Military Review

The aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth officially accepted into the British Navy

115
Yesterday in Portsmouth there was a solemn ceremony of entering into the Royal Navy aircraft carrier R 08 Queen Elizabeth, reports bmpd.




Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Anne attended the ceremony.

The aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth officially accepted into the British Navy


Queen Elizabeth introduced to the British fleet upon completion of the second stage of marine trials taking place off the coast of Southern England since September 2017. This is the largest ship in stories Royal Navy (design total displacement 70600 tons).

The aircraft carrier was built from 2009 by the Aircraft Carrier Alliance consortium with ship assembly from the sections in the dry building dock of Babcock Marine in Rosite.

The ship's baptism ceremony took place on July 4, 2014, and on July 17, the 2014-th aircraft carrier was removed from the shipyard’s dry dock.

The aircraft carrier first set sail to factory sea trials at the end of June 2017, from Rosyth. At the end of the factory test run, he moved to Portsmouth to continue his sea tests to his permanent base.

Tests of carrier-based F-35B aircraft on an aircraft carrier will be launched at the end of 2018, off the coast of the United States. Achievement by the ship and the air group of initial combat readiness is expected in 2021 year, and full combat readiness is expected not earlier than 2023 of the year.

It is reported that "the regular composition of the air group of the ship in the" oceanic "version should be the X-NUMX of the F-24B fighter, nine anti-submarine Merlin helicopters and four or five Merlin helicopters in the DRLO variant."





Photos used:
www.express.co.uk
115 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sail
    Sail 8 December 2017 15: 52 New
    17
    Seven feet under the keel !!! What a handsome ..... POWER !!!
    1. 210ox
      210ox 8 December 2017 15: 56 New
      24
      And seven tons of explosives with a detonator in the hold .. Beautifully the deck will rise.
      Quote: Segel
      Seven feet under the keel !!! What a handsome ..... POWER !!!
      1. Lord of the Sith
        Lord of the Sith 8 December 2017 15: 58 New
        14
        While this is a barge, not an aircraft carrier, it will be a military unit in a couple of years.
        1. DMoroz
          DMoroz 8 December 2017 18: 22 New
          +6
          he will remain a barge, because it needs external combat protection, it itself can not do anything to repulse the attack (both from the air and from the sea, from under the surface) ...
          1. Going
            Going 8 December 2017 18: 25 New
            +7
            Someone from our military called them floating aerial queen beats and very light targets.
            1. hrych
              hrych 8 December 2017 20: 28 New
              +6
              Quote: Going
              uterus

              Charlie’s old man, Charlie’s heir, got rid of it, was apparently sick for a long time and didn’t attend events, especially when there wasn’t enough support for witches for Hilary, maybe she was worried about the late Rockefeller. And since Liza’s disappearance coincided with the passage of Petya and Kuzi Lamansha, they said that she climbed into the shelter and broke her leg, others said that she had a stroke that hit her. Nevertheless, a strong old woman and apparently Charlie will not live to see her coronation.

              And you won’t think ... who doesn’t know, you might think that they are behind a free soup in a shelter wassat
            2. MOSKVITYANIN
              MOSKVITYANIN 8 December 2017 20: 36 New
              +4
              Quote: Going
              Someone from our military called them floating aerial queen beats and very light targets.

              They have not gone to sea for a long time ....
            3. Romario_Argo
              Romario_Argo 8 December 2017 20: 59 New
              +7
              and to me, honestly, it’s enviable!
              some sort of "temple" of England, is also building a second one, and we ........
          2. igorka357
            igorka357 8 December 2017 18: 50 New
            12
            What kind of nonsense are you talking about? Does the aircraft wing of your ship, in your opinion, be capable of anything? Yes, we don’t have that either. And its military guard may not weigh too weak in one gulp of the KR ... so AUG, this is a serious force ..Do not underestimate and throw hats!
            1. Going
              Going 8 December 2017 20: 34 New
              +5
              I won’t be clever, let alone reduce the danger of the enemy, but how much time will it take to create an air wing? how much time will it take to create its AUG? by this time, modern means of destruction of such ships, will become weaker?
              1. Korolev
                Korolev 9 December 2017 15: 49 New
                +1
                and what new will appear by 2021?
        2. MOSKVITYANIN
          MOSKVITYANIN 8 December 2017 20: 28 New
          +7
          Quote: Lord of the Sith
          While this is a barge, not an aircraft carrier, it will be a military unit in a couple of years.

          We read carefully ...
          initial combat readiness is expected in 2021, and full combat readiness - not earlier than 2023 of the year.

          It is possible, of course, to continue to crag from the "big mind" only in our armament program until 2025, it is not provided for the construction of carrier ships AT ALL ....
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 9 December 2017 01: 08 New
            +4
            Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
            only in our armament program until 2025 was not provided for the construction of carrier ships AT ALL ....

            We have provided for the construction of rocket ships.
            1. MOSKVITYANIN
              MOSKVITYANIN 9 December 2017 01: 25 New
              +4
              Quote: KaPToC
              Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
              only in our armament program until 2025 was not provided for the construction of carrier ships AT ALL ....

              We have provided for construction missile ships.

              Do not worry at "rotting" England destroyers URO and frigates URO (Air defense and missile defense) is still more in service than all of our fleets combined ....
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC 9 December 2017 01: 29 New
                +2
                Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
                Do not worry about URO destroyers and URO frigates (air defense and anti-missile defense) having "rotting" England anyway more in service than with all our fleets combined ....

                And I don’t worry, until the small razors pile normal RCC - you can not worry.
                1. Lord of the Sith
                  Lord of the Sith 9 December 2017 11: 45 New
                  +4
                  The person you are arguing with, apparently does not know that in the English fleet of combat-ready ships there are only 17 units.
                  1. MOSKVITYANIN
                    MOSKVITYANIN 9 December 2017 14: 22 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Lord of the Sith
                    The person you are arguing with, apparently does not know that in the English fleet of combat-ready ships there are only 17 units.

                    Where did such data come from, from the Military Admiralty of Her Majesty, or did he come up with ....?
                    1. Lord of the Sith
                      Lord of the Sith 9 December 2017 14: 29 New
                      +1
                      This is open data on the armies and weapons of the whole world, which are published annually. You can also search separately for articles about the British Navy.
                      1. MOSKVITYANIN
                        MOSKVITYANIN 9 December 2017 14: 31 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Lord of the Sith
                        This is open data on the armies and weapons of the whole world, which are published annually. You can also search separately for articles about the British Navy.

                        What source did you use to check? Jane Handbook, Military Balance?
            2. MOSKVITYANIN
              MOSKVITYANIN 10 December 2017 00: 49 New
              +1
              Quote: KaPToC
              We have provided for the construction of rocket ships.

              We will not build such soon (maybe ours are better in design sketches, but the British already have them in operation) ....
              Daring ... All in all, from 2003 year, Her Majesty's fleet replenished with six ships of this type. The most modern destroyers in the world, in whose design the most advanced technologies in the field of existing marine air defense systems have been introduced. Two radars with an active headlamp: centimeter - for detecting low-flying targets in the background of water, and decimeter - airspace control at a distance of up to 400 km.
              Fantastic anti-aircraft complex PAAMS, capable of knocking down cruise missiles, racing at an altitude of 5 meters at a speed of Mach 2,5. The ammunition complex of the complex - 48 SAM of the "Aster" family with an active homing head (another surprise!). The firing range of the Asters is 120 km.

              https://topwar.ru/31591-britanskiy-flot-degradaci
              ya-ili-rascvet.html
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC 10 December 2017 01: 05 New
                0
                Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
                We will not build such soon (maybe ours are better in design sketches, but the British already have them in operation) ....

                I don’t argue, the “dering” is even nothing at all, but the problem is that it does not have strike weapons, it is an auxiliary ship.
                1. MOSKVITYANIN
                  MOSKVITYANIN 10 December 2017 02: 00 New
                  +2
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  I don’t argue, the “dering” is even nothing at all, but the problem is that it doesn’t have strike weapons, this is an auxiliary ship.

                  They wanted to say the air defense ship, to cover the ship's strike groups? He is called the destroyer of air defense.
                  a) MPLATRK work well for their coastal targets (there is experience in combat use against the FRY and Iraq) - 6 in formation + 3 are under construction ...
                  b) Fighting with submarines / SSBNs and surface ships is carried out by frigates of the URN of the 23 project (13 units, everything is in order) ..... (http://www.warships.ru/england/Frigat
                  es /)
                  Soon, the frigates of the 1991 project will come to replace these frigates (the oldest since 26), with the same tasks as the existing ones, they will come to the Navy in the same year as the AVM discussed in this article ....
                  Thus, by 2025-2030 against the CSF of the Russian Federation, the British Navy will be able to put up two AUGs as part of two multipurpose aircraft carriers, 6 destroyers URO with the air defense missile AUG, 8-10 frigates URO with the PLO / PKO task, 4-6 MPLATRK with the PLO task. ...
                  I think the British lack 2-3 helicopter carriers with PLO helicopters ...
                  The task of the entire British fleet is:
                  - the fight against submarine / SSBN CSF RF in the North Atlantic;
                  - Participation together with other NATO countries in the defense of the Baltic Straits and the English Channel;
                  - control together with other NATO countries of the Strait of Gibraltar;
                  - presence in the South Atlantic ....
        3. Kent0001
          Kent0001 9 December 2017 11: 36 New
          +1
          And he will definitely become her. they are preparing to use against us.
      2. Berber
        Berber 8 December 2017 16: 07 New
        +7
        And a torpedo in the stern! (sorry thoughts coincided).
      3. seti
        seti 8 December 2017 17: 28 New
        +3
        Quote: 210ox
        And seven tons of explosives with a detonator in the hold .. Beautifully the deck will rise.

        I'm joining.
        There will be no AWACS aircraft. It's good.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 8 December 2017 19: 47 New
          +2
          Quote: seti
          There will be no AWACS aircraft. It's good.

          For aircraft AWACS need a catapult. And she was hacked because of the high cost. And all the studies on the possible adaptation of AB to the installation of the catapult were stopped back in 2002, despite all attempts to introduce catapults into the technical specifications at the design and construction stage.
      4. xetai9977
        xetai9977 8 December 2017 21: 33 New
        11
        "And seven tons of explosives with a detonator in the hold .."
        "And a torpedo in the stern!"
        Nowhere, in any foreign forums, in the English-speaking and in the Turkish Internet segment, have I met curses and vulgar expressions against the military equipment of any country. Russian including. They write about the performance characteristics, combat capabilities and all. Draw your own conclusions. Then they are surprised that someone does not respect them.
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 9 December 2017 01: 09 New
          +2
          Quote: xetai9977
          Nowhere, in any foreign forums, in the English-speaking and in the Turkish Internet segment, have I met curses and vulgar expressions against the military equipment of any country.

          Sitting at home you will not see anything.
          1. MOSKVITYANIN
            MOSKVITYANIN 9 December 2017 14: 54 New
            +3
            Quote: KaPToC
            Quote: xetai9977
            Nowhere, in any foreign forums, in the English-speaking and in the Turkish Internet segment, have I met curses and vulgar expressions against the military equipment of any country.

            Sitting at home you will not see anything.

            Yes, he is right this time, he did not see a comparative analysis of the technical characteristics here, one continuous stream of insults at each other ....
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 9 December 2017 15: 31 New
              0
              Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
              Yes, he is right this time,

              Yes, I'm talking about his phrase that "they" in the forums no one obsesses anyone.
              This mishandled Cossack xetai9977 is lying and not blushing ... or maybe blushing repeat
              1. MOSKVITYANIN
                MOSKVITYANIN 9 December 2017 16: 08 New
                +2
                Quote: KaPToC
                Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
                Yes, he is right this time,

                Yes, I'm talking about his phrase that "they" in the forums no one obsesses anyone.
                This mishandled Cossack xetai9977 is lying and not blushing ... or maybe blushing repeat

                A gift for cheers ...
                In the video, the dude is trying to convince that the British do not need multipurpose aircraft carriers with 5-generation aircraft and that Her Majesty has no future in the field of shipbuilding .....
                Like the F-35 planes are raw, the new aircraft carrier is second-rate, forgetting to indicate that the Russian Federation has no 5-generation aircraft (all the more with a short take-off), and Kuzya is almost always at the anchorage or in the dock ....
                Such videos "exposing" the shortcomings of the enemy B and BT really like the patriots, only the benefits of them are zero ....
                1. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 9 December 2017 16: 17 New
                  0
                  Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
                  In the video, the dude is trying to convince that the British do not need multipurpose aircraft carriers

                  We need a serious maritime conflict so that it finally dawns on everyone that rocket ships are now steering.
                  1. MOSKVITYANIN
                    MOSKVITYANIN 10 December 2017 00: 40 New
                    +1
                    Quote: KaPToC
                    We need a serious maritime conflict so that it finally dawns on everyone that rocket ships are now steering.

                    Of all developed countries, the British have experience of such a conflict. The Falklands showed both the weak air defense of the naval forces of Her Majesty's Navy (in that war, the escort, amphibious and aircraft carrier forces of the British Navy used and the negative use of aluminum alloys (and we do not give a damn about this factor) in ship bulkheads and their poor heat resistance ....
                    And the first ships (4 units) of the Iraqi Navy in the first war in the Gulf were destroyed precisely by the British ...
        2. igorka357
          igorka357 9 December 2017 03: 55 New
          +1
          Do not pay attention, in any forums there are such people.
        3. Kent0001
          Kent0001 9 December 2017 11: 38 New
          +4
          Come on, this. I suppose a humor joke like that. A ship that is really serious does not require attention to itself from our means of destruction.
      5. Shironay
        Shironay 9 December 2017 15: 05 New
        +2
        We envy white envy and Congratulations to the Royal Navy with a new thing !!!
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. Chertt
        Chertt 8 December 2017 16: 16 New
        +5
        Quote: Dimontius
        ban this idiot

        As he said, the late Admiral Nakhimov "Better ***** in the yard than a shark in the hold"
        By the way, who do you propose to ban?
        1. Dimontius
          Dimontius 8 December 2017 17: 11 New
          +6
          who first ripened
    3. NEXUS
      NEXUS 8 December 2017 15: 58 New
      13
      Quote: Segel
      Seven feet under the keel !!! What a handsome ..... POWER !!!

      Under such NATO handsome men, we will soon adopt Zircon. So let's see how far from our ships with these anti-ship missiles this handsome man will walk.
      1. Polite Moose
        Polite Moose 8 December 2017 16: 13 New
        +3
        Quote: NEXUS
        Under such NATO handsome men, we will soon adopt Zircon.

        To "cover" the queen, in this case, Elizabeth, you need a king (or king). And we have such kings: "Peter the Great" (as well as various Monomakhs, Dolgoruky, etc.)
        1. Juborg
          Juborg 8 December 2017 16: 32 New
          +2
          Quote: Polite Moose
          Quote: NEXUS
          Under such NATO handsome men, we will soon adopt Zircon.

          To "cover" the queen, in this case, Elizabeth, you need a king (or king). And we have such kings: "Peter the Great" (as well as various Monomakhs, Dolgoruky, etc.)



          Of course, I don’t know more than a moose, he has big horns, but this barge does not yet have a meager order, but he was put into service without an air wing, which is unlikely to appear in the next five years. In addition, the Russian Federation holds that the entire carrier fleet of the United States is behind the 800 mile zone, so even if we assume that it will take off from this barge, it will definitely not return, there will not be enough fuel.
        2. Piramidon
          Piramidon 8 December 2017 17: 04 New
          +4
          Quote: Polite Moose
          To "cover" the queen, in this case, Elizabeth, you need a king (or king). And we have such kings: "Peter the Great" (as well as various Monomakhs, Dolgoruky, etc.)

          This is not a "royal" thing! We have spiders like Karakurt and they have someone to bite on the drum - the Queen of England Queen Elizabeth or the American President George Bush, Ronald Reagan or Gerald R. Ford
      2. RASKAT
        RASKAT 8 December 2017 16: 13 New
        +4
        I think he and X-35 enough for a few pieces.
        I don’t see something on the air defense ship, air defense islands such as ours or American ones. At least melee. Maybe I’m not looking there?
      3. Observer2014
        Observer2014 8 December 2017 16: 40 New
        +4
        NEXUS hi
        Zircon will be adopted by us. So let's see how far from our ships with these anti-ship missiles this handsome man will walk.
        Yes, just like the maximum range of F35.
    4. RASKAT
      RASKAT 8 December 2017 16: 00 New
      +6
      And I'm a little sorry for the British, 70000 is a whopper and on diesels. What was impossible to put a nuclear reactor? It seems that submarine nuclear ships are being built, but the aircraft carrier couldn’t. Probably they themselves did not have the technological reserve and even their elder brother (USA) could not beg for money. request
      Yes, and judging by open sources, it is planned to have an air wing in 12 aircraft, up to 24 maximum (in battle). Probably a few more aircraft with radar and helicopters. For such a displacement, it’s not enough, doesn’t it?
      1. Berber
        Berber 8 December 2017 16: 09 New
        +3
        Yes, they themselves do not know how. Remember the notorious "British scientists." They are strong in fraud and finance.
      2. Kerensky
        Kerensky 8 December 2017 16: 15 New
        +3
        What was impossible to put a nuclear reactor?

        I’m surprised myself! It is only tankers to intercept and ride around them.
      3. ZVO
        ZVO 8 December 2017 17: 12 New
        +6
        Quote: RASKAT
        And I'm a little sorry for the British, 70000 whoppers and diesels. What was impossible to put a nuclear reactor?


        Not on diesels.
        On Rolls-Royce turbines. 2 pcs. 55 thousand hp - each.
        Moreover, with each in a single unit and a 30 megawatt generator.
        The turbines are powerful and quite economical.
        Almost revolutionary.

        Why do they need a reactor?
        Power reserve - immeasurably ...
        There are no enemies capable of blocking Anglo-British communications, and there will be no next 20 years.
        Cost of ownership with diesel engines, compared with reactors - an order of magnitude lower?

        The question is again, why?
        1. sabakina
          sabakina 8 December 2017 19: 33 New
          +5
          Alex, shy to ask repeat Who are the Anglo-British?
          1. IL-18
            IL-18 8 December 2017 20: 40 New
            +4
            Quote: sabakina
            Alex, shy to ask repeat Who are the Anglo-British?

            I'm not Alex. But I suppose these are the British who will remain after the separation of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom. Lord, confirm this forecast of the most worthy Alex. May they take the full cup we drank in 1991.
            1. Going
              Going 8 December 2017 21: 02 New
              +3
              Quote: sabakina
              Alex, shy to ask repeat Who are the Anglo-British?


              Apparently, something passes us by. lol
        2. RASKAT
          RASKAT 8 December 2017 23: 08 New
          +4
          Bullshit, almost everything you wrote.
          Economical turbines do not exist, with such power in 36-39MW each (data differ), they eat fuel like a bull slop. Moreover, there are Rolls-Royce MT30 turbines (Marine Turbine) - this is a marine gas turbine engine based on the Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engine. MT30 maintains 85% commonality with Trent 800, the engine for the Boeing 777, Airbus A330, Airbus A340 Airbus A380, Boeing 787 Dreamliner. produced for twenty years. What is so new and revolutionary in it? The fuel consumption of these turbines has long been known to everyone, they do not suffer from fuel economy.
      4. Piramidon
        Piramidon 9 December 2017 08: 40 New
        +2
        Quote: RASKAT
        Probably a few more radar aircraft

        If you mean AWACS aircraft, then this is unlikely. Such are not taking off from the springboard.
    5. PalBor
      PalBor 8 December 2017 16: 13 New
      +5
      Inspire! I'm talking about Princess Anne. Judging by the sleeve insignia, I’m a complete admiral. Or is this evidence of the decline of the British fleet?
      1. DMoroz
        DMoroz 8 December 2017 18: 40 New
        +3
        they have this family, she is married to the vice admiral of her majesty ... hi
      2. iliitchitch
        iliitchitch 8 December 2017 19: 58 New
        +4
        Quote: PalBor
        Inspire! I'm talking about Princess Anne. Judging by the sleeve insignia, I’m a complete admiral. Or is this evidence of the decline of the British fleet?

        And the first photo is symbolic. Symbolizes present-day England. Granny, grymza, people understandably oriented and blackboy. In the background, the Arab is not enough.
        They don’t learn anything, how many of these Elizabeth they already have at the bottom, so they are one more honored.
    6. Juborg
      Juborg 8 December 2017 16: 25 New
      +8
      Quote: Segel
      Seven feet under the keel !!! What a handsome ..... POWER !!!



      Well, you are not some kind of Russian person. And not that this barge was built to fight against the country whose flag you are positioning yourself on the site, and by the way those bombs will be directed against you that will drop the planes that will be based there (in principle!). Or are you giving up already? But this does not deprive you of the right to die under their bombs, even though you have already given up. They just do not care about you, you are my enthusiastic. laughing
      1. Sail
        Sail 8 December 2017 16: 29 New
        13
        Are we already on “you”? Enemies are people, and this is the Ship. If you do not understand anything in beauty, do not bother others to admire.
        1. Juborg
          Juborg 8 December 2017 16: 37 New
          +4
          Quote: Segel
          Are we already on “you”? Enemies are people, and this is the Ship. If you do not understand anything in beauty, do not bother others to admire.



          Are you esthet Sergey? laughing Did I hurt your tender soul? Shit in the middle, so to speak !? Well, I still do not forgive you for the esthete, joyful for the fleet of "Her Majesty." laughing love
          1. Sail
            Sail 8 December 2017 16: 40 New
            +8
            laughing I would tie up a plump for today, where did you find Seryoga? You’re already talking to fictional characters ... wink love
            1. Juborg
              Juborg 8 December 2017 16: 50 New
              +5
              Don’t call you, anyway, the smell is unpleasant. And Sergey is completely, certainly better than Segel. I advise you to take tonsure, feel better. You will feel Russian, glamor and love for all English will disappear. Let's not regret it!
              1. Sail
                Sail 8 December 2017 16: 53 New
                +8
                And I advise you to tie it up, the smell of a lavatory is mixed with the smell of a toilet, such an amber. Try it, Russianness and alcohol are incompatible concepts.
        2. sabakina
          sabakina 8 December 2017 19: 36 New
          +5
          Quote: Segel
          Are we already on “you”? Enemies are people, and this is the Ship. If you do not understand anything in beauty, do not bother others to admire.

          Lane, on a comet that flies at you, will you also admire?
        3. iliitchitch
          iliitchitch 9 December 2017 19: 39 New
          +1
          Gee. A ship, you understand. The goal is luxurious, not a ship.
    7. Chestnut
      Chestnut 8 December 2017 19: 05 New
      +2
      A small country builds aircraft carriers, and Russia does not even dream about its own.
      What a disgrace!
      1. IL-18
        IL-18 8 December 2017 20: 48 New
        +6
        Quote: Chestnut
        A small country builds aircraft carriers, and Russia does not even dream about its own.
        What a disgrace!

        Finding why Russia needs an aircraft carrier is much more difficult than building it.
      2. Juborg
        Juborg 9 December 2017 13: 07 New
        +1
        Quote: Chestnut
        A small country builds aircraft carriers, and Russia does not even dream about its own.
        What a disgrace!



        Well, you know better there in Germany, if not how you have all the submarines under repair there and there are no prospects yet. In addition, you definitely do not need aircraft carriers, and we are a peaceful people, we do not intend to capture Hawaii, although these islands themselves were once requested in the fold of the Russian Empire. But you know better in Germany! Do not touch the Russian, nemchur, but the defeat of your country in 1945, it seems to you an innocent walk. laughing
      3. iliitchitch
        iliitchitch 9 December 2017 19: 42 New
        +1
        Quote: Chestnut
        A small country builds aircraft carriers, and Russia does not even dream about its own.
        What a disgrace!

        If these idiots are brought to Neptune tomorrow by chat, will we also be in line? With these will.
    8. sabakina
      sabakina 8 December 2017 19: 27 New
      +5
      Quote: Segel
      Seven feet under the keel !!! What a handsome ..... POWER !!!

      For the first time in my life, I see a man who admires the beauty and power of the weapon that will kill him! fool
      1. Going
        Going 8 December 2017 20: 51 New
        +4
        Vyacheslav hi everyone goes crazy in their own way, I have not been surprised for so long - after all, a beautiful braid is at death ...
      2. Grafova Irina
        Grafova Irina 9 December 2017 22: 11 New
        +2
        People will kill. And such structures can be admired as the creation of human hands. If someone falls from the pyramid or falls under the wheels of a car, it’s not the pyramid or the car that is to blame, is it?
  2. RASKAT
    RASKAT 8 December 2017 15: 52 New
    +6
    The big ship has a big torpedo. hi
    1. ul_vitalii
      ul_vitalii 8 December 2017 20: 02 New
      +7
      And an unbroken bottle of champagne on the side of a large ship. hi
  3. san4es
    san4es 8 December 2017 15: 54 New
    +8
    The aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth officially accepted into the British Navy


  4. Hunter
    Hunter 8 December 2017 16: 15 New
    +5
    A good goal, with the current development of rocket technology ..!
    It will sink beautifully .. Only Papuans will frighten these troughs!
  5. alexhol
    alexhol 8 December 2017 16: 57 New
    +6
    Yeah ... That's where the Russian denyuzhka settled. Villas and yachts bought - taxes paid. Yes, private schools, yes colleges, payments made. Yes, there are football clubs and other business, every investment has been developed. So the boat turned out. So be proud of all the patriots of Russia! Built on your blood fellow
    1. Golovan Jack
      Golovan Jack 8 December 2017 17: 00 New
      +9
      Quote: alexhol
      That's where the Russian denyushka settled ...

      Extremely thick negative
  6. ul_vitalii
    ul_vitalii 8 December 2017 17: 03 New
    +9
    Why should I torture granny, for half a day I would probably dress and powder, would sit in the palace and eat a jail with milk.
    1. Paranoid50
      Paranoid50 8 December 2017 18: 57 New
      +3
      Quote: ul_vitalii
      Granny why torment

      Well, babuska is still normal - under her own power, without a “tugboat,” she’s drinking. yes (Recently, she even got behind the wheel, though she demolished the fence) But for the “namesake”, for some reason, doubts are taken, on an intuitive level. request Well, okay, the “box” is not ours, therefore, on the drum.
  7. Bronevick
    Bronevick 8 December 2017 17: 32 New
    +2
    Yes, the rules of the boat. The main Schaub did not smoke
  8. Sands Careers General
    Sands Careers General 8 December 2017 18: 01 New
    +7
    Yeah, a healthy barn. Interestingly, as effective as it looks?
    1. san4es
      san4es 8 December 2017 19: 43 New
      +5
      Quote: Sands Career General
      Yeah, a healthy barn. Interestingly, as effective as it looks?

      ... Of the weapons only aircraft. It all depends on the air wing and escort ... One hole on the take-off - and it is "0"

      Here is some comparison:
      1. Sands Careers General
        Sands Careers General 8 December 2017 20: 15 New
        +6
        Beautifully painted, as in a Hollywood movie. But in fact? Yes, and it is strange to compare an aircraft carrier cruiser and an aircraft carrier.
        1. san4es
          san4es 8 December 2017 20: 47 New
          +6
          Quote: Sands Career General
          . But in fact?

          ... And in fact, the fighting determines the effectiveness ... As a floating airfield, it’s good (it’s imprisoned for this)
          1. MOSKVITYANIN
            MOSKVITYANIN 8 December 2017 21: 52 New
            +2
            Quote: san4es
            Quote: Sands Career General
            . But in fact?

            ... And in fact, the fighting determines the effectiveness ... As a floating airfield, it’s good (it’s imprisoned for this)

            It is imprisoned to combat Russian submarines / SSBNs in the North Atlantic ...
        2. Going
          Going 8 December 2017 20: 49 New
          +5
          Where do you see the drawing? so tell me who is more effective?
          1. Sands Careers General
            Sands Careers General 8 December 2017 22: 49 New
            +5
            You ask me where there is beautiful computer graphics in the video? Take a closer look.

            And who is more effective is not for me to decide. And not for you.
  9. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 8 December 2017 19: 42 New
    +3
    the staff of the ship's air group in the "oceanic" version should be 24 F-35B fighters, nine Merlin anti-submarine helicopters and four or five Merlin helicopters in the AWACS variant

    For a minute - we are talking about an aircraft carrier aircraft group with a length of 284 meters and a total displacement of more than 70 tons. belay
    But hell Holmes ... how!? © How did the Limes manage to cram on an aircraft carrier with a displacement close to the Forrestal Air Group just Charles de Gaulle? And not from full-fledged cars, but from KVVP.
    Ah yes, the declared speed of AB is still very happy. Especially considering the springboard take-off.
  10. ul_vitalii
    ul_vitalii 8 December 2017 20: 07 New
    +8
    For that, the princess is battle-like, stern, wearing a hat, and awards ...
    1. Going
      Going 8 December 2017 21: 07 New
      +4
      Is she a princess? , and how many regalia, the arm in the elbow does not bend and the broadsword is with it.
      1. ul_vitalii
        ul_vitalii 8 December 2017 21: 23 New
        +8
        The article said with the princess, and indeed similar.
  11. Fedya2017
    Fedya2017 8 December 2017 22: 48 New
    +6
    I always read with pleasure how the local “boots” mercilessly drown the aircraft carriers of adversaries ... They just don’t decide how to drown these aircraft carriers - “Zircons” or just hats ... ??
    1. MadCat
      MadCat 9 December 2017 01: 22 New
      +2
      Quote: Fedya2017
      I always read with pleasure how the local “boots” mercilessly drown the aircraft carriers of adversaries ... They just don’t decide how to drown these aircraft carriers - “Zircons” or just hats ... ??

      What to say, the Eagles are really a little spoiled by hawthorn and not of the first freshness, but ducking-podreotizm just splashes. lol
      1. Fedya2017
        Fedya2017 9 December 2017 12: 49 New
        0
        Quote: MadCat
        but ducking-podreotizm and splashes.

        Sometimes it’s not just splashing - it beats a fountain! Apparently, it depends on the number of hawthorn taken to the chest ...
    2. Grafova Irina
      Grafova Irina 9 December 2017 10: 59 New
      +5
      Caps - it is more reliable and cheaper, which is also important laughing
  12. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 9 December 2017 06: 05 New
    +1
    repeat (first photo) My admiration for the English monarchy. Tolerance is not only for the people, but embedded in the crowned family. The black man behind the queen seems to be a close relative. I do not think that this is the governor of one of the overseas colonies, all the same black. repeat
  13. Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan 9 December 2017 10: 33 New
    +3
    I envy ... We also need at least two such aircraft carriers ... It’s not always possible to get an aerodrome on land as in Syria, but we can make our own wherever we want ... We need such ships ...
    Moreover, if we build it, and do not buy it as Mistral, then all the money spent goes into OUR economy to OUR workers, OUR engineers, OUR metallurgists and all other OUR enterprises ... It turns out that the construction of aircraft carriers for Russia is not only an increase security of the country, but also a subsidy for the entire economy !!!
  14. Grafova Irina
    Grafova Irina 9 December 2017 10: 58 New
    +4
    Dear "discussion". Do not forget that after the staff on the experience of using AB, the British are the second in the world. And therefore, they can “bring to mind” this boat faster than indicated in the stated terms ...
    Another thing is surprising ... The paucity of the air group. And the lack of AWACS aircraft. Could "Hokai" to purchase from an ally. Because helicopters in this "position" are not very "pulled."
    And the creation of AMG led by this AB will not present much difficulty for the Royal Navy. Shipboard composition allows ...
    1. Fedya2017
      Fedya2017 9 December 2017 12: 44 New
      +1
      Quote: Grafova Irina
      Another thing is surprising ... The paucity of the air group. And the lack of AWACS aircraft. Could "Hokai" to purchase from an ally. Because helicopters in this "position" are not very "pulled."

      The new British aircraft carrier should not be underestimated. This is an enemy quite serious. In general, it is intended for other purposes, and not in order to fight with our surface forces. In the NATO system, this ship will be used to solve air defense and missile defense problems. Namely: for operational cover of the air defense and anti-submarine defense of the main strike forces of the 2nd US fleet in the Norwegian Sea. These are 401−1 and 401−2 carrier strike groups (AUG). The aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth will be advanced to the northern part of the Norwegian Sea. That's what it was created for. Of course, with a catapult and AWACS aircraft, the capabilities of the “Briton” would become higher. But the British decided to save, and hope to be on the catch with the Americans ...
      1. Grafova Irina
        Grafova Irina 9 December 2017 14: 31 New
        +3
        And I underestimate him. Just the “aircraft capacity” declared is surprising even for the performance of air defense and anti-aircraft missile defense. On American ABs, the specific “aircraft capacity” is much higher. Here it is, maybe, in finances. There was simply not enough money to buy more F-35s. Yes, and the hokey takeoff without a catapult is doubtful
        True, ceteris paribus, the British AB traditionally carried a smaller number of different "flyers" compared to the US ...
        1. Fedya2017
          Fedya2017 9 December 2017 14: 53 New
          0
          Quote: Grafova Irina
          Here it is, maybe, in finances.

          Namely, the matter is in finances ... The Britons write about this openly. The ability to remove the ramp and install a catapult, they provided such an opportunity for the future. Without a catapult, of course, there will be no AWACS aircraft. And without them, this is no longer a strike aircraft carrier ... So, an additional floating airfield for the US Army AUGs.
          1. Grafova Irina
            Grafova Irina 9 December 2017 15: 42 New
            +3
            The Britons were pioneers in the practical application of ski jumps ...
            As far as I remember, it was planned to install two catapults on it - in the bow and corner deck ... And arm the Eurofighters in a marine version. While maintaining the springboard. But it was a long time ago.
            It is strange, of course, that on such a colossus the Britons, who have been building aircraft carriers for 100 years, could not place catapults ... I don’t know how much they saved on this, but that the quality suffered very much - this is a fact. And the F-35 itself, too, in my opinion, is not the ultimate dream, but a forced measure. The same “Super Hornet” would have looked clearly better. Again, with catapults ...
            And, if I’m not mistaken, the staff themselves have long called their carrier formations not AUG, but AMG - an aircraft carrier multipurpose group
            1. Fedya2017
              Fedya2017 9 December 2017 16: 05 New
              0
              Quote: Grafova Irina
              It is strange, of course, that on such a colossus the Britons, who have been building aircraft carriers for 100 years, could not place catapults ... I don’t know how much they saved on this, but that the quality suffered very much - this is a fact.

              Yes, I agree with you ... Maybe the Americans themselves advised them so? In any case, the capabilities of the ship have been cut back ... Now only a limited area of ​​operations remains. Like the actions themselves ...
              1. Grafova Irina
                Grafova Irina 9 December 2017 22: 55 New
                +3
                As an option - providing a sales market for the F-35 ... the Americans - they are such, something to "pull", even an ally - it's easy. True, the Britons are no better in this regard ...
                1. Fedya2017
                  Fedya2017 10 December 2017 00: 05 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Grafova Irina
                  As an option - providing a market for the F-35.

                  It is possible ... But in general, those others are two boots of steam. You precisely expressed it. The British were stingy with money - not for the good of the cause. This is clearly ... And to hell with them.
                  1. Grafova Irina
                    Grafova Irina 10 December 2017 16: 52 New
                    +2
                    That's for sure... lol
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 11 December 2017 12: 06 New
              0
              Quote: Grafova Irina
              It is strange, of course, that on such a colossus the Britons, who have been building aircraft carriers for 100 years, could not place catapults ... I don’t know how much they saved on this, but that the quality suffered very much - this is a fact.

              As the limes themselves write, the cost of the catapult itself was 280 million pounds. But the total cost of remaking the AB into an ejection variant was initially 900 million pounds, and finally 2 billion pounds. In fact, catapults doubled the cost of AB. Moreover, most of the costs went not to purchase the equipment itself, but to adapt the British AB to American equipment.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 11 December 2017 12: 11 New
            +1
            Quote: Fedya2017
            The ability to remove the ramp and install a catapult, they provided such an opportunity for the future.

            According to the report of the Parliamentary Defense Committee, the opportunity is purely theoretical, it has not been taken into account in the contract, and there have not been any studies on it since 2002.
            Because the decision to go STOVL [that is the initial decision for jumpjets] was taken in, from memory, 2002, no serious work had been done. It had been noodled in 2005, but no serious work had been done on it. It was not a contract-quality offer; it was a simple assertion that that could be done, but nobody said, “It can be done at this price”, and certainly nobody put that in a contract.

            According to preliminary estimates, the conversion of the "Queen" to the catapult AB will cost a little less than the cost of its construction.
            1. Grafova Irina
              Grafova Irina 11 December 2017 23: 18 New
              +2
              The initial project, if I am not mistaken, from the year 2002, was with catapults and a springboard. Or even earlier ...
              I do not use Wikipedia, alas
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 11 December 2017 11: 56 New
      +1
      Quote: Grafova Irina
      Another thing is surprising ... The paucity of the air group.

      It seems to me that the reasons here are not tactical, but financial. Especially given the recent claims to increase the cost of the F-35B.
      Quote: Grafova Irina
      And the lack of AWACS aircraft. Could "Hokai" to purchase from an ally.

      And what to do next with it? Carry along the coastal bases? There are no catapults on the Korolev - it did not pull its fleet budget.
      The funniest thing with the catapult is that if the limes weren’t stingy, they could partially recapture the money spent on the catapult by reducing the cost of the air group. For the choice of catapult take-off aircraft is much wider than KVVP. More precisely, there is no choice at all about the HVAC - only the F-35B. A monopolist can set almost any price: either pay or have the largest helicopter carrier in the world. smile
      1. Grafova Irina
        Grafova Irina 11 December 2017 23: 15 New
        +2
        About which I spoke ...
        The Yankees drove the ally into a corner. And the ally with the money was not very. They could not even raise money for a normal air group for a ship with such a displacement. And also repair kits, wear, loss in case of emergency, etc., etc.
        “Sea Harrier”, with all its deservedness, has already, alas, exhausted itself ... So the British have no alternatives.
        And “Hokai” is clear business, that it’s not “to put him on it”
  15. Grafova Irina
    Grafova Irina 9 December 2017 12: 22 New
    +4
    December 7th ... It was the British who hinted the staff members to Pearl Harbor, or something ...
  16. serg2108
    serg2108 9 December 2017 21: 44 New
    +2
    damn when will our at least create something worthy, but only come up moronic otmazy!
  17. bolkodav68
    bolkodav68 9 December 2017 22: 42 New
    0
    with current technology and the desire of the people to work, at least every year you can build on this. it's time to build two body drums. and we are all chewing snot. We definitely forgot how to work.