HMS Queen Elizabeth Sea Trials

[Seahawk]

5 minutes ago, Paul E said:

 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.

 

Hmm.  I have no idea whether you are right or wrong but I do recall someone on this site explaining that the Royal Navy website is maintained by 1/2 a man and a dog.  I'm sorry to say I would be wary of assigning too much significance to a word when it may simply have been used by someone unaware of its full connotations.  I note that 3 July 2008 is when Des Browne signed the contract for the ships.    

[Paul E]

4 minutes ago, Seahawk said:

 

Hmm.  I have no idea whether you are right or wrong but I do recall someone on this site explaining that the Royal Navy website is maintained by 1/2 a man and a dog.  I'm sorry to say I would be wary of assigning too much significance to a word when it may simply have been used by someone unaware of its full connotations.  I note that 3 July 2008 is when Des Browne signed the contract for the ships.    

The contract was indeed signed by Des Browne in July 2008, I was still involved in the project at the time although not in the main alliance.

The RN website might be maintained by 1/2 a man and a dog but the words that appear on it would have been carefully checked by a larger organisation. As with any corporate website it is a portal to the world and it is important that facts are presented correctly to avoid damage to reputation.  I am certain nothing gets posted onto the RN website without serious scrutiny.

[Seahawk]

9 minutes ago, Paul E said:

As with any corporate website it is a portal to the world and it is important that facts are presented correctly to avoid damage to reputation.  I am certain nothing gets posted onto the RN website without serious scrutiny.

 

Agree entirely with the first sentence.  I would like to think the second is true and so am glad of the reassurance.  Though have seen some egregious errors in MOD press releases which should surely have undergone similar QC. 

Edited July 12, 2017 by Seahawk

[Paul E]

7 minutes ago, Seahawk said:

 

Agree entirely with the first sentence.  I would like to think the second is true and so am glad of the reassurance.  Though have seen some egregious errors in MOD press releases which should surely have undergone similar QC. 

You are of course right, there are always things that get through that shouldn't. 

[Dave Fleming]

2 hours ago, Seahawk said:

 

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).   

No, the absence of the numerator shows that. (Leaving aside the notion that as the ship is built in Scotland, it accurately reflects the fact the current monarch is the first QE of the UK :-) ). 

 

I was more thinking in the proposed names for CVA01 and CVA02, which were scheduled to be Queen Elizabeth and Duke of Edinburgh. 

[gengriz]

On 09/07/2017 at 6:51 PM, Darby said:

Wouldn't be surprised if it was a TLF

 

I would be, given the considerable care that has gone into design, ship staff training and intrinsic design redundancy, plus extensive LIs from T45.  

 

 

[Paul E]

25 minutes ago, gengriz said:

 

I would be, given the considerable care that has gone into design, ship staff training and intrinsic design redundancy, plus extensive LIs from T45.  

 

 

So would I be having been involved in the IPMS design! However I do know what  the issue is but I am not sharing it on here!

[junglierating]

On ‎12‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 10:59 AM, Paul E said:

I am certain nothing gets posted onto the RN website without serious scrutiny.

Oh that's alright then its a good job that Gannet SAR is still alive and kicking then using Sea King Mk5.....must be true coz its on the website..LMAO.

To be fair there might be other things to worry about....sadly

[Paul E]

42 minutes ago, junglierating said:

Oh that's alright then its a good job that Gannet SAR is still alive and kicking then using Sea King Mk5.....must be true coz its on the website..LMAO.

To be fair there might be other things to worry about....sadly

That's because it is WAFU stuff and don't count. 

[junglierating]

58 minutes ago, Paul E said:

That's because it is WAFU stuff and don't count. 

Wash your mouth oothandbags at dawn

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

On 12/07/2017 at 10:28 AM, Seahawk said:

 

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). 

 

Is that really true?  I may be wrong, but i am under the impression that the reason she is called QE (and why CVA-01 would have been called the same had she been built) is because it is a tradition to name the first major capital ship of a monarch's rein after that monarch.  (OK, I say tradition - it's not THAT ancient!).  KGV did it, and the second (WW2) KGV was so-called because his son (KGVI) asked for the change to be made.

On that basis, this QE is named after the present monarch.  

 

Of course, I may have been fed complete duff gen on this, but that is what I believe to be the case...

 

She is, however, definitely HMS.  I stood by Boxer from her time in the yard at Yarrows (pre move on board), through Contractor's Sea Trials, Acceptance Trials, Safety OST, Commissioning, First-of-Class Trials and finally initial OST.  Of course the colour of her ensign changed during that period for the same reasons as any warship's does, but she was definitely HMS Boxer throughout that time.

 

P.S. WAFU stuff don't count, eh?  The RN's largest ever warship is going to be some white elephant without any air group!

Edited July 14, 2017 by Ex-FAAWAFU

[Seahawk]

1 hour ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

The RN's largest ever warship is going to be some white elephant without any air group!

 

Careful, mate.  Leading with your chin on that one.

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

Why?  A carrier without an air group is about as useless as... let me see... an airfield without any aircraft, perhaps?  Or a gun without any bullets.  True, but meaningless.

 

On the other hand a carrier with an air group is infinitely more flexible, hard to target, adaptable, multi-purpose (and many other attributes that make carriers worth having) than any airfield can ever be - and the RAF's aircraft are pretty much ALL stuffed without airfields.  Which is what makes the argument being regularly advanced in the papers at present (attributed to "senior ex-RAF officers") so fatuous.  I assume that's what you're referring to.  You know the one: "Navy's new carrier could be sent to the bottom in ten minutes" was a headline this very morning, and there have been many like it of late.  And they are fatuous; carriers could be sunk "easily"... yet runways (when I last looked, immobile and very large) are somehow NOT easy to hit?  Come off it!

 

If it's as simple as all that to sink a carrier, then why do the Russians, Chinese, USA, French and Indians persist in building them?  

 

[Whitewolf]

On 12/07/2017 at 0:06 PM, Seahawk said:

 

Agree entirely with the first sentence.  I would like to think the second is true and so am glad of the reassurance.  Though have seen some egregious errors in MOD press releases which should surely have undergone similar QC. 

I think the statement has been misinterpreted. In this case as pointed out in an earlier post - the builder was commissioned to build the vessel when the contract was signed.

[Paul E]

On 7/14/2017 at 7:27 PM, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

Why?  A carrier without an air group is about as useless as... let me see... an airfield without any aircraft, perhaps?  Or a gun without any bullets.  True, but meaningless.

 

On the other hand a carrier with an air group is infinitely more flexible, hard to target, adaptable, multi-purpose (and many other attributes that make carriers worth having) than any airfield can ever be - and the RAF's aircraft are pretty much ALL stuffed without airfields.  Which is what makes the argument being regularly advanced in the papers at present (attributed to "senior ex-RAF officers") so fatuous.  I assume that's what you're referring to.  You know the one: "Navy's new carrier could be sent to the bottom in ten minutes" was a headline this very morning, and there have been many like it of late.  And they are fatuous; carriers could be sunk "easily"... yet runways (when I last looked, immobile and very large) are somehow NOT easy to hit?  Come off it!

 

If it's as simple as all that to sink a carrier, then why do the Russians, Chinese, USA, French and Indians persist in building them?  

 

Agreed!

Fundamentally Aircraft Carriers are a big and very visible stick to support overseas Foreign policy. Pitching up off a belligerents coast with a carrier sends a very clear message which cannot be achieved by a Tomahawk capable SSN or a squadron of Typhoons. The aim is to convince the opposition they are on to a looser before needing to use either of the other two. And it is questionable how effective the Typhoons would be operating at extended ranges from their airbase. At least with a Carrier you can move the airbase closer to the action.

[Whitewolf]

On 14/07/2017 at 8:27 PM, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

Why?  A carrier without an air group is about as useless as... let me see... an airfield without any aircraft, perhaps?  Or a gun without any bullets.  True, but meaningless.

 

On the other hand a carrier with an air group is infinitely more flexible, hard to target, adaptable, multi-purpose (and many other attributes that make carriers worth having) than any airfield can ever be - and the RAF's aircraft are pretty much ALL stuffed without airfields.  Which is what makes the argument being regularly advanced in the papers at present (attributed to "senior ex-RAF officers") so fatuous.  I assume that's what you're referring to.  You know the one: "Navy's new carrier could be sent to the bottom in ten minutes" was a headline this very morning, and there have been many like it of late.  And they are fatuous; carriers could be sunk "easily"... yet runways (when I last looked, immobile and very large) are somehow NOT easy to hit?  Come off it!

 

If it's as simple as all that to sink a carrier, then why do the Russians, Chinese, USA, French and Indians persist in building them?  

 

I think Michael Fallon was far to quick to make comments about the Kuznetsov, inviting retaliatory comments from the Russians. At a briefing on the QE last the year, a very experienced submariner sat next to me, turned and said ' now there's a nice big target!' Carriers will always will be primary targets in a conflict, hence most carry point defence missile and CIWIS systems in case the escorts get overwhelmed during an attack. the QE is on trials, she's not an actively commissioned warship as yet, and without a suitably sized airgroup she will remain a nice big target without posing much of a threat to anyone. But I look forward to seeing her with that airgroup!

Edited July 16, 2017 by Whitewolf

[Seahawk]

31 minutes ago, Stealthman said:

.. without a suitably sized airgroup she will remain a nice big target without posing much of a threat to anyone. But I look forward to seeing her with that airgroup!

 

Amen!

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

3 hours ago, Stealthman said:

I think Michael Fallon was far to quick to make comments about the Kuznetsov, inviting retaliatory comments from the Russians. At a briefing on the QE last the year, a very experienced submariner sat next to me, turned and said ' now there's a nice big target!' Carriers will always will be primary targets in a conflict, hence most carry point defence missile and CIWIS systems in case the escorts get overwhelmed during an attack. the QE is on trials, she's not an actively commissioned warship as yet, and without a suitably sized airgroup she will remain a nice big target without posing much of a threat to anyone. But I look forward to seeing her with that airgroup!

 

No disagreement re Fallon & Kuznetsov!

 

Submariners always say that about any surface ship...  just as every Merlin crew that flies from her deck will say exactly the same thing about any submarine.  

 

Look, every military asset can be killed, sunk, shot down, whatever - though that is not the same as saying it's easy to do.  If we end up in a full-on shooting war on our own vs Russia, we'll lose.  That has been the case for at least 50 years.  But we won't.

 

However, there is an almost infinite range of states between full peace and a shooting war, and there is nothing as good at power projection, sending messages, flexibility, etc as a carrier, and they can be used for all sorts of other things, too (disaster relief, diplomacy, inserting or extracting troops & helicopters, to name but a few.  And, of course, if it were to come to a shooting war, it's not like a worked-up QE would exactly be toothless or helpless, either.

 

People often say we'd have won the Falklands easily with Ark Royal.  Though that is true, it completely misses the point; the Argentines would not have dared invade in the first place if we'd still had her.

[4scourge7]

1 hour ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

However, there is an almost infinite range of states between full peace and a shooting war, and there is nothing as good at power projection, sending messages, flexibility, etc as a carrier, and they can be used for all sorts of other things, too (disaster relief, diplomacy, inserting or extracting troops & helicopters, to name but a few.  And, of course, if it were to come to a shooting war, it's not like a worked-up QE would exactly be toothless or helpless, either.

People often say we'd have won the Falklands easily with Ark Royal.  Though that is true, it completely misses the point; the Argentines would not have dared invade in the first place if we'd still had her.

I wholeheartedly concur with these wise words.

Fifty years worth of multi-role capability that will be needed in peace as much as wartime.

 

Those bemoaning the carriers often describe replacing them with ships capable of multiple missions, including disaster relief.

Y`know, like an aircraft carrier does. 

 

Cheers, Ian

 

 

[Whitewolf]

21 hours ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

 

No disagreement re Fallon & Kuznetsov!

 

Submariners always say that about any surface ship...  just as every Merlin crew that flies from her deck will say exactly the same thing about any submarine.  

 

Look, every military asset can be killed, sunk, shot down, whatever - though that is not the same as saying it's easy to do.  If we end up in a full-on shooting war on our own vs Russia, we'll lose.  That has been the case for at least 50 years.  But we won't.

 

However, there is an almost infinite range of states between full peace and a shooting war, and there is nothing as good at power projection, sending messages, flexibility, etc as a carrier, and they can be used for all sorts of other things, too (disaster relief, diplomacy, inserting or extracting troops & helicopters, to name but a few.  And, of course, if it were to come to a shooting war, it's not like a worked-up QE would exactly be toothless or helpless, either.

 

People often say we'd have won the Falklands easily with Ark Royal.  Though that is true, it completely misses the point; the Argentines would not have dared invade in the first place if we'd still had her.

Exactly, the ability to project air power will always be the game changer, hence the race going in around the world to build carriers. The daunting task for the RN will be to have the ability to provide a tight, effective screening force around the QE, and she definitely needs her own ppint defence missile system at some point.

[junglierating]

 she definitely needs her own ppint defence missile system at some point.

And maybe some escorts

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

She does need a PD system, yes.  But even loads of escorts - though we need them for other reasons - are questionable; the chances of her being used to fight a convoy through U-boat wolf-packs etc are relatively slim.  A Type 45 (2 in extremis) a Tanker and a couple of ASW frigates should do it.  

 

However, even with little more than a tanker, she will still be a useful asset in a lot of circumstances.  Power projection comes in many forms, and only some of them involve multiple (or even any) threats.

[Paul E]

16 hours ago, junglierating said:

 she definitely needs her own ppint defence missile system at some point.

And maybe some escorts

The ship is Fit to Receive Phalanx CIWS and consideration was made in the early design stages for the SeaRAM whether this come to fruition or not  is another question.

[junglierating]

Hmm if it flys it dies is very good but I think something a little more long distance would be good 

[Dave Fleming]

Rumours that she may need to dry dock to fix this propeller issue. Some say caused by fouling, others by manufacturing outwith permitted tolerance.