The USN Ford class are 3 wires too, i think its down to making the wires stronger & more robust coupled with much more accurate landing which means the fourth wire is surplus.

Yeap the carrier would need to be its original 300m design to allow the bow cat to clear the landing area.

Still nice to see them publish the images, these are from the same series as the one published last year after the SDSR, as i think one was used as a print hung on the way in an ACA office on one of the recent video interviews.

Would be nice to see some of more images of the new revised design from all aspects to see how much its changed. 😎

OMGWTFBBQ! It burned a hole in the flight deck and deafened the ship’s crew! 😀

Notice the sound track to avoid those noise issues being discussed, and no its not burned a hole in the deck, but considering the flight deck was repainted for the sea trials that landing spot is rather mucky for a first landing !! (They have probably been testing the relocated spot with Harriers before starting with the F-35 ;)).

Anyway its not the first landing on a stationary ship thats the purpose of the sea trials it the two weeks of operating at sea underway to determine how robust the F-35B systems are in its operating environment and what impact it has on the ship operations compared with the Harrier

Sorry, but the Naval Historian in me needs to jump all over this like a rash!

These ships are NOT, that’s N O T, being named in honour of any living Monarch. It’s an absolute fallacy to suggest that they are!!

HMS Queen Elizabeth is taking on the name last used by the QE class Battleship of WW1 (completed 1915), which was in turn named for, but not after, HM Queen Elizabeth I of England. The new carrier’s name has nothing to do with HM Queen Elizabeth II. She will be the second RN ship to bear the name.

HMS Prince of Wales takes on the name last used by a KGV class Battleship in WW2, which fought with distinction at the battle of Denmark Straight, and holed the Bismarck’s bunkers, forcing her to turn ESE for Brest, and into the teeth of the Home Fleet. Her name has nothing to do with Prince Charles. She is named for the office of the Prince of Wales, not the current occupant of it. She will be the 8th RN ship to bear the name.

These ships’ names have nothing to do with the current Monarchy. These are capital ships, which are being given Capital ship names which have long, proud histories serving our nation. They will pick up battle honours going back in PoW’s case to the late 1700s, and for QE back to the Dardanelles campaign of 1915.

It would not do to call them HMS Petal and HMS Petunia!

I will now get off my high horse because I think it’s just shat itself and I feel dizzy!

PARDON !!!

The Naval Historian in you should then know that the first capital ships ordered during a monarchs name have Royal Names, the sorry fact is that it took over 50 years to order a ship that could be classed as a capital ship. Thats why CVA-01 was to be named HMS Queen Elizabeth or the GW-96A guided missile cruiser was going to be called HMS Duke of Edinburgh.

Thats why the CVF have Royal names rather than Carrier names as there were plenty to choose from from the later (Furious, Eagle, Hermes, Ark Royal etc).

G

Basically the govt are in a catch 22 situation where they stated in the SDSR2010 that just 1 would be converted to Cat & Traps and the other mothballed probably based on the assumption they could slow construction get QE converted and PoW would be slow enough in build to be dealt with in the next SDSR.

However I suspect they only looked at the cancellation clauses when doing the SDSR to can PoW, and discovered later that the ACA build contract for QEC have completion bonuses and as the last lot had already slowed the construction at a 20% cost hike, they simply cant slow QEs construction again without paying penalty clauses.

Now comes the fun part of the dilemma, both ships are named in honour of the Monarchy and to have QE finished as a mothballed toothless terror would be very poor form especially if PoW was fully fitted so it would be extremely insulting and politically & nationally embarrassing to do so. But all the business cases have the same conclusion to modify PoW in build whilst QE is completed to the original format.

That’s why we have a business study which is technically studying which to convert and when, but most of the work being done is probably the actual conversion designs to fit the Cats & Traps with their associated hardware, which is due to report at the end of next year.

In the mean time we have mixed messages from Ministers & MOD where the former hint at both being converted (eventually) whilst the MOD stipulate its just the 1 in line with the SDSR.

We are going have to wait till 2012 or 2013 to see any formal announcements as the govt will likely use that time to force through the rest of the unpopular SDSR decisions so they can then look towards setting new goals for SDSR 2015 and Force 2020.
I rather suspect they will bite the bullet and formally announce QE will be converted possibly in 2020+ after doing first of class trials whilst PoW is built at CATOBAR, as the launching of QE in 2014 probably by the Queen if still able to do it and they certainly don’t want that occasion to be marred by uncertainty regard the ships future or capability. Otherwise they would possibly look at converting QE after build and complete PoW as fitted for but not with, until they can hopefully readdress the situation in SDSR 2015.

The choice of naming the ships had its uses in getting both ordered but has been a bigger headache when it came to changing the program and has had a bigger impact than if the ships had used traditional carriers names. The choice of terminology in the SDSR 2010 is coming back to haunt them they should have said both would be converted and one would be in refit & reserve as that’s how they were always going to be used.

I’m not sure but the Job cuts could be from the support staff assigned to the likes of Harrier, VC-10, Nimrod as these were run from Warton and have all been phased out of service this year ?

Hawk production is also completed as such so some of the numbers required to keep that production and assembly may be being phased out too, unless fresh orders are expected.

To be fair Sweetman was an F 35 supporter to begin with his early articles and books testify to this fact, as does his expert opinion on documentaries on the JSF, some how somewhere along the line hes had a U turn. Whether its because of his legitimate concerns or because of his vested interests remains to be seen.

Thats why i asked, as i doubted Spudman would realise that Bill Sweetman is not the rabid anti-F35 beast he was trying to make out but rather a former supporter with a very good understanding of the program who has been completely disillustioned by how badly the program has been mis-managed and manipulated by LM. His vested interest is that of a tax paying member of the public who is paying for this program, rather than a direct competitor as Spud was trying to infere

It will be an F-35B mock up where as its now an F-35A mockup doing the rounds without the hunchback. I suppose they will use the A till they can get a C mockup or convert the A.

Still nice one for the Museum

looking at the video again i think I agree with you. Which means that website I referenced is talking rubbish.

Unless of course they renumbered the rings part way through or something. Always possible.

So in weight terms LB04 is still only half way and about 2/3 of the way in terms of length

Sort of although both sections are there, they still have to build up the rest of PQRS in Bay 1 before LM can be joined to it.

LB02 is the one to watch for as i think its due this year rather than next spring, but i could be wrong