Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
HMS Queen Elizabeth
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Gun Grape View PostNow 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
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by Gun Grape View PostThe 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
-
Originally posted by Gun Grape View PostNow 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]Last edited by Toby; 29 Dec 17,, 23:23.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Toby View Postand 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!!
But the point is that the VSTOL version doesn't need either.
Both would be a waste of better used space
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gun Grape View Postor 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
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
-
Originally posted by Gun Grape View PostNot 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.Last edited by Toby; 30 Dec 17,, 00:20.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Toby View PostHumbug!! ;-) 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. ;)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Toby View PostYou 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!....
Comment
Comment