Two brand new supercarriers ordered by Royal Navy

Page 1 of 1 [ 16 posts ] 

Anubis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 136
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England

25 Jul 2007, 9:38 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/gla ... 914788.stm

This is just great news, Britain will have two full sized aircraft carriers, unlike the light cruiser-carriers we already have, which don't really compare.

Quote:
Making the announcement, Mr Browne said the carriers would "provide our front-line forces with the modern, world class capabilities they will need over the coming decades".


Along with the Type 45 Daring Class Escort Destroyers, this will upgrade the capabilities of the Navy greatly, going away from Thatcher's policies of severely reducing the military budget.

Also, this will ensure that Portsmouth's navy base remains, and it's good for everyone really, apart from terrorists and other enemies. :twisted:

Sue me if you don't care.

Image


_________________
Lalalalai.... I'll cut you up!


jimservo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,964
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs

25 Jul 2007, 10:03 am

I agree. A maritime nation like the UK really needs a better navy then it currently has.



Anubis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 136
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England

25 Jul 2007, 10:10 am

jimservo wrote:
I agree. A maritime nation like the UK really needs a better navy then it currently has.


Absolutely. On top of that, the Royal Navy needs more destroyers, possibly a third carrier, and four cruisers.


_________________
Lalalalai.... I'll cut you up!


camembert
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 55

25 Jul 2007, 12:19 pm

Marvelous news. I now have an excuse to get real high. :P



Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

25 Jul 2007, 12:30 pm

Anubis wrote:
Britain will have two full sized aircraft carriers, .... it's good for everyone really, apart from terrorists and other enemies.


I don't understand. How would aircraft carriers make a difference to a terrorist? If you know who and where the terrorists are, the police and the criminal justice system are the best way to deal with the problem. If you don't know who and where the terrorists are, I don't see how an aircraft carrier would help.

Gromit



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

25 Jul 2007, 12:46 pm

http://www.time4.com/time4/microsites/p ... /f35b.html

Thats what they intend to fly off them.

I'm torn on this. Yes, our navy should be kickass. It's part of our history, and a key part of our defense as an island. However.. for one it sounds like an excuse to get involved in even more foreign wars than we already are. For two.. its another unit reliant on american tech and supply.

Is our industry really in such a state that we cant build planes of our own that are any good? We managed it for a long time, but suddenly every new toy we get seems to be american. Such reliance on a foreign power does not seem healthy.

Not sure about the names either. We used to have ships with strong, powerful names. Iron Duke, Dreadnought, Invincible, and such. All the recent things have been about as non-commital and inoffensive as possible. HMS Ocean? Might as well call it HMS Sorry-Sorry-Excuse-Me-Dreadfully-Sorry-Be-Out-Of-Your-Way-In-A-Moment.

OK, so Queen Elizabeth is passable, being a strong personage in either iteration, but Prince of Wales?? Though doesnt that clash some with the passenger liners?

Finally.. I trust they are intending to build the requisite support fleet that a big carrier needs if it doesn't want to get sunk?

Of course I have no faith in our government, and entirely expect to see fleet cuts soon after, as some armchair desk-jockey decides we dont need anything BUT supercarriers. After all, these are the people who decided that we dont need desert camo to fight in the desert, or desert boots, or a gun that works in sand.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


dumbgenius
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 835

25 Jul 2007, 2:58 pm

Looks expensive for what it does. A long range missile defense system would be a lot cheaper. It also doesn't have a nuclear power plant.



Anubis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 136
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England

25 Jul 2007, 4:26 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Royal_Navy_ships

Yes, they're expensive, but very useful.

The F-35 fighter is very advanced, there's nothing wrong with buying it from the US either.

Quote:
The vessels are expected to be capable of carrying 48 fixed wing and rotary aircraft. The ASaC component is known as Maritime Airborne Surveillance & Control (MASC), and current expectations are that this will be an EH101 airframe with the systems from the current generation of Sea King ASaC, although versions of the V-22 Osprey are also being considered.

The crew will be about 600, only 15 more than Invincible, indicating the high level of automation being integrated into the ships' systems. Accommodation for 1,400 will be available.


I don't know why it doesn't have a nuclear power plant, but yet again, neither do most Royal Navy ships, apart from the submarines.

A long range missile defence system can't do the job of an aircraft carrier, such ships are force projection capital ships, and aircraft can be deployed with several missiles, to attack land, sea, and air targets, and then refuel to continuously attack.

It should be noted that the Type 45 destroyers are primarily anti-air destroyers, the largest ever built for the Royal Navy.

Quote:
"The emphasis is now on increased offensive air power, and an ability to operate the largest possible range of aircraft in the widest possible range of roles. When the current carrier force reaches the end of its planned life, we plan to replace it with two larger vessels. Work will now begin to refine our requirements but present thinking suggests that they might be of the order of 30,000–40,000 tonnes and capable of deploying up to 50 aircraft, including helicopters."


_________________
Lalalalai.... I'll cut you up!


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

25 Jul 2007, 6:23 pm

Anubis wrote:
The F-35 fighter is very advanced, there's nothing wrong with buying it from the US either.

The crew will be about 600, only 15 more than Invincible, indicating the high level of automation being integrated into the ships' systems. Accommodation for 1,400 will be available.


I don't doubt that the plane is all spangly and new and does fun things. Its advanced nature isn't in dispute. The apache is a fun (but ugly) toy as well. I just debate the common sense of becoming overly reliant on a foreign state for defence. We have not always been on best terms with the states, and there is no reason to believe that we couldn't fall out again. After all, the US has already had us under economic blockade before. Imagine how unfortunate such a situation might become if our air-arm and biggest naval assets relied on THEIR supply. Challenger 2 might be wholly ours, and damn good it is too, but its f*ck all use in the atlantic.

We have our own nuclear deterrent for a similar reason. It prevents us being too reliant on american intervention and support, and well.. we've all seen what can happen when a nation lacks its own deterrent.

As for the high level of automation.. I've been wary of highly computerised systems ever since that US navy ship got BSOD and died. Embarassing enough, but also potentially fatal. Also, given the nature of naval warfare, small crews on big ships dont always work out so well.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


jimservo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,964
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs

27 Jul 2007, 12:34 am

Gromit wrote:
I don't understand. How would aircraft carriers make a difference to a terrorist? If you know who and where the terrorists are, the police and the criminal justice system are the best way to deal with the problem. If you don't know who and where the terrorists are, I don't see how an aircraft carrier would help.


First off, an aircraft carrier isn't designed so much to fight individual terrorists as such. The aircraft carrier, and it's battle group represent enormous military power and hence any nation that possesses them can use that power if necessary across the whole of the world's oceans. If, for example, Argentina were attempt to seize the Falkland Islands once again or Spain to seize Gilbraltor and Britain lacked a carrier task force, then it's response would be extremely limited unless it were able to get the support of the United States, France, or (possibly in the future) Japan. With a carrier task force, as was seen in the Falkland's War of 1982, a more effective response to military aggression is possible. Indeed, had the junta that ruled Argentina been able to wait a little longer, it possible that the sole carrier of the time, the HMS Illustrious might have fallen victim to cuts from a future Labour government. However, the junta underestimated the UK's resolve. (CORRECTION, with FULLER EXPLANATION BELOW)

A country with one or more aircraft carrier task force has the ability to project it's military striking power far outward. While an aircraft carrier itself is not designed to fight individual terrorism having aircraft aircraft carrier does reduce the chances of terrorism since it gives you power to strike at international sources of terrorist activities. In Pervez Musharraff's memoirs he recalls a conversation with then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in the tense days after 9/11 in which the Secretary threatened to bomb Pakistan into the "stone age" unless he gave into certain demands. This sort of demand is made more realistic because the United States maintains eleven Aircraft Carrier battle groups.

Wikipedia has an entry (of course) for the QEII class of ship.

Other upcoming Aircraft Carrier classes:
USS Gerald R. Ford class
unnamed French aircraft carrier class
Vikrant class carrier

The Chinese also apparently announced they are building an aircraft carrier, but they aren't big on giving out information.

CORRECTION:

Quote:
The Royal Navy Carrier Fleet Before the War

When the Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands in early April 1982 the Navy could only immediately supply two carriers- Invincible and Hermes. The only other carriers on the scene was Illustrious, then under construction at Swan Hunter, and Bulwark laid up in Portsmouth Dockyard. The 1960s and 70s had seen the run down of Britain's carrier fleet, most notably with the cancellation of the CVA fleet carrier replacement programme. In its place the Navy ordered a class of anti-submarine helicopter cruisers that over time developed into the Invincible Class small fleet carriers. Under the 1981 defence review the newly commissioned Invincible was to have been sold to the Australians where she would serve as the R.A.N's flagship (named H.M.A.S Australia) replacing the long serving Melbourne (ex- H.M.S Majestic). Indeed the future was bleak for the Invincible Class as a whole- even if they weren't sold there was the possibility of mothballing at least one of them. The sale of Invincible was part of a number of reductions (including that of the Ice Patrol ship Endurance) that sent the wrong messages to Argentina regarding Britain's willingness and ability to defend the Falkland Islands. Meanwhile after some years in reserve at Chatham the aircraft maintenance ship (and former aircraft carrier) Triumph had been sold for breaking up in Spain in 1981. Together with the conversion of Albion, Bulwark and Hermes into commando carriers during the 1960's and the cancellation of the CVA programme meant that the Ark Royal and Eagle would be Britain's last true aircraft carriers. Eagle was decommissioned at Portsmouth on 26th January 1972 and later that year she was towed to Devonport where she remained until the 13th October 1978 when she left for breaking up in Cairnryan. Ark Royal served slightly longer arriving at Devonport for the final time on 4th December 1978. She remained there until the 22nd September 1980 when, despite public dismay and some calls to preserve her, she began her tow to Cairnryan for breaking up and by the time of the Falklands war she was nearing the end of the scrapping process. However in a stroke of luck the commando carrier Hermes had undergone a second conversion, this time to a ski-ramp carrier during a £30,000,000 refit in 1981. She was now capable of operating the new Sea Harrier aircraft that would prove so vital in outcome of the war.


Aircraft Carriers and the Falklands Conflict



Last edited by jimservo on 27 Jul 2007, 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

27 Jul 2007, 12:52 am

Question: What use does Britain have for a larger navy?



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

27 Jul 2007, 7:24 am

Cyanide wrote:
Question: What use does Britain have for a larger navy?


Not getting our asses handed to us if things kick off? Defending and securing our vital shipping? Sorting out those who would threaten our overseas interests? (like the falklands) Reducing our reliance on land-based aircraft? Right now the threat to our nation is limited to mostly middle eastern nations who lack the legs to bring conventional war to our doorstep. However, that has not always been the case, and likewise, will probably not always be the case in the future. It would be nice to have a couple of big sticks lying around, just in case. That, and its not like every war that occurs is going to involve the americans. Didn't see a huge american presence in the falklands lol. It would be nice to be able to prosecute our own wars occasionally without turning to Uncle Sam for backup.

Why does anyone need a navy? Might as well ask why america needs 11 carrier battlegroups.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


TheMachine1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.

27 Jul 2007, 8:01 am

I heard that the first thing the president(any administration) ask when
he is told of conflict in the world. "Where are the carriers?".

Cyanide wrote:
Question: What use does Britain have for a larger navy?


Its why Germany could never take out the UK in WWII. When your an island you need a strong navy.



Laney
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 34
Location: behind you

27 Jul 2007, 10:30 am

It's good to know that my taxes are being well-spent on aircraft carriers.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

27 Jul 2007, 6:24 pm

Laney wrote:
It's good to know that my taxes are being well-spent on aircraft carriers.


Its just unfortunate that our glorious leaders fail to spend any money on the poor bloody ground-pounders and their kit. I'm sure they'll all be very impressed...


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Wisguy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 585
Location: Appleton, WI USA

01 Aug 2007, 2:47 am

I've been hearing of some distressing things regarding the Royal Navy in recent years and this, to me, is a refreshing change of course, indeed.

Even more interesting, one of the historical main charges of the USA Navy has been to keep international shipping lanes open and safe and as such has recently been actively fighting high-seas piracy - several pirate ships have been boarded and seized by the USA Navy over the past few years, most in the Indian Ocean off of the coast of Somalia.

In a perfect world there would be no need for a military service. Unfortunately, the world is run by humans and with those pesky creatures comes inevitable conflicts. Thus we must be willing and able to respond to them. IMHO, this is a critical investment by the UK, just like with our 11 aircraft carrier battlegroups and all of the rest of our military. It is money well spent!

Mike