Jump to content

HMS Queen Elizabeth Sea Trials


4scourge7

Recommended Posts

So she's not really HMS yet. I'd imagine once she has completed sea trials and be commissioned they can start air group work up. I'd expect to see F35s next year sometime as initial test (although maybe one for entry into Portsmouth)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

So she's not really HMS yet. I'd imagine once she has completed sea trials and be commissioned they can start air group work up. I'd expect to see F35s next year sometime as initial test (although maybe one for entry into Portsmouth)

Yes she is HMS and has been since the Naming Ceremony, the Royal Navy refer to her as HMS Queen Elizabeth and I am inclined to trust them as an authority on the subject.

 

There is also difference between the ship naming, formal handover and it's commissioning. The reason for flying the Blue Ensign is that the ship has not been handed over to the Royal Navy and is still in the hands of the ship builder and the trials Captain who so happens to have a permit to fly a Blue Ensign. Formal handover will occur when shipbuilder trials are completed, any defects rectified and the Royal Navy Acceptance Officer is satisfied. Formal handover is likely to occur in Portsmouth at the end of the delivery voyage where there will be a ceremonial signing of the acceptance document and the hoisting of the White Ensign for the first time.

 

The ship will undergo a period of further trials which will include connecting up to the new MARS Fleet Tanker and operation with the Type 45. There will also be a lot of crew training and a FOST work up to do. At some point in the busy period after handover the ship will be formally commissioned, this a ceremonial occasion rather than anything else.

 

Trials with fixed wing aircraft is very much dependent upon the ship and the ships crew including the air group element being ready for it. As I understand it F35 trials are slated for summer next year States side of the pond where all the UK F35B's are living at the moment.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Paul E said:

 The reason for flying the Blue Ensign is that the ship has not been handed over to the Royal Navy and is still in the hands of the ship builder and the trials Captain who so happens to have a permit to fly a Blue Ensign.

 

 

 

I'd wondered about the Blue ensign, Invincible trialle dunder the red ensign

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thing is , that despite her size, the QE still only has six deck spots - the same as the much smaller HMS Ocean. The areas coated with the special heat resistant coating ( only 3 spots) can be clearly identified by the difference in colour. Even the old HMS Hermes had more deck spots, which seems rather embarrassing for the QE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stealthman said:

Interesting thing is , that despite her size, the QE still only has six deck spots - the same as the much smaller HMS Ocean. The areas coated with the special heat resistant coating ( only 3 spots) can be clearly identified by the difference in colour. Even the old HMS Hermes had more deck spots, which seems rather embarrassing for the QE.

 

Hasn't the RN settled on rolling landings for the F-35B as the primary means of recovery? That would make recoveries far more efficient than what was previously possible.  

 

Also, aren't those spots are sized to support six Chinooks, simultaneously?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GMK said:

 

Hasn't the RN settled on rolling landings for the F-35B as the primary means of recovery? That would make recoveries far more efficient than what was previously possible.  

 

Also, aren't those spots are sized to support six Chinooks, simultaneously?

 

 

Yes and yes.

 

10 hours ago, Stealthman said:

Interesting thing is , that despite her size, the QE still only has six deck spots - the same as the much smaller HMS Ocean. The areas coated with the special heat resistant coating ( only 3 spots) can be clearly identified by the difference in colour. Even the old HMS Hermes had more deck spots, which seems rather embarrassing for the QE.

 

There is no point comparing Hermes with QE they support different aircraft with different operating procedures. The fact that QE can carry far more aircraft can sustain a higher sortie rate and needs half the crew to operate her are hardly a source of embarrassment.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She was sitting at anchor off Balintore today, about a mile or two from the shore.  I've no idea how long she'll be there for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/07/2017 at 9:35 AM, Paul E said:

Yes and yes.

 

 

There is no point comparing Hermes with QE they support different aircraft with different operating procedures. The fact that QE can carry far more aircraft can sustain a higher sortie rate and needs half the crew to operate her are hardly a source of embarrassment.

The six spot layout on a deck of this size is surprising. The rolling landing is proposed for aircraft returning with weapons intact in order to avoid having to jettison them.in the sea because the F35B is unable to land vertically over a designated weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Paul E  I'm afraid you are not quite correct. Officially she is not HMS yet. Yes she has been named, as Queen Elizabeth. She only officially gets the HMS when she has successfully completed sea trials and commissioned. She is still under constructors ownership, and therefore not part of the Royal Navy.

 

It's only sloppy reporting, laziness and ignorance that has meant she has been called HMS. Of course anyone can call her they like, doesn't make it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry I am not sure I agree with you. Having been through the process of being in a crew that took a ship from build through contractor sea trials, delivery voyage, formal handover, SOST, Part 4 trial, commissioning, BOST and eventually deployment. All the way through that period I served on HMS Somerset right from the day I joined in Glasgow when the ship was still an empty shell.  And what is more my draft form, the formal headed note paper and the leading writers cap tally said so. Whilst the physical being of the ship may be in the hands of the shipbuilder the soul remains very much the crew and the day they are stood up is the day when the ship assumes the title of HMS. I speak only from experience but I suspect HMS Queen Elizabeth existed administratively when the first crew members were appointed.

Now I sit on the other side of the fence and I know that even when the ship is in ship yard hands they are not the owner. In fact formal shipyard and class society parlance for the customer is "the owner".

Whether it is lazy reporting or down to administration it doesn't matter. Seeing Queen Elizabeth at sea is a huge achievement and I am for one am proud to have been involved in her design.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎06‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 3:37 PM, Ravens said:

She was sitting at anchor off Balintore today, about a mile or two from the shore.  I've no idea how long she'll be there for.

Wouldn't be surprised if it was a TLF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I have to say I had doubt'sabout the look of the layout during the build but she look's superb in her natural habitat,the flight control island

must be the envy of every carrier operator even the US Navy for that view of operation's if I have to nit-pick the ramp still has that "bolted on as

an afterthought" look about it only cosmetic's but I would have prefered a more blended in look,yea being proud to be British is making a comeback

I may even over look the fact one wasn't named Ark Royal maybe that's being reserved for our first UAV carrier!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Shar2 said:

Officially she is not HMS yet. Yes she has been named, as Queen Elizabeth. She only officially gets the HMS when she has successfully completed sea trials and commissioned. She is still under constructors ownership, and therefore not part of the Royal Navy.

 

If you look at the MoD/RN reporting of the naming ceremony by the Queen 3 years ago ( http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2014/july/04/140704-queen-elizabeth-naming ) the ship is referred to as HMS, including by the First Sea Lord himself. I presume that MoD has already paid a substantial proportion of the contracted costs to BAe so legal ownership might be a moot point if it came to a legal dispute.

 

It is interesting to read about the first of the fast minelayers HMS Abdiel, in this context ( Very Special ships by Arthur Nicholson)  Abdiel was about to start builder's trials in March 1941 when she was ordered to take a full load of mines and do an operational lay off Brest on 23/24 March and again 28/29 March coming into contact with enemy aircraft at one stage before resuming her original programme, formally commissioning on 15 April.   Mountbatten, who commanded the escorting destroyers for the 2nd lay, signaled congratulations to Samuel White and Co (the builders) for their minefield at the end of the operation!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mate texted me the other day to tell me he was chuffed to see a 'real' Royal Navy carrier off Lossiemouth for the first time in over 40 years. (He's never recovered from CVA-01 being cancelled)

No doubt we will continue to see differing opinions on all aspects of these ships but ignoring all of that she certainly looked great sailing under the bridges didn't she.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two Queen Elizabeths for the price of one.

 

 

Some media apparently dumbfounded that HMS QE has encountered snags that need fixing.

May I suggest, in future, that new naval vessels be subjected to some kind of seaborne test regime; we could call `water check` or `ocean scrutiny` or something....

 

I`m here to help. :P

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scimitar said:

My mate texted me the other day to tell me he was chuffed to see a 'real' Royal Navy carrier off Lossiemouth for the first time in over 40 years. (He's never recovered from CVA-01 being cancelled)

No doubt we will continue to see differing opinions on all aspects of these ships but ignoring all of that she certainly looked great sailing under the bridges didn't she.

 

One of my earliest childhood memories is looking out of a train crossing the Forth Bridge as a RN aircraft carrier passed underneath. It must have been Ark Royal IV on her last cruise. A frankly excessive number of years later, I've seen the spectacle repeated*. Happy.

 

*Sorry Invincibles don't count. And it was on a webcam not a train - but close enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TallBlondJohn said:

a RN aircraft carrier passed underneath

I saw Bullwark in her Commando days there but can't remember the date.

I almost came through to see QE but common sense prevailed as I was working early next day and I accepted that I am no longer 21!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/07/2017 at 10:02 AM, stevej60 said:

Well I have to say I had doubt'sabout the look of the layout during the build but she look's superb in her natural habitat,the flight control island

must be the envy of every carrier operator even the US Navy for that view of operation's if I have to nit-pick the ramp still has that "bolted on as

an afterthought" look about it only cosmetic's but I would have prefered a more blended in look,yea being proud to be British is making a comeback

I may even over look the fact one wasn't named Ark Royal maybe that's being reserved for our first UAV carrier!

There are still a few folks in the senior service that are dumbfounded as to why POW was not re-named Ark Royal? A lot of senior people expected it to happen, Prince Charles supposedly agreed to it when approached, so no excuse really

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stealthman said:

There are still a few folks in the senior service that are dumbfounded as to why POW was not re-named Ark Royal? A lot of senior people expected it to happen, Prince Charles supposedly agreed to it when approached, so no excuse really

 

To much egg on face. To be honest, Ark Royal as a carrier is rather unremarkable. It's only really our perception of AR4 from the 70s and that TV series. There are several names with a 'better' claim. Personally, I thought it would be HMS Duke of Edinburgh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 11:02 AM, Shar2 said:

I stand corrected. Still great to see her at sea, can't wait till she arrives in Pompey. :thumbsup:

You are not wrong in your assertion, a Royal Navy ship has a commissioning warrant which enables it to be known as HMS and certainly when commercial vessels are requisitioned this is the case.  The commissioning ceremony of a ship is an important milestone but it is a ceremonial occasion rather than anything else. By the time the commissioning ceremony comes around the ship is already a worked up warship and well on the way to being an integral part of the fleet. I knew the ship did not become HMS at the commissioning ceremony, it occurred before that point and I assumed it was administrative at the point the crew is assigned. It appears that I am also wrong.

This leads back to the question when does the ship receive the title of HMS? I think the answer lies in this; The Royal Navy website states that in 2008 the QE was "commissioned by the Defence Secretary, Des Browne". An interesting turn of phrase, not procured or ordered which is normal shipyard parlance or even authorised to commence construction, but commissioned! It therefore appears that the HMS mantle is assumed at the point the Government signs the contract for the vessel construction which is quite sometime before the first crew members pitch up. This would also tie in with Francis's story about the exploits of HMS Abdiel.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

 

To much egg on face. To be honest, Ark Royal as a carrier is rather unremarkable. It's only really our perception of AR4 from the 70s and that TV series. There are several names with a 'better' claim. Personally, I thought it would be HMS Duke of Edinburgh

 

Think you may be falling for the common misperception that she is named after HM Queen Elizabeth II.  In fact she is, like her illustrious predecessor the WW2 battleship, named after Queen Elizabeth I (though I am not sure the Navy has made much attempt to dispel the ambiguity: see below).  Prince of Wales is a considerably more historic name: the new carrier will be the 8th RN warship to bear it, the first dating from 1763.  There has been only been one HMS Duke of Edinburgh, a turn of the century armoured cruiser.  I would have been happy with Ark Royal and Eagle or with Furious and Glorious but I am not sure history cuts much ice with the Great British Public nowadays and the choice was probably an adroit move, challenging a government of any colour to cancel a ship apparently bearing the name of the current monarch.

 

At least we have been spared the drab inoffensiveness of some modern names: of all the inspiring names in the back catalogue was, for example, St Albans, for all its long pedigree, the best they could come up with?     

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...