Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Still Waters

Queen names UK's biggest warship

64 posts in this topic

The UK's largest warship marks "a new phase in our naval history", the Queen has said, as the vessel was officially named in her honour at a ceremony at Fife's Rosyth Dockyard.

A bottle of whisky was smashed on the hull of the 65,000-tonne HMS Queen Elizabeth - the first of two new Royal Navy aircraft carriers being built.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28146412

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the future looks bright then NOT! No peace is on the cards if they feel they need new WARships.

What a waste of a bottle of whisky, and could they not have stretched to a bottle of champagne?

This is what our tax payers money is going on and where in the world is this ship going to show off its "greatness" ?

How about spending the money right here in GREAT BRITAIN and keep us safe from the criminals who have been flooding this country from all corners of the world?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the future looks bright then NOT! No peace is on the cards if they feel they need new WARships.

What a waste of a bottle of whisky, and could they not have stretched to a bottle of champagne?

This is what our tax payers money is going on and where in the world is this ship going to show off its "greatness" ?

How about spending the money right here in GREAT BRITAIN and keep us safe from the criminals who have been flooding this country from all corners of the world?

The saying goes the first rule of government is to protect its citizens - We live in a challenging and ever changing world were threats to our stability, economy, trade and interest in the world will be challenged - to meet these challenges and to that end you have to be able to project power around the world. the aircraft carrier is the perfect asset for this, the Royal Navy is patrolling all the major trade routes, 98% of our trade and goods arrive by sea.

The United Kingdom as a duty to not only ourselves but to our overseas territories. take the Caribbean for example - ever year during the Hurricane season the Navy send send ships to assist incase of a natural disaster/humanitarian crisis.

As for the use of Whiskey instead of the traditional champagne, it was symbolic, with the ship being built in Scotland. Champagne as not always been used in the past either.

At the end of the day if someone is going to hit you with a stick, its always better to hit them back with a bigger stick. and military equipment such as the Aircraft carriers aren't built overnight.

If we followed you logic back in 1982, we'd never had been able to liberate British citizens from Argentine invasion and aggression of the Falkland Islands.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather the gov spent my tax money on building more warships and building up the army than throw it away on foreign aid and art projects. The world is getting increasingly dangerous and we need to be ready for it.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the future looks bright then NOT! No peace is on the cards if they feel they need new WARships.

What a waste of a bottle of whisky, and could they not have stretched to a bottle of champagne?

This is what our tax payers money is going on and where in the world is this ship going to show off its "greatness" ?

How about spending the money right here in GREAT BRITAIN and keep us safe from the criminals who have been flooding this country from all corners of the world?

We need plane cover and a platform from which to launch them for when we decide to steal other peoples oil.

Or had you forgotten? lmao.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A cruise ship would've been nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We live in a global world now, a lot different from the days when little Islands and certain areas of the world had no connections to the outside world other than what was being told to them by "visitors".

Our own land needs protection first, and I have a bad feeling that those who insist on this kind of "protection" have only their own interests at heart, they do not give a damn about England, they want the GREAT Britain status to go with their big bucks warships, but really? if today the way to peace with other countries is to show them who have the biggest knobs, then we truly are living in a sad world and have learned NOTHING from all the wars and deaths of the past.

This war ship will not protect us from the likes of fanatical suicide bombers, it will not protect us from selling our businesses to foreign countries, it will not protect this country full stop!

We are not in a position to take on the worlds problems on our own, there is no need, if there is a crisis in another country then all those who can help...should help and that includes all the multi mega rich Indians and Africans out there. But once again, our big knobs in the high places have to make themselves look mighty at the tax payers expense.

I am anti war, and do not see how building bigger guns is on the path to a peaceful world, but others will deny this as it seems the way to a peaceful world is kill them before them try and kill you...well they should have thought about that before invading other countries and at the same time allowing the enemy to flourish here!

I wonder how many people living in England today would be prepared to stand up and fight for this country if we got invaded? If the likes of a muslim country wanted to invade us, how many muslims here would fight against them? How many non muslim foreigners would stay here and fight with us instead of deciding to go back to their country of origin where its safer?

Times have changed A LOT, we are not as Great as some think and throwing our weight around with bigger war ships is not going to make us more friends.

Every country has a duty to help those in need, not just England. We are not the riches country in the world, so giving it the billy does not impress many today,

Helping others should be a JOINT thing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am anti war, and do not see how building bigger guns is on the path to a peaceful world, but others will deny this as it seems the way to a peaceful world is kill them before them try and kill you

Not kill them necessarily, deterrence is preferred. And you do that with strength.

edit: which reminds me of a funny story I read once. Supposedly there was a high ranking tour of the SAC headquarters (Strategic Air Command, (1946-1992). Some joker altered the SAC motto on a wall plaque;

"Peace is our Profession"

(war is just a hobby).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not kill them necessarily, deterrence is preferred. And you do that with strength.

edit: which reminds me of a funny story I read once. Supposedly there was a high ranking tour of the SAC headquarters (Strategic Air Command, (1946-1992). Some joker altered the SAC motto on a wall plaque;

"Peace is our Profession"

(war is just a hobby).

I know, to a certain extent I am just kidding myself, I suppose. Too many enemies have been made throughout history, too much want of power, too much greed and far too much religious indoctrination has set the stance, but it does not make it right to arm yourself to the teeth to "enforce" peace in the world....its very very sad and something I can never agree with, although its here to stay now the presidence has been set......as my comment shows below, men of power do not believe peace is posible without making sure they have the arms to back them up first.

Power over others has never been something I desire, suppose thats what makes me different, but it certainly does not make me weak, I just can not back up those who use the threat of weapons as a force of power, but thats mankind for you.

But we must never forget the forces of nature are far more powerful than man, we surely do not need warships to be sent to help others when nature shows its wrath? Seems we still do. (Very sad )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the future looks bright then NOT! No peace is on the cards if they feel they need new WARships.

What a waste of a bottle of whisky, and could they not have stretched to a bottle of champagne?

This is what our tax payers money is going on and where in the world is this ship going to show off its "greatness" ?

How about spending the money right here in GREAT BRITAIN and keep us safe from the criminals who have been flooding this country from all corners of the world?

i think that's what it's for.

They used whisky because it was Scotland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we must never forget the forces of nature are far more powerful than man, we surely do not need warships to be sent to help others when nature shows its wrath? Seems we still do. (Very sad )

yes, because the Navy has the skills and the manpower and the equipment to be able to get assistance where it might be needed quickly, and to get things done quickly and professionally. Helicopters are very useful for disaster relief, not to mention the medical and communication facilities available on a warship.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think that's what it's for.

They used whisky because it was Scotland.

Yep, for sure, but still a waste of whisky, I do hope it was not Glenfiddich. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if we didn't have lunatics like the Argentinian President constantly threatening our territories we wouldn't need to have built them.

Great Britain has a history of running down it's armed forces only to get caught out badly when some lunatic goes on a rampage. Just look at WW2 for instance when the RAF faced a force almost 4 times it's size just to defend our home.

The Falklands could have gone badly wrong too. When Illustrious set sail with the task force the Harriers had no ordinance. Careful negotiations with the USA had to take place to get the Sidewinder missiles supplied for the fighters.

I am personally glad to see we are not being so complacent this time.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, because the Navy has the skills and the manpower and the equipment to be able to get assistance where it might be needed quickly, and to get things done quickly and professionally. Helicopters are very useful for disaster relief, not to mention the medical and communication facilities available on a warship.

Thats because they have made it that way, the RNLI do not use warships or armed helicopters to save people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats because they have made it that way, the RNLI do not use warships or armed helicopters to save people.

The RNLI would be somewhat out of area in the Caribbean or Indian Ocean. Perhaps a kind of global International Rescue would be a nice idea, but in the absence of that, it's down to the expertise of navies (and the US Navy and most others do as well) to provide such help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A carrier battle group consists of several ships and submarines (and of course aircraft). The fact that such groups are so large means that protection of strategic sea trading routes are all but impossible to disrupt and so is of immense Strategic Importance to a nation such as the UK that is dependent on such routes staying open.

It is also declared by the MoD that such a group will be used in disaster relief operations around the world, carrying vast supplies of emergency materiel in greater quantity than any other method.

Lets be quite clear also - nobody builds dedicated Disaster Relief vessels, so dual role ships are a better use of taxpayers money

Edited by keithisco
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if we didn't have lunatics like the Argentinian President constantly threatening our territories we wouldn't need to have built them.

Great Britain has a history of running down it's armed forces only to get caught out badly when some lunatic goes on a rampage. Just look at WW2 for instance when the RAF faced a force almost 4 times it's size just to defend our home.

The Falklands could have gone badly wrong too. When Illustrious set sail with the task force the Harriers had no ordinance. Careful negotiations with the USA had to take place to get the Sidewinder missiles supplied for the fighters.

I am personally glad to see we are not being so complacent this time.

Our intercontinental fighter/bomber the Taranis isn't ready so we need the means of projecting air power where and as needed. So we need aircraft carriers.

The defence of the home island is easy because we have no land borders to protect. That means we don't need a large standing army with lots of tanks and artillery pieces. Its not like the Spanish or French or Germans can just role over here with their panzers. We just need to make sure our air and navy is capable of stopping them. Cutting the size of our land forces instead of ships and fighter jets was the correct move, although an unpopular one.

We should suspend foreign aid and the NHS to people who can afford their healthcare. Then we could have five aircraft carriers instead of two.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

article-2679893-1F5F9E8A00000578-372_964x495.jpg

article-2679893-1F5F9E2600000578-774_964x990.jpg

article-2679893-1F5F9DFA00000578-278_964x989.jpg

Click to Enlarge.

Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail...-The-Queen.html

Edited by stevewinn
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, for sure, but still a waste of whisky, I do hope it was not Glenfiddich. :no:

Apparently, it was an Islay single malt.

I've visited one of the distilleries on Islay (at least I remember going there, .......coming back?.....no idea!)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Our intercontinental fighter/bomber the Taranis isn't ready so we need the means of projecting air power where and as needed. So we need aircraft carriers.

The defence of the home island is easy because we have no land borders to protect. That means we don't need a large standing army with lots of tanks and artillery pieces. Its not like the Spanish or French or Germans can just role over here with their panzers. We just need to make sure our air and navy is capable of stopping them. Cutting the size of our land forces instead of ships and fighter jets was the correct move, although an unpopular one.

We should suspend foreign aid and the NHS to people who can afford their healthcare. Then we could have five aircraft carriers instead of two.

Taranis is neither a Fighter nor Bomber in the classic sense. It can offer close support to such missions, but it's weapons payload is restricted. Where it will excel is in long range Surveillance missions feeding accurate real - time data to strike forces. It will also be able to perform precision attacks on nominated targets using air-to-ground missiles, and / or air-to-air missiles (new generation being developed by MBDA in the UK).

Suspend Foreign Aid? Yes.... I would have issues with your 2nd suggestion because when health insurance runs out (and it is all limited) then there needs to be a Safety Net to cover for illnesses etc that cannot be covered.

But the essence of your post I agree with - 6Bn Pounds for two Aircraft carriers is something of a bargain - and I certainly hope the 2nd Carrier is commissioned into the RN (suggestions that it might be mothballed or even sold off!!). With these acquisitions it would be prudent to bolster the SBS and Royal Marine Commando's as well.

6Bn is actually peanuts compared to the cost of annual membership to the EU - bears thinking about doesn't it?

Edited by keithisco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taranis is neither a Fighter nor Bomber in the classic sense. It can offer close support to such missions, but it's weapons payload is restricted. Where it will excel is in long range Surveillance missions feeding accurate real - time data to strike forces. It will also be able to perform precision attacks on nominated targets using air-to-ground missiles, and / or air-to-air missiles (new generation being developed by MBDA in the UK).

Suspend Foreign Aid? Yes.... I would have issues with your 2nd suggestion because when health insurance runs out (and it is all limited) then there needs to be a Safety Net to cover for illnesses etc that cannot be covered.

But the essence of your post I agree with - 6Bn Pounds for two Aircraft carriers is something of a bargain - and I certainly hope the 2nd Carrier is commissioned into the RN (suggestions that it might be mothballed or even sold off!!). With these acquisitions it would be prudent to bolster the SBS and Royal Marine Commando's as well.

6Bn is actually peanuts compared to the cost of annual membership to the EU - bears thinking about doesn't it?

we gave away £11.4 Billion on Foreign Aid in 2013, couple that with the £21 Billion we handed over to the EU, which they then give us £10.1 Billion back, but told us how to spend it. To put things into perspective that's £32.4 Billion combined. the entire Defence budget of the UK is £33.7 Billion, and yet the Government sees fit to continue to cut the Defence budget.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that Tyranis thing really named after Darth Tyranus, formerly Count Dooku? :unsure2:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that Tyranis thing really named after Darth Tyranus, formerly Count Dooku? :unsure2:

Taranis was the Celtic god of thunder.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Taranis would be able to operate from the new carrier, as is. It has a 900 foot deck, Here is a video which will surprise most, but 50 years ago they were testing C-130 Hercules Carrier Landing Trials. with no arrester gear,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats because they have made it that way, the RNLI do not use warships or armed helicopters to save people.

What a silly thing to say. The RNLI often use the assistance of helicopters on their rescues. Most of them are provided by the navy and RAF. The aircraft carrier will be an invaluable asset in disaster relief as well, its not just used to kill. The world is getting more and more dangerous. The UK has enemies from Argentina, ISIL and other terrorists groups and hell you could even add Spain to the list regarding Gibraltar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.