![HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-528700[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/nFXNfua.jpg "HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-528700[1].jpg")
Lack of Catobar and nuclear power isn't even the problem.
QE has zero anti ship,air or subsurface weapons and only has a couple of CIWS to defend it.
Every other carrier out there, from Admiral Kuznetsov and Liaoning to Indias Vikrant and Italy's Cavour if met 1-1 would be able to chase of Queen Elizabeth.
> But anon, carriers travel in battle groups!
yes they do, but the Royal Navy has only 6 Daring Destroyers to escort the ill equipped carrier, of which only 3 have access to harpoons.
These harpoons were only added after the ship was complete as they were stripped from retiring type 22 frigates, which in itself is hilariously embarassing for the Royal Navy.
The Royal Navy's only anti ship weaponry comes in the form of the helicopters she will carry at launch and any astutes that get attached.
Good luck trying to show the flag to any of the countries that have now joined America in humiliating the once rulers of the waves.
Don't worry, I hear she has a cinema built in onboard, that'll keep the crew busy while they sit in ports.
![putin-medvedev-laughing[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/e76t1bu.jpg "putin-medvedev-laughing[1].jpg")
>>30006864
> Largest ever Royal Navy warships unveiled to 'scare off Putin'
Lol
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/516953/warships-unveiled-to-scare-off-Putin-hms-queen-elizabeth-prince-of-wales-carrier
Honest no troll here
What worries me about England's new carrier is that it's so limited.
It's a port queen that's just there to remind the world that England STILL has a capable Navy
If England was smart and honest they wouldn't build this boat. They focus their money on top of the line defensive weapons.
England would have this insane air defense mega-project that was top of the line better than the Americans. It was limited sure,but it was a beast of a weapon and it made England pretty much impossible to invade.
But instead we get this "Carrier" that's going to help fight in NATO wars or anti-terrorism fights. Its not a blue water weapon,its a show of force and its anemic
The Royal Navy is dying
>>30006893
>But instead we get this "Carrier"
Carriers, plural.
> Its not a blue water weapon,its a show of force and its anemic
You're just fucking trolling at this point.
>>30006893
>Honest no troll here
>>30006893
>If England was smart and honest they wouldn't build this boat. They focus their money on top of the line defensive weapons
Nah, that's bullshit. OP here and they should have built her, but they shouldn't have done it on a budget.
She needs better equipment for actual warfighting not just floating.
>>30007007
>She needs better equipment for actual warfighting not just floating.
Thats what they're built for, thanks to the SDSR. If we were just doing it to have them "floating" they wouldn't be >70,000t and we wouldn't have made both active in service.
![CNBYrJo[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/7qG8Dyn.jpg "CNBYrJo[1].jpg")
>>30007043
Fighting what?
Not any other blue water navy that's for sure.
So ISIS then?
The F-35B's wont even belong to the Navy's FAA, they will be "owned" entirely by the Royal Air Force.
They are going to be put to sea with no job to do, inadequate escorts and then maybe in 25 years they might have seen enough upgrades to be viable.
At which point China and India will have both completed their next generation nuclear powered carriers not to mention other navies.
They built big because it allows for upgrading, bigger does not mean better if you leave them hollow.
>>30007072
>Not any other blue water navy that's for sure.
Why not
>The F-35B's wont even belong to the Navy's FAA, they will be "owned" entirely by the Royal Air Force.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/fleet-air-arm/future-aircraft/809-naval-air-squadron
>>30007072
>At which point China and India will have both completed their next generation nuclear powered carriers not to mention other navies.
Yeah, but they're Indian. Their Navy is staffed by morons, and the Chinese have zero experience.
Honestly, just fuck off. Its really embarassing watching you post.
>>30006864
Really?
I though we were beyond QE bashing now. Pure troll thread, like every other navy thread currently going.
>QE has zero anti ship,air or subsurface weapons
Yeah, that's what the aircraft and escorts are for.
>6 Daring Destroyers to escort the ill equipped carrier, of which only 3 have access to harpoons.
No, she has 13 other surface escorts and those 6 Daring(s) only exist as pure AAW assets, the harpoons were bolted on because why throw them away?
>>30006893
Don't be dishonest Rivet Joint, I've seen you troll QE threads before.
>>30007080
>Their [Indian] Navy is staffed by morons, and the Chinese have zero experience.
This is the point where you lost. The British haven't had a proper fleet carrier since HMS Ark Royal(R09) which was out of date by the 80's
The rest have been glorified 30k and 20k Assault ships.
You mentioned Prince of Wales, did you know she was being turned into an amphibious assault ship? Yea, the Royal Navy is going to operate two fleet carriers, sure thing.
>>30007095
>Yeah, that's what the aircraft and escorts are for.
Tell that to every other Carrier afloat, the QE is the only one that has no offensive weaponry of her own.
>>30007080
>>The F-35B's wont even belong to the Navy's FAA, they will be "owned" entirely by the Royal Air Force.
>http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/fleet-air-arm/future-aircraft/809-naval-air-squadron
What part of The RAF will own the planes was hard for you to get your head around? Just because they're using them on the QE as part of the 809 Squadron doesn't make them FAA.
It's hilarious, the British have tried this before and it never works. Once experience onboard the carrier is gained divides will happen. Just like before.
>>30007108
>This is the point where you lost. The British haven't had a proper fleet carrier since HMS Ark Royal(R09) which was out of date by the 80's
Still a lot better starting point than absolutely fuck all, and we've maintained blue water operations across the globe.
>You mentioned Prince of Wales, did you know she was being turned into an amphibious assault ship?
Its not, though. Buy good try.
>>30007127
Sounds like a really minor thing to fucking quibble about. Getting a little autistic over the finer points, are we?
>>30006893
>It's a port queen that's just there to remind the world that England STILL has a capable Navy
...It's under construction you fucking tard.
>>30007127
>the QE is the only one that has no offensive weaponry of her own.
SeaRAM / SeaSparrow aren't offensive weapons you fucking dunce.
But no, there are carriers that are literally unarmed, but the QE has Phalanx.
Not that it matters AT ALL, because if you're relying on your carrier to defend itself, you've already fucked up in a massive way.
>Every other carrier out there, from Admiral Kuznetsov and Liaoning to Indias Vikrant and Italy's Cavour if met 1-1 would be able to chase of Queen Elizabeth.
I've seen stupid carrier threads before but "your carrier sucks because it can't fight other carriers without aircraft" has to be the stupidest.
>>30007108
Stretching the truth, she's having "amphibious" enhancements.
>>30007127
Clearly you know what you are talking about, but you are merely pretending to be retarded.
>The Royal Navy's only anti ship weaponry comes in the form of the helicopters she will carry at launch
I see comments like this and I wonder if OP is being intentionally ignorant to cause argument or if he is actually that much of a fucking moron.
>>30007132
>Sounds like a really minor thing to fucking quibble about. Getting a little autistic over the finer points, are we?
Swapping Navy and Airforce personnel onto a carrier at barely more than a whim is a minor point?
You talk about experience gain as if you think operating an f--35B as part of a carrier force is the same as land based.
Nor the planes or the pilots will be stationed on the carrier fulltime,they will be changing Squadron badges so often they will find it hard to keep up as they're bounced between Marham, Edwards, QE and POW.
This is due to lack of pilots and lack of planes, it's not a minor point you fucking idiot it's a huge metaphor for the problems in the Royal Navy. Lack of Numbers in personnel and equipment.
>>30007159
Which is why there is such a massive recruitment drive and why we're buying more F-35Bs that we even originally intended.
>Nor the planes or the pilots will be stationed on the carrier fulltime,they will be changing Squadron badges so often
don't even know what to say to that.
>>30007159
You mean those squadrons that haven't formed up and those aircraft that aren't in service yet.
You sure know a lot about something that's yet to even begin to happen.
>>30007142
By that math the Wasp class is the most dangerous carriers on earth.
>Rams the Lincoln.
>Moment of silence.
>Thousands of marines swarm aboard and start raping and breaking everything.
>The CIC falls when the captain runs out of NJP forms and is swarmed under.
>They are getting DUI on the flight deck with tractors.
>>30007159
this is some quality ARRSE trolling
>>30007161
>What is an SDSR?
The post.
But you're absolutely right, it's 2016, QE starts seatrials and as it stands now she wont have her full 12, twelve, F-35B's on deck until 2023
>>30006893
>Honest no troll here
So, what does that make you? Not a troll, so presumably, just a complete drooling retard spewing verbal diarrhoea on a subject you have no clue about, sitting in an echo chamber of equally retarded commenters who know little more?
Congratulations. you're a fucking moron.
>>30007179
>12 aircraft
>70,000tons
>>30007179
If by "full" you mean "first delivery", yes.
But at this point you're just deflecting onto other issues that have little to nothing to do with the Carrier itself, nor how it will be when normally operating. It could have been a 120k ton CATOBAR carrier and still had delays in delivery of F-35s.
You read the Sun, buddy? I feel like you do.
>>30007179
Epically disingenuous.
>>30007192
You used to actually post some meaningful stuff, but now you've devolved into just a named shitposter.
So thanks for allowing me to filter you. Never take the trip off.
>70,000 tons(63502932 kilos)
>No fixed wing AEW
>F-35B,literally a stealth AV-8 replacement
>Blue Water Navy
>"Royal" Navy
kek
>>30007194
>You read the Sun, buddy?
No, he reads that well known source of solid facts, The Daily Star >>30006876
>>30007192
>>30007202
If you're going to troll don't declare in your first post that you're just mindlessly shitposting or it all has no impact.
>>30007192
That's not the total capacity Rivet, just her anticipated typical deployment number.
>>30007202
Like >>30007201 says Rivet, you are only making yourself look stupid.
>>30007194
>It could have been a 120k ton CATOBAR carrier and still had delays in delivery of F-35s.
At least it could then actually fly something in the meantime other than Merlins and wildcats.
>>30007192
She needs the room for automated factories to make up for the lack of sailors.
>>30007216
>At least it could then actually fly something in the meantime other than Merlins and wildcats.
Oh shit yeah, like all those CATOBAR aircraft the RAF has lying around.
The FUCK are you talking about
>>30007216
>At least it could then actually fly something in the meantime other than Merlins and wildcats.
Such as? And no, crossdecking doesn't count.
Who's idea was it not put a fucking cat on this boat?
Like how did that guy get his job? and why isn't he at jobcentre looking for paper hat job?
>>30007227
Assuming you want to learn.
The navy's and RAF's, they wanted the F-35B for the flexibility of being able to swap aircraft and air crews around.
And to some extend the USMC, looking for someone else to crossdeck with.
>>30007243
*extent
>>30007220
>The FUCK are you talking about
you expect common sense, or even coherent logic from an obsessed shitposter?
of course, they desperately deny being obsessed with it, but, after the first 100 threads going on and on and on about a carrier from another country to their own which they have absolutely nothing to say except the most idiotic "I'm not a troll, honest" crap, we can safely conclude that they are simply fixated on it.
Sad, really.
>>30006864
>QE has zero anti ship,air or subsurface weapons and only has a couple of CIWS to defend it.
The soviet union called they want their shitty naval doctrines back
>The Royal Navy's only anti ship weaponry comes in the form of the helicopters she will carry at launch and any astutes that get attached
aside from the carrier air wing with LRASM or JSM which are a far more capable option compared with strapping more Harpoons to escorts or vodka-niggerizing your carrier
Seriously who the fuck cares. All see is a bunch of non Brits complaining about a British matter. You're not debating a world changing event and you have no say in it anyway you are literally arguing about nothing.
There's it going to be another major world war between world powers again anyway, so what does it matter? the world is far too interconnected now for that.
>Britain calls that a flagship
laughingnimitz.jpg
>>30009450
>$600bn budget vs $45bn budget
ah yes
Can you imagine how many games of "freckles" will be played on those two ships?
There will be a freckles championship near the palace that the queen can enjoy.
You bongs got it made.
