Why should it be? It's not really named after Charles but after the previous ships of the same name.Triton said:I wonder if R09 will be renamed HMS King George VII for the reign of Prince Charles?
I stand corrected. I thought they were named for the current monarch and the heir apparent.TomS said:
Source:HMS Queen Elizabeth
There have been more than twenty ships named Elizabeth, the list of Battle Honours for which extends from the Armada in 1588 to Guadeloupe in 1810. However, only one ship by the name HMS Queen Elizabeth has served with the Royal Navy – as the lead ship of an important and innovative class of battleships which served with great distinction in both World Wars.
With 15 inch guns as her principal armament, the first HMS Queen Elizabeth was a 33,000 ton battleship. Built in Portsmouth, she was launched in 1913 and was completed the following year. Her service history during the World Wars included the surrender of the German High Seas Fleet during World War I. Despite damage from torpedoes during World War II, she went on to take part in operations in the Indian Ocean before returning home.
HMS Prince of Wales
The Royal Navy's first ship named HMS Prince of Wales was originally a French privateer, commissioned on behalf of the ex-King James, then taken as prize by HMS York in 1693 and brought into service as a Sixth Rate ship, armed with 14 guns.
There have been a further seven Royal Navy ships called Prince of Wales. The most recent a 'King George V' Class battleship, built by Cammell Laird in 1939. The service history of this ship included the Battle of the Denmark Straight during which the German battle ship, The Bismarck, was destroyed.
In 1941 HMS Prince of Wales transported Prime Minister Winston Churchill to Newfoundland where he met with the then President of the United States, Franklin D Roosevelt, to agree the Atlantic Charter.
Who the hell had the nerve to write that? That's terrible.The service history of this ship included the Battle of the Denmark Straight during which the German battle ship, The Bismarck, was destroyed.
the same bloke who called that radar "Broomstick".Abraham Gubler said:
And he/she also wrote that the 4.5" gun was to be called the 114mm gun after metricisation even though the actual calibre is 4.45" making it a 113mm gun.CJGibson said:the same bloke who called that radar "Broomstick".
Hollow words, methinks.The second of the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers will go into service with the Royal Navy, ending fears the 65,000 ton vessel would be mothballed or even sold as soon as it was completed to save money.
Prime Minister David Cameron announced at the NATO summit in Wales that the vessel – to be named HMS Prince of Wales – currently being constructed in Rosyth, Scotland, would join Britain’s fleet.
It does have a shared heritage with the original Broomstick (Britification of a Signaal/Thales NL radar), so the nickname woudn't be totally inappropriate ;DCJGibson said:the same bloke who called that radar "Broomstick".
UK Prime Minister David Cameron has announced the Ministry of Defence will bring its second aircraft carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, into service – a reversal of a decision made in 2010.
In the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) released in 2010 the government said it would mothball the second carrier, but this decision has been reversed in an effort to “project power globally”, Cameron said at the 2014 NATO summit in Newport, Wales.
A decision on the future of the second carrier was previously not expected until the next SDSR – expected around May 2015 – was released.
“The second carrier will be brought into service to ensure that we always have one carrier available 100% of the time,” Cameron says.
Cameron says the UK needs to be “able to protect and project” – a capability the carrier will provide.
The first vessel, HMSQueen Elizabeth, was officially named in July at Rosyth dockyard near Edinburgh, Scotland.
The UK will operate its future fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighters and AgustaWestland Merlin HM2 helicopters from the carrier, which can carry some 40 aircraft.
The British Army’s Boeing/AgustaWestland Apache AH1 attack helicopter, the Royal Air Force’s Boeing CH-47 Chinook and the Royal Navy’s Merlin HC4 amphibious support helicopters are also expected to be operated from the vessels.
Indeed, but it's good to have it confirmedJFC Fuller said:Not really news, it has been pretty clear for some time that both ships would be operated in order to keep one flat deck available at any time as the RN has been doing since 2010.
Not really, they have implied they would like both carriers operational, but as it would breach the 2010 SDSR they had postponned the decision till the next SDSR in 2015. The NATO conference in this time of crisis gave them an ideal excuse to resolve the issue before the SDSR, and knocking off a potential election issue next year.JFC Fuller said:Not really news, it has been pretty clear for some time that both ships would be operated in order to keep one flat deck available at any time as the RN has been doing since 2010.
Grey Havoc said:Warship's launch is delayed amid fears over rising costs (The Times, registration may be required.)
The launch of Britain’s new aircraft carrier has been delayed by three months because of technical problems that have yet to be fixed.
The multibillion-pound programme to have HMS Queen Elizabeth and a squadron of F-35 jets operating at sea by 2021 is also under threat, the National Audit Office (NAO) says in a report being published today. A second carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, is due to be operational by 2026.
The government’s spending watchdog says that the overall cost of the two ships — £6.2 billion, almost double the original estimate — could rise by up to £124 million.
External pods? Very noisy and very vulnerable. AFAIK there are no MILSPEC azimuthal (or fixed) thruster pods available or likely to be.JFC Fuller said:CVF as built was the Delta design, more or less a halfway point between the very capable/expensive Alpha design and the much less capable/cheaper Beta and Charlie designs.
There are podded systems in some amphibious ships (the French Mistake and the Australian Canberra). But yes, it's pretty unproven technology with a bunch of potential issues like shock sensitivity and noise transmission. That said,pods were incredibly popular for a while, until they started to get operation experience with pods in large cruise ships. They became a lot less popular in military concepts as the reliability issues started.Abraham Gubler said:External pods? Very noisy and very vulnerable. AFAIK there are no MILSPEC azimuthal (or fixed) thruster pods available or likely to be.JFC Fuller said:CVF as built was the Delta design, more or less a halfway point between the very capable/expensive Alpha design and the much less capable/cheaper Beta and Charlie designs.
Interestingly rumour has it Canberra had to curtail Tiger certification trials and return to port after a major engineering casualty, indicating the RAN is not doing too well with their COTS toys to date. Just because something is cheaper upfront doesn't necessarily mean it will be cheaper through life, especially if it keeps breaking and/or wears out quicker.Abraham Gubler said:The Spanish Juan Carlos LHD (aka Canberra) is military to the waterline and then civil to the keel. Both it and the Mistral designs are built to commercial standards and the avipods are COTS. Neither ship meets basic MILSPEC for noise or survivability.