Carrier News

[RabC]

I know it’s not good form to just post a link and run but believe some may find this interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/UK_aircraft_carriers

 

[Deleted 65350]

The silence is deafening.
Too painful to contemplate perhaps?

 

[superpom]

I know it’s not good form to just post a link and run but believe some may find this interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/UK_aircraft_carriers

The silence is deafening.
Too painful to contemplate perhaps?

I read this yesterday and have taken the time to have a think about it. Yes, it is depressing. Seems the point made that the RN today is little more than carrier escorts and truth be told, we don't have enough of them. I accept that the war canoe of today makes the require ment for ships in numbers unnecessary.....which is fine as long as the ships we have are available. More often than not they are alongside somewhere getting fixed, breakdown's seemingly all to common, with little or no back up.....simply put we need more (reliable) bloody ships and more of them. Will now look back to my time when we actually had a bloody navy!

 

[VilliersBucks]

Seems the point made that the RN today is little more than carrier escorts and truth be told, we don't have enough of them.

Does the Navy even have the man-capacity to fully crew both carriers? I've been told that Prince of Wales will be put into reserve immediately after completion because of this shortage, despite the article stating that she will not be "mothballed".

 

[Seadog]

I've been told that Prince of Wales will be put into reserve immediately after completion

By whom? QNLZ will have been wet for 5 years by the time PWLS has completed sea trials. Although the docking cycle is 6 years, a couple of options better than the one given by your ‘source’ spring to mind.

 

[VilliersBucks]

By whom?

Numerous ex-RN personnel, so to be taken with a rather large pinch of salt considering how disgruntled they are because the fleet "was much larger in their day" and all that.

 

[Sumo]

Size is not an issue (I've managed 4 kids with a small ish weapon), capability is. Problem is time of requirements to in-service first carrier was almost 20 years, how much have the threat goal post moved in that time?
Manpower issue are a problem, government cuts and lack of funding doesn't help.

 

[Deleted 493]

Does the Navy even have the man-capacity to fully crew both carriers?

Yes. In what readiness state are you refrerring?

I've been told that Prince of Wales will be put into reserve immediately after completion because of this shortage, despite the article stating that she will not be "mothballed".

Who's told you this? And what is their connectivity with say, the force generation end of the executive? Or was it some docky, or some ex- whining we don't have a hundred and sixty thousand matelots clogging up barracks or sunning themselves on far away beaches?

Love this 'I've been told' bit. Let me tell you this:

The navy generates force and task groups to deal with military threats pertinent to the global political climate of the day. We don't send shitloads of ships overmanned by thousands of matelots over the horizon simply to piss up and **** foreign lasses at taxpayer's expense any more. There's work to be done. Get used to it.

Be grateful also we have managed to lever six and a bit billion from the Exchequer to build two quite outstandingly agile and clever warships. Soon they'll have some of the best aircraft launching from their decks too. And we are starting to train their crews in an outstandingly good way as well.

The Royal Navy is back.

levers

 

[Sumo]

Yes. In what readiness state are you refrerring?



Who's told you this? And what is their connectivity with say, the force generation end of the executive? Or was it some docky, or some ex- whining we don't have a hundred and sixty thousand matelots clogging up barracks or sunning themselves on far away beaches?

Love this 'I've been told' bit. Let me tell you this:

The navy generates force and task groups to deal with military threats pertinent to the global political climate of the day. We don't send shitloads of ships overmanned by thousands of matelots over the horizon simply to piss up and **** foreign lasses at taxpayer's expense any more. There's work to be done. Get used to it.

Be grateful also we have managed to lever six and a bit billion from the Exchequer to build two quite outstandingly agile and clever warships. Soon they'll have some of the best aircraft launching from their decks too. And we are starting to train their crews in an outstandingly good way as well.

The Royal Navy is back.

levers

unfortunately, no where near what we originally designed, but they couldn't afford that?

 

[Deleted 493]

unfortunately, no where near what we originally designed, but they couldn't afford that?

What did 'we' design?

I think what we have is pretty adequate.

levers

 

[VilliersBucks]

Yes. In what readiness state are you refrerring?

Mothballed.

Or was it some docky, or some ex- whining we don't have a hundred and sixty thousand matelots clogging up barracks or sunning themselves on far away beaches?

The latter, hence the "I've been told" as beyond press releases and other such pieces they know as much as Joe Public; plus it allows one to make asinine comments without looking too foolish. Admittedly it hadn't crossed my mind that not only do we not require every ship to be fully operational but that it would be entirely beyond the means of the budget to do so. If the situation did arise where every vessel was suddenly needed I'm sure there'd be more pressing matters at hand than budgetary concerns.

With the ships themselves, how easy is it to transfer crew between one class and another? Do they all operate in much the same fashion or is there learning to be done?

 

[Sumo]

all ships of the same class are the same except where they are different.
if the kit you use is the same, then you have learn the new vessel, otherwise more training.

 

[Deleted 493]

Mothballed.

No one - not even in the early days - has mentioned mothballing one of the QEC. That's come from speculative know-nowts who project what they see as a declining recruitment rate against what they held dear as some sort of optimal number of serving personnel. When we had steam ships and massively manpower intensive and taxpayer costly vessels (largely doing nowt tied up on FLJ and WMJ)

The latter, hence the "I've been told" as beyond press releases and other such pieces they know as much as Joe Public; plus it allows one to make asinine comments without looking too foolish. Admittedly it hadn't crossed my mind that not only do we not require every ship to be fully operational but that it would be entirely beyond the means of the budget to do so. If the situation did arise where every vessel was suddenly needed I'm sure there'd be more pressing matters at hand than budgetary concerns.

Rest asured, one vessel will be at at least R2 Readiness state and the other reduced. Force generation will activate in times of crisis and our ships will be at sea, as and when needed.

With the ships themselves, how easy is it to transfer crew between one class and another? Do they all operate in much the same fashion or is there learning to be done?

Matelots are matelots. They have been drafted out of preference for donkey's years, either adapted in-job or attended PJTs soon after joining. Again, having the correct training for the ship is desirable, but not a show stopper.

Please stop worrying.

levers

 

[janner]

For a change an interesting article on a good parlimentary debate

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mp...MXSnOdfxWnLV8vCQO9e9bSd6-t2n4I-xYftPBR4QgvQZM

 

[WreckerL]

I like the comment "axing PoW would suit the Treasury nicely, however strategically illiterate ".

 

[BreathingOutOnTheWayUp]

Ref this #13 Post of Levers of 3 Sept last:

No one - not even in the early days - has mentioned mothballing one of the QEC.

That's come from speculative know-nowts who project what they see as a declining recruitment rate against what they held dear as some sort of optimal number of serving personnel... etc etc

@Levers_Aligned. 'twas 5 months ago but your bland statement ATT is the polar opposite to that reported as government policy 2010 - 2014, (quoted by @janner's #14 article above, describing the MP's Westminster debate of 28 Feb 2019):

<<...It was government policy between 2010-14 that the second carrier would be sold or mothballed on completion (The Aircraft Carrier Alliance had sensibly locked the government into a contract that made it impossibly expensive to cancel the project). In 2014 David Cameron saw sense and reversed the decision but HMS Prince of Wales has always seemed slightly vulnerable to cuts...>>

Sometimes Levers opinions are right, sometimes he just believes they are right. Contributors may wonder which is correct in this instance?

Over to you, Levers.

 

[janner]

Ref this #13 Post of Levers of 3 Sept last:

@Levers_Aligned. 'twas 5 months ago but your bland statement ATT is the polar opposite to that reported as government policy 2010 - 2014, (quoted by @janner's #14 article above, describing the MP's Westminster debate of 28 Feb 2019):

<<...It was government policy between 2010-14 that the second carrier would be sold or mothballed on completion (The Aircraft Carrier Alliance had sensibly locked the government into a contract that made it impossibly expensive to cancel the project). In 2014 David Cameron saw sense and reversed the decision but HMS Prince of Wales has always seemed slightly vulnerable to cuts...>>

Sometimes Levers opinions are right, sometimes he just believes they are right. Contributors may wonder which is correct in this instance?

Over to you, Levers.

Have you seen his views on Brexit?

 

[dapperdunn]

<<...It was government policy between 2010-14 that the second carrier would be sold or mothballed on completion (The Aircraft Carrier Alliance had sensibly locked the government into a contract that made it impossibly expensive to cancel the project). In 2014 David Cameron saw sense and reversed the decision but HMS Prince of Wales has always seemed slightly vulnerable to cuts...>>

That's not a quote from the debate though is it? It's a quote attributed to the debate by 'Save the Royal Navy' (Whoever they are).

 

[Waspie]

Even as a ex-Woo. I think the carriers were a huge mistake. Were not a global force any more and the money used for the carriers would have been better placed on more coastal craft and GP Frigates.
Tis only my opinion but I keep asking why we really need a global presence if that mean it leaves our own shores depleted of a naval force!

 

[Deleted 493]

That's not a quote from the debate though is it? It's a quote attributed to the debate by 'Save the Royal Navy' (Whoever they are).

Hey, why split hairs? STRN have form for being speculative, wrong, even. But as long as someone can come back on here 'quoting' government defence policy and in context then who is right?

QNLZ is up and running (I was on it this morning) and PWLS is readying itself up in Scotland.

If BOOTWU wants an 'over to you' then I'll take that. I'll update you all when I sail north with the flagship next month and witness the second hull and it's progress from the north.

Also, this:

"He cited the General Shirreff’s novel “War With Russia” which describes a British Prime Minister desperate to make a strong political gesture, sending HMS Queen Elizabeth to sea without an adequate escort only to be sunk by the Russians."

Anyone who references this pile of wholesale dogshit as a valid waypoint to any future conflict needs their bumps felt. I have never read such utter tosh in my life. Safeguard.

levers