HMS Queen Elizabeth. 3 years, no jets then scrapped.

M

Mr_Tigger

Guest
#2
Quite. I detest Labour and they are to blame for the problem, but this is no solution. CMD is utterly lacking in moral courage. He has the power to put this right but does nothing. As for that little oik Osborne...

Where does a chap like I, Tory to the bone, turn when even our chaps behave like this? I hope Fox will step into the breach and challenge for the leadership.
 
#3
The disgusting thing is that the forces vote should actually lie squarely with... UKIP.

One of the only parties with a serious plan to re-invest in defence.

What in hell's name has this country come to?
 
#5
This may seem a stupid question but no jets? then what the hell is the point of launching her in the first place.
Might as well just redesign her as a luxury liner.
Did you read the article? Simply because it is cheaper than cancelling the contract. Or changing the design to "luxury liner".

that contracts signed by the previous government meant that doing so would end up costing the taxpayer more than going ahead with both
May even get some use out of her as a helicopter carrier, you never know.
 
#6
Did you read the article? Simply because it is cheaper than cancelling the contract. Or changing the design to "luxury liner".

May even get some use out of her as a helicopter carrier, you never know.
Or we could fill her up with UK politicians and scuttle her!

Now THAT would be a reasonable use of taxpayers money on defence as it would fall under the category of removing the greatest threat to our nations well being and security.
 
#7
Did you read the article? Simply because it is cheaper than cancelling the contract. Or changing the design to "luxury liner".

May even get some use out of her as a helicopter carrier, you never know.
Yeah I read that I just wondered what the point of sailing her for three years was why not just sell her instantly.
As for helicopter carrier we have the Ocean (for now at least) and she is more than good enough, don't need an oversized hulk to do that job.
 
#9
Yeah I read that I just wondered what the point of sailing her for three years was why not just sell her instantly.
As for helicopter carrier we have the Ocean (for now at least) and she is more than good enough, don't need an oversized hulk to do that job.
We have her until PoW arrives with CATOBAR ... Ocean is having problems already. I reckon she'll be well tired by 2019.
 
#10
We have her until PoW arrives with CATOBAR ... Ocean is having problems already. I reckon she'll be well tired by 2019.
Still her name should be changed as I don't think HM will be flattered at having her namesake for what will be the most expensive and most useless ship ever to sail in the Royal Navy.
 
#11
Still her name should be changed as I don't think HM will be flattered at having her namesake for what will be the most expensive and most useless ship ever to sail in the Royal Navy.
OCEAN has been used well, and I make no apologies for repeating myself, but she was only built to civilian standards, and to run for about 10 years. She's now 12 years old and in my experience of her she really is struggling already. Plus she has a number of other problems inherent in her design.
 
#12
At the moment there appears to be no mention of equiping the carriers with catapult launch and arrestor gear. we could purchase the latest FA18 aircraft in bog standard US Navy spec we would also be able to recover and launch other NATO carrier capable aircraft.
 
#13
PoW will get EMCAT. Unfortunately, it is too late for QE and it appears that it won't be converted subsequently (and possibly even mothballed or sold). Thus, we'll have to wait until delivery of PoW in 2018 and F-35C IOC (which is the last variant due for IOC) until we can regain a semi-permanent (because it'll be lost when PoW is in refit) fixed wing capability. Harriers will be going because:

a. They were a relatively expensive fleet to operate.
b. Presumeably we need to find the additional cash to fund the EMCAT and F-35C.

I've said it so many times on this site and elsewhere that, for all its faults, STOVL F-35B offers the flexibility to retain a permanent and larger carrier strike capability. Had we gone down that route, QE could have entered service coincident with F-35B IOC, there would have been no 10 year gap in capability and both CVF could have operated the type (thus avoiding the issue about what happens when PoW is in refit).

A very, very sad day.

Regards,
MM
 
#14
Until the 'powers that be' base their deliberations and implementation on defence of the realm and not as I suspect is the present case, pandering to the defence industries and putting politics first. Shame on them.
 
F

fozzy

Guest
#15
PoW will get EMCAT. Unfortunately, it is too late for QE and it appears that it won't be converted subsequently (and possibly even mothballed or sold). Thus, we'll have to wait until delivery of PoW in 2018 and F-35C IOC (which is the last variant due for IOC) until we can regain a semi-permanent (because it'll be lost when PoW is in refit) fixed wing capability. Harriers will be going because:

a. They were a relatively expensive fleet to operate.
b. Presumeably we need to find the additional cash to fund the EMCAT and F-35C.

I've said it so many times on this site and elsewhere that, for all its faults, STOVL F-35B offers the flexibility to retain a permanent and larger carrier strike capability. Had we gone down that route, QE could have entered service coincident with F-35B IOC, there would have been no 10 year gap in capability and both CVF could have operated the type (thus avoiding the issue about what happens when PoW is in refit).

A very, very sad day.

Regards,
MM
Could we lease some F-18's of the Cousins to tide us over? Or even the Rafale-N from the French? One glimmer of hope: If you watch Fox's interview with the Beeb, he mentions Helicopters and UAV's will operate off both carriers until the 35's rock up.
 
#16
No because it's too late for QE to be fitted with EMCAT which is also not yet mature.

We could perhaps get FA-18E/F (better than Rafale) for PoW service entry in (it appears) 2018 but by that time we'll need to be running trials on F-35C so the cost of lease for such a short time would be prohibitive.

Meanwhile, there are currently no RPA/UAS which can operate off carriers other than in a very simple ISR role. We're not about to be ordering X-47.

Regards,
MM
 
#17
The ConDems are showing they are as unfit to govern as the last lot. The defence of our nation is always the priority.

One thing is certain, whatever eventuality they decide to ignore due to cost, will be the one that happens.

And once more it will be our blood which pays for their bean counting and betrayal.
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
There was a plan to build a third, larger CVF for the French though to a similar design.

Naturally we'll now find that the design is set in stone and the French won't want it. Announcing that it will be mothballed or sold has probably quartered her value in any case. The idea of selling the Queen Elizabeth to the French.... surely it couldn't happen anyway?

Cutting the surface fleet to allow the Navy to operate the biggest joke on the ocean waves for all of three years is possibly the worst defence decision I can recall, and there has been a great deal of competition.

Once again inter service bitching and posturing from senior officers who act as though they're competing with the politicians to be more useless, corrupt, short sighted and venal. What's the bet that they become brave once they've retired on full pension?

Keeping the Tornado for use in Afghanistan? Good hot and high aircraft the Tornado...
 
#19
David Cameron had wanted to scrap one of the two carriers, the largest and most expensive vessels in British naval history, but the review found that contracts signed by the previous government meant that doing so would end up costing the taxpayer more than going ahead with both. As a result, the two carriers will enter service, but one will be mothballed as soon as possible.
How is it possible to have a contract where the cancellation costs are greater than the build costs when the build has only just started?
 
#20
How is it possible to have a contract where the cancellation costs are greater than the build costs when the build has only just started?
Maybe it's the state-of-the-art, complex integrated systems (electronic and otherwise) that have already been designed, developed, manufactured and assembled to fit into them? The hulls are relatively cheap steel ( 80,000 tonnes purchased for £65 million in March 2008 ) and the air inside is free.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top