Paul Bradley Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Perhaps they are re-naming them because it would be embarassing for the government to sell the Prince of Wales and Queen Elizabeth II? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Gents, the other carrier is called HMS Queen Elizabeth. Not QE2. That's an ocean liner. There's nothing to stop a naval vessel being called QE2 but that's not what's proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbuna Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QEII will be the first of the two and as I understand it HMS [insert name here] will be laid up anyway and be a spare parts source or sold. So although calling her Ark Royal is understandable it'll never go anywhere anyway?MH Never gave that consideration...quite disturbing!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QEII will be the first of the two and as I understand it HMS [insert name here] will be laid up anyway and be a spare parts source or sold. So although calling her Ark Royal is understandable it'll never go anywhere anyway?MH From what I understand,unless it has changed again, QE will be first with a ski ramp, then PoW will follow with catapults and wires. QE will then be laid up/sold - or converted to cats and traps if the money situation is better. My own suspicion is that she will updated then be sold to France to replace CdG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntPhillips Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 From what I understand,unless it has changed again, QE will be first with a ski ramp, then PoW will follow with catapults and wires. QE will then be laid up/sold - or converted to cats and traps if the money situation is better. My own suspicion is that she will updated then be sold to France to replace CdG That was my understanding too, and I wouldn't be surprised if your later comment happened too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bradley Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Gents, the other carrier is called HMS Queen Elizabeth. Not QE2. That's an ocean liner. There's nothing to stop a naval vessel being called QE2 but that's not what's proposed. Ooops.... But there's an idea - convert her into a cruise ship! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 (edited) Why dont we save time and just ask the Australian/Indian/Chillian governments what we should call it, for when they buy it on the cheap soon after. Edited May 6, 2011 by tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Cornes Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 Well if it was an RAF squadron it would probably have several names with an ® suffix after each one! That way 'The Enemy' would think we had more than one! One name on the port bow, another on the starboard and then a third on the stern! We could get the entire Royal Family that way and if we decided to name the ships boats individually- even better! A complete flotilla in one hull!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich2010 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Ooops.... But there's an idea - convert her into a cruise ship! The QE2 (Falklands vet liner) is actually the second Queen Elizabeth ship. She's not named after our current monarch. Theoretically the next Cunarder could be the QE3. The CVF was named QE as they wanted to carry on the Battle Honours and an HM Ship named "Queen Elizabeth the Second" would be new and therefore have no honours. There was a "Princess Elizabeth" during WWII tough - same person, different job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 The QE2 (Falklands vet liner) is actually the second Queen Elizabeth ship. She's not named after our current monarch. Theoretically the next Cunarder could be the QE3. But it isn't, it's just 'Queen Elizabeth' - which adds to the intruige of why QE2 WAS called QE2! The rumour was that the Queen herself added the 'Second' - it was launched as Queen Elizabeth the Second, not 'Queen Elizabth 2' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Queen_Elizabeth_2#Name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewerjerry Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 HI Well naming the new carrier ark royal, should ensure the will be no french navy joint operation of RN carriers. ark royals aircraft attacked the french fleet in 1940. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir cheers Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbuna Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 HI Well naming the new carrier ark royal, should ensure the will be no french navy joint operation of RN carriers. ark royals aircraft attacked the french fleet in 1940. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir cheers Jerry I'm not so convinced that would in fact be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denstore Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Be happy whatever reasonable name she will get. If you are not careful, the politicians will adapt the American way of naming ships, and you will have ships with names hated by a quarter of the planet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Séan Pádraig Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 HMS Winston Churchill would be OK I guess but HMS Teflon or HMS Maggie... umm maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dahut Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) Oh, I see now it is a new ship being renamed. Whew - I thought it was a renaming of an already commissioned ship. That, as I understand it, is terribly bad luck. Edited August 12, 2011 by dahut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewerjerry Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Hi just a randon thought.. how about sponsorship like ..... HMS Vodaphone, or HMS Tesco cheers Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denstore Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Hijust a randon thought.. how about sponsorship like ..... HMS Vodaphone, or HMS Tesco cheers Jerry Why not litterary icons? HMS Harry Potter or Dumbledore? The Darings already have their wizard hats on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Hewitt Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 (edited) Photo,s of the new carrier Edited August 23, 2011 by Chris Hewitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 Surely, in theory at least, we should be able to get more than 40 aircraft to operate off such a large carrier? The Nimitz are not that much larger and operate much larger aircraft than the F-35. Seems a pretty crap design to be honest and look bloomin' awful. Before anyone starts, I know the Nimitz and CdG are nukes, therfore don't have all the trunking etc required for the gas turbines. Which goes to show which way we should have gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob kernaghan Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 I like it, albeit I think having 3 smaller vessels would have been more cost-effective. i reckon we are saying 40 aircraft as that's all we can afford! BTW, great photos, thanks for posting them. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyBing Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 I like it, albeit I think having 3 smaller vessels would have been more cost-effective. The problem with a smaller vessel is that flying operations are more restricted by sea state, e.g. in a sea state 5 it wouldn't be able to operate fixed wing aircraft whereas a larger vessel would. There's data for number of days vs sea state for most of the world's major bodies of water so as part of the design process you balance how many days you'd like to be able to operate (all of them) vs how big you can afford to build the ship. I think the USN pretty much won't accept anything smaller than a Nimitz class because it can provide the required operational availability in the North Atlantic. As to how many aircraft the QE class carry, I'm sure it should be able to carry more like 60 given its size* which makes me wonder if they have other reasons for saying 40. After all it's almost an Invincible class bigger than the C de G! *Rule of thumb I learnt years ago, 1 aircraft/1000 tonnes for a carrier. Possibly not the most useful thing I learnt on my degree but it's one of the few I remember! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 The problem with a smaller vessel is that flying operations are more restricted by sea state, e.g. in a sea state 5 it wouldn't be able to operate fixed wing aircraft whereas a larger vessel would. There's data for number of days vs sea state for most of the world's major bodies of water so as part of the design process you balance how many days you'd like to be able to operate (all of them) vs how big you can afford to build the ship. I think the USN pretty much won't accept anything smaller than a Nimitz class because it can provide the required operational availability in the North Atlantic.As to how many aircraft the QE class carry, I'm sure it should be able to carry more like 60 given its size* which makes me wonder if they have other reasons for saying 40. After all it's almost an Invincible class bigger than the C de G! *Rule of thumb I learnt years ago, 1 aircraft/1000 tonnes for a carrier. Possibly not the most useful thing I learnt on my degree but it's one of the few I remember! I can see that argument, but whilst the Illustrious was still flying off and landing aircraft up near the arctic circle, the US carrier that was with us, couldn't keep going as their catapults went out of limits. It was bloomin' rough and it was one of their smaller carriers, (USS America). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Before anyone starts, I know the Nimitz and CdG are nukes, therfore don't have all the trunking etc required for the gas turbines. Which goes to show which way we should have gone. The problem with that is the tech to get the reactor in there. Basically now only exists in the UK at the Barrow Shipyard. Barrow and Birkenhead were once both Nuclear capable yards but Birkenheads capability was removed after the Conqueror was built. Would cost far to much to get this installed in another yard. Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnT Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Sadly the last POW rather had the rough end of the stick in WW2 and perhaps its not the most auspicious name for an RN warship ? Just finished reading "Killing the Bismark" and prepared to re-think that comment. Possibly POW got a bad press she didn't deserve and it looks like if she had not significantly hurt Bismark in the Barents Sea battle Bismark would have had to slow down, possibly then have been missed by the Swordfish strike that damaged her stearing and lived to fight another day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyBing Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 (edited) I can see that argument, but whilst the Illustrious was still flying off and landing aircraft up near the arctic circle, the US carrier that was with us, couldn't keep going as their catapults went out of limits. It was bloomin' rough and it was one of their smaller carriers, (USS America). Sorry, I should have pointed out that's for conventional ops rather than VSTOL. A conventional carrier the size of Illustrious would have to stop launch/recovery in calmer seas than the America would have to, or indeed Illustrious. VSTOL operations are generally less constrained by the weather, although obviously there is an ultimate limit and again having a larger ship helps. Extract from a paper on the subject. There are other advantage to a bigger ship in terms of sortie generation, survivability and modifications through the life of the vessel. Edited August 26, 2011 by SkippyBing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now