HMS Queen Elizabeth

[donutsina911]

Gandahar said:

Cold said:

Gandahar said:

The white elephant with it's lack of planes but multiple commanders.

Why would there be planes on board? It's still undergoing sea trials and hasn't entered active service yet. The recent tests have included numerous take-offs and landings of the F35s whereby they established procedures for such manoeuvres, essentially writing the take-off and landing handbook.

This five week trip is for other trials and tests (including some new crew members) and further tests involving aircraft will be conducted later in the year.

Plonking planes on board now would be like fitting carpets to your new house before you paint the ceilings.

Strange that we have an aircraft carrier but no planes to fly from it.

When will it have the planes? This year?

2020?

They have been painting the ceilings since 2017.

Edited by Gandahar on Monday 17th June 17:40

At the last count, I believe ‘we’ have 17 to fly from her with BK-18 arriving soon. Your entire post is literally garbage.

[Cold]

donutsina911 said:

Your entire post is literally garbage.

I do wonder about the wailings of those who expect something so complex to work straight out of the box. It's almost like they don't know what they're talking about but spout nonsense as if to make some sort of political point.

[98elise]

Gandahar said:

Cold said:

Gandahar said:

Strange that we have an aircraft carrier but no planes to fly from it.

When will it have the planes? This year?

2020?

We don't yet have an aircraft carrier that's ready for deployment. We have a ship that's still undergoing testing of all its facilities - all to plan and on schedule. Don't fret so much.

I'm not fretting. I'm just calling it a white elephant with no planes and multiple commanders.

Which it is.

So you know nothing about warship operations, or how a ship is bought into service, but get all huffy about them not doing it right!

[ecsrobin]

Gandahar said:

Strange that we have an aircraft carrier but no planes to fly from it.

When will it have the planes? This year?

2020?

They have been painting the ceilings since 2017.

Edited by Gandahar on Monday 17th June 17:40

As others have mentioned we do have planes to fly from it and the number is increasing all the time. There have also been numerous helicopters onboard including chinook and apache.

This is a timeline created in 2017 based on statements published by the MoD:

[saaby93]

You have to smile when a 'Save the Navy' website uses an American .org web address rather than .org.uk

[aeropilot]

donutsina911 said:

At the last count, I believe ‘we’ have 17 to fly from her with BK-18 arriving soon. Your entire post is literally garbage.

The three 'bitsa' test aircraft can't be included in that number as they will stay in the USA and will never be more than test and eval.

[Europa1]

junglie said:

The multiple commanders bit - not entirely sure how that is relevant?

It has a single Commanding Officer and then the Ship’s Company.

I'm assuming it's a lazy attempt at scoring points off the removal of her previous CO on a disciplinary matter. I'm struggling to see how that is some kind of flaw with the ship.

[mikal83]

Europa1 said:

junglie said:

The multiple commanders bit - not entirely sure how that is relevant?

It has a single Commanding Officer and then the Ship’s Company.

I'm assuming it's a lazy attempt at scoring points off the removal of her previous CO on a disciplinary matter. I'm struggling to see how that is some kind of flaw with the ship.

Armchair wannabees that have been on playstation all their lives

[FourWheelDrift]

saaby93 said:

You have to smile when a 'Save the Navy' website uses an American .org web address rather than .org.uk

.org is not American. It's one of the original top level domains and like .com and .net is globally unrestricted.

[98elise]

Europa1 said:

junglie said:

The multiple commanders bit - not entirely sure how that is relevant?

It has a single Commanding Officer and then the Ship’s Company.

I'm assuming it's a lazy attempt at scoring points off the removal of her previous CO on a disciplinary matter. I'm struggling to see how that is some kind of flaw with the ship.

Agreed, by that logic the crew will just keep getting bigger. The crew in a continuous state of flux with people being drafted on and off as a matter of routine. Every few years the entire crew will have changed.

Embarked squadrons also rotate, and will normally leave the ship before it arrives at home.

His post is simply trolling.

Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 19th June 07:08

[junglie]

Now I’m confused!

[98elise]

junglie said:

Now I’m confused!

My comment wasn't aimed at you, it was agreeing that the original post about two commanding officers was bks.

Unfortunately with the original post not being quoted my post looked odd. I've modified it a bit.

[Piginapoke]

Can someone please explain exactly what these £6.2bn carriers will do.

[98elise]

Piginapoke said:

Can someone please explain exactly what these £6.2bn carriers will do.

Is it a trick question? They provide a military airbase anywhere in the world we need air cover, without the need for a local airport.

[Piginapoke]

98elise said:

Is it a trick question? They provide a military airbase anywhere in the world we need air cover, without the need for a local airport.

No, not a trick question at all; but we've seemed to manage fine without them over the last few years. How has not having carrier capability affected our national security?

It just seems a very outdated concept when most harm is from ideology not nation states.

[Europa1]

Piginapoke said:

98elise said:

Is it a trick question? They provide a military airbase anywhere in the world we need air cover, without the need for a local airport.

No, not a trick question at all; but we've seemed to manage fine without them over the last few years. How has not having carrier capability affected our national security?

It just seems a very outdated concept when most harm is from ideology not nation states.

I'm guessing it gives us more flexibility - HMS Akrotiri isn't very mobile, sadly.

[98elise]

Piginapoke said:

98elise said:

Is it a trick question? They provide a military airbase anywhere in the world we need air cover, without the need for a local airport.

No, not a trick question at all; but we've seemed to manage fine without them over the last few years. How has not having carrier capability affected our national security?

It just seems a very outdated concept when most harm is from ideology not nation states.

When the Argentine forces invaded the Falklands could not have fought back without the carrier's.

Being able to project air power anywhere in the world is very useful. Not having them for a few years just meant we were less able for a while.

Anywhere you have forces deployed you want air superiority or you're at a massive disadvantage. That's not just defending the UK, that's as part of our NATO commitment.

To put the cost into context, the NHS spent £10bn on a software package that never went into service. Suddenly a couple of aircraft carriers look pretty cheap. In addition as part of NATO we have to spend a certain amount on defence so not having them doesn't save you money

Edited by 98elise on Thursday 20th June 07:46

[PRTVR]

Piginapoke said:

98elise said:

Is it a trick question? They provide a military airbase anywhere in the world we need air cover, without the need for a local airport.

No, not a trick question at all; but we've seemed to manage fine without them over the last few years. How has not having carrier capability affected our national security?

It just seems a very outdated concept when most harm is from ideology not nation states.

The whole military idea is outdated, till the time you need it, the Falklands for example, it's an insurance policy that you hope never to use.

[Ayahuasca]

Piginapoke said:

Can someone please explain exactly what these £6.2bn carriers will do.

It’s a good question and the answer is not the obvious and face value ‘they will allow us to project power anywhere in the world’, because we have no real need to do that, also it is not ‘they will help to defend the UK’, because they won’t, and as an island we are already a very large aircraft carrier.

What they will do is give the UK a ticket to the big boys club, increase the UK’s power and prestige, make us an ‘international player who must be listened to’, allow us to help out the USA in its foreign adventures, and perhaps help us keep our permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

In short, they will do what is currently done by the current Vanguard / Trident fleet, with the added benefit of being able to host cocktail parties for foreign businessmen.

They may also make it politically more acceptable to do away with the Trident fleet, which will save us around £50 billion, which makes the £6.2 billion carriers a a very good investment.

[Boatbuoy]

They'll come into their own in the upcoming 'Battle of Rockall'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48580227