Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers

[mediadave]

I'm sure some people have watched too much star wars and think we should have names like HMS Death Star or something

You know what would be a good name? HMS Violent. Maybe with HMS Furious as a sister ship.

[UnitedPakistan]

Originally Posted by high_flyer

The problem is that if you give the armed forces to much autonomy, then you get a situation like in Burma or Pakistan, where their militaries hold great power, as they weren't kept in check by the public

This is not the problem in Pakistan! The problem is the inept Governments that were ruling the country.

[jmancuso]

is the UK going to retain it's three existing carriers?

[JackTindale]

Originally Posted by Starscraper

The last HMS Prince of Wales was sunk by the Japanese in WW2, not a good omen.

Luckily I don't think that we are going to be at war with Japan any time soon unless they are annexed by China!

[AXISPAW]

Originally Posted by jmancuso

is the UK going to retain it's three existing carriers?

Well apparently they are definetly keeping one for another amphibious vessel to acompany HMS Ocean, well iv read that anyway. It would make sense, because not only would they give the marines a huge boost, the navy could also use them for humanitarian aid etc instead of using up one of the new carriers.

[Newcastle Guy]

Originally Posted by jmancuso

is the UK going to retain it's three existing carriers?

No, we only have 2 at the moment. Illustrious will be decommisioned in 2012 when the first of the new carriers is completed, and the Ark Royal was recently refitted, and will be decommisioned later. I'm not sure when though, 2017 or earlier I believe.

[Newcastle Guy]

Originally Posted by AXISPAW

Well apparently they are definetly keeping one for another amphibious vessel to acompany HMS Ocean, well iv read that anyway. It would make sense, because not only would they give the marines a huge boost, the navy could also use them for humanitarian aid etc instead of using up one of the new carriers.

Oh I hadn't heard that. I just got my info from Wiki. I hope they do retain 1, that would be helpfull.

[Rob]

Queen Elizabeth is a superb name, the last one was lead of a class of five, which were the most powerful battleships in the world when built (around 1912) armed with 4 twin 15" gun turrets was an unprecidented level of power in those days, and that gun design turned out to be superb and went on right through to arming the last big gun ship, Vanguard in 1945.

The last Prince of Wales was one of a class of five King George V class, built around 1939, tackled the Bismark and took a bit of punishment, but went down to a massive onsluaght of Japanese torpedo bombers (in 1942 I think) a day that Churchill described as the lowest ebb of the war. As Starscraper says, not a good omen.

I don't know why they didn't stick with old carrier names like the Invincible class did, there are some great old carrier names that could have been used (Victorious, Glorious, Courageous, Furious, Eagle etc.)

[TallBox]

Originally Posted by Rob

I don't know why they didn't stick with old carrier names like the Invincible class did, there are some great old carrier names that could have been used (Victorious, Glorious, Courageous, Furious, Eagle etc.)

Well the tradition of 'carrier names' has only been around since the interwar years I think, at the earliest so the tradition is pretty recent. The first carriers were named after dreadnoughts and battleships, so it's not wholly strange that they are named Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales.

Anyhow, I quite like Prince of Wales. She went down magnificently alongside Repulse which took 19 torpedoes. Consequently, I think these two names are the most fitting.

Would've also like to see Majestic and Colossus though.

[Rob]

As carriers have only been in existance for less than a century, there haven't been many generations of them yet. Obviously the first ones had to take older battleship names, but since WWII, newer carriers have taken carrier names, like Ark Royal, Invincible, Illustrious.

Still, Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales are grand traditional R.N. names.

[AXISPAW]

Originally Posted by Newcastle Guy

Oh I hadn't heard that. I just got my info from Wiki. I hope they do retain 1, that would be helpfull.

yeah i always thought they should keep one for a "jack of all trades" idea. Use it for multiple tasks. If there is a country requiring civilian evacuation then send it, if the navy are for some reason sending a huge amphibious force somewhere then use it for another helicopter platform etc.

[JackSwan]

excellent news about the carriers....but as shaun says, there are many hurdles left still yet to jump through. we may find in the end they're little more than 65k tonnes of floating steel with fairly piss poor on-board systems.

as for the names, i'm happy with prince of wales, but queen elizabeth II sounds a little too passenger liner for my liking. still, i suppose you couldn't have the former without the latter.

[Vanguard]

Originally Posted by JackSwan

excellent news about the carriers....but as shaun says, there are many hurdles left still yet to jump through. we may find in the end they're little more than 65k tonnes of floating steel with fairly piss poor on-board systems.

as for the names, i'm happy with prince of wales, but queen elizabeth II sounds a little too passenger liner for my liking. still, i suppose you couldn't have the former without the latter.

It's Queen Elizabeth without the II. My take is that it's named for Gloriana the virgin queen.

I could be wrong, lol.

[JackSwan]

sorry, i'm wrong. i read a book about the great passenger liners last month, clearly there's been some unwanted data transposition.

typical really...i started the first thread on this subject back in the old euroscrapers forum...it's taken so long to get to this point that i rarely check the navy sites anymore to keep abreast of what's happening.

[metro]

looks like they are being based in portsmouth too.

probably appropriate to have a dancing banana on this occasion.

[Jaeger]

The Navy will not be retaining it's current aircraft carriers once these new carriers come in to operation. The current carriers would be far to old to go on beyond 2017.

However HMS Ocean will still be operational.

[Peyre]

Exciting times for the Royal navy. I know there are fears about the cutbacks etc, but they will have the T45's, the Astute Subs, and the Super Carriers to play with.

[Vanguard]

Originally Posted by Jaeger

The Navy will not be retaining it's current aircraft carriers once these new carriers come in to operation. The current carriers would be far to old to go on beyond 2017.

However HMS Ocean will still be operational.

There are plans for new LPH ships maybe even LHPD around the 2014 period.

[Jaeger]

Originally Posted by Vanguard

There are plans for new LPH ships maybe even LHPD around the 2014 period.

There are no concrete plans for either, however there have been rumours about a second 'Ocean' Type Ship and also buying ships from the Americans.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/lphr.htm

I predict there will be an increase in Expeditionary Capabilities, and the recent announcement of a sixth C-17 is also welcome news.

However in terms of Frigates and Destroyers, the fleet may be cut further in order to pay for these changes.

According to the Royal United Service Institute Article, one carrier
will have a strike capability, whilst the other will be used in a LHPD
Role alongside HMS Ocean.

http://www.rusi.org/research/militar...46A71C37CFECF/

Lewis Page an EX-RN Officer and Author has argued for away from
a Cold-War Naval Force to an expiditionary force for some time.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...ls.php?id=5829

As for the current Aircraft carriers they will be over 35 years old come 2017 and it would be cheaper in the long run to just build new ships.

[Sy]

Wish we were getting a few of these carriers: