England's New Super-Carriers

The Queen Elizabeth and George Bush have been operating together off the UK as part of Saxon Warrior 17.

The Queen Elizabeth, HMS Iron Duke, HMS Westminster, Royal Norwegian Frigate Helge Ingstad, USS George HW Bush, USS Donald Cook, USS Philippine Sea.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Once you get used to the twin island thing, it's a pretty ship.

Here you go. She's pretty big. First vi's a bit long - slow telly. The second one has been speeded up.

Good to see the Royal navy with strong power projection ability again.

a reply to: fritz

Those super carriers look like giant bullseyes to me. They won't last long if # hits the fan.

originally posted by: D_Mason
a reply to: fritz

Those super carriers look like giant bullseyes to me. They won't last long if # hits the fan.

And a large US carrier isn't a big target?

I think you are forgetting the carriers won't sail on their own, there will supporting ships along side it too. Just like an American carrier group they are surrounded by numerous of other ships plus subs.

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

I didn't say U.S. carriers weren't giant bullseyes as well. Carrier battle groups don't stop the carriers from getting sunk during war games. Why do you think they would stop them from getting sunk in real life?

a reply to: D_Mason

Because exercises have rules of engagement that have to be followed and are designed to handicap one side. Or do you seriously believe that India beat both the US and RAF with such incredibly lopsided kill ratios? In Cope India 04, the US didn't have AWACS, AIM-120s, AESA, and went into every fight at 3:1 odds. In a true war situation those rules won't exist, or will be much looser.

You know how is that thing called in technical military terms ? FJT!

A Fat Juicy Target

The Queen Elizabeth is off the East Coast doing trials with US owned and operated F-35s on board. The first two aircraft landed on her decks today, along with the first takeoff.

The thing about a carrier being a "big target" is that the entire carrier GROUP will know you are coming long before you are in range to do any real damage to it. Indeed, anything you are choosing to attack it WITH, is likely to get taken out before you even see it visually.

Maybe if you're in a stealthy sub, but not too many nations can field that, and since doing so would start a war....not really a worry.

a reply to: Gazrok

Are these British carriers not severely limited in there capabilities because they are not nuclear powered like most modern American super carriers are.. what is there max range before a tender needs to come refuel them or they have to pull in to port?

a reply to: proteus33

The range of HMS Queen Elizabeth is listed at 10,000 nautical miles. Do US nuclear carriers not have a supply chain, or do they have everlasting food stores and aviation fuel?

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Gazrok

Are these British carriers not severely limited in there capabilities because they are not nuclear powered like most modern American super carriers are.. what is there max range before a tender needs to come refuel them or they have to pull in to port?

The published figures put it at around 10000 miles.

Im not sure in practical terms it makes much difference normally as they never sail without a battlegroup and they are not nuclear powered.

What the supercarriers have is an ability to be somewhere else in a surprising hurry when SHTF.

a reply to: proteus33

Underway replenishment, I'm sure.

They can maintain a surprising amount of speed while doing so, as well.

a reply to: seagull

I was understanding on its own it carried enough fuel for only a week or two of operations which meant it had to stay relatively close to a friendly port while out to sea so it could get resupplied unless it had a lot of fuel tenders following it. And yes I know about them traveling in battlegroups With tenders but a supercarrier if it runs off gas or diesel is going to need a huge amount of fuel not counting fuel used by it's airwing ops.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Was'nt there two of those carriers built. I thought the other was going to be scrapped. Cant remember its name might be Prince Charles or the H.M.S Elizabeth Saxe-Coberg & Gotha.
The royal familys real German name before they changed for some reason.

a reply to: 11SK1180

It's the Prince of Wales and it's not being scrapped. It's in the water and had the engines started up a couple weeks ago.