1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

HMS Queen Elizabeth

Discussion in 'Street, Documentary, and Portrait' started by QualityBuiltIn, Jul 22, 2014.

  1. QualityBuiltIn

    QualityBuiltIn Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 1, 2011
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Here is the Royal Navy's new toy. The Aircraft Carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth was named earlier this month and floated for the first time last week. It is, as is the way with these things, still years away from active service.

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Having taken this picture I went online to find out a bit more about her and found that she's to be stocked with mainly F-35B V/STOL aircraft which is a variant of the Lockheed Lightning II. Various sources say that the vertical takeoff and landing components are so weak that that capability should only be used occasionally but the tyres are poorly designed and don't stand up to repeated conventional takeoffs and landings. HMS Queen Elizabeth also has neither arrestor cables nor ski-jumps so vertical is the only option.

    Also apparently the UK has 3 F-35s already (I don't know which variant) but they won't be commissioned until 2018. What the hell are they doing with them? Imagine buying a new car but not using it for 5 years!!??

    Here's a joke for you - Military Procurement.
    • Like Like x 4
  2. MajorMagee

    MajorMagee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 24, 2011
    Dayton, OH
    Clearly there is a ski-jump at the port bow.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. QualityBuiltIn

    QualityBuiltIn Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 1, 2011
    Edinburgh, Scotland

    Thank you. I am such an idiot. Not only did I recite from an earlier reading of Wikipedia, and failed to observe my own photo, I got it entirely wrong. The ship lacks catapults. And, if I'm honest, I don't know the consequences of that although it does seem like a bit of a compromised war ship.

    All the best,
  4. Robstar1963

    Robstar1963 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jun 10, 2011
    Isle of Wight England UK
    Robert (Rob)
    But it only cost several billion pounds !!!!! what do you expect for such a paultry amount of money?
  5. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    This is a bit off topic for a photography site, but one of the reasons to not use a catapult to launch and the arresting gear to trap the aircraft is airframe stress. Catapults and arrestor gear put huge stresses on the airframe. Historically of course you had to do this or you could only carry limited performance aircraft like the Harrier. In theory the JSF is a high performance aircraft that does not need the catapult to be successful. Catapults are also a pain to maintain, take up a lot of room, etc.

    Whether or not the JSF is going to be a successful replacement for the current naval air standard, the F18, remains to be seen :smile:.
    • Like Like x 2
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.