HMS Queen Elizabeth

[RizzoTheRat]

hidetheelephants said:

The IPT decided that they liked features of both proposals and asked for them incorporated in one design. That makes a lot more sense than 'wanted both'.

That's standard military practice, give them 2 courses of action and they'll always choose CoA 1.5

[Seight_Returns]

There's an article in the Telegraph this morning about potential to retrofit QE and POW with a catapult system to launch fixed wing aircraft and drones other than F35B. It's behind the paywall so I can't read it all or link to it.

I'm aware of the 2010 SDR U-Turn to change one of the ships from STOVL to CATOBAR mid build - and then the subsequent U-U-Turn in 2012 to revert to the original design.

Is this something new or just a rehash of 10 year old news ?

Edited by Seight_Returns on Tuesday 9th March 11:12

[aeropilot]

Seight_Returns said:

There's an article in the Telegraph this morning about potential to retrofit QE and POW with a catapult system to launch fixed with aircraft and drones other than F35B.

I'm aware of the 2010 SDR U-Turn to change the ships from STOVL to CATOBAR mid build - and then the subsequent U-U-Turn in 2012 to revert to the original design.

Is this something new or just a rehash of 10 year old news ?

New.
As said, large drone launch needs as they get more into UAV stuff.

Of course that foresight was ignored a decade ago, in the myopic view that F-35B was the sole way to go, even though the carrier life was going to be well into large UAV usage.
Road, can, kick......etc. (and thats ignoring the F-35B issues)

[Teddy Lop]

Seight_Returns said:

There's an article in the Telegraph this morning about potential to retrofit QE and POW with a catapult system to launch fixed wing aircraft and drones other than F35B. It's behind the paywall so I can't read it all or link to it.

I'm aware of the 2010 SDR U-Turn to change one of the ships from STOVL to CATOBAR mid build - and then the subsequent U-U-Turn in 2012 to revert to the original design.

Is this something new or just a rehash of 10 year old news ?

Edited by Seight_Returns on Tuesday 9th March 11:12

I thought the thinking was once the septics work out the electromagnetic system we'll have a looksee.

[Sheets Tabuer]

Seight_Returns said:

It's behind the paywall so I can't read it all or link to it.

https://outline.com/

You're welcome.

[Ash_]

MBBlat said:

thewarlock said:

andy97 said:

In partnership with Thales.

Yes, but not BAE.

BMT DSL, based in Bath, were contracted by Thales UK for the ship design, Thales being primarily an electronics/weapons manufacturer. Thales FR had no input whatsoever.

The only French national who worked on the project AFAIK was employed by BMT long before it started.

After the MoD's response to the ship design completion was "can we have both" then there was some minor BaE involvement in the design, but it was still primarily the BMT design.

Not quite accurate, my boss when I joined the Mission Systems team was a French National, stayed with us for about 4 years I think.

[Cold]

Given that since its delivery, HMS PWLS has spent its entire time alongside at Portsmouth undertaking repairs, I'm not sure any of the shipyards should be particularly proud of their involvement of the build.

[Dimebars]

HMSQNLZ making for Glenmallan jetty on Loch Long this morning. Taking on ammunition before exercise.

Tracking as HMS Daring

[Junior Bianno]

Great pic on Twitter of her heading past Arran

[Junior Bianno]

..and parked up at Glen Mallan. Must look enormous from the road. I've seen much smaller RFA ships docked there and they looked huge.

[Ian Lancs]

Some amusing tweets (now deleted)

The whole thread isn't good for a sane persons blood pressure https://twitter.com/policescotland/status/13714160...

[aeropilot]

Ian Lancs said:

Some amusing tweets (now deleted)

The whole thread isn't good for a sane persons blood pressure https://twitter.com/policescotland/status/13714160...

There does seem to be a correlation between thick people and social media......

[MartG]

Her normal berth in Portsmouth is only marked on the NATS database as a 'high risk' area, not a No Fly Zone - the NFZ is probably because she'll be loading ammunition and munitions at the Northern Ammunition jetty in Glen Mallan

[hidetheelephants]

Presumably official drone/aerial footage and some pictures of the mobile airfield coming alongside here.

[aeropilot]

MartG said:

Her normal berth in Portsmouth is only marked on the NATS database as a 'high risk' area, not a No Fly Zone - the NFZ is probably because she'll be loading ammunition and munitions at the Northern Ammunition jetty in Glen Mallan

I'm guessing its allows for a no-drone zone by default, and therefore any possible sneaky aerial photo's taken showing anything from the above, which they don't want shown, which is understandable?

[hidetheelephants]

aeropilot said:

MartG said:

Her normal berth in Portsmouth is only marked on the NATS database as a 'high risk' area, not a No Fly Zone - the NFZ is probably because she'll be loading ammunition and munitions at the Northern Ammunition jetty in Glen Mallan

I'm guessing its allows for a no-drone zone by default, and therefore any possible sneaky aerial photo's taken showing anything from the above, which they don't want shown, which is understandable?

Given the land around Glen Mallan jetty rises to ~1800' anybody who wants to take pictures from above only needs a camera and suitable lens, some stout boots and the energy to climb a hill.

[MartG]

With a no fly zone and NOTAM in place I guess they are clear to shoot down without warning anything which flies too close. The RN learned in Falkland Sound that being surrounded by mountains is not good for air defence radar

[14]

MartG said:

With a no fly zone and NOTAM in place I guess they are clear to shoot down without warning anything which flies too close. The RN learned in Falkland Sound that being surrounded by mountains is not good for air defence radar

I’d guess that they don’t want anyone to know what weapons that are being loaded, which would be quite easy to do with a no fly zone and infra red cameras looking at the hills. They’re probably using the Typhoons based at Lossiemouth to enforce the no fly zone.

They certainly will not be shooting down anything that breeches the no fly zone, as it’ll be civilian aircraft that will most likely breech it not Russian aircraft.

[ninja-lewis]

Might be more prosaic. Aerial footage on Instagram tags Police Scotland so possibly they had their helicopter up to keep any eye out and didn't want to run into a drone. Likewise the ship might want to keep drones away so her helicopters can safely operate for transport purposes.

[14]

ninja-lewis said:

Might be more prosaic. Aerial footage on Instagram tags Police Scotland so possibly they had their helicopter up to keep any eye out and didn't want to run into a drone. Likewise the ship might want to keep drones away so her helicopters can safely operate for transport purposes.

And how many drone operators look at NOTAM’s let alone even heard of them? Not many I’d of thought. Even the tweet by Police Scotland saying about the no fly zone, how many drone operators would think that it included drones?