Model Boat Mayhem - Forum

Mess Deck: General Section => Full Scale Ships => Topic started by: Colin Bishop on May 29, 2017, 10:14:58 PM

Title: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on May 29, 2017, 10:14:58 PM
Can people keep their ears to the ground re the arrival of the QE at Portsmouth?

Watching her come through the entrance will be quite a sight and I would very much like to see it.

I would imagine that her arrival would be timed during daylight and at high tide to reduce the likelihood of problems.

Colin
Title: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on May 30, 2017, 07:35:05 AM

Ears to the ground sir...although all those ears are picking up is stories of delays, mechanical problems and build quality issues. The latest talks of paint falling off the ships sides due to poor quality control cleaning up weld lines. Now this could just be sour grapes from the local lads after all the major work was sent to Scotland, but when you hear it from so many sources, you do begin to wonder who is responsible for this stupidity!
Now that Bae Systems have snuffed out the residual skill sets that were inherited from Vospers and their work force, it seems we are having our multi-billion pound 'strategic assets' built by that welder from down the pub that can sort your car out. A bit strong, I know, but when well thought out defence planning and strategy is replaced with gold plated contracts, that serve only big business and industry. it makes me just that little bit >>:-( .....




Sorry about letting this fella  >>:-( out, but it is either him, or  <:( , and that is just depressing
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: derekwarner on May 30, 2017, 08:30:53 AM
A little off location but........

multi-billion pound $ 'strategic assets' built by that welder from down the pub

However that's how our OZ warships are built.........yes from daily Labour Hire Companies....... >>:-(

eg., posted at the local Hotel Notice Boards ......31.05.2017....Shipyard Labour Requirements ....

"two pressure ticketed welders, six licenced electricians, one hydraulic engineer, two qualified weapons planners"

Interested applicants should apply at the Shipyard gates at 0600 with Trade Certificates, Australian Government Birth Certificate, Government Security Clearances etc...etc......

NB.......this is for 31.05.2017 only, work vacancies  for the next day 01.06.2017 will be advertised tomorrow night!!!!!!!!!!!!

How would politicians  :kiss: like it if their Office Staff were hired on a similar system <*< %% ................

Derek
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: BrianB6 on June 02, 2017, 12:40:59 AM
No wonder our new LHD's are in dock already! >>:-(
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Brian60 on June 02, 2017, 04:02:44 PM
Sometime after WW2, the governments of the world lost control of their own countries and big business took over the reigns in pursuit of bigger and bigger profits. Sadly the world has gone downhill ever since.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Netleyned on June 02, 2017, 04:16:49 PM



 The latest talks of paint falling off the ships sides due to poor quality control cleaning up weld lines.



Send for Stavros  :-))
Mr Jones, your country needs you {-)


Ned


Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Rob47 on June 05, 2017, 02:39:49 PM
HMS Queen Elizabeth seems due to commence sea trials 21-24 June
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Antipodean on June 05, 2017, 05:15:37 PM
Do they take passengers on the sea trials?
I have a friend and his wife who have booked passage on her in June.
I hope they won't be disappointed.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: dougal99 on June 05, 2017, 06:03:57 PM
Do they take passengers on the sea trials?
I have a friend and his wife who have booked passage on her in June.
I hope they won't be disappointed.


I think you are confusing HMS Queen Elizabeth, a new aircraft carrier for the Royal Navy and RMS Queen Elizabeth a Cunard cruise liner. Have a google.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: meechingman on June 05, 2017, 08:22:08 PM
Is the current QE an RMS? What Royal Mail is she carrying, or have they given her some sort of honorary title in respect of her illustrious predecessor?
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Antipodean on June 05, 2017, 10:14:55 PM
Thank you Dougal, I definitely was.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: tigertiger on June 27, 2017, 05:52:52 AM

Report, "Royal Navy £3.5bn carrier appears to be running Windows XP "
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/27/hms-queen-elizabeth-royal-navy-vulnerable-cyber-attack (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/27/hms-queen-elizabeth-royal-navy-vulnerable-cyber-attack)

If this is true:
Putting aside the fact that XP is no longer supported, and putting aside vulnerabilities/back doors/obsolescence etc.

Apart from cost saving...one has to ask a very big WHY?
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: roycv on June 27, 2017, 10:19:39 AM
Hi all, I had heard that there were only a few NHS installations affected.  Possibly those that were, were still on XP was because s/w operated by GP's etc was not compatible with Windows upgrades.
I do recall that here and elsewhere there were dire warnings about uograding to Windows 10.   
I ran on Linux/Apple before but that broke and my new laptop is Windows 10 and seems alright to me.
regards Roy
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on June 27, 2017, 10:45:17 AM
A Google search provides the answer....

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-our-new-aircraft-carriers-dont-run-on-windows-xp/

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: TailUK on June 27, 2017, 10:52:34 AM
Is the current QE an RMS? What Royal Mail is she carrying, or have they given her some sort of honorary title in respect of her illustrious predecessor?


Queen Elizabeth 2 never had a Royal Mail Ship designation and as such should have been referred to as Steam Ship or Motor Vessel.  However given her unique status she was usually called "the" Queen Elizabeth 2 or "QE2".
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: 6705russell on June 27, 2017, 11:25:23 AM

Report, "Royal Navy £3.5bn carrier appears to be running Windows XP "
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/27/hms-queen-elizabeth-royal-navy-vulnerable-cyber-attack (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/27/hms-queen-elizabeth-royal-navy-vulnerable-cyber-attack)

If this is true:
Putting aside the fact that XP is no longer supported, and putting aside vulnerabilities/back doors/obsolescence etc.

Apart from cost saving...one has to ask a very big WHY?




The operating systems used are something that we will not know about or see on our streets for another 10 years, the technology we have now was implemented by the MOD years ago
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: tigertiger on June 27, 2017, 02:03:24 PM



The operating systems used are something that we will not know about or see on our streets for another 10 years, the technology we have now was implemented by the MOD years ago
 


I am having trouble with this sentence, as the second clause does not clearly agree with the first clause. In 1990 I was attached to a front line regiment that supposedly had the latest technology, which the US had had in service for 7 years already, and at the same time we still had some WW2 vehicles that just could not keep up on exercise.
I can agree when you say that the technology used was implemented years ago, but Moore's Law would suggest that such technology is far behind.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Baldrick on June 27, 2017, 03:11:43 PM



 probably be alright providing ship does not have an internet connection
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: DavieTait on June 27, 2017, 03:28:12 PM
https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/HMSQNLZ-IMO-4907892-MMSI-235107771

She's showing on AIS , have a check on the AIS "info" on HMS Sutherland just astern of her... they've listed her as a minesweeper not a Type 23 Frigate........

https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/HMS-SUTHERLAND-IMO-4906587-MMSI-232002833
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: tigertiger on June 29, 2017, 06:09:03 AM
A nice bit of time-lapse footage of the tugs pushing her out towards her first sea trip.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2017/jun/26/hms-queen-elizabeth-prepares-to-leave-port-video-report
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: SteamboatPhil on June 29, 2017, 07:20:42 PM
Blimey good job some of the paint did fall off otherwise they never would have got her through the gap.  ;)
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: ballastanksian on June 29, 2017, 08:24:02 PM
There were a lot of Tugs. It is good to see one of our new Carriers fired up and ready for trials and the future.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: dougal99 on June 30, 2017, 01:06:51 PM
Not everybody is impressed


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/29/russia-claims-hms-queen-elizabeth-large-convenient-target-warns/
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Rob47 on June 30, 2017, 01:45:43 PM

so what is the Russian carrier then? if not a large target, or does it have the Klingon invisibility cloak?
Bob
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on June 30, 2017, 02:24:22 PM
It certainly generates its own smoke screen!

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Netleyned on June 30, 2017, 02:57:37 PM
The Defence Sec and Ruski opportunity
are like a couple of kids in a p##sing contest.
Wait until Quackers arrives with his gusher >>:-(
Do we have to pay an idiot like Def Sec ?
He obviously has no thoughts for the Volunteer
Crew on this vessel.
Ned
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Bob K on June 30, 2017, 03:07:43 PM
. . . or does it have the Klingon invisibility cloak?
Bob

No, it requires two Type 45 Destroyers to provide that protection
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on June 30, 2017, 03:39:40 PM
Yes, one to provide the missile defence and the other to keep the lights on for the first one... %)

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Netleyned on June 30, 2017, 03:52:50 PM
The flight deck could provide overflow parking
for Navy Days {-)


Ned
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: deadbeat on June 30, 2017, 04:37:41 PM
Talk to any submariner and they'll tell you that there only two types of vessels: submarines and targets!

Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Brian60 on July 02, 2017, 07:08:20 PM
Did anyone see the report earlier in the week that Russia is planning to build the worlds largest aircraft carrier, bigger even than the U.S Nimitz class carriers.

Now I see a problem with this not least that Russia has never built its own warships. No the problem is that they have always had them built at shipyards in the Ukraine, now after the last few years events in that country I think it highly unlikely that they will be building the carrier for Russia, then even more unlikely that it will ever be built {-)


http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-shtorm-storm-aircraft-carrier-nimitz-2017-4
 
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: ballastanksian on July 03, 2017, 08:39:20 PM
And it isn't just the costs, its the infrastructure to build it in the first place and then support it. I assume that Russia has some large ship building capacity, but where, and is it large enough for this proposed giant?

It's just more sabre rattling like the neuclear torpedo.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: davidm1945 on July 03, 2017, 09:48:17 PM
Latest news...

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2017/july/03/170703-young-pilot-makes-history-with-first-deck-landing-on-hms-queen-elizabeth
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on July 26, 2017, 06:07:27 PM
Portsmouth News are trumpeting a rumoured arrival date of Monday August 21st. Just for reference, high tide is 11:45 and is a 4.8m spring tide, while low water is 17:00 and is 0.7m. So let us go with a national news pleasing lunchtime arrival :-))

All still rumours at present though..
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Bob K on July 26, 2017, 10:24:26 PM
Please keep us posted.  I will be heading for Southsea when things are confirmed.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: ballastanksian on July 29, 2017, 05:48:32 PM
It makes me proud to see not just the Queen Elizabeth, but also two escort ships with her sailing. It is good to know that we can put a 'Carrier group' to sea. Maybe the Navy will build a couple more Type 23's to guarantee enough escorts, just in case  :-)
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on July 29, 2017, 08:16:31 PM
It makes me proud to see not just the Queen Elizabeth, but also two escort ships with her sailing. It is good to know that we can put a 'Carrier group' to sea. Maybe the Navy will build a couple more Type 23's to guarantee enough escorts, just in case  :-)


I think they are going with RE-building the Type 23s instead...
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: derekwarner on July 29, 2017, 10:40:50 PM
Your Mr Boris man has just spent a few days in OZ   :o :embarrassed: :P  talking about many things including the Chinese spy vessel in near waters

So being so bold Boris may recommend maybe after the QE sea trials are completed  <*< ......deploy her to the South China Sea for a reckie  :P
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: kinmel on July 30, 2017, 08:41:35 AM
Your Mr Boris man has just spent a few days in OZ   :o :embarrassed: :P  talking about many things including the Chinese spy vessel in near waters

So being so bold Boris may recommend maybe after the QE sea trials are completed  <*< ......deploy her to the South China Sea for a reckie  :P

M.o.D. have now decided on which aircraft will fly from QE until the F35B's are fit for service....    www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUS5Ho5Msyc
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: BarryM on July 30, 2017, 08:47:31 AM


Ears to the ground sir...although all those ears are picking up is stories of delays, mechanical problems and build quality issues. The latest talks of paint falling off the ships sides due to poor quality control cleaning up weld lines. Now this could just be sour grapes from the local lads after all the major work was sent to Scotland, but when you hear it from so many sources, you do begin to wonder who is responsible for this stupidity!
Now that Bae Systems have snuffed out the residual skill sets that were inherited from Vospers and their work force, it seems we are having our multi-billion pound 'strategic assets' built by that welder from down the pub that can sort your car out. A bit strong, I know, but when well thought out defence planning and strategy is replaced with gold plated contracts, that serve only big business and industry. it makes me just that little bit >>:-( .....
Sorry about letting this fella  >>:-( out, but it is either him, or  <:( , and that is just depressing


I've just caught up with this thread and noticed the penultimate sentence. When did the UK Government and more particularly the MoD commence "well thought-out defence planning and strategy"? 
BM
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: warspite on July 30, 2017, 09:44:35 AM


I've just caught up with this thread and noticed the penultimate sentence. When did the UK Government and more particularly the MoD commence "well thought-out defence planning and strategy"? 
BM

The military guys have - its the civil service guys who are incompetent and have ignored the military guys.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: derekwarner on July 30, 2017, 09:51:35 AM
Love it kinmel   {-)..is it a Fairy Swordfish?  I am not sure what the Pilot is saluting?.......:P................... Derek
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: BarryM on July 30, 2017, 10:00:06 AM

I don't think the pilot is saluting; there appears to be two people aft of him with one of them peering into the distance.
BM
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on July 30, 2017, 10:05:35 AM
But it's often the military guys who want to keep updating the specification to include the latest must haves - usually at huge expense which can't be afforded. Being at the leading edge (such as the JSF) means that you hit all the obstacles. We might have been better off fitting out the carriers to operate the US F18 Super Hornets and phase them out later on in favour of the JSF catapult version if and when its faults have been ironed out.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: kinmel on July 30, 2017, 01:14:37 PM
But it's often the military guys who want to keep updating the specification to include the latest must haves - usually at huge expense which can't be afforded. Being at the leading edge (such as the JSF) means that you hit all the obstacles. We might have been better off fitting out the carriers to operate the US F18 Super Hornets and phase them out later on in favour of the JSF catapult version if and when its faults have been ironed out.

Colin

But we don't have enough room to add boilers for the catapults.

We could have kept the Harriers until a viable option turned up.   The U.S. Marines are still flying the airframes we threw out.

It is probably better to have them sailing round empty; at least then losses would not be as great when it sinks on first contact with an enemy. It may be ok if the "fleet" with type 45s stays out of warm waters, but can you reach China and Australia without passing through the tropics?
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on July 30, 2017, 01:44:42 PM
I think the idea was to use the new electromagnetic catapults but I did see a report that they are proving so violent that they are stressing the airframes - not good if the cockpit goes one way and the rest of the plane the other, not to mention the pilot's eyeballs emerging from his ears...

The US Navy have had several rather public failures with its new ships recently such as the Littoral Combat Ships and the USS Zumwalt which has proved to be too expensive.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: raflaunches on July 30, 2017, 01:52:03 PM
From someone who has bit of knowledge about the F-35... %)


Everyone says that the aircraft will take years to sort out problems when it's in service and that the program is years behind schedule. I shall explain what I know is true...
The aircraft should be all singing and dancing when it enters service able to do everything that it was designed to do. This is due to the other primary partner, BAe Systems, learning from its own mistakes with the development of the Typhoon. They are the manufacturer who produces the avionics and the rear fuselage/tail section for Lockheed Martin. When Typhoon entered service just over ten years ago it was a fantastic display aircraft but it couldn't fire the weapons that a Tornado could i.e. Storm Shadow and Brimstone. It has taken ten years to retro fit the system so it can! The F-35 is going to have these capabilities too but the RAF and RN say that they are not prepared to wait another ten years to have the system retro fitted to a brand new aircraft and rightly so. The Americans are interested in buying Brimstone from us and common sense has prevailed in not allowing the B-variant to be mass produced until it is fitted. Also in the past the big American aircraft companies have rushed aircraft into service and taken up to ten years to get the aircraft to work safely and properly.
So in the long run it may seem that the program is years behind schedule but is actually the first one ever to be on time to allow a fully functional stealth fighter/bomber to work first time without the need for the RAF/RN to buy in three years time the next updated variant and so on until they get what they want!


Strangely the F-18 is not available as such anymore! I went on exercise last year flying with the (I think) Canadian F18 Hornets and they spent more time on the ground then we did! Apparently they stopped making parts for them! :o
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on July 30, 2017, 01:55:42 PM
Thanks for that Nick, interesting.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Bowwave on July 31, 2017, 07:35:08 PM
Given the fact that the RN/RAF is committed to operating the F35b  version of the F35 program  on the QE . What is perhaps less well known is the circumstances  as to   how we arrived at  such a controversial aeroplane .  It is true in part that  a number of features of the F35b can be attributed to the  Soviet Yak 141 as Lockheed paid  Yakablev back in 1992 $383m   for the two remaining prototypes.   It's generally accepted  that  certain  technical details ,     particularly  those relating to  the lift fan arrangement  sited just to the rear of the cockpit which  was also a part of  the  earlier  Yak 38 and   is a definitive feature of the F35B.    A  fixed lift system similar to that on the 141 and the F35B was used   on a  French  Mirage 111V    a supposedly   Mach 2  VTOL fighter  but the project was cancelled in the mid 1960s . The real twist to this controversial saga in the early 1960s  Hawker aviation  had developed a mach 1.2 VTOL fighter the P1154  but that was cancelled when much of the airframe had been completed but prior to flight testing .   The first Yak 141  was lost aboard the  Admiral Gorshkov  whilst undertaking   VTOL deck landings.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Rob47 on August 01, 2017, 10:26:51 PM

Defence Secretary has announced today (Tuesday) that HMS Queen Elizabeth will be arriving at Portsmouth in the next few weeks, putting an end to rumours


The ship is visiting Scapa flow on Wednesday, arrival time estimate 0730


Bob
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: BrianB6 on August 02, 2017, 01:14:37 AM
Defence Secretary has announced today (Tuesday) that HMS Queen Elizabeth will be arriving at Portsmouth in the next few weeks, putting an end to rumours
Bob
Presumably not until the channel is deep enough and they have removed all the old explosives.  %%
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-40787660
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Rob47 on August 02, 2017, 08:54:09 AM
well she was on national news announcing it and the dockyard is frantically working to be ready in time.  Have to wait and see.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: deadbeat on August 02, 2017, 01:03:52 PM
It is rumoured that the dates for her arrival at Portsmouth are Friday 18th or Monday 21st. Also the reason why she's coming to Portsmouth early and not going back into Rosyth is that she used 11 tugs to get out of there and it would take the same to get her back in as well as the same to get back out again, quite a cost. She would also need to lower her mast again and of course wait for the right tide. Portsmouth can facilitate the work package. Anyway that's the story!
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Rob47 on August 02, 2017, 05:33:34 PM

It is rumoured that the dates for her arrival at Portsmouth are Friday 18th or Monday 21st. Also the reason why she's coming to Portsmouth early and not going back into Rosyth is that she used 11 tugs to get out of there and it would take the same to get her back in as well as the same to get back out again, quite a cost. She would also need to lower her mast again and of course wait for the right tide. Portsmouth can facilitate the work package. Anyway that's the story!


Sounds very plausible to me, hope it is 21st not 18th, get my licence back after my eye operation but not till 19th grrr


Bob
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Arrow5 on August 03, 2017, 03:02:27 PM
HMS Queen Elizabeth was in Scapa Flow yesterday. A ceremony to commemorate the first aircraft to land on a ship at sea was attended by crew members. Lt. Dunning  RNAS flew a Sopwith Pup onto the flight deck of a HMS Furious 100 years ago on 17th August 1917.   Sadly he was killed a few days later when attempting to repeat the feat. A memorial plaque was erected.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: ballastanksian on August 03, 2017, 09:40:09 PM
The model of Furious at Yeovilton is marvellous. Interesting info Colin, to think we have been using carriers for a century!
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Rob47 on August 07, 2017, 12:09:35 AM

seems the 18th is favourite ("xxxxx" still will not know if I can drive), supposed to pass round tower at 9am, high tide a few minutes after  People are booking hotels, which is ok BUT RN not confirmed it.


Is anyone near Gloucester thinking of going and could manage a lift for one poss two people, would contribute fuel costs of course.


Bob
.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on August 07, 2017, 11:31:00 AM
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/confirmed-supercarrier-hms-queen-elizabeth-could-arrive-in-portsmouth-as-early-as-thursday-august-17-1-8090267


So, it is confirmed that HMS Queen Elizabeth 'could' arrive between Aug 17th and Aug 22nd. Good news if you are planning to visit for a day! Still, I expect the first entry through the harbour mouth will be slow and steady, with the weather playing a big part of the operation. So we can now put weather watching into our search engines for the next couple of weeks also {-)
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: BrianB6 on August 08, 2017, 12:10:52 AM
Bother!  <:(
Missed H.M.A.S. Canberra coming into Melbourne yesterday.
Not as big as QE but we do have 2 of them.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: derekwarner on August 08, 2017, 01:30:33 AM
I spent time tinkering <*< with the missile launcher, 76mm gun &  the CIWS on the previous HMAS Canberra & her main engines actually worked

This new HMAS Canberra......seatime? .....but that's only if her engines can rotate the pods ..........

A total embarrassment  :embarrassed: to the Australian Navy created by dumbsh*t  >>:-( Politicians...........

And yes, we do have two of the same specie 

Derek
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on August 08, 2017, 07:38:01 AM
We were going to have pods, decided against it. We were going to have electric catapults, decided against it.. Pods seem unreliable, catapults pulling the aircraft apart.....maybe things are looking up for the RN %)
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Bob K on August 08, 2017, 12:16:32 PM
Arrival watch. HMS Queen Elizabeth at Portsmouth.

Queens Harbour Master, Portsmouth.
Updated approx. mid day. giving shipping movements for next two days:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/qhm/portsmouth/shipping-movements (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/qhm/portsmouth/shipping-movements)
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on August 08, 2017, 01:59:46 PM
Also, useful to know, on Friday, after about lunchtime, they publish Friday through to Mondays movements. However by Saturday, it is back to just that day and the next..could be useful.

Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 08, 2017, 04:23:17 PM
I think it will be a late decision. This will be the biggest ship ever to enter Portsmouth and for the first time so they will want the weather and tidal envelope to be within strict limits. The won't want to risk scratching it.....

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Bob K on August 08, 2017, 04:59:06 PM
I believe they are being cagy as this is the first time anyone has tried getting anything that big into Portsmouth Harbour.  With a slight risk of a dented hull, or a flight deck scraped against the Round Tower ("Left hand down a bit"), the fewer people there to witness it the fewer red faces.  :embarrassed:
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 08, 2017, 05:11:08 PM
I think there will be a lot of people there, more than for the departure of the three Invincibles and there were a lot then. I live in Surrey so only an hour and a quarter from Portsmouth and quite happy to get up early for it. The locals will be out in force too.

I have an annual dockyard ticket and when the ship is berthed there should be a good view from the balcony of the RN Museum Victory gallery. I imagine the local pleasure boats will be busy too.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on August 08, 2017, 06:54:10 PM
Plan your parking early. I would suggest the Park and Ride on the M275, it only has about 600 or so spaces, but buses link to Gunwharf Quays every fifteen minutes. About another ten minute walk to Old Portsmouth, or watch it at Gunwharf, or up the Spinnaker Tower. Parking is restricted in Old Portsmouyh but there should be ample pay and display either further up the seafront or just inland a road or two....or live locally and ride your bike!!
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Arrow5 on August 10, 2017, 01:06:04 PM
HMS Queen Elizabeth entered Invergordon Harbour, Ross-shire, again yesterday 9th Aug for refuelling prior to heading south. Large crowds were drawn to the town and special parking and speed limits were put in place. The Black Isle had similar restrictions on the other side of the Firth. Going to be hectic in Portsmouth when she arrives.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: deadbeat on August 10, 2017, 01:44:41 PM
If I had to take a bet on the day she arrives I would go for the Friday so as to give the crew weekend leave. This of course is weather and tide dependant, especially wind, we wouldn't want to see her do a Vanguard.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Arrow5 on August 10, 2017, 01:48:43 PM
Some very nice videos on Youtube of her previous visit to the Cromarty Firth a fortnight ago.  Try this one by Royal Navy from on board HMS Queen Elizabeth and the cruise liner of similar name . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-qRiP3ekNc 
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Netleyned on August 10, 2017, 06:10:18 PM
If I had to take a bet on the day she arrives I would go for the Friday so as to give the crew weekend leave. This of course is weather and tide dependant, especially wind, we wouldn't want to see her do a Vanguard.


If I were still in the Andrew and serving on a carrier,
Ex Victorious, Centaur and The Big E
I would be expecting Thursday
to get squared away for LWE Friday
and some LB's aka watchkeepers, sliding
off for an extenders fr Thurs Tea!
Ned
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 10, 2017, 06:19:54 PM
Friday seems to be the logical day if the weather holds. As someone has already said, high water Portsmouth is around 9:15 BST although the favourable tidal streams and period of slack water won't necessarily be at that time. I did have a tidal atlas for the area but it is packed away somewhere. Maybe a member with better knowledge of the subject can help out there.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Netleyned on August 10, 2017, 06:54:12 PM
If tidal streams and hws have to decide movements of a significant asset then I think she should park
where the Nimitz dropped her pick when she came
visitn


Ned
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 10, 2017, 07:12:13 PM
Ned,

This will be the first time the largest ship to enter Portsmouth has done so. Naturally they want conditions to be optimum. That doesn't mean that the same limitations will apply in future once they get used to how she handles.

It was the same when the big Brittany Ferry Normandie arrived for the first time, she was twice the size of the existing ferries and the QHM insisted on tugs being present while she was berthing until it was demonstrated that the ship could manage perfectly well by herself.

Much better to be safe than sorry, I think the authorities are being very sensible.

Incidentally tidal streams through Portsmouth entrance can be quite fierce and exciting if you are in a small boat! There can be a standing wave across the narrowest part.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Rob47 on August 10, 2017, 07:31:22 PM

Thought I would ask again, is anyone in the Gloucester area thinking of going to welcome her in? would love a lift, cant drive due to this dam eye op.  Would contribute to petrol, don't mind Sparrow fart start :)
Bob
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Liverbudgie on August 10, 2017, 08:52:40 PM
You all can stand easy by the look of it if this piece from the Portsmouth News is any thing to go by:

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/watch-hms-queen-elizabeth-meets-us-carrier-off-scottish-coast-1-8092732

I won't be traveling down from Liverpool either, I'll wait until she comes here later in the year.

LB
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on August 10, 2017, 11:40:00 PM
It is looking highly likely that next Friday, 18th August, will be QEs arrival time, just being dependent on weather conditions. Two sources have confirmed today.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Liverbudgie on August 11, 2017, 07:31:28 PM
A very, very naughty boy and an idiot:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/commercial-drone-lands-on-hms-queen-elizabeth-unchallenged/

LB
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Arrow5 on August 11, 2017, 08:01:10 PM
HMS Queen Elizabeth is currently taking part in a joint U.S.N /Royal Navy exercise on the Scottish west coast using Royal Naval Base Clyde (Faslane) facilities . Looks like you might get a glimpse as she goes south down the west coast.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Liverbudgie on August 11, 2017, 08:34:47 PM
I Haven't got any lenses that big! Or do you mean that she is in the Clyde area, if she is I've yet to see any pictures.

LB
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Arrow5 on August 11, 2017, 09:23:17 PM
Just suggesting that since it is now on the west coast of the UK that she may be going south past the Wirral or somewhere close enough to save a trip to Pompey.  Official MOD/ RN latest (posted yesterday) youtube shows HMS Queen Elizabeth in company of USS    George W Bush carrier group off the west coast of Scotland during Exercise Saxon Warrior. She is using HM Naval Base Clyde also known as Faslane.  Of course she may go south west of the island of Ireland to get some Atlantic time.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: ballastanksian on August 11, 2017, 09:38:20 PM
I appreciate that with USS George Bush behind, she does not look as big, but I think HMS Queen Elizabeth does look very impressive in comparison. I am pleased that after all the negative vibes over the last seventeen years about them not being built, or one being cancelled, and the carrier-aircraft gap, they are nearly there. I just hope the engineering holds up and no holes have to be cut in the hull  {:-{
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 12, 2017, 09:55:16 AM
The Solent tidal stream charts suggest that slack water will occur soon after HW at Portsmouth. If they bring her in then on Friday I should think we would be looking at an entry between 09:30 and 10:30 which would be a pretty convenient time all round.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on August 12, 2017, 06:23:27 PM
09:37, honestly, that is what time is being bandied about. I assume that is at OSB ( outer Spit Bouy ), which is about 15 minutes from the harbour entrance. Although the weather looks a bit dubious for the latter part of the week..
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 12, 2017, 06:36:15 PM
Sounds right. Just a slight bit of flood to help her in.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: TheLongBuild on August 12, 2017, 09:27:31 PM

A very, very naughty boy and an idiot:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/commercial-drone-lands-on-hms-queen-elizabeth-unchallenged/ (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/commercial-drone-lands-on-hms-queen-elizabeth-unchallenged/)

LB


Not really an Idiot, just because he has made the Navy look a bit Stupid...man should be commended for highlighting a potential threat from a £ 300 pound Drone, apparently the security forces in the boats waved to it..
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Arrow5 on August 12, 2017, 09:57:44 PM
I don`t think it was a £300 drone , didn`t he say he was a professional so probably a good bit more expensive machine.    A 300 lb one WOULD be worrying unless it was a keg of Pusser`s rum from Amazon :}
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: TheLongBuild on August 12, 2017, 10:19:28 PM
Yes not sure where I got £ 300 from looking at the one shown which is a DJ !! type one  are they about £ 1500.  Apparently the DRone operators have been invited on board !!  probably not see them again.. %)
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Seacommander on August 13, 2017, 11:43:46 PM
Mmmmm,

Anyone can say what they like to this Drone situation, It's always going to happen at some time. I know it's a bit of a diferent thing but I have a pal who drives Tornado, the new Steam Loco, occasionally. He hates it although he is a steam enthusiast and it should be his greatest achievement. His view and I think akin to this situation, is that when your on that Loco there's a camera behind every bush, every lamp post and they go out of their way to get one up on you. Just my point of view. If this had of been a critical situation or time of hostilities then it would be different. 
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: derekwarner on August 14, 2017, 12:58:57 AM
Here's one for those familiar with current RN radar capability.....if the QE had her radar systems on in defensive mode, would they not have been sensitive enough to intercept & track the incoming signal [being the drone]? ..... Derek
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: big_bri on August 14, 2017, 11:37:26 AM
Got to remember, she's not commissioned yet, she's still in builders hands, I doubt this would have happened if she was fully commissioned. Just my opinion
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: raflaunches on August 14, 2017, 03:22:24 PM
I believe she can track something the size of a cricket ball traveling at about Mach 3!
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: roycv on August 14, 2017, 03:32:13 PM
B****y hell we better watch out for those Indian bowlers!
Roy
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Atlantic Mouldings on August 14, 2017, 06:58:23 PM
Posted on the Royal Navy's website:



Date announced for HMS Queen Elizabeth's planned entry to Portsmouth14/08/2017Britain's new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth is set to enter her new home in Portsmouth on Wednesday 16 August 2017.
The 65,000-tonne carrier, the biggest warship ever to be built in Britain, has been undergoing sea trials since setting sail from Scotland's Rosyth dockyard in June.She is now set to make her historic arrival into Portsmouth on Wednesday at approximately 0710 where she will be the latest in a long line of famous Royal Navy ships to call the port home.Weather conditions meant the exact date of the historic moment could not be confirmed until today.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 14, 2017, 07:02:01 PM
Many thanks for that! Need to set the alarm now!

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Bob K on August 14, 2017, 09:37:27 PM
Now confirmed on BBC News as well.  Wednesday, at "about 07:10 BST"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-40930846 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-40930846)
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: derekwarner on August 15, 2017, 01:01:44 AM
Yes Nick B......from my previous life being exposed to supervision of maintenance procedures on our Australian Navy Phalanx CIWS mounted on our FFG's ....[same/later model family of the Phalanx CIWS mounted on your HMS QE] ..........

Whilst I understood that the actual Phalanx system used dual mounted radar designed to track the actual threat signal, it was the vessels higher order radar systems  :police: that processes/determines the understanding of friend or foe <*<
___________________________________________________________

Following is an extract from the WIKI people that appears to confirm this

"The CIWS does not recognize identification friend or foe, also known as IFF. The CIWS only has the data it collects in real time from the radars to decide if the target is a threat and to engage it. A contact must meet multiple criteria for the CIWS to consider it a target"
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: derekwarner on August 15, 2017, 02:25:21 AM
According to the MoD Build, HMS QE has three [3] x Phalanx CIWS mounted

I can fully understand that the MoD, Navy or BAE systems would not publish range capacity detail...however have just checked available current photographs ;)...  %)... :o...but cannot see evidence of their installation?.......

Derek
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: derekwarner on August 15, 2017, 03:44:32 AM
There could be a legitimate reason for not shooting down the incoming heli-drone. :-X last week

So whilst the HMS Queen Elizabeth weapons specification lists three [3] x Phalanx CIWS in the build.....it appears they may be an optional extra....or fitted when funds are available  :embarrassed:

On would wonder if the Weapons Crew would have had better luck throwing boomerangs  {-)
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: rnli12 on August 15, 2017, 06:08:35 AM
They will be fitted later after contractor acceptance sea trials :-X
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on August 15, 2017, 07:12:58 AM
She is off Plymouth at the moment, I would not be surprised to see her anchored in the Solent by this evening.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 15, 2017, 08:21:43 AM
Do we know if the 7:10 arrival relates to expected harbour entry or actual alongside berthing time?
Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on August 15, 2017, 08:44:31 AM
The times are usually at Outer Spit Bouy but best to take nothing for granted tomorrow.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Allnightin on August 15, 2017, 09:37:22 AM
I believe she can track something the size of a cricket ball traveling at about Mach 3!

That capability is attributed to the Sampson radar on the Type 45 destroyer - the Type 997 Artisan fitted on the CVFs is a development of the Type 996 seen in T23s and unlikely to detect the relatively slow moving drone made of largely plastic -even if there was a fully manned Ops room on the lookout for it.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 15, 2017, 09:47:25 AM
Info re road closures etc in Portsmouth here:

https://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/ext/travel/queen-elizabeth-carrier.aspx (https://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/ext/travel/queen-elizabeth-carrier.aspx)

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 15, 2017, 10:09:41 AM
Not sure whether to risk the park and ride (open from 5am) or park at Havant and take a train in.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Rob47 on August 15, 2017, 11:22:53 AM

They are to be fitted later, get sea trial out of way first, then once she is HMS, the more warlike aspects can be dealt with


Bob
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Bob K on August 15, 2017, 04:24:57 PM
According to the QHM Portsmouth site.  HMS Queen Elizabeth arrival is 05:45 !!!!
Just before sunrise.  Anyone got night-vision binoculars?

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/qhm/portsmouth/shipping-movements/daily-movements?date=16/08/2017 (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/qhm/portsmouth/shipping-movements/daily-movements?date=16/08/2017)

Also listed at 06:45    Which is right?
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 15, 2017, 04:52:59 PM
05:45 is when she will be off the Nab Tower which the beginning of the approach to Portsmouth and to the east of the Isle of Wight. The main channel into the harbour will be closed both ways between 06:15 and 08:15 which brackets her arrival time.

I think they will stick to that as high water Portsmouth is 07:18 and there will be about 0.5 knot of tide helping her through the entrance.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Netleyned on August 15, 2017, 04:53:27 PM
Nab Tower to Outerspit Buoy is
the first movement
OSB to Princess Royal Jetty
second movement.


Ned
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Netleyned on August 15, 2017, 05:15:37 PM
Hiding South of the IOW at this time


Pleasure craft Rosi having a gander {-)


Ned
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 15, 2017, 05:29:11 PM
According to QHM it looks as if she will be going straight in port side to. Not clear which of the two Princess Royal Jetty berths she will be using though. One is behind the RN Museum, the other further north beyond the basin. If she takes the Southern berth there will be a good view from Gosport.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Atlantic Mouldings on August 15, 2017, 06:45:03 PM
According to QHM Portsmouth they have published the following;


Somebody please post a couple of pics as due to work commitments im not going to be able to make it down before the weekend.





< Back to Queen's Harbour Master Portsmouth (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/qhm/portsmouth)[/
< Back to Shipping Movements and Planned Diving (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/qhm/portsmouth/shipping-movements)
Shipping MovementsPortsmouth Harbour shipping movements Wednesday 16 August 2017LW 11:50 1.6m, HW 06:34 4.1m, LW  , HW 19:13 4.2m35% Mean SpringsSunrise 05:53, Sunset 20:230445TUGSHBRNABTEMPEST, BOUNTIFUL, INDULGENT, INDEPENDENT2
0500LNTM 47/17 (QE TRANSIT) IN FORCE3
0545HMS EXPLOIT4BIIOSB4
0545HMS QUEEN ELIZABETHNABOSB ( TUG ESCORT )P & TATEMPEST, BOUNTIFUL, INDULGENT, INDEPENDENT MR A BANNISTER5
0600MV COMMODORE CLIPPEROSBPIP6
0615MV NORMANDIEOSBPIP70615 -
0815MAIN CHANNEL CLOSED TO OUTBOUND AND INBOUND VESSELS80645 -
0730SMALL BOAT CHANNEL CLOSED TO OUTBOUND AND INBOUND VESSELS9
0645HMS QUEEN ELIZABETHOSBPRJ BOWS NP & TATEMPEST, BOUNTIFUL, INDULGENT, INDEPENDENT, SUZANNE, CHRISTINA MR A BANNISTER1
00815MV NORMANDIEPIPOSB11
0830MV CAP FINISTEREOSBPIP12
0900MV NORMANDIE EXPRESSPIPOSB13
0900MV COMMODORE CLIPPERPIPOSB141100LNTM 47/17 (QEC TRANSIT) NO LONGER IN FORCE15
1130 TTBCHMS EXPLOITOSB4BII16
1145MV CAP FINISTEREPIPOSB17
1200HMS DIAMONDVJNCJ ( E ) BOWS ETBOUNTIFUL, INDEPENDENT, CHRISTINA MR N RANDALL/ MR B MCDERMOTT18
1600HMS HURWORTHOSB2BII BOWS SSUZANNE19
1745MV COMMODORE GOODWILLOSBPIP20
1745MV BRETAGNEOSBPIP21
1830MV NORMANDIE EXPRESSOSBPIP221845MV MONT SAINT MICHELOSBPIP23
2015MV BRETAGNEPIPOSB24
2030MV WIND SOLUTIONOSBPIP25
2100MV ETRETATOSBPIP262100MV COMMODORE GOODWILLPIPOSB27
2200MV MONT SAINT MICHELPIPOSB282330MV ETRETAT
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 15, 2017, 06:46:23 PM
Use this link:

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/qhm/portsmouth/shipping-movements/daily-movements?pdf=16/08/2017

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on August 15, 2017, 07:04:36 PM
Looks like a VERY slow approach to the harbour entrance, small boat channel will be closed and there will be a 250 metre exclusion zone around the ship in transit. Should make for some exciting boating for Mod Plod etc!
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 15, 2017, 07:11:17 PM
They will be testing the new navigational aids on the way in but unless they resort to towing the ship will need to maintain steerage way at all times.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 16, 2017, 06:35:03 AM
Now in Position at Spice Island Inn at 06:33. QE in sight from the beach now so should be on time.
Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 16, 2017, 07:37:40 AM
The SIZE of her!!!!!


Awesome entrance through the harbour mouth.


Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Seacommander on August 16, 2017, 08:15:57 AM

Excellent BBC footage !!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-hampshire-40937149

Looks incredible !
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Rob47 on August 16, 2017, 08:22:19 AM

Live links were awful this morning, have to say what I have seen of BBC it is great filming


Bob
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on August 16, 2017, 08:52:31 AM
Queen Elizabeth is truly a big girl!
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on August 16, 2017, 08:56:15 AM
Oh yes...last photograph, 07:10..pretty good timing :-))
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Bob K on August 16, 2017, 01:04:25 PM
Absolutely awesome, well worth getting up at 4 AM for  :-))

We were at the base of the Spinnaker.  Point blank range, even at minimum zoom I could not fit her all in.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/HMS-Agincourt/i-GXszNvj/0/0c7b4489/S/qe-2-S.jpg) (https://bobkiralfy.smugmug.com/HMS-Agincourt/i-GXszNvj/A)

(https://photos.smugmug.com/HMS-Agincourt/i-bk46HF8/0/0711415c/S/qe-1-S.jpg) (https://bobkiralfy.smugmug.com/HMS-Agincourt/i-bk46HF8/A)
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Charlie on August 16, 2017, 03:38:10 PM
How long before we see a RC version on the water? :-)
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Bob K on August 16, 2017, 04:09:10 PM
How long before we see a RC version on the water? :-)

Problem would be at the most usual warship scale of 1/96 that would be 3 m long x 0.4 m beam.
Can't see that squeezing in a car somehow.  :embarrassed:
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 16, 2017, 07:02:19 PM
Just a few pics. There will be a Gallery article in Model Boats magazine. It was certainly worth getting up at 03:30 to get down to Portsmouth. The Spice Island Inn was agood vantage point to watch the ship coming through the harbour entrance and proceeding to her berth. After some breakfast we went across to Gosport and watched the Merlin flight take off from the flight deck.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on August 16, 2017, 07:44:52 PM
I imagine she was mighty impressive emerging from behind The Still and West pub? I had a good vantage point, but was a good 100 yards from the waterfront, so didn't get the full impact of Queen Elizabeth's size ( apologies to Her Majesty...!).
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 16, 2017, 07:48:19 PM
We have used the position before to watch the old carriers being towed away for demolition. Nice to see one coming the other way at last!

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on August 16, 2017, 08:03:34 PM
Not wrong there :-))
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: ballastanksian on August 16, 2017, 09:49:23 PM
Thankyou chaps for making the pilgrimage to take those pictures. I wanted to pop down but had to finish a job so could not fit it all in.

At 1:192nd the model would be much more managable, but even then, quite a big model.

Will the Queen Elizabeths now be the worlds second largest carriers? According to Wiki, the Admiral Kunetzsov is 61000 tons full load and the Kievs are about 44000 tons.

So we will have a couple of big'ns in our fleet  :-))
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: derekwarner on August 17, 2017, 12:15:18 AM
Congratulations.....you guys should be naturally proud....she looks splendid :-))....... Derek
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: JimG on August 17, 2017, 10:24:24 AM
Now all it needs are aircraft on deck. I'm sure that the RN Historic Flight could manage to land a Swordfish on even without arrestor wires. No problem in taking off again as well, even without wind over the deck.

Jim
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 17, 2017, 10:48:04 AM
You want aircraft too?! Some people are just never satisfied... ;)

Those Merlin choppers she had aboard yesterday for the flypasts seemed to be quite large aircraft. The aircrews were clearly having fun. They were posting photos on line from the air.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: ballastanksian on August 17, 2017, 08:43:46 PM
Now all it needs are aircraft on deck. I'm sure that the RN Historic Flight could manage to lland a Swordfish on even without arrestor wires. No problem in taking of again as well, even without wind over the deck.

Jim

A Swordfish would probably do it crossways!
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Bob K on August 18, 2017, 07:09:14 PM
After seeing HMS Queen Elizabeth coming into Portsmouth on Wednesday the family and I returned to Pompey today with a renewed season ticket.  A good place to see the carrier right now is from the poop deck of HMS Victory.  You get a really close up view from the harbour tour boat too.  I understand she will be docked at the new Princess Royal Jetty for about six months.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 18, 2017, 07:19:44 PM
Yes, that is what I had heard too. They will be carrying out defect rectifications that were originally intended to be undertaken at Rosyth but decided it would be cheaper to do it at Portsmouth.

We have annual dockyard tickets too and will be making the most of them. The harbour tour is an obvious good bet midweek once the schools are back and there might also be a good view from the balcony of the RN Museum Victory gallery.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Robbie11 on September 29, 2017, 03:55:27 PM
Saw the next two Personnel Transfer Boats for HMSQE being transported down the M6 yesterday pm, Sea Vixen and Harrier to go along with Swordfish & Buccaneer. They would make a nice little project and a more practical build than Queenie!
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on September 29, 2017, 04:32:09 PM
Nice, they have a vaguely updated seaplane tender look about them.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: TailUK on September 29, 2017, 05:40:46 PM
Alnmaritec build some nice boats.  They use water jet drives quite a lot.   
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: ballastanksian on September 30, 2017, 06:16:30 PM
Practical and quite simple to build looking at the shape.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Atlantic Mouldings on October 27, 2017, 08:13:44 PM
Pity the Royal Navy are going to scrap Albion and Bulwark so they have enough crew for a ship that will never have British Aircraft on!


Any way reason for coment is looking at Shipping movments for Portsmouth she's on the move Monday pm
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: McGherkin on October 27, 2017, 08:20:56 PM
Pity the Royal Navy are going to scrap Albion and Bulwark so they have enough crew for a ship that will never have British Aircraft on!


Any way reason for coment is looking at Shipping movments for Portsmouth she's on the move Monday pm


Don't forget Ocean. And Scott's future is looking risky too.


I don't think Devonport's future is looking too bright! No submarines, no capital ships, less frigates. On the plus side HMS Gleaner will have plenty of room to park.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on October 27, 2017, 09:54:02 PM
Well Oceans days are numbered, but I live in hope that the suggestions to dispose of our Dock Landing Ships are MOD politically driven and not based in any real world stupidity.


Anyway, low water departure for QM. Should make for some interesting photos. Also should shut up the cynics claiming she would be bottled up in port except during spring tides. Sailing across the recently dredged channel in the summer, it was surprising how deep and how flat the channel now is. As long as QM stays in the channel she should be fine. Just as much chance of grounding on a high water as a low water. So routine departures may be effected by wind direction, but not much else. I am sure if she HAD to get out, she would.
Anyway, camera ready :-))
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: meechingman on October 28, 2017, 11:57:31 AM
QM? What? They've renamed her already?  :D
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on October 28, 2017, 06:58:30 PM
QM? What? They've renamed her already?  :D


Yeah, okay, got me! Too used to QM, not got my brain round QE yet...PoW next, practice practice :embarrassed: :embarrassed:
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: BrianB6 on October 30, 2017, 11:06:35 PM
I see she has left Pompey.  :o
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: derekwarner on October 30, 2017, 11:57:26 PM
Some excellent large images of HMS QE departing her home port yesterday?......[with a list to Stdb...or is that just making a turn?]

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiFppS2w5nXAhUMHJQKHSzTAiwQqUMIOTAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.teamlocals.co.uk%2Fnews-portsmouth%2Fhms-queen-elizabeth-leaves-portsmouth-for-sea-trials&usg=AOvVaw08MkDxKlf8AQz9vshBlm0y

Appears that her CIWS are still yet to be installed :((....so watch out for Drones  :embarrassed:

Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: T33cno on December 07, 2017, 08:46:22 AM
Official handover this morning.
On TV 11a.m.
uk-england-hampshire-42256046 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-42256046)
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Bob K on December 07, 2017, 11:44:34 AM
Now being shown live on BBC South News

https://www.facebook.com/BBCSouthNews/videos/1569283926495525/ (https://www.facebook.com/BBCSouthNews/videos/1569283926495525/)
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on December 07, 2017, 12:40:40 PM
Thanks Bob, just caught it! Liked the model carrier cake - now that's what I call a defence cut.

Very interesting to see the sheer size of the hangar too.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Bob K on December 07, 2017, 12:42:20 PM
Thanks Bob, just caught it! Liked the model carrier cake - now that's what I call a defence cut.

Very interesting to see the sheer size of the hangar too.

Colin

Well said Colin.  So nice to see the White Ensign flying on her at last.  Makes you feel so proud.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on December 07, 2017, 12:47:33 PM
Yes, watching that White Ensign fly free was quite emotional really.

I hope there is an opportunity for the public to visit the ship next year.  Mrs B and I have just renewed our annual dockyard passes.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: dreadnought72 on December 07, 2017, 11:52:30 PM
Call me cynical. In 2016's money...


HMS Victory (1765) would cost just over ten million. Hard to get quality oak, these days, though.
HMS Majestic (1895), 120 million.
HMS Dreadnought (1906), 200 million.
HMS Ark Royal (1935), 200 million.
HMS Vanguard (1941), 530 million.
HMS Dreadnought (1963), 490 million.
HMS Invincible (1977), 1055 million.

In today's money, we've just spent 3000 million on an aircraft carrier with no aircraft, built for no conceivable purpose, that is a big fat sitting target with limited carrier group support, and we will spend the same again on her twin that will (most likely) be then immediately mothballed/reserved/eventually sold off cheap.

I know Mayhem does not - quite rightly - support political postings, and that politicians often fund, procure and build for "previous" wars, but - were I First Admiral -I'd sooner have a few dozen anti-sub frigates than this ship.

What's its point?

Andy, bemused.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: rnli12 on December 08, 2017, 07:11:33 AM
British built, British jobs and supports the national shipbuilding strategy with global reach capability  %%
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: McGherkin on December 08, 2017, 07:59:00 AM
Call me cynical. In 2016's money...


HMS Victory (1765) would cost just over ten million. Hard to get quality oak, these days, though.
HMS Majestic (1895), 120 million.
HMS Dreadnought (1906), 200 million.
HMS Ark Royal (1935), 200 million.
HMS Vanguard (1941), 530 million.
HMS Dreadnought (1963), 490 million.
HMS Invincible (1977), 1055 million.

In today's money, we've just spent 3000 million on an aircraft carrier with no aircraft, built for no conceivable purpose, that is a big fat sitting target with limited carrier group support, and we will spend the same again on her twin that will (most likely) be then immediately mothballed/reserved/eventually sold off cheap.

I know Mayhem does not - quite rightly - support political postings, and that politicians often fund, procure and build for "previous" wars, but - were I First Admiral -I'd sooner have a few dozen anti-sub frigates than this ship.

What's its point?

Andy, bemused.


Projection of power. Simple as that.


Yes, she doesnít have any jets at the moment, but once she is carrying F35s she will be a very capable ship.


Even as a force in being, having that sat off your coast would present a serious threat, as she could launch a decent first strike.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Capt Jack on December 08, 2017, 08:07:58 AM
Call me cynical. In 2016's money...


HMS Victory (1765) would cost just over ten million. Hard to get quality oak, these days, though.
HMS Majestic (1895), 120 million.
HMS Dreadnought (1906), 200 million.
HMS Ark Royal (1935), 200 million.
HMS Vanguard (1941), 530 million.
HMS Dreadnought (1963), 490 million.
HMS Invincible (1977), 1055 million.

In today's money, we've just spent 3000 million on an aircraft carrier with no aircraft, built for no conceivable purpose, that is a big fat sitting target with limited carrier group support, and we will spend the same again on her twin that will (most likely) be then immediately mothballed/reserved/eventually sold off cheap.

I know Mayhem does not - quite rightly - support political postings, and that politicians often fund, procure and build for "previous" wars, but - were I First Admiral -I'd sooner have a few dozen anti-sub frigates than this ship.

What's its point?

Andy, bemused.


Ok, your cynical !!
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on December 08, 2017, 08:48:41 AM
  A lot of the extra cost is down to politics, chopping and changing the specification to meet changing perceptions of need and drawing out the construction process to maintain employment.
 The original concept was for 16 Type 45 destroyers to support the carriers and act as air defence ships. This envisaged dealing with conventional military threats. As the project proceeded it was decided that, actually Russia and China etc. would no longer constitute a threat in future and that military funding should be directed towards involvement in 'brushfire conflicts' such as Afganistan, Iraq etc. As a result, a defence review imposed drastic cuts on the navy which was given the option of continuing with the carriers or cutting the destroyer programme in half with other building programme reductions and scrapping ships in service such as Ark Royal, and latterly Illustrious. A bit stupid really as the carriers and destroyers are complementary but that's politics for you. The Admirals took a calculated risk and decided to press ahead with the carriers on the basis that once built, money would have to be found to provide sufficient vessels to support them. Basically that is where we are now. Suggestions that the second carrier should be built and then immediately mothballed or sold as being surplus to defence needs have of course now been rethought due to the resurgence of Russian seapower and the rise of the Chinese navy so we are back to conventional threats taking precedence again.
 The sorry story of the F35 is a separate issue, we should probably have bought something less sophisticated although I gather the US jets on their carriers are no longer produced. I did read that there is a French aircraft that might be suitable though and a lot cheaper.
 Looking on the brighter side, the RN will have two decent sized flat top platforms which will function with essentially the same size crew  as the older Invincible class and should be good for 40 years or so. They can be adapted to changing needs over that period. The RN has traditionally suffered from having ships designed down to a price and often borderline obsolescent on entering service. They have then been too small to be upgraded with more modern systems and had short service lives as a result which is an expensive way to run a navy. Despite the well known power problems of the Type 45 destroyers (again an example of 'saving' money by installing only just enough capacity with no margin) these ships are big enough physically to accommodate future upgraded weapons systems - if the money can be found. Upgrading an existing ship is much cheaper than building an entirely new one!
 As always, the killer influence on defence is a poor understanding of what is needed by politicians, short term thinking and the inability to effectively manage procurement programmes which are subject to constant emergency budget cuts. There is nothing new about any of this but nobody seems to ever learn!

Colin

 
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: raflaunches on December 08, 2017, 10:35:02 AM
To sound like the military man that I am, we need proper aircraft carriers to simply project air power. (Wow, I have been listening to the lectures!) The Invincible class was just too small to carry a proper air wing, The Falkland War confirmed this as they had to drag Hermes from the verge of the scrapyard to carry more aircraft. Secondly once the carriers have their jets (and no, I still havenít seen a real one yet either!) they will have at last a carrier force with similar capabilities as the Ark Royal IV. The Harriers were a good aircraft but lacked that key aspect essential to CAS role- supersonic speed. I know that F-35 is only capable of Mach  1.6 but itís a lot faster than the 560mph of the Harriers.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: jarvo on December 08, 2017, 09:54:44 PM
IF, the F35 ever reaches an operational condition, they will be out of date. Why cant the eurofighter be adapted for carrier use??? looking at brit jobs etc


Mark
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: dreadnought72 on December 08, 2017, 10:00:19 PM
Ok. I AM cynical, but I'm trying to understand this.


So it's 'projectable airpower' is it? That's the reason?


And in ten/fifteen years, when we have supersonic 'sons-of-Reapers' (drones able to pull multi-multiple G - fatal to a pilot, easy for a robot, and be refuelled in the air, and/or launched from corvette-sized vessels) what's the QE's role then?


...I like the suggestion 'build this part of the set, and we have to cough up for the rest', but the whole situation is changing: these are not weapons with a conceivable purpose against any near-future adversary.


Andy
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: madrob on December 08, 2017, 10:03:29 PM
Is it fitted with any type of ciws?
Are the generators big enough?   :embarrassed:
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Shipmate60 on December 08, 2017, 10:05:48 PM
It is more about the projection of power not just air power.
These large assets will always be impressive and highly capable for relief operations or evacuations.
Soft power can be more useful than just hard air power projection.


Bob
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on December 08, 2017, 10:08:43 PM
Quote
these are not weapons with a conceivable purpose against any near-future adversary.
Code: [Select]

So why does the USA maintain 11 of them?

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: raflaunches on December 08, 2017, 10:10:17 PM
Thing is they are a long way off from super sonic drones at the moment so at the moment we need fast jets. We had an interesting brief where it was admitted that all western air forces were drastically short of fast jets because of the belief that drones would be able to do everything. Problem is they are slow, susceptible to possible jamming and canít carry what a conventional fast jet can.
On another note in theory they can carry out high g manoeuvres but like any aircraft if you do too many of them the aircraft structure will fail eventually. And finally there is nothing better than the Mark 1 eyeball for confirming what the cameras are Ďseeingí.


WRT navalised Typhoons they were going to do a joint scheme with the Indian Navy but it fell through because the Indians chose to buy Russian.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on December 08, 2017, 10:10:58 PM
I believe that in the 1950s it was stated that with the advent of the nuclear ballistic missile, the new wonder weapon of its age, that the aircraft carriers days were numbered. They are still about, front and centre on a daily basis.
They represent a national asset that can be used for many purposes, from soft power, flying the flag, humanitarian relief, right through to hard fighting operations.


As an aside, what makes the F35 'out of date' by the time it reaches service?
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: dreadnought72 on December 08, 2017, 10:24:53 PM
It is more about the projection of power not just air power.
These large assets will always be impressive and highly capable for relief operations or evacuations.
Soft power can be more useful than just hard air power projection.


For sure, Bob. But you could fly helicopters and supplies off a requisitioned container/cargo ship for much less.


Andy
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on December 08, 2017, 10:27:46 PM
Yes, and you could use the Isle of Wight ferry for amphibious landings but somehow it doesn't quite have the same credibility....

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: raflaunches on December 08, 2017, 10:37:36 PM
Yes you could but Iím pretty sure that if the hired ship was attacked and damaged (if not sunk) the real owners wouldnít be very happy! Military vessels are military for a reason- apart from ownership they have self defence systems and sensor arrays to search the airspace which protect the ship. Prime example is the Atlantic Conveyer.
The entire reason for an aircraft carrier is to be a mobile airfield which is capable of delivering AirPower where it is required. Itís alright to fly out to the target area such as an humanitarian emergency but what happens when the airfield has been destroyed by forces of nature? Itís bad enough when they have been bombed to kingdom come (believe me  Iíve seen and been to enough of them) but Mother Nature isnít kind.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: McGherkin on December 08, 2017, 10:41:32 PM
IF, the F35 ever reaches an operational condition, they will be out of date. Why cant the eurofighter be adapted for carrier use??? looking at brit jobs etc


Mark

Completely different aircraft with completely different roles. People complain about the F35's lack of ability to dogfight - That's what the EF's for. Yet nobody seems to realise that the EF is about as stealthy as a gigantic sign saying 'HERE I AM'. Which is pretty useless if you're trying to take out enemy SAM sites on a first-day strike.... which incidentally is what the much stealthier F35 is for.

Is it fitted with any type of ciws?
Are the generators big enough?   :embarrassed:

Will be R2D2s when they eventually get them fitted. Shame that Goalkeeper is being ditched as it's a more effective system but it requires several decks' worth of machinery rooms under the mount, so you can't easily mount them on wings off the side of the ship like you can with Phalanx.

Ok. I AM cynical, but I'm trying to understand this.


So it's 'projectable airpower' is it? That's the reason?


And in ten/fifteen years, when we have supersonic 'sons-of-Reapers' (drones able to pull multi-multiple G - fatal to a pilot, easy for a robot, and be refuelled in the air, and/or launched from corvette-sized vessels) what's the QE's role then?


...I like the suggestion 'build this part of the set, and we have to cough up for the rest', but the whole situation is changing: these are not weapons with a conceivable purpose against any near-future adversary.


Andy

F35s are not designed for dogfighting. Even if they do have to engage drones, it will be the same as any other aircraft - their stealth allows them to get close enough to the enemy to attack, without being detected themselves (except usually for the brief moment the stores bay doors are open). Make a drone smaller to try and evade detection and you also limit its' radar capability too.

The carrier's primary role is to be able to launch a first-day strike on an enemy country which disables that country's air defences, and then either act as a base of operations for continued strikes or to support heavy, longer range aircraft.


For sure, Bob. But you could fly helicopters and supplies off a requisitioned container/cargo ship for much less.


Andy

Such as the RFA Point Class? We have some of those ;)
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: derekwarner on December 09, 2017, 05:16:19 AM
Well I asked the question here on the 30th of October.....

"Appears that her CIWS are still yet to be installed :((....so watch out for Drones"  :embarrassed:

Even our RAN vessels have Raytheon Phalanx CIWS installed....the US Navy must have 1000 such systems installed......why?.......because they are still the superior technology for their purpose in 2017

Goodness..... ..nothing is complicated, I supervised maintenance on such Phalanx CIWS systems 30 years ago
In those 30 years, the rotating cannon is essentially unchanged.......the computer control & radar interface is a few upgrades up O0........
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: rnli12 on December 09, 2017, 06:28:08 AM
Now the QE has been commissioned you will start to see the equipment and weapons being installed.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: JimG on December 09, 2017, 01:03:35 PM
For those who wonder why we can't use navalised Typhoons of the new carriers there is a simple reason. They would never get off of the deck. The carriers do not have the catapults needed for a conventional aircraft to take off which is why they need the vertical take off F35.
Steam catapults can't be fitted as there is no boiler to provide steam. American carriers can do this as they have a big boiler powered by a nuclear reactor. They are however banned from many of the commonwealth ports that our carriers would like to visit so nuclear is out.
While electromagnetic catapults are in development they are still highly experimental and even the Americans have still not put them into service. (I have seen a comment online that they produce a massive energy pulse in use that would lead the carrier open to detection for long distances.)

Jim
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: jarvo on December 09, 2017, 03:03:49 PM
Thanks Jim, just wondering why we seem to have shot ourselves in the foot again, a brilliant pair of ships that cant fly anything other than Vtol,


Mark
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Shipmate60 on December 09, 2017, 03:11:53 PM
She has been fitted "for but not with" Electromagnetic Catapults. The space and power requirements are built in. We have had a prototype of this system developed but not an operationaly capable unit yet.


Bob
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Rob47 on December 10, 2017, 07:31:09 PM

F35 is already operational with US Marines and Israel declared theirs operational


Bob


IF, the F35 ever reaches an operational condition, they will be out of date. Why cant the eurofighter be adapted for carrier use??? looking at brit jobs etc


Mark
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Rob47 on December 10, 2017, 07:33:35 PM





yes and yes


Bob


Is it fitted with any type of ciws?
Are the generators big enough?   :embarrassed:
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Rob47 on December 10, 2017, 07:35:53 PM

Maybe its a service thing but as one blue to another (RAF Launches), recent events have shown the need for big ships, disaster relief with all the frigates being asked for would not be of any use. As he said Falkland's showed the limitations of Invincible class. Harriew was a good plane in its day but that day is long gone. 


BZ to both QE and POW


Bob
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: warspite on December 12, 2017, 08:56:22 AM
So the most obvious question would be - why not build an upgraded harrier - bigger more powerful (engine wise) therefore faster, a sort of transition version, learning from the old one what its weak spots were and improve it, the designs there - the technology is better than it used to be, could be a british job maker without having to rely on a US plane or European, with a call to have the politicians to keep there nose out until its built. just my opinion.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Bob K on December 12, 2017, 09:19:48 AM
This was under development back in the Sixties.  The Hawker Siddeley P1154 was to have been a Mach 2.0 V/STOL aircraft to be built in both RAF and Royal Navy variants.  Unfortunately the project was killed off in 1965 by the usual political cancellation route.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: raflaunches on December 12, 2017, 09:30:06 AM
Interestingly the P1154 engine was run at all speeds for over 1000 hours and now resides in the FAA Museum at Yeovilton. And the government of the time said that they couldnít see why we would need a supersonic Harriet when we had a harrier already!
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: dodes on December 13, 2017, 05:46:43 PM
Why not go one step further and fit a magnetic catapult then use more faster and better armed planes!! After all what happens when the F35 becomes obsolete?
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on December 13, 2017, 06:23:01 PM
To become obsolete, surely something better needs to come along? The way development costs are spiralling, something revolutionary seems to be needed..Drone 2.0 anyone...and I don't mean Predators, I mean DJI Phantom SST %)
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: dodes on December 14, 2017, 08:35:22 PM
The Chinese have squadrons of super sonic drones for some time now, capable of air to air combat.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: RST on December 22, 2017, 01:01:51 AM
Quote
Harriew was a good plane in its day but that day is long gone. 

I work with an ex-RAF tech and he is substantially less than complimentary of the Harrier though I am not sure all ex-RAF guys I meet hated most of thier alloted aircraft these days.  We put a tender through Rosyth yard once and we were apparently presented with no end cost or timescale.  My old PM said at the meeting the yard had no concept of completing a job within any forecastable budget or timescale "how can we possibly commit?" was their answer.  So rightly, the job went elsewhere, and, rather than putting it through the preferred shipyard, our company had an offshore yard abroad we ultimately had to put it through -who also had no concept of time or money in the end and it was a nightmare.  The ship got towed out for completion back in the UK.  Apparently it was the first time the DNV inspectors allowed a ship to sail out with more CC's than it sailed in with, and highly unusual some of the more important original CC's hadn't been attended to at all!!!!!  So it's not just the MOD who has huge somewhat unjustified costs.

Do we have much to worry about these days anyway with Trump and N Korea etc?  I think apart from upsetting my Mother, I fear Trump more than anyone else in the world.  Perilously close to Dr Strangelove scenario these days.
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: dodes on December 22, 2017, 06:10:09 PM
Hi RST, regards to your mistrust/fear of Trump, my father served throughout the last World War in the Andrew and he always said after observing them at close hand. "The next war, Britian will be fighting with the Russians against the U.S.A!!!
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Colin Bishop on December 22, 2017, 06:21:38 PM
For all the vaunted talk of a 'special relationship', at the highest political level the US has always put its own interests first and shied away from getting involved with Europe, except of course after WW2 when Europe had to be put back on its feet but even then we had to pay back all the aid they gave us and we only finally settled the debt a few years back.

After WW1 the USA regarded the UK as a potential enemy in its strategic planning and its wargames made this assumption. During WW2 the US Navy top brass were quite hostile to the RN in many respects despite reciprocal respect at lower levels particularly for our anti submarine expertise during the Cold War.

As they say, Countries do not have friends - only interests. Don't expect a decent trade deal from 'America First' Trump!

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on December 22, 2017, 06:47:32 PM
For all the vaunted talk of a 'special relationship', at the highest political level the US has always put its own interests first and shied away from getting involved with Europe, except of course after WW2 when Europe had to be put back on its feet but even then we had to pay back all the aid they gave us and we only finally settled the debt a few years back.

After WW1 the USA regarded the UK as a potential enemy in its strategic planning and its wargames made this assumption. During WW2 the US Navy top brass were quite hostile to the RN in many respects despite reciprocal respect at lower levels particularly for our anti submarine expertise during the Cold War.

As they say, Countries do not have friends - only interests. Don't expect a decent trade deal from 'America First' Trump!

Colin


Trump today, gone tomorrow? We can only hope that some form of sanity returns to our comrades across the water. They can only elect those they are presented with though, rather like us in that respect.....I respect them all equally %)
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: dodes on December 22, 2017, 09:01:58 PM
I was reading an interesting article on line a few weeks back. The USA under disclosure after so many years of sensitive material, released a USS Navy plan made in about 1939 on invading Canada in the event of the U K being defeated by Germany!!
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Liverbudgie on December 22, 2017, 09:07:47 PM
I see that she has been deployed to the far north to render assistance to a heavily laden transport craft and its crew.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-queen-elizabeth-urgently-sail-arctic-circle-support-multinational-air-transport-mission/?utm_source=FB&amp;utm_medium=UKDJPage&amp;utm_campaign=social

LB
Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: Tug-Kenny on December 22, 2017, 09:14:22 PM

Amusing.     :}

ken

Title: Re: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Post by: jarvo on December 22, 2017, 09:26:48 PM
Liverbudgie, the person who wrote the article needs a medal, superb humor


Mark