HMS Queen Elizabeth: Royals attend aircraft carrier ceremony

[Jimbuna]

The Queen has officially welcomed the UK's new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, at a ceremony to commission it into the Royal Navy fleet.
The monarch boarded her namesake ship in Portsmouth to see the Royal Navy White Ensign raised on the vessel for the first time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-42256046

I'm wondering how we will manage to run her and her sister ship :hmmm:

[Aktungbby]

INDEED! :k_confused:
Flight trials will begin next year and her first proper deployment with jets on board isn't planned until 2021. It's also still not clear how many of the new F35 jets she'll carry.
Certainly fewer than the 36 she was built for, with each jet costing around £100m. The Royal Navy believes the carrier - the first of two - will be a potent symbol of British military power. But it's already struggling with limited resources.

[Mr Quatro]

This ship will be ready when it is time to be ... even when God is four days late He is still on time.

She was made to keep the peace, but she will be the prize of no other country than the UK. :up:

[ExFishermanBob]

INDEED! :k_confused:
Perhaps commissioning it as a hospital ship would have been cheaper and more productive. The jets and missiles replaced with helicopters and doctors. I suspect that would do far more for the UK's reputation abroad.

[em2nought]

Perhaps commissioning it as a hospital ship would have been cheaper and more productive. The jets and missiles replaced with helicopters and doctors. I suspect that would do far more for the UK's reputation abroad.

As the Beatles say Can't buy me love (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIDMqq_fH8U)

[Jimbuna]

I'm guessing the actual manes given to each will help them imensely in avoiding austerity cuts in the future.

Politics can be a bit fickle at times.

[em2nought]

I'm guessing the actual names given to each will help them imensely in avoiding austerity cuts in the future.
There's always Go Fund Me, Kickstarter, or Kiva. :03:

[Commander Wallace]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-42256046

I'm wondering how we will manage to run her and her sister ship :hmmm:



Beautiful ship and unique design features as well. I was always intrigued with the " ski Jump " as a means of launching fully loaded aircraft. It's as efficient as it is simple.


Fair winds and calm seas. :salute:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I'm guessing the actual manes given to each will help them imensely in avoiding austerity cuts in the future.They may be but will their escorts be aswell? Carrier battle group without ability to defend itself is somewhat limited in utility.

Beautiful ship and unique design features as well. I was always intrigued with the " ski Jump " as a means of launching fully loaded aircraft. It's as efficient as it is simple.In general advantage of STOVL and STOBAR designs is lower construction and maintenance costs. Latter applies both to ship and aircraft while former is limited to ship while aircraft is often more expensive to construct. In comparison CATOBAR configuration is usually in almost all ways more expensive but also provides better payload capability.

Payload becomes important if you intend to use your carrier in something other than pounding third world countries or showing flag. More payload the aircraft can launch with, less compromises have to be made with fuel and weapons to be carried. Also if you do not use all your weapons there is issue of bring back capability: can you land with your precious missiles or do you have dump them into sea before landing? This issue is not limited to any specific carrier type but is amplified when you do not have arrested landing option available.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I personally see decision to go ahead with STOVL design instead of STOBAR or CATOBAR as "penny wise pound foolish". Granted, you save money now but that that comes at expense of operational capability and flexibility. You are tied into single fighter aircraft (F-35), single cargo aircraft (V-22) and helicopters. If you end up needing attack or air superiority aircraft with higher performance than F-35 then you have no fall back option. You can't utilize off-the-self solutions which maybe available from U.S. or France but have to devise your own STOVL solution. Whether that is possible or practical within your self imposed payload limits is unknown at present time.

[Skybird]

Perhaps commissioning it as a hospital ship would have been cheaper and more productive. The jets and missiles replaced with helicopters and doctors. I suspect that would do far more for the UK's reputation abroad.
Not with the world's bad guys. There's a globe full of them, and they all are hungry.

----

I do not see the UK being able to field a ground army in a ground war anywhere anymore that would need this carrier's still non-existing air force covering it. And with these small number of available units I wonder in howfar this carrier can be protected against a detemrined enemy when outting it ointo a position where its air force would be of use. This is a ship for parades, and police actions against some third world militia - not for war against an equal enemy.

The money should have gone into submarines, and into better financial conditions for troops, hiring more warriors in numbers, and equipping them with standard weaponry.

Paying a carrier and F35s to mess around with goat shepards in the ME and in Africa, but not beign able to reliably secure borders in Europe and to deter Russia from becoming ambitioned in the Baltic. Realpolitik a la Monthy Python.

Plem-Plem, if you ask me. Ga-ga. From beyond the river Jordan - we have many ways in German to describe such idiotic priorities. I think sometimes Britain still suffers form the loss of its empire and denies reality. Well, in that it has France as a close comrade.

Waste of military funds that were better used in other military needs. The time of carriers is over in wars between equal enemies.

The maintenance of this ship and its future air fleet probaly will consume even more funds from other branches of the military that will suffer even more, therefore. Its a bit as if you play soccer with a team of five only, because you hire Ronaldo and he consumes all payxments and leaves to no space to pay the other six guys. You now have Ronaldo, fine. And a whole football field to cover - with not even half as many players as would be needed.

Numbers matter.