New HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carrier arrives in Portsmouth


Blackleaf
+2
#1  Top Rated Post
The Royal Navy's newest aircraft carrier, the £3.1billion HMS Prince of Wales, sailed into its base at Portsmouth for the first time yesterday.

The 65,000-tonne warship dwarfed the surrounding buildings as it arrived at the mouth of Portsmouth Harbour, Hampshire, and was welcomed by a fly-past of two Hawk jets and a Wildcat helicopter.

Shipping lanes were closed and an air exclusion zone put in place as part of security measures for the arrival...


Going home for the first time: Royal Navy's newest aircraft carrier the £3.1bn HMS Prince Of Wales dwarfs houses at it sails into its new Portsmouth base after passing tough sea trial tests

Hundreds of people lined the sea walls to welcome the warship into Portsmouth Harbour, Hampshire

The 65,000-tonne vessel was also welcomed by a fly-past of two Hawk jets and a Wildcat helicopter

Shipping lanes were closed and an air exclusion zone put in place as part of security measures for the arrival



By James Gant For Mailonline
16 November 2019


The Royal Navy's newest aircraft carrier, the £3.1billion HMS Prince of Wales, sailed into its base at Portsmouth for the first time today.


The 65,000-tonne warship dwarfed the surrounding buildings as it arrived at the mouth of Portsmouth Harbour, Hampshire, and was welcomed by a fly-past of two Hawk jets and a Wildcat helicopter.

Shipping lanes were closed and an air exclusion zone put in place as part of security measures for the arrival.


The Royal Navy's newest aircraft carrier, the £3.1billion HMS Prince of Wales, sailed into its base at Portsmouth for the first time after passing rigorous sea trial tests (pictured)


Sailors lined the flight deck (pictured) as the £3.1billion carrier approached the dedicated Princess Royal jetty at the naval base in Portsmouth Harbour, Hampshire



The 65,000-tonne warship dwarfed the surrounding buildings (pictured) as it returned from eight weeks of rigorous sea trials

Sailors lined the flight deck as the £3.1billion carrier approached the dedicated Princess Royal jetty at the naval base.

Commanding officer Captain Darren Houston said: 'Our first entry to Portsmouth represents the successful culmination of the build and sea trials period in which my ship's company and industry partners have worked so closely together to bring HMS Prince of Wales into service with the fleet.

'I am extremely proud of them and their families for their perseverance, patience and extraordinary efforts.'

Air engineering technician Ben Daniels, one of the 600-strong crew on board along with 300 contractors, said: 'I feel immensely proud to be a member of HMS Prince of Wales's ship's company while the ship is heading into its home port for the first time.

'It is a historic moment for the Royal Navy and I am looking forward to many years of service on this incredible ship.'


Hundreds of people lined the sea walls to see the ship on its arrival with many holding placards that read: 'Welcome Home'




The carrier left Rosyth dockyard in Fife where it was built in September. Pictured: Members of the crew lined the tiers of the warship as it sailed in


Shipping lanes were closed and an air exclusion zone put in place as part of security measures ready for the arrival of the HMS Prince Of Wales


The £3.1 billion warship left Rosyth dockyard in Scotland, where it was built, in September before undergoing eight weeks of sea trials. Here crew members wander along the ship carrier moments before the highly anticipated arrival on the south coast of England

The carrier left Rosyth dockyard in Fife, eastern Scotland, where it was built in September before undergoing eight weeks of sea trials ahead of its arrival in Portsmouth.

A Navy spokesman said: 'During the trials, the first aircraft touched down on the flight deck, as a Merlin helicopter was guided safely into land, before the ship then hit top speed as she tested her engines to the max.

'Following a brief pit stop in Invergordon, HMS Prince of Wales was tested in heavier seas to see how she handles in challenging weather.

'The carrier faced waves up to 20ft high and carved through them relatively untroubled.'


HMS Prince of Wales is set to be formally commissioned before the end of the year. Pictured: Sailors lining the flight deck of the British Royal Navy's aircraft carrier


Shipping lanes were closed and an air exclusion zone put in place as part of security measures for the arrival of the aircraft. The welcome included a fly-past of two Hawk jets and a Wildcat helicopter, today


During their 50-year service, the two 280-metre long aircraft carriers can be deployed for high intensity war fighting or providing humanitarian aid and disaster relief


Overall, six shipyards around the UK - Appledore, Birkenhead, Govan, Portsmouth, Rosyth and Tyne - have been involved in building various parts of the HMS Prince Of Wales (pictured) and its sister ship HMS Queen Elizabeth


Sailors lined the flight deck before being greeted by thousands of people who lined the sea walls to welcome home Britain's second and newest Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier. Ben Daniels, one of the 600-strong crew on board along with 300 contractors, said: 'I feel immensely proud to be a member of HMS Prince of Wales's ship's company while the ship is heading into its home port for the first time


HMS Prince of Wales (pictured) is set to be formally commissioned before the end of the year. Meanwhile HMS Queen Elizabeth, conducted sea trials in the Moray Firth and North Sea in 2017

The carrier's sister ship, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is also based at Portsmouth but is currently on a visit to the USA to undergo trials of the F35 Lightning jet fighters ahead of its first operational deployment planned for 2021.


Major upgrade work has been carried out at the jetties at Portsmouth so the two giant ships can berth next to each other.

During their 50-year service, the two 280-metre long aircraft carriers can be pressed into action for various work such as high intensity war fighting or providing humanitarian aid and disaster relief.

They have been built by the Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA) - a partnership of BAE Systems, Babcock, Thales and the Ministry of Defence.

Overall, six shipyards around the UK - Appledore, Birkenhead, Govan, Portsmouth, Rosyth and Tyne - have been involved in building various parts of the carriers.

HMS Prince of Wales is set to be formally commissioned before the end of the year.


Commanding officer Captain Darren Houston is pictured in front of the aircraft carrier at Portsmouth's Naval Base, earlier today. He said the arrival 'represents the successful culmination of the build and sea trials'


Sailors, who took part in the trials, are photographed arriving at the Naval Base. A Navy spokesman said: 'The carrier faced waves up to 20ft high and carved through them relatively untroubled'


Mr Houston described has said he is 'extremely proud of [the crew] and their families for their perseverance, patience and extraordinary efforts' to complete the ship trials and the successful docking at Portsmouth


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...outh-base.html
 
Curious Cdn
+2
#2
Nice ship.
 
Blackleaf
#3
HMS Prince of Wales arrives in Portsmouth:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OktvXu71RZs

Inventor Richard Browning of Take on Gravity demonstrates his jet suit to American guests arriving by boat for visit to HMS Queen Elizabeth anchored off Annapolis near Washington DC:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xL02e4L-RQo
 
Walter
-1
#4
Good to see the UK taking its defence seriously.
 
Curious Cdn
-1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Good to see the UK taking its defence seriously.

They have no escorts left. These carriers can barely sail anywhere without the help of their allies kicking in Destroyer and Frigate screens. The carriers will earn their keep over the years but they and the British ballistic missile submarine maintenance and replacement has left behind a stony broke Royal Navy. Take away the carriers and subs and the RN does not consist of much more than the RCN, right now. As a matter of fact, each of our Frigates has either already received or is about to receive a major modernization makeover that is rendering them more up to date and ready to fight than the RN escorts.
 
Blackleaf
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

They have no escorts left. These carriers can barely sail anywhere without the help of their allies kicking in Destroyer and Frigate screens. The carriers will earn their keep over the years but they and the British ballistic missile submarine maintenance and replacement has left behind a stony broke Royal Navy. Take away the carriers and subs and the RN does not consist of much more than the RCN, right now. As a matter of fact, each of our Frigates has either already received or is about to receive a major modernization makeover that is rendering them more up to date and ready to fight than the RN escorts.

Where did you get your fake news from? Some video you watched on YouTube?
 
Danbones
+1
#7
Maybe he's rooting for a new frick it called the prince andrew.


LOL I mean come on, how can you turn down a name like: "Frick it Mc Frickface?
 
Twin_Moose
+1
#8
I wonder why they have 3 dicks painted on the side
 
Walter
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

They have no escorts left. These carriers can barely sail anywhere without the help of their allies kicking in Destroyer and Frigate screens. The carriers will earn their keep over the years but they and the British ballistic missile submarine maintenance and replacement has left behind a stony broke Royal Navy. Take away the carriers and subs and the RN does not consist of much more than the RCN, right now. As a matter of fact, each of our Frigates has either already received or is about to receive a major modernization makeover that is rendering them more up to date and ready to fight than the RN escorts.

Prog shit.
 
Curious Cdn
+1 / -1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Prog shit.

No, Walter. It's not.

Maybe, you should learn something real about the Royal Navy's situation before you post something idiotic and ignorant like "prog shit"

You knoweth not what you speak of.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-uk...-idUSKCN10L1AD

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018...ave-not-spent/

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38044967

http://news.sky.com/story/size-of-ro...ittee-11771371

By the way, the US Navy has run down their Frigate and Destroyers, too and they have failed to keep ther escort fleet up to date. They put all their eggs in the "Littoral ship" basket and that has turned out to be a dead end. The have turned out to be A) crappy ships,way too flimsy, under armed and bizarrely expensive and B) designed for the wrong type of mission that the USN is likely to encounter. The Americans are scrambling to catch up, now and are contemplating building foreign designed ships to save them the development time. The old Ardleigh Burke design is now quite obsolete and they have wrung the concept out.

Those newly refurbished Canadian Frigates are now a substantial asset to our American and British allies who are both short of modern anti-submarine escorts. That's been the core mission of the RCN since 1940 and we're still in the game.
 
Danbones
#11
While I appreciate that you made a real effort to make a coherent post:

In this day of AI, drones, and dirty (cobalt) nukes, the old navy is just a floating grave yard waiting to happen. The Canadian Navy being NO exception.

Then there is this:

CANADA
The sinking of the Canadian Navy
A maritime nation has let its naval fleet fall apart. Here’s how a once-proud force fell into such an embarrassing state of disrepair

This October, NATO is launching Trident Juncture, its largest and most ambitious military exercise in a decade. The massive land, sea and air exercise will be held in the Mediterranean and will include 36,000 troops from 30 nations.

It's goal will be to help the fictitious country of Sorotan, “a non-NATO member torn by internal strife and facing an armed threat from an opportunistic neighbour.” Not surprisingly, this is widely seen as an explicit response to Moscow’s increasingly belligerent pressure on the alliances’ eastern borders.

The Canadian government, an outspoken critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin and the invasion of Ukraine, had planned to send its flagship destroyer, HMCS Athabaskan, as “a strong signal to the Russians,” whose ships and aircraft have also been bumping up against Canada’s territorial claims in the Arctic.

But, last week, it was reported by the Ottawa Citizen that the 43-year-old Athabaskan was no longer seaworthy and is being sent back to Halifax for extensive repairs
https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/...canadian-navy/



Russian invaded Ukraine did they?...the problems are WEIGH too high up to actually get fixed.
Last edited by Danbones; 2 weeks ago at 04:35 PM..
 
Curious Cdn
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

While I appreciate that you made a real effort to make a coherent post:

In this day of AI, drones, and dirty (cobalt) nukes, the old navy is just a floating grave yard waiting to happen. The Canadian Navy being NO exception.

Maybe.

These ships are mobile platforms to launch and operate drones, too. The new Type 26 Frigates thst we're building have dedicated drone hangers and operating facilities.

Dirty Colbalt nukes are literally as old as I am (63) and if they are ever used, kiss your ass goodbye 'cause there ain't going to be a human race anymore, a week or two later.

Floating grave yard or not, the potential for a major naval engagement in the Pacific is greater now than at any time since 1941 and it gets more real by the moment. Reality be de bitch, Mon.
 
Curious Cdn
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

While I appreciate that you made a real effort to make a coherent post:

In this day of AI, drones, and dirty (cobalt) nukes, the old navy is just a floating grave yard waiting to happen. The Canadian Navy being NO exception.
Then there is this:
CANADA
The sinking of the Canadian Navy
A maritime nation has let its naval fleet fall apart. Here’s how a once-proud force fell into such an embarrassing state of disrepair
This October, NATO is launching Trident Juncture, its largest and most ambitious military exercise in a decade. The massive land, sea and air exercise will be held in the Mediterranean and will include 36,000 troops from 30 nations.
It's goal will be to help the fictitious country of Sorotan, “a non-NATO member torn by internal strife and facing an armed threat from an opportunistic neighbour.” Not surprisingly, this is widely seen as an explicit response to Moscow’s increasingly belligerent pressure on the alliances’ eastern borders.
The Canadian government, an outspoken critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin and the invasion of Ukraine, had planned to send its flagship destroyer, HMCS Athabaskan, as “a strong signal to the Russians,” whose ships and aircraft have also been bumping up against Canada’s territorial claims in the Arctic.
But, last week, it was reported by the Ottawa Citizen that the 43-year-old Athabaskan was no longer seaworthy and is being sent back to Halifax for extensive repairs
https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/...canadian-navy/
Russian invaded Ukraine did they?...the problems are WEIGH too high up to actually get fixed.

Athabascan was paid off two years ago and what's left of that "New Tribal Class" is getting cut up into razor blades.

See if you can find something up-to-date in that pile of magazines in your Shrink's waiting room that you use for your research.
 
Danbones
#14
Oh and where is this so called RUSSIAN INVASION again?

(hint they pulled the ship back cause they knew it was a crap scenario but wanted to appear like they were playing along anyway)

As far as the navy being dead technology:

7 Years on, Sailors Exposed to Fukushima Radiation Seek Their Day in Court

Special investigation: US military personnel are sick and dying, and want the nuclear plant’s designers and owners to take responsibility.


...But that sense of routine soon changed.

“All of the sudden, this big cloud engulfs us,” Torres said. “It wasn’t white smoke, like you would see from a steam leak,” he explained, but it also wasn’t like the black smoke he saw from the burning oil fields during his deployment in Kuwait in 1991. “It was like something I’d never seen before.”...

...And yet, despite this destruction and mayhem, proponents of nuclear power can be heard calling Fukushima a qualified success story. After all, despite a pair of massive natural disasters, acolytes say, no one died.

But many of the men and women of the Seventh Fleet would disagree. Now seven years removed from their relief mission, they’d tell you nine people have died as a result of the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi—and all of them are Americans...
https://www.thenation.com/article/se...-day-in-court/

Gee 2011...You'd think you would have caught up to the real news by now.

lol you must have lost a lot of brain cells snuffing coal exhaust. Either that or you HATE sailors and want to see them all die.
Last edited by Danbones; 2 weeks ago at 04:57 PM..
 
Curious Cdn
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

Oh and where is this so called RUSSIAN INVASION again?

(hint they pulled the ship back cause they knew it was a crap scenario but wanted to appear like they were playing along anyway)
7 Years on, Sailors Exposed to Fukushima Radiation Seek Their Day in Court
Special investigation: US military personnel are sick and dying, and want the nuclear plant’s designers and owners to take responsibility.
lol you must have lost a lot of brain cells snuffing coal exhaust. Either that or you HATE sailors and want to see them all die.

You're completely fukcing nuts, you know that?
 
Curious Cdn
-1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Good to see the UK taking its defence seriously.

You're in way over your head on this thread, Walter. Give it up.
 
Danbones
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

You're completely fukcing nuts, you know that?

Don't do facts do ya weener boi?

No one is bigger, more full of schiff commie nazi idjit than you are, and you prove that with every post.

Now just climb into your microwave and go sail off the edge of your sanity while YOU glow in the dark. Wherever he is, Epstein is likely lonely and could use some friendly company.

Quote:

But many of the men and women of the Seventh Fleet would disagree. Now seven years removed from their relief mission, they’d tell you nine people have died as a result of the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi—and all of them are Americans...

ONE nuke torpedo in the same AREA and your PATHETIC little tincan BOATS will wish they were on the bottom.
I know you will have to google what that would be like if it was a cobalt combination nuke
because obviously you have NO idea about anything going on these days.

lol, stationary engineers.

Just enough education to find the corner you are supposed to be out standing on.
Last edited by Danbones; 2 weeks ago at 03:54 AM..
 
Danbones
#18
Here, ya genocidal stupid: EDUCATE YOURSELF.

A cobalt bomb is a type of "salted bomb": a nuclear weapon designed to produce enhanced amounts of radioactive fallout, intended to contaminate a large area with radioactive material.

The concept of a cobalt bomb was originally described in a radio program by physicist Leó Szilárd on February 26, 1950.[1] His intent was not to propose that such a weapon be built, but to show that nuclear weapon technology would soon reach the point where it could end human life on Earth, a doomsday device.[2][3]

Such "salted" weapons were requested by the U.S. Air Force and seriously investigated, but not deployed.[citation needed] In the 1964 edition of the U.S. Department of Defense book The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, a new section titled radiological warfare clarified the "Doomsday device" issue.[4]

The Russian Federation has allegedly developed cobalt warheads for use with their Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System nuclear torpedoes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb


Why Putin's new 'doomsday' device is so much more deadly and horrific than a regular nuke

Russia's new nuke weaponized radiation itself in a way that could leave massive swaths of Earth uninhabitable for the better part of a century.
https://www.businessinsider.com/puti...-weapon-2018-3
 
Blackleaf
#19
The myths surrounding the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers

By George Allison -
November 28, 2017
UK Defence Journal
59 comments

No aircraft, no escorts, no kettles. How much truth can be found in the many myths surrounding HMS Queen Elizabeth and her sister HMS Prince of Wales?

There are scores of myths, rumours and outright nonsense circulating on the internet and even in newspapers about the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. We spend a lot of time pointing out these myths, writing articles about them and directing people to the different articles in an attempt to set the record straight. One of our readers recently asked, ‘Why not just write one article covering the myths?’, so we have.

There’s simply not enough time to discuss or counter everyone of the myths about these vessels so let’s take a look at the most common and resilient myths surrounding HMS Queen Elizabeth and her sister HMS Prince of Wales.

If there’s anything we’ve missed, please let us know!

1. ‘The carriers will not have any aircraft’.

This one even gets repeated by politicians, many of you will be aware of our Twitter campaign to correct this claim across the political spectrum. Claims the carrier will not have any aircraft are simply incorrect.

Merlin helicopters were the first aircraft to begin flying from HMS Queen Elizabeth and they will soon be followed by F-35 jets in September this year.

In order to prepare for operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Royal Navy sailors have also trained alongside their US Navy counterparts on the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp.Recent F-35 trials aboard the USS Wasp weren’t just an operational test for the United States Marine Corps, with much of the data produced being used to inform the USMC’s declaration of initial operating capability but also for the United Kingdom.

UK personnel were fully embedded in the USS Wasp trials and will use the data gathered from this event, future trials and operational deployments to support the UK’s flying trials aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth off the US coast in a few months.

British F-35 pilots also recently embarked on the USS America for at-sea developmental testing phase 3 (known as DT), the last trial that paves the way for the US Marine Corps to deploy the jet operationally on amphibious assault ships.

BAE Systems test pilot Pete Wilson said about the upcoming trials on the HMS Queen Elizabeth:

“This will not be a DT phase. Testing on the Queen Elizabeth will be like DTs 1, 2 and 3 combined. We don’t need to use fully instrumented aircraft; we already understand most of the loads on the aircraft systems, as we have tested that during earlier tests.”

F-35B flight trials at sea.

The term now used for the carriers embarked squadrons is ‘Carrier Air Wing’ (CVW). The vessels are capable of deploying a variety of aircraft in large numbers, up to a maximum in the upper fifties in surge conditions.

Captain Jerry Kyd, commander of HMS Queen Elizabeth, commented on the initial deployment and the gradual increase in air wing numbers:

“We are constrained by the F-35 buy rate even though that was accelerated in SDSR in 2015, so initial operating capability numbers in 2020 are going to be very modest indeed. We will flesh it out with helicopters, and a lot depends on how many USMC F-35s come on our first deployment in 2021. But by 2023, we are committed to 24 UK jets onboard, and after that it’s too far away to say.”

In 2023, the UK will have 42 F-35 aircraft, with 24 being front-line fighters and the remaining 18 will be used for training (at least 5 on the OCU), be in reserve or in maintenance.



In addition to the joint force of Royal Air Force and Royal Navy F-35Bs and their pilots, the air wing is expected to be composed of a ‘Maritime Force Protection’ package of nine anti-submarine Merlin HM2 and four or five Merlin for airborne early warning; alternatively a ‘Littoral Manoeuvre’ package could include a mix of RAF Chinooks, Army Apaches, Merlin HC4 and Wildcat HM2. The Crowsnest AEW&C aircraft will come from a number of the embarked Merlins (any of which can be fitted with the sensor package), the number again scaling with requirements.

We understand that vessel would still carry at least one F-35 squadron aboard in such circumstances to offer air defence as well as support to the helicopter assault activities.

2. ‘The computer systems run on Windows XP’.

Confusion on this often brought up myth seems to come from the fact former Defence Secretary Michael Fallon didn’t deny the suggestion the vessels used Windows XP after an image of a laptop appearing to use the operating system (OS) surfaced, the only trouble with this is he doesn’t actually seem to know any better. The Queen Elizabeth class run on the Shared Infrastructure operating system.

While I was on-board, a number of monitors displayed the XP boot screen, this has been reported by many to indicate the carrier runs on Windows XP. Now, why is it wrong to say the carriers run on XP?

Simply put, the system is used in the same way Windows RE is used on commercial machines today, as a recovery and maintenance environment. The use of one operating system in the maintenance of another is not uncommon. XP doesn’t run any systems on-board either carrier.

The vessel is already largely dependent on the Shared Infrastructure OS, for various systems to use XP or a derivative alongside this for anything other than testing, calibration etc would seem to make little sense. While many on board systems used by contractors for various tasks use Windows XP, Windows 7 and various other operating systems, none of these are directly involved in running the vessel and will not be present when the ship enters operation service according to the Ministry of Defence.

It should be noted that none of these systems that use XP in this manner are vulnerable to outside attack in the same way the NHS and other organisations were hit. Speculation was rife on this very topic two years ago an image of Windows XP was seen on a technicians laptop during a documentary, let’s dig a little deeper shall we?



The earlier rumours seem to have stemmed from a wallpaper on the laptop owned by an engineer that was visible on a recent documentary while the later rumours again seen to have stemmed from a background on a laptop coupled with the Defence Secretary not being particularly knowledgeable on naval operating systems and being unable to comment.

“The MoD can confirm that Windows XP will not be used by any onboard system when the ship becomes operational, this also applies to HMS Prince of Wales.”

This would appear to agree that XP (or rather, a varient of Windows similar to XP) is being used to test and calibrate the systems by contractors prior to operational service.

3. ‘Smaller carriers would have been a better idea’.

Much has been made of the claim two or three smaller ships would be cheaper or more effective than two large carriers but is this really true? The two Queen Elizabeth class carriers can accommodate around twice as many aircraft as the three Invincible class. This metric isn’t the primary advantage of a larger ship class as each F-35B is considerably larger than a Harrier and has much better performance.

There’s very little reason not to build larger carriers, it was once estimated that steel accounted for only about 20 percent of the cost of the ship.



The smaller the carrier, the fewer aircraft it can support and the greater waste of resources it becomes when compared to larger carriers. The smaller the carrier, the more the vessels size restricts the performance of the aircraft onboard. The three Invincible class carriers, which the Queen Elizabeth class will replace, operated small and relatively low performance Sea Harriers. The larger F-35 that will operate from the new carriers is more effective than the Sea Harrier. It carries much more and it flies much faster and much farther. It’s also a more complicated aircraft, requiring more equipment and personnel.



A carrier accommodating as many F-35Bs as the Invincible accommodated Sea Harriers would be far larger by necessity in order to effectively operate the modern, larger aircraft.

The ships former commanding officer, Captain Simon Petitt, rightfully pointed out that there is a lot of symbolism in modern warfare and that having a ship the size of HMS Queen Elizabeth, which will be the navy’s biggest ever, was significant. The sight of a heavily equipped 70,000 tonne carrier, which is almost 300 metres long, heading towards a potential enemy had a deterrent effect that is essential if the UK wants to project influence across the world Petitt claims.

“It is massively visible, you can range back in history and see the value of this. Everything from Nelson deterring Admiral Villeneuve from leaving Cadiz all the way to the big battleships of early 20th century, to what we are doing now. The Americans use it all the time. We currently haven’t got this level of carrier capability. The bigger the capability the more influence you have to bear.”

So great is the impact of larger vessels as a deterrent, they’re often used as a geopolitical chess piece. American governments have, since the second world war, moved aircraft carriers around to demonstrate American resolve.

The particular benefits of using carriers in this way are that they operate on the high seas, where permission is not needed from other countries. Indeed, since modern US carriers are large and imposing they “show the flag” to great effect due to their sheer size alone.

Equally, it is often argued that had the Royal Navy had two full sized carriers in 1982 it is more than possible that Argentina would not have attempted to take the Falklands in the first place. Larger carriers don’t have to be packed to bursting point with aircraft to achieve their greatest effectiveness, even with fewer aircraft on board, a ship with a large flight deck can rearm and refuel aircraft much more quickly, this is typically why they allow for much higher sortie generation rates than smaller vessels.

The more crowded the flight deck, the slower the turn-around of each aircraft, the lower the sortie generation rate.

Size also offers greater storage capacity, larger vessels do not have to be resupplied as often, impacting both the effectiveness of the carrier and her vulnerability. Because a carrier is more vulnerable when being replenished, the vessel typically withdraws from station for that function. Much of the time lost is the time spent heading away from station and returning. The smaller the carrier, the more time lost and a bigger logistics chain required in support.



A larger ship is likely to survive damage that will sink or disable a smaller one. The smaller the proportion of a ship that gets damaged, the better the chance that the ship can survive the damage and keep on fighting. It takes sheer size to provide enough protection against all the weapons likely to be used against a carrier, from bombs to cruise missiles to torpedoes.

If a complement of aircraft that would typically be found on one large carrier is split among several smaller carriers, then each vessel needs its own escorts unless they operate together. This would require more resources to operate effectively. It might be argued that splitting up a carrier force would make it more difficult for an enemy to deal with all of it at once but the price paid in escorting ships would be high, making it unfeasible for most navies. Indeed, the most significant effect this would have would be requiring more smaller carriers to do the job of one large vessel, further increasing costs. Each of the smaller carriers in the group is less survivable, more wasteful and less effective than a single larger ship.

4. ‘There are no escort ships to protect her’.

It’s fairly obvious that manning and technical issues with the escort fleet have been causing availability problems but there are still 19 escorts in varying states of readiness. A senior Royal Navy officer recently insisted that the Royal Navy has enough warships to protect HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Rear Admiral Burton, Commander UK maritime forces, said:

“We have enough frigates and destroyers to protect that task group. We will use coalition frigates and destroyers, but we have enough to deliver a sovereign task group.

We’re building OPVs as well to deliver some of the capabilities that would otherwise be delivered by frigates and destroyers.

So I’m confident that with the eight Type 26s, the six Type 45s, the OPVs and the Type 31s that are coming online, that will be sufficient to protect the task group and deliver the other responsibilities that the department asks of us.”

HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Sutherland and HMS Iron Duke.

There’s no real doubt the UK will be able to provide enough escorts to sail with HMS Queen Elizabeth should the situation require it, with each deployment sailing with what the Royal Navy believe to be the best fit be it British vessels or a mix of British and allied ships.

5. ‘One of the ships will be sold/mothballed’.

There are no plans to sell either Queen Elizabeth class ship, zero, nada, zilch. Both ships are also entering service and will both be used, even for trials.

HMS Prince of Wales will take over F-35 trials to allow HMS Queen Elizabeth to return to dock for her routine re-certification work.

Former Captain of the vessel Ian Groom told media that HMS Prince of Wales will need to be delivered during 2019 to allow flight trails to continue whilst Queen Elizabeth is undergoing inspection in dry dock. HMS Prince of Wales is currently on track for float out and to start sea trials in mid-2019.

Quoted in Janes, Groom said:

“There is a further set of fixed-wing flying trials needed and HMS Prince of Wales has to carry them out. HMS Queen Elizabeth’s re-certification period in 2019 means we need HMS Prince of Wales then.”

The builders are already applying lessons from including improvements to the process of preparing its heat-resistant flight deck and installing an improved F-35 landing light systems earlier in the build process. Both vessels, clearly, will be entering service and covering each others refits, maintenance and work up periods.

6. ‘The Americans will be the first to use HMS Queen Elizabeth’.

Recently, the Ministry of Defence confirmed plans for the deployment of American F-35 aircraft alongside British jets aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth. However the important thing here is to remember that the US jets will augment the British jets. Not replace them and not operate from them alone.

Squadron Leader Andy Edgell is currently testing F-35 jets in the United States ahead of their trials on HMS Queen Elizabeth next year. He will be the first to fly from the vessel in an F-35.

“She’s marvellous. She has an incredible amount of thrust but it’s more than just brawn that makes her so fantastic to fly – it’s the brains behind her as well. She’s a masterful piece of engineering and it makes her so effortless to fly. It’s impossible not to be exhilarated every time. She’s a beast when you want her to be and tame when you need her to be. She’s beautiful.

The launch of the F35s from the HMS Queen Elizabeth is a once in a generation historical event. To be the first to fly off the carrier, to have a front row seat, would be an absolute privilege. It wouldn’t just be about the pilot – there are hundreds of people who have been working tirelessly behind the scenes to make this happen and the honour will be theirs too.”

FILE PHOTO: Two British F-35Bs.

There are already 150 UK personnel out in the US working with the state-of-the-art jets, and the latest course of UK pilots have just finished their ground school training and are now ready to fly the F-35B at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort in South Carolina.

It is understood that the US aircraft will augment British jets on coalition operations, not replace them and not be the first to fly from the new carriers.

7. ‘The F-35 jets themselves are American’.

The F-35 features a significant amount of British developed components in addition to the 15% of every jet sold globally physically being built in Britain. It’s a multinational effort.

As the only Level 1 partner, the United Kingdom has garnered tremendous economic benefits from the F-35. British industry will build 15% of each of the more than 3,000 planned F-35s, in addition to a large volume of British developed aircraft systems including the electronic warfare suite. Some estimates put the jet at 30% British developed (not built) content. The programme at peak will generate significant export revenue and GDP growth. The programme is projected to create and support more than 25,000 jobs across every region of the United Kingdom. Hundreds of British software engineers with BAE have played a leading role in creating software for the F-35 aircraft that will be operational with the US Air Force later this year.

The software team at the BAE site in Samlesbury, Lancashire, has worked alongside Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor on the F-35 programme, to deliver the latest update known as ‘Block 3i’. There are more than eight million lines of code required for full operational capability. Block 3i equips the aircraft with 89% of the software code required.

John Brindle, principal engineer for F-35 Lightning II Development, said:

“Beginning with Jaguar, BAE Systems has a long history and world-class expertise in developing software for aircraft systems. We have made a significant contribution to 3i, including producing software for the fuel management system, on-board vehicle systems, structural health management and elements of the navigation and cockpit display system.”

According to Lockheed Martin:

“The fingerprints of British ingenuity can be found on dozens of the aircrafts key components. BAE Systems, GE Aviation, Martin-Baker, SELEX, Cobham, Ultra Electronics, UTC Actuation Systems and Rolls-Royce are just a few of the more than 100 U.K.-based suppliers for the programme.”

UK industry will provide approximately 15% of the value of each F-35 to be built, more than 3,000, worth some £1 billon and generating around 25,000 British jobs. Some have even said the F-35B features more British content than Harrier Gr9.

8. ‘The ships were only built to benefit Scottish yards and have no strategic purpose’.

There were 3,000 people in Rosyth, with another 8,000 people working at sites around Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland were involved in everything from building segments of the hull to parts of the systems installed on the ships. Then there’s the wider supply chain network, involving hundreds of companies around the UK. In short, the jobs created and the effort going into this new British built icon are unprecedented for a single project in the 21st century.

The origins of the massive and sometimes controversial Queen Elizabeth class carrier programme lie in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review.

The review re-evaluated every weapon system (active or in procurement) with the exception of the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines.

Queen Elizabeth in build in Rosyth.

The report identified that aircraft carriers offered the following:

Ability to operate offensive aircraft abroad when foreign basing may be denied.

All required space and infrastructure; where foreign bases are available they are not always available early in a conflict and infrastructure is often lacking.

A coercive and deterrent effect when deployed to a trouble spot.

The report concluded:

“The emphasis is now on increased offensive air power, and an ability to operate the largest possible range of aircraft in the widest possible range of roles.

When the current carrier force reaches the end of its planned life, we plan to replace it with two larger vessels.”

In November 2004, while giving evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee, First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Alan West explained that the sortie rate and interoperability with the United States Navy were factors in deciding on the size of the carriers and the composition of the carriers’ air-wings:

“The reason that we have arrived at what we have arrived at is because to do the initial strike package, that deep strike package, we have done really quite detailed calculations and we have come out with the figure of 36 joint strike fighters, and that is what has driven the size of it, and that is to be able to deliver the weight of effort that you need for these operations that we are planning in the future.”

9. ‘Nuclear power would have been better’.

Cost is single-handedly the most prohibitive reason the Queen Elizabeth class are not nuclear powered. More conservative estimates say a reactor adds 280% to the lifetime costs of a ship.

Aircraft carriers typically only carry a month’s worth of aviation fuel, including US and French nuclear vessels, so need to be refuelled monthly anyway. There’s no real operational advantage to having the vessels nuclear powered, especially when weighed against the massive increase in costs.

RFA Tidespring conducts RAS trials with HMS Sutherland.

Tide Class tankers, of which RFA Tidespring is the first, are replacing the RFA’s current, ageing single-hulled tankers.A reactor requires specialist nuclear personnel, and facilities, that are expensive to acquire and maintain. While generators, and turbines require much easier and cheaper to train personnel.

Somewhat understandably given the overwhelming public and news media reaction to the slightest of cost increases, the MoD decided not to use nuclear propulsion because of its high cost and has chosen a propulsion system based on Rolls-Royce’s integrated electric propulsion system.

The propulsion system will consist of two Rolls-Royce Marine 36MW MT30 gas turbine alternators, providing over 70MW and four diesel engines providing approximately 40MW, with the total installed power approaching 110MW.

For more on why nuclear power doesn’t make much sense for the new carriers, I fully recommend ‘The reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth is not nuclear powered‘ by savetheroyalnavy.org.

10. ‘She is named after the current Queen Elizabeth’.

The name HMS Queen Elizabeth is a continuation of an historic Royal Navy name dating back over a century and the vessel herself is not named after the current monarch.

Battleship HMS Queen Elizabeth (1913).

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/myth...raft-carriers/

 
Danbones
#20
Russia builds 'unstoppable' 4,600mph missile that could destroy Royal Navy's new carriers

Anti-ship cruise missile flies more than twice the speed of a sniper’s bullet and could sink sophisticated warships in a single strike



https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-...ssile-10098362

These ships served no purpose other than to make the military industrial complex types rich so they can afford to go live somewhere else that's nice and has less taxes.


Now, if they coat the war head in cobalt, the whole local area and any ships it contains will be contaminated by radiation and that will be the end of that.
 
Blackleaf
#21
Russia has only got one aircraft carrier, and it often breaks down.
 
Curious Cdn
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

Russia builds 'unstoppable' 4,600mph missile that could destroy Royal Navy's new carriers
Anti-ship cruise missile flies more than twice the speed of a sniper’s bullet and could sink sophisticated warships in a single strike

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-...ssile-10098362
These ships served no purpose other than to make the military industrial complex types rich so they can afford to go live somewhere else that's nice and has less taxes.

Now, if they coat the war head in cobalt, the whole local area and any ships it contains will be contaminated by radiation and that will be the end of that.


"4600 mph" missiles can't go 4600 anywhere near sea level or they burn up/melt into aluminium goo. They go 4600 way up in the upper atmosphere where they can be seen by half the world and say LOOK AT ME!! I'M HERE!!

It is a propaganda weapon, at best.
 
Curious Cdn
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Russia has only got one aircraft carrier, and it often breaks down.

It's the same age as the oldest American carriers but the Russian one is a couple of generations behind them.

Steam turbine propulsion is from Grandad's time ..... my time.
 
Blackleaf
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

It's the same age as the oldest American carriers but the Russian one is a couple of generations behind them.
Steam turbine propulsion is from Grandad's time ..... my time.

The French are the same with their only carrier, the Charles de Gaulle. It keeps breaking down.

Britain's new carriers are cutting edge in that they require a smaller crew than the American ones.

 
Curious Cdn
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

The French are the same with their only carrier, the Charles de Gaulle.

It's nuclear powered, flies the advanced Rafales, uses catapults and is decades ahead of that clunky Russian tub.
 
Blackleaf
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

It's nuclear powered, flies the advanced Rafales, uses catapults and is decades ahead of that clunky Russian tub.

The Queen Elizabeth-class carriers will probably spend some of there time covering for the Charles de Gaulle when she makes one of her frequent scuttles for the dry-dock in Toulon.
 
Curious Cdn
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

The Queen Elizabeth-class carriers will probably spend some of there time covering for the Charles de Gaulle when she makes one of her frequent scuttles for the dry-dock in Toulon.

Only one will ever sail at a time.

The French need at least one more so that they are always able to have one available, all the time. A single carrier navy doesn't work. That is the issue.

A single anything Navy doesn't work.
 
Danbones
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

It's the same age as the oldest American carriers but the Russian one is a couple of generations behind them.
Steam turbine propulsion is from Grandad's time ..... my time.

Ummm that's because they know how to sink all you dummas without an antique carrier.

Duh.mah.
 
Danbones
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

It is a propaganda weapon, at best.

NO. You are.

Yorgie.
 
Curious Cdn
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

NO. You are.

Yorgie.

You really don't know what you are posting, do you?