HMS Prince of Wales

[Andy_99]

The Govt have clearly missed a trick with these.

If we'd have suck to SSDR & gone Cat & Trap we could have hosted other countries aircraft in Theatre, Purchased a wider range of aircraft to meet the requirements of the Armed forces, Oh & not been saddled with the worst performing of the F35's.

Arguments are likely to run & run but lets face it a couple of years down the line we'll flog one of them to the Indian's, they'll promptly convert it to Cat & Trap for less money & hey most likely tap up a friendly nation to pay for it indirectly via foreign aid policy.

[burleysway]

The carriers are arriving on time and on budget

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/takin ... 08871.html

[Spitfire88]

HMS Queen Elizabeth is due to start sea trials this year and HMS Prince of Wales is due to be floated in the summer.

[filmman]

What was good for BAe (VTOL F-35) is not good for the Navy. The Harrier carrier was a typical navy improvisation to keep some air cover, it just won the Falklands war. The new "carriers", let's be honest there expensive air assault ships, of limited use with proper carriers, were "designed" and built by the same "------" that wasted £6Bn on Nimrod. The Real Navy, will do their best, operating a compromised ship nearer in shore with less CAP. It could have been so much better for less money. The Government should have told BAe that they wanted CATS and TRAPS and that if they could not do it at a reasonable cost they would convert it themselves. By the way we have not got enough of a surface fleet to help protect and supply them.

[Angel15]

What 'committee' designed them; it designed-out everything that Great Britain invented for a modern carrier: angled flight-deck, cats etc. And what's this two superstructures? Sorry, I'm not a fan.

With you I agree sir o7

[C24]

I live more in hope than expectation of a successful outcome to this sorry project.

" Make do & mend ". It has always worked, perhaps we will muddle through with this one.

[ChrisCwmbran]

This thread amazes me.

Why on earth did the Government and the Navy order the ships they did without consulting the "experts" on here? It should be blatantly obvious to people that military aviation enthusiasts know far more than they do, and I can't see for the life of me why a major consultation wasn't held here?

[ridgmeister]

H.A.Bucken wrote:What 'committee' designed them; it designed-out everything that Great Britain invented for a modern carrier: angled flight-deck, cats etc. And what's this two superstructures? Sorry, I'm not a fan.

I was told the two superstructure islands are because the 'conventional' engines require large intake and exhaust stacks, clear of the flight deck, something not required by the nuclear-powered American carriers design.
Paul

[ChrisCwmbran]

H.A.Bucken wrote:What 'committee' designed them; it designed-out everything that Great Britain invented for a modern carrier: angled flight-deck, cats etc. And what's this two superstructures? Sorry, I'm not a fan.

I was told the two superstructure islands are because the 'conventional' engines require large intake and exhaust stacks, clear of the flight deck, something not required by the nuclear-powered American carriers design.
Paul

"Instead of a traditional single island, a current ship design has two smaller islands. The forward island is for ship control functions and the aft (FLYCO) island is for flying control.

Advantages of the two island configuration are increased flight deck area, reduced air turbulence over the flight deck and increased flexibility of space allocation in the lower decks. The flight control centre in the aft island is in the optimum position for control of the critical aircraft approach and deck landings."

From: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/

[Tally-ho]

Amazing how the armchair admirals, busking here as experts, want to down and find fault with what will soon be the pride of Her Majesty's Navy. Same applies to the acquisition of the F-35B, all these moans and groans and negativity to an aviation platform that no other country can even dream of producing. By all means tell me you don't like America and Americans, but when it comes to their money, expertise in design and technology, for being and staying the world's only Superpower, they are untouchable.

Three cheers:-
- one for the QE class carriers
- one for the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter
- one for the P-8 Poseidon

all soon to grace our sea and sky!

[Spitfire88]

Well said.

[Supra]

Three cheers:-
- one for the QE class carriers
- one for the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter
- one for the P-8 Poseidon

all soon to grace our sea and sky!

Even if they are all less than we could have had, all a result of procurement dithering & all appear to be a compromise in any fore-sighted contingency?

[Supra]

We, as in the UK, never get what we want! It's always a compromise on Cost, Job-share, Date into Service or all of those! Yes, I agree 'we' do very well with what we're given....just imagine how much better 'we' would do with the correct, fit-for-purpose & not immediately requiring extensive upgrades type of new stuff instead.
I don't know much about the Army & Navy but I'm broadly aware the actual ‘Boots’ on the ground, the common Assault Weapon & the initial wafer-thin Patrol Vehicles were all been lacking in quality & suitability for designated tasking.
For the Navy, we have a whopping flight-deck on two shiny Carriers, for around a dozen F-35B, because that’s all we can afford & we’re forced to use because there isn’t an option of anything else now! Some numpty chose Gas Turbine propulsion over nuclear, so they have to rendezvous with a refueller, but that may be no bad thing, as they need ocean replenishment coz ‘we’ don’t have a Vert-rep or COD option at any time soon.
The F-35B has the lightest weapon-load & lowest range of the variants & I haven’t seen an order for F-35 buddy/buddy inflight refuellers, so another enhancement missed. Much like its’named predecessor the EE. Lightning, F-35B can only carry few weapons, two sodding enormous engines & minimal fuel……progress? Far from admiring lusty looks, it could be that observers pee themselves laughing at how much money you can spend for next to nothing.
Plus… by the time this Circus is operational ‘we’ won’t have had a fixed-wing Carrier force for at least 12 years +++ & it begs the question, if we could manage without for that long…..why do we need one then?
When it comes to Force Projection, forget USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) “The Big Stick” we are talking “Little Twig” here.

[Stroudy]

I usually sit on the fence but this really does seem to be a sorry state in comparison to what we could have had, probably for less, because of some dodgy decisions and double-backing.

Is it correct that our F-35B's will not be able to carry drop tanks?