Thread: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

  1. #1816
    Senior Member SDL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brentwood, England
    Posts
    3,729

    Default

    I've also noticed a slight shift in the language. I have to wonder if it's a case of the carriers being so far down the development line that they have to back them or look stupid by building thing's they don't want.... or if they've just been convinced that the carriers are actually a great idea... just set up badly by Brown & the rest of the treasonous bunch

  2. #1817
    Senior Member Jdam1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,243

    Default

    Captain I donít know about the US influence part as we would just be producing more of what they already have.

    The rest I do agree with, after the SDR Cameron & Osborne keep making comments about the BAE lawyers forcing them to produce both carriers, it wasnít the biggest endorsement of the project.

    And you are right about the current attitude from the mod about these carriers, now they donít seem to be ruling anything out.

  3. #1818
    Senior Member cockneyjock1974's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Pub
    Posts
    2,414

    Default

    Yes and I think it's a lot to do with Hammonds meeting with pancetta (sorry couldn't resist it), remembering what Alabama said recently about the USN becoming more pacific orientated and with the possible paying off of one or two CV's, I think the US wants ourselves and France to look after the Atlantic/Med in terms of carriers anyway.

    I am more confident now that we will get both converted, I don't think there is much doubt that QE wil be mothballed after sea trials. However and I know I'm preaching to the choir here, if QE is an LPH then it's not a continuous carrier capability.

  4. #1819
    Faulty Charisma Chip
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CatpainSlackbladder View Post
    Just don't go posting any pictures or grandpappy Jonas will go mental, ok guys?

    Back onto CVF, has anyone else detected a shift in emphasis by this government recently? Cameron & Osborne were never fans of the carriers and I believe if they could've ditched them they probably would have. Yet in the last week government has been spinning the carriers as the new 'centrepiece' or 'focus' of the future armed forces. I've seen this more than once where CVF has been mentioned. Even under the pro-navy Fox, we never got CVF mentioned as the centrepiece!

    I know in the US the new focus is going to be on the Navy/Airforce with huge cuts to the Army, I wonder if this has had any influence over our politicians/planners.

    Your Avatar speaks for itself !

  5. #1820

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cockneyjock1974 View Post
    Yes and I think it's a lot to do with Hammonds meeting with pancetta (sorry couldn't resist it), remembering what Alabama said recently about the USN becoming more pacific orientated and with the possible paying off of one or two CV's, I think the US wants ourselves and France to look after the Atlantic/Med in terms of carriers anyway.
    Agreed. Furthermore, I think the lack of an available carrier for Operation Ellamy brought into sharp focus the utility of carrier strike! Britain's ability to conduct effective strike operations was sorely dented by our inability to park several acres of airfield close to the Libyan coast, whilst the French were vastly more successful with Charles de Gaulle putting in a very large number of sorties!

    That's not to say the RAF (and Army Apaches) didn't provide some very important capabilities (ISTAR, TLAM/Storm Shadow and AH), but the raw operation's statistics tell a grim story of our current capability!

  6. #1821
    Senior Member CarrierFan2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jonas View Post
    http://www.navytimes.com/...-tailhook-issues-011712/

    An update on tailhook problem from Lockheed-Martin.
    Some of the idiotic comments from the press absolutely astound me. Some of the comments by their halfwitted readers are just outrageous! The suggestion that they would scrap a programme as large as F35 without even trying to rectify what is actually a fairly minor issue is just breathtaking, and smacks of scoop-over-truth mentality.

    The problem with it could be something as straight forward as the material stiffness of the shaft of the hook, which means that the hook just rebounds over the cable as it strikes the deck, or the profile of the hook failing to ensnare the cable properly, or the cable rebounding from the hook, or any one of a dozen relatively simple-to-fix problems. They seem to think that these things are just doodled on the back of a *** packet by some ridiculously overpaid, and probably very heavy smoker, bash a few out in a multi billion dollar factory and then see if it works. Morons... Absolute morons.

    Do they not know that it's called a "Test Programme" for a reason. It's not called that just for fun. I mean, what do they think goes on?

    Engineer 1: "Well, we've made 50 of them. I wonder if they work?"
    Engineer 2: "Dunno. Lets go and have a pint."

    Hello everyone by the way... Nice to be back!
    Last edited by CarrierFan2006; 01-19-2012 at 07:19 AM. Reason: Clarification

  7. #1822
    Senior Member SDL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brentwood, England
    Posts
    3,729

    Default

    From @[LEFT][*******#999999][FONT=Helvetica Neue]QEClassCarriers
    [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
    Lots of work on HMS Queen Elizabeth, but HMS Prince of Wales also forging ahead! This pic of section LB01 at Appledore.

  8. #1823
    Senior Member Jdam1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,243

    Default

    Itís fantastic to see that the Prince of Wales is starting to come together, but I canít think of any reason why the bow section is being constructed so far ahead of time, the bow section of the Queen Elizabeth has been sitting there since 2010 (march I think)

  9. #1824
    Senior Member CarrierFan2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jdam1 View Post
    It’s fantastic to see that the Prince of Wales is starting to come together, but I can’t think of any reason why the bow section is being constructed so far ahead of time, the bow section of the Queen Elizabeth has been sitting there since 2010 (march I think)
    One less thing to do later I suppose...

  10. #1825
    Senior Member USS Alabama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Lower Alabama USA
    Posts
    2,780

    Default

    Tooling drawdown perhaps?

  11. #1826
    Senior Member USS Alabama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Lower Alabama USA
    Posts
    2,780

    Default

    Yes and I think it's a lot to do with Hammonds meeting with pancetta
    That's MR. Pancetta to you CJ...



  12. #1827
    Senior Member cockneyjock1974's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Pub
    Posts
    2,414

    Default

    Alabama I think the joke may be lost on you, pancetta is a fine Italian bacon!! Very popular in the UK now. He is Sec Panetta I believe

  13. #1828
    Senior Member USS Alabama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Lower Alabama USA
    Posts
    2,780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cockneyjock1974 View Post
    Alabama I think the joke may be lost on you, pancetta is a fine Italian bacon!! Very popular in the UK now. He is Sec Panetta I believe
    Oh PLEASE CJ We "Dog Eyed Colonials" aren't THAT BAD!!!! Heheh, I actually make my own from a very good recipe - easy with a little practice - very fine addition to many dishes and just plain fried with eggs. I've actually met old Leon a couple of time during the Clinton years - good chap - although on the wrong team IMHO . I wish him well in a thankless task.

    I hope he sticks to his guns IRT no carrier drawdowns but I'm not sure it's politically feasible right now...

    Best

  14. #1829
    Senior Member cockneyjock1974's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Pub
    Posts
    2,414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by USS Alabama View Post
    Oh PLEASE CJ We "Dog Eyed Colonials" aren't THAT BAD!!!! Heheh, I actually make my own from a very good recipe - easy with a little practice - very fine addition to many dishes and just plain fried with eggs. I've actually met old Leon a couple of time during the Clinton years - good chap - although on the wrong team IMHO . I wish him well in a thankless task.

    I hope he sticks to his guns IRT no carrier drawdowns but I'm not sure it's politically feasible right now...

    Best

    Hold me hands up completely in surrender, my apologies Bama, I didn't want you to think I was insulting the guy lol, I just think his name is funny but I think he is the right guy for the job. Anyway mate I better make this swift before the off topic police have us taken in for questioning. To be fair they are quite right as sometimes i'm guilty as charged, its hard though, when there are some great and interesting characters on here

    Anyway carriers no change at the inn i'm afraid, crane at the back of the dock still, hooks on the opposite side and no signs as to why there is a delay. Oh yeah hang on its snowing at the moment maybe thats it.

  15. #1830

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jonas View Post
    At the risk of incuring the wrath of you guys I must make a point,are we degenerating into a chat room of which there are many on the net,or are we a thread as stated for QE class carriers?.

    I myself am not a naval historian,neither am I particularly interested in that specific subject.I am however interested in current naval matters such as QE and T26 development of which there is a dedicated thread.

    Am I out of line in asking that we stick in general to the subject in hand.!!
    Well said Jonas.

    A great picture of PRINCE OF WALES' bow SDL

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
  •