HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
alfie2244 said:
Are you related to Dianne Abbot? 
Nope. The heliclunk at the blunt end of the boat was already onboard, possibly left in its Procedure Alpha position from Saturday evening. The three Mk4s that landed today are from Yeovilton (845 NAS) and contained a handful of blokes who like cammo make-up.
Cold said:
Nope. The heliclunk at the blunt end of the boat was already onboard, possibly left in its Procedure Alpha position from Saturday evening.
The three Mk4s that landed today are from Yeovilton (845 NAS) and contained a handful of blokes who like cammo make-up.
July's Playmate of the month and the caterers?The three Mk4s that landed today are from Yeovilton (845 NAS) and contained a handful of blokes who like cammo make-up.
Cold said:
alfie2244 said:
Are you related to Dianne Abbot?
Nope. The heliclunk at the blunt end of the boat was already onboard, possibly left in its Procedure Alpha position from Saturday evening. The three Mk4s that landed today are from Yeovilton (845 NAS) and contained a handful of blokes who like dressing in womens clothing.
Cold said:
alfie2244 said:
Are you related to Dianne Abbot?
Nope. The heliclunk at the blunt end of the boat was already onboard, possibly left in its Procedure Alpha position from Saturday evening. The three Mk4s that landed today are from Yeovilton (845 NAS) and contained a handful of blokes who like cammo make-up.
FourWheelDrift said:
Cold said:
Nope. The heliclunk at the blunt end of the boat was already onboard, possibly left in its Procedure Alpha position from Saturday evening.
The three Mk4s that landed today are from Yeovilton (845 NAS) and contained a handful of blokes who like cammo make-up.
July's Playmate of the month and the caterers?The three Mk4s that landed today are from Yeovilton (845 NAS) and contained a handful of blokes who like cammo make-up.
DiscoColin said:
The largest warship ever sunk was the slightly smaller USS America. That was a mid-1960s vintage design (so quite a bit has been learned about making such ships more survivable since then) that the US spent 4 full weeks expending pretty much every non-nuclear weapons system in their inventory against as an exercise in 2005. They even loaded it up with old aircraft to see what happened to them in the hangers while they pummelled the **** out of it. Once they had ran out of things to try to sink it with, they eventually settled on scuttling it in the end (somewhere very, very deep by all accounts - keeping the wreck away from prying eyes). There are some details and even a few interesting pictures around if you are curious enough to go and search for them.
So in short - it is probably possible to sink it. In theory. But not necessarily in practise. I don't know the specifics of the design, but if you think about it - if a ship has water tight compartments in all of the right places then you could theoretically split it in half and the 2 halves would still float.
As for a "mission kill" (i.e. rendering it unable to operate) that is also pretty difficult. With catapult/arrestor aircraft carriers you would only need to damage the arrestor gear or put a tangibly large hole in the rear third of the deck to prevent it from operating its aircraft. But when the aircraft are all STOVL, you would basically have to sink it to prevent it from being able to land and launch its aircraft.
In summary - a hell of a lot more difficult than many of the internet's armchair admirals and video games enthusiasts would have you believe.
Today somewhat better training and systems exist also munitions are much less sensitive. However two large fires rendered two US supercarriers combat incapable in the 1960's. These fires were started by relatively light Zuni rockets.So in short - it is probably possible to sink it. In theory. But not necessarily in practise. I don't know the specifics of the design, but if you think about it - if a ship has water tight compartments in all of the right places then you could theoretically split it in half and the 2 halves would still float.
As for a "mission kill" (i.e. rendering it unable to operate) that is also pretty difficult. With catapult/arrestor aircraft carriers you would only need to damage the arrestor gear or put a tangibly large hole in the rear third of the deck to prevent it from operating its aircraft. But when the aircraft are all STOVL, you would basically have to sink it to prevent it from being able to land and launch its aircraft.
In summary - a hell of a lot more difficult than many of the internet's armchair admirals and video games enthusiasts would have you believe.
Edited by DiscoColin on Sunday 19th August 15:27
In short I'd assign a low probability that any single hit of a conventional munition would sink a very large vessel but even a relatively light anti-ship missile would stand a good chance of causing damage that would cause the carrier to pack up and go home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_f...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_fire
Talksteer said:
DiscoColin said:
The largest warship ever sunk was the slightly smaller USS America. That was a mid-1960s vintage design (so quite a bit has been learned about making such ships more survivable since then) that the US spent 4 full weeks expending pretty much every non-nuclear weapons system in their inventory against as an exercise in 2005. They even loaded it up with old aircraft to see what happened to them in the hangers while they pummelled the **** out of it. Once they had ran out of things to try to sink it with, they eventually settled on scuttling it in the end (somewhere very, very deep by all accounts - keeping the wreck away from prying eyes). There are some details and even a few interesting pictures around if you are curious enough to go and search for them.
So in short - it is probably possible to sink it. In theory. But not necessarily in practise. I don't know the specifics of the design, but if you think about it - if a ship has water tight compartments in all of the right places then you could theoretically split it in half and the 2 halves would still float.
As for a "mission kill" (i.e. rendering it unable to operate) that is also pretty difficult. With catapult/arrestor aircraft carriers you would only need to damage the arrestor gear or put a tangibly large hole in the rear third of the deck to prevent it from operating its aircraft. But when the aircraft are all STOVL, you would basically have to sink it to prevent it from being able to land and launch its aircraft.
In summary - a hell of a lot more difficult than many of the internet's armchair admirals and video games enthusiasts would have you believe.
Today somewhat better training and systems exist also munitions are much less sensitive. However two large fires rendered two US supercarriers combat incapable in the 1960's. These fires were started by relatively light Zuni rockets.So in short - it is probably possible to sink it. In theory. But not necessarily in practise. I don't know the specifics of the design, but if you think about it - if a ship has water tight compartments in all of the right places then you could theoretically split it in half and the 2 halves would still float.
As for a "mission kill" (i.e. rendering it unable to operate) that is also pretty difficult. With catapult/arrestor aircraft carriers you would only need to damage the arrestor gear or put a tangibly large hole in the rear third of the deck to prevent it from operating its aircraft. But when the aircraft are all STOVL, you would basically have to sink it to prevent it from being able to land and launch its aircraft.
In summary - a hell of a lot more difficult than many of the internet's armchair admirals and video games enthusiasts would have you believe.
Edited by DiscoColin on Sunday 19th August 15:27
In short I'd assign a low probability that any single hit of a conventional munition would sink a very large vessel but even a relatively light anti-ship missile would stand a good chance of causing damage that would cause the carrier to pack up and go home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_f...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_fire
[long story short. we aint got any armour belts or defensive missile systems BUT the damage control is WORLD class.]
Talksteer said:
In short I'd assign a low probability that any single hit of a conventional munition would sink a very large vessel but even a relatively light anti-ship missile would stand a good chance of causing damage that would cause the carrier to pack up and go home.
Wouldn’t disagree. Whilst Harpoon isnt representative of latest tech, two into BOXER’s during an undignified SINKEX show that she’d float, but be unlikely to move or fight. And that’s with a hanger minus Cab, fuel etc..
donutsina911 said:
Wouldn’t disagree. Whilst Harpoon isnt representative of latest tech, two into BOXER’s during an undignified SINKEX show that she’d float, but be unlikely to move or fight. And that’s with a hanger minus Cab, fuel etc..
I served as an Officer of the Watch in Boxer. Not a particularly happy ship at the time but still sad to see those pictures.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff