HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
Evanivitch said:
What steam catapults?
Stormy seas aren't really problem provided you're protected from the corrosion. Electrical/electronics are far more vulnerable to high vibration environments like tracked vehicles or prop aircraft.
I think you need a "Whoosh Parrot" for the catapult comment, and I think you'd also be surprised at how much energy/vibration can flow through a ship when you hit a decent sized wave.Stormy seas aren't really problem provided you're protected from the corrosion. Electrical/electronics are far more vulnerable to high vibration environments like tracked vehicles or prop aircraft.
AshVX220 said:
Evanivitch said:
What steam catapults?
Stormy seas aren't really problem provided you're protected from the corrosion. Electrical/electronics are far more vulnerable to high vibration environments like tracked vehicles or prop aircraft.
I think you need a "Whoosh Parrot" for the catapult comment, and I think you'd also be surprised at how much energy/vibration can flow through a ship when you hit a decent sized wave.Stormy seas aren't really problem provided you're protected from the corrosion. Electrical/electronics are far more vulnerable to high vibration environments like tracked vehicles or prop aircraft.
wildcat45 said:
I think it's a bit early for precise dates. Has the infrastructure being built at Pompey finished? I assume the WW2 bomb found today was discovered by dredging for the QEC.
I'm wondering if she'll have sets of contractors trials like other warships. Put her to sea, wind her up, find out what's broken/doesn't work and bring her back to the yard for fettling.
I'm asking partly on behalf of my 87 year old friend Gordon. He was part of the team that built Lusty and ARKR as well as the carrier Albion back in the 1940s when he was an apprentice.
He so wishes he was young enough to be part of the QE and PoW build.
Report from her First Lieutenant last October:I'm wondering if she'll have sets of contractors trials like other warships. Put her to sea, wind her up, find out what's broken/doesn't work and bring her back to the yard for fettling.
I'm asking partly on behalf of my 87 year old friend Gordon. He was part of the team that built Lusty and ARKR as well as the carrier Albion back in the 1940s when he was an apprentice.
He so wishes he was young enough to be part of the QE and PoW build.
MCDOA said:
The build process continues up here in Rosyth. Some of you may have experienced this from the RN side of the house, perhaps in a new class of ship, in a new build. The frustrations are many and varied. Add to this the sheer scale and complexity of the Queen Elizabeth Class (QEC) aircraft carriers and you can imagine that each day brings a new challenge in moving towards Ships Staff Move On Board (SSMOB) then its sequel, Ready For Sea Date (RFSD).
SSMOB is planned for 9 January; RFSD 10 March. Using Andrew St George's 12 principles of Leadership in the Royal Navy, I subscribe to his No.2, Cheerfulness. A glass half empty as opposed to a glass half full approach is a choice, and I choose to remain optimistic. Draw from that what you will.
Timing of First Entry Portsmouth (FEP) is dependent upon achieving RFSD and the subsequent success of Power and Propulsion Trials. This initial Contractor Sea Trials period we call euphemistically '5-1-5', i.e. from RFSD, five weeks at sea, one week alongside (Invergordon), five weeks at sea, then FEP: a standard package that must be executed in full from whichever start date we achieve. Clearly, FEP will shift right if RFSD does, or indeed if '5-1-5' needs to be extended to accommodate any set-backs thrown up during the trials.
The shape of FEP is generating some debate in the centre, and thankfully divorced from the ship. One school wants all-singing, all-dancing, bells and whistles for the first entry of the nation's new Flagship; the other a low-key event for a Government Owned, Company Operated (GO-CO) 'merchant vessel' which is still undergoing trials and is some way off from being handed over to the RN. The ever commercially-minded Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA) wishes the latter. The realistic approach lies somewhere between the two; the decision rests not with the ship, nay not even with our GO-CO masters, the ACA, but at the Navy Board, to be ratified by the Admiralty Board very soon.
Former RN might be wondering why the ship's company (now only 80 or so short of our full complement) is here so early compared to previous build processes. The MOD being the fourth partner of the ACA has been contracted to provide the 'ACA Sea Trials Crew' - we are 'Agents of Industry' in this respect. Our RN aim is to become Suitably Qualified and Experienced Personnel (SQEP) of the QEC carrier. A large part of the frustration is the lack of access to systems in order to become SQ, let alone building E. The ship simply does not yet belong to the Navy. Yes, we look forward to working with our ACA partners to assist in the build process, particularly where that activity sets the conditions to achieve SQEP. However, we remain hostage to the progress the ACA sets itself in this GO-CO ship. Vessel Acceptance Date is set for a date TBC in the early autumn of 2017.
http://www.mcdoa.org.uk/News_Archive_56.htmSSMOB is planned for 9 January; RFSD 10 March. Using Andrew St George's 12 principles of Leadership in the Royal Navy, I subscribe to his No.2, Cheerfulness. A glass half empty as opposed to a glass half full approach is a choice, and I choose to remain optimistic. Draw from that what you will.
Timing of First Entry Portsmouth (FEP) is dependent upon achieving RFSD and the subsequent success of Power and Propulsion Trials. This initial Contractor Sea Trials period we call euphemistically '5-1-5', i.e. from RFSD, five weeks at sea, one week alongside (Invergordon), five weeks at sea, then FEP: a standard package that must be executed in full from whichever start date we achieve. Clearly, FEP will shift right if RFSD does, or indeed if '5-1-5' needs to be extended to accommodate any set-backs thrown up during the trials.
The shape of FEP is generating some debate in the centre, and thankfully divorced from the ship. One school wants all-singing, all-dancing, bells and whistles for the first entry of the nation's new Flagship; the other a low-key event for a Government Owned, Company Operated (GO-CO) 'merchant vessel' which is still undergoing trials and is some way off from being handed over to the RN. The ever commercially-minded Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA) wishes the latter. The realistic approach lies somewhere between the two; the decision rests not with the ship, nay not even with our GO-CO masters, the ACA, but at the Navy Board, to be ratified by the Admiralty Board very soon.
Former RN might be wondering why the ship's company (now only 80 or so short of our full complement) is here so early compared to previous build processes. The MOD being the fourth partner of the ACA has been contracted to provide the 'ACA Sea Trials Crew' - we are 'Agents of Industry' in this respect. Our RN aim is to become Suitably Qualified and Experienced Personnel (SQEP) of the QEC carrier. A large part of the frustration is the lack of access to systems in order to become SQ, let alone building E. The ship simply does not yet belong to the Navy. Yes, we look forward to working with our ACA partners to assist in the build process, particularly where that activity sets the conditions to achieve SQEP. However, we remain hostage to the progress the ACA sets itself in this GO-CO ship. Vessel Acceptance Date is set for a date TBC in the early autumn of 2017.
HarryW said:
Are you sure about that, not heard or seen a dicky about any date bar speculation...out of interest is that the end of metrological summer or BST....either way I'll have a gander when it comes up the harbour, should be a brilliant sight.
Im 100% positive Zambellas gave that date, but my money would be on her actually arriving in Pompey in August...
ninja-lewis said:
Thank you, I'll forward that on to him.jmorgan said:
Yeah, should be "Prince Phillip"
At least then it can sound troublesome.
yeah don't like the name either. At least then it can sound troublesome.
Its a dangerous game naming a capital ship after the royal family. I'd have preferred her to have a historic name. Thank god we don't name them after political leaders. HMS Tony Blair anyone?
Illustrious would have been good, or Ark Royal.
TTmonkey said:
jmorgan said:
Yeah, should be "Prince Phillip"
At least then it can sound troublesome.
yeah don't like the name either. At least then it can sound troublesome.
Its a dangerous game naming a capital ship after the royal family. I'd have preferred her to have a historic name. Thank god we don't name them after political leaders. HMS Tony Blair anyone?
Illustrious would have been good, or Ark Royal.
jmorgan said:
mybrainhurts said:
HMS Queen Elizabeth...
Doesn't sound very, you know, fighty, does it..?
Yeah, should be "Prince Phillip"Doesn't sound very, you know, fighty, does it..?
At least then it can sound troublesome.
hidetheelephants said:
jmorgan said:
mybrainhurts said:
HMS Queen Elizabeth...
Doesn't sound very, you know, fighty, does it..?
Yeah, should be "Prince Phillip"Doesn't sound very, you know, fighty, does it..?
At least then it can sound troublesome.
Lets hope they have fitted better engines than those fitted to the 45's.
And the day they actually have a squadron of capable aircraft able to fly off her is still a long time away.
(although the current Queen may well be gone by the time its fully operational....)
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
ok then.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/23/rol...
TTmonkey said:
yeah don't like the name either.
Its a dangerous game naming a capital ship after the royal family. I'd have preferred her to have a historic name.
You could argue that it is historic.Its a dangerous game naming a capital ship after the royal family. I'd have preferred her to have a historic name.
3 of the 5 WW2 King George V Class Battleships were named, Duke of York, Prince of Wales & naturally King George V.
Of course the 'traditional carrier' names given to RN carriers started while we still had battleships, which were the traditional prime capitol ships, but, I do agree that, these two new carriers should have retained the more historic and traditional carrier naming convention rather than this break in tradition.
A new HMS Eagle would have been my choice for one of them.
aeropilot said:
TTmonkey said:
yeah don't like the name either.
Its a dangerous game naming a capital ship after the royal family. I'd have preferred her to have a historic name.
You could argue that it is historic.Its a dangerous game naming a capital ship after the royal family. I'd have preferred her to have a historic name.
3 of the 5 WW2 King George V Class Battleships were named, Duke of York, Prince of Wales & naturally King George V.
Of course the 'traditional carrier' names given to RN carriers started while we still had battleships, which were the traditional prime capitol ships, but, I do agree that, these two new carriers should have retained the more historic and traditional carrier naming convention rather than this break in tradition.
A new HMS Eagle would have been my choice for one of them.
The destroyer of all of Britiain's military projects (TSR2, P.1154, scrapping of others) in the 1960s Denis Healey also cancelled the carriers CVA-01 and CVA-02, these were going to be called HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Duke of Edinburgh. Healey referred to carriers as "floating slums".
FourWheelDrift said:
The destroyer of all of Britiain's military projects (TSR2, P.1154, scrapping of others) in the 1960s Denis Healey also cancelled the carriers CVA-01 and CVA-02, these were going to be called HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Duke of Edinburgh. Healey referred to carriers as "floating slums".
Interesting. So really the naming wasn't anything to do with funding at all? TTmonkey said:
If it turns out to be a complete s**t box of a vessel, of no use to the country in times of crisis, the name will take on a sour meaning. You could turn the name of the current monarch into a derogatory besmirch....
I was under the impression that it was being named after the Queen Elizabeth class dreadnought battleship, not the current monarch....EDIT: That seems to be borne out by the official RN page - see the history section about 3/4 of the way down the page:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activi...
Edited by Lurking Lawyer on Thursday 23 February 13:24
Nanook said:
TTmonkey said:
Jesus, that article is awful. Jet engine? Come on!The DGs work fine, there's just not enough of them/they're not big enough.
The GT is only used when you're in a hurry, as it guzzles fuel.
The engines are fine. It's the application that's the issue.
http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/putting-the-type-4...
Long and the short of it though is that all the T45's need a dry dock re-fit.
Nanook said:
TTmonkey said:
Jesus, that article is awful. Jet engine? Come on!The DGs work fine, there's just not enough of them/they're not big enough.
The GT is only used when you're in a hurry, as it guzzles fuel.
The engines are fine. It's the application that's the issue.
A very good mate (and ex-boss) sent me this cutting from the Pompey Evening News on 1st Feb.
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/our-region/portsmouth/...
As I understand it, the Red Arrows and indeed, Her Majesty herself had been booked for the day, so rather embarrassing!
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/our-region/portsmouth/...
As I understand it, the Red Arrows and indeed, Her Majesty herself had been booked for the day, so rather embarrassing!
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff