ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 18th September 2018, 05:02 AM   #41
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,945
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Question on naming conventions. Is the "HMS Queen Elizabeth" automatically considered to be Liz 2.0? Would they not call her the QEII because there's already a QEII, albeit not with "HMS" on it, I believe?
Regnal numbers have certainly been used in warship names before - King George V was a sister ship of an earlier Prince of Wales, for example - so I would assume it would automatically be considered to be Lizzie 1 not Lizzie 2. But there is no particular issue with duplicate names between RN and other ships - for example, the previous HMS Queen Elizabeth co-existed with the RMS Queen Elizabeth, the big one with the two funnels - so HMS QEII is presumably still in play.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 07:03 AM   #42
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 41,406
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Question on naming conventions. Is the "HMS Queen Elizabeth" automatically considered to be Liz 2.0? Would they not call her the QEII because there's already a QEII, albeit not with "HMS" on it, I believe?

If you mean the Cunard liner, that's actually QE2, not QEII, and is named after the Queen Mother. The first was named by and after Queen Elizabeth in 1938, the spouse of the reigning king at the time, George VI. The second ship was named after the first, with the '2' to distinguish them (the original was still part of the Cunard fleet at the time); it was launched in 1967, and named by the Queen.

HMS Queen Elizabeth is named after a previous Royal Navy ship, in turn named after Queen Elizabeth I.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 07:19 AM   #43
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,830
The new ships aren't just Carriers.
They were designed to be multi role ships. For example hey have Marine Barracks and extended hospital facilities.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 08:48 AM   #44
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,473
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
The story I read (I'll try and add the source later) was that it was just a Buccaneer, no carrier that did the job. (I think Buccaneers were one of the most under appreciated British military aircraft.)

ETA
In 1975, the tiny UK protectorate of Belize, was threatened by the violent military Junta in neighboring Guatelmala, HMS Ark Royal, in mid Atlantic, outside the range of it's F-4K's or any RAF aircraft, Launched 4 Buccaneers, two were tankers, enabling the other two to half way across the pond, get down low, then fly low and fast along the border with Belize and Guatelmala, (the tankers returned to the Ark, refueled, took off again and topped up the returning bombers), this display made the junta pull back, believing HMS Ark Royal was much nearer than it was.
Yes, the Buccaneers were sent on ahead when it looked like the carrier would not arrive in time.
Information Analyst is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 08:49 AM   #45
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,473
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
One is as an air support asset for operations ashore. The Royal Army....
The what?!?!?
Information Analyst is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 08:50 AM   #46
Diablo
Muse
 
Diablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
The what?!?!?
Prince Harry.
Diablo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 08:53 AM   #47
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,473
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
She’s just a museum today, but she was mostly a floating gin palace for Brenda to swan around in visiting the colonies. Apparently she could be used as a hospital ship in times of war, but that never happened.
No, but she was used to evacuate refugees from Aden in 1986.
Information Analyst is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 08:58 AM   #48
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,473
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Question on naming conventions. Is the "HMS Queen Elizabeth" automatically considered to be Liz 2.0? Would they not call her the QEII because there's already a QEII, albeit not with "HMS" on it, I believe?
No, the carrier is named after the first Queen Elizabeth, so no numeral - not even just an "I" - is required. The liner was also the QE2 not QEII, because she was a replacement/successor for the previous RMS Queen Elizabeth, named after George VI's missus (i.e. the later Queen Mother).
Information Analyst is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 09:37 AM   #49
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,171
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
The what?!?!?
You know, like the Royal Navy? How is this confusing to you?

ETA: Information Analyst's panties are, of course, bunched over this bit of waffle:
Today, the British Armed Forces consist of: the Royal Navy, a blue-water navy with a fleet of 74 commissioned ships; the Royal Marines, a highly specialised amphibious light infantry force; the British Army, the UK's principal land warfare branch; and the Royal Air Force

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces

Last edited by theprestige; 18th September 2018 at 09:59 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 10:26 AM   #50
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,328
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You know, like the Royal Navy? How is this confusing to you?

ETA: Information Analyst's panties are, of course, bunched over this bit of waffle:
Today, the British Armed Forces consist of: the Royal Navy, a blue-water navy with a fleet of 74 commissioned ships; the Royal Marines, a highly specialised amphibious light infantry force; the British Army, the UK's principal land warfare branch; and the Royal Air Force

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces
I suspect it's to do with the status of a standing army and Parliament's control over raising that - as a result of the English Civil War
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 10:48 AM   #51
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,171
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
I suspect it's to do with the status of a standing army and Parliament's control over raising that - as a result of the English Civil War
That could very well be. There's a lot of details about other nations that I'm not very clear on. I'm always forgetting that Tasmania is south of Australia, for example.

If I thought for a moment that the correct nomenclature of the Royal British Armed Forces was important to my point, I'd have taken the time to look up the correct term. As it is, I think I got close enough for the purposes of this discussion. IA may object to my wording, but I doubt he misunderstood my meaning.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 02:46 PM   #52
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 18,812
According to Wikipedia, the new carrier is named in honor of the 1913 dreadnought of the same name, lead ship of the best battleship class of the WWI, which was in turn named for Queen Elizabeth I.

The fact that another Liz is now queen undoubtedly didn't hurt.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 05:33 PM   #53
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,830
There isn't a 'royal' army but there are 'royal' regiments.
Traditionally regiments were raised as and when needed and carried the name of whoever raised them. When they were put on a more formal and permanent footing they were given numbers.
Later they acquired names associated with wherever they were garrisoned or a peculiarity of their uniform (Green Howards, Green Jackets, Black Watch etc)

Some regiments have the honour 'royal' because of specific connection to a monarch but usually the royal title was awarded as a battle honour. Some have the addition of ‘King’s Own’ or ‘Queen’s Own’ this is the same as being 'royal'
The last regimrnt to get the 'royal' added to their name was the Royal Tank Regiment in the 1920s

Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 18th September 2018 at 05:35 PM.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 05:45 PM   #54
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,171
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
There isn't a 'royal' army but there are 'royal' regiments.
Traditionally regiments were raised as and when needed and carried the name of whoever raised them. When they were put on a more formal and permanent footing they were given numbers.
Later they acquired names associated with wherever they were garrisoned or a peculiarity of their uniform (Green Howards, Green Jackets, Black Watch etc)

Some regiments have the honour 'royal' because of specific connection to a monarch but usually the royal title was awarded as a battle honour. Some have the addition of ‘King’s Own’ or ‘Queen’s Own’ this is the same as being 'royal'
The last regimrnt to get the 'royal' added to their name was the Royal Tank Regiment in the 1920s
Thanks!
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 06:36 PM   #55
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 39,198
Thanks for the great trivia, folks! I never noticed the "2" was not a "II". It all makes sense, now.(Although if the current carrier is really named after an earlier dreadnought, shouldn't it also be a "2"? Or does the fact that the previous HMS Queen Elizabeth is retired(?) mean the original name is now available?)
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 07:18 PM   #56
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 18,812
Warships named after previous warships aren't given numbers. The US Navy, for instance, has had seven Enterprises to date and another under construction.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 01:22 AM   #57
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,945
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Thanks for the great trivia, folks! I never noticed the "2" was not a "II". It all makes sense, now.(Although if the current carrier is really named after an earlier dreadnought, shouldn't it also be a "2"? Or does the fact that the previous HMS Queen Elizabeth is retired(?) mean the original name is now available?)
RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 was launched while RMS Queen Elizabeth was still in existence, so the 2 was added to avoid confusion (although confusion was restored by the words spoken by Her Majesty in the naming ceremony). Since the leader of the Queen Elizabeth battleship class was scrapped a long time ago (1948 or thereabouts, I think), there's no such clash over the aircraft carrier.

It's not unknown, though, for a warship to be renamed when the name is required for a newer unit. The classic example is the WW1 seaplane carrier HMS Ark Royal, second of the name, which was renamed HMS Pegasus in 1934 to free the name for the WW2 aircraft carrier, the third HMS Ark Royal.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 01:41 AM   #58
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 41,406
I'm becoming convinced that I'm posting in invisible ink...
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
If you mean the Cunard liner, that's actually QE2, not QEII, and is named after the Queen Mother. The first was named by and after Queen Elizabeth in 1938, the spouse of the reigning king at the time, George VI. The second ship was named after the first, with the '2' to distinguish them (the original was still part of the Cunard fleet at the time); it was launched in 1967, and named by the Queen.

HMS Queen Elizabeth is named after a previous Royal Navy ship, in turn named after Queen Elizabeth I.
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
No, the carrier is named after the first Queen Elizabeth, so no numeral - not even just an "I" - is required. The liner was also the QE2 not QEII, because she was a replacement/successor for the previous RMS Queen Elizabeth, named after George VI's missus (i.e. the later Queen Mother).
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 was launched while RMS Queen Elizabeth was still in existence, so the 2 was added to avoid confusion (although confusion was restored by the words spoken by Her Majesty in the naming ceremony). Since the leader of the Queen Elizabeth battleship class was scrapped a long time ago (1948 or thereabouts, I think), there's no such clash over the aircraft carrier.

It's not unknown, though, for a warship to be renamed when the name is required for a newer unit. The classic example is the WW1 seaplane carrier HMS Ark Royal, second of the name, which was renamed HMS Pegasus in 1934 to free the name for the WW2 aircraft carrier, the third HMS Ark Royal.

Dave
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 01:51 AM   #59
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,945
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
I'm becoming convinced that I'm posting in invisible ink...
Pardon?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 02:07 AM   #60
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,830
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Thanks for the great trivia, folks! I never noticed the "2" was not a "II". It all makes sense, now.(Although if the current carrier is really named after an earlier dreadnought, shouldn't it also be a "2"? Or does the fact that the previous HMS Queen Elizabeth is retired(?) mean the original name is now available?)
There is a comittee that assigns names based on the type of ship and it's intended role.
For example Cruisers were always named after counties.
In the 60s the first class of Missile armed Destroyers was given County names as they were the size of light cruisers and were undertaking a traditional cruiser role. Calling them 'destroyers' made them sound less expensive but their names gave the game away.
Same happened with thee type 42 Destroyer, they were given the names of cities another traditional cruiser naming convention and again, they were big ships for destroyers.
Same with the Invincible class carriers.
As the RN wasn't supposed to have carriers anymore they were first called 'Through Deck Cruisers' as a cruiser sounds a lot less expensive than a carrier and it kept the politicians happy. Their names were however ones that had previously been given to Carriers.

I served on Tribal class frigates (Ashanti and Zulu) They are traditional Destroyer names and although classed as Frigates they weren't escorts but general purpose ships.
I spent most of my time on Leander class Frigates, They had traditional Cruiser names, again they were general purpose ships.

Queen Elizabeth was last used on a Battleship Using it for the carrier is sending a message and it's also a gift to the Queen of course.

Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 19th September 2018 at 02:10 AM.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 02:36 AM   #61
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,945
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
For example Cruisers were always named after counties.
Errr.... no. County class cruisers were always named after counties; Town class were named after towns, Crown Colony class were named after colonies of the British Empire, lots were named after characters from Greek mythology, and various other sources were used including famous admirals, monarchs, battles, geographical features and martial virtues. Names have never been assigned specifically to roles as far as I can tell; Warspite, Nelson and Australia, to pick three at random, have been used both for cruisers and for battleships, and Hermes, one of the best-known aircraft carrier names, was originally applied to a Highflyer class cruiser. Unlike the American system where cruisers were named for cities and battleships for states, the RN never seems to have assigned a rigid naming convention to ship types, although there are some names (like, for example, Ark Royal) that get associated with a particular type.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 03:12 AM   #62
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,473
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You know, like the Royal Navy? How is this confusing to you?

ETA: Information Analyst's panties are, of course, bunched over this bit of waffle:
Today, the British Armed Forces consist of: the Royal Navy, a blue-water navy with a fleet of 74 commissioned ships; the Royal Marines, a highly specialised amphibious light infantry force; the British Army, the UK's principal land warfare branch; and the Royal Air Force

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces
It's not "waffle." The British Army is not "the Royal Army." Full stop.
Information Analyst is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 03:14 AM   #63
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,473
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Thanks for the great trivia, folks! I never noticed the "2" was not a "II". It all makes sense, now.(Although if the current carrier is really named after an earlier dreadnought, shouldn't it also be a "2"? Or does the fact that the previous HMS Queen Elizabeth is retired(?) mean the original name is now available?)
No, lots of Royal Navy ships have "recycled" names, but as they never overlap with earlier usage, there's no need to differentiate.
Information Analyst is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 03:42 AM   #64
ohms
Graduate Poster
 
ohms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,059
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
It's not "waffle." The British Army is not "the Royal Army." Full stop.
And, of course, it would be the Royal Marines who would normally be embarked on QE for amphibious ops, not the Army.
__________________
Long time lurker
ohms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 03:50 AM   #65
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,945
Originally Posted by ohms View Post
And, of course, it would be the Royal Marines who would normally be embarked on QE for amphibious ops, not the Army.
I see that British ships that embark Army troops (as opposed to Royal Marines) have, in recent times at least, been Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, rather than RN warships; is that a general rule?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 04:50 AM   #66
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 41,406
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Pardon?

Dave


Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Queen Elizabeth was last used on a Battleship Using it for the carrier is sending a message and it's also a gift to the Queen of course.
Even though it's named after someone else?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 05:26 AM   #67
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,830
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Errr.... no. County class cruisers were always named after counties; Town class were named after towns, Crown Colony class were named after colonies of the British Empire, lots were named after characters from Greek mythology, and various other sources were used including famous admirals, monarchs, battles, geographical features and martial virtues. Names have never been assigned specifically to roles as far as I can tell; Warspite, Nelson and Australia, to pick three at random, have been used both for cruisers and for battleships, and Hermes, one of the best-known aircraft carrier names, was originally applied to a Highflyer class cruiser. Unlike the American system where cruisers were named for cities and battleships for states, the RN never seems to have assigned a rigid naming convention to ship types, although there are some names (like, for example, Ark Royal) that get associated with a particular type.

Dave
I know that names other than counties were used for cruisers, I acknowledge that in the post with the 'Towns' but they weren't used for destroyers until the big 6000 ton Counties of the 60s.

Battleship names got transferred to Carriers as they became the new 'Capital' ship.
Now with the fleet being so reduced much of the old naming conventions have gone.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 05:28 AM   #68
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,830
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post




Even though it's named after someone else?
Yes, the sentiment is obvious.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 05:32 AM   #69
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,830
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I see that British ships that embark Army troops (as opposed to Royal Marines) have, in recent times at least, been Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, rather than RN warships; is that a general rule?

Dave
It depends. The Navy has specialist Assault ships for amphibious warfare and the new carriers also have marine barracks
Warships I served on had a detachment of marines.
An RFA wouldn't usually be used as a trooper. If the army wants moving anywhere they charter a ship.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 07:16 AM   #70
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,171
Originally Posted by ohms View Post
And, of course, it would be the Royal Marines who would normally be embarked on QE for amphibious ops, not the Army. ; )
I wasn't talking about amphibious ops. I was talking about providing air support for army operations ashore. But yes, amphibious ops are fine too.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 09:13 AM   #71
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,171
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
It's not "waffle." The British Army is not "the Royal Army." Full stop.
One limitation of the HMS Queen Elizabeth is that it does not have catapults for launching aircraft. This limits the takeoff weight of aircraft embarked on the carrier. As a result, its aircraft launch with less fuel, or less payload, or less of both, than the same aircraft being launched from a catapult. The ramp mitigates this effect to some degree, and has the advantage of being much cheaper.

Another result of this trade-off is that even with the ramp, the QE cannot launch larger planes, such as fixed-wing AWACS.

Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) is basically a flying air defense radar. By putting the radar into the air, the carrier group greatly extends its radar horizon, and is able to detect and respond to threats while they are still much farther away. The bigger the radar the better, and the higher it flies, the better. Long loiter times are also desirable for this mission. All of this calls the largest, heaviest aircraft you can practically launch from your carrier. On USN supercarriers, this aircraft is the E-2 Hawkeye. It's small compared to land-based AWACs planes, but it's already too heavy to launch from the QE's ramp. A catapult is needed to get it into the air from such a short runway.

As a result, the QE will most likely embark a helicopter in the AWACS role - probably the AW101. This would replace the Westland Sea King previously used in the AEW/AWACS role. Smaller radar, lower altitude, shorter range, and shorter loiter time than a fixed-wing aircraft, but still a valuable resource for the carrier and its escorts. I think the decision to use a ramp instead of a catapult is one of the most significant design tradeoffs for this class.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 02:06 PM   #72
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 18,812
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
No, lots of Royal Navy ships have "recycled" names, but as they never overlap with earlier usage, there's no need to differentiate.
They did run into a problem when they commissioned HMS Unicorn in 1941, having forgotten they still had an 1824 frigate of the same name.
The frigate is still around, the carrier long gone.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 02:37 PM   #73
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,328
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
One limitation of the HMS Queen Elizabeth is that it does not have catapults for launching aircraft. This limits the takeoff weight of aircraft embarked on the carrier. As a result, its aircraft launch with less fuel, or less payload, or less of both, than the same aircraft being launched from a catapult. The ramp mitigates this effect to some degree, and has the advantage of being much cheaper.

Another result of this trade-off is that even with the ramp, the QE cannot launch larger planes, such as fixed-wing AWACS.

Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) is basically a flying air defense radar. By putting the radar into the air, the carrier group greatly extends its radar horizon, and is able to detect and respond to threats while they are still much farther away. The bigger the radar the better, and the higher it flies, the better. Long loiter times are also desirable for this mission. All of this calls the largest, heaviest aircraft you can practically launch from your carrier. On USN supercarriers, this aircraft is the E-2 Hawkeye. It's small compared to land-based AWACs planes, but it's already too heavy to launch from the QE's ramp. A catapult is needed to get it into the air from such a short runway.

As a result, the QE will most likely embark a helicopter in the AWACS role - probably the AW101. This would replace the Westland Sea King previously used in the AEW/AWACS role. Smaller radar, lower altitude, shorter range, and shorter loiter time than a fixed-wing aircraft, but still a valuable resource for the carrier and its escorts. I think the decision to use a ramp instead of a catapult is one of the most significant design tradeoffs for this class.
Agreed - I also would have thought that the larger F35-C would have been the F35 variant with the most potential for future upgrades due to its size.

However, I imagine it was informed by the experience of the Falklands war, where RAF STOVL aircraft were able to flly from RN carriers, whilst I guess there would have been problems with a CATOBAR carrier. I also seem to recall reading that it's dubious whether non STOVL aircraft would have been so able to sortie from carriers in the South Atlantic conditions.

Having the ability to fly RAF aircraft as well, means there are a lot more potential aircraft available in times of need, which for a small naval air arm could be important. Obviously this isn't an issue for the USMC, even less the USN.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 03:37 PM   #74
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,830
the Carriers aren't intended to fulfil the same role as US carriers though.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 03:39 PM   #75
Mikemcc
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,745
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I see that British ships that embark Army troops (as opposed to Royal Marines) have, in recent times at least, been Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, rather than RN warships; is that a general rule?

Dave
'Fraid not. HM Ships are likely to have attached Army personnel supporting the Booties (Royal Marines = Bootnecks if you are outside hitting distance), Gunners, Forward Air Controllers, Logistics, Engineers, etc). Those Army personnel that qualify to wear the green beret pass the All Arms Commando Course, which is a tough SOB of a course to pass and wear the Army Commando and 'Detol Dagger' badges on their uniform.

The RFA provide logistic support for ships at sea, but often carry military personal (either RM or Army Commando) to deter overly curious/greedy locals from taking too much interest and for counter drug ops. rFA ships may welll also support RN or RAF helicopters on similar (or darker ops). They also help render aid following natural disasters.
Mikemcc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 03:52 PM   #76
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,830
When I was in the Navy one of my old schoolfriends was in the Royal Engineers. He was attached to the Booties and was supposed to go to the Falklands with them but broke his leg before deployment and missed it.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2018, 04:27 AM   #77
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,074
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
<snip>
Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) is basically a flying air defense radar. By putting the radar into the air, the carrier group greatly extends its radar horizon, and is able to detect and respond to threats while they are still much farther away. The bigger the radar the better, and the higher it flies, the better. Long loiter times are also desirable for this mission. All of this calls the largest, heaviest aircraft you can practically launch from your carrier. <snip>
One option is that instead of using aircraft or helicopters to use airships. They can go very high and for very long times. They do have their own issues though. Like big ones have not been built for a long time.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2018, 08:16 AM   #78
RolandRat
Scholar
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 123
Forgot I even posted this thread Some great information, thanks all. One thing, I've seen a lot of disparaging remarks regarding the aircraft that are intended to be used. What are the issues with them and are they really that bad?
RolandRat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2018, 08:48 AM   #79
TX50
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,905
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
The last regimrnt to get the 'royal' added to their name was the Royal Tank Regiment in the 1920s
What about the Royal Regiment of Scotland?
TX50 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2018, 08:56 AM   #80
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,171
Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
Forgot I even posted this thread Some great information, thanks all. One thing, I've seen a lot of disparaging remarks regarding the aircraft that are intended to be used. What are the issues with them and are they really that bad?
The aircraft - F-35B - is a fine plane. The debate about it is too big to get into here, but in summary, the complaints are almost entirely overblown.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.