Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HMS Queen Elizabeth

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Now if you guys will buy some V-22 tanker variant. You can have a mini carrier with some legs.

    Getting rid of the ramp would give you more versatility/flexibility. But old habits are hard to break

    Click image for larger version

Name:	MV-22 F-35B.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	15.9 KB
ID:	1475703

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
      Now if you guys will buy some V-22 tanker variant. You can have a mini carrier with some legs.

      Getting rid of the ramp would give you more versatility/flexibility. But old habits are hard to break
      I haven't seen any references to any tanking capability in the RN's carriers... any word on budy-tanking capability for the F-35?

      Comment


      • #93
        The Brits were suppose to fund a feasibility study on that in 2011. Haven't seen anything since. The US wasn't/isn't interested in the capability so no funding from us. Its Brit specific.
        The US plan is to use F-18s and V-22s.

        They need something. Not just for added range, but safety in case of a fouled deck.

        The RN has no tanking or AEW capability. The RAF doesn't have any that are shipborne capable

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
          The Brits were suppose to fund a feasibility study on that in 2011. Haven't seen anything since. The US wasn't/isn't interested in the capability so no funding from us. Its Brit specific.
          The US plan is to use F-18s and V-22s.

          They need something. Not just for added range, but safety in case of a fouled deck.

          The RN has no tanking or AEW capability. The RAF doesn't have any that are shipborne capable
          RN is using a version of the Merlin helo for AEW, like the Sea King did in the old Invencible-class. Read an article on it a couple of weeks ago; ofc it doesn't have the range + speed of a E-2C or a V-22 variant, but still looks quite capable. As for refueling, if Japan does get the B version for the carriers, maybe they'll be interested...

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
            Now if you guys will buy some V-22 tanker variant. You can have a mini carrier with some legs.

            Getting rid of the ramp would give you more versatility/flexibility. But old habits are hard to break

            [ATTACH]45085[/ATTACH]
            and create less room and yeh lets revert to old tech that we invented in the first place like the steam catapult..lets build a floating museum!!
            Last edited by Toby; 29 Dec 17,, 23:23.

            Comment


            • #96
              Japanese already have V-22s. Buying 17 of them. First one rolled out in Sept.

              Click image for larger version

Name:	Jpanese v22.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	32.4 KB
ID:	1475704

              Click image for larger version

Name:	MV-22-Osprey-Japan.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	88.2 KB
ID:	1475705

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Toby View Post
                and create less room and yeh lets revert to old tech that we invented in the first place like the steam catapult..lets build a museum!!
                or go with EM catapults like the US Navy.

                But the point is that the VSTOL version doesn't need either.

                Both would be a waste of better used space

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                  or go with EM catapults like the US Navy.

                  But the point is that the VSTOL version doesn't need either.

                  Both would be a waste of better used space
                  Ah but our carriers are not as long because we don't have an arrestor wire or a steam catapult ( which would lose us more space)
                  Short landing , short take off ...fully automated weapon loading system reducing need for more crew..thus allowing us to use the ship as a commando carrier as well...you're playing catch up here guys. Value for money! something we live by mostly these days. Which you have to when you don't have more than half the world defence budget to spend on your military...

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Not playing catch-up. We've had LHA/LHDs for over 40 years. We just don't call them aircraft carriers.

                    Right now we have 9 of them. All more capable than the QE.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                      Not playing catch-up. We've had LHA/LHDs for over 40 years. We just don't call them aircraft carriers.

                      Right now we have 9 of them. All more capable than the QE.
                      Humbug!! ;-) and I should think they are....The QE isn't in service yet...Funny but you guys had the same dismissive tone about the harrier prior to the falklands conflict. We had to shoot down a shit load of mirages before you caught on..
                      Last edited by Toby; 30 Dec 17,, 00:20.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Toby View Post
                        Humbug!! ;-) and I should think they are....The QE isn't in service yet...Funny but you guys had the same dismissive tone about the harrier prior to the falklands conflict. We had to shoot down a shit load of mirages before you caught on..
                        ?????

                        USMC was flying Harriers in 1971. (edit- first deployed on LPH in 1974 USS Tripoli)

                        12 years before the Falklands.

                        LHDs are more capable and better defended that the QE will be once in service. Not counting her first cruise where she will be used as a USMC LHD (embarking a USMC squadron) but once you guys get your own planes to use on her. ;)
                        Last edited by Gun Grape; 30 Dec 17,, 00:41.

                        Comment


                        • Irrelevant discussion, anyway. The UK mated it's carrier design to the F-35's VTOL ability. Period. To redesign for conventional aircraft (the idea was floated mid construction) would increase the cost horrendeously, and delay service entry even longer. For better or worse, the F-35 is it, for the UK. And, in this case, I think the UK's experience with the Invencible trumps the US' with the USMC's "carriers". Don't forget the primary use for the Invencibles was for the Harriers, so the loss of space from the ramp was aceptable, because of the range/payload offset; whereas the USMC is, afaik, helis' first, so they maximize the number of helo pads. The same applies to the new carriers.

                          In terms of UK carrier design, the 2 separate islands is what always makes me go "wth..."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                            ?????

                            USMC was flying Harriers in 1971. (edit- first deployed on LPH in 1974 USS Tripoli)

                            12 years before the Falklands.

                            LHDs are more capable and better defended that the QE will be once in service. Not counting her first cruise where she will be used as a USMC LHD (embarking a USMC squadron) but once you guys get your own planes to use on her. ;)
                            You only bought them because you had run out of ideas on what to spend the defense budget on...And hey, WOW look at this new plane that goes up and down ...not sure what else it does but hey lets buy a hundred...just joking!....To be serious for a minute because yes strangely enough Toby ist thou takin tha piss! I think the Harrier and the sidewinder (one British and one American)were the thing that made it work perfectly and what I'm aiming at in jest is we can't afford what you guys have, so yeh why did we build these hulks...I guess we'll find out at some point, because at the moment I don't get it either!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
                              Irrelevant discussion,
                              = Humbug! All the best everybody!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Toby View Post
                                You only bought them because you had run out of ideas on what to spend the defense budget on...And hey, WOW look at this new plane that goes up and down ...not sure what else it does but hey lets buy a hundred...just joking!....
                                For a while we used them as Lawn Darts.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X