New UK aircraft carrier to be commissioned on Pearl Harbor anniversary Her Majesty the Queen will commission the new British aircraft carrier named after her into Royal Navy service in three weeks – on the anniversary of an infamous naval battle where numerous warships were sunk. On Thursday, December 7, the Queen will formally welcome the 75,000-tonne warship into her fleet. During the last few …
"HMS Queen Elizabeth is supposedly named after Good Queen Bess, Elizabeth I, who saw off the invading Spanish Armada of 1588"
And following on from the WWI-era battleship that served on to 1940s. Naming ships after reigning monarchs isn't exactly verboten - witness the 1911 dreadnought battleship "HMS King George V" and he'd only been in the job a year or so. But then Britain did at the time dominate the waves.
But then Britain did at the time dominate the waves.
And Britain will again dominate the world's waves! With our two mighty, unsinkable aircraft-less aircraft carriers (one of them in dock), our underwater WMDs, capable of wiping out the population of a small continent (but not much help against the Daesh-bags) and our fleet of 6 type-69 pedallos British naval might will again cause cowards around the world to cower (at least after March 2019)
@ Pen-y-gors
"With our two mighty, ...."
You're Welsh. Why "our"? You'll be getting independence ASAP. As somebody of Welsh descent living in England, and quite comfortably identifying as "British", I'm not sure if Wales being handed UDI is a good thing or a bad thing.
Oh bother, have we slipped into another bloody timeline, or have I missed something?
I was thinking of moving back to the Land of my Fathers[1] anyway, but I''ll need to know if I should do that sooner rather than later...
Slightly confused about the suggestion than UDI is now something you're given rather than something you pronounce for yourself and hope for the best.
[1] Well, the land of my mother, technically.
I forget to mention that the Cuxhaven Raid of Christmas Day 1914 was a sea launched aerial attack on the German Zeppelin base. A few seaplanes carrying a very modest by today's standards bombload were put in the water in the North Sea and shook up the Germans a bit, though not actually damaged significantly
Prince of Wales isn't really named after Charlie either. It's named after the other ships that have been called Prince of Wales. Which has been a capital ship name going back to the 18th Century.
Personally I think we need to honour and even older name used by the RN. It's time we called a ship, "The Lion's Whelp" again. I think we've had ten of them so far, it's time for another. I believe they were build as a single class, by the Duke of Buckinham, who was apparently a man of very limited imagination and so called them, The Lion's Whelp I through to The Lion's Whelp X.
Previous Prince of Wales was obsolescent and sunk by the Japs in a few hours. Present could be taken out by Chinese missiles designed to sink far better protected US carrires) in a few minutes. Meanwhile useful vessels are scrapped, e.g. 2 of the 4 minehumters in Persian Gulf to be withdrawn.
Prince of Wales was more or less brand new, having been commissioned the same year.
She sank because a torpedo hit one of the propeller shafts. As it was turning at full revolutions, the damage opened up all the bulkheads the shaft passed through and therefore water in. Which reached the dynamos and killed a lot of electrical power. Once the pumps failed she could not counter the flooding and rolled over about hour and a half later.
"Previous Prince of Wales was obsolescent and sunk by the Japs in a few hours. Present could be taken out by Chinese missiles designed to sink far better protected US carrires)"
The previous PoW wasn't obsoloscent by the standards of the day—she'd been built comparatively recently and I think you'll find she was still fitting-out in 1941, with civilian contractors aboard, when sent into action against the Bismarck (she was present at the battle of Denmark Strait when Hood was unexpectedly and abruptly sunk).
OTOH, you may be making a more general reference to the obsolescence of battleships in a carrier era, in which you are undoubtedly correct. Until (arguably) the Battle of Midway, both Axis and Allies were still somewhat influenced by the Mahanist doctrine of The Decisive Battle fought between combatants' biggest capital ships—a view pushed by one Alfred Thayer Mahan (who, amusingly, wasn't a very good sailor) even before the Battle of Tsushima Strait in (Russia-v-Japan 1907 I think) seemed to reinforce the lesson.
What's interesting is that while popular belief has it that Pearl harbor's carriers, on the day of the Japanese attack, were missing by incredible luck, they would not necessarily have been Yamamoto's first targets: because he too believed the Mahanist doctrine about battleships. From a 1941 perspective, it was still possible to imagine only one outcome if a bloody great battleship got within gunnery range of a flattop.
Yamamoto is rightly regarded as a smart cookie, especially compared to the egregious buttheads who constituted most of the rest of the Nipponese military, but even he didn't realise that sinking battleships was a mis-step, that carriers would have been much better, or that—even with the carriers missing—he would have achieved more by destroying Pearl Harbor's facilities and tank farm, gutting the US Pacific Fleet's fuel, ammunition, resupply and maintenance capabilities. I forget which of his admirals made the fateful decision not to send in a further wave of strikes against those facilities while they still had the light, but it may well have been a critical error.
To topic (sorry), yes, the new QE and PoW are massive floating targets. Even if they finally operate a few of the wretched F-35s (with their appallingly limited range, payload and manoueverability), cuts have savaged what would have been the carriers' escorts. There simply aren't enough other surface ships to keep them alive against a vampire assault by a competent foe. Russia or China have sea-skimming cruise missiles which, in a serious conflict, reduce UK carriers' life expectancy to mere hours.
Battleships weren't completely obsolete until well after WW2 once aircraft carriers became fully capable of operating 24 hours and in bad weather - i.e. the mid 1950's. Until then there was still a role for them as carrier escorts to defend the carriers during periods that they were unable to defend themselves.
People like Sir Andrew Cunningham - the RN's best admiral since Nelson - and Nimitz, both of whom had overseen the mass use of carrier aircraft to destroy their enemies fleets kept battleships on post-war not because of silly prestige reasons but because there was still a need.
From a 1941 perspective, it was still possible to imagine only one outcome if a bloody great battleship got within gunnery range of a flattop.
One would hope that a carrier with a competent CAP would never have let a battleship anywhere near their precious firehazard-at-large..
The only way you can claim that the PoW batleship was obsolescent would be if you said battleships as a whole were obsolescent. The KGV class PoW was a modern ship, having been completed in 1939, commissioned in 1940, and sunk in 1941.
By battleship standards, it was modern, with contemporary propulsion, protection and armament.
The design was hampered by the London Naval Treaty, which put significant limits in the way of a good ship.
British battleships were not designed to fight in close quarters in range of land based aircraft, they were designed to fight other surface ships. That said, the British experience of fighting in the North Atlantic, North Sea and Mediterranean showed that they could still serve a useful purpose in protecting against and deterring enemy warships, even while under air attack.
If the Home Fleet had not existed, German Navel Raiders would have torn the Atlantic convoys to shreds in the area where land based aircraft could not reach.
WWII was the cusp of the change to air dominated warfare, but in that conflict, it was still necessary to have significant surface ships as well as aircraft.
If the Home Fleet had not existed, German Navel Raiders would have torn the Atlantic convoys to shreds in the area where land based aircraft could not reach.
What are you smoking? Do you know the ratio of ships lost west of the change of escort line to east of the escort line? I can spell it for you: 15:1.
OK, I may be biased, because my mom's stepfather did not chicken out like the whole of British Home Fleet when the Tirpitz decided to play with PQ17. He actually did most of the computation for the salvo K21 fired at it. I am leaving the "did it hit or not and did the german fleet command pretended that there is a mechanical malfunction" out of the equation for now. The fact is - he (he was the XO) and his crew went alone against the Tirpitz and all of its escorts.
Compared to that the home fleet escort group consisting of: 19 destroyers, 6 cruisers, aircraft carrier, 4 battleships and a number of auxiliary vessels chickened and ran. They knew exactly what they are facing too - thanks to Bletchley park. They were outnumbering the Germans More than 4:1 and had an aircraft carrier with them too. And they chickened out. Or to be more exact betrayed their ally in broad daylight AND chickened out. Both.
OK, credit where credit due - not all of them did. Several of the auxiliaries which were in fact requisitioned Scottish trawlers with Scottish fishermen crews under the command of a Scottish school teacher disobeyed the general retreat orders and took their charges straight north into the pack ice for a month until the dust settled. All the ships they commandeered survived by the way. They paid for this too - every British government ever since has refused to allow them to receive their Russian campaign medals. Every single one of them with the vindictive wee c*nt Cameron being the last one to do so.
That exactly describes Home fleet escorting in WW2. Nothing more to be said (sh***... I start sounding like gramps who had a blood pressure issue every time the British fleet was mentioned in WW2 context. For a reason too.).
"I feel for the poor convoys facing German Navel Raiders"
I'm sure the Navel Raiders would fluff it up - they're only human. I myself worry about Navel Raiders threatening Bikini Bottom ... but I'm sure Spongebob Squarepants will see them off the premises ...
BTW, you do know that a Navel Destroyer is a hula hoop with drawing pins stuck on the inside, do you?
Well, actually, due to downsizing, it will now be known (unofficially until it gets through the Lords of the Admiralty heads) as the Prince of Porpoises. Up, then down then up then down ...
And to keep the Americans happy, Charlie will consent to being addressed as Chuck, even by the Aussies. (Chuck Chunder's a fair dinkum true-blue Aussie hero, though not of any war currently known to man. :)
Royal Navy ships are normally named after previous RN ships. This lets them carry over the battle honours from the previous ships of that name. "Battle honours" is a list of battles which ships of that name have taken part in.
Certain names are reserved for certain classes of ships. QE and PoW were previously used for battleships, and so are now used for aircraft carriers. Destroyers and frigates have a separate list of names which also get reused (towns, rivers, etc.).
The previous QE was the lead ship of a new class of WWI battleships that was probably as big a step forward from previous ones in terms of size of gun, fire power, armour, and speed as the Dreadnought had been from pre-Dreadnoughts. I suspect that the current use of the name is at least on part supposed to symbolise a similar degree of advance in capabilities which the current ship brings to the RN.
The previous PoW was similarly the lead ship a new class of battleships which came into service at the beginning of WWII, and also a great technical advance forward for the RN at to time. Although it wasn't as obvious an advance in capability due to arms limitation treaties, it brought modern ships to a navy whose capital ships were largely made up of survivors of WWI. In that sense the new PoW could be said to symbolise the regeneration of the RN as a global force.
There are no doubt multiple reasons for why those names were picked, but they weren't simply picked out of a hat and they do have precedent as the names of important historical ships.
"The previous PoW was similarly the lead ship a new class of battleships which came into service at the beginning of WWII, and also a great technical advance forward for the RN at to time."
The previous Prince of Wales was the second (laid down 1937, commissioned 1941) of the King George V class of battleships, preceded by King George V (laid down 1937, commissioned 1940), followed by HMS Duke of York, HMS Anson and HMS Howe.
The KGVs were more advanced than the Nelson class which were hampered by being built under the terms of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, but they were in some ways still a compromise design. Some clever advances in layout of boiler and engine rooms, and torpedo protection (side protection system of air and water/oil filled voids) sat alongside a pretty conventional for the era. The Lion class would have been the real advance in design, but of the 6 proposed class members only Lion and Temeraire were laid down in 1939 and neither was ever completed. Even HMS Vanguard was a comprise, taking modified Lion design and using 15" main armament and turrets from the WW1 battle-cruisers Courageous and Glorious.
The previous Prince of Wales was the second ship of the five ship King George V class of battleships. Other ships, in order of launch were Duke of York, Anson and Howe.
There are some references to Vanguard being a KGV class, but in reality it had more similarities to the cancelled Lion class, which was an evolution of the KGVs.
Although thousands of US Navy personnel were killed and many ships were damaged and sunk, the three strategically vital aircraft carriers based in Hawaii were away on a training exercise and survived. The attack was the direct cause of the US entering the Second World War.
USS Enterprise was not 'training'. She was delivering aircraft to Wake Island, later known as the 'Alamo of the Pacific', the only place which successfully repelled an amphibious assault in WWII. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CV-6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wake_Island
USS Lexington was delivering aircraft to Midway Island. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lexington_(CV-2)
USS Saratoga was at San Diego to embark her air group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Saratoga_(CV-3)
No other American carriers were based at Pearl Harbor at that time.
Sorry, none of them were out training. Several of Enterprise's aircraft arrived during the raid, and some were shot down (including at least one by the American air defense) becoming the first American naval aircraft shot down in WWII. When Enterprise entered Pearl Harbor on the morning of 8 December, William Halsey, standing on the flag bridge and observing the carnage, said, and I quote: "When this war is over Japanese will be a language spoken only in hell." He meant every word.
And the repair depot at Pearl.
Without that everything would have had to have been towed back to the US to be fixed
Oh and the Submarine base.
In fact theres quite a lot of stuff the Japanese missed.... but then that was supposed to be hit by the third attack wave...... which the Japanese admiral cancelled after reading the reports of the first 2 waves....
Nagumo should have been given the Navy Cross for all the help he gave the USN.
He didn't send in the third wave at Pearl. Big mistake.
He committed almost every mistake possible at Midway, including:
1 not sending out deck-load strikes from three carriers, holding the last one's aircraft back as a reserve and to cover the fleet. A full, three-carrier, strike would have flattened Midway at a stroke, so there would have been no need to consider a second strike
2 not sending out extra scout aircraft when some scouts, including the scout launched from the cruiser Tone, were late
3 when the scout from Tone finally got out to its search area and reported American ships, not sending additional scouts to the area
4 when Tone's scout reported what might have been a carrier among those American ships, not cranking up the CAP
5 not either retaining some of the CAP at a high level or sending up additional fighters once the torpedo bombers started arriving
6 not sticking to one thing; either prep for a follow-up raid on Midway _or_ prep for a strike against the American ships. Changing orders in midstream was... not real bright.
7 not flinching when the 'American samurai' of the torpedo bombers attacked, mostly to their deaths
8 related to the above: one land-based torpedo bomber made a suicide run at Nagumo's flag, pulling up at the last second. This convinced Nagumo to commit to sending a second strike at Midway, in direct defiance of orders which stated that he was to hold a reserve rigged for anti-ship.
As it was, the fact that he'd missed the carriers at Pearl, that he'd missed the repair yards (Yorktown was heavily damaged at the Coral Sea and was repaired in those yards; if the yards had been hammered, she'd have had to go to San Diego or Puget Sound and would have been unavailable), that he missed the subs (USS Nautilus put several torpedoes into one of the battleships with Kido Butai; as the American torpedoes at that time were all shit, they didn't do anything more than attract attention. Nautilus was severely depth-charged for quite some time after making that attack. The destroyer making the depth-charge attacks was called back to help defend Kido Butai against American air raids, and left at high speed in a nice straight line, following orders. American carrier dive bombers spotted the destroyer and extrapolated the line and arrived over Kido Butai from a totally unexpected direction. Oops.), all combined to assist his series of mistakes at Midway to really screw things up for Japan. At 10:20, 4 June 1942, Japan was winning the war. At 10:25 they'd lost, it just took three years to make them believe it.
"In fact theres quite a lot of stuff the Japanese missed.... but then that was supposed to be hit by the third attack wave...... which the Japanese admiral cancelled after reading the reports of the first 2 waves...."
My memory was that the third wave was if the first two didn't achieve their objectives (which they had). The problem was also the third wave would have to try and land in the dark and the Japanese were yet to get into the kamikaze business.
The lesson that wars are won not on the battlefields but on the logistical backup was also ill remembered from WW1.
The Luftwaffe had spent six months over the UK proving just how hard it was to destroy heavy machinery of the like used to repair ships at Pearl Harbor. If you didn't score a direct hit then it was pretty common for the machinery in question to be back in operation within a day or two once the shrapnel had been pulled out. It took incendiaries to melt and warp the machinery to truly take it out. In other words, taking out the repair facilities would have been pretty much impossible.
Likewise the fuel tank farms were full of fuel oil, not exactly known for catching fire at the drop of a hat - indeed it's used as torpedo protection on most ships. The US Pacific had only been based at Pearl Harbor since 1940 - prior to that it had been at San Diego. It was recognised that the Pearl tank farm wasn't big enough to support the fleet there long term. Work had begun on enlarging it and meanwhile the two ideas were to have fuel tanker ships in the harbour and to dig a vast trench and line it with rubber and fill that with oil. The second technique was later used very successfully on various Pacific Islands.
So even if the Japanese had managed to hit and ignite the tank farm and the fire fighters were completely incompetent and the whole farm was lost, it's still not the "six months lost" that people claim.
May I suggest a close alternative to Dec. 7 that may be more appropriate and less darkly ironic- Dec. 16. Very close to the schedule, and the anniversary of the commissioning of Ark Royal in 1938.
Ark Royal was the carrier that launched a desperate airstrike against the German battleship Bismarck, using outdated Swordfish biplanes carrying a single torpedo apiece. A hit crippled the battleship's steering system, preventing her from reaching friendly air cover and submarine protection, allowing the rest of the RN to close for the sinking.
Make it a "carrying the flame, passing the torch" event.
using outdated Swordfish biplanes carrying a single torpedo apiece
OK. At that time, perhaps you could list the engaged aircraft carrying more than one torpedo? Or better "modern" aircraft of similar capability?
Simple fact of the matter, the Stringbags were very effective. Their only downside would have been against an enemy with modern fighters available at sea, and that was a list that didn't include most of the powers they were used against.
The fact that the Swordfish were old was an advantage. the antiaircraft fire control radar could not track planes go as slow as the swordfish making them very hard to Hit.
This may prove that the latest, greatest and most sophisticated are the best solution.
take for example the low level drones the Iranians have been harassing the US navy carriers.
'The fact that the Swordfish were old was an advantage. the antiaircraft fire control radar could not track planes go as slow as the swordfish making them very hard to Hit.'
Not strictly true. At this stage of the war AA guns were generally optically trained, it wasn't until the middle of the war that radar was used to guide the larger AA guns. The optical systems had a predictor function that allowed you to aim off for the target aircraft's speed, this may have helped at Taranto where shore batteries were firing at aircraft on a crossing course and couldn't dial in a speed as low as the Swordfish were flying. However when attacking the Bismarck, and the actual ships at Taranto, the Swordfish would have been flying directly at the AA guns making the firing solution much simpler. i.e. if the tracer is falling in front of the target you're firing short, if it's going behind it you're firing long.
In the case of the Bismarck I believe the sea state wasn't helping the German gunner's aim, in both cases an aircraft covered in canvas tends to let cannon shells pass through rather than exploding on contact which helps. But mainly the 'Fish was tough as old boots.
The real problem for the German naval AA gunners was that they were not actually very good regardless of the speed of the attacking aircraft.
3 years later the Tirpitz's AA didn't exactly cover themselves in glory when the RN attacked with considerably more modern aircraft - indeed it was the smoke screens that saved her, not her AA which shot down fewer than 3 of the attackers.
The helicopters have already been practising taking off and landing on the ship. The 13th F-35B has just been delivered. The F-35Bs are currently in the US while the crews are being trained by the OEM. I believe they're coming to the UK next year.
The UK "saved money" by decommissioning their last carriers years before getting replacements. That means that new crews have to be trained from scratch on what are pretty large, complex, and dangerous bits of technical kit instead of just transferring a functioning crew over from an existing carrier that is being replaced.
So the first stage is to train the new ship's crew on how to operate the ship. Simultaneously with that, the F-35B pilots, ground crew, and maintenance crews will train with their kit. Once both sets of crews are ready, they'll bring them together. It won't happen overnight, so I think it will be a couple of years yet before they're all ready with 2 dozen F-35Bs plus helicopters. The US may lend some of their planes with crews to allow the ship's crew to gain experience while waiting for their own squadron to be fully operational.
Once that is done however, with 2 carriers the UK will have continuous carrier coverage, as one ship will be ready to go while the other is in refit.
Once that is done however, with 2 carriers the UK will have continuous carrier coverage, as one ship will be ready to go while the other is in refit.
Woohoo. I'm so delighted that the £12billion+ programme has got us a pair of carriers so reliable that they have 50% availability.
I say we should hang everybody employed at Abbey Wood.
Remind me....hasn't this aircraft cost over $1.4 trillion so far, and has a list of faults/problems that get longer each week?
They cost over £12 billion for two, with another £5 billion for aircraft, and are easily destroyed in a major conflict.
More navy willy-waving.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-military-aircraft-carrier-assets-vulnerable-hms-queen-elizabeth-russia-china-cheap-missile-a7836906.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4702826/UK-s-new-fighter-jets-hit-issues-send-costs-soaring.html
They cost over £12 billion for two, with another £5 billion for aircraft, and are easily destroyed in a major conflict.
That's been my thought about our own "supercarriers". Wouldn't it be better to have a whole bunch of nimble "pocket carriers" that could fan across a wide area, be available for more than two tasks at any given time, rather that hauling the island of Manhattan around everyplace? I mean if I lose my wheelbarrow it's an irritation (especially if I need it right then) but losing a pickup truck loaded with all my tools? That's a disaster.
Perhaps the reason for all these monster carriers is the members of The Admiralty are compensating for something?
'That's been my thought about our own "supercarriers". Wouldn't it be better to have a whole bunch of nimble "pocket carriers"'
Not really, although initially it looks like a good idea.
Firstly the number of escorts and support ships increases in line with the number of carriers. i.e. you need as many escorts for a pocket carrier as you do a super carrier. Unless you operate them as part of the same task group, in which case why bother?
Secondly a smaller carrier can't generate as many sorties per day. The size of the QE Class was based on a requirement to generate X sorties a day for Y days, which gave a requirement of ~36 F-35s. It's worth noting the old Invincible class couldn't easily generate a 24 hour combat air patrol of 2 aircraft.
Thirdly manning. There are a number of posts that are required on a carrier no matter how small it is, i.e. ATC, Flight Ops etc. If you have 4 small carriers rather than 2 big ones you have 4 times as many of those posts to fill for no increase in capability. These aren't the sort of posts anyone can fill either, you need trained specialists who are probably already thinking about making the jump to a better paying job outside the forces. Similarly, although you need a certain scale of engineers to maintain the aircraft it doesn't increase linearly with size so a fleet of small carriers also increases the pressure on another area where manning is 'tight'.
Finally although you could be in more places at once, you wouldn't have the same presence, and as Admiral Fisher once said, 'moderation in war is imbecility'. Although I think modern doctrine refers to concentration of effort.
I am sorry but your post really is utter nonsense the aircraft have not cost $1.4 trillion so far, they do not cost over £12 billion for two (Are you thinking about carriers, if so, maybe you are confused with the new USS Gerald R Ford carrier costing $12.9 Billon $s not £s). As far as the press reports go they are both written by political / home affairs correspondents who clearly have little specialist knowledge of UK defence establishment other than joining in the gutter press's hunt for any true/false sensational fake news.
If you wish to know the truth then I will write a post on the subject and post it, in a few days time after I have checked my facts.
'Woohoo. I'm so delighted that the £12billion+ programme has got us a pair of carriers so reliable that they have 50% availability.'
Most warships run on a 33% availability, one in refit, one in work-up, and one deployed* so that's a big improvement. It's also supposed to be the minimum availability, at times both could be deployable.
*I suspect this is true for most major military units not just ships.
"Woohoo. I'm so delighted that the £12billion+ programme has got us a pair of carriers so reliable that they have 50% availability."
Blame Gordon Brown for that mess. There were much better options but this was pushed through to keep uncompetitive Scottish shipyards in business...
@thames
The helicopters have already been practising taking off and landing on the ship
Oh wow, that should keep them busy for months. Don't heli pilots learn to land and take off from a large flat stationary area when they're at basic heli-pilot school? Bit harder when it's rolling around in a force 10, of course, but has QE been out on sea trials in the south Atlantic yet?
'Bit harder when it's rolling around in a force 10, of course, but has QE been out on sea trials in the south Atlantic yet?'
No, first of class flying trials are next year, during which they'll try and find increasingly bad weather to operate in. And then use the stabilisers to make it roll more if needed.
I mean they do this for every class of ship, it's entirely predictable. Assuming you can remember the last time the RN received the first of a new class...
"Over the past few years keener-eyed Reg readers may have noticed the explosion in the number of things named after the Queen, including, off the top of your correspondent's head: an aircraft carrier; a housing estate; and a railway line, to name but three."
I can think of a couple more:
The Dartford River Crossing was to be called the Dartford Bridge, until people in Thurrock (on the north side of the crossing) complained and it is now called the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge
and
I always thought that St Stephens Tower was the "tower" that supported Big Ben - but it used to be called the Clock Tower (according to the wiki), It is now called the Elizabeth Tower and is about to undergo a £61 million pound restoration - twice the original £29m forecast !!
One assumes that with Her Maj now into her 90's, a few more projects will be named after her, in recognition of her reign....and before she pops off this mortal coil....
I wonder how longer it'll be before Charlie boy gets similar treatment !!
"I wonder how longer it'll be before Charlie boy gets similar treatment !!"
Probably not for quite a while. The Queen is bloody old now and I suspect she's not got much left in her. Now think about all the things named after Victoria, especially those named or renamed in the immediate years after her death. Most towns seem to have at least one street named for her, not to mention railway stations, museums, libraries, schools, etc
Streets? No, not merely streets, entire towns, cities, and even states (I'm looking at you, Australia!) were named after Victoria, along with rivers, lakes and even Hong Kong's famous fragrant harbour. Though HK did quietly drop using the name Victoria for it's capital, even before the handover. It's now fairly indistinguishably divided into Western, Central and Wan Chai Districts.
Neither Liz nor Charlie have any hope of catching up, without an Empire.
The Dartford River Crossing was to be called the Dartford Bridge, until people in Thurrock (on the north side of the crossing) complained and it is now called the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge
You can ignore that one just as readily as I'll refuse to call the New Tappan Zee Bridge by the official "Mario Cuomo" name.
I'm thinking carriers (of any country actually) should be named for what they are. Since in any shooting war with any worthy adversary, the carriers will be the first (after some of the escorts) sunk in a hailstorm of drones and missiles..
Therefore: Sitting Duck, Roasted Duck, Dead Duck, etc. as their time has just about passed just like the battleships' time was up after WWII.
They might be useful for "showing the flag" or small brushfire wars but if the major powers have run-in, I don't think carriers will survive the first combat contacts.
It has been suggested that the USS Enterprise be renamed the USS Corporate Welfare, but as no money changed hands in brown envelopes or to bank accounts in tax havens, it's never been done. Pity - I was also hoping for a more honest portrayal of the state the US population is supposed to be in, with the launch of the USS Terrified Of Everything, but they named that ship after some damn US President. (They couldn't name it Dauntless or Dreadnought or some such name considering the tizzy they were in after 9/11/1973 - oops, 9/11/2001 ...)
Maybe they'll name an aircraft carry the USS Imbecile in honor of George Dubbya Bush - one can dream, can't one?!?
Not dispensed via Twitter of Facecuck Ads:
“Unsinkable” American Aircraft Carriers: Five Nonsensical Statements
Dead, Jim!
Enough already with the wussy names. What tinpot dictation is going to be bothered by "Prince of Wales" or "Queen Elizabeth" appearing overt he horizon. Doesn't sound as if there is anything worse on its way than a plaque unveiling or a spot of tea.
When "Warspite", or "Revenge" turned up, you knew you were in trouble.
Also, and I right in thinking that we currently own three F-35s, of which one does airshows and two are still in the US while desperate attempts go on to make them usable?
"What tinpot dictation is going to be bothered by "Prince of Wales" or "Queen Elizabeth" appearing overt he horizon."
Worse than that, they may be unaware of the meanings of the abbreviations, and read the news that the HMS Quantitative Easing or the HMS Prisoner of War is on the way ...
HMS Boudica
HMS Iron Lady - Motto: "Prepare to be handbagged"
'Also, and I right in thinking that we currently own three F-35s, of which one does airshows and two are still in the US while desperate attempts go on to make them usable?'
No. We own 13, with a 14th due soon. Some of which are engaged in testing and some of which are with 17 Sqn and involved in Operational Test and Evaluation, i.e. figuring out how to best use the new capabilities the aircraft brings, and around Q3 next year taking off and landing on a QE Class carrier.
I saw a video just recently; quite scary. Fortunately, it was intended as a "proof of concept" to get people talking.
Basically, mini drones, slightly larger than the size of one of the fidget spinner toys, with a small shaped explosive charge. The drones are controlled by AI that allows them to detect and overcome counter offensive activities.
The video suggested that a fleet of these mini drones could be launched by a plane or missile over the target area, and that for about $25 million dollars, they could deploy half a million of these devices, enough to wipe out a city. For about $1 million, they could destroy a tank battle group, or a large flotilla of surface ships.
Can't find the link; think that it may have been removed.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
