OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

patrickl -> OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 2:17:16 AM)

UK has a new aircraft carrier. HMS Queen Elizabeth named after Queen Elizabeth I. [8D]

Link : http://news.sky.com/story/royal-navys-largest-ever-warship-hms-queen-elizabeth-sets-sail-10927338



rustysi -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 4:08:04 AM)

Yes, nice dingy. Just kidding, wouldn't want to upset our British friends.[:D] Double island looks interesting. Maybe yet one more British carrier invention us colonials will steal.[:'(] Alas, she has no aircraft. For she was to be populated with the F-35 and we haven't delivered.[8|]

All kidding aside, she looks to be a fine addition to the British fleet. I wish her and her crew nothing but the best.



BBfanboy -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 5:49:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: patrickl

UK has a new aircraft carrier. HMS Queen Elizabeth named after Queen Elizabeth I. [8D]

Link : http://news.sky.com/story/royal-navys-largest-ever-warship-hms-queen-elizabeth-sets-sail-10927338

Really like the reddish wood bowling alley/shuffleboard flight deck.
Have to wonder at the funny angles on the superstructures but not on the hull. Do they want an enemy radar to show a flat deck with no superstructures so they think HMS Argus was resurrected?



Chris21wen -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 7:31:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: patrickl

UK has a new aircraft carrier. HMS Queen Elizabeth named after Queen Elizabeth I. [8D]

Link : http://news.sky.com/story/royal-navys-largest-ever-warship-hms-queen-elizabeth-sets-sail-10927338





witpqs -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 8:21:01 AM)

That's a beautiful ship!



Leandros -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 8:25:02 AM)


Let's hope she makes it safely out of port...[;)]

Fred



AW1Steve -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 11:09:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Yes, nice dingy. Just kidding, wouldn't want to upset our British friends.[:D] Double island looks interesting. Maybe yet one more British carrier invention us colonials will steal.[:'(] Alas, she has no aircraft. For she was to be populated with the F-35 and we haven't delivered.[8|]

All kidding aside, she looks to be a fine addition to the British fleet. I wish her and her crew nothing but the best.

The USMC will provide her a F-35B air group for at least her 1st year. [:)]



Chickenboy -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 12:57:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

All kidding aside, she looks to be a fine addition to the British fleet. I wish her and her crew nothing but the best.


Hear hear. [8D]

I'm also struck with the reversion to the historical mean of the RNAF borrowing American airframes as they suit for their carriers. It makes good financial sense to yield to the best option out there rather than having to research / build your own VSTOL aircraft.



Chickenboy -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 12:57:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Yes, nice dingy. Just kidding, wouldn't want to upset our British friends.[:D] Double island looks interesting. Maybe yet one more British carrier invention us colonials will steal.[:'(] Alas, she has no aircraft. For she was to be populated with the F-35 and we haven't delivered.[8|]

All kidding aside, she looks to be a fine addition to the British fleet. I wish her and her crew nothing but the best.

The USMC will provide her a F-35B air group for at least her 1st year. [:)]


Didn't know this. Do you have a link for further information?



Encircled -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 1:11:15 PM)

BBC website on it mentioning an USMC air group, but not when its due to be stationed on her, and that its not been agreed yet.



Chickenboy -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 2:19:52 PM)

Once upon a time (at least 2 years ago) I remember hearing some talk about carrier 'sharing' with the French. The ship would literally be re-flagged every so often and used by the two navies (UK and France). I remember thinking that was a 'novel' way of sharing costs, but I didn't know how seriously anyone was thinking along these lines.

Am I completely misremembering or was that considered at one point?



Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 2:24:48 PM)

Yes there were talks about it.. in 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394185/Britain-France-share-aircraft-carrier-combat-defence-cuts-says-admiral.html

Probably a bridge too far...



witpqs -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 2:26:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Once upon a time (at least 2 years ago) I remember hearing some talk about carrier 'sharing' with the French. The ship would literally be re-flagged every so often and used by the two navies (UK and France). I remember thinking that was a 'novel' way of sharing costs, but I didn't know how seriously anyone was thinking along these lines.

Am I completely misremembering or was that considered at one point?

I remember it. Don't recall hearing the actual reason the idea waned, but it has a lot of obvious problems in addition to benefits like sharing costs.



Chickenboy -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 2:53:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Yes there were talks about it.. in 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394185/Britain-France-share-aircraft-carrier-combat-defence-cuts-says-admiral.html

Probably a bridge too far...


Thanks for the find, Jorge_Stanbury.

Admiral Pierre-Francois Forissier was quoted in the article. Dutch-Irish? [:D]



AW1Steve -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 4:36:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Yes, nice dingy. Just kidding, wouldn't want to upset our British friends.[:D] Double island looks interesting. Maybe yet one more British carrier invention us colonials will steal.[:'(] Alas, she has no aircraft. For she was to be populated with the F-35 and we haven't delivered.[8|]

All kidding aside, she looks to be a fine addition to the British fleet. I wish her and her crew nothing but the best.

The USMC will provide her a F-35B air group for at least her 1st year. [:)]


Didn't know this. Do you have a link for further information?

There are a plethora of links , from major news papers to the US Defense department. Just try that "google fu" magic. [:D]



Gregg -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 9:55:26 PM)

Nice looking class of ship.
But too small to be of much use in anything beyond conflicts with low technology countries.
Either attack or defend, too few aircraft onboard to do both at the same time.
Could be used as an anti sub platform.



BBfanboy -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 9:56:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Yes, nice dingy. Just kidding, wouldn't want to upset our British friends.[:D] Double island looks interesting. Maybe yet one more British carrier invention us colonials will steal.[:'(] Alas, she has no aircraft. For she was to be populated with the F-35 and we haven't delivered.[8|]

All kidding aside, she looks to be a fine addition to the British fleet. I wish her and her crew nothing but the best.

The USMC will provide her a F-35B air group for at least her 1st year. [:)]


Didn't know this. Do you have a link for further information?

There are a plethora of links , from major news papers to the US Defense department. Just try that "google fu" magic. [:D]

Sounds like a win-win-win. The USMC gets a carrier to train on without tying up a USN CV, the British get some planes to start their training on, and Putin gets a bit more nervous about getting frisky in Syria/Turkey.



geofflambert -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 10:41:46 PM)

Beautiful ship. Do I understand it correctly that the entire crew adds up to only 700? What's her capacity? Will that Marine air group be her entire complement?



Mobeer -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 10:50:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
The USMC will provide her a F-35B air group for at least her 1st year. [:)]


In essence, though that's probably her second year, the first being spent on trials:
http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/timeline-delivering-carrier-strike/



geofflambert -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/26/2017 10:50:58 PM)

I'm looking at the Wiki, I bet that Marine air wing will be well over 500. A lot of fraternization there.



Leandros -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/27/2017 6:23:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

...the British get some planes to start their training on, and Putin gets a bit more nervous
about getting frisky in Syria/Turkey.



I'm sure he would....[;)]

That said, didn't Britain reject the idea of involving themselves in Syria?

Fred



Chris21wen -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/27/2017 7:21:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Yes there were talks about it.. in 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394185/Britain-France-share-aircraft-carrier-combat-defence-cuts-says-admiral.html

Probably a bridge too far...


Tunnel in our case.



LeeChard -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/27/2017 9:55:25 AM)

I need more info! I notice it has a 'ski jump' for Harrier-like aircraft but seems to have a flight deck
large enough to handle conventional naval air.



AW1Steve -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/27/2017 12:40:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ranger5355

I need more info! I notice it has a 'ski jump' for Harrier-like aircraft but seems to have a flight deck
large enough to handle conventional naval air.


The British government was in absolute full "squirrel mode" in the design and building of these ships. Part of the reason that the aircraft is not available is that the constantly changing debate between the F-35B (VTOL) versus the F-35C (carrier conventional aircraft tailhooks and catapult bridle) went back and forth for so long. While the F-35C is much cheaper and more capable than the F-35B , the catapults and "traps" are far more expensive and much higher maintenance than the ski jump. And the SKI jump takes up potential aircraft deck parking spots (the reason USN "helicopter carriers" - LHP's, LHA's and LHD's don't have ski ramps).

As usual , the Queen Elizabeth's are ships designed by political committees, for the purpose of satisficing political needs , followed by defensive needs. Politics always come first.

Still , they are a vast improvement over the Invincibles , and perhaps future British governments will find the money and will to add "cat's and trap's" , aircraft and maybe even some escorts for them. They already plan on having one in service while the other is in refit or moth balls.



Macclan5 -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/27/2017 1:50:16 PM)

I fully appreciate the Political verses Military debate aspect.

Canada has indeed had such problems for all too many years in our acquisition programs.

-

Additionally what I think I find it interesting that the debate about 'the carrier' is in someways reflective of the 'debate' the USN undertook during WW2 and shortly thereafter (as Carriers were retired and 'mission planning analysis of the future' was undertaken).

That is the cost benefit analysis and the role of a Carrier vis a vis CV or CVL/CVE.

Not necessarily in terms of expend-ability and cost (although that may play a part) - but in terms of 'how much to bring to the operation' ; the jump ramp / catapult and VTOL are all apart of this debate.

Further National "Mission" psychology of the government seems evident as well. This - I believe is very informative.


We debated earlier (another thread) the emergent World powers seem intent on developing CV capability.

This British design and its capability vis a vis say the Charles de Gaulle.

India apparently has chosen the small (CVL CVE) route - more in line with the capability of this British and French designs.

China apparently is choosing the larger mission capable design despite advertising they have ICBMs capable of Carrier kills.




AW1Steve -> RE: OT : New HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier (6/27/2017 9:06:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

I fully appreciate the Political verses Military debate aspect.

Canada has indeed had such problems for all too many years in our acquisition programs.

-

Additionally what I think I find it interesting that the debate about 'the carrier' is in someways reflective of the 'debate' the USN undertook during WW2 and shortly thereafter (as Carriers were retired and 'mission planning analysis of the future' was undertaken).

That is the cost benefit analysis and the role of a Carrier vis a vis CV or CVL/CVE.

Not necessarily in terms of expend-ability and cost (although that may play a part) - but in terms of 'how much to bring to the operation' ; the jump ramp / catapult and VTOL are all apart of this debate.

Further National "Mission" psychology of the government seems evident as well. This - I believe is very informative.


We debated earlier (another thread) the emergent World powers seem intent on developing CV capability.

This British design and its capability vis a vis say the Charles de Gaulle.

India apparently has chosen the small (CVL CVE) route - more in line with the capability of this British and French designs.

China apparently is choosing the larger mission capable design despite advertising they have ICBMs capable of Carrier kills.





China's claims of being able to take out a CV with a ICBM might be possible (although I truly doubt it). If that were the case , they wouldn't be advertising it , as it would be very easy for the USA to adapt one of our ICBM's to do the same thing to the CV's that there are all on fire to build. In short , I find it unlikely that people who can't get a SLBM system to work (1950's tech) and yet they can take out our CVN's easily with state of the art 1960's tech. And of course , do you want to launch an ICBM, when 3 hostile powers might consider it to be a preemptive strike and retaliate with a massive nuke strike? Seriously , you'd trade the Nimitz for mainland China? I'd take that exchange. (Except for the planet wide environmental damage). China's not stupid. The only reason for making that claim is to get the USN to back off a bit the next time they go after Taiwan. [:)]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.84375