Help support TMP

"HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier takes to the seas" Topic

14 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) Message Board

808 hits since 26 Jun 2017
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0126 Jun 2017 3:38 p.m. PST

"The £3.50 GBPbn cost of the vessel is so high that doubts have been raised over whether the Royal Navy can afford enough fighters for it

Captain Jerry Kyd seems remarkably relaxed given he is scheduled on Monday to take to sea for the first time one of the biggest and most expensive defence projects in British history, the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth.

To reach open sea, he will have to conduct two complicated manoeuvres, firstly to take it from the Rosyth dockyard basin where the carrier was built and then under the three Forth bridges. The calculations are fine but the prospect of miscalculation does not appear to scare him.

As well as all the electronic devices available to him, he will make a gesture towards tradition, conducting a final check with an instrument used by mariners since at least the 18th century, a sextant, before heading under the bridges…"
Main page


28mm Fanatik26 Jun 2017 3:44 p.m. PST

The Royal Treasury just isn't what it used to be.

SBminisguy26 Jun 2017 6:06 p.m. PST

I wonder why x2 islands on the CV?

TheWhiteDog26 Jun 2017 7:46 p.m. PST

I believe one is for the Air Group and one is for command of the vessel.

bsrlee27 Jun 2017 1:30 a.m. PST

Hopefully he does not follow in the path of a previous Captain Kidd.

Paul B27 Jun 2017 5:26 a.m. PST

What should you call an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?

GurKhan27 Jun 2017 5:52 a.m. PST

And apparently the whole thing runs on Windows XP – link

Jcfrog Supporting Member of TMP27 Jun 2017 8:35 a.m. PST

65000t for 24 dubious planes?

Personal logo Andrew Walters Supporting Member of TMP27 Jun 2017 9:12 a.m. PST

What should you call an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?

A target.

I'm sure they'll find the planes, though. Britain does need to project power.

28mm Fanatik27 Jun 2017 9:32 a.m. PST

We can joke and ridicule all we want, but Britain is forced to build carriers without planes due to budget reasons. The costs of the carriers and the F-35's to be based on them are so high that she cannot afford them concurrently. Like it or not, this is the sad reality of modern weapon development.

Therefore they must be acquired in a phased manner. Had Britain chose to acquire the planes before the carrier, she would be putting the cart in front of the horse.

Vigilant27 Jun 2017 9:52 a.m. PST

Still seems to have been a strange decision to retire the Harrier fleet before the replacement was ready. At least we could have fielded something useful for a while rather than an expensive target. Hopefully it won't have the same power problems that the type 45s have and it will be able to operate outside UK waters.

28mm Fanatik27 Jun 2017 10:28 a.m. PST

The USMC will be operating F-35B squadrons on the British carriers in the meantime. Keeping Harriers operational in the interim would be costly and could divert funds earmarked for other needs. There's an opportunity cost to everything.

Lion in the Stars27 Jun 2017 3:31 p.m. PST

Any submariner will tell you that you call all aircraft carriers "targets", regardless of presence of aircraft.

Good news with having USMC F35s onboard is that the Marines are guaranteed to fight to keep the carrier safe, regardless of US desires.

Tgunner28 Jun 2017 10:14 a.m. PST

Had Britain chose to acquire the planes before the carrier, she would be putting the cart in front of the horse.


I would argue that the F-35 is the horse while the carrier is the cart. You don't really need the cart because you can use the horse to take you and your stuff from place to place. The cart just makes the horse more efficient.

I believe the same is true for the carrier. You don't need it to have the carrier, but it certainly makes the jet more useful. Unfortunately, like a cart missing its horse, the carrier is pretty useless without its planes. Perhaps the USMC/USN will chip in and at least get the process started with training her air group and get the flight deck teams up to stuff.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.