Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Iqbal Ahmed

Have the propeller issues been rectified? I understand that there were problems with excess noise and drag as a result.
Also, I expect the crew are no longer ‘bored’ as they are on more active duty while out on trials rather than stuck in port.
I hope they sort these issues out before sailing her out of our territorial waters.


I thought the propeller shaft issues were fixed at Invergordon during the initial trials?


Something in the article caught my attention, cannot leave port if the wind is more than 15 knots. Surely that cannot be correct a warship must be able to deploy when needed not we have a 25 knot wind that will last for a week please stop the war as we cannot leave port. Come on MoD and Government fix the issue HMS Vanguard battleship 1950 did not have this issue so what is the problem?


Oh great, in the unlikely event that we really need her, we have to risk her being grounded, badly damaged and useless.
Interesting to see the battleship HMS Vanguard mentioned, as I predict a similar fate for the carriers, a few prestige tours followed by ever longer periods in refit, mothballs and eventually scrap,owing to shortage of manpower and money.

Harry Nelson

there were similar restrictions in place for the Invincible Class, nothing new here!

Knotty Ash

Slightly off topic but is it just me that thinks QE is an impressive and handsome looking ship from astern but I’m not so sure that I like the look from the bow? Not quite got that Ark Royal R09 look about her?


Yes QE is somewhat painful to look at, but she’s built to do a job. RO9 Ark Royal looks were ruined
by 1967-70 rebuild when they added ugly sponson to bow. R05 Eagle was best looking carrier and
in better material condition than Ark Royal in 1970.

A D de Mowbray

She is beautiful from port and starboard, the bow and that ghastly ski-ramp and fat arse astern are not.


If carriers have side overhangs why don’t they have stern overhangs? Even an escort could have a 2m stern overhang without difficulity and it adds a bit more to the helicopter pad almost for free if done at time of build. The old RFA Engadine had it done.


I imagine that it’s most likely to be to do with excessive pitch. If you have a deck extension, then why not put a bit of hull beneath it?


She will have, if and when converted to conventional takeoff and landing. Same for the bow. The future overhang round down over her full stern will not have much of an effect. I am guessing the normal bow overhang plus the heavy ski ramp judged to possibly have a pitching effect staff were not happy with, more than if a catapult were fitted, and probably why it has been cut off shorter. It’s been said it helps upwash/updraft for the type of aircraft being used at the moment, rather than the smoother flow of conventional takeoff. The plans of this class in conventional form (Not short take of and vertical landing) do show a more elegant and longer bow and stern.


Don’t want to add too much weight topside, as we learned with the modifications to USS “Midway” back in the day…!