Thread: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

  1. #2776
    Member 9166's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Newcastle on Tyne
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZiggyMac View Post
    120 of those would be my choice full stop. They'll be more than good enough to go up against anything the RN are likely to face in the next 25yrs, If they're good enough for the USMC until 2035, they're good enough for us. And after that, well the F35 might just be ready by then.


    Have to agree will accept Super Hornet if it means two carriers fitted with cats and traps. We would only need around 80 enough for both carriers to be fully loaded in an emergency. But apart from that I can see no need except for short periods of time (exercises, etc) for both carriers to be at sea at once. A normal air group peace time should be 24 fast jets (2 squadrons), 6 ASW Merlins, 4 AEW and 1 COD Greyhound or V22, depending on what carrier is built.

  2. #2777
    Senior Member CarrierFan2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jonas View Post
    This is the Telegraph at its absolute nonsensical best,A permanent squadron of US aircraft embarked,cobblers. As for a Comms dept classed as US Eyes Only, that is more or less saying that on a British Warship you have a 'No Go Area' for British personel. Not going to happen.

    To you know who,please try and mind your own business.Perhaps in future before making such unsolicited comments you may like to look back,at an excerpt from one of your first posts on here,and I quote:-

    SO carrierfan2006 or anybody else please don't bother replying because like Conquerer i'm not interested in your pc drivel.

    I was going to apologize for going off topic but thinking about it i just could not give a s**t.
    WTF? I didn't say a bleedin' word. Wind it in... Why don't you just stay completely off topic and get lost entirely?

  3. #2778
    Faulty Charisma Chip
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CarrierFan2006 View Post
    WTF? I didn't say a bleedin' word. Wind it in... Why don't you just stay completely off topic and get lost entirely?
    If you had bothered to read the post correctly, you would have realised that this was a remark directed at you by another poster some time ago.

    But no you go off at half ****,and make completely false allegations against me without even thinking.

    Never mind though,I am used to being misrepresented on this thread. I don't suppose for one minute that you will have the common decency to apologise for your rant.

  4. #2779
    Member exdabtoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Humber
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Correct me if I am wrong, but the much vaunted BAE facility at Samlesbury, Lancs, to speed up production of the rear fuselage and tail sections for the F35, must be for the 35B; the 35C, minus the lift fan and hook locker would need an entirely different jig?

    http//www.theengineer.co.uk/1012108.article?cmpid=TEOI

  5. #2780
    Senior Member CarrierFan2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,404

    Default

    Folks. I stand corrected on my comment to Jonas. I misread it. I guess I saw my name, in the middle of an apparent spat between him and CJ, and felt a little aggrieved. Jonas, I do have the common decency to admit when I am wrong, and am willing to apologise if required. I therefore do so unreservedly.Cheers.

  6. #2781
    Member exdabtoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Humber
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Apologies, should have read, with a hook locker.

  7. #2782
    Faulty Charisma Chip
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CarrierFan2006 View Post
    Folks. I stand corrected on my comment to Jonas. I misread it. I guess I saw my name, in the middle of an apparent spat between him and CJ, and felt a little aggrieved. Jonas, I do have the common decency to admit when I am wrong, and am willing to apologise if required. I therefore do so unreservedly.Cheers.

    Thank you for that,it is appreciated.

  8. #2783
    Senior Member USS Alabama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Lower Alabama USA
    Posts
    2,720

    Default

    Hi folks just a moment to pop in, I'm absolutely swamped with several very large projects (including one very large military deployment to our city) but I wanted to post this - scroll down to the second and third articles...

    http://defensetech.org/

    Best and hope to back soon


  9. #2784
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9

    Default

    found this interesting documentary about life on a carrier, was from USS Nimitz made in 2005. Made by PBS it is 10 episodes at a hour long each. I found it very interesting, especialy the parts about the cats and traps, show's how much extra manpower and equipment/storage is required for them.

    You can find the episode schedule here:

    http://www.pbs.org/weta/carrier/full_episodes.htm

    and watch the episodes on youtube here

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaiwC...eature=related

    Ghost

  10. #2785
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    333

    Default

    The F-35 has been in the news again here in Canada the last two evenings. A leaked report obtained by CBC News states that the F-35A does not meet several RCAF SORs - chief among them the helmet display issue. The same report states that while fixes are in progress, the results will be less than what was originally intended in terms of ability and performance. This of course put Canada's troubled F-35 purchase front and centre in Question Period today.

    Tonight CBC aired an exclusive interview with U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta which was fascinating. He is currently in Canada for a North American security conference. The interview asked pointed questions and received candid answers on Afghanistan, the Bin Laden mission, Iran, and the F-35 progamme. What was relevant to this thread (albeit in general terms) was a strong statement of support from him to work with allies such as Canada and the U.K. Clearly the transfer of technology for EMALS and advanced arrestor wire system would fall into this category. Also a strong statement of commitment to continuing with the F-35 programme.

  11. #2786
    Senior Member cockneyjock1974's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Pub
    Posts
    2,414

    Default

    [SIZE=3]Rebuke at RUSI over F35B Article.[/SIZE]

    http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2012...-f35b-article/

    Interesting article, gives a bit of insight into what the RN is up against.

  12. #2787
    A little plastered Arfah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Just monkeying around
    Posts
    5,202

    Default

    That's a good find CJ. It dissolves alot of the hysteria around the CVF/F35 Programme and reinforces common sense.

  13. #2788
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    333

    Default

    Good article CJ. The following is a game changer for me:

    Accordingly and should Britain opt for the F-35B now as a short-term financial expedient and configure our new carriers to suit, there is a significant risk that we would be left high and dry with no fighter aircraft to operate from our new ships – and no fall-back position.

    I believe this is stating that a decision to revert to F-35B and original CVF configuration leaves the RN with no plan B if the F-35B programme were to be terminated or deemed unaffordable; a decision to proceed with F-35C and conversion to CATOBAR configuration facilitates other options if the F-35C becomes unavailable/unafordable - ie. F-18, Rafale, etc. This would have to be a major factor in considering which way to go.

    A close second would be the significant differences in performance between the F-35B and F-35C outlined in this article. Interoperability notwithstanding, I believe that this difference was a key factor in the current government's decision to change to F-35C.

    Hopefully 2012 will see significant progress in remediation of outstanding issues with the F-35C and further progress and development with regard to flight testing.

  14. #2789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnificent View Post
    Good article CJ. The following is a game changer for me:

    A close second would be the significant differences in performance between the F-35B and F-35C outlined in this article. Interoperability notwithstanding, I believe that this difference was a key factor in the current government's decision to change to F-35C.

    Hopefully 2012 will see significant progress in remediation of outstanding issues with the F-35C and further progress and development with regard to flight testing.

    The article contains too many factual errors for me to take seriously.

    For instance, the weapons payload of the F-35B is not 4,500lbs. The design spec is 15,000lbs and I doubt they've missed it by that much (if at all!).

    Equally, whilst the F-35B cannot carry 2,000lb class weapons internally, the F-35C cannot carry UK Paveway IIIs internally either! This means that the RAF/RN are going to have to switch to JDAMs if they're going to use 2,000lb weapons with their F-35Cs (not impossible, but an additional change if they're to make use of this additional capability).

  15. #2790
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    south east england
    Posts
    437

    Default

    hi guys

    Update on the ACA twitter site... http://twitter.com/#!/QEClassCarrier...964353/photo/1

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
  •