The race is on...

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Richard B	The race is on...	Lead	[-]
Posts: 4035 ( 6-Jun-2008 20:56:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The race seems to be on to claim the honour of 'cutting first steel' for the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. After years of slipping right it has suddenly been advancing from Jan 09 (BAES Barrow - or rather the soon to be BVT Barrow) to Dec 08 (Babcock Rosyth) to Oct 08 (DML Appledore). Any advance .... BVT Portsmouth perhaps? Of course it rather depends on having the plans and materials to hand, and is very much a symbolic development. Incidently the last HMS Queen Elizabeth was sold for scrap 60 years ago (19 March 1948). With the liner RMS QE2 also retiring, it's certainly high time that her majesty - who's reigned for 56 years now - finally shared a name with a major warship.
Rob		#1	[-]
Posts: 643 ( 6-Jun-2008 21:00:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	1) Barrow won't be part of BVT iirc - BAE Submarines will remain with BAE. 2) The QE class is not directly named after HMQ. Apart from that, yes, I'm really looking forward to the whole thing!
cpu121		#2	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 4 ( 6-Jun-2008 22:34:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Neither was QE2 IIRC. The original RMS Queen Elizabeth was named for the late Queen Mother and the QE2 followed on from this. If CVF and QE2 were named for the present HMQ they should've been Queen Elizabeth II as in HMS King George V. However, if you're Scottish you could argue that HMQ shares a name (unofficially of course) with the new Queen Elizabeth, as there was never a Queen Elizabeth I in Scotland.
CVA02		#3	[-]
Posts: 411 ( 6-Jun-2008 23:37:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Richard B wrote: Incidently the last HMS Queen Elizabeth was sold for scrap 60 years ago (19 March 1948). With the liner RMS QE2 also retiring, it's certainly high time that her majesty - who's reigned for 56 years now - finally shared a name with a major warship. It would be far more appropriate to honor the now deceased Queen Mother, who was far more unambiguously popular than her daughter. Even honoring the the Tudor monarch Queen Elizabeth would be more appropriate, as it honors the current pan-European mood due to her support of Henry of Navarre in his successful claim for the French throne and the Dutch struggle for independence. The name "Queen Elizabeth" is just vague enough to honor two entirely worthy individuals, without the controversy of the last 56 years.
Phil Gollin		#4	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 3390 ( 6-Jun-2008 23:44:33) Banned User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Can anyone say what the present plan is for the location for welding the superblocks together - is this going to be done in France or the UK ? (To be honest I've got somewhat lost as to the supposed fine detail of what is going to ACTUALLY be built). .
cpu121		#5	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 5 ( 7-Jun-2008 00:26:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Done seperately in each country is it not? Rosyth for ours I believe?
Obi Wan Russell		#6	[-]
Posts: 254 ( 7-Jun-2008 00:51:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Phil Gollin wrote: Can anyone say what the present plan is for the location for welding the superblocks together - is this going to be done in France or the UK ? (To be honest I've got somewhat lost as to the supposed fine detail of what is going to ACTUALLY be built). . The two British ships will be built entirely in the UK, with assembly at Rosyth. The French ship PA2 isn't a part of the CVF superblock plan and the French only bought the designs. Their ship will be built the old fashioned way in the same dock where the QM2 was built.
Rob		#7	[-]
Posts: 644 ( 7-Jun-2008 00:59:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The name "Queen Elizabeth" is just vague enough to honor two entirely worthy individuals, without the controversy of the last 56 years. Which controversy?
DocMartyn	Important note to British shipbuilders	#8	[-]
Posts: 499 ( 7-Jun-2008 02:46:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	the super sections of the hull are "U" shaped and only fit one way up. Weld them together so that all the "U"'s are this way "U""U"U". Doing anything else is wrong. That was a public service announcement in light of what happened to one of the Vanguards sections upsidedown.
StewartG		#9	[-]
Posts: 507 ( 7-Jun-2008 11:13:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	They could still manage to put them together so that one is pointing aft rather than forward. The "controversy" is that HM Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Northern Ireland technically isn't - she's the first. Her predecessor was Queen of England only. However this was sorted out back in the fifties by a retrospective decision that all future monarchs will take the _higher_ of the regnal numbers indicated by their Scottish, English or UK predecessors. So Charles would be III, which is an easy one. William would be V - three prior English Williams plus one UK, despite their only being two Scots Williams. Of course things are complicated by the Windsors' habit of taking different names when they succeed - Charles might well become George VII. If there was some carnage in the Royal Family there could be some "Scottish" numbering: James Windsor (8th in line) would be James VIII, David Linley would be David III and Alexander Windsor would be Alexander IV. There's a wiki-thing about it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regnal_numerals_of_future_British_monarchs
Obi Wan Russell		#10	[-]
Posts: 256 ( 7-Jun-2008 12:36:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Charles has already let it be known that if/when he succeeds to the throne he will take the name George VII in honour of his Grandfather. The previous two King Charles' weren't a success by royal standards and they don't like to repeat names that left a bad memory, hence there has never and probably will never be another King John. My money is on William being the next monarch, because Windsor women have a reputation for longevity (Queen Mother made it to 102), HMQ is still going strong at 82 whilst Windsor Men tend not to be so resilient (Prince Philip aside, though he is starting to show some health problems). My gut instinct is that Charles could well pass away before his mother, either that or he will succeed for only a few years at most. I think HMQ will be on the throne for another two decades if she holds up as well as her mother, putting Charles ito his eighties before he could succeed and William in his forties. Which would be the better choice? Charles may well choose to step aside for his son on grounds of infirmity. Back to the carriers. Can there really be any preparations not done already? They've had years to prepare and the welders must be chomping at the bit by now...

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

The race is on...

The race is on...

Quick Reply