Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier

Discussion in 'The Members Lounge' started by Che_Guevara, Jan 4, 2008.

  1. Che_Guevara

    Che_Guevara New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Davy Jones's locker
    via TanksinWW2
  2. Ebar

    Ebar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    On a space station in geosynchronous orbit above y
    via TanksinWW2
    Don't worry about it, it will undoubtedly fall foul of a far more destructive force: the British Civil Service :-?
     
  3. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    yep, I have to say that as a Brit I see these things as being a huge waste of vast sums of money.

    Given the fact that we are struggling to design a plane on budget and schedule I have little faith that these will see service in my lifetime.

    FNG
     
  4. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    65.000 tons, it seems like the displacement record of Yamato (72.000 tons) will remain for a couple years
     
  5. Ossian phpbb3

    Ossian phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bonnie Scotland
    via TanksinWW2
    Surely the Nimitz class is heavier -- about 100,000 tons IIRC
     
  6. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    damm, your right. Seems the record is broken quite a while ago.
    Ford Class is planned for 100.000 but will no doubt have more weight when finished and fully loaded.
     
  7. Revere

    Revere New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Iowa, US
    via TanksinWW2
    its alot cheaper to make a image then the real thing, less money on navy more money on army/marines.
     
  8. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    What worries me is that somewhere along the line it will involve large cutbacks elsewhere as that't the way Britain usually does things.
     
  9. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Our Marines are part of our Navy. :wink:

    BRITISH, the Royal Navy is BRITISH, not English, England is only part of Great Britain.
     
  10. Revere

    Revere New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Iowa, US
    via TanksinWW2
    I dont see that big reason to upgrades navy, whats so wrong with the royal navy right now? I dont see how the goverment can spend a billions some dollars on a new aircraft carrier,submarine, and destroyer but nothing on getting every member army/marines good body armor.

    The Marines are part of the Navy over here as well, I never really considered them the same.
     
  11. Skua

    Skua New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    For now it is. I reckon the second carrier will go to the Scottish Navy. :wink:

    Is this the same type of carrier the Frenchies are getting by the way? I got the impression that this was an Anglo-French co-operation?
     
  12. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    IIRC: The new French aircraft carrier will look like the Queen Elizabeth but a little smaller in lenght. Also, the French will not use jets that can take of virticly so they have a fully flat deck and the catapult is placed in an angle like the Nimitz class
    here's the wikipage whit additional info
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_French_aircraft_carrier
     
  13. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    and yet they couldn't find 30 million for the police!

    Our Labour government are a bunch of hypacritical, pocket lining, corrupt wasters.

    FNG
     
  14. Skua

    Skua New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    Wikipedia says the French carrier is a development of the same design as the British class, and they seem to have a lot in common except for the flight deck. Same displacement, same lenght by 1 meter ( which might be the different flight decks ) and the same island arrangement.
     
  15. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, but the French are using the Catobar system and the British don't. However, the british keep it as a possibility for the future.

    Also, take a look at the flightdecks above the bow. The french have a flat deck while the british have a up going deck. just one of te small differences. For the rest the ships are identical since they are made by the same corperation
     
  16. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    I do wonder why the RN carrier has two island structures, though. Interesting choice of name for her, too. :wink:
     
  17. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    I have no idea. Because it looks funny?
     
  18. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    RN ships have always traditionally been female - now they even look like it - lying down, staring skyward is always an interesting pose too.

    :p :-?
     
  19. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    How many of those dinky little Joint Strake Fighters do you think could be accommodated compared to F14s for example ?
     
  20. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    No idea, but since there's little or no chance of the RN getting any Tomcats, it's kind of a moot point. Personally, I'd equip her with Super Hornets or keep the Sea Harriers, perhaps in an upgraded variant, rather than use the JSF.
     

Share This Page