Ten myths about the Queen Elizabeth class carriers answered
The UK Defence Journal has put up a good piece which answers the ten most common myths about the Royal Navy's new Queen Elizabeth class carriers.
I doubt if any class of ships in recent history has been the subject of so many false or misleading rumours, often repeated by people who ought to know better such as politicians.
Yes, the carriers will have aircraft, and not just American aircraft.
No, the computer systems for the carriers will not depend on Windows XP.
Yes, there will be escorts to accompany and protect the carriers.
Nuclear power would not have been a better solution. It's a great benefit for submarines, enabling them to spend a year hidden underwater, but carriers have to operate aircraft, which need large quantities of aviation fuel, so an operating aircraft carriers have to be regularly resupplied with fuel for the jets and helicopters even if a nuclear reactor removes the need for regular refuelling of the ship herself.
The article includes the answers to these and a number of other commonly stated myths about the carriers and you can read it here.
To save Jim checking (unless you want to read about the other issues) it doesn't address the issue of an alternative aircraft type which would have required catapults and landing arrester gear - either the UK defence journal don't regard the debate around this one as a myth or it isn't one of the ten most common criticisms, or both. Of course during the expected long service life of these ships there is always the possibility that they may be refitted with cats and traps instead of the current ski ramp if that makes more sense in terms of the aircraft available in the future.
I doubt if any class of ships in recent history has been the subject of so many false or misleading rumours, often repeated by people who ought to know better such as politicians.
Yes, the carriers will have aircraft, and not just American aircraft.
No, the computer systems for the carriers will not depend on Windows XP.
Yes, there will be escorts to accompany and protect the carriers.
Nuclear power would not have been a better solution. It's a great benefit for submarines, enabling them to spend a year hidden underwater, but carriers have to operate aircraft, which need large quantities of aviation fuel, so an operating aircraft carriers have to be regularly resupplied with fuel for the jets and helicopters even if a nuclear reactor removes the need for regular refuelling of the ship herself.
The article includes the answers to these and a number of other commonly stated myths about the carriers and you can read it here.
To save Jim checking (unless you want to read about the other issues) it doesn't address the issue of an alternative aircraft type which would have required catapults and landing arrester gear - either the UK defence journal don't regard the debate around this one as a myth or it isn't one of the ten most common criticisms, or both. Of course during the expected long service life of these ships there is always the possibility that they may be refitted with cats and traps instead of the current ski ramp if that makes more sense in terms of the aircraft available in the future.
Comments