with our product, it was just incorrectly applied"

[Ayahuasca]

I understand that 'cat and trap' operations were vetoed due to costs, and that this decision cannot be reversed because of the impossibility of fitting the necessary steam catapult system once the ship is built.

The new US Gerald Ford class carriers use an electromagnetic launch system, EMALS, which is supposed to be better and cheaper to operate than steam catapults.

Is there a possibility that the RN carriers could be retro-fitted with an EMALS system in the future?

Or will they be limited to VSTOL aircraft for life (and if the F35 turns out to be pants, they will just be big helicopters carriers)?

[FourWheelDrift]

I did ask this earlier I think on this thread or the F-35 thread, it was I think a space issue and/or a power issue once everything had been put in, so much would have to be ripped out, moved and changed. IIRC.



The only alternative is "Currently unavailable" - https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Rubber-Bands/RUBBER-12-...

Because the idiots at the MoD have procured them all for £75 per band, sole contract agreement.


Secret MoD contingency document revealed.

[MartG]

Ayahuasca said:

I understand that 'cat and trap' operations were vetoed due to costs, and that this decision cannot be reversed because of the impossibility of fitting the necessary steam catapult system once the ship is built.

The new US Gerald Ford class carriers use an electromagnetic launch system, EMALS, which is supposed to be better and cheaper to operate than steam catapults.

Is there a possibility that the RN carriers could be retro-fitted with an EMALS system in the future?

Or will they be limited to VSTOL aircraft for life (and if the F35 turns out to be pants, they will just be big helicopters carriers)?

EMALS was under consideration had it gone for CATOBAR, but after a bit of dithering the government finally went for STOVL only with a skijump. One reason given was cost, despite EMALS manufacturer General Atomic offering to underwrite any cost overruns beyond the quoted £1Bn price, and the likelihood that the F-35B will be more costly to buy & operate than the -C version ( and have lower range etc. )

As usual the government totally fked up the contract for the construction though - they were supposed to be designed so the STOVL/CATOBAR decision could be deferred with little/no cost implication, but as it turned out the contract allowed the builder to quote a huge increase had they gone for CATOBAR

[LotusOmega375D]

FourWheelDrift said:

A ship that won't float in water and aircraft made from dynamite. Does indeed sound like MOD procurement.

[mcdjl]

MartG said:

Ayahuasca said:

I understand that 'cat and trap' operations were vetoed due to costs, and that this decision cannot be reversed because of the impossibility of fitting the necessary steam catapult system once the ship is built.

The new US Gerald Ford class carriers use an electromagnetic launch system, EMALS, which is supposed to be better and cheaper to operate than steam catapults.

Is there a possibility that the RN carriers could be retro-fitted with an EMALS system in the future?

Or will they be limited to VSTOL aircraft for life (and if the F35 turns out to be pants, they will just be big helicopters carriers)?

EMALS was under consideration had it gone for CATOBAR, but after a bit of dithering the government finally went for STOVL only with a skijump. One reason given was cost, despite EMALS manufacturer General Atomic offering to underwrite any cost overruns beyond the quoted £1Bn price, and the likelihood that the F-35B will be more costly to buy & operate than the -C version ( and have lower range etc. )

As usual the government totally fked up the contract for the construction though - they were supposed to be designed so the STOVL/CATOBAR decision could be deferred with little/no cost implication, but as it turned out the contract allowed the builder to quote a huge increase had they gone for CATOBAR

What i heard was that the concept/general layouts were done for both and that the build (and certainly design) started on the ski jump version. As the catapults would require a lot of space/ extra hardware on the ship, the empty space wasn't left but filled with other useful stuff and certainly none of the detailed design done. Its not so much a case of changing the engine in your car from a 1.1 to a 3l (its tight but do-able) but more akin to going from front wheel to rear wheel drive. Thats to say, yes you can see how to do it but theres a lot that'll have to be made to do it.

[Evanivitch]

MartG said:

As usual the government totally fked up the contract for the construction though - they were supposed to be designed so the STOVL/CATOBAR decision could be deferred with little/no cost implication, but as it turned out the contract allowed the builder to quote a huge increase had they gone for CATOBAR

This is classic of the cake-and-eat it mentality that comes out of MoD.

To a point, you can have this in the design, maybe upto SDR/PDR but the time you hit CDR these sort of nice-to-haves become incredibly difficult to design around without compromise elsewhere in the design. But that compromise would probably require the customer to approve any relaxation, so instead the nice to have is erroded because it wasn't firm contractual.

If EMALS stayed in the design as a possibility it probably would have needed a an additional power unit and would have required empty space to stay empty. But all this would have been traded out for a coffee room and some more biscuits at AW.