More about the QE Class Carriers

[Garry Russell]

Or perhaps Carrier

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12308437

Just think...In a few years they'll have the biggest carrier they've ever had and possibly nothing to fly from it...the rate the current lot are going.

[John]

It's strange none of the images I've seen, even those on the Carrier Alliance website, shoe the class without the ski-jump

Kind regards

John

[Garry Russell]

Would they still not need them for the to improve range??

[John]

Would they still not need them for the to improve range??

It's an idea I suppose, but the variant of the F35 that we're having doesn't need them, so they're removing them from the design

Kind regards

John

[Garry Russell]

Ah..I see what you mean. they've actually been deleted.

I still wonder if it will be completed

[DarrenL]

It's strange none of the images I've seen, even those on the Carrier Alliance website, shoe the class without the ski-jump

Kind regards

John

Here you go - http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/cvf4.html

[jonesey2k]

I still think going non nuclear is a funny choice since the people who we are most likely to be using this against is the people supplying the fuel!

[SkippyBing]

I still think going non nuclear is a funny choice

Generally that's a political decision rather than an RN one, UK policy is no nuclear surface vessels.
Annoying really as the ships would be faster, longer ranged, have more space for AVCAT/weapons and you can get some really powerful steam catapults.

[John]

Here you go - http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/cvf4.html

Ha ha how old is that?

JR

[Jon.M]

I still think going non nuclear is a funny choice since the people who we are most likely to be using this against is the people supplying the fuel!

Funnily enough they worried about that in 1913 when HMS Queen Elizabeth the first oil fired battleship was launched. Surely it would have been safer to stay with coal as we owned the fuel supply.

Jon