Page 1342 of 1342 FirstFirst ... 342842124212921332133413351336133713381339134013411342
Results 20,116 to 20,130 of 20130

Thread: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

  1. #20116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zanahoria View Post
    Dear all,

    I'd just like to state how much I appreciate the effort made by posters on this thread to educate and inform all and sundry about everything related to the QE class. Sadly, I cannot claim any link to the building programme or the RN, so no scoops from me!

    On the other hand, I have a question:

    Was it ever conceivable that the carriers could have been based at Faslane or elsewhere in Scotland? (let's ignore possible Scottish independence for the time being!)

    I guess Portsmouth is the favourite because it has a huge central mass of naval facilities and infrastructure already in place, and although it needs to be dredged to accommodate the carriers this is considered to be a minor chore compared to creating extra facilities at Faslane or Rosyth. But is there also a strategic advantage that Portsmouth has? E.g you don't have to worry about bumping into Ireland on your way to the Atlantic?

    Many thanks!
    There are many factors that determine where ships are base ported but the main ones are the port's capacity to accommodate the ship or class (i.e. jetty availability), support infrastructure and to maximise stability for naval personnel. Ideally all ships of a certain class would be based at the same Naval Base but in the case of the T23, these are split between Devonport and Portsmouth to provide a sensible basing balance between the two ports. Some mine hunters are based in Faslane, for sensible tactical reasons as they are needed to provide immediate support to the SSBNs, with the rest at Portsmouth. Devonport has Operational Sea Training, Hydrographic and Amphibious vessels. Portsmouth has carriers, destroyers, some frigates and MCMVs. Given that all aircraft carriers were based at Portsmouth, it clearly made sense for their replacements to be similarly based there. With the exception of a few minehunters only submarines are based at Faslane and once the shift to an Astute only SSN navy is completed all submarines will be based at Faslane (subject to a No referendum result of course). This means that submariners will be based ashore and afloat at Faslane and can put down roots there thus avoiding regular moves during their careers. Rosyth is not a naval base but a dockyard in private hands. Therefore the only real choice for basing the QE class was Portsmouth once it was clear that this Naval Base could accommodate the carriers. Had a decision been taken to base them at say Devonport then there would have had to be changes to the base porting of other vessels to balance the load between the bases such as moving all T23s to Portsmouth. With the exception of the SSBNs and to a degree the SSNs, base porting decisions are not taken for strategic or tactical reasons. In other words it makes little difference where a ship deploys from for operations. I hope this helps.

  2. #20117
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    10

    Default

    @ Naval Oldie

    Thank you for such a thorough and illuminating response. I particularly liked the point you made about stability for naval personnel - something I hadn't even considered, but so obviously crucial to retention of experienced sailors.

  3. #20118
    Member desertswo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zanahoria View Post
    @ Naval Oldie

    Thank you for such a thorough and illuminating response. I particularly liked the point you made about stability for naval personnel - something I hadn't even considered, but so obviously crucial to retention of experienced sailors.
    There's a saying within the halls of the Pentagon: "We recruit individuals, but we retain families." Clearly the concept cuts across national boundaries.

  4. #20119
    Senior Member ~UNiOnJaCk~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    5,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyTimes View Post
    I am sure this has probably been discussed here earlier, but i must lack som searching skills, so i dare the question:
    Since you are talking about the nuclear reactor of the astute, why didn't they go for nuclear power in a ship as big as the QE, the fuel consumption must surely be tremendous?
    Edit: A quick googling tells me that the decision was based on cost, but maybe someone here cares to add an embellishment.
    No infrastructure to support such an entity and no operational precedent for us. Tis' not how we roll so to speak. On these grounds, even if the more obvious financial question was removed from the question, Iím not convinced that the RN would have ever taken up the nuclear option regardless.

  5. #20120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cockneyjock1974 View Post
    The customer was a bit fazed by this because the MOD infrastructure does not exist and cannot cope with demands that pertain in your local supermarket or on-line store distribution facilities. Inventory management, planning and distribution are much less mature in the MOD than in for example, Sainsbury's, not least because any supermarket chain has much greater purchasing capacity...and the MOD has conflicting RN, RAF and Army interests.
    Not sure immature as non-existent according to the Iraq Inquiry. The MOD in 2003 still hadn't learned the lessons of 1991 and hence in some cases kit was sent out in sufficient quantities but nobody knew which container in it was let alone where that container was.

    I'd be more worried about whether the on-shore logistics will be able to supply a war load in one shift than QE class' ability to stow it.

  6. #20121
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by desertswo View Post
    There's a saying within the halls of the Pentagon: "We recruit individuals, but we retain families." Clearly the concept cuts across national boundaries.
    It fukking does not. MoD plays lip service to it here. Shocking service accom and appalling benefits for the serviceman and his family in this country.

  7. #20122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downsizer View Post
    It fukking does not. MoD plays lip service to it here. Shocking service accom and appalling benefits for the serviceman and his family in this country.
    But isn't the main object for Annington Homes to make a profit? Thats been very sucessful!

  8. #20123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downsizer View Post
    It fukking does not. MoD plays lip service to it here. Shocking service accom and appalling benefits for the serviceman and his family in this country.
    I would suggest your rather immoderate view is a little wide of the mark. As someone who was partially responsible for improving service conditions for officers and ratings during my career, I would like to think that my insistence that ratings were accommodated in six berth cabins with ensuite facilities in the T45, and now followed in the carriers, was a vast improvement over the large mess decks with heads and showers some way away as seen in Albion and earlier classes. On the base porting angle, the Royal Navy has nearly got to the point where junior officers and ratings can set up home in either Portsmouth, Plymouth or Faslane and remain serving either ashore or in ships based there for much of their careers thus improving the quality of their life and enabling them to get onto the housing ladder.

  9. #20124
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by indeid View Post
    But isn't the main object for Annington Homes to make a profit? Thats been very sucessful!
    True, high fives all round there. Sh1te homes and max profit, win win. Wish I'd bought shares!

    Quote Originally Posted by Naval Oldie View Post
    I would suggest your rather immoderate view is a little wide of the mark. As someone who was partially responsible for improving service conditions for officers and ratings during my career, I would like to think that my insistence that ratings were accommodated in six berth cabins with ensuite facilities in the T45, and now followed in the carriers, was a vast improvement over the large mess decks with heads and showers some way away as seen in Albion and earlier classes. On the base porting angle, the Royal Navy has nearly got to the point where junior officers and ratings can set up home in either Portsmouth, Plymouth or Faslane and remain serving either ashore or in ships based there for much of their careers thus improving the quality of their life and enabling them to get onto the housing ladder.
    At sea or deployed there are no complaints. At home, different kettle of fish. The point stands that the standard of much of our SFA and SLA is rubbish, and our benefits and family benefits suck compared to much of our allies.

    Anyway, back to the carriers.

  10. #20125
    Senior Member cockneyjock1974's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Pub
    Posts
    1,915

    Default

    Why aye bonnie lad! Here's a reet riveting vidjo of a Geordie whay builds part of tha carriers like!!!


    http://youtu.be/f6FiMzz9W2E

  11. #20126

    Default

    'And that is really a diamond sort of moment'.



  12. #20127
    Senior Member CarrierFan2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The far side of the moon...
    Posts
    1,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cockneyjock1974 View Post
    Why aye bonnie lad! Here's a reet riveting vidjo of a Geordie whay builds part of tha carriers like!!!


    http://youtu.be/f6FiMzz9W2E
    Alreet pet?!

  13. #20128

    Default

    Afternoon all. Just returned from a week away in Dorset, we visited the FAA museum at Yeovilton, which I have to say was very good. The carrier flight deck experience was very good also! There is a small ish specific exhibition room for the new carriers, Perhaps soon they will display a mock up of the F35 (If a mock up is available???).

    The airfield was fairly quiet but there was a bit of activity including a Merlin and Lynx in the air.

    Also went to Pompey for a look around the historic dockyard, again very good. Went on a tour of the harbour, I couldn't immediately see any signs of activity reference dredging or work on the jetty. Illustrious was tied up here though. Some sorry looking Type 42's here as well.

    Looking at the harbour from the North of the site, it was fairly cluttered with bouys and sailing vessels, not that much room IMHO to moor a large warship, I presume if both vessels are home, one will lay off in the harbour??

  14. #20129
    Member OevetS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Toulouse, France
    Age
    48
    Posts
    288

    Default

    Did you get a pictures of the Type 42's would like to what state they are in. BTW how many type 42's are layed up???

  15. #20130

    Default

    Four 42's I believe, looking pretty sorry for themselves. I did get some pics but as I use an ipad on here, which is rubbish for importing photos from a camera, I'll put them up soon. Three 45's in harbour too, looking smart.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •