back to article Queen Elizabeth has a soggy bottom: No, the £3.1bn aircraft carrier, what the hell did you think we meant?

HMS Queen Elizabeth is back in Pompey harbour having sprung yet another leak. Blighty's biggest ever warship and soon-to-be aircraft carrier was meant to be on five weeks of sea trials but that has been cut short. An MoD spokeswoman told the BBC it was no more than "a minor issue with an internal system". The leak was …

  1. Christoph Silver badge

    "he 65-tonne, 4.5 acre aircraft carrier"

    I think you mean 65,000 tonne there.

    1. OssianScotland Bronze badge
      Facepalm

      Did El Reg let the Daily Fail reporters have a go?

      (obvious icon)

    2. Marketing Hack Silver badge

      Nope, 65 tonnes is right. They made it out of carbon fiber and old popsicle sticks.

      1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

        No more secrets!

        There is no truth that the carrier was returning from conducting sea trials (or any kind of experiment) in, or near Phildelphia. But the ship's managed to displace several thousand tonnes. Subsequent tests may soon enable the carrier to match speed and altitude with the F-35*s, thus making landings safer.

        As for picking on the DM, the BBC's no better-

        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-48935242

        That is not a Javelin in a crate, as Inspector Clouseau may say, "It's a bomb"

        *OK, an F-35 could do that now, briefly, if it missed the deck

        1. Hans 1 Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: No more secrets!

          I doubt you can find daily f-ups on bbc.co.uk, on Daily Mail, it is hard to find articles without! Also, they are serial offenders in the FAE category, and have never heard of cognitive bias - which means that reading DM articles is really unpleasant.

          1. Jim Whitaker

            Re: Daily Mail

            The Daily Mail problem is easily solved. Don't read it. Simples.

            1. DJO Silver badge

              Re: Daily Mail

              Not enough, nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

          2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

            Re: No more secrets!

            ..and have never heard of cognitive bias

            Main difference is the DM relies on clickbait & titilation, whereas the BBC positions itself as the Guardian of Truth. Yet demonstrates considerable bias, and an inability to put 'Javelin missile' into a search of it's photo library, or just google. And it may also be incorrect about French given other news agencies reckon the missiles were originally supplied to the UAE.

    3. rsole

      What is the point of mixing metric and other measurement systems? Is this a precursor of what is wrong with the world.

      1. Marketing Hack Silver badge
        Facepalm

        We need to go the whole 9 yards on converting to the metric system.....Wait a second....

        1. Stoneshop Silver badge
          Boffin

          Wait a second....

          You mean 'microfortnight'.

      2. Ozumo

        I only understand areas when presented in tennis court multiples.

        And what happened to the London Bus as the SI unit of mass?

        1. Vincent Ballard
          Stop

          You must be new here. The official El Reg unit of area is the nanoWales. See https://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/page/reg-standards-converter.html

      3. Peter2 Silver badge
        Pint

        What is the point of mixing metric and other measurement systems? Is this a precursor of what is wrong with the world.

        Like measuring distances in imperial (miles), fuel efficiency in imperial (miles per gallon), having the size of your fuel tank listed in the vehicle manual as imperial gallons, and then buying the fuel in metric liters to complicate figuring out how many miles you actually do to the gallon? (which is of course utterly unrelated to the fuel efficiency calculated by the car's onboard computer having little relation to how often you have to put fuel into the tank...)

        Then again, when doing technical drawings I prefer using imperial scales to the metric scales since 1 meter to 1 centimeter leaves you needing a magnifying glass. My office drawings are faithfully scaled to 1 meter to 1 inch, which is a nice easily usable scale.

        In conclusion i'd suggest raising a pint (half liter and a bit?) to the imperial systems longevity. :)

        1. Dave Bell

          I'd just use a ratio, something such as 1:50 or 1:40, either of which is a pretty simple calculation. And, when I was at school, the tables printed on the backs of exercise books still had rods, poles, perches, and chains.

    4. Richocet

      More like 65 kilotons

      65 gigagrams has a nice ring to it also.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Essays that in the "Olympic sized swimming pool" SI unit?

    6. hammarbtyp Silver badge

      Nice combination of Imperial and metric measures El Reg!.

      Personally i would prefer we use one measuring system and that is the Cymru comparison system, so thats 14,500 metric Blue Whales and 8.8 x 10 -7 Wales (Imperial) or if you like 87000 Prince of Wales in Weight and the surface area of 9584 Charle's

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Indeed. Unless the vessel is made of styrofoam and balsa wood.

      1. hplasm Silver badge
        Meh

        Indeed. Unless the vessel is made of styrofoam and balsa wood.

        Well, it is from BAE...

    8. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: Christoph

      Yeah we accidentally out a word or two. Should be 65k.

      Don't forget to email corrections@theregister.co.uk if you spot anything wrong, please.

      C.

      1. Spherical Cow

        Re: Christoph

        "Yeah we accidentally out a word"

        I saw what you did there.

  2. LenG

    65 ton???

    "The 65-tonne, 4.5 acre aircraft carrier "

    I've been on sailboats displacing more than 65 tons.

    I think you mean 65,000 tons.

    1. Grandad

      Re: 65 ton???

      No 65,000 tons is not the same as 65,000 tonnes:

      1 ton = 2240 pounds (lbs) avoisdupois or 20 hundredweight (cwt)

      1 tonne = 1000 kilograms (Kg)

      1 Kg = 2.20462Lbs

      Then there are short tons and long tons but that is just too complicated

      1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        Re: 65 ton???

        Short and long tons are just the American and Imperial versions.

        The short ton is based on the 100lb hundredweight. The long ton is based on the 8 stone hundredweight ( 112lb ).

        112*20 = 2240lb

        100*20 = 2000lb

        Because Americans have never used stones.

        Quite why anybody would create a unit called a hundredweight and then not define it as eight stone is beyond me...

        1. DontFeedTheTrolls Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: 65 ton???

          It's lovely and ironic that the Merkins hate metric which counts in base 10, yet their hundredweight is based on 100, a part of base 10.

          1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

            Re: 65 ton???

            I've always thought it's odd that they measure themselves just in (a great number of ) pounds.

            The convenience of Imperial is that the numbers correspond well to human sizes, eg: a pint of beer, six feet tall, a 1/4 ( lb, or 4oz ) of chocolate eclairs.

            336 pounds* doesn't quite fit in that scheme as well as 24st does.

            * And that's just the women

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: 65 ton???

            Everyone was metric before the UK had heard of this European fangled metric system.

            Whoever heard of 240 pennies to the pound ?

            1. Vincent Ballard
              Coat

              Re: 65 ton???

              No-one. The plural of penny was pence.

    2. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: 65 ton???

      Yeah, it's a typo. We accidentally out a word or two. Don't forget to email corrections@theregister.co.uk if you spot anything wrong, please.

      C.

  3. RegGuy1
    Facepalm

    Aircraft?

    Are those people I can see standing on top of the boat -- shouldn't they get out of the way because of the planes?

    Oh, silly me I forgot. It doesn't have any.

    As you were.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Aircraft?

      Be fair. They are letting the USMC fly off it.

      Sovereignty!!!!

      1. streaky Silver badge
        Mushroom

        Re: Aircraft?

        The entire design was built around joint US-UK ops in joint carrier groups with US aircraft on British carriers and vice-versa, from day one. Plenty of British pilots operate in the US military. Actual allies, that's what that looks like. Point of sovereignty is actually having the choice, as opposed to it being imposed.

        1. TomChaton

          Re: Aircraft?

          Sovereignty is a tradable commodity. You give some up, you get something in return.

          In this case it's just vast wodges of dosh we're giving up in return for an enormous white elephant.

          1. streaky Silver badge

            Re: Aircraft?

            Not it isn't. You either you have the right to make your own decisions or you don't.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Aircraft?

              Give people the choice and they vote for brexit. Trump that!

      2. OssianScotland Bronze badge

        Sovreignty!!!

        Once defined as "a word somewhere between sober and sozzled"

    2. silent_count

      Re: Aircraft?

      I think I've spotted where you went wrong.

      The only way those nice people would come to any harm is if the boat were an 'aircraft launcher', or possibly 'aircraft taker-offerer'. As the boat is an 'aircraft carrier' - see, it's right there in the name - there's no chance they'll come to any harm.

      It's like people standing on the top of a car ferry. There's no danger they're going to get driven over by the cars.

      1. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

        Re: There's no danger they're going to get driven over by the cars.

        Particularly if this was a No Deal Brexit Car Ferry.

        1. DontFeedTheTrolls Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: There's no danger they're going to get driven over by the cars.

          Takes a while to load the cars, but boy can we unload them quickly once we reach Calais

  4. Sureo

    "Ford bleeding Galaxy"

    After paying for the ship, that's all they could afford.

    1. Jim Mitchell
      Megaphone

      Re: "Ford bleeding Galaxy"

      Ford Galaxy? Never heard of it. Now, the Ford Galaxie, that was a car!

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Galaxie

      1. Dave 32
        Pint

        Re: "Ford bleeding Galaxy"

        There actually is a Ford Galaxy, but it's produced in Europe for the European market, which is why you don't see one in the US (Yeah, you *might* be able to import one, but the rules for importing a vehicle are ridiculously complex.).

        And, yeah, the Ford Galaxie was a decent car. I think my mom may have had one of those in the early 1960s.

        Dave

        1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          Re: "Ford bleeding Galaxy"

          And, yeah, the Ford Galaxie was a decent car. I think my mom may have had one of those in the early 1960s.

          My mom had a Ford Prefect. Bugger took all the towels and then took off!

          1. Teiwaz Silver badge

            Re: "Ford bleeding Galaxy"

            My mom had a Ford Prefect. Bugger took all the towels and then took off!

            Is your name Ford Anglia by any chance?

            How many heads do you have?

            Oh, and how many mothers?

      2. Louis Schreurs

        Re: "Ford bleeding Galaxy"

        The world doesn’t stop at U$A’s borders.

        1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

          Re: "Ford bleeding Galaxy"

          The world doesn’t stop at U$A’s borders.

          Sadly....

        2. Archtech Silver badge

          Re: "Ford bleeding Galaxy"

          Although... the civilized world does.

          1. phuzz Silver badge
            Devil

            Re: "Ford bleeding Galaxy"

            Of course, it all depends on which side of the border one considers to be civilised doesn't it?

            I suspect the yanks will have a different opinion to the rest of the world.

            1. DCFusor Silver badge
              Joke

              Re: "Ford bleeding Galaxy"

              Depends on what someone is yankng.

      3. Archtech Silver badge

        Re: "Ford bleeding Galaxy"

        Is he related to Ford Prefect?

    2. macjules Silver badge

      Re: "Ford bleeding Galaxy"

      Unfortunately they also left the garage door open, hence the leak.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Loose lips...

    .. or is it actually an aircraft carrier submarine?

    1. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Re: Loose lips...

      Or they've saved some money as it's been "pre-torpedoed"?

    2. TRT Silver badge

      Re: Loose lips...

      SkyDiver or SeaView?

      Both excellent boats.

      1. TRT Silver badge
  6. Mike Moyle Silver badge

    God bless this ship...

    ...and all who bail in her.

    1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

      Re: God bless this ship...

      The previous leak was 200l/hour which works out at 3.3 litres per minute or .055 litres per second.

      You could bail that out with a Sports Direct mug.

      1. Archtech Silver badge

        Re: God bless this ship...

        Which just goes to show that the rate of taking on water is less important than the total amount of water eventually taken on.

        If I were to go round a corner in a ship's corridor and find myself threatened by 200 tons of ocean, I wouldn't care how slowly it had seeped in.

        Nor, I imagine, did the sailors who nearly drowned.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: God bless this ship...

          That last slow leak was through the prop-shaft seals or something. And was solved by sorting out the packing - a pretty standard problem. And nice and slow and easy to deal with by just turning on a pump.

          This one was a seawater pipe letting go. A catastrophic pipe joint failure can get you very wet, very quickly. As it was in a forward compartment, my immediate thought would be something from the fire-fighting system? So you're looking at something like flanged 4" pipe - so while I'm speculating wildly I look up my pipe sizing charts and see that at 3m/s (3-5 bar pressure ish) that's a flow rate of 26l/sec. Or 94 tonnes per hour.

          250 tonnes, assuming that's not the total they pumped out but the flooding they had to deal with, is 250m³ of water or a compartment 10m x 5m by 5m tall. Or in Olympic swimming pool terms 5x25x2m - so exactly one tenth of an Olympic swimming pool.

  7. Marketing Hack Silver badge
    Facepalm

    The problem was that somebody snuck an in-hull screen door into the specs.

    MoD thought it would be nice to be able to see the fish go by.

  8. Mike Moyle Silver badge

    There it is...!

    "It is bereft of catapults or traps for launching or landing fixed-wing aircraft."

    Nice to see someone's picking up the slack on Lewis's behalf!

    1. Robert Sneddon

      Re: There it is...!

      The QE-class carrier design doesn't have steam boilers to power regular catapults, it uses gas turbines to generate electricity to the propeller drive motors. It doesn't have enough electrical generating capacity to provide power for an electric catapult system like the newest American Ford-class nuclear carrier designs do.

      Older nuclear aircraft carriers (pre-Ford class USN carriers and the French hangar-queen nuclear carriers) had intermediate steam production for catapults, older British non-nuclear aircraft carriers burned oil to make steam for turbine propulsion and could bleed off that steam to drive catapults.

      1. Craig Vaughton

        Re: There it is...!

        Which begs the question... given that HMG requested that spaces were made in the original design to enable CAT/TRAP gear to be installed (just ignore that when they returned to ask how much it would cost they discovered that leaving spaces is one thing, but coming back later to fill said spaces with the actual CAT/TRAP kit to make the ship useful meant a huge bill to cut the ship apart) what would Bae have used to provide power for CAT/TRAP?

        1. Robert Sneddon

          Re: There it is...!

          I've no idea. They might have added a completely separate steam-raising plant to power conventional catapults along with increasing the fresh-water production capability of the existing ship's equipment (a catapult launch uses half a tonne of fresh water per shot). That would have required reducing hangar space or weapons storage or fuel bunkering or something -- perhaps a space-saving return to WWII-style hammocks slung in mess decks for the Jolly Jack Tars to kip in rather than the compact bunkrooms the sailors on the QE now occupy.

          Generating extra electricity for an EMALS is trickier -- they need a lot of joules in a very short period so some kind of flywheel/generator accumulator system might work but again the space to put this in would have to be taken out of something else and despite appearances a carrier is as much constrained for working space as a submarine.

          1. Richard 12 Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: There it is...!

            Big and Expensive had no idea how to do it and no intention of even trying.

            Quite why that wasn't breach of contract is... unclear.

            1. Archtech Silver badge

              Re: There it is...!

              Their focus is more on the flow of money coming IN than any useful work they would have to do going OUT.

          2. GrumpyKiwi

            Re: There it is...!

            They could have done it nice and cheap using cordite like the post-war carriers did until the steam catapults were fully developed. No extra power needed, just a bit of extra scrubbing (and shouting by the CPO) to get rid of all the muck cordite creates.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: There it is...!

            A genuine question as I have no idea. I know someone here will know the answer.

            There's a lot of waste heat coming out of the turbines? Could this make steam for the catapult?

      2. CountCadaver

        Re: There it is...!

        Actually we were chucking serious coin at British EMAL technology, until Big and Expensive decided that they hadn't taken the spec seriously and they wanted something like £5 billion to fit each carrier with cats and traps.....Cameroon decided that failure to comply with the contract terms was a non issue...

        We'd have been cheaper requesting 2 Ford Class Carriers at this rate.....

        1. Robert Sneddon

          Money and people sadly lacking

          Nuclear carriers require big crews -- the Charles de Gaulle, a small nuclear carrier has a shipboard complement of 1300 sailors. The new Ford-class US carriers are a lot bigger but need 2,600 sailors despite heavy automation of onboard operations. The British QE-class carriers have a complement of 700 sailors providing something like 60% to 70% of the operational capabilities of the Ford-class carriers.

          The Royal Navy's current manning level for all arms (subs, surface ships, air warfare, helos, land-based establishments etc.) is about 33,000 according to Wikipedia. I'm not sure how we could man two Ford-class carriers never mind find the money to run them. We don't even have any docks big enough to carry out refits and maintenance on such large hulls.

          As for EMALs and the accompanying linear-electric-motor traps there isn't the reserve power in the QE designs needed to accelerate a 30-tonne aircraft to 200km/hr in three seconds using an EMALS while pushing a 60,000 tonne hull through the water at 30 knots into the wind and also powering all the sparkly bits. Finding the space for electrical power storage etc. for EMALS wasn't really a goer either given how far the development and design process had gone.

          1. joeldillon

            Re: Money and people sadly lacking

            I'd be interested to see a cite for the lack of reserve power, given that the carriers were supposed to have been designed with the option to fit catapults and those catapults were indeed intended to be EMALS.

            1. 2+2=5 Silver badge

              Re: Money and people sadly lacking

              > I'd be interested to see a cite for the lack of reserve power, given that the carriers were supposed to have been designed with the option to fit catapults and those catapults were indeed intended to be EMALS.

              ISTR the MoD eventually admitted that they'd lied all along and that they'd never asked for space for catapults, electric or steam.

          2. Aitor 1

            Re: Money and people sadly lacking

            That 70% capability is debatable.

            Can we launch awacs? No, just helicopters with radars, no big awacs for us.

            That alone is a huge disadvantage.

            Plus we cant launch f35s at full payload.. no catapult.

            1. Archtech Silver badge

              Re: Money and people sadly lacking

              While certainly valuable, AWACS are vastly overrated.

              As soon as the balloon goes up, so do about 300 SAMs - no more AWACS.

              1. ciaran

                Re: Money and people sadly lacking

                Yes, in a shooting war, the AWACS, the Tankers, and the Aircraft Carriers will all be smoke after the first 36 hours. Still, an aircraft carrier without airborne early warning is a sitting duck. Aircraft carriers can easily be spotted by satellites with enough precision to launch missiles against them.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Money and people sadly lacking

                I worked on the AWACS radar system back in the late 1970's and I remember the design engineers saying that AWACS would never be taken out by a SAM, if you look at how AWACS is used and what it is capable of, there is never a need to have one operate within range of a hostile SAM battery. They are designed for long range detection, always within friendly airspace, are able to jam any radar emitter aimed at them and with lots of fighter escorts just in case some hot shot enemy pilot thought he might get close enough to hit it was a air-to-air missile. And to my knowledge, one has never been shot down, which has validated what I was told back then. However, recent improvements in Russian and Chinese surface radars might make it vulnerable so the USAF is developing alternatives that would reduce the reliance on AWACS, such as space based or unmanned systems.

          3. macjules Silver badge

            Re: Money and people sadly lacking

            My understanding was that QE was never intended to be anything more than STOVL with the potential of the PoW to also have CATOBAR capabilities. Cue Big and Expensive seeing the actual CATOBAR costs being incurred and throwing up hands in horror, hence both carriers are simply STOVL.

            In regards to crew numbers the highly mechanised weapons handling system (HMWHS) is supposed to reduce that requirement, although not known by what factor. You also need factor in the Capita Effect on crew recruitment (not enough recruits wanting to join the Royal Navy).

            Re AWACS: both vessels have S1850M radar - supposedly capable of monitoring up to 1000 targets up to 400km away. Presumably they can 'daisy chain' off a Type 45 which also has the same capability, thus increasing the range?

        2. Chris G Silver badge

          Re: There it is...!

          I can source very large amounts of catapult elastic from Alibaba, they give excellent Free on Board quotes.

          1. Muscleguy Silver badge

            Re: There it is...!

            No, no, no, you want tried and tested tech for this job. Twisted wet leather is state of the art for mobile catapults.

            Also it's a bleeding warship, is there a shortage of exploding stuff to accelerate things? You would need a big hunk of metal to absorb the backblast which might take the displacement a tad over 35 tonnes.

      3. jgarbo

        Re: There it is...!

        Couldn't they just use Harriers? Oops...

        1. Totally not a Cylon
          FAIL

          Re: There it is...!

          No, they were all sold to the USMC at a bargain price.....

          The Marines wanted them cos Harriers are a very effective ground attack/infantry support aircraft, just what is needed for modern warfare unlike say a stealth jet........

          And now the Marines are probably planning to fly them off the carrier.

          1. Robert Sneddon

            AV-8B

            The USMC were already flying their own licenced version of the Harrier, the AV-8B, from their LHA and LHD assault carriers which are separate from the US Navy's nuclear carriers. When the RN mothballed, sold off and scrapped their own through-deck cruisers, the only ships capable of deploying the Royal Navy's Harriers, the USMC bought the planes as surplus to bolster their own capacity. Sadly the Harrier and its derivatives is prone to crashing in training and in use since it's a seriously compromised aircraft design in many ways and buying the RN's Harriers meant they didn't have to restart the production lines for fresh AV-8Bs to replace losses.

            The Harrier and AV-8B allowed the USMC to learn how to operate STOVL fighter/bombers from their assault carriers. They are transitioning to the F-35B as it's a much superior aircraft in virtually all respects (range, speed, payload, flexibility, capability, aerodynamics, cost of operation etc.)

            1. phuzz Silver badge

              Re: AV-8B

              It's been reported that possibly the US might sell on some of it's spare Harriers as they move towards using the F-35B.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: AV-8B

              F-35B as it's a much superior aircraft in virtually all respects (range, speed, payload, flexibility, capability, aerodynamics, cost of operation etc.)

              It just seems to have a few small problems in the "flying" department.

              1. SkippyBing Silver badge

                Re: AV-8B

                It's fine in the flying department, compared to any other 4th/5th generation jet it has the highest flying hours per accident of any type.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: AV-8B

                  Oh I don't doubt that it flies once it's in the air. Getting it there reliably seems to be the issue:

                  https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/the-pentagon-is-battling-the-clock-to-fix-serious-unreported-f-35-problems/

                  1. SkippyBing Silver badge

                    Re: AV-8B

                    The one that landed outside my office two hours ago seemed fine.

            3. boltar

              Re: AV-8B

              "Sadly the Harrier and its derivatives is prone to crashing in training and in use since it's a seriously compromised aircraft design"

              Given its 1950s tech its bloody impressive that it managed what it did and compromise is the name of the game with VTOL aircraft anyway - you can hardly call the F35B uncompromised either!

          2. Amentheist

            Re: There it is...!

            unlike say a stealth jet

            Is it though, practically might be but in reality if you're fighting some inferior army with old tech that can't catch a stealth jet you got that advantage AND if you are (you probably wont won't be as that would mean open warfare with the russians or something then we're all screwed) it's just all just an arms race which I imagine is "good for business" so in a way it's a win-win (for someone other than tax payers or civilians..or anyone who rebells against the $govenrnment_in_power). What joyous world we live in!

          3. boltar

            Re: There it is...!

            "No, they were all sold to the USMC at a bargain price....."

            We have the financial genius known as George Osborne to thank for that along with various clueless civil servants in the MoD. Sure, they might have been an old aircraft but an old aircraft is a lot better than no aircraft. A basic fact which sadly the MoD didn't seem to understand.

        2. Archtech Silver badge

          Re: There it is...!

          Yes, that's why they invited the US marines in. Try to keep up.

        3. Baldrickk Silver badge

          Re: There it is...!

          Harriers were also used in STOVL roles, the 20s limit to vertical operation (limited water coolant for the engines taking all the strain, no lift from the wings) stopped it from being effective as a "proper" VTOL - it could do it, but you'd run low on your budget very quickly.

      4. Potemkine! Silver badge

        Re: There it is...!

        French hangar-queen nuclear carriers

        There's only one french nuclear carrier. which was involved in a lot of missions, so 'hangar-queen' doesn't really fit.

        1. Robert Sneddon

          Charles de Gaulle

          The CdG has spent over three years in refit since it went into service (it needs to spend a year and more in a dockyard every six years or so getting refitted and refueled). The extra cost of a small nuclear carrier (at 42,000 tonnes it's two-thirds the size of the QE and about the same size as the conventionally-powered US Marine Corps America-class flat-top assault ships which will also be flying the F-35B) has meant the French can't afford to build and operate another carrier to fill in the gaps when the CdG is out of service getting refueled and refurbished. Its track record is one reason Britain ended up building two larger conventionally-powered aircraft carriers for about the same ticket price each as the CdG.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Charles de Gaulle

            Oh good - we'll have two carriers to not have any planes to fly off.

      5. Aitor 1

        Re: There it is...!

        The QE has turbines.

        The turbines use superheated steam, FYI.

        That steam could be piped to the catapults, losing some power to propulsion, obviously.

        That would require extensive piping, insulation and further complexity like counterweights, valves, etc, plus reinforcing the planes and maintenance of all these systems. It also makes the carrier almost twice as useful.

        Look, the chinese have a copule of non catapult carriers, and the the fourth one will have a catapult, as they realized how limited they arw without one.

        We essentially invented the damn thing yet no longer use it.

        We should have catapults installed, it is a shame we do not have them.. same for the propulsion system

        1. Robert Sneddon

          Gas not water

          The QE has gas turbines, derived from Rolls Royce Trent aero engines I believe, burning the same kind of aviation fuel the aircraft on board use. Those gas turbines drive generators to produce electricity. Most of that electricity is used in direct-drive motors at the stern of the ship that power the propellers. There is little or no use for steam on board the QE, except perhaps in the medical bays for sterilising operating theatre instruments.

          This electric-drive system is a lot more compact than a conventional oil-fired boiler setup feeding steam to turbines turning propeller shafts via gearboxes. It requires less technical staff to maintain it, it is easier to fix if stuff goes wrong, it's more responsive to throttle inputs, it can be backed up with diesel generators etc. Most 1st-world navies use this kind of propulsion system in their latest ships. Even the new American Ford-class nuclear carriers don't generate turbine steam for propulsion like their predecessors but use electric drive too.

          1. Richard 12 Silver badge

            Re: Gas not water

            Every large cruise liner built in the last fifteen years has used this type of electric propulsion. These aircraft carriers are piddling little toy ducks in comparison.

            It's well tested, extremely reliable, relatively easy to repair, and takes up far less space in the hull than more traditional systems.

            The azipod systems on a few of them are also really quite cool. Sail backwards almost as fast as forwards!

        2. CliveS
          FAIL

          Re: There it is...!

          "The turbines use superheated steam, FYI."

          No they don't. QE has 2 Rolls-Royce Marine Trent 30 gas turbine generator units producing 36MW, and 4 Wartsila diesel generator units (2 x 9MW and 2 x 11MW). The 3-phase electricity generated is used to power 4 GE induction motors (2 per shaft).

          So no steam other than that from the kett;es, showers, coffee machines, and any irate crew members.

          1. Loatesy

            Re: There it is...!

            so who does the laundry then?

        3. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: There it is...!

          Aitor 1,

          You've rather missed a couple of very important points. There are actual reasons why the MoD went for STOVL not cats-n-traps. It's very fashionable to have a go, and there are often good reasons to, but these people aren't actually imbeciles. So reasons, in no particular order:

          1. Plane lifetime. Catapult launches and arrestor wire landings are incredibly hard on planes. They don't last as long, so although the F35C is cheaper, that doesn't mean you pay less in the longr-run, because the airframe also won't last as long.

          2. It's even harder on pilots. Apparently if you don't do it at least once a week, carrier landings start to become even more dangerous.

          3. The above is less of a problem with a dedicated carrier force. But our plan is to deploy one carrier with an airwing of 24 aircraft - and then fill it up to 48 when the need arises. With a limited ability to surge-deploy both carriers with full air wings. That means putting the RAF fly boys on them, as they've got those aircraft the rest of the time. And that would mean killing most of them, if we used cats-n-traps. Basically the idea is to have a flexible joint force of F35s - and this would be impossible if we had the F35C and had to keep re-qualifying the pilots for carrier landings. Equally if we save cash by buying the F35A for the RAF, we then lose the ability to surge-deploy both carriers - the upside being the RAF get a longer range and slightly higher payload in thier normal ops. But range isn't all that big an issue for land based operations, given we have a tanker fleet.

          4. Choosing not to go nuclear and go gas/diesel/electric meant we'd have to design round electric catapults, which was an untested technology when these things were specified. They should have done more work on both options, as the F35B was also untested at the time - but the joint pool of aircraft idea made that less attractive.

          1. Aitor 1

            Re: There it is...!

            I stand corrected!

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: There it is...!

            Tbh we could have went for the F/A18 Super Hornet or the Rafale and saved a bundle on the aircraft (and they'd likely be in service now, not to mention most potential opposing forces are flying aircraft a lot older, even a large percentile of the Russian Airforce dates back to the 70s and 80s....)

            We could also have went in with the US on the Ford Class that or went in with the French and run joint crews.

            Crewing.....well given there are a lot of fit young men in northern France desperate to get into the UK, then give them an offer - sign on for 5 years and get British citizenship....Not sure how well it would work and the language barrier might be a bit tricky...

            Permanently embark the RAF onto the carriers, make that the price for them avoiding serious cuts, that or trim the RAF quite heavily and expand the Fleet Air Arm...(I prefer option 2 personally, there's a reason they get referred to as "Crab Air" and "civilians in uniform"....also makes more sense to have a dedicated air wing permanently afloat)

            How to pay for it - trim the foreign aid budget - starting with India, they have a space program, ballistic missiles and are talking about a moon landing last I read. I'd also go for a small hike in income tax, ~2%, under the heading of supporting our troops and giving them the funding to do their role properly, slam previous administrations for starving the military of investment and putting "our boys and girls in uniform" at risk due to insufficient funding.

    2. TRT Silver badge

      Re: There it is...!

      Maybe they were visionary and saw the future of air superiority at sea being in the form of drones?

  9. Starace Silver badge
    Alert

    At least put in some details!

    This lazy bit of work makes it look like there was a simple leak in the hull and fnar fnar isn't that funny and look how stupid the builders are.

    Other people might have mentioned a burst high-pressure seawater supply pipe, damage to bulkheads and deck plates and 250 tons of water in a compartment or two. Potentially serious, and slightly more complicated.

    Detail is the difference between proper reporting and lazy hack scribbling.

  10. streaky Silver badge
    Pirate

    Literally..

    The point of sea trials.

    Just throwing that out there.

    1. ElectricPics

      Re: Literally..

      She's not on sea trials. The ship's company is being put through the Flag Officer Sea Training inspection before going operational.

      1. SkippyBing Silver badge

        Re: Literally..

        She's not fully operational for another couple of years though, and to be fair this happened on HMS Invincible when I was on her in 2003, so a few decades after she entered service. That was in the Captain's sea cabin though which made it the only time I've heard an emergency broadcast for a flood 10 decks above the waterline...

      2. streaky Silver badge

        Re: Literally..

        She's not operational until 2020. Everything right now is some degree of sea trial. It's all shakedown if you want different language.

  11. mics39
    Coffee/keyboard

    By the way ...

    Who designed this, Lego makers? Ive? If I were a Somali pirate I’d be pissing silly laughing if this boat came approaching.

    This is the one they should’ve christened Boaty McBoatface.

    1. BebopWeBop Silver badge

      Re: By the way ...

      And the Chinese who are first on the giggling line according to our ex defence minister, just can’t believe we are quite so stupid. Oh, hold that thought.....

      1. CountCadaver

        Re: By the way ...

        Is that why the PRC is building multiple carriers of its own if they are so obselete and useless??

    2. Rich 11 Silver badge

      Re: By the way ...

      If I were a Somali pirate I’d be pissing silly laughing if this boat came approaching

      You don't need modern stealth aircraft to fight Somali pirates. Helos, marines, and as a last resort the ship's seven chain guns are far more effective.

      1. BebopWeBop Silver badge

        Re: By the way ...

        You nod if you are frantic to demonstrate their utility for the Daily Fail

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    RN waives the rules!

    Three billion pounds.....then half a billion a pop for the F35 aircraft.

    *

    No one is mentioning that the RN DOES NOT HAVE THE OTHER EQUIPMENT to form the carrier group needed to operate the carrier in anything remotely like a hostile environment.

    *

    Do the math......it looks like £23 billion for a carrier that might be sunk by people in a small high speed power boat! (See report on USS Cole disaster.)

    *

    Oh....I forgot.....the RN has another similar carrier on order. No magic money tree!!!!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: RN waives the rules!

      Actually we do have the kit for a carrier battle group (and maybe 2)

      Type 45 Daring Class Air Defence Destroyer x 6

      Type 23 Frigates (with replacement Type 26 and Type 30 on order)

      RFA oilers and other support ships

      Astute class SSN hunter killer subs

      Currently Bulwark and Albion LPD

      Even without an escort it still has Miniguns, 20mm cannon and other small arms, plus any embarked helos

      Probably would have cost us less overall if we'd just bought into the Ford Class Carrier program, though recruiting the personnel is the issue, RN is struggling as is, particularly for engineers, warfare officers in 2010 were mostly serving under 5 years before quitting, some as little as 3. Why? Being away near constantly, better pay on civilian ships, better terms and conditions in the civvy world etc. Only solution would be conscription or some severe sweeteners to recruit and retain (Initial training for officers especially is very much out of step with the fleet, I've heard Dartmouth described by more than 1 as "a third rate private school with delusions of being a military training facility" It all looks great till you start looking closely, tours keep the public away from stairwells etc that haven't been painted in years, telling tours that they had changing facilities in the shower rooms so folk weren't walking to and from showers in only towels anymore (male and females both still were constantly, particularly after hours, but no one touched anyone (well apart from the inevitable sneaking off together in a totally non suspicious way to discreet or sometimes not so discreet places.....some of the stuff that goes on is unbelievable tbh and much of it is turned a blind eye to as far as possible....

      We're an island nation (even my wife cannot understand why our Navy is so small when we're surrounded by water), if anything we should have a military prioritised around the navy and amphibious forces

      I'd like to see the number of ships doubled (better tripled or quadrupled), the RM expanded significantly, Army working a lot more closely with the RN and army personnel regularly embarked.

      1. jgarbo

        Re: RN waives the rules!

        And tell me again, memory fading, what is all this suppose to do to pay for itself? Are we back to privateering to cover expenses, like old Drake and Raleigh?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: RN waives the rules!

          Upscale the navy and offer protection to other nations in exchange for preferential trade terms / raw materials access?

      2. Archtech Silver badge

        Re: RN waives the rules!

        All sailing nice and close, within a mile or two - so they can all be utterly destroyed by a single moderately-sized nuclear warhead.

        Well, do those people expect a real war or not?

        If not, all those naval vessels are a complete waste of money.

        If so, all those naval vessels are a complete waste of money and lives.

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: RN waives the rules!

          Archtech,

          I think you might want to read up on nuclear strategy a bit. Quite a lot of thought went into it during the Cold War.

          Conventional forces can't survive nuclear weapons. Although hitting them with tactical warheads isn't as easy as you might thing, given you actually have to get the warhead to the target. But not much stops a strategic warhead.

          Which is why you have strategic nuclear weapons, in order to make that choice so expensive as to be noth worth it.

          But you also require conventional forces, becuase the use of stategic nuclear weapons as a first choice is also "unthinkable". Therefore you have to have some sort of credible conventional force as well, in order to be able to pursue lesser objectives that you may wish to fight for, but nobody seriously believes you'd be willing to end the world for. By putting those forces in harms way of course, you now have an incentive to end the world if they are all destroyed in a nuclear fireball.

          That's why NATO has forward deployed troops in the Baltic States. What would we do if the Russians seized the place otherwise? We wouldn't re-invade, but we'd also be unlikely to go nuclear. It would be a fait accompli. But if Russia has to kill a few thousand UK/US/French troops to acheive that objective, we have the chance to slow them down enough to get in reinforcements - and they have to deal with the uncertainty of the nuclear deterrent.

          Yes it's all (or mostly) bluff, yes the calculations are awful, but no people have actually put real thought into this.

          1. Archtech Silver badge

            Re: RN waives the rules!

            "That's why NATO has forward deployed troops in the Baltic States. What would we do if the Russians seized the place otherwise?"

            Pinch ourselves to awaken from the stupid dream? No one wants the Baltics - least of all the poor sods who are living there now.

            What on earth would Russia want to invade them for?

            * A few more square miles of territory, because Russia is such a tiny country it desperately needs a little more unproductive land.

            * A few million people who hate Russia and everything Russian, and who put up statues to commemorate Waffen-SS soldiers and honour them with military parades.

            * Countries that produce literally nothing of any value.

            The only conceivable reasons for Russia to annex the Baltics would be military. To keep NATO forces more than half an hour's drive away from St Petersburg, for example.

            But that doesn't work, either. Parts of Ukraine are as close to Moscow as any of the Baltics. And besides, Russian military doctrine states that any invasion of Russian territory will be opposed with all means - not excluding thermonuclear weapons. So attacking Russia is a VERY VERY BAD IDEA except as a grandiose way of committing suicide - regardless how near or far from Moscow or St Petersburg you start from.

            1. Jove Bronze badge

              Re: RN waives the rules!

              More fantasy facts.

        2. Jove Bronze badge

          Re: RN waives the rules!

          The RN is doing the job, while yours are just boil-in-the-bag. :)

      3. hammarbtyp Silver badge

        Re: RN waives the rules!

        "RN is struggling as is, particularly for engineers, "

        They could always re-institute the press gang

        1. Chris G Silver badge

          Re: RN waives the rules!

          "They could always re-institute the press gang"

          What? Get journo's to crew Naval ships? You would have to bring back the rum ration.

          1. CountCadaver

            Re: RN waives the rules!

            Like to see Dabbsy's take on it........

          2. Archtech Silver badge

            Re: RN waives the rules!

            Sodomy and the lash might also have their adherents...

        2. CountCadaver

          Re: RN waives the rules!

          "Service Equals Citizenship!"

      4. Potemkine! Silver badge

        Re: RN waives the rules!

        We're an island nation (even my wife cannot understand why our Navy is so small when we're surrounded by water), if anything we should have a military prioritised around the navy and amphibious forces

        This was true before the introduction of nuclear weapons. The Navy isn't here to protect the coasts anymore. Nuclear deterrence is here to make an invasion too costly to try.

        Navy is used to protect sea lanes and to project power. An aircraft carrier can be used only against third world nation, of she will end as an artificial reef. Does UK such projections? The last example in mind is the Falklands/Las Malvinas war 40 years ago, is a carrier still needed? It may be. However, building a carrier unable to launch a non VTOL-plane seems to be a huge mistake. For instance, how to do early warning and control? A Sea King cannot be compared to a Hawkeye.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: RN waives the rules!

        Quote: "Type 45 Daring Class Air Defence Destroyer..."

        *

        That would be the Type 45 Destroyer which has regular gas turbine cooling failures leaving the destroyer "dead in the water".

        *

        That would be the Type 45 Destroyer which has to have the whole vessel side removed to fix the cooling problem.

        *

        That would be the Type 45 Destroyer which has had to go back to Babcocks for MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF ADDITIONAL WORK....no....not under contract ("failure to meet the terms of the original contract"), but EXTRA WORK FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER to fix the original design flaw.

        *

        And this is the FIRST ITEM you offer as a credible description of a member of a viable "carrier group"!!!

    2. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: RN waives the rules!

      >No one is mentioning that the RN DOES NOT HAVE THE OTHER EQUIPMENT to form the carrier group needed to operate the carrier in anything remotely like a hostile environment.

      That's because they are on the next purchase requistition - justification: Needed to enable our our £23 billion carrier to operate in potentially hostile environment...

      As for high speed power boats, Icelandic trawlers proved very effective at gaining respect from RN captains who didn't wish to be seen having to limp back to port, so I suggest "potentially hostile environment" is anywhere outside of UK territorial waters...

    3. vtcodger Silver badge

      Re: RN waives the rules!

      Three billion pounds.....then half a billion a pop for the F35 aircraft.

      I'm not a big fan of the F-35. And I imagine that the sticker price omits a few options that will be needed. Comm gear, cup holders, weapons, GPS, that sort of stuff. But Wikipedia says you can buy an F-35C -- the carrier model -- for USD $107.7 million. And that includes an engine as well as, very likely, wheels. That's what, 86,000 pounds each?

      1. Robert Sneddon

        Trim options and the sticker price

        The F-35C is the catapult-carrier version of the F-35 airframe. The British QE carriers, like Uncle Sam's Misguided Children (USMC) will be flying the STOVL version, the F-35B.

        1. jgarbo

          Re: Trim options and the sticker price

          Ah, just one engine over a wide (and deep) ocean, Yes, Minister would call that "courageous"...

          1. Archtech Silver badge

            Re: Trim options and the sticker price

            But cheer up! Maybe the sophisticated oxygen supply system will suffocate you first.

          2. Robert Sneddon

            Re: Trim options and the sticker price

            The F-35 uses one modern 21st-century engine compared to the spit-and-baling-wire engine designs used in previous generations of military aircraft. The F-35's single engine provides more power than both engines in the 20th-century F-4 carrier fighter can produce together while weighing less than one of those older engines and burning less fuel to go further. It takes less maintenance per thousand hours of flight than any previous generation of military aircraft engine, it's simpler to work on and has fewer parts.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Trim options and the sticker price

              Great - its fuel efficient. That will make all the difference. I'm sure its a wonderful aircraft, the issue is that its designed to fight a war we can't win. If we go head to head with a world power the carriers last about half an hour before a hypersonic missile gets lucky. If we go head to head with Isis we are risking £100 million against a few grand of shoulder launch SAM. I guess we might sneak in and take out the Iranian airforce as long as they promise to be nice and symmetrical and keep the fast powerboats and land sea missiles out of play.!

            2. Inspector71

              Re: Trim options and the sticker price

              That assumes that any of those parts work in the first place. It had better be simpler to work on because it is rarely out of maintenance. The F35 has been barely able to fulfil its role(s) properly since day one and has been dogged with airframe, systems integration and god knows how many other problems.

              Don't get me wrong I admire it as an engineering and technical exercise, it's quite an achievement. But as a front line aircraft deployed both on land and at sea it is as they say, sub optimal. Aircraft Techs have a more choice phrase I believe.

              It's an absolute classic product of the military/industrial complex. A $1.5 Trillion (and rising) tribute to pork barrel politics.

          3. Loatesy

            Re: Trim options and the sticker price

            'Ah, just one engine over a wide (and deep) ocean, Yes, Minister would call that "courageous"...'

            Yes, like the Sea Harrier before it, the Seafire, Hellcat, the Corsair, Firefly, Swordfish, Barracuda, and others. Traditionally the USN prefers an element of engine-out safety, a philosophy long challenged by the other services. In Britain, multiple engines have been a requirement simply to get the desired power levels. This has not been the case for many decades.

          4. EvilDrSmith

            Re: Trim options and the sticker price

            Yup, just like the Harrier and Sea Harrier.

      2. phuzz Silver badge

        Re: RN waives the rules!

        To be fair, the F-35B was and is the best VTOL fighter/bomber available to buy.

        Mainly because it's the onlyVTOL fighter/bomber in production, (the last Harriers were built in 2003, in the US).

    4. VeganVegan
      Unhappy

      Re: RN waives the rules!

      and RN rue the waves.

      1. BebopWeBop Silver badge

        Re: RN waives the rules!

        And their contractors rule the waives.

    5. Jove Bronze badge

      Re: RN waives the rules!

      A case of envy from the regime with the rust-bucket navy.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: RN waives the rules!

      The Cole did not sink.

  13. Jove Bronze badge

    Shallow ...

    ... re-cylced old stories related to the vessel, but no mention of the three individuals lives that were at risk during this event.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Shallow ...

      Was anyone killed? No. Plus as far as I can recall from my time in the military risking your life is what you're paid to do.

      If you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined.

      1. Jove Bronze badge

        Re: Shallow ...

        ... and who's military was that?

        It was a close call.

  14. Jemma Silver badge

    Spurious, Curious

    And fucking Hopeless*

    Tell me what's the point of two islands? One is bad enough for air turbulence (which is why Japanese carriers didn't have them, and uptakes that exhausted over the side). This throwback shitheap is going to be a nightmare to land on. I wouldn't be surprised if it had problems recovering aircraft in both conventional and vertical landing modes. I'm not sure sure I'd like to try and take off in high winds either - turbulence over an aircraft carrier deck is probably the number one cause of dead pilots and this looks like a potential deathtrap.

    As for planes I'm sure Duxford might have a few spare. If you're really unlucky they might have a few Fairey Barracuda, the most lethal plane in the navy and that aircraft and this disaster area would be a perfect couple. **

    *I really hope *someone* will get the reference.

    ** The Barracuda was fitted with a full flow hydraulic pressure gauge high on the instrument panel so the pilot could see it easily, directly connected to the rest of the hydraulics. What it wasn't fitted with was a secure connection between the flexible line & the gauge. It had a habit of popping off in flight and spraying fluid into the pilots face at a lot of psi, hard enough to knock them unconscious, and invariably causing an uncontrolled splat into terrain (or water). It's other party trick was leaking like a sieve behind the dash until the cockpit floor was running with hydraulic fluid (and the hydraulics weren't). This would usually be noticeable by wet feet and a smell of sunflowers! - closely followed by a total lack of control and either a swift bailout or an uncontrolled splat into terrain. This happened more than once on ferry flights from the factory in brand new aircraft. The Austin Allegro of torpedo bombers (and incidentally one of the ugliest, if not the ugliest, aircraft ever to fly)

    1. OssianScotland Bronze badge

      Re: Spurious, Curious

      Spurious, Outrageous and Uproarious? AKA Fisher's Follies?

      1. Jemma Silver badge

        Re: Spurious, Curious

        Spurious, Curious and Outrageous - but yeah Fishers Follies I think was another name for them. (Furious, Glorious and Courageous are the official names)

        Another RN notable disaster was the K Class fleet submarines - aka the "Killers" or for the more tactful (and possibly higher ranking) "Kalamities" - steam engines and submarines do not mix. Look up the Battle of May Island. Spoilers: it doesn't end well.

        1. OssianScotland Bronze badge

          Re: Spurious, Curious

          Being fair, they were decent carriers - for the era - after conversion (multiple conversions in most cases), and also those "spare" 15" mountings came in useful for HMS Vanguard (I haven't a clue what happened to the 18" ones from Furious)

          As "Large Light Cruisers" they were pretty much useless, though.

          The K-class subs, oh yes, they were a complete mess up, designed to steam (yes, steam) with the Grand Fleet at 20+ knots, then dive ahead of the HSF and ambush them.

          1. CliveS
            Thumb Up

            Re: Spurious, Curious

            "(I haven't a clue what happened to the 18" ones from Furious)"

            One ended up on HMS Lord Clive and one on HMS General Wolfe - both Lord Clive class monitors. The third was to have been fitted to another of the class, HMS Prince Eugene, but the war ended before work could be completed. After the war all three were used for testing purposes at Shoeburyness and Yantlet before being scrapped, two in 1933 and the third - lined down to 16" - in 1947.

            1. OssianScotland Bronze badge

              Re: Spurious, Curious

              Thank you - El Reg is always a fount of knowledge.

              That brings it back - I think the monitor mountings were something weird with fixed mounts (elevation only) so the whole ship had to be aimed.

              1. CliveS

                Re: Spurious, Curious

                Yup, the gun was slung between two ruddy great girders which ran parallel to the barrel. There was about 10 degrees of traverse each side of the centre line, aka 2 shades of bugger all. They could also only be fired at between 22 and 45 degrees of elevation in order to spread the load. HMS General Wolfe holds the record for the greatest range at which a Royal Navy vessel has ever engaged an enemy target, which was a railway bridge near Ostende at a range of 33km or 1500 brontosauruses.

    2. hammarbtyp Silver badge

      Re: Spurious, Curious

      "Tell me what's the point of two islands? One is bad enough for air turbulence (which is why Japanese carriers didn't have them, and uptakes that exhausted over the side). This throwback shitheap is going to be a nightmare to land on. I wouldn't be surprised if it had problems recovering aircraft in both conventional and vertical landing modes. I'm not sure sure I'd like to try and take off in high winds either - turbulence over an aircraft carrier deck is probably the number one cause of dead pilots and this looks like a potential deathtrap."

      I would love to see your airflow models - what? you haven't done any? You are basing it totally on gut feeling and ignorance? Do say!

      Actually the two islands increases redundancy and reduces turbalance. (https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-reasons-hms-queen-elizabeth-has-two-islands/)

      Maybe the reason old carriers had one island was that the modelling tools were not available that we have now?

      1. Jemma Silver badge

        Re: Spurious, Curious

        Funny, but I'll believe that when I see it.

        The Courageous was converted in three stages from a floating cock up with three 18" guns to a fairly useless carrier.

        If I remember and it's a while, a flying off deck aft - then a landing deck was added forward - with the superstructure intact. And at that point people started dropping like nine pins because the turbulence caused by the superstructure (and the need to sideslip into the landing past it).

        I have never seen a successfully introduced class of multi island carriers - the nearest being I think the refit lexingtons with a long low after superstructure extension to include the trunking for the large uptakes into one funnel - and wouldn't you know it they were trouble to land on according to "Winkle" Brown.

        Any obstruction to an air flow causes turbulence - even a perfect aerofoil - and those two monstrosities are about as far away from smooth as Karen Gillan is from talented. They *will* interfere with air flow on virtually every aspect - which will cause issues simply because if you are making an approach into a carrier landing in borderline or even moderate level the very *last* thing you need is a bloody variable cross wind.

        It'll be even more damn fun in a VTOL because as I understand it, and I might be wrong, the F35 doesn't have the same control finesse as the Harrier. So you throttle up and lift while in the lee of one of the islands and then drift into the area between the two with that nice strong cross deck wind that's been nicely channelled and concentrated between the two obstructions, what could possibly go wrong?

        This has shitstorm written all over it - but all in all it's academic anyway. All the Russians for example have to do is record the sound signature of this floating disaster and put it into an acoustic seeker torpedo or three - or even an acoustic seeker nuclear torpedo and that's all she wrote.

        It appears to have no really effective ship-to-bigger-than-a-small-clapped-out-repurposed-fishing-smack (aka Somali pirate ship) weapons and relying on the Darings is hardly a fantastic move - they're not exactly world class themselves - have they even been fitted with weapons yet?

        This isn't so much a white elephant as an albino Paralititan with chronic arthritis and apparently incontinence to boot.

        I hope I'm wrong but I don't think I am - 100 years of solid experience is usually a good marker of what not to do, and every advance that's been made in the design of carriers so far has shown that the smaller any obstructions the better. Almost every successive design has had a smaller island & superstructure or in extremity none at all.

        1. SkippyBing Silver badge

          Re: Spurious, Curious

          'because if you are making an approach into a carrier landing in borderline or even moderate level the very *last* thing you need is a bloody variable cross wind.'

          Which is why they always turn the carrier so there isn't a cross wind.

          'It'll be even more damn fun in a VTOL because as I understand it, and I might be wrong, the F35 doesn't have the same control finesse as the Harrier.'

          Presumably because you're making things up? Having had a brief from Commander Air on Queen Elizabeth the F-35 can manoeuvre at low speeds in ways that would have led to the Harrier crashing, which as he's flown the latter and seen the former during trials on QE I'll take as a more reliable source.

        2. OssianScotland Bronze badge

          Re: Spurious, Curious

          Furious had the 18" guns - a single mounted at each end. Courageous and Glorious had a twin 15" fore and aft, the tried and tested design from the (original) QE and R classes.

          IIRC (my copy of Breyer is 300 miles away) Furious was originally given a flying off deck forward with the 18" turret remaining aft, then a landing on deck aft and narrow gangways around the superstructure to move aircraft. Finally, a couple of refits later, she ended up with basically no superstructure at all.

          One of them had two or 3 levels of flying off deck forward, so she could launch aircraft off the main flight deck and out of the front of the hanger (a nagging thought tells me it was actually one of the Japanese carriers which had the three levels, and Courageous and Glorious had the two).

    3. Jove Bronze badge

      Re: Spurious, Curious

      Ahh, another of Putin's Willy Warmers.

      1. Archtech Silver badge

        Re: Spurious, Curious

        Ah, another of the CIA's well-poisoners.

        1. Jove Bronze badge

          Re: Spurious, Curious

          ... and this from the kiddie spouting gibberish insinuating that he has inside knowledge on such matters.

  15. herman Silver badge

    Ah, the famous British Quad Copter Carrier?

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/11/hms_iqueen_lizziei_impugned_by_cheeky_scots_drone_landing/

    1. Hans 1 Silver badge
      Childcatcher

      Maybe somebody with an RC sub can locate the leak and film it from outside ?

  16. Anonymous South African Coward Silver badge

    "Superiority" by Arthur C. Clarke should be made compulsory reading for all manglers and project manglers of any kind.

  17. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

    Metaphors?

    This is a metaphor for the UK in 2019 in so many ways...

    Leaking, massive waste of money, pointless, not fit for purpose...

  18. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge
    Coat

    A soggy bottom! How dare this republican rag dare to claim that Her Maj can't bake a pie without cooking it thoroughly.

    Oh, you're on about HMS QE. As you were.

    Mine's the one with the strongly worded letter to the editor in the pocket.

  19. This post has been deleted by its author

  20. fixit_f

    Wonder if Queen Elizabeth has a leaky shaft in the back of her again

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Happy

      Do remember that the Tower of London is still manned, equipped with axes and in full working order...

      1. Paul Garrish

        Good job something is (in full working order, that is)

  21. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Joke

    Crinkley Bottom

    That would be in the event she runs aground

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019