Britain's biggest warship uncovered

[Jackal]

Man i have already said that INDIVIDUALLY are very good BUT only INDIVIDUALLY.That's the problem with the British they still live in their colonial era.In spite you don't have that much power.

French realized it almost 5 decades back in 1956 and have been relatively peaceful ever since.But you guys just don't wanna listen.

If you think you have the same punch just try to sell Taiwan even a single bullet and see what china does with you.And by the way this is the same china whom you guys just a century ago turned into a drug colony and ruled it from an area just greater than London.

As far as riding on the back of US is concerned just use your carriers to attack a half decent country ALONE then see what happens.

And as far as my country is concerned i never said it was even relevant in SA.

But if these Colonial relics make you feel good then its fine but it wont change the reality though.

Don't have that much power? well, compared to in the past we don't, thats true, but, even for today we're only small but we have one hell of a punch. Might not be on the same level as other countries, but when have we ever had the same level of punch to ones foes and come out better off? Quite often than none I can tell you.

Say what you want, it doesn't affect me nor my interests.

 

[amalakas]

Don't have that much power? well, compared to in the past we don't, thats true, but, even for today we're only small but we have one hell of a punch. Might not be on the same level as other countries, but when have we ever had the same level of punch to ones foes and come out better off? Quite often than none I can tell you.

Say what you want, it doesn't affect me nor my interests.

Power as always is relative.

Britain or the UK has almost permanently put the entire Europe behind its back.
It enjoys good to excellent relations with almost all major european military nations. and Russia is highly unlikely it will ever be on the offensive against any western european country.
For good or bad, Europe is very well .. established.

Now the UK is one of the important NATO arms, and as such it needs to project power when needed. Granted the new carriers are inferior to a real carrier (see the US) but then again, they are enough for serving two roles.

Projecting UK power when needed, and fulfilling the UK NATO role.

what more does one need from a new ship class ?

 

[Jackal]

the new carriers are inferior to a real carrier (see the US) but then again, they are enough for serving two roles.

Do you mean the two new Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers or do you mean the Invincible Class Carriers? If you mean the latter then its debatable on so many levels, for example, The Falklands War would not have been won with conventional carriers. If you mean the Queen Elizabeth class Carriers then...Well its not very thoughtful.

 

[amalakas]

Do you mean the two new Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers or do you mean the Invincible Class Carriers? If you mean the latter then its debatable on so many levels, for example, The Falklands War would not have been won with conventional carriers. If you mean the Queen Elizabeth class Carriers then...Well its not very thoughtful.

I mean the new ones, I am sorry I am hurting some feelings perhaps, but.. they are just ..two modern ships, with a couple of innovations..

they are nothing to write home about. To be honest, they're already long overdue, the RN should have had them 15 years ago and now one may not even be retained.

The Falklands War would not have been won with conventional carriers.

Why?, two conventional carriers would not need to approach the islands as much as the invincible class and carrying around 70 planes each would have never allowed the AAF to bomb the battle group, by extending the typical range of no-fly zone around the task force...
That does not take anything away from the value of what the battle group achieved so far away from home..

 

[illuzioN]

Don't have that much power? well, compared to in the past we don't, thats true, but, even for today we're only small but we have one hell of a punch.

we will throw the first punch for you brits... just plz... no more oil spills

 

[Jackal]

I mean the new ones, I am sorry I am hurting some feelings perhaps, but.. they are just ..two modern ships, with a couple of innovations..

they are nothing to write home about. To be honest, they're already long overdue, the RN should have had them 15 years ago and now one may not even be retained.

Don't worry, you're not hurtning any feelings at all. Not mine anyway. You're more than entitled to your opinion.

When the angled deck was introduced to Aircraft Carriers, that was, 'just an innovation' but it made a world of difference which other countries that operated conventional carriers follow suite. They'll be a worthy match for any other carrier out there.

Yes, of course they're over due, but so is/was Eurofighter, F-22, F-35, Type 45 Destroyers etc etc, many many more but the likes of the RN's new Aircaft Carriers, they're not over due because theres problems building them, but because of the economy of UK, most of the world even. They're not to blame because some bankers messed up.

But hey, like I say you're entitled to your opinion.

Why?, two conventional carriers would not need to approach the islands as much as the invincible class and carrying around 70 planes each would have never allowed the AAF to bomb the battle group, by extending the typical range of no-fly zone around the task force...
That does not take anything away from the value of what the battle group achieved so far away from home..

Quite so, but they wouldn't had to been able to take off and land in such bad weather conditions. Some of the take offs and landings the Harriers' made in bad weather like they operated in were terrible. And the further you head out to see the rougher it gets but being closer to islands was still tough to operate, even for the Harriers', but they still managed it. This was mentioned on more than one occasion in the book wriiten by Commander 'Sharky' Ward RN.

Its ok when some people say that AAF wouldn't have attacked the British Fleet if conventional carriers were operated by the RN, but at the time Argentina was being rather proud and patriotic and thought it'd be a good idea to try & take the islands. No matter whats said or what we had, conventional carriers ot not, Argentina were convinced that the British wouldn't even bother thinking about retaking the Islands. They got a nasty shock when they set sail because they knew very well that HMS Hermes & HMS Invincable with Harriers' could operate better in worser conditions than conventional Aircraft Carriers.

Being a big 100.000 ton carrier isn't the best thing in the world when in rough seas, I'm sure you've heard the saying; the bigger you are the harder you fall. More carrier means more to push about than say, 25.000 ton carrier, which takes neatly back to the new British carriers, 65.000 ton, fits nicely in between.

 

[Jackal]

we will throw the first punch for you brits... just plz... no more oil spills

And who said who'll throw the first punch? Not me or anyone else. Plus, we've took a few punches for you too, matey. Its not a one way street here.

Tut-tut, typical Yanks, you spend billions and billions of dollars & waste your own lives (and others) to invade a third world country for oil-c'mon, thats REALLY what its for-and think nothing of it. We British come along, dump a whole load of it on your doorstep for free and all you do is complain about it, jeeez! You're a funny bunch you lot.

And...Cough* it was 'Americans' that approved for safety devices on the oil pipes/seals/taps etc cough* cough*...

...Good day to you old chap.
Ta-ta

 

[amalakas]

Don't worry, you're not hurtning any feelings at all. Not mine anyway. You're more than entitled to your opinion.

When the angled deck was introduced to Aircraft Carriers, that was, 'just an innovation' but it made a world of difference which other countries that operated conventional carriers follow suite. They'll be a worthy match for any other carrier out there.

Yes, of course they're over due, but so is/was Eurofighter, F-22, F-35, Type 45 Destroyers etc etc, many many more but the likes of the RN's new Aircaft Carriers, they're not over due because theres problems building them, but because of the economy of UK, most of the world even. They're not to blame because some bankers messed up.

But hey, like I say you're entitled to your opinion.


Quite so, but they wouldn't had to been able to take off and land in such bad weather conditions. Some of the take offs and landings the Harriers' made in bad weather like they operated in were terrible. And the further you head out to see the rougher it gets but being closer to islands was still tough to operate, even for the Harriers', but they still managed it. This was mentioned on more than one occasion in the book wriiten by Commander 'Sharky' Ward RN.

Its ok when some people say that AAF wouldn't have attacked the British Fleet if conventional carriers were operated by the RN, but at the time Argentina was being rather proud and patriotic and thought it'd be a good idea to try & take the islands. No matter whats said or what we had, conventional carriers ot not, Argentina were convinced that the British wouldn't even bother thinking about retaking the Islands. They got a nasty shock when they set sail because they knew very well that HMS Hermes & HMS Invincable with Harriers' could operate better in worser conditions than conventional Aircraft Carriers.

Being a big 100.000 ton carrier isn't the best thing in the world when in rough seas, I'm sure you've heard the saying; the bigger you are the harder you fall. More carrier means more to push about than say, 25.000 ton carrier, which takes neatly back to the new British carriers, 65.000 ton, fits nicely in between.

Armm, a Nimitz class nuclear carrier, can conduct full war operations up to a sea condition 6 .. that is if I am not mistaken is very rough, with 6 meter waves, that is like 20 feet high.. after that there is like a hurricane... and perhaps a George Clooney killing perfect storm or a Tsunami...

 

[Jackal]

Armm, a Nimitz class nuclear carrier, can conduct full war operations up to a sea condition 6 .. that is if I am not mistaken is very rough, with 6 meter waves, that is like 20 feet high.. after that there is like a hurricane... and perhaps a George Clooney killing perfect storm or a Tsunami...

All very well if its true, but you still need to fling aircraft off the end of it and get them to land back on the end of it. Its difficult enough for the pilots to perform those tasks in normal conditions let alone in a condition 6, and flying at 140+ knots towards the back of a ship, you've got enough to think about.

 

[Frankenstein]

Nice post

but clearly there can be no comparison between these and the US carriers, those are truly giants.

duh...this is a warship not a carrier

 

[amalakas]

duh...this is a warship not a carrier

??????????

 

[Tang0]

All very well if its true, but you still need to fling aircraft off the end of it and get them to land back on the end of it. Its difficult enough for the pilots to perform those tasks in normal conditions let alone in a condition 6, and flying at 140+ knots towards the back of a ship, you've got enough to think about.

Yes, landing aircraft in pitching deck conditions is very hard, but far from impossible. The extra fuel needed for fly-arounds limits your range somewhat, but Harriers have short legs and lower speeds compared to traditional aircraft anyway. Harriers have about a 500 mile strike range with a deck launch and landing, and a 120 mile STOL CAS range with 1.4 hour loiter. Compare that to a F-18 with a 150 CAS range and a 1.75 hour loiter. Strike ranges of F-18 are similarly 20% or so longer.

Also, it is all kinda pointless, since harriers can and do operate off of "Conventional" carriers anyway. The USMC uses them off of AWS's and very occasionally off of carriers.

 

[Jackal]

Yes, landing aircraft in pitching deck conditions is very hard, but far from impossible. The extra fuel needed for fly-arounds limits your range somewhat, but Harriers have short legs and lower speeds compared to traditional aircraft anyway. Harriers have about a 500 mile strike range with a deck launch and landing, and a 120 mile STOL CAS range with 1.4 hour loiter. Compare that to a F-18 with a 150 CAS range and a 1.75 hour loiter. Strike ranges of F-18 are similarly 20% or so longer.

Also, it is all kinda pointless, since harriers can and do operate off of "Conventional" carriers anyway. The USMC uses them off of AWS's and very occasionally off of carriers.

Quite so, of course. But to get to the point to along the lines I was talking about, its much easier landing a Harrier than it is an F-18 on a carrier, in any condition. Which is why conventional carriers wouldn't have been much use to the RN during The Falklands, very bad weather conditions.

 

[amalakas]

Quite so, of course. But to get to the point to along the lines I was talking about, its much easier landing a Harrier than it is an F-18 on a carrier, in any condition. Which is why conventional carriers wouldn't have been much use to the RN during The Falklands, very bad weather conditions.

I was under the impression that harriers are particularly vaunarable during hovering stage, since even tiny differences in air flow over each wing will cause the plane to become unstable.. especially in heavy wind where no amount of compensating will correct the plane before it spins to a crash.

 

[Jackal]

I was under the impression that harriers are particularly vaunarable during hovering stage, since even tiny differences in air flow over each wing will cause the plane to become unstable.. especially in heavy wind where no amount of compensating will correct the plane before it spins to a crash.

I would've thought too to be honest with you, before I read into it-via books for example-that've been written by various Harrier pilots over the years. Pilots such as Commander 'Sharky' Ward RN as well as others alike thought the Harrier handled rather well even though at times were very difficult but without drama. IIRC, by reading his book, before The Falklands started they were on exercise in the north sea with the US Navys' Aircraft Carriers, RN was operating HMS Invincible with Sea Harriers. They both had to take off and simulate an attack on each others carriers as well as fighting there way there and back, but it was during rough seas at the time, and so, the Sea Harriers were the only ones able to take off in these conditions, and, well they had an easy fight I guess one could say...So that was that. I'll have to dig out the book & read a bit more into it, but it wa something like that anyway.