New HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carrier arrives in Portsmouth
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
Count them, moron.
List them:
Don't forget, for every one of them at sea, at least one is in work ups or re-fit.
http://news.sky.com/story/size-of-r...chairman-of-defence-select-committee-11771371
Myth: ‘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.
There are plans to have both Queen Elizabeth-class carriers operating at the same time. It might not be a continuous thing, but there will be times when both are sailing at the same time.
You can only do that with the extensive assistance of your allies. The RN no longer has the ability to put a task force of their own together.
I guarantee that they will not sail together except for some quicky PR shot or during an extreme national emergency.
They will pass each other in the Channel fog and wave.
That is the traditional cycle but in recent times, warships have become so expensive that the ratio is now "one in two" and not "one in three".
The Royal Navy does it, our navy does it. Most of our allies do it and, increasingly, the US Navy is doing it, too.
She never goes anywhere without a tug boat in her posse.
It was a hunk of junk the day that it was launched.
The original "Prince of Wales".
"The Prince of Wales was a convict transport ship in the First Fleet. The First Fleet carried the convicts and soldiers to Australia to start a penal colony. The ships left England in May 1787 and arrived in Australia in January 1788. This was the start of European settlement of Australia. The Prince of Wales was a ship of 350 tons under the command of John Mason. [1] She was built on the Thames in 1786.[2] She was 103 ft (31 m) long and 29 ft (9 m) wide.[3] The ship had a contract with the British Government to carry convicts. The owners were paid at a rate of 10 shillings per ton per month until the ship got back to Deptford. They had to agree to keep the prisoners secure and safe.[1] This was the last ship to be chosen for the voyage after the Navy realized that they did not have enough space for the extra people, equipment, and supplies on the ten ships. There was one male convict and forty-nine female convicts which meant that there were only fifty convicts on the ship.
The Prince of Wales was still sailing around England up until 1797. In 1797 she was moved to Fort Royal, Martinique."\https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Wales_(ship)
"The Prince of Wales was a convict transport ship in the First Fleet. The First Fleet carried the convicts and soldiers to Australia to start a penal colony. The ships left England in May 1787 and arrived in Australia in January 1788. This was the start of European settlement of Australia. The Prince of Wales was a ship of 350 tons under the command of John Mason. [1] She was built on the Thames in 1786.[2] She was 103 ft (31 m) long and 29 ft (9 m) wide.[3] The ship had a contract with the British Government to carry convicts. The owners were paid at a rate of 10 shillings per ton per month until the ship got back to Deptford. They had to agree to keep the prisoners secure and safe.[1] This was the last ship to be chosen for the voyage after the Navy realized that they did not have enough space for the extra people, equipment, and supplies on the ten ships. There was one male convict and forty-nine female convicts which meant that there were only fifty convicts on the ship.
The Prince of Wales was still sailing around England up until 1797. In 1797 she was moved to Fort Royal, Martinique."\https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Wales_(ship)
How come you are always wrong sailor boi?
It's like you wiped your bum with a fakenews paper and are an suddenly an expert on politics AND radiation. But the news is: There are cobalt / nuclear torpedoes and space planes and trump is STILL in office.
Haha DumDum Yorgie. Still fighting the war before last.
Keep that sword sharp and that flint sharp!
I suppose if you were to admit the modern age doesn't include large easy to sink, city sized, floating targets though, there would suddenly be a shortage of cute little cabin bois signing up to be wiener warmers for you old (callused) hands....
US Navy admits failure on $760 million weapon to protect its aircraft carriers from an age-old threat
The US Navy has shed light on a previously secret project to protect aircraft carriers from the grave and widespread threat of torpedoes, and it's been a massive failure.
The Navy abandoned a program to detect and kill incoming torpedoes in the water after it failed to make progress in testing, leaving its most powerful ships highly vulnerable.
The anti-torpedo systems in place will now be removed at a time when US carriers are losing simulated battles to even older, diesel-powered electric submarines, and China's military is openly discussing sinking carriers to defeat the US.
The US spent $760 million on the system to save US ships, and now it looks like even old North Korean subs could have a chance at a kill shot on the US's carrier fleet.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-...torpedos-thatll-sink-aircraft-carriers-2019-2
WE do NOT want any fish sinker brained Yorgies defending OUR country. WE need a SMART military.
Last edited:
You mean on our carriers?How come you are always wrong sailor boi?
It's like you wiped your bum with a fakenews paper and are an suddenly an expert on politics AND radiation. But the news is: There are cobalt / nuclear torpedoes and space planes and trump is STILL in office.
Haha DumDum Yorgie. Still fighting the war before last.
Keep that sword sharp and that flint sharp!
I suppose if you were to admit the modern age doesn't include large easy to sink, city sized, floating targets though, there would suddenly be a shortage of cute little cabin bois signing up to be wiener warmers for you old (callused) hands....
US Navy admits failure on $760 million weapon to protect its aircraft carriers from an age-old threat
The US Navy has shed light on a previously secret project to protect aircraft carriers from the grave and widespread threat of torpedoes, and it's been a massive failure.
The Navy abandoned a program to detect and kill incoming torpedoes in the water after it failed to make progress in testing, leaving its most powerful ships highly vulnerable.
The anti-torpedo systems in place will now be removed at a time when US carriers are losing simulated battles to even older, diesel-powered electric submarines, and China's military is openly discussing sinking carriers to defeat the US.
The US spent $760 million on the system to save US ships, and now it looks like even old North Korean subs could have a chance at a kill shot on the US's carrier fleet.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-...torpedos-thatll-sink-aircraft-carriers-2019-2
WE do NOT want any fish sinker brained Yorgies defending OUR country. WE need a SMART military.