Good pic Colin, she looks huge when your close

Andy

Good pictures Colin.

Dislike the flat front on these things…wonder if it’s anything to do with stealth or wind-over-deck, or just the cheapest way to finish off the bow?

Ashley

Before I retired I used for visit a company where one of the Project Engineers was ex Royal Navy. He had served on Ark Royal and showed me a photo of when the Ark visited the States include one of Ark Royal moored with some US carriers. Which one is Ark Royal, I asked? He pointed to the vessel which I had assumed was just used for ferrying the crew back and forth to the shore.

I read a very good “why aren’t the QE carriers nuclear” sort of expose somewhere and there are many advantages to NOT being nuclear and not having cats/traps.

some of them include a much reduced crew compliment especially in the engine dept, much reduced manning when not at sea, the ability to use virtually any port around the world (as many of them will not accept the nuclear option, and they need much increased security/facilities). The ability to launch and recover strikes rapidly without an awful lot of aircraft shuffling.

in addition the QE’s have a brill mechanised weapon handling facility and even the much vaunted “unlimited range and speed” from the nuke doesn’t stack up due to the need for fossil fuel and crew nosh resupply at regular intervals.

AND the ski jump and short rolling landing capability makes amend to some of the supposed shortfalls of the B version compared to the C cat types.

Given the much reduced cost of the QE’s compared to the Gerald R Ford (which is still non operational) and its no wonder I read that some Americans are wondering if they should not go down this route,,,,?

As for the Invincibles, I think they did us proud for many years at a very modest cost.

Ashley (armchair expert)

Edited By ashley needham on 17/11/2019 19:26:54

I really don't understand why they build these things, as I imagine they are very easy targets. I would go for loads of submarines myself, although I don't particularly like them, (In fact I don't like them at all) but feel that they would be a better deal than enormous surface ships when it comes to either defence or attack, as they can creep about in secret!

Bob

They have to have somewhere to come back to, and a giant aircraft carrier is a very huge target (As Mr Putin said). Much as I dislike them, (submarines) I would still prefer a huge fleet of British built, Navy submarines operating silently and secretly without any publicity at all.

Bob

Fab picture Colin.

As for having more subs instead of carriers, they have little utility unless you have a shooting war. Apparently it is not easy to find carriers in the ocean in war time , and they would always be well protected.

Ashley