Jump to content


Photo

Hms Queen Elizabeth


  • Please log in to reply
333 replies to this topic

#1 John_Ford

John_Ford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,701 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Tanks

Posted 27 November 2014 - 2210 PM

Give new meaning to the term Mixed Air Wing. Wonder how Marines will adjust to the Queens Mess? ;)


http://www.bbc.com/n...orters-30229988

#2 DesertEagle

DesertEagle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,809 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston

Posted 27 November 2014 - 2343 PM

This presumes the USMC would have a wing of F-35's available for TDY? Marine Pilots as exchange officers I could see, but all the crew that maintainand support the jets? Maybe the horse comes before that cart?



#3 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,919 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 28 November 2014 - 0057 AM

The HMS Queen Elizabeth is fitted for F-35, but not with. Obviously.

Must be British MoD tradition by now.

#4 mnm

mnm

    Plague doctor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,702 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the sun doth shine!
  • Interests:Totally uninteresting.

Posted 28 November 2014 - 0241 AM

I was expexting better from Mark Urban, we all know the QE has two islands already (1)  - by the way, here in this Grate Sight we never reached an agreement on what their names ought to be - but calling this a totemic carrier (2) makes no sense at all unless the islands were superimposed (a geologial possibility, I'll grant but even then rare) but that is clearly not the case as anyone can judge by the actual photos.

 

(1) Carrier

 

boat2_2863095c.jpg

 

(2) Totem

 

totem031.jpg

 

This is surely a Fleet Air Arm totem, it comes with wings.



#5 alejandro_

alejandro_

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,962 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxfordshire, UK
  • Interests:History, cinema, football, aviation, armour, military history.

Posted 28 November 2014 - 0420 AM

So we go to the expense of building an aircraft carrier to give ourselves an independent naval air capablity, then have to depend on a foreign air wing to fly off it?

 

The only other alternative was to develop a carrier variant of the European EF-2000, and carrier would have to be modified as it is not STOVL.

 

I find that F-35 fighter program has been extremely ambitious, which has led to over costs and delays. Maybe a more conservative program*, without the STOVL variant would have been cost efficient and would have avoided some of the sacrifices in performance.

 

* Like F-18E/F Super Hornet.



#6 Anixtu

Anixtu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Afloat

Posted 28 November 2014 - 0517 AM

All the article really tells us is that there is another Strategic Defence & Security Review coming next year (i.e. another round of defence cuts) and that the knives are out for inter-service fighting over who loses what. In this case it's the BBC's pet ex-Army officer quoting other (ex-)Army officers briefing against a maritime capability. Expect more of the same until the cuts are announced in the next Parliament.

#7 Anixtu

Anixtu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Afloat

Posted 28 November 2014 - 0527 AM

Yes, i think F18E would have been a more sensible choice from the start.


I think alejandro proposes a more conservative future (naval) fighter programme, not abandoning naval aircraft development at F/A-18E. It would never have made sense for the UK to buy F/A-18E as whatever the US developed instead of F-35 would still be available in roughly the right time frame to give us a latest generation aircraft to operate from the new carriers.

The big "mistake" (calculated capability gap) leading to not having aircraft and carriers ready at the same time was premature retirement of Sea Harrier.

#8 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,057 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peek-a-boo, I'm behind you.
  • Interests:Wholesome stuff.

Posted 28 November 2014 - 0630 AM

So we go to the expense of building an aircraft carrier to give ourselves an independent naval air capablity, then have to depend on a foreign air wing to fly off it? Slightly confused thinking on the MODs part that. :)

 

Well its only short term, though you cant think if someone hadnt been so keen to divest themselves of the Harrier force, we wouldnt need to do it at all.

 

What makes you think it's "only short term."



#9 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,905 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 29 November 2014 - 0046 AM

Well you could lease this....

 

19.jpgor 

 

Hawker_Sea_Fury.jpg



#10 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,947 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 29 November 2014 - 0502 AM

Aren't we looking at this the wrong way?  After all, an aircraft carrier is just a fancing floating airfield (hence captains of USN Carriers having to be aviators - the carrier serves the aircraft, not the other way around).

 

If the USMC operates off the Her Majesty's Ship Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth   (should that be HMS HM QE  ?) , does not that mean that the Royal Navy is functioning as the base for the USMC?  The HMS HM QE will be joining the Marines, rather than the Marines joining the Royal Navy.  (How ignominious!)

 

Perhaps the ship could be re-named the "USS Robin" when carrying USMC aircraft?


Edited by DougRichards, 29 November 2014 - 0502 AM.


#11 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,947 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 29 November 2014 - 0547 AM

The real problem is the utility of a carrier is the air wing. Without that you have several thousand tons of steel that is bugger all use to man or beast. So in the event that there is circumstances where HMG has a war they want to give and nobody else wants to come, we have a problem. Admittedly a short term problem in that its not envisaged for those aircraft to not be availble for long, but its not something you would expect any other navy in the world to tolerate, fitted for but not with a carrier air wing. :)

 

The MOD have this current fetish for letting capablities lapse, then buying back into them later. Which in my view is not only potentially dangerous in that if you do without something for 6 years, you might continue to do without it, but also the loss of skills and practices take time to reassemble. Its not good practice.

 

Im still waiting for the MOD to get back to me about my stringbag stealth bomber concept, they really are being most tardy in responding to that......

 

Falklands may be a problem with USMC kites on board.



#12 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Reading, Berkshire
  • Interests:Too many to list all, but include military, economic &technological history. And cycling.

Posted 29 November 2014 - 0855 AM

Hot transfer. Crews can (if politics permit) volunteer to be temporarily released from US service . . .  :D



#13 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,919 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 29 November 2014 - 1118 AM

Hot transfer. Crews can (if politics permit) volunteer to be temporarily released from US service . . .  :D


Do the Putin. They are on holiday trip to the southern atlantic. Sight seeing. ;)

#14 Anixtu

Anixtu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Afloat

Posted 29 November 2014 - 1124 AM

 
The MOD have this current fetish for letting capablities lapse, then buying back into them later.


The government of the 2000s made those choices for budgetary reasons, not a current "MOD fetish". Have the current lot actually cut anything since tidying up the mess with the last SDSR? Are we now to expect 5 years of relative stability between rounds of cuts?

#15 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,028 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 29 November 2014 - 1318 PM

The RN will need refresher training in the practice of operating a CV before risking its own air group on board.



#16 Charles

Charles

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,095 posts
  • Location:Highland's of Scotland
  • Interests:AFV, Military History

Posted 29 November 2014 - 1428 PM

The RN will need refresher training in the practice of operating a CV before risking its own air group on board.

I believe the RN has both aircrew and shipcrew currently working up their skills with  the French and American Navies flat tops. The issue being, no where near enough. As already mentioned; ditching SHAR's is going to cost us so much more, than the savings the SDSR 2010 envisioned, IMO.

I cannot see the RN being ready for full on seagoing ops with a CVG any time before 2025 :angry: .  I do hope I'm proved wrong, but time will tell.

 

Charles



#17 EvanDP

EvanDP

    Deus Ex Nukina

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,350 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Interests:SciFi, firearms, Military history, computers, redheads

Posted 29 November 2014 - 1540 PM

 

The real problem is the utility of a carrier is the air wing. Without that you have several thousand tons of steel that is bugger all use to man or beast. So in the event that there is circumstances where HMG has a war they want to give and nobody else wants to come, we have a problem. Admittedly a short term problem in that its not envisaged for those aircraft to not be availble for long, but its not something you would expect any other navy in the world to tolerate, fitted for but not with a carrier air wing. :)

 

The MOD have this current fetish for letting capablities lapse, then buying back into them later. Which in my view is not only potentially dangerous in that if you do without something for 6 years, you might continue to do without it, but also the loss of skills and practices take time to reassemble. Its not good practice.

 

Im still waiting for the MOD to get back to me about my stringbag stealth bomber concept, they really are being most tardy in responding to that......

 

Falklands may be a problem with USMC kites on board.

 

Just renew "Lend-Lease", The Marines leave and the MOD shoves anybody trained to fly or maintain a F-35 on board. Any destroyed or unrepairable planes gets replaced or paid for. :D



#18 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,839 posts

Posted 29 November 2014 - 1544 PM

Hell, maybe the Marines will want to try a few MV-22's on the QE (for a nominal fee, of course). 



#19 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,959 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 29 November 2014 - 2356 PM

Don't think of it as the RN getting a loan of air assets from the Corps, but of the USMC getting itself it's own carrier complete with squids to run it by hook or by crook. 


Edited by rmgill, 29 November 2014 - 2356 PM.


#20 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,057 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peek-a-boo, I'm behind you.
  • Interests:Wholesome stuff.

Posted 30 November 2014 - 0117 AM

Blind optimism? :)

 

I admire your blind optimism in the face of a lost war against increased defense cuts and short-sighted decision making by the MoD. :P hehehe

 

In the end, it might as well be sold to Russia. :lol:


Edited by Corinthian, 30 November 2014 - 0118 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users