How good will HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales be?

Hello sailors

Speaking as an interested occasional Pongo, I could hardly fail to note the naming of HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Now, obviously its massive by our standards, and I heard its Captain waxing lyrical as to how good it will be.

How good will it be?

How does it stack up against, say, the US flat tops and others?

TIA

B_B
 

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
Not good enough to warrant yet another chuffin' thread!
 
Good enough to play sixty games of tennis on simultaneously. That means we can "have" Wimbledon any day.
 
I know there's a tennis tournament taking-place at the mo, but could we stick to traditional methods of describing stuff, like comparisons to London omnibuses, and cricket balls?
 
despite F-35B being compromised, and the QE's being compromised, a QE with 30 F-35B's is going to be second only to a USN carrier in terms of its ability to break lots of stuff.

the programme is going to deliver a platform/system that is going to be far less than it could have been and will cost far more than it needed to, but its still going to be an order of magnitude better than a Russian or Chinese carrier flying SU-27 derivatives (not, you'll note, that you'll be able to find a picture of an SU-27 or MiG-29 leaving a carrier with a decent warload..).

its a bitter-sweet day. much more could have been achieved.
 
One of them there Nuclear tipped torpedos would make a mess of it though.
 
You can stand on deck and be as high as Niagara Falls, lots of room for tennis on the flight deck
@Gungythree Listen here, my good man. I've already warned you once today about incorrect usage of BS units of measurement. You'll be off to the guardhouse shortly if you keep this up. I will, exceptionally, accept size expressed to wildlife - but only because it's "be environmentally aware day" where I am.
 
@Gungythree Listen here, my good man. I've already warned you once today about incorrect usage of BS units of measurement. You'll be off to the guardhouse shortly if you keep this up. I will, exceptionally, accept size expressed to wildlife - but only because it's "be environmentally aware day" where I am.
Sorry, I misplaced my Jumbo jet, London Double decker conversion chart.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
despite F-35B being compromised, and the QE's being compromised, a QE with 30 F-35B's is going to be second only to a USN carrier in terms of its ability to break lots of stuff.
It's also such a big financial investment that it'll only be used against third rate powers. No one will risk their very expensive toy against any nation with either capable fast air or submarines.

Wordsmith
 
It's also such a big financial investment that it'll only be used against third rate powers. No one will risk their very expensive toy against any nation with either capable fast air or submarines.

Wordsmith
Or a speedboat full of explosives and a suicidal driver? See USS Cole for directions.
 
Not as good as they look.

We should have procured fully functional carriers, or if that was beyond our needs or capabilities a number of 21st century through deck cruisers instead of HMS Compromise and HMS Fudge.

But we've got 'em, or one of 'em at least and it's designed with willy waving in mind so waved it will be, ad nauseam probably.
 
Is it like public schools, do we have to get their names down now to get them in to a good war?

Gotta feel for Lizzie "I name this memorial, sorry ship...."
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I think the other threads have covered it.

We compromise a lot by going with the F-35B and ramps. The 'B' might meet our Air requirement but it's the runt of the litter. We also lose out on the MASC front because we go rotary, not fixed-wing. We also kick the can along the road in terms of UAV/UCAV operations, which will be the future, because they'll need the flat/angled deck.

It's a fine capability - better than anything we've had before - but then given the march of technology and time, so it bloody well should be. However, we've compromised a LOT to get the carriers. The Navy is now seriously unbalanced and far too small - is that or has that been a price worth paying? And, given that we're arguably out of expeditionary warfare now, is it a capability too many years too late which has cost us far too much in other areas to deliver?
 
I think it was Michael Clark of RUSI who was making the point that the Andrew would pretty much have to send all its warships to protect one of these ships should it go to a proper war.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top