05:57

Welcome
Welcome!Welcome to Ships Nostalgia, the world's greatest online community for people worldwide with an interest in ships and shipping. Whether you are crew, ex-crew, ship enthusiasts or cruisers, this is the forum for you. And what's more, it's completely FREE.

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.
Log in
User Name Password

  Home · Search · Register  

Home » Royal Navy Ships Photo Options

« Previous image · Next image »

HMS QE / HMS POW
HMS QE / HMS POW

Click on image to view larger image

« Previous image  · Slide Show · Next image »


Photo Details
roofaerosyth



Senior Member

Registered: March 2010
Location: SCOTLAND
Posts: 2,242
View Gallery Profile Send PM users gallery
A better view of the 2 sisters
· Date: Mon, 22 July 19 · Views: 200
· Filesize: 34.3kb, 124.7kb · Dimensions: 1024 x 639 ·
Additional Info
Keywords: HMS QE / POW
Source of Image, If not your own: own
Location photo was taken: north queensferry
Date photo was taken: 2019
« more
ZEST4.jpg
Dragon_27_July_2019.jpg
Dragon_27_07_19.jpg
Argus_Dragon_26_July_19.jpg
Imperieuse.jpg
Nelson_A2003_.jpg
Nelson_1934_Aground-01.jpg
ZEST3.jpg
FB_IMG_1563913320346.jpg
FB_IMG_1563913291878.jpg
1-2046.jpg
4TH_DESTROYER_SQUADRN_1954_.jpg
BLACKTHORN_HU1316_.jpg
HMS_Invincible_041003.jpg
HMS_Illustrious_050406.jpg
HMS_Ocean_190600.jpg
HMS_Edinburgh_070598.jpg
HMS_Carron_1958.jpg
HMS_Indefatigable.jpg
FB_IMG_1563724526016.jpg
FB_IMG_1563724531743.jpg
· more »

Author
Thread  
CEYLON220

Senior Member

Registered: February 2006
Location: Silloth Cumbria
Posts: 1,880
Wed, 24 July 19 11:03

Would have been cheaper retaining the old carrier fleet than building these, at least they were working for their keep and doing a good job, not forgetting that they carried there own air craft and not being used as a landing fields for other navy aircraft----- I just don`t like the design of these ships but of course I was the old navy a small ships man!!!!!!
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
FG86
Senior Member

Registered: January 2011
Location: Falmouth UK
Posts: 3,492
Thu, 25 July 19 03:25

The so called 'old carriers' were tired and certainly Invincible and Ark were worn out. Illustrious was due a significant survey which would have put her out of service for at least two years to complete and bring up to required condition. In addition the 'then' Harrier strike wing was becoming dated and limited in service.
These two new carriers are exceptional pieces of equipment, they are still in the trailing stages, of which they are exceeding almost all expectations, even their speed is higher than anticipated. later this month QE will deploy to the USA with some of the UK aircraft as well as operating with Marine Corp F35's. As for why she operated US aircraft early, quite simply they were test aircraft that the UK do not own, the test unit uses specially modified F35B equipped with various data recovery equipment for trial work. There is no point in refitting a hand full of our own F35's as test aircraft for that role. The US test squadron employs UK nationals as maintainers and pilots. Back in 1969 when the Phantom was coming into service, we had no carriers capable of testing them so we used US flight decks with UK F4 Phantoms until Ark Royal emerged ready to operate them. The design represents a complete change in aircraft carrier operations, the carrier is becoming far more of a complete area command centre including the political decision making, it is no longer an asset within a task force controlled remotely, the remote strategic element is now on the carrier hence the design differences. The advances in communications and linkage with sensors from other assets , (land, air and sea) including other nations information, truly brings these carriers into the modern world. These ships will be in the heart of disaster relief & humanitarian activity as much as war fighting, operating a vast range variety of aircraft. They are the first true fifth generation carriers. Interestingly Gerald Ford is still undergoing rectification trails which so far have lasted 4 years, yet she is a fourth generation carrier with less command facilities than QE. The press seem to relish in disproportionate reporting of minor issues, mainly through lack of understanding of how ships work. All those involved in the construction and running of QE and POW are delighted and extremely proud of their achievements.
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
CEYLON220

Senior Member

Registered: February 2006
Location: Silloth Cumbria
Posts: 1,880
Thu, 25 July 19 05:07

Thanks again for an understanding report FG, cannot argue with that.
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
James_C

Malim Sahib Moderator

SN Supporter


Registered: February 2005
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 8,489
Thu, 25 July 19 05:59

The bigger question is perhaps should we have them at all. The RN is now a rather unbalanced fleet with money available to spend on some serious high end toys such as carriers and Trident for little greater practical purpose than political "willy waving" and pretending we're still one of the big boys, yet we don't have enough cash to sustain and expand the real workhorses of the fleet and that is unlikely to change for quite some time, if ever. There's also the real issue of just how much manpower these ships will soak up when we consider the RN's ongoing recruitment and retention problems.
I'd have thought these ships are a bit on the large side for disaster relief and I fear the only use they'll see is as a means to enable the political class to needlessly involve the UK in countless more regional conflicts which we really shouldn't be getting into and accordingly opening a pandoras box of unintended consequences, as recent history has clearly shown.

------------------------------
Regards,

Jim
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  
littoralcombat
Senior Member

Registered: September 2014
Location: Secret Harbour, Western Australia
Posts: 606
Fri, 26 July 19 17:30

Jim, I believe the RN should absolutely have these two Ships. It takes a long time to design, build, test such machines and their associated Aircraft. Not something you can knock up in five minutes when it hits the fan. The two Nations most likely to cause a bit of major 'Biffo' in the future are slowly (in one case quickly) building up their Maritime capability, so forward looking preparation for that is essential.
I agree fully with you regarding the neglected Frigate/Destroyer force though, it must be addressed.....soon. However, if the RN had not chosen to renew the Strike Carrier capability, and instead opted to spend its money on more Workhorses, then they would of been without Aircover in many areas around the World and be extremely vulnerable. The fact is, that Airpower is everything in a Conventional Conflict.
Let's hope, though, that we don't need to draw on these expensive Insurance Policies, as the cost in lives would be unthinkable.
Nige
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  

Photo Sharing Gallery by PhotoPost
Copyright © 2007 All Enthusiast, Inc.



Support SN


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.