HMS Prince of Wales

[Thunder]

Building of the Royal Navy's second carrier is progressing at pace, with the completion of one of the deck islands
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/317704- ... rol-tower/

[burleysway]

I've been following with great interest the construction of these new carriers. It'll be a great day when they enter service.

[paddyboy]

Let us hope we have some usable aircraft to fly from them

Cheers

Paddyboy

[Bushpilot]

Let us hope we have some usable aircraft to fly from them

Cheers

Paddyboy

Start folding those sheets of A4 now

[welshandy]

The answer I got back from my MP when I asked about the possible capability gap re Tornado retirement & F35 ioc. I was told that by 2020 we will have 107 Typhoons formed in 6 front line Squadrons & 14 F35B's with 617sqn. No mention of when 809NAS will reform? So if both Carriers are at sea in 2020 they will have to share the 14 F35's

[RubyRoo]

welshandy,

The current plan, as you mentioned above, is to have 14 F-35B's operational by 2020.

On that date, only HMS Queen Elizabeth will be fully operational, so the aircraft will initially be assigned to her, before transitioning slowly to PoW. By that time, (hopefully!), more F-35B's will be in service.

[burleysway]

PoW is certainly taking shape now

https://mobile.twitter.com/QEClassCarriers

[Molitor5901]

2 carriers for a projected 48 aircraft?

now that is a waste!

Why don't they stick some cats and traps on them, and buy a couple of squadrons of F18s (or Rafales)?

Or would they get in the way, during the endless cocktail parties?

[burleysway]

2 carriers for a projected 48 aircraft?

now that is a waste!

Why don't they stick some cats and traps on them, and buy a couple of squadrons of F18s (or Rafales)?

Or would they get in the way, during the endless cocktail parties?

Cats & traps is not possible now I believe, the generators on board would not be able to produce enough power for the cats.

[H.A.Bucken]

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.

[Contrail1958]

I thought we were "sharing" our flat-tops with the US.Marines initially so I would
expect them to bring some of their aircraft along.
So the numbers of F-35's is not really a problem.

[Pete_uk]

Didn't know there was a second one! Thats good news

[Mikedee]

May be wrong, but I thought that these were originally to have both the angled deck and steam catapult as per most nations....costing around 3 Billion

Alas, along came a genius and changed the specs to a ramp deck costing say 12 Billion...

Hold your breath....another genius may want them converted to submarines...all beggars belief...

keep smiling..

[cj9ru]

They are going to look pretty stupid if the F35B takes as long as I believe it will to have it in deployable shape. Why on earth some person(s) believed it was a good idea to change the spec to (ramp at huge cost) and then sell off the only aircraft you have that you can use it is beyond me. Fair enough to plan to replace the Harrier but to get rid before you have any idea of cost, delivery date or capability is utterly stupid. You wouldn't do that with a fleet of buses!

By the way for anybody who has not seen these carriers in the flesh....they are huge!

Chris

[RubyRoo]

Just to clear up some of the things being mentioned in here, the carriers were always initially designed to be STOVL (ramp).

BAE marketed them as vessels that could switch from STOVL to CATOBAR (angled deck) with ease. When the Tory government made the only right SDSR decision in 2010 to turn the carriers into CATOBAR, BAE then came out and told them it would be far too expensive to do that and the government were then forced into making a U-turn so that the carriers came online earlier and didn't go even more over budget.

If anyone is to blame here, it's BAE for marketing a lie, and trying to extort even more from the taxpayer. I'm proud that naval shipbuilding has remained in this country, but the nation is now at the mercy at one company and the government aren't brave enough to take them on or get enough for their money.

[Agent K]

Why are these things only 172ft (920ft) short of a Nimitz class carrier ( 1,092ft) when HMS Hermes was only 772ft long?

I don't understand the point you are making? Surely design is based on capability requirement not relative size to a bygone carrier?

[Malcolm]

Why are we building a carrier that's only 172ft short of one that has two cat/ launch systems, do these things (f-35) need a longer run up than the Harrier?

Because, at some point between initial specification and design acceptance, some idiot at the MOD allowed the deletion of the requirement that cat/trap should be an easy/cheap retrofit. Then when SDR2010 tried to change to F-35C and cat/trap, the extra costs for carrier conversion to cat/trap were supposedly £2bn. Two years later, the govt went back to F-35B to save the £2bn.

So now we have the biggest carriers the UK have ever operated, twice the size of the old Ark (operating F-4's, Buccs and Gannets), roughly the same size as USS Forrestal (which operated F-14's and A-5's) and we're putting a hand full of 'jump jets' on them. Frankly - Criminal.

[Viper28]

Love this conversation ,

Who ever said F-18 or Rafales i think you should wash your mouth out with soap and water, These ships are very British and they will be looked at by many nations as they set sail , if they do end up being assalt ships or helicopter pads then they will be the best in the world.

Lets see how they sail first , I for one cant wait to see them in opperation

hoddy

Sorry but that's a really dumb thing to say. The carriers themselves were built as part of a consortium that was headed by Thalus, a French company. With regards to the aircraft she can field it's basically the F35B or nothing. It's a one trick pony. There is no plan-b, we can't just switch to Hornets or Rafales, or for that matter co-operate with them. The ship can't operate a decent AWAC platform like the Hawkeyes. What happens if the F35B has an initial operational history like the Harrier? How many of the can we afford to loose? The F35B has the least performance and combat range of any of the F35's. That means the carrier has to get in closer to the threat and in range of many of the surface to surface missiles. Air refuel? With what? There is no buddy, buddy capacity for the F35, even the ferry / drop tanks have been de-scoped.

Basically we have backed ourselves into a very expensive corner!

[Bushpilot]

Love this conversation ,

Who ever said F-18 or Rafales i think you should wash your mouth out with soap and water, These ships are very British and they will be looked at by many nations as they set sail , if they do end up being assalt ships or helicopter pads then they will be the best in the world.

Lets see how they sail first , I for one cant wait to see them in opperation

hoddy

Sorry but that's a really dumb thing to say. The carriers themselves were built as part of a consortium that was headed by Thalus, a French company. With regards to the aircraft she can field it's basically the F35B or nothing. It's a one trick pony. There is no plan-b, we can't just switch to Hornets or Rafales, or for that matter co-operate with them. The ship can't operate a decent AWAC platform like the Hawkeyes. What happens if the F35B has an initial operational history like the Harrier? How many of the can we afford to loose? The F35B has the least performance and combat range of any of the F35's. That means the carrier has to get in closer to the threat and in range of many of the surface to surface missiles. Air refuel? With what? There is no buddy, buddy capacity for the F35, even the ferry / drop tanks have been de-scoped.

Basically we have backed ourselves into a very expensive corner!

You're forgetting the RNHF Swordfish - with a bit of work we could have a fleet of 3

[Velvet Glove]

Another item to throw into the pot ...

"drones that can find stealth jets" (?!?!) ~ https://uk.news.yahoo.com/invisible-dro ... ml#BBdoOTN


See also: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/f-35-lightning ... on-1508880