Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 156

Thread: HMS Queen Elizabeth

  1. #61
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by JCT View Post
    Like naming a carrier after Carl Vinson and John Murtha (spit). I understand that CV did a lot for the Navy, but naming a carrier after him?

    And John Murtha? He's only on an LPD, but come on! The rest of the class is named after US cities.
    Never heard of em....Cities or states are a good idea

  2. #62
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,775
    It's interesting to see the list of names of the USN Essex class from WW 2. Two thiongs become obvious.

    1. We were talking some hard losses early in our big deck carriers. Hence the renaming of many of the early in the class.

    2. Only two were named for people...the Franklin & the Randolph. However they also both had been the names of previous vessels of the USN.

    The remaining honor American battles as well as previous commissioned warships (Bon Hom Richard, Wasp, Yorktown).



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-...rcraft_carrier
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-...rcraft_carrier
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  3. #63
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    It's interesting to see the list of names of the USN Essex class from WW 2. Two thiongs become obvious.

    1. We were talking some hard losses early in our big deck carriers. Hence the renaming of many of the early in the class.
    Wasn't the Enterprise the only pre-war carrier to survive?

  4. #64
    Regular Tom24's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jul 13
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    Wasn't the Enterprise the only pre-war carrier to survive?
    USS Saratoga survived. She was expended in the Bikini Atoll atomic bomb tests.

  5. #65
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,891
    The Ranger also survived. And was sold for scrap after the war
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  6. #66
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Dazed View Post
    Well Bush was a naval aviator and flew off carriers in WWII and Ford also served in the Pacific http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...121339,00.html
    True, but if they are being honored for their military service, and not their office, then they would have been on smaller ships like a DD or a cargo ship. Carter is on a sub.

  7. #67
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    The Ranger also survived. And was sold for scrap after the war
    ... I was absolutety convinced only the Enterprise had survived... the shame...

  8. #68
    Senior Contributor blidgepump's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Jul 09
    Posts
    2,640

    The 1st true CV ???

    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    ... I was absolutety convinced only the Enterprise had survived... the shame...
    " After Lexington and Saratoga there were 69,000 tons (Washington Naval Treaty)remaining for construction of aircraft carriers, and it was decided that the new ship [Ranger] would displace 13,800 tons, a size that would allow five carriers to be built in the remaining available tonnage. What became Ranger was to be the first purpose-built aircraft carrier of the United States Navy." I did not know that fact about the Ranger!
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  9. #69
    Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 14
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by surfgun View Post
    They should paint an angled deck line on her deck so that Carrier aircraft could line up and do some touch and go's.
    Harrier and 35B go around would be done in the flight phase once the transition to vertical flight begins you are pretty much committed. Fix wing on go around well you have to accelerate to V1 and go which requires distance hence the angled deck. Next time I'm in Beaufort SC I will find that out.

  10. #70
    Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 14
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    But they weren't Naval or even military strategists...My mate Bob Badland use to be in the Navy ...Glad he didn't go into politics
    Nor was Lincoln. I know this is heresy, but the Navy and Newport News Congressional representatives want the carrier. They most likely care less what it is called and would name it what ever would increase it's chances of getting built..

  11. #71
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,811
    Seems that due to added costs of the new carriers the RN may lose it's amphibious assault ships (HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark) and the services of some 1000 Royal Marines (Commandos). See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...round-defence/ for example. This is part of what some see as a deeper problem with the UK Defence funding formula which allocates an MoD budget over a 2 to 3 yr period and expects the MoD to 'balance it's books'. This is fine to a point and I am certainly all for balancing the books in theory but not as a means of short term book keeping. Defence procurement does not work that way. The new carriers are supposed to last are supposed to last into the the latter part of the this century and the construction and fitting out costs will probably be greater than a 30yr operating cost for each of the new R08 ships. Similarly the costs of re-acquiring the amphibious assault capability for the RN - not to mention retraining another 1000 Marines - would far outweigh the continued operating costs for these vessels and their trained Officers for another 20yrs. Acquiring such assets is treated by the UK Treasury as a bit like a two to three shopping bill - do not lash out extravagantly above your means etc - whereas some argue it should be seen more as a type of mortgage cost with the entire lifetime costs of a ship or system over it's expected lifetime taken into account more than whether you might incur a deficit to your bank account on a short term basis.

    This argument about short shopping costs or long term mortgage costs started with the 2010 SDSR (Strategic Defence and Security Review) which was part of the Cameron Governments way of cutting costs and their aim to balance the budget. A noble and doubtless wise idea to balance the budget and pay down the debt etc which I certainly support. The problem is with losing long term defence assets - or in planning their acquisition and design - is that it should be seen over a lifetime cost not a yearly budget. These problems also hampered the R08 development as I recall. There were originally (according to the records) supposed to be three new carriers - one was for the Frogs (a replacement for the CdG which is barely operable) and it was to be an Anglo French project. The Frogs backed out due to design specifications that they wanted compared to the RN. One hilarious (or it would be if it were not sad) argument between the French and British requirements concerned Officers quarters. It seems that on French naval vessel the Officers sleep and eat in the same circumstances and areas as the crew whereas the RN tradition is for a separation of quarters and dining facilities. The three carriers were originally planned to have nuclear power sources and the steam catapults such a design would allow and thus no need for the F-35B STOVL variant. When the Frogs dropped out over the design specifications - including the insane Officers accommodation issue - costs per 'unit' as it were rose; it is expensive to design and build one house specifically but building additional houses with the same design and materials lowers the cost of each construction as a cumulative 'project cost' as it were, the costs of a third carrier would have been divided by three. So when the 'cost per unit' increased according the 2010 SDSR the MoD had to 'balance its books' almost on a daily basis, the Frogs laughed and said "Non", the nuclear power/steam catapult original plan (the Frogs were to make the nuclear engine) went out to lower costs and short term balance the books as the Treasury demanded. Problem is raises costs as well; instead of being in with the French and having steam and nuclear you need a STOVL variant aircraft, re-design the whole damn thing and now it seems because the books will not balance next year lose amphibious assault capability and 1000 Marines (I have a friend who is a Marine so am not entirely unbiased in this). But this again is short term book balancing as opposed to service life security value and overall lifetime costs. Additionally the costs of re-acquiring such long term assets should be considered. The real problem is of course that short term budget balancing increases actual longer terms costs and so it is a self defeating policy.

    I understand the problem did not originally start with the 2010 SDSR and that is has been a perennial problem for the 'senior service' and the MoD in general. In July I visited HMS Duncan in Odessa - it was big news in Ukraine and flags were out in Odessa, special British menus and nights in the bars etc... Seems the engines on the Type 45 are almost un-accessible without cutting the hull open. This again I was told to design changes to cut costs but again of course actually acts in reverse; repairs or modifications to the engine require dry dock and cutting the hull open which again lowers the overall service value for the ship as an operational asset. Thus while some short term fix is planned to the Type 45 overheating problem a real fix would require a whole redesign to make the engines accessible and repairable without the need for a dry dock and enhancing it's operational value. Of course it is not only Britain that suffers from this 'short termism'/'balance the books daily' problem and I am not saying it is a uniquely British or RN problem - I know we suffer the same shortsightedness as well as additional corruption problems in Ukraine and have similar arguments. Here though the long term view is more easily accepted due to due current hostilities. I hope the fight in the UK for the 'long term view' as it might be called can be won this time in regard to HMS Albion and Bulwark. The Brits need to know the prestige of the RN worldwide - it is a national asset not a fast food takeaway and it's budgeting be treated as such. Just my opinion.

  12. #72
    Senior Contributor blidgepump's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Jul 09
    Posts
    2,640

    French officers sleep with their men ??? .....

    Quote: "One hilarious (or it would be if it were not sad) argument between the French and British requirements concerned Officers quarters. It seems that on French naval vessel the Officers sleep and eat in the same circumstances and areas as the crew whereas the RN tradition is for a separation of quarters and dining facilities."

    Okay, okay... before this gets out of hand I just wanted to say that I was never aware that the French naval officers berth with the enlisted sailors..... Does it lead to a breakdown in military order? [ The things you learn on the WAB]

  13. #73
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    . Seems the engines on the Type 45 are almost un-accessible without cutting the hull open. This again I was told to design changes to cut costs but again of course actually acts in reverse; repairs or modifications to the engine require dry dock and cutting the hull open which again lowers the overall service value for the ship as an operational asset. Thus while some short term fix is planned to the Type 45 overheating problem a real fix would require a whole redesign to make the engines accessible and repairable without the need for a dry dock and enhancing it's operational value. Of course it is not only Britain that suffers from this 'short termism'/'balance the books daily' problem and I am not saying it is a uniquely British or RN problem - I know we suffer the same shortsightedness as well as additional corruption problems in Ukraine and have similar arguments. Here though the long term view is more easily accepted due to due current hostilities. I hope the fight in the UK for the 'long term view' as it might be called can be won this time in regard to HMS Albion and Bulwark. The Brits need to know the prestige of the RN worldwide - it is a national asset not a fast food takeaway and it's budgeting be treated as such. Just my opinion.
    Its a problem that doesn't just effect Warships... Unfortunately we live in an age where design engineers come from universities with all the knowledge in the world but with no common sense, ask any Engineer / Technician / Mechanic what his biggest beef is with machinery and its usually accessibility. All design engineers should complete some form on the job training to increase their awareness of 'What if scenarios' Thereby minimising downtime. Quite staggering the Navy didn't spot this in the design phase of these ships. Engine removal and replacement has been quite common in other warships over the years...

  14. #74
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by blidgepump View Post
    " After Lexington and Saratoga there were 69,000 tons (Washington Naval Treaty)remaining for construction of aircraft carriers, and it was decided that the new ship [Ranger] would displace 13,800 tons, a size that would allow five carriers to be built in the remaining available tonnage. What became Ranger was to be the first purpose-built aircraft carrier of the United States Navy." I did not know that fact about the Ranger!
    RN's first was HMS Hermes

  15. #75
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,811
    So is it true that HMS QE "entered service" today without aircraft? Is it real?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. HMS Queen Elizabeth christened
    By dundonrl in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 19 Sep 18,, 23:08
  2. Queen Elizabeth Class Flight Deck
    By skca54 in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07 Feb 12,, 10:13
  3. Construction of Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers
    By ArtyEngineer in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07 Jun 11,, 11:15
  4. Queen Elizabeth II becomes Britain's oldest-reigning monarch ever
    By Blackleaf in forum International Politics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 19 Jan 09,, 17:50
  5. Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier
    By VarSity in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 17 Dec 07,, 23:21

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

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