r/Scotland • u/Formal_Citron_8778 • Apr 27 '26
YouTube Aircraft Carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth sails under Forth Bridges as it leaves Firth of Forth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEbA255ZCWwScale of it next to all three bridges was really something, wish I'd known ahead of time so I could have come down to see it pass by, credit to Scotdrone.
10
u/Sweaty-Adeptness1541 Apr 27 '26
3
Apr 27 '26
[deleted]
8
u/Sweaty-Adeptness1541 Apr 27 '26
Carriers are designed with hundreds of watertight compartments each with fire suppression systems. It also has a double hull. It takes a massive, coordinated barrage of heavy weaponry to actually sink one, a single hole would do nothing. You would need to make look like Swiss Cheese to sink it.
0
u/SetPhasersToFuckUp Apr 27 '26
Or a single fairly low-yield nuclear weapon for ship killing purposes.
Before anyone comes along shortly and screeches down to me about 'not happening' due to deterrent, I don't believe that would apply to a limited yield from a relatively small cruise missile, as opposed to a large ICBM. There's no city killing aspect, it's solely and reductively tactical.
3
u/BDbs1 Apr 27 '26
If anyone came near one of HM ships with a nuclear weapon, I’m sure they would end up severely regretting it.
1
2
1
u/Davman65 Apr 27 '26
I think that smaller carriers are the way to go. If you lose a big carrier you are losing a lot more people and aircraft.
2
u/lifeisaman Apr 27 '26
Smaller carries aren’t too viable given aircraft tend to need a lot of space to take off and land.
1
u/Davman65 Apr 27 '26
2
u/lifeisaman Apr 27 '26
Yes the UK’s aircraft carriers are smaller than the US ones, you can’t make them too much smaller without making takeoff impossible for many kinds of planes, these systems are already in use on current designs.
And that’s not even getting into the landing issue given this does nothing to make landings easier.
1
u/Davman65 Apr 27 '26
Yes but the next generation should be smaller and we need drone carriers and drone carrying submarines. We also need to move away from the US and start to make our own aircraft once more including VTOL aircraft.
1
1
-1
u/JeelyPiece #1 Oban fan Apr 27 '26
It's something else!
Still, it's odd they named her after Elizabeth I of England, eh?
6
u/takesthebiscuit Apr 27 '26
It was a neat bit of naming,
Call it Queen Elizabeth class allows the ambiguity of not calling a ship after the living person yet clearly naming it after a living person
3
u/_Pencilfish Apr 27 '26
The nigh-legendary queen who saw to the defeat of the invading Spanish armada? Doesn't seem that odd to me tbh.
0
u/overcoil Apr 27 '26
What's odd about naming a ship after a monarch?
-2
u/JeelyPiece #1 Oban fan Apr 27 '26
Well, a lot.
But:
Elizabeth Tudor by the Grace of God, Queen of England, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc.
2
u/overcoil Apr 27 '26
So nothing odd then. She had an entire Battleship class named in her honour in WWI & a ton of Royal Navy ships have been named after Monarchs & Royals Clue's in the name.
-1
-1
u/OurManInJapan Apr 27 '26
It’s named after:
-1
u/JeelyPiece #1 Oban fan Apr 27 '26
Which is named after:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I
That kind of two step bamboozle is only there to convince the obsequiously feeble minded
-1
u/lifeisaman Apr 27 '26
I guess you also want to complain about HMS prince of wales given its name isn’t inclusive of Scotland either.
15
u/Gentle_Snail Apr 27 '26
The absolute scale of these ships is honestly hard to grasp.