Jump to content


Photo

Hms Queen Elizabeth


  • Please log in to reply
1259 replies to this topic

#81 mnm

mnm

    Plague doctor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,739 posts

Posted 31 March 2015 - 1626 PM

Thank you DB, quite interesting.


  • 0

#82 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,657 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 0717 AM

They did indeed, and claims of sinking major surface ships were made, I think.

 

On the other hand, the RN claimed to have sunk several submarines more than the Argentinians possessed and it is believed that they may have effectively other large, grey-ish sub-surface objects - aka whales - instead.

 

One submarine (Santa Fe, ex USS Catfish) was disabled in South Georgia.

 

This one was the dangerous one http://en.wikipedia....San_Luis_(S-32)

 

The explanation for the failure of the torpedoes to work properly mentioned on that wiki page is news to me.

 

Don't say that too loudly, the 'Greens' will jump on you. (for killing whales with torpedoes { how are torpedoes meant to target whales anyway?})?

 

But may be worthwhile  to raise the spitit of Capt Ahab (Gregory Peck at least) to this conversation.  He may also be able to contribute a few thoughts from Horatio Hornblower    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043379/      and dealing with those of South America as well.  At least he was never a Viking!

 

Spam spam spam spam spam spam!!


  • 0

#83 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,153 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 0809 AM

I have read (less than a week ago, but do not remember if that was here or in some FB group) that Admiral Ernest King was the one that forbade using whales for target practice in the USN.


  • 0

#84 irregularmedic

irregularmedic

    PROVINCIAL POLITICAL STATEMENT!!!

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,934 posts

Posted 02 April 2015 - 1457 PM

If you have ever heard someone speaking Newfie you would wonder if it was English
 

 

+1  (We get a few of them here in the great state of Washington, including nurses)

 

Although, in my experience, some Cajun is at least as bad. I pride myself on being able to interpret odd accents, speech impediments, and all sorts of things and I've had Canjuns speak "English" to me that I couldn't understand a word of.

 

Aren't the Aussies flying F-18's...? Put them aboard the British carrier and deploy it to the Far East, problem solved.


  • 0

#85 Lieste

Lieste

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 853 posts

Posted 02 April 2015 - 1621 PM

The F18 requires catapults and arrestor wires. Don't think our 'super sized toy carrier' has either system, because it was intended to use only Helicopters and F35B.


  • 0

#86 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,181 posts

Posted 02 April 2015 - 1625 PM

 

They did indeed, and claims of sinking major surface ships were made, I think.

 

On the other hand, the RN claimed to have sunk several submarines more than the Argentinians possessed and it is believed that they may have effectively other large, grey-ish sub-surface objects - aka whales - instead.

 

One submarine (Santa Fe, ex USS Catfish) was disabled in South Georgia.

 

This one was the dangerous one http://en.wikipedia....San_Luis_(S-32)

 

The explanation for the failure of the torpedoes to work properly mentioned on that wiki page is news to me.

 

Don't say that too loudly, the 'Greens' will jump on you. (for killing whales with torpedoes { how are torpedoes meant to target whales anyway?})?

 

 

We still had DCs in service on helos and Limbo ASW mortars on some frigates. I believe DCs are still in our helos arsenal. Mk 11 Mod 3 being the latest version.


  • 0

#87 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,657 posts

Posted 02 April 2015 - 1934 PM

The F18 requires catapults and arrestor wires. Don't think our 'super sized toy carrier' has either system, because it was intended to use only Helicopters and F35B.

 

And Australian FA-18 are not carrier equipped, and our pilots are not usually carrier trained.


  • 0

#88 Garth

Garth

    Charter Member, Rethuglican Underground (TankNet Chapter)

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,449 posts

Posted 06 April 2015 - 2032 PM

 

The F18 requires catapults and arrestor wires. Don't think our 'super sized toy carrier' has either system, because it was intended to use only Helicopters and F35B.

 

And Australian FA-18 are not carrier equipped, and our pilots are not usually carrier trained.

 

 

Aussie Bugs and Superbugs are right off the same assembly line as every other F/A-18, have all the required bits/pieces and are still very much carrier-capable.  Even if not used in that way.

 

There was a proposal at one point for an F/A-18L (for Land-based) that had landing gear similar to the F-17's, as well as weight-reduction measures that would increase performance by stripping out some of the strength/robustness required for planting the bird firmly onto a carrier deck, but it was determined to be more cost effective for non-carrier operators to just buy "off the rack" rather than have the expense of a reengineering exercise.

 

The neat and interesting thing, tho, about your F-model Superbugs is that they're wired for conversion to EA-18Gs when the F-35s hit the RAAF.


  • 0

#89 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,137 posts

Posted 07 April 2015 - 1334 PM

Fitted for but not with carrier capability? 


  • 0

#90 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,685 posts

Posted 07 April 2015 - 1731 PM



Fitted for but not with carrier capability

;)


  • 0

#91 Garth

Garth

    Charter Member, Rethuglican Underground (TankNet Chapter)

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,449 posts

Posted 07 April 2015 - 1745 PM

 



Fitted for but not with carrier capability

;)

 

 

Eggzactly ...


  • 0

#92 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,657 posts

Posted 09 April 2015 - 0848 AM

Rather points to us really should have put a cat on the QEs. Be nice to see the commonwealth provide an air wing for it.

 

Empire my dear boy. Empire.

 

Pity those Kiwis got rid of their air force,it would have been nice to have a few Skyhawks from the antipodes.....

 

Meanwhile, we need a HMS Prince Phillip to be the main lady's consort, so to speak.

 

Does anyone know if the HMS Prince Albert (1865 or so) had a ram with a Prince Albert?  I understand Queen Vicky was quite fond of the ship... and did the HMS Prince Albert ever go anywhere with the HMS Victoria (before she sunk of course - and that would have upset the reigning monarch as well).

 

(just looking at a reference to the HMS Victoria, I used to have as a neighbour - I helped her break into her appartment once - Zoe Tryon - something like the great great great great grandaughter of the admiral who sank Queen Vicky's namesake).


Edited by DougRichards, 09 April 2015 - 0858 AM.

  • 0

#93 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,956 posts

Posted 09 April 2015 - 0915 AM

I thought the carrier was named after the "virgin queen"? No need for a husband then. ;)

 

Is the class designed for a catapult and arrestor wires? Considering the ship's size and projected service length it may become useful, because I strongly doubt a new VSTOL plane is going to be made after the F-35 and all its problems. And future drones may find catapult and wires useful, too.
  • 0

#94 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,716 posts

Posted 09 April 2015 - 1413 PM

The original design was supposed to be left open enough for a late decision as to whether the carriers were to be Cat equipped, and in fact we switched from STOVL to CATOBAR and back due to a crisis of confidence in the future of the F-35.

 

Now, however, it would be quite difficult to do. There is certainly enough electrical power generated on board for an EMALS catapult launch system, but I imagine that it would not be so much a "refit" as a "rebuild" to change our minds again.

 

On the other hand, of course, it's possible that "they" didn't burn all the design work that was done in the middle of the changed plans. (bwahahahaha)


  • 0

#95 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,137 posts

Posted 09 April 2015 - 1523 PM

HMS Drake then. 


Or Dlake if you please. No idea what the Spanish would make of that though...


Edited by rmgill, 09 April 2015 - 1524 PM.

  • 0

#96 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,153 posts

Posted 10 April 2015 - 0318 AM

HMS Drake then. 


Or Dlake if you please. No idea what the Spanish would make of that though...

 

I think we would prefer HMS Vernon :P


  • 0

#97 mnm

mnm

    Plague doctor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,739 posts

Posted 11 April 2015 - 1358 PM

Rather points to us really should have put a cat on the QEs. Be nice to see the commonwealth provide an air wing for it.

 

Couldn't be more appropriate.

 

674a7cf7b5c254890daa4832ba688ca3.jpg

 

 

Feline mascot of the Royal Navy ship Queen Elizabeth walks the big barrels with assurance.


  • 0

#98 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,520 posts

Posted 12 April 2015 - 2003 PM

Buy loads of Reapers.
  • 0

#99 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,418 posts

Posted 02 November 2015 - 1759 PM

BEX19PT.jpg


  • 0

#100 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts

Posted 03 November 2015 - 1010 AM

The original design was supposed to be left open enough for a late decision as to whether the carriers were to be Cat equipped, and in fact we switched from STOVL to CATOBAR and back due to a crisis of confidence in the future of the F-35.

 

Now, however, it would be quite difficult to do. There is certainly enough electrical power generated on board for an EMALS catapult launch system, but I imagine that it would not be so much a "refit" as a "rebuild" to change our minds again.

 

On the other hand, of course, it's possible that "they" didn't burn all the design work that was done in the middle of the changed plans. (bwahahahaha)

It was pretty much a rebuild by 2010, when the then minister of defence made a rather hasty decision to switch - reversed by his successor. It turned out that the 'flexibility' in the design had never been taken into account when doing detailed design, & even at the stage of construction QE had reached then, it would have had to have a lot of the work already done ripped out, & some other ripping out done to accommodate things which would have to be moved to make way for the catapults. There was no space reserved, or even set aside to be used only for low priority purposes, for the fitting of catapults.

 

It seems that after announcing that the design would be flexible, nothing was done to put that intention into effect in the structure of the ship. It wasn't written into the design criteria. The cost was estimated to be huge. Vast amount of work, & extra costs caused by disruption to the build schedule. Oh, & it turned out that the USA wanted a lot more for the catapults than we expected, much more than the price paid by the USN. So much so that upgrading the EMKIT small EM catapult we already had working looked to be cheaper, despite the development work needed - but higher risk, because less developed.


  • 0