Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier sets sail tonight

Rroff · 26 Jun 2017 at 13:37

Big Spender said:
I'm led to believe we have already taken delivery of a number of the F35-B's and they will be operating from the carrier from 2018?

Latest news seems to indicate we won't be operating them from any carrier for atleast a year and a half never mind a full compliment...

Big Spender · 26 Jun 2017 at 13:40

The carrier will begin moving away from the dock wall at 14:00. Expected to take around 4 hours to complete the move from the dock out of the basin.

Roar87 · 26 Jun 2017 at 13:42

It's embarrassing we've been without a carrier for this long

ghutchison14078 · 26 Jun 2017 at 13:45

Roar87 said:
It's embarrassing we've been without a carrier for this long

Country be skint!

Wondered if they tapped some money out of Queenie to let her put her name on the side of it?

FTM · 26 Jun 2017 at 13:45

whats even more annoying is we could rebuild the surface fleet rather than spend money renewing trident

it would be of more benefit to everyone as people, ships, planes and helicopters could be used for so much more than defense, they could help in natural disaster areas or aid humanitarian operations. be more of a presence in areas prone to drug smuggling or people trafficking or ship hijackings

Rroff · 26 Jun 2017 at 13:53

Even by my pessimistic outlook I'm surprised how soon this thread turned into someone griping about Trident.

IIRC we could have had working jets (other than the F35) just for the cost of the latest round of fixes we are going to have to do for it or something never mind the full cost.

Roar87 · 26 Jun 2017 at 13:55

FTM said:
whats even more annoying is we could rebuild the surface fleet rather than spend money renewing trident

it would be of more benefit to everyone as people, ships, planes and helicopters could be used for so much more than defense, they could help in natural disaster areas or aid humanitarian operations. be more of a presence in areas prone to drug smuggling or people trafficking or ship hijackings

We actually just need both. It would be insane to get rid of our deterrent with China increasing defence spending, Russia and NATO squaring up on the borders, plus North Korea is a big question mark though they aren't likely to threaten us anytime soon, who knows what might be asked of us.

Diddums · 26 Jun 2017 at 13:59

ghutchison14078 said:
Would love to see the Harrier brought back, maybe update the airframe and avionics to make it suitable for modern roles.

As much as I'd like to agree with you there, wasn't the Harrier simply too cumbersome to out-maneuver modern stuff, and easily shot down? I was also led to believe that the VTOL capability was insane amounts of fuel. I always loved the Harrier but the design seemed a bit optimistic and was very soon outclassed.

Glad to be educated to the contrary however.

Rroff · 26 Jun 2017 at 14:04

Diddums said:
As much as I'd like to agree with you there, wasn't the Harrier simply too cumbersome to out-maneuver modern stuff, and easily shot down? I was also led to believe that the VTOL capability was insane amounts of fuel. I always loved the Harrier but the design seemed a bit optimistic and was very soon outclassed.

Glad to be educated to the contrary however.

While a bit of a mess we could/should have utilised them while integrating firing systems with a couple of Type 45s to give them cover from more advanced aircraft :s atleast we'd have decent ground attack, etc. capabilities.

ghutchison14078 · 26 Jun 2017 at 14:08

Rroff said:
Even by my pessimistic outlook I'm surprised how soon this thread turned into someone griping about Trident.

IIRC we could have had working jets (other than the F35) just for the cost of the latest round of fixes we are going to have to do for it or something never mind the full cost.

Tefal · 26 Jun 2017 at 14:08

Diddums said:
As much as I'd like to agree with you there, wasn't the Harrier simply too cumbersome to out-maneuver modern stuff, and easily shot down? I was also led to believe that the VTOL capability was insane amounts of fuel. I always loved the Harrier but the design seemed a bit optimistic and was very soon outclassed.

Glad to be educated to the contrary however.

when was the last time the uk had an air to air battle?

Roar87 · 26 Jun 2017 at 14:11

Diddums said:
As much as I'd like to agree with you there, wasn't the Harrier simply too cumbersome to out-maneuver modern stuff, and easily shot down? I was also led to believe that the VTOL capability was insane amounts of fuel. I always loved the Harrier but the design seemed a bit optimistic and was very soon outclassed.

Glad to be educated to the contrary however.

I doubt it, the Harrier would be able to use it's thrust vectoring to out manoeuvre more modern fighters like it did in the Falklands. What they'd do was change the direction of thrust mid flight and the enemy fighters would fly right by them, then they'd get a lock on with the side winders and shoot them down.

Woden · 26 Jun 2017 at 14:12

Diddums said:
As much as I'd like to agree with you there, wasn't the Harrier simply too cumbersome to out-maneuver modern stuff, and easily shot down? I was also led to believe that the VTOL capability was insane amounts of fuel. I always loved the Harrier but the design seemed a bit optimistic and was very soon outclassed.

Glad to be educated to the contrary however.

They are outclassed by modern tech, but our current threats don't have modern tech. The harriers could easily provide close air support and ground attack in countries with little to no air defence.

Rroff · 26 Jun 2017 at 14:12

Roar87 said:
I doubt it, the Harrier would be able to use it's thrust vectoring to out manoeuvre more modern fighters like it did in the Falklands. What they'd do was change the direction of thrust mid flight and the enemy fighters would fly right by them, then they'd get a lock on with the side winders and shoot them down.

Wouldn't work so well against gen 5 fighters who can lock and engage it from over the horizon.

What could work is providing it umbrella coverage against more modern fighters by integration with Type 45s upgraded to A30B1NT which should give them reasonable operational range though still a mess but atleast we'd have a functioning carrier.

ghutchison14078 · 26 Jun 2017 at 14:12

Roar87 said:
I doubt it, the Harrier would be able to use it's thrust vectoring to out manoeuvre more modern fighters like it did in the Falklands. What they'd do was change the direction of thrust mid flight and the enemy fighters would fly right by them, then they'd get a lock on with the side winders and shoot them down.

Think I seen Tom Cruise do something similar once.....

Roar87 · 26 Jun 2017 at 14:18

Rroff said:
Wouldn't work so well against gen 5 fighters who can lock and engage it from over the horizon.

Completely agree, I was just addressing the manoeuvrability aspect.

Tefal · 26 Jun 2017 at 14:21

Rroff said:
Wouldn't work so well against gen 5 fighters who can lock and engage it from over the horizon.

does any non nuclear power (or allied toa nuclear power) have them?

d_brennen · 26 Jun 2017 at 14:22

Armageus said:
No pressure then

http://news.sky.com/story/royal-navys-largest-ever-warship-hms-queen-elizabeth-sets-sail-10927338

If in doubt, punch out

Rroff · 26 Jun 2017 at 14:23

Tefal said:
does any non nuclear power (or allied toa nuclear power) have them?

Dunno off the top of my head - but some places like Egypt have imported fighters that have similar abilities to engage a harrier from a distance where manoeuvrability will count for nothing.

Tefal · 26 Jun 2017 at 14:25

Rroff said:
Dunno off the top of my head - but some places like Egypt have imported fighters that have similar abilities to engage a harrier from a distance where manoeuvrability will count for nothing.

so the typhoons could deal with that? can the f25 for that matter?

the bulk of our airforces work seems to be ground support/bomb trucks now.