Skip to comments.Britannia rules the waves: Inside brand new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth
Posted on 06/23/2014 9:44:52 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Britannia rules the waves: Inside brand new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth that boasts 33-ton propellers twice the size of a double decker bus and a four acre deck
HMS Queen Elizabeth is Britain's biggest engineering project
Two 33-ton propellers are twice the height of a double decker bus
The carrier will finally take to the water next month when the Queen visits
Standing on the bridge of the mighty HMS Queen Elizabeth, it is the sheer scale of the largest warship in Royal Navy history that hits you. This hi-tech batcave commands a view that runs for miles from Rosyth, Fife, beyond the seemingly endless flight deck of our newest aircraft carrier and taking in the Forth Bridges and a hazy Edinburgh city centre to the east to the Grangemouth refinery and the Ochils in the west.
And yet, given that this is Britains biggest engineering project, one has to fight hard not to laugh out loud at the comical size of the ships tiny steering wheel.
It is odd to think that this plastic control, that could easily have come from a service-station arcade game, will one day steer a ship powered by two 33-ton propellers, each almost twice the height of a double decker bus. It is the only small thing about the first of the two new QE Class carriers to come on stream.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2662160/A-mighty-queen-ocean-From-33-ton-propellers-four-acre-deck-visit-Britains-aircraft-carrier-launch-fast-approaches-reveals-powerful-ships-vast-scale.html#ixzz35Wq3lHr9 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Queen-size: Size of the new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier if it was on the River Thames
You think HRH could really fetch such a sum? < /s >
How did they get it under the Bridge?
Must be a Submarine that looks like an Aircraft Carrier.
Q must have designed it.
Rule Brittania, Brittania rules the waves.
This may help them beat Argentina again, should it come to that.
Sorry but these big carriers are anachronistic. All it would take is one stealth shore to ship , air to ship or ship to ship missile and that would be the end of it. Stealth technology applied to drones and missiles makes these big capital ships almost indefensible.
This carrier means the end of Argentina running their lips about The Falklands.
You could be right about that, their time might be up. I could only imagine stealthy space planes that come down from orbit to attack and return the same way.
And one left-footed effort from Messi, and the Argentine (as the late Baroness Thatcher was wont to call them) are through to the round of 16.
These big ships can stay in combat after multiple hits by conventional missiles. They are the most protected of capital assets.
And, they exact retribution.
Why do you think all real Navies seek such capability? Because without them you cannot project power.
Heh heh heh... it’s cute.
The thought of such a chaotic and unheroic sight might finally lead to the end of war.
Carriers are about the Projection of Force in the modern era. Which is why most of the major nations on the planet, from Russia and China to India, are building new carriers, after two decades of decline.
Even Australia and Japan have recently commissioned new Carriers.
If the projection of Military Force is, as Machiavelli described it, just an extension of Diplomacy, these nations are taking steps to increase their influence in the world. (especially as our own declines)
Nothing says “Pay attention to our interests” like a few dozen fighter-bombers off your coast.
“What if all future wars were just swarms of stealthy drones on land, in the water, and in the air shooting at each other until there’s just one “last drone standing”?”
Not going to happen...
Drones have two huge drawbacks, The link between the drone and the operator, and the drone itself. Both can be interrupted by technical means, such as jamming or EMP.
The human factor in warfare simply cannot be replaced by technology.
Is it made of aluminum, like their ship that burnt to a crisp fighting the Argentinas.
Only ten more and they will be equal to us
Really? Consider this scenario. A satellite locates and tracks a carrier. A submarine 200 miles away launches four very slealthy missiles which themselves each launch a flock of forty “seagulls”. Each “seagull” is an 18 inch stealthy drone packed with one pound of C4 plastique. Monitors track the flocks directly to the carriers like mosquitoes going to a prey. Science fiction? The carrier would survive? That is a very rudimentary basic scenario. Big capital ships are simply not defensible in the 21st century.
Beside, the weapon you mention doesn't exist.
I suspect that you think one pound of RDX plastic explosive does quite a lot more damage than it really does.
In any case, this weapon system of yours would be a sub-launched missile bigger than a Tomahawk that delivers 40 pounds of explosive -- in forty separate packages that somehow all need to be independently controlled to the target by micro helicopters. Even 40 pounds of TNT delivered in a single lump isn't going to knock the license plate off an aircraft carrier.
You're describing a very unlikely weapon to even make it off the drawing board.
Remember given the optics of direct satellite observation, those drones can be directed to almost anywhere on a ship. A fully armed aircraft on the deck of a carrier hit by a drone carrying 300 grams of CD4 would create quite a conflagration. Until you prove that the concept is not feasible, if you are a navy planer, you are better off assuming that such a weapon system can and will be implemented. There are usually over 5,000 sailors on those carriers.
I can't imagine anyone going for that.
Practically, I think that the damage caused by your imaginary weapons system would be less than randomly attacking the outer surfaces of an aircraft carrier with about a half-dozen common hand grenades; hardly even likely to abrade the paint or knock some rust off. Capital ships take far more structural damage than that on a daily basis just navigating the ocean in the normal course of duty in peacetime.
Not exactly. The ship is smaller than US carriers and its STOVL airwing lacks all sorts of important capabilities, including airborne electronic warfare/recce (EA-18G Growlers) and offensive airborne command and control (E-2 Hawkeyes. The RN’s current Sea King and projected furture Merlin AEW are mainly defensive in nature).
That having been said, the ships are better and more capable than the Invincibles and all the other STOVL/STOBAR carriers, and only slightly less capable than the French Charles deGaulle (when it actually works). They’ll work well operating independently in low to medium threat environments, and in conjunction with US CVNs in high threat ones.
They already are. Maneuverable ICSM/SLBM warheads made aircraft carriers obsolete decades ago. The Navy and Air Force simply had the Military Industrial Complex scare everyone into spending ridiculous money on it. Congresscritters of all kinds since 1945 have been on the take and voting for the spending to benefit their States.
LOL. Given the fact that the US Navy currently has two of the big blue water carriers in the narrow shallow waters of the heavily fortified Persian Gulf , for the sake of the 8-10,000 brave young American sailors on those ships, certainly hope you are correct about the amount of punishment those ships can absorb.