A timelapse video shows aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth leaving Scotland during some stunning weather after a logistics stop.

The 65,000-tonne aircraft carrier was at Glenmallan on the Clyde in Scotland for a routine logistics visit.

This summer the vessel will be deployed to the Mediterranean in a show of naval strength. The ship recently tweeted, “It’s time to put the ship and crew through their paces as we train for our next deployment!”

HMS Queen Elizabeth is the lead ship of the Queen Elizabeth class of aircraft carriers, the largest warships ever constructed for the Royal Navy. Launched on the 4th of July, 2014, this colossal vessel boasts a length of 280 metres (920 feet), a beam of 73 metres (239 feet), and a displacement of approximately 65,000 tonnes.

The flight deck spans an impressive 70 metres (230 feet) in width and 280 metres (920 feet) in length, making it large enough to operate up to 40 aircraft.

Demonstrating its immense size, the ship’s structure reaches a height of 56 metres (184 feet) from the keel to the top of the mast, which equates to the height of Niagara Falls.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

111 COMMENTS

        • Have to second the thanks for noting update to NL article. Occasionally rescan older articles on this site and NL to refresh memory and note updated commentary. Surprised when an update changes the entire tenor of article. Memo to self: Obviously, misinformation can be presented by even credible news organizations; the better organizations print updates or retractions, as deemed necessary. 🤔😳

      • Thanks SB i knew i’d seen article so found an copied link didn’t re-read it. i stand corrected, but i do wonder what other task will get the short end of stick when they have to crew her.

      • Navy Lookout are currently reporting that the refit on HMS Westminister has been paused as she is in a worse state than expected. They do quote sources…

        To be honest I can believe it given the time it has taken to refit the T23’s. They were after all designed for an inservice life of 18 to 20 years but delays to what is now T26 and they are all close to or past 30 years old. Take any complex machinary past its sell by date and you are going to get sme pretty big bills… The RN is paying the price for poor pragramme management and control in the 90’s. Although to be fair I suspect it wasn’t all down to the navy…

        Cheers CR

        • I can believe they got pretty bad too.

          However, they are not named sources.

          The could well be part of Operation Outrage to shape the upcoming review.

          As I, I suspect, was the Fort Vic story.

          • Yep we only got £5b extra when we wanted £11b. maybe someone needs to be accountable of wasted funds. maybe time to but stock Hulls and then fit out in the UK.

          • Wow, possible Machiavellian maneuvering to shape the forthcoming defense review guidance. Good on the blokes down at the Admiralty; evidently been practicing close quarters fiscal combat drills. 🤔😉

          • Hi FormerUSAF,

            It’s a regular bun fight between the services everytime there is a budget review. Retired ‘grown ups’ emerge from their dusty drawning rooms to predict doom and gloom on a grand scale. Never works, the axe gets taken out of the cupboard and burnished to a nice glint to be wielded anyway. Even if one or other service manages to duck the axe one time the axe catches them on the next outing…

            You are left wondering why anyone bothers. The silly thing is if the services stopped fighting their own corners and worked together they might actually get a sensible and compelling message out to the public. Our armed forces are still held in very high esteem if they could only work together and capitalise on that they might actually get more people to sit up and take note of the rediculously vulnerable situation we are in… We ever I tell people how many frigates, for example, we actually have they are usually very surprised and takenback. If the message was driven home properly along with the risks we face I think things might well change.

            Never happen, sadly.

            Cheers CR

          • Agreed SB,

            I think it is clearly a leak, but some of these doom and gloom stories come true and given how some of the other T23’s have gome out of service and the fact the the RN is rightly pushing hard on new capabilities there is a real possibility that Westminster will go early.

            Unless there is a huge change in funding the only way to break the current vicious circle caused by the huge expense of trying to keep hulls well past their sell by date going. I think the navy will protect their future at the expense of the present especially given the T31, T26 and the Uncrewed Platform work they are doing. All very promising – finally. They’d be stupid in the extreme to put all that at risk.

            The I think is the RN is now dealing with some seriously difficult decisions which it has in part at least contributed to. The obvious example is of course what is now known has the T26, but had more than one name through out the late 80’s, 90’s and 00’s while people who should of known better dithered and argued and the T23’s aged…

            Lets hope it is a lesson that gets taught to future generations somewhere in the RN – corporate memory is about as reliable as mine..!

            Cheers CR

        • I don’t think it’s bad programme management. They just were not meant to be in service this long. I could see another 2 or 3 T23’s getting cut to save refit money. And that cash put into T26 and T31.

          • Hi Robert,

            Sorry I didn’t make myself clear. I was refering to what is now the T26 programme. That programme was only marginally better run than the Army’s armoured vehicle programme – but only just! The T26 is looking like a really fine ship but the lead ships should entered in service more than 10 years ago. We should either be building improved T26 by now or a T27..!

            At least the navy seems have have learnt a lesson, at least for the time being.

            Cheers CR

          • To be totally fair T26 and all its predecessors were quite well designed.

            The problem was getting the green light to order it.

            That was down to BAE refusing a fixed price or fixed cost contract….

            G Brown Esq moved it up the running order in exchange for T45 7&8.

            Cameron, Osbourne & Clegg kicked the cab down the road looking for non existent cheaper solutions.

            It was only Doris who actually gripped the situation and made sure T26 and T31 were ordered. That was an oven ready deal…OK Rishi formally ordered #4-8 but that deal was put together under Doris.

          • Hi SB,

            I agree to a point about the T26, it certainly is a fine looking piece of kit, but there was also a number of restarts and changes in requirements. These may have been in response to delays from ‘external’ factors as you describe but they would have triggered yet more delays. With so many stakeholders the picture is always complex.

            When I first joined RAE I remember being told about there being at a least part of the T23 ‘office’ in a building just across from my building. I was told then that the T23 was an interrim frigate to fill the gap between T22 and the new Global Combat Ship concept or whatever it was called back then..! That was 1989…

            The ’90’s were a difficult time to justify any defence programme as no one could see where the next threat was coming from. The problem was that no one said ‘never mind ‘where’ it will come from, history tells us it will come!’

            Learning the basics from history should be quite simple, but apparently it isn’t. Details are always difficult sure especially when technology moves as fast as it does today, but do the basics well and you can usually deal with the details and unforeseen.

            OK, the above is over simplifying but if I have learnt anything it is that if you are not sure of which way to go take a step back and look at the big picture. Don’t get too caught up in the details that is a quick way to get into decision paralysis. Stepping back is a good way to understand whether the issue you are stuck with really is that vital – if it is really down in the weeds chances are no one will ever notice which ever choice you actually do make!

            The 90’s and 00’s were a period of decision paralysis as far as I could see but with a few exceptions. T45 was an exception because the RN suddenly realised their AD asset, the T42, was rapidly getting past its sell by date. So they made a decision to get out of the Horizon programme and get on and build the T45. The speed with which things happened after the break surprised many. The T31 appears to be another rapid programme…

            Cheers CR
            Sorry rumbled on a bit there…

          • Knowing a bit about the gestation if T45…..it is actually a program started in the 1980’s.

            Horizon went on for too long and was not what RN needed. Fortunately there were still people in the building who had been on Corporate and who put their foot down.

            Politically leaving troops over exposed was not a good look so actually the argument for AAD was not as hard to make as it might have been.

            Hulls 7&8 were sacrificed for Treasury backing for T26…..but the Cameron government went back on that compounding the mess.

            It would probably have been better to get T45 7&8 (even though they were not really needed)…..but there again the power plant hasn’t been the best….

          • Yeh, Horizon went on far too long. It is interesting to compare Horizon to T45, they are superficially very similar looking ships. Seen the Brits didn’t exactly wide the board clean when they baled out on the Horizon programme. Also there are more T45’s in the water than Horizon’s…

            As for the power plant – a risk was taken and it went bad. Going for new tech often pays off, but it is not a done deal. If we want a high tech navy we have to accept that fact engineers are human beings (at the moment anyway) and they can get it wrong. OK the minister made the final choice but he would have had conflicting advice. Churchill made a similar choice with the 15″ gun for the Queen Elizabeth class dreadnaughts and they had even got of the drawing board apparently. He lucked out fortunately for the navy as he made the decision somewhere in around 1912 or ’13…

            What has not gone down well is the fact that the T45’s are only just getting the PIP upgrades which looks really bad given the lack of communication around all the other work that has been carried out to mitigate the problems.

            Cheers CR

          • Things were taken from the Horizon project.

            The French didn’t have the awful Corporate experience.

            The French didn’t want to use SAMPSON and didn’t want the radar so high up which drove the way the T45’s metacentric weight was determined – which will be different to Horizon.

            It is very interesting that the French wanted to take control yet RN was always going to be the largest customer.

            With PiP this does give a deployable number of 3-4 at any one time. Given one is always going to be in deep refit and another working up.

          • Or into T32 (T31B2) which will be the ASW variant…..

            Which is what I think this is actually about….

          • Hmm, ASW variant of T31? Interesting not seen anything about such a possibility. I’m intrigued is there something I can go and look at?

            A T31 B2 with decent accoustic isolation even keeping the current power plant would make a very useful force multiplier / second line ASW platform especially if they can keep the cost down to about £350m, assuming lots of GFE as per the B1’s.

            A fleet of ten T31 / 32, six T45 and eight T26 with T83 in the pipeline would be nice to see, especially if the T32 are as you suggest ASW platforms (with the MK41’s as well please 🙂 ).

            Cheers CR

          • “ especially if they can keep the cost down to about £350m, assuming lots of GFE as per the B1’s.”

            I’m not sure there is a lot of spare GFE sitting around?

            There will be ARTISAN.

            The advantage of a big common stockpile of Sea Ceptor etc is that it isn’t a massive direct cost to add more to the inventory as the maintainers and facilities plus training all exist.

            If you are adding £250m + inflation @ £25m + MK41 @ £20m + quietening @ £150m (this won’t buy T23 or T26 levels) some sonar and a 5” gun then you are up to a decent chunk of change.

            BTW this was, I think, why the T32 project stalled as it got quite a high unit cost.

    • Embarrassing and annoying that Fort Vic had a refit May-Dec 2022, but is not available for deployment now.

      Wiki:”However, in May 2023 it was reported that the ship continued to suffer from signficant problems that required rectification, and would likely maintain only a skeleton crew through 2023.[33] Subsequently it was reported that the ship was “mechanically sound” and in an emergency could support an unplanned carrier group deployment, though this would then require taking sailors from other ships due to RFA personnel shortages.[34]

      I wonder what these ‘significant problems’ are?

      • Almost certainly the air compressors. A FSS ship like RFA Fort Vic needs compressed air for lots of functions. Compressors and high pressure hoses and fittings

          • I’m puzzled by this even being parroted as ‘a thing’…..

            High pressure airline fittings are as cheap as chips and used all over the place. With CNC they are not hard to replicate.

            WRT the compressors they can be stowed as deck cargo if the internal ones are trouble.

            I’m not seeing that as being a very real issue that cannot be fixed with a bit of application and sweat.

    • Given the trade deals the government has negiotated so far, Biden is doing us a favour.

      I will take Biden over Trump, Desantis and co anytime.

      • But we were told there are loads of trade deals and Europe was holding the U.K. back? Why am I not much richer since brexit?
        If it’s on the side of a bus it must be true😂😂😂

    • Anything more than a limited trade deal with the USA will not be good for the U.K.
      America’s food standards etc are lower than the uk, so unless the U.K. lowered its standards which would lock it out of other markets the U.K. couldn’t compete.
      What does the uk have that the USA needs that isn’t covered in current deals?
      Biden was Vice President when the uk was told they can’t leave Europe and expect an instant trade deal.

      • The US wants 2 main things from the trade deal, which Boris deal was meant to give them, lower food standards to allow US farmers easier access (ala Australia deal) and US firms access to the NHS. Personally I don’t think either is plus to the average UK citizen. The trade deal can’t currently happen because if we did allow US food free access into this UK the EU would need to increase checks/paperwork to protect its own market from the food and that would make the supermarket shelves even more empty.

        I’m not a fan of sunak but in this case his doing the right thing and not doing what Boris/truss did which was sell out the country for nice press stories in the daily express

    • Even if the pair of them agreed a deal it would be like lots of other things the various Prez’s signs up to…they dont come to fruition. It goes to Congress and the Senate and all the Pork Barrels come out and vested interests get involved and it never gets ratified.
      The Prez sits their afterwards saying not my fault…Whilst knowing that exactly this would happen.

    • Did anyone notice who didn’t read it here?😂
      Political people are much to busy fussing over non issues.
      Half them would ask how the cruise ship has managed to invent invisible windows

  5. To those who don’t know how eccentric we Brits are when it comes to National symbols, here is a good example. The QE’s ships badge from the time of the Tudors, essentially forms the bulk of the modern flag of Wales-Green and White, whilst the bulk of HMS Prince of Wales’s badge is formed by the Cross of St.George, the flag of England..!!!

    • In this day and age, the LCVP when facing a hostile beach is the bit best placed to survive. It’s basically too large a target and is too slow.

      Speed is not the answer, as any ship cannot out run an anti-ship missile let alone a shore fired anti-tank guided missile.

      Stealth may be the key, but the “craft” can realistically only be used during poor weather or at night. Where its low observability must cover radar, infrared, ultraviolet but also acoustic.

      Depending upon the number of troops needed to be carried. There may be a very stealthy answer. That could also be used during daylight hours. Which is based on the Narco sub.

      A semi-submersible may be the best solution to approaching a hostile and defended shoreline. Where it’s very low profile hides it from detection and targeting. Allowing the craft to get to the shoreline will allow for the maximum element of surprise. Thereby protecting the crew and pax for longer.

      It may be a crazy idea, but it could be a solution for getting troops onto a defended shoreline.

      • Acoustic stealth on an LCVP…if only. Noisier than a bag of spanners in a washing machine.
        The paint scheme does offer up some stealth attributes in specific wavelengths as Warpaint hints at using Trimite paint

        As you say its time to go Narco Sub/ semi Submersible

      • Not to mention the troops will be higher than a Amsterdam’s hookers heels by the time they get on the beach. Ain’t nothing stopping them apart from paranoia.

        • Jeez NS, that’s pretty descriptive, what you smokin?!
          But you made me smile… I once got propositioned by one those ladies when in Amsterdam… but not sure if she was wearing👠. Had to decline as was with friends.😆

      • Thanks DB. I had read of such a possibility from one of the Twitter posts replying to the article. It was not clear from the article how many men it would carry, assume not many, but also mentioned carrying a vehicle!
        That would be some solution.
        I believe sneaky boats have such a semi submersible canoe type but this is something else and I’m unsure if they think industry can provide. Unless there is something already out there that I am not aware of.

    • Very cool and trendy but how would the commandos leap out of that thing quickly? Where is the front ramp!

  8. If so, it’s a sorry state of affairs.

    “Unofficial naval sources say that the frigate HMS Westminster has been found to be in such a poor state that it would be difficult to justify the expense of repairs and her refit has been stopped, pending a decision on her future.

    Westminster was the first Type 23 to have a Life Extension refit, completed in Portsmouth in 2017. After a busy 7 years of service, mostly in European waters, in early October 2022, she arrived in Devonport and initial work began on a refit expected to last less than two years.

    It was intended she would become a Devonport-based ship and this work package would keep her going until around 2028-29. Westminster is the next oldest frigate (launched in 1992) after HMS Monmouth and Montrose which have already been retired.”

    LINK

    • Considering we are one of the biggest spenders on defence, you have to question where the money goes?

      • Off my head…

        AWE.

        4 SSBN.

        SSN capability.

        Considerable amount on SF, 2 billion extra in 2015 alone.

        Considerable C4I with the US through 5 Eyes and other MoD/NATO/DoD areas, now expanding into Cyber and Space assets.

        Inflation pressures.

        Logistic footprint, having the ability to actually deploy over a wide distance, again which most other nations lack.

        Spares & maintenance.

        R&D.

        High tech. T45, T26 with cutting edge weapons costs lots of money, as does the training to make the forces the professional organisation they are.

        Legacy infrastructure that costs a lot to maintain, £800 million alone on refurbing RAF Marham and over £600 million on Corsham as just 2 examples. Things cost a lot more here than in some other nations and our MIC will charge a lot for stuff.

        The UK being one of the biggest spenders on defence allows us to have these assets, and I fear for the day when we cannot spend that amount on these vital enablers.

        Comparing like for like with other nations who have x amount while we may only have Z amount does not tell the whole story or even their ability to deploy and take part in complex operations.

        If the capital costs of being a nuclear power, which are a political choice, were removed back to where they came there would be more money for conventional assets.

        Yes there are procurement screw ups and yes HMG do not fund the conventional military enough and they need to be bigger in certain areas. They also interfere with build times which raise costs more.

        Some examples of where the money goes probably lots of others?

          • I think my stance is you need the enablers sorted to allow the numbers of ships, tanks, planes to do their stuff. Without them, what is the point of x number of planes?

            And these enablers cost money.

            Examples, I wonder how many here know what DIFC, GOSCC, and JESC actually are, what they do, how they enable the rest of the military to operate and fight, how few examples elsewhere there are of them, and how much they cost?

            I’d rather have a GOSCC than another T45.
            I’d rather have a DIFC than another T26.
            I’d rather have the JESC than another River B2.

            None are deployable assets.

            That, is what the considerable MoD budget is spent on.

            And yes, I want more assets like everyone else, but the balance between quality, enablers, and mass is more important than just mass for the money HMG spend.

          • Thank you Daniele for the sensible rebuttal but re your follow-on comment I am one of the unqualified outsiders with an interest in the UK armed forces and military/intelligence capabilities who had no idea what any of the entities you mentioned are. A bit of Google searching helped me to discover that …

            DIFC is (I assume) “Data Integration and Fusion Centre”. The reference I found mentioned US Strategic Command. Does the UK have its own counterpart or did I find the wrong translation for that acronym?

            GOSCC is “Global Operations and Security Control Centre” at MoD Corsham.

            and …

            JESC is “Junior Eurovision Song Contest”. I honestly couldn’t find any more meaningful explanation for that acronym so I’d be interested to know what that one is. Then again, being forced to watch a junior Eurovision Song Contest probably has the ability to drive any rational adversary to total insanity and despair so perhaps that is what you were referring to and indeed it might just be the most destructive weapon in our arsenal. I never knew we could be so cruel.

          • 😄 Re Junior Eurovision!!

            Hi Julian. Sure.

            DIFC- Defence Intelligence Fusion Centre. At Pathfinder Building at RAF Wyton. Under the co located JFIG – ( Joint Forces Intelligence Group ) which is a part of the DIS “Defence Intelligence Staff” or now days DI. Replaced disparate other locations.
            All 3 services are represented here under one roof, with several other organisations as well across the intelligence area such as JIOC ( Joint Intelligence Operations Centre ) NCGI ( National Centre for Geospatial Intelligence ), and input from 5 eyes too and yes GCHQ also have a presence there, as do the US military.

            Correct re GOSCC at Corsham.

            JESC – Joint Electronic Surveillance Centre, less said about that the better other than it exists and there are other organisations such as MCIC ( Maritime Cryptologic Integration Centre ) FIOC ( Fleet Information Operations Centre ) and INOC ( Internet Operations Centre ) that all enable the UK military to do their jobs and are not some fancy frigate with X amount of guns hanging off it like so many are obsessed by.

            There are several other such “Centres” I have not listed as listed just 3 to make my point.

            I am more interested in these little known areas that actually make the military tick than the ships, planes and Tanks we are all so keen to see more of.

            Thanks for asking Julian.

            Never ignore the enablers!

          • Thanks Daniele, that’s really interesting and helpful.

            Your comments on these capabilities seems to me to tie in with a point that I’ve seen Gunbuster make quite a few times. When people sometimes get a bit carried away with the speed or range or seeker on this or that missile as the be-all and end-all of a capability Gunbuster has pointed out on more than one occasion that it’s all very well being able to reach/hit a target but when you’re talking about ships at sea actually knowing where that target is within a vast area of ocean is a critical part of the whole kill chain. Many of the capabilities you describe would seem to be very important in that locate-the-target part of the equation.

          • Exactly.
            Which is one reason why I myself never got too excited at our escorts lack of ASM. The RN knows what it is doing and targeting is a different thing entirely, it’s not groups of ships lobbing ASM at each other ww1 fashion. I’d prefer to see ASM on our jets, but NSM on ships, nice to have. Not vital.

            I’m an outsider too Julian, all that I mention is available public info if one looks hard enough and joins the dots. It is surprising what is online and how so often the left hand of the MoD don’t know what the right is doing that it is possible to find info on places like I list.

          • Clearly, things have moved on since then!

            The Yaogan satellite constellation is designed to survey China’s neighbourhood and facilitate space-based Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) observations, electro-optical observations, and naval oceanic surveillance for optical surveillance to track warships by acquiring their optical signatures and radio transmissions. 28 Oct 2020

            LINK

          • Similar to what the NRO/USN have I believe. I think our own MINERVA satellite program includes such a capability?

            I imagine if it went hot in the SCS they’d be some of the first things to be negated.

          • Well yes. Every capability has a counter and a counter counter. No wonder the MIC makes so much money! Too much reliance on UAV using bandwidth could become an issue?
            As for surveillance, UKUSAs is luckily a bit more extensive than China’s so they’ve a lot more targets to negate than the US has.

          • As with everything else, China is catching very quickly but they still have a long way to go to catch up with the US in terms of global satellite coverage. The US at last count had close to 300 military satellites and that number is guaranteed to grow by an order of magnitude over the the next decade as they begin building the leo and meo constellations, with both having hundreds and perhaps thousands of smaller cheaper satellites. To be fair China appears to be focused on coverage of just its immediate surroundings and so their job is much easier.

          • Plus, there is little point in developing a missile with a range in excess of 1000 miles if you cannot detect and track a moving target.

            Navy Tomahawk Now Targets Moving Ships at SeaThe latest Block V Tactical Tomahawk integrates a new generation of technical advances enabling the weapon to hit moving ships at sea.

            “However, the Tomahawk has in recent years primarily been used against “fixed” targets, however, the latest Block V Tactical Tomahawk integrates a new generation of technical advances enabling the weapon to hit moving ships at sea while flying parallel to the ocean surface beneath the radar aperture of what enemies can typically detect.”

            LINK

          • Tomahawk used to target ships back in the original form. That capability was removed in favour of land attack.
            Now its back.
            Good job to because unless you are on a Flight 1 AB , Flight 2 and Flight 3 AB s in the USN had to rely on using SM6 SAMs to conduct surface attacks. They have no ASMs at all.
            Supersonic ASMs are good but tend to be limited in range unless they go in as high divers where detection is easier than low level sea skimmers.
            However time of flight for a subsonic missile and the target moving are massive issues . Launch from 1K miles away. Flight time approx 3.5 hrs. The target can move 100 miles in any direction by then . Unless you have a live update via external sensors and a data link ( More kill chain to snap) the seeker is not going to find anything when it reaches the target area.

          • Yes as I posted in the above link.

            “The current Tomahawk Block IV has a two-way data link to adjust to new target detail in flight and an almost drone-like ability to “loiter” above targets and send back specifics. The weapon has proven critical in attacking command and control targets, infrastructure and fixed locations such as enemy command centres, equipment and force concentrations.”

            Block IV
            “The Block IV TLAM-E is the newest upgrade to the Tomahawk series. The missile can be rerouted in flight to either preplanned or new targets. Furthermore, the missile has a faster launch timeline and a loiter capability that, along with its electro-optic sensor, allows it to provide real-time damage assessment of previous strikes.

            The Block IV TLAM-E has a range of 900 nautical miles or 1,600 km. it carries a 1,000 lb. unitary warhead.16 The Block IV is the only Tomahawk variant that is still manufactured. Remaining Tomahawk missiles of other variations will be converted to the Block IV capability.”

            LINK

          • I know what those letter are. A bad game of scrabble in the officers mess🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

        • Hey Daniele

          Quick question on something totally different.

          I seem to remember that the budget for armour replacement was originally £14bn but can’t find that anywhere.

          Do you know what the figure was as I seem to think I got that number from one of your posts but could be wrong

      • Not really a mystery – it goes to the defence industry. Their interests aren’t served by building warships that remain serviceable for too long.

    • She is an old ship. The saving of a few quid delaying the type 26 in previous years is now causing big issues and costing much more than was ever saved.
      She will be fixable but it’s a matter of cost/time.
      If her refit is around £250m cancel it and order another type 31. Run her for a bit if possible.

    • Grateful thanks to Monkey spanker and, also, geoff for appreciation of my post.

      Perhaps “Loch Long” Concealment of Loch’s Military Involvements since mists of time and counting onwards into the future, of hopefully, Decades, It would seem of the Royal Navy and its protection usefulness

      • Where’s the original post gone!? Now I just look like the local nutter that shouts out random stuff

  10. Great part of the country to go around. Can drive past glenmallen, see the torpedo testing area of the lochs, weapons storage in the hill sides etc etc. Lovely lochs, wee towns and villages

    • The phrase ‘useless’ is awful – it clearly means they are of no use to the RAF as it distracted from filling the ethnic quota, not because they had no ability or aptitude. I hope the former Gp Capt has a decent job in civvy street now.

    • Makes my blood boil. No wonder people get put off joining the Forces. When i tipped up in 95 there was no question, if you had the aptitude and you wanted to serve you were in and they were glad to have you. You were put through your paces alright but you knew you were welcome. Now between redundancies and quotas, whats next? Zero hours contracts? And old soldiers put on trial for instant decisions made in the heat of battle 30 years ago?!! I never understood how the Forces were cowed into becoming just another department of the Government having to answer to KPI’s, adhering to industry H+S standards (the ultimate contradiction in wartime!) with Officers and SNCO’s becoming people managers and diversity reps rather than fighting leaders.

    • If true it’s very much the cart before the horse.
      They should be looking at why non-white people might be discouraged from joining with the end goal being to increase to pool of potential recruits, not discouraging white people and massively shrinking the pool to meet a political target.

  15. Fake News!!!!

    Just looked at an AIS Tracker ( 0900 1 jun 23) for my neck of the woods and HMS Queen Elizabeth is coming alongside the finger pier in the military port. The new hyperdrive engines are working well!!!!

    AIS is never wrong so it must be true!!!!

    • The Loch Ness monster picked her up and took a super speed run trying to get away from the midges.
      Got to love technology

  16. Off-topic, but interesting nonetheless. I wonder if further delays to Block 4 will occur.

    GAO finds problems with F-35 costs and technology in new report01 JUNE 2023

    “On 30 May the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report about the Lockheed Martin F-35, finding that the programme has not adequately explained a cost increase of USD13.4 billion since 2019, that the upgraded Block 4 version has run into technical snags and a USD1 billion cost increase, and that the US Department of Defense (DoD) has not fully defined requirements for an engine cooling system upgrade.

    The USD13.4 billion increase is because of greater acquisition costs, the GAO wrote. “The programme attributes the increased procurement cost to additional years of costs related to airframe and engine production, along with support costs for equipment, technical data, and training,” the GAO wrote.

    “According to programme officials, the programme is deferring the delivery of these 215 aircraft to later years at the request of the air force.” F-35 development costs have increased by a total of USD21.1 billion between 2012 and 2021, the GAO found. The programme’s total 77-year lifespan cost now hovers around USD1.7 trillion.”

    LINK

    • The Department of Defense’s most expensive weapon system—the F-35 aircraft—is now more than a decade behind schedule and $183 billion over original cost estimates.

      This program is weighing options to upgrade its engine and cooling system. But it hasn’t taken some important steps, such as fully assessing the costs and technical risks of the different options. DOD also doesn’t plan to manage the upgrades as a separate acquisition program. This would limit Congress’s insight into possible future cost increases.

      LINK

      • Makes you think we won’t be able to afford the full 138 aircraft we always said we would buy. So who loses out – RAF or FAA?

        • Hi Graham, my guess is, if we opt to go with a redesign of the carriers then we might just limit the amount of F-35s we purchase and use them on the carriers only.

          Tempest/Typhoon for the RAF as a lot of the new tech is being designed for both platforms.

          We will of course have Drones of some sort to increase the numbers for both.

          2025 will give us a better idea as to how we intend to progress. The never-ending cost increases and delays to the F-35 programme will be balanced against the cost of modifying the QE Class.

          • Thanks Nigel. We were never going to get 138 F-35s – that was a figure from a very long time ago, and politicians never keep to their word (eg. Johnson said the army would never go below 82,000 etc).
            Not sure how a carrier redesign would limit the number of F-35s purchased.
            I think the RAF still want some F-35As, but how does that mesh with Typhoon and Tempest?
            Perhaps the Defence Command Paper expected later this month and following the IR Refesh (March 2023) might shed some light.

  17. OT but has anyone seen Cleverly’s Estonia speech in support of the Moscow drone strikes, Washington stating they don’t support the strikes, and Medvedev’s drunken tweet stating UK politicians are now legitimate targets?

    Makes you proud to be British.
    Russia has truly progressed from the ‘Fucking Around’ phase of the war into the ‘Finding Out’ phase.

  18. A Friday question and completely off topic, but do you reckon BAE could potentially develop a diesel powered Astute-SSNR for Canada’s requirement? That’s if they don’t won’t to join AUKUS SSNR. I thought I read somewhere they looking at around x 12 or so? That’s a huge uptake from their current 4.

    • Hmmm. How much diesels are needed to generate the power requirements of the boat? Is there room for them and the Batteries/AIP, fuel storage etc etc.
      Canada would be better taking the nuclear version or a new diesel boat. Japan make a nice one.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here