HMS Queen Elizabeth

[SkippyBing]

On a lighter note i see the Captains name is Captain Kydd ,

Roger.

Yup.. he's the obvious choice for command being the most senior flat-top Captain in the RN. Note too his position is Commodore yet he has 4 thin stripes not one thick one

I like that definition John
ATB
DaveB

As I understand it he's reverted to the rank of Captain, although presumably is still paid as a Commodore. I believe this is to avoid any difficulties when there's a Commodore in charge of any task group the ship is assigned to, otherwise they'd be comparing seniority dates whenever they disagreed about something.

[DaveB]

Yup.. a sensible move. I've been on the wrong end of seniority dates before

ATB
DaveB

[paulsl]

Captain Kydd sounds like a good bloke.

Try to get past it being the Guardian and enjoy his response to getting his calculations wrong

Paul

[Airspeed]

.........and HMS Queen Elizabeth comes at a bargain price, too, only double what the UK PM promised to spend in Ireland to pork barrel support, so that she didn't lose her job. I say build a fleet of 'em, that'll show the flag!

[Chris Trott]

As I understand it he's reverted to the rank of Captain, although presumably is still paid as a Commodore. I believe this is to avoid any difficulties when there's a Commodore in charge of any task group the ship is assigned to, otherwise they'd be comparing seniority dates whenever they disagreed about something.

Can't we all just agree on our rank structures?

This is exactly the problem the US Navy had back in 1983 when they added the 1-star rank (before that, a Captain went to be a Rear Admiral 2-star directly, to the chagrin of the other branches of the military, even though they were paid as a 1-star initially). The Navy added the "Commodore admiral" as the 1-star rank but this caused problems with foreign services (especially the UK and Canada) as Commodore was a non-flag rank at the time. So the US 11 months later changed "Commodore admiral" to "Rear Admiral (lower half)" and left the "Commodore" as a "honorary" rank that is assigned to a Captain-rank officer who is assigned to a multiple-unit group (i.e. a Destroyer Squadron) which had other Captains or Captain honorariums (as a Commander in command of a vessel is still called "Captain"). Now, it seems everyone else has decided that the 1-star rank will be "Commodore" and the US is the odd one out (again).

We've all been doing this Navy thing how long again?

[Paul K]

Here's a rather good video of HMS Queen Elizabeth's night passage under the Forth bridges ( familiar waters to meself ). A mighty vessel and mighty bridges - the new road bridge looks very nice indeed, by the way.

https://youtu.be/BknEq236s_Q

[DaveB]

I think our structure is a little more diluted than that Chris though similar. The next natural progression from Captain is Commodore. From Commodore to Rear Admiral.. Rear Admiral to Vice Admiral and finally (I say finally) Vice Admiral to Admiral. Beyond that.. Admiral of the Fleet.. numero uno.. top dog The Captain I mention is full.. 4-ring Captain.. not necessarily the Captain of a ship who could be a Commander, Lt Commander or even a LT but it would have to be something pretty darned small to be a LT as Captain. It is not usual for a Commodore to be Captain of a ship.. Commodore being a 'flag' rank. A Commodore may be embarked with his entourage as senior officer of a group but the ship he'd be embarked on would have it's own Captain and generally a full Captain given the ship has flag/command capabilities.

During my time on HMS Andromeda, on our first Gulf trip (Iran/Iraq war).. we had a 4-ring Captain as Captain as Andromeda was the senior ship of the 8th Frigate Squadron and we were Capt F8. This made us the senior ship in the group and thus we had a flag officer onboard who was Task Group Commander. When we got back from that trip, our Captain left for a job with the MoD and a promotion to Commodore. In his place, we got a Commander. Our new Captain being a keen chap willing to put himself about.. he volunteered us for another trip to the Gulf after another frigate went tech. The senior 4-ring Captain was on one of the other ships leaving us and a destroyer to argue the toss. The Captain of the destroyer was another Commander who's seniority was a day greater than ours. This was the difference between the destroyer going on a nice jolly and Andromeda transiting a suspected mine field to Bahrain. Seniority is everything!!
ATB
DaveB

[Hot_Charlie]

With the Navy's current size I'm surprised there's anything above a Rear Admiral!

Good looking ship. It might have been better sans ski-jump and able to take F-35, Hornet, Hawkeye et al, but it is what it is.

[Kevin Farnell]

As I understand it he's reverted to the rank of Captain, although presumably is still paid as a Commodore. I believe this is to avoid any difficulties when there's a Commodore in charge of any task group the ship is assigned to, otherwise they'd be comparing seniority dates whenever they disagreed about something.

Can't we all just agree on our rank structures?

This is exactly the problem the US Navy had back in 1983 when they added the 1-star rank (before that, a Captain went to be a Rear Admiral 2-star directly, to the chagrin of the other branches of the military, even though they were paid as a 1-star initially). The Navy added the "Commodore admiral" as the 1-star rank but this caused problems with foreign services (especially the UK and Canada) as Commodore was a non-flag rank at the time. So the US 11 months later changed "Commodore admiral" to "Rear Admiral (lower half)" and left the "Commodore" as a "honorary" rank that is assigned to a Captain-rank officer who is assigned to a multiple-unit group (i.e. a Destroyer Squadron) which had other Captains or Captain honorariums (as a Commander in command of a vessel is still called "Captain"). Now, it seems everyone else has decided that the 1-star rank will be "Commodore" and the US is the odd one out (again).

We've all been doing this Navy thing how long again?

I'm very confused .. ... nah ! I'm off down the pub

Kevin

[Nigel H-J]

One thing really puzzles me is when I have seen the HMS Queen Elizabeth docking or setting sail as in the video posted, why are the tugs needed to shepherd her out?

Could it just be a safety margin in case of engine failure/steering fault?

The reason for asking is that with modern cruise liners they can manoeuvre into a restricted quay without the need for tugs due to propellers' fitted fore and aft either side of the liner so as to push the liner away sideways, have not the navy caught on to this idea or do they prefer to remain traditionalist to the old ways?

Regards
Nigel.