Eggs and baskets - we need six of these.

Prime Minister Miliband will sell this off pretty quick, probably to India. Was never actually intended for the RN, simply a large job creation scheme in Gordon Brown's constituency.

Of course he won't. You are a miserable cynic.

This is worth reading for background information:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

Makes shocking reading ......such a shambles and how so much money could be spent for political ends is scandalous.

What an amazing engineering feat and what a pleasure to yet again see John Batchelor's manually crafted technical artwork stand up stoutly as ever to the digital competition.

When is this most influential of technical illustrators of the 20th and 21st centuries going to be knighted, I wonder?

The F-35 makes the Fairey Battle look like a good idea. The same design philosophy is embodied in its execution and performance parameters: one size fits all if it can do all of the above, with no single capability working exceedingly well. All it is missing is an hydraulic ball turret gun.

I remember years ago working at Yarrows Admiralty Research Department just after the Falklands and everyone agreeing that to build more targets was a complete waste of money and today the targets are even more vulnerable than they were then. Complete waste of money.

Absolutely money well spent.

Extremely large floating target. Advances in small missile guidance systems have made ships like this completely obsolete.

Complete waste of money.

Depends what point of view you take. Gordon Brown, who remember was Scottish, commissioned them in order to keep Scottish ship yards working - so in that respect they were worth it. They have had the jobs, now we have to take the ships. Browh probably thinks Job well done. People talk about taking bonuses from bankers if things go wrong later - maybe Brown should be made accountable for his time in office and the mess that he made of the economy. This ship is just the tip of the iceberg.

Says you.

Fact. In fact worse than you can imagine. Read this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

Satisfied?

Not fact just an opinion. .

If all these ships do is project our image abroad and make people in England proud then it is worth every penny (I say England because I hope the Jocks are well gone down the road by the time it is launched)

Still puzzles me why they didn't spend the extra and install catapults when there was a chance.
While I think eventually the F35B will be sorted out enough to be useful, it will still have limited range and high maintenance costs.
A big carrier is nice because it can be used for a variety of missions. I believe in the future the decision to limit it to STOVL planes and helos will be regretted.

The only reason they have purposely omitted the cats is to ensure that only the F35B can be purchased. Its also the reason the carrier has been delayed as if it had gone to sea without any planes would have been very embarrassing. Also omitted is that these carriers now cost more then the "US Super Carriers" that are also nuclear powered. In summary its brilliant design - terrible management!

The cost of converting to cats was far too much (even though it was meant to be designed to relatively easily convert). However, they definitely do not cost as much as the US carriers. The first of the new Ford class is $13bn, the first of the QE class is $5bn, massively different. The costs of running the Ford (or the previous Nimitz class) is also massively different, the mid life refuel of the US nuclear reactors costs several billion $ alone and takes three years.

Eff35??? This plane must be the biggest and most expensive white elephant in history! It`s never going to be fit for combat and I doubt it will ever be that safe. Most modern fighters fly because of the software and the Eff35`s software will never be right.

The fact is, manned carriers are now redundant. Drones are the future and carrier drones along with submarine drones are the way to go. Sticking a pilot in a plane is redundant. All we need are 5000 special forces and to hire al-Qeada mercenaries...worked a treat in Libya, but not going so well in Syria.lol

Fantasy world Carl. I agree all of the above are likely to be the future, but a distant future, ships and planes will still be manned for decades with drones gradually replacing. Until then, I will be glad to see several manned carrier groups available...

Operational in 2020 ? Maybe,maybe not. The ship might be ready but will the troublesome F35? If it is operational which flag will it fly under ?Cameron and his scum have destroyed the Royal Navy, they will most p[robably gift it to India or Pakistan as part of the " ring fenced2 foreign aid . Labour under Millibande will most probably crew the ship with Frenchmen. Either way it is difficult to see this ship sailing under the White Ensign. Oh, for the days when British politicians were not traitors.

Well you will be pleased as punch then to hear that former Lord of the Admiralty Jonathon Bond who oversaw this project now works for Lockheed Martin the contractor making the F35. There is also the inter-service rivalry of the RAF trying to take over the Fleet Air Arm and also the fact the Royal Navy prefer playing with expensive destroyers to contend with making sure things went awry..

Australian military power will be sufficient to see off any threats well into the forseeable future.

Take it from someone who works in the defence business, Deryks concerns of hypersonic threats and the development of such is somewhat shallow in thought. At the same time as developing such capabilities we are, and I would have thought this would be obvious, developing ways in which to combat against such. Like any technology, hypersonic tech has its limitations, plus also remember we are engaged in many other ‘new’ capabilities too. Some of which may well need carriers such as QE. Maybe Deryk has played one or two many fantasy game where the world is black and white.

Thank you JimB for re affirming that the USA and Britain are only in the process of "developing ways in which to combat against such".
My point is that you do not have anything yet that is reliable enough to risk placing these sitting ducks where you would like to have them placed when it counts.
The world is much too connected now and people share information too easily for this information to be kept secret. It is well known that this is a serious problem for the aircraft carriers.
By the way...... I don't have time to play fantasy games. I was too busy crawling around on my hands and knees inside the Ameriyah bomb shelter in Baghdad inspecting the damage done by two USA missiles. The hideous carnage inside would shake anyones trust in war machines as a way to solve the worlds problems.

Sure you were .....

It would be unusual if the defences were operational before the threat.

I hope things do not kick off with the Russians for 5 years, thats all I can say, because at the moment our intrepid defence planners have left us wide open without a aircraft carrier!

What exactly would we do with one if it did kick off with the Russians? We have plenty of airfields for that, it's unlikely to be a sea battle.

They are not primarily v the Russians but you never know

So it will be all right if things kick off with the Russians as long as we've got an aircraft carrier?

Its a huge improvement on anything we have had before. I hope both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are put into commission. I wish it was cats and traps. Those laser guns will be the answer to those pesky Chinese missiles.
Miss-iles get it. Hope.
I look forward to see her at sea
Should see off the Argies if required.

Well said merchantman

The only good thing about these ships is that they have fewer people on board. That way fewer sailors are sent to the bottom of the ocean when one of the newly developed hypersonic missiles slam into them.
The ships are already obsolete and the taxpayers will be on the hook for years to come.
Too bad the British people didn't spend their tax dollars on education and health care instead.
No wonder Scotland wants to separate.

You really are silly or stupid of the
stupids from stupidvill here in England in my opinion we have the
finest education system the best bar non health system and oh yer
everyone measures there currency against the British pound we don't have
or want the dollar... moron.

Thank you Martin for demonstrating so well the exceptional quality of the British education system. Your IQ is clearly mind boggling.
Truly astonishing.

So you'd prefer to be well educated and healthy slaves to whomever wishes to invade? You prefer French aggression? There won't be a Britain once the Islamic hoard is done with you.

You keep banging on and on about these hypersonic missiles.
Do you never have the tiniest bit of doubt about your opinions or sources?
Any weapon can be defended against - if nothing else than by destroying it first.
Nor do you have to defend against it if the enemy does not have it.

Hi Highsideuk
I would have doubts except that once in a while something comes along that is a complete game changer and these missiles are it. The tremendous velocity is the trick.
I do find it interesting that a few people refuse to accept the new reality even whn it is staring them in the face.
The USA is well aware of the problem.
They will come up with a counter measure over time. But right now I am told that they are scrambling and don't have a reaction time quick enough or reliant enough to risk placing these large structures in harms way when it counts.
Trust me.....That's a fact.

" I am told" - "Trust me.....That's a fact"

Given that you are quoting information second hand, with no citations or references, I don't think I will be just taking your word for it.

My concern over you and your comments is that you clearly appear to have simply heard about this technology (second hand), without any context or real understanding. You have then drawn your own conclusions and have started to misquote them as fact.

As HighsideUK has pointed out below, the complexity of defending against a fast missile is not insurmountable or particularly complex.

Finally, your assumption that you have all the facts when it comes to the weapons capability of worlds militarizes is endearing but naive.

"Lord Loxley" is completely ignorant of the facts related to the dangers posed by the new hypersonic weapons.
The following web site will give anyone who is interested in the problem of hypersonic weapons at least a bit more information. This is only one example.
http://www.newworldorderwar...

Brilliant, give an idiot enough rope and they will hang themselves; www."NEW WORLD ORDER".com - and now we get to the crux of the matter, the lizard people are taking over the world. Thanks Deryk, you have underminded yourself in a way I never could. I am sure you have a few tall tales about 9/11 as well.

There is nothing magic about a missile that is 10 times faster than a normal missile. You simply have to extend the detection radius by 10 times to give yourself time to intercept it. There is no technical reason why that can't be done. If these missiles get past the experimental stage then so will the defence systems.
But you are ignoring an important point anyway. Who is QE going to be fighting against? Will it be anyone who has a hypersonic missile?

Good luck then.
Place your aircraft carriers where you want to place them and see what happens. History will be the judge.
By the way. Weapons are traded for money to the highest bidder.
Technicians don't get paid enough and will always sell their knowledge to countries willing to pay. These missiles are going to spread because they are so valuable. They also don't carry the same risks as nuclear weapons or the same complex infrastructure needed for nuclear products.
Another point: Detection is possible.
The real trick is to respond effectively in time!

By the way, making a point with a sentence that starts "By the way" is very condescending.
You are not thinking about this at all deeply.
AK-47s are traded for money to the highest bidder.
It will be many decades before anyone can afford a black market hypersonic missile.
AK-47s are built all over the world
It will be many decades before a rogue factory starts making these missiles.
The ship will be obsolete before they are a general threat.
Your assertion about response time shows you are not thinking that through either.
If the missile is 10 times faster and you increase the detection radius by 10 times, you have exactly the same time to respond. The same response (intercept it) is likely to be just as effective.
Look, it could well be true that this missile renders conventional missile defences obsolete and that we can't stop them. To then infer that all missile defences will always be obsolete and that we will never be able to stop them is a mistake.
When they turnd off the analogue signal, my analogue TV bacame obsolete. That was not the end of TV.

We do spend our tax dollars on education & health care and look what a bunch of cr*p we get in return.

What an ignorant and cheap comment. We are an island, a maritime nation, depending on sea transport to provide our needs. This person would be the first to whinge if he had to suffer because our supplies were cut off by an enemy.

"Ignorance" is lack of knowledge. Clearly Raymond hasn't done his homework or read anything on the subject.
He doesn't seem to grasp what the word "obsolete" means.
Aircraft carriers are obsolete because they can be blown out of the water with these new hypersonic missiles.
It is like spending all your money on a golden sword encrusted with diamonds knowing that the next day you are going to be having a duel with someone who will be standing there with a high powered rifle.
Raymond Lescott seems to think that this would be a good investment ...which is why I am laughing myself silly.
I hope he enjoys paying his taxes:)

You clearly are ignoring the reasons for the new carriers.

1. They provide a sovereign platform to project our military capability throughout the world's oceans.

2. They are protected by the latest radar and sonar to deal with foreign weaponry.

3. The six Daring class destroyers built to escort the carriers have the most modern, state-of-the-art detection equipment and missiles to deal with any threats. Better than any US, Russian or Chinese vessels.

4. As an island. dependent upon our sea lanes to trade and exist, it is vital we have the means to protect those sea lanes.

5. Without our taxes paying for their construction, training and manning, we put our internal services such as education and the NHS at risk.

As Vegetius (circa 5th C) wrote "Si vis pacem, para bellum" - "If you want peace, prepare for war"!

Note to Raymond Lascott : You do not understand that the aircraft carriers are not equipped with the ability to knock down these hypersonic missiles. These newly missiles travel much too fast to be tracked and shot down. That is the whole point of their development. I can assure you that the US navy is well aware of this latest development and have a serious problem because at this time there is no counter measure for these type of new missiles.
(I don't know why I bother trying to explain this to people who can't be bothered to read up on this information.)

More nonsense. Aircraft Carriers don't have responsibility for this kind of defense within a carrier fleet, their support ships do. The only defensive weapons on board are close protection systems (big machine guns).

However, don't let the facts get in the way of your anger-rant!