HMS Queen Elizabeth

[ralphrj]

Government have announced that HMS Prince of Wales (the second carrier) will now be brought into service.

Previously, the carrier was to be mothballed after construction or sold.

[TTmonkey]

ralphrj said:

Government have announced that HMS Prince of Wales (the second carrier) will now be brought into service.

Previously, the carrier was to be mothballed after construction or sold.

The world changes faster than the idiots in charge can imagine....

[saaby93]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29075307
Both carriers operational in 2023
It's a good job there's not a war on.

What about that French warship thats now going spare - could we have that?

[davepoth]

saaby93 said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29075307
Both carriers operational in 2023
It's a good job there's not a war on.

What about that French warship thats now going spare - could we have that?

If we had anything to fly off them they would probably work. I guess we could throw paper aeroplanes off the deck and shout "BANG" if they hit things.

[XJ Flyer]

davepoth said:

saaby93 said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29075307
Both carriers operational in 2023
It's a good job there's not a war on.

What about that French warship thats now going spare - could we have that?

If we had anything to fly off them they would probably work. I guess we could throw paper aeroplanes off the deck and shout "BANG" if they hit things.

Seriously it would probably make more sense to scrap the whole project then default on any contract penalties using emergency powers and spend the money on a massive upgrade of our independent nuclear deterrent.

[Lurking Lawyer]

XJ Flyer said:

Seriously it would probably make more sense to scrap the whole project then default on any contract penalties using emergency powers and spend the money on a massive upgrade of our independent nuclear deterrent.

1. What emergency powers?

2. How do you think the defence industry is going to react to that when it comes to doing business with HMG in future?

3. I don't deny that there's a place for the Trident fleet but how do you think it's going to help with the sort of power projection role that the QE carriers are supposed to provide?

[V8 Fettler]

Just need to bring a few Buccs out of retirement. Any idea where those Phantoms went?

[XJ Flyer]

Lurking Lawyer said:

XJ Flyer said:

Seriously it would probably make more sense to scrap the whole project then default on any contract penalties using emergency powers and spend the money on a massive upgrade of our independent nuclear deterrent.

1. What emergency powers?

2. How do you think the defence industry is going to react to that when it comes to doing business with HMG in future?

3. I don't deny that there's a place for the Trident fleet but how do you think it's going to help with the sort of power projection role that the QE carriers are supposed to provide?

The defence industry is only there for the national security of the country nothing else.We are arguably in a position of only being able to afford either a credible nuclear deterrent or a ( in this case arguably doubtful )credible carrier force.We are also arguably in an environment where priorities need to be shifted from conventional capabilities to nuclear deterrents and the contractual changes needed would involve penalties that in themselves would create an affordability crisis regards same.

IE the choice now seems to be a third rate compromised poor value for money carrier capability.Being that the type of 'projected force' in question doesn't seem to even be able to meet that of the air superiority role.In an environment where what we need is an upgraded nuclear deterrent.In which case it would not be in the national interest to allow the former to compromise in any way our ability to afford the latter.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 5th September 19:33

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 5th September 19:34

[hidetheelephants]

Lurking Lawyer said:

1. What emergency powers?

2. How do you think the defence industry is going to react to that when it comes to doing business with HMG in future?

3. I don't deny that there's a place for the Trident fleet but how do you think it's going to help with the sort of power projection role that the QE carriers are supposed to provide?

Do not attempt to engage XJ with logic, as he will defeat you with his trusty roll of Alcan.

[V8 Fettler]

With a broad brush, and with a view to the general benefits to mankind, UK defence spending probably needs to be around 5% of UK GDP. Plus a compulsory contribution of 1% from each country in Europe to reflect that the UK kept the dying flame of freedom alive 1914 - 1918 and 1939 - 1945

[XJ Flyer]

V8 Fettler said:

Just need to bring a few Buccs out of retirement. Any idea where those Phantoms went?

You'll need a catapult equipped carrier for those and the government can't/won't pay for that.Nor obviously the fuel required for twin engined planes.Although some F14's would probably be better than Phantoms if we could afford it and if there's enough time before it all goes nuclear to make it worth bothering with them anyway.

[MartG]

XJ Flyer said:

V8 Fettler said:

Just need to bring a few Buccs out of retirement. Any idea where those Phantoms went?

You'll need a catapult equipped carrier for those and the government can't/won't pay for that.Nor obviously the fuel required for twin engined planes.Although some F14's would probably be better than Phantoms if we could afford it and if there's enough time before it all goes nuclear to make it worth bothering with them anyway.

Sell our two carriers to the USMC to operate their Harriers from, and use the proceeds to buy one of the USN's carriers and a few F-18s and E2s to fly off it

[V8 Fettler]

XJ Flyer said:

V8 Fettler said:

Just need to bring a few Buccs out of retirement. Any idea where those Phantoms went?

You'll need a catapult equipped carrier for those and the government can't/won't pay for that.Nor obviously the fuel required for twin engined planes.Although some F14's would probably be better than Phantoms if we could afford it and if there's enough time before it all goes nuclear to make it worth bothering with them anyway.

Cat might need a bit of rework, but get a good subby in there and it will be fine. F14 only probably better than a Phantooom? That's a bit worrying.

[XJ Flyer]

V8 Fettler said:

With a broad brush, and with a view to the general benefits to mankind, UK defence spending probably needs to be around 5% of UK GDP. Plus a compulsory contribution of 1% from each country in Europe to reflect that the UK kept the dying flame of freedom alive 1914 - 1918 and 1939 - 1945

To be fair Germany hasn't exactly paid its fair share from 1945 to date.As for general benefits to mankind it is basically only the nuclear deterrent that is the main priority and that really matters.Everything else is just a side show to that.

[XJ Flyer]

V8 Fettler said:

XJ Flyer said:

V8 Fettler said:

Just need to bring a few Buccs out of retirement. Any idea where those Phantoms went?

You'll need a catapult equipped carrier for those and the government can't/won't pay for that.Nor obviously the fuel required for twin engined planes.Although some F14's would probably be better than Phantoms if we could afford it and if there's enough time before it all goes nuclear to make it worth bothering with them anyway.

Cat might need a bit of rework, but get a good subby in there and it will be fine. F14 only probably better than a Phantooom? That's a bit worrying.

'Probably' being meant in its wild understatement meaning there.

[V8 Fettler]

XJ Flyer said:

V8 Fettler said:

With a broad brush, and with a view to the general benefits to mankind, UK defence spending probably needs to be around 5% of UK GDP. Plus a compulsory contribution of 1% from each country in Europe to reflect that the UK kept the dying flame of freedom alive 1914 - 1918 and 1939 - 1945

To be fair Germany hasn't exactly paid its fair share from 1945 to date.As for general benefits to mankind it is basically only the nuclear deterrent that is the main priority and that really matters.Everything else is just a side show to that.

The UK nuclear deterrent has been immaterial to every conflict the UK has ever been involved in. In reality, it's an extension of the US nuclear deterrent, but you never know what the future holds.

[V8 Fettler]

XJ Flyer said:

V8 Fettler said:

XJ Flyer said:

V8 Fettler said:

Just need to bring a few Buccs out of retirement. Any idea where those Phantoms went?

You'll need a catapult equipped carrier for those and the government can't/won't pay for that.Nor obviously the fuel required for twin engined planes.Although some F14's would probably be better than Phantoms if we could afford it and if there's enough time before it all goes nuclear to make it worth bothering with them anyway.

Cat might need a bit of rework, but get a good subby in there and it will be fine. F14 only probably better than a Phantooom? That's a bit worrying.

'Probably' being meant in its wild understatement meaning there.

Do you mean the F14 is definitely not better?

[XJ Flyer]

V8 Fettler said:

XJ Flyer said:

V8 Fettler said:

With a broad brush, and with a view to the general benefits to mankind, UK defence spending probably needs to be around 5% of UK GDP. Plus a compulsory contribution of 1% from each country in Europe to reflect that the UK kept the dying flame of freedom alive 1914 - 1918 and 1939 - 1945

To be fair Germany hasn't exactly paid its fair share from 1945 to date.As for general benefits to mankind it is basically only the nuclear deterrent that is the main priority and that really matters.Everything else is just a side show to that.

The UK nuclear deterrent has been immaterial to every conflict the UK has ever been involved in. In reality, it's an extension of the US nuclear deterrent, but you never know what the future holds.

It would have no longer been a deterrent if/when it ever needed to be used.By that comparison most under used but the most important.

[XJ Flyer]

V8 Fettler said:

XJ Flyer said:

V8 Fettler said:

XJ Flyer said:

V8 Fettler said:

Just need to bring a few Buccs out of retirement. Any idea where those Phantoms went?

You'll need a catapult equipped carrier for those and the government can't/won't pay for that.Nor obviously the fuel required for twin engined planes.Although some F14's would probably be better than Phantoms if we could afford it and if there's enough time before it all goes nuclear to make it worth bothering with them anyway.

Cat might need a bit of rework, but get a good subby in there and it will be fine. F14 only probably better than a Phantooom? That's a bit worrying.

'Probably' being meant in its wild understatement meaning there.

Do you mean the F14 is definitely not better?

No most definitely absolute beast of a plane better.

[MartG]

XJ Flyer said:

V8 Fettler said:

XJ Flyer said:

V8 Fettler said:

XJ Flyer said:

V8 Fettler said:

Just need to bring a few Buccs out of retirement. Any idea where those Phantoms went?

You'll need a catapult equipped carrier for those and the government can't/won't pay for that.Nor obviously the fuel required for twin engined planes.Although some F14's would probably be better than Phantoms if we could afford it and if there's enough time before it all goes nuclear to make it worth bothering with them anyway.

Cat might need a bit of rework, but get a good subby in there and it will be fine. F14 only probably better than a Phantooom? That's a bit worrying.

'Probably' being meant in its wild understatement meaning there.

Do you mean the F14 is definitely not better?

No most definitely absolute beast of a plane better.

Just not developed into as many roles as the F-4 ( e.g. Wild Weasel ) and nowhere as many built ( probably due to cost, and the fact that the sole export customer then went bad on them )