The dialogue on retaking the Falklands touched on the issue of the new carriers. It is academic now but personally, I think they are white elephants. A post empire gesture by the attention seeking Tony Blair. When is the RN ever going to be involved in a serious military operation without American support? Many of us remember the Suez shambles. Far more likely that we will be supporting them. At a time when the RN is being run down to virtually nothing they really do seem to be taking up an inordinate amount of the naval budget while crewing them will not be simple. Not only in terms of sheer 'peoplepower' but also training those people given the gap between the end of the Invincibles and the advent of the new ships. It might be argued that they maintain naval shipbuilding skills around the country but we do not need to be building such huge units to do this. What do others think? Is there any compelling arguament for them? As I say, almost an irrelevant discussion now but..
drwhoman
they are more expensive to cancel than they are to build apparently - actually considering penalty clauses, advance payments , material streaming etc etc it is probably true
I believe the 'more expensive to cancel than build' issue is another legacy from our 'Dear Leader' of yesteryear, Gordon, who signed a contract to guarantee jobs and votes in Scotland.
From the outset these giant carriers seemed irrelevant to our true role. We are never again going to be a world force on our own, we cannot afford it, however, we have a humanitarian role to play when UK citizens are at risk or when a disaster occurs or if terrorists threaten to strike.
Nuclear submarines and 50,000 ton aircraft carriers are not much use then. Spend the money on modern frigates and the RFA. Incidentally have you noticed how much recent 'Naval' action actually is based on the supposedly civilian, non white ensign RFA ?
We owe a debt to the R.F.A. and our sympathy to the ever dwindling R.N.
Ian
From the outset these giant carriers seemed irrelevant to our true role. We are never again going to be a world force on our own, we cannot afford it, however, we have a humanitarian role to play when UK citizens are at risk or when a disaster occurs or if terrorists threaten to strike.
Nuclear submarines and 50,000 ton aircraft carriers are not much use then. Spend the money on modern frigates and the RFA. Incidentally have you noticed how much recent 'Naval' action actually is based on the supposedly civilian, non white ensign RFA ?
We owe a debt to the R.F.A. and our sympathy to the ever dwindling R.N.
Ian
Pretty much in agreement there - we really do have to be realistic about our position in the world, I have no objection to small but very well equiped armed forces. The latest kit is wildly superior to the previous generation plus the increasing use of unmanned equipment means that with the right focus we could have a very powerful force for size.
shhhh ! all true but the piecing together of this big jigsaw is keeping rosyth going at the moment.lol.
If the new kit wasn't superior to the old kit, then I would be asking serious questions which should have serious consequences. It always makes me smirk when people talk about "state of the art" nothing should be any less.
Like it or not 'defence' is not a vote winner outside afew constituencies, however important it is. And building decent warships, kitting Marines and soldiers with 'decent' kit won't happen until it HAS to. In the meantime, pay the train drivers 25% more during the Olympics because.....well I'm bugg***d if I know why. Heavier trains?
I just pray that Devonport and Portsmouth, and possibly Scapa Flow, become voting powerhouses in the next General Election.
Like it or not 'defence' is not a vote winner outside afew constituencies, however important it is. And building decent warships, kitting Marines and soldiers with 'decent' kit won't happen until it HAS to. In the meantime, pay the train drivers 25% more during the Olympics because.....well I'm bugg***d if I know why. Heavier trains?
I just pray that Devonport and Portsmouth, and possibly Scapa Flow, become voting powerhouses in the next General Election.
Im in favour of the aircraft carriers as part of the fleet so we maintain an adaptable presence on the worlds oceans. Aircraft carriers are a very versatile wepons platform ( just look at Lybia recently flying from the UK and other sovereign countries airbase's after getting permision) to carry out an attack. The Goverment eventully conceded defeat and sent down HMS Ocean equiped with Apache attack helicopters flying around the clock. Theres been alot of talk recently about are role in Europe as a partner. We currently trade with Europe 51%. This means that we must trade with the rest of the world 49%. We must protect our trade with the rest of the free world and the navy must have the means to do so. Look at the other industrialised countrys of the world who have over see's intrests and you will find they all have aircraft carrier programs. United states, Russia, China, India, France ,Italy ,Spain ,Brazil and Japan. Other countries have expresed and intrest in aircraft carrier constrution such as Pakistan. This is only an opinion but we need our eye on world events and the worlds developing navys.
If we are to have these aircraft carriers, as big and costly as they are, they will only be as good as the aircraft they carry. So they will need to have the very best weapons systems and aircraft on them. At the end of the day the carriers are just that, it's the aircraft, and the ability of those aircraft that really counts.
They must be able to out fight, or even out run any potential enemy. The carriers will have to be protected in their turn by the very best of destroyers, frigates etc with the very best weapons systems of their own.
I think that they can only be justified if we send them to fight other peoples wars, in the name of democracy and liberty of course.
Everything has to pay its way these days, and I suppose the carriers will be expected to as well.
They must be able to out fight, or even out run any potential enemy. The carriers will have to be protected in their turn by the very best of destroyers, frigates etc with the very best weapons systems of their own.
I think that they can only be justified if we send them to fight other peoples wars, in the name of democracy and liberty of course.
Everything has to pay its way these days, and I suppose the carriers will be expected to as well.
The new carriers are too small and with gas turbine - electric propulsion they will have no range or ability to remain at sea. The small size is a hangover from the assumption that they would fly the VSTOL version of the F-35 but they are now going to get the CATOBAR version so a catapault needs to be fitted.
They should have been twice the size and nuclear.
Yes I do think that carriers are a good way to look after our interests - and evidently other nations think so too. They would be no use in a nuclear war (that's what the SSBNs are for) but they are very good for everything from disaster relief to Libya-type actions.
Unfortunately we are building the wrong ones.
They should have been twice the size and nuclear.
Yes I do think that carriers are a good way to look after our interests - and evidently other nations think so too. They would be no use in a nuclear war (that's what the SSBNs are for) but they are very good for everything from disaster relief to Libya-type actions.
Unfortunately we are building the wrong ones.
I have to admit that I haven't paid much attentuion to the new British aircraft carriers but am I correct in recalling talk about building them in France and operating them as a joint venture with said same capitulation specialists.
Wonder if the Yanks would sell the RN some F-14 Tomcats, and activate a squadron of Buccaneers, and SHars. May be old, but they'll be potent and reliable.
HMS Ocean is a helicopter carrier. India is looking at buying the first carrier. The USA is inventing magnetic catapaults. Thats why we havn't fitted any catapaults to our new carriers. The Goverment is waiting to see if these new catapaults are any good. But I have to say this has been one of the most il-thought out projects by the Goverment. One miniute its V-Tol. Then its Sea-toll. Then its Harriers will be flying off them to begin with. But now its F-35s. Im glad we are getting these new carriers and there sea toll.
Britain is an island and will always require ships to maintain it's maritime lifelines. During peacetime there always seem to be plenty of experts around who declare that Britain no longer needs aircraft carriers. As I recall, in 1982, before that Falklands business came up, there were plenty of such experts around, and look how correct they turned out to be! The fact is that, when push comes to shove, there never seem to be enough carriers. You don't maintain ships of that sort for the purpose of dealing with current, expected military contingencies, but for the purpose of dealing with future, unexpected military contingencies. If you wait until you actually need such ships before you begin to build them, then it will be too late.
These carriers are massive! To protect them will require a large resource so it seems our entire navy will be constrained to a 1/2 square mile area. The new VTOL aircraft are unproven and problematic and to send them anywhere in the world (as they are intended) will also sap up our entire available resources, and just where will that be?
And now they are actually French designed perhaps they should be called Nicole and Papa.
And now they are actually French designed perhaps they should be called Nicole and Papa.
This was the thinking behind the defence review in 1981 when the then defence minister Nott put a carrier(s?), along with the amphibious landing ships, up for sale. Had the Falklands occured a year later, we wouldn't have had these 'capital' ships and thus an amphibious landing may not have been possible. [though probably a 1983 Operation Sutton would have been a helicopter affair]
A lone amphibious operation without allies was ruled out as unlikely.
This is probably why the naval brass was so gung ho for the operation and had the fleet set sail at first opportunity before any politicians could change their minds.
Read this and the signals that prompted the Argentinians to invade become evident.
wiki - 1981 Defence White Paper
A fleet without a carrier is just a big version of the Coast Guard, a carrier adds so much capability in strategic terms. And once a nation decides it needs a carrier, it must face the fact that it will need maintenance over the years... maybe periods of dry docking lasting 12-18 months. Aware that you are potentially vulnerable during these periods, a 2nd carrier becomes a must.
Are the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers a white elephant? It will depend on how they are used and we will never be able to measure their deterence value.
In a war or even high tension period, possibly the most important defensive requirement for these new carriers may not be the all singing/all dancing frigate/destroyers with up to date missile defence systems.
To my mind (and possibly any future aggressor), a high value target such as these large future carriers WILL be 'submarine magnets', and that is where the failings in area defence will arise.
I understand that UK submarines (if there are any remaining) would probably be deployed, but most 'likely' future adversaries all seem to be building or acquiring, or already have substantial submarine forces which could and/or would overwhelm anything in place to protect the carrier/s.
Just a thought!
Donald
To my mind (and possibly any future aggressor), a high value target such as these large future carriers WILL be 'submarine magnets', and that is where the failings in area defence will arise.
I understand that UK submarines (if there are any remaining) would probably be deployed, but most 'likely' future adversaries all seem to be building or acquiring, or already have substantial submarine forces which could and/or would overwhelm anything in place to protect the carrier/s.
Just a thought!
Donald
Hence why we need smaller but more numerous platforms. We are putting too many eggs in one basket. I won't argue that carriers are vital but not at this expence and sacrifice.
Its certainly going to be interesting to see what will eventually fly off the carriers and I can see pros and cons for the large vs small ships arguments. With a smaller platform do you limit the number of aircraft types that are availiable for use? The Harriers are a great loss and had a few more years left at least, but if they had survived, when they eventually were disposed of sometime in the future, what would be around to fly off a smaller carrier?
I found this site elsewhere on ships Nostalgia, a spherical panorama of the construction of the Queen Elizabeth well under way at Portsmouth. Worth a look.
Phill
http://www.360cities.net/image/hms-queen-elizabeth-construction-portsmouth-1#294.24,0.21,99.6
Phill
http://www.360cities.net/image/hms-queen-elizabeth-construction-portsmouth-1#294.24,0.21,99.6
Looks like it's all going wrong, the arrestor hook version of the F-35C which this Government decided to go for rather than the VTOL has now got serious design problem's with the positioning of the hook which will delay it's entry into service and we may have to go back to the VTOL version as the best option.
Hi Chadburn,
I think that the various permutations of aircraft for either carrier use or as land based assets is more flexible than is generally disseminated by the media. It seems to be that military tacticians base threat levels on the weapons fitted to the various delivery platforms. Yes, the carrier business is a right cock-up, however with our own meagre supply of up to date ordinance and what we can 'borrow' off the U.S. we should be ok until the carrier/s are completed and fitted out.
Fingers crossed chaps. Pax Britannica
LouisB
I think that the various permutations of aircraft for either carrier use or as land based assets is more flexible than is generally disseminated by the media. It seems to be that military tacticians base threat levels on the weapons fitted to the various delivery platforms. Yes, the carrier business is a right cock-up, however with our own meagre supply of up to date ordinance and what we can 'borrow' off the U.S. we should be ok until the carrier/s are completed and fitted out.
Fingers crossed chaps. Pax Britannica
LouisB
Apparently the 'cats and traps' plan has become an absolute shambles with costs soaring out of control to asn estimated 2 billion, and the programme delayed by a further 7 years until 2027.
An embarrassing 'U' turn is on the cards.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/18/u-turn-aircraft-carriers-costs?newsfeed=true
Pat
An embarrassing 'U' turn is on the cards.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/18/u-turn-aircraft-carriers-costs?newsfeed=true
Pat
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
