HMS Queen Elizabeth

[TTmonkey]

Did she make it under the bridge last night?


It's interesting to see it described as an aircraft carrier. It's Years away from being an aircraft carrier, and there is massive risk that if the development of the short take off variant of the F35 stalls and fails then it will never be of any real use. It's a massive risk building a platform for a single type of aircraft that currently isn't operational. Building two is doubling that risk.


And I'm still not sure what we are going to use it for. We aren't projecting air power world wide now and no one is missing this capability. We haven't really done it for a number of years either. Let's not pretend the harriers off our old carriers would have made a difference against any forign power with any kind of decent military. Why do we think we will need to do that in ten years time? Surely, and projection of force in ten years time will be better done by drones.

And second hand value in the future? None would be my guess.

[Evanivitch]

TTmonkey said:

It's interesting to see it described as an aircraft carrier. It's Years away from being an aircraft carrier, and there is massive risk that if the development of the short take off variant of the F35 stalls and fails then it will never be of any real use. It's a massive risk building a platform for a single type of aircraft that currently isn't operational. Building two is doubling that risk.

QE will begin aircraft trials in Q1 2018, starting with Rotary aircraft.

F35B has been declared IOC and is about to deploy on 2 USN flattops.

http://www.businessinsider.com/marine-corps-f-35b-...

Back in your box.

[ecsrobin]

I believe the first actual aircraft movement is in 2 weeks time with a merlin.

[Evanivitch]

MartG said:

A pity as it affects not just the choice of fast jet it can operate, but also other things like AEW - radar equipped Merlin helicopters are no match for an E-2 Hawkeye

You're right, flying a small fleet of bespoke, single role aircraft is financially no match for a simple kit fitted to an existing airframe.

At best we would stretch to a small fleet of V22 Ospreys, but atleast that would give us a multi role aircraft to support SF, A2A refuelling, AEW and logistics.

[PRTVR]

TTmonkey said:

Did she make it under the bridge last night?


It's interesting to see it described as an aircraft carrier. It's Years away from being an aircraft carrier, and there is massive risk that if the development of the short take off variant of the F35 stalls and fails then it will never be of any real use. It's a massive risk building a platform for a single type of aircraft that currently isn't operational. Building two is doubling that risk.


And I'm still not sure what we are going to use it for. We aren't projecting air power world wide now and no one is missing this capability. We haven't really done it for a number of years either. Let's not pretend the harriers off our old carriers would have made a difference against any forign power with any kind of decent military. Why do we think we will need to do that in ten years time? Surely, and projection of force in ten years time will be better done by drones.

And second hand value in the future? None would be my guess.

What a negative view, it's an aircraft carrier due to its designated job, as you would describe a coffee table even without any coffee present, I agree that the decision to go for a untested aircraft design was not the best of decisions but have you not answered you own question, in the future could it not be used to launch drones, if the past tells us anything it's that the future doesn't go exactly as planned, I remember reading about the decision to get rid of airborne early warning aircrafts for the fleet, we were never going to operate without the US, so it wasn't needed, a few years latter the Falkland war took place and we suffered as a consequence,
personally I think it's great we can still build big stuff.

[essayer]

About 10mi out to sea now, so she didn't bring the bridge down!

[DMN]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

But not before BAE was given another fistful of tax payers cash.

[donutsina911]

TTmonkey said:

Did she make it under the bridge last night?


It's interesting to see it described as an aircraft carrier. It's Years away from being an aircraft carrier, and there is massive risk that if the development of the short take off variant of the F35 stalls and fails then it will never be of any real use. It's a massive risk building a platform for a single type of aircraft that currently isn't operational. Building two is doubling that risk.


And I'm still not sure what we are going to use it for. We aren't projecting air power world wide now and no one is missing this capability. We haven't really done it for a number of years either. Let's not pretend the harriers off our old carriers would have made a difference against any forign power with any kind of decent military. Why do we think we will need to do that in ten years time? Surely, and projection of force in ten years time will be better done by drones.

And second hand value in the future? None would be my guess.

Not only negative, but bullst too.

Carrier Enabled Power Projection (CEPP) incorporates Littoral Manoeuvre, Humanitarian Assistance, Defence Diplomacy and Carrier Strike. Carrier Strike has a huge number of component parts, including C4ISR, AEW, Tanker support etc etc and with a following wind, the RN might just have a chance of bringing all of these elements to bear in time for the first deployment.

Initially, she'll deploy with a mixed Tactical Air Group that absolutely can project power ashore for littoral operations - Apache, Chinook, Merlin and Wildcat all have a role to play in this (NATO intervention in Libya as an example).

Regrettably, she'll end up filling the void left by the decommissioning of HMS OCEAN and serve as a Landing Platform (Helicopter) until RO9 is commissioned - she'll be able to carry the best part of 1,000 Bootnecks and using Merlins alone, be able to deploy a full company in one lift. Air defence in this configuration will rely upon the Type 45s in the absence of jets.

In short order she'll be slotting into the US Carrier roster hosting USMC jets, followed by our own once ready. The importance of this US/UK integration cannot be overstated.

As for drones, the RN has been using ScanEagle with some success and a replacement will no doubt find its way onboard the carriers.

The assumption that all interventions are against forign (sic) powers with decent military is folly, although the Harrier did a fine job in the Falklands, Former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan where the threat varied enormously.

Worth a read for those with time on their hands, even if it was written by an Army Lt Colonel

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&met...

[LotusOmega375D]

HMS Louise English being pursued by the likes of Benny Hill, Henry McGee et al

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9bShGhf2js#t=184....

[Riley Blue]

LotusOmega375D said:

HMS Louise English being pursued by the likes of Benny Hill, Henry McGee et al

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9bShGhf2js#t=184....

The bearings on that radar are going to need replacing soon...

[aeropilot]

AndrewEH1 said:

aeropilot said:

No they don't.

They've ordered 10 of them......so far.

As mentioned, they only actually have 3 of them at the moment, and they are all test development a/c, not service released spec ones.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/united-kingdom-takes-delivery-10th-f-35-128-go/ ???

Either way I think we can agree that the procurement of these jets has been a financial nightmare.

Aah....OK, must admit not been keeping up with the F-35 fiasco of late.

[-crookedtail-]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Interesting, thanks guys! Time will tell I guess as to whether it was a good or utterly terrible decision.

[djdest]

Footage of it going under the bridges

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BknEq236s_Q

[TTmonkey]

PRTVR said:

What a negative view, it's an aircraft carrier due to its designated job, as you would describe a coffee table even without any coffee present, I agree that the decision to go for a untested aircraft design was not the best of decisions but have you not answered you own question, in the future could it not be used to launch drones, if the past tells us anything it's that the future doesn't go exactly as planned, I remember reading about the decision to get rid of airborne early warning aircrafts for the fleet, we were never going to operate without the US, so it wasn't needed, a few years latter the Falkland war took place and we suffered as a consequence,
personally I think it's great we can still build big stuff.

You'd build and deploy and air craft carrier to launch drone attacks?

That's a classic.

[ralphrj]

Nanook said:

DMN said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

But not before BAE was given another fistful of tax payers cash.

Someone asks you to do a job. Then half way through, changes their mind, asks you to spend a year designing something different. Then a year later changes their mind and wants to go back to the original design.

Do you do all that extra work for free?

Hadn't BAE (and the other companies involved) already been paid to design and build a carrier "for but not with" catapults and arrestor wires?

[anonymous-user]

djdest said:

Footage of it going under the bridges

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BknEq236s_Q

Great vid. Presumably they have to wait for low tide?

[MartG]

ralphrj said:

Nanook said:

DMN said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

But not before BAE was given another fistful of tax payers cash.

Someone asks you to do a job. Then half way through, changes their mind, asks you to spend a year designing something different. Then a year later changes their mind and wants to go back to the original design.

Do you do all that extra work for free?

Hadn't BAE (and the other companies involved) already been paid to design and build a carrier "for but not with" catapults and arrestor wires?

Yes, but as usual it appears the government's contract lawyers had cocked up

[aeropilot]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The absurdity of the situation is that there is the very real possibility that the RAF might be forced to buy the F-35C to operate from land....as the -B isn't the Tornado replacement that is needed in the wake of there being no 'replacement' of that in the pipeline........
Govt long term strategy being non-existant, had they stuck with the original change of decision, they could have easily done a one-fleet of -C models covering both tasks (as was the case with the F-4 buy back in the late 60's).........
So, as it stands now the decision to go back to the -B is likely to be a massive mistake.
Of course, BAe have a greater vested interest in the -B from a design point of view, and given its BAe building the two carriers.........it was no surprise that the quote for modifying to cat n trap was so high.............

I'm sure everything will be fine though......... and as ever our guys n girls on the front line will do a great job of making things work with one hand tied behind there backs as per usual.

[PRTVR]

TTmonkey said:

PRTVR said:

What a negative view, it's an aircraft carrier due to its designated job, as you would describe a coffee table even without any coffee present, I agree that the decision to go for a untested aircraft design was not the best of decisions but have you not answered you own question, in the future could it not be used to launch drones, if the past tells us anything it's that the future doesn't go exactly as planned, I remember reading about the decision to get rid of airborne early warning aircrafts for the fleet, we were never going to operate without the US, so it wasn't needed, a few years latter the Falkland war took place and we suffered as a consequence,
personally I think it's great we can still build big stuff.

You'd build and deploy and air craft carrier to launch drone attacks?

That's a classic.

In the future drones of various shapes and sizes will be launched from the carrier along with regular aircraft and helicopters.
Drones do not have to be only for attack, they can be used to assist in disaster situations with a global coverage.

[anonymous-user]

TTmonkey said:

You'd build and deploy and air craft carrier to launch drone attacks?

That's a classic.

Why wouldn't you launch drones from an aircraft carrier?