Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UK to get 2 new Aircraft Carriers

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...



Orders for two new Royal Navy aircraft carriers have been confirmed by Defence Secretary Des Browne.
He said the £3.8bn contract would lead to the construction of the largest vessels ever sailed by the Royal Navy.

The new 65,000-tonne carriers - HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - will enter service in 2014 and 2016.

Mr Browne said the work would support and create 10,000 jobs across the UK, including those at yards on the Clyde, Rosyth, Portsmouth and Barrow.



Good. The future was a bit shaky recently - but the order being placed today for both carriers - and i have suspicions that the french might be involved for there new carrier as well to bring down costs is damn fine news indeed.


with the provison of mag cats and the angled deck - IF the F35B is cancelled then a replacement (naval typhoon or rafale) could be used instead.

[edit on 25/7/07 by Harlequin]




posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
i dont see the point its not as if uk is going to get attacked unless they are planing to attack others, we shouldnt be getting these new aircraft carriers we dont need them we should just keep out of wars. end off



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by manzoor
i dont see the point its not as if uk is going to get attacked unless they are planing to attack others, we shouldnt be getting these new aircraft carriers we dont need them we should just keep out of wars. end off


Whose to say we won't get attacked some time in the future, or possibly need to go to the aid of an ally who is under attack.

Its better to have the carriers and not need them than to need them and not have them.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
www.naval-technology.com...
The link above gives some great detail on this new carrier.
Im glad too see the Royal Navy coming back to the notion of defending itself with its own assets rather than rely on the US's Carrier force.
Plus these new Carriers are quite a leap in Tech across the board.
The UK really could use 5 of these augmented with some command type smaller Carriers.
Good show Britian.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
This is just a slap in the face of many UK citizens..

We have the problem of flooding right now, right here at home, and yet the government wants two new death boats to protect us from a threat that doesn't exist..

How about using the money to protect the country from flooding? Its no secret that we need an upgrade to our water and sewer systems, and this current flood crisis has made it quite clear that we are not protected from such threats, a threat that is going to get blamed on climate change, yet here is an example of something we need to change/upgrade, but then all of a sudden its back on the terrorism threat!

How are two new death boats going to protect us any more than we are protected at the moment? No country is going to sail up to our shores and attack us in the near future.. so what do we need them for? Attacking another nation, again?..



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Not as simple as that Shrunk, as this money is allocated specifcally for the MOD so could not be spent on flood defences. Money is being spent on flood defences and huge amounts of more cash will now be sent that way after these floods.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
Not as simple as that Shrunk, as this money is allocated specifcally for the MOD so could not be spent on flood defences.


No, it is as simple as that. Money can be reallocated. The money does not have to goto a certain area like our military if thats what the people want, because ultimately the government is there to serve the people, and not the corporations/fat greedy liars who make money off defence spending contracts.

We, the tax payers, have a right to choose where our money is spent, and i for one want to see more money being spent on problems at home, than on high tech military contraptions that serve no purpose other than to ruin life.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Yes the government is there to serve the people, thats why we elect them to allocate where our money as taxpayer's go'. You really think it would make sense for 60 million people to decide where it go'? That's how are type of democracy works, we elect a government who then run;s the country until they are ousted. I for one think these 2 carriers will provide us with more oppertunity to go our own way and look after are interests, not just those of our 'allies'.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Im all for these purchases and the expansion of our military, and im a tax payer. Our military has been going down the toilet recently, its good to see it is getting some attention at last. As for the floods, do you expect the government to reimburse everyone for their damaged homes? Its very generous that 1bn is being given to improve the situation as it stands, but I think its unreasonable to ask the government to give out endless amounts of money to people that didnt have the sense to have their houses insured.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Hello,

I am new here (and from the UK). I think that we have been about 20 years over due getting these, and if we had one during the falklands it would have been over a lot quicker. Our old carriers where not up to the task to be honest.

Why should the UK have to rely on the US or any other country to defend us against any future threat? We dont know what may happen in the future and it is best to be prepared then wonder why we cant defend our selves if something does happen. I for one think we should have a bigger navy and air force than what we do now.

How many people are currently living on flood plains and complaing that the governement didnt protect them? More fool you is what I say. If you are going to live near a river then expect to get flooded especially as the planet is warming up. That is another topic though.

Well done the governement I say for finally ordering these and I hope we get enough new planes and the new type 45's to protect them.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
What threat? Where is this so called "threat"!!

We are living in the 21st century where nearly all nations are under the control of the elite few. No one is going to be attacking the UK any time soon, maybe besides Russia, and even then, two new boats won't make a shred of difference.

Really saddens me that people think we still need to protect ourselves from other human beings, that people think war is inherrent in human nature, when it is not. It's an illusion.


How many people are currently living on flood plains and complaing that the governement didnt protect them? More fool you is what I say. If you are going to live near a river then expect to get flooded especially as the planet is warming up.


Try telling that to the people who live in those areas.. like the whole of London for example!

Its not like everyone has the option of choosing somewhere completely out of harms way.. the public, the average house buyer, is not in control of where he/she would like to live. They have to fit around various things, the main one being PRICE.

You can't blaim this on the people who live in those areas. Everyone needs somewhere to live. You can't blaim the weather, because thats out of our control. The only person/s you can blaim are those in government, who are supposed to protect us from ALL threats, and clearly they have failed to do this;

"The Times has learnt that the Ministry of Defence was unwilling to supply lorries and drivers without being guaranteed payment for their services. As a result there appear to have been delays in securing the use of high-sided vehicles that could deliver sleeping bags and flood parcels to the stricken communities."

"The Times has also learnt that, despite the promise of an extra £200 million to the Environment Agency to update defences over the next three years, the Government is stalling over payment of the cash."

www.timesonline.co.uk...


Im sick and tired of people saying we need more war machines to protect us from a threat that DOESNT EVEN EXIST, when there is a very real threat coming in the form of climate change.. stop praising the government for spending money no things we don't even need, and start questioning WHY they are so pathetically inept at getting money out in the time of crisis AT HOME.

This scenario is no different to that of the Hurricane Katrina response by the US government. Absolutely no different.

"Yes, we are getting emergancy aid out"..

*1 Week later*

"Yes, we are still getting emerhancy aid out"..





posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Sorry but I dont agree with anything you just wrote.

I'm not saying there is anyone about now that will threaten us or most likely ever will but you cant be sure. You said your selve the governement is supposed to protect us and I would rather they built these 2 carriers for that reason. What if argentina decided to retake the falklands? The people on the falklands dont want to be part of argentina. We would have to send ships and you need aircraft carriers and with the retirement of the last 2 we have to build new ones.

And I am sorry but I dont want my tax's spent to help people that live on flood planes. I have just brought my 1st house (I am not well off) but took into account flooding when looking for a house. I think the answer to flooding is to give land back to the sea like in the thames gateway. Canvey island should be given back to the sea. But like i say this is not the forum to discuss this.

Aircraft carriers can be used for many things other than fighting wars. It also means we can deploy our forces faster for peace keeping or for giving out aid in war torn areas etc.

I will always support my country in decisions like this and I am happy for my tax money to pay for these.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Shrunk, you seem to be annoyed that we have a military at all? but have you ever thought about the advantages that building new carriers and our armed forces have?

1) In the short term it means 10,000 jobs for this country
2) The Military is not just a place to go and get killed, young people can go into it from all walks of life (and yes, you might not want to escape from your nice cushy lifestyle, but there are others out there who are worse off than you) and be offered the training, expertise and discipline they need to make something better of themselves.
3) If we had no military and no carriers, if a threat were to arise (expect the unexpected) would we simply go and cry to the americans about being invaded / attacked? Or would we all run through the fields with flowers in our hair, singing songs and getting shot in the head by the enemy? Ok, this ones unlikely, but its better to have some protection than none at all i.e. Falklands as has been said by djgavt.
4) When situations like the floods do arrive, who else would have the manpower and equipment readily available to help out? Although this one is a bit of a joke at the moment, as we are down to a minimum compliment as it is. No wonder why the military were aprehensive about getting involved, especially with the stringent budget they have to work with.


You cannot expect everyone to just lay down arms and live in a hippy'esque fantasy, the world is not like that. War is in human nature unfortunately, and so its best to be prepared for anything.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
shrunkensimon I do sympathise to anyone whose home is currently flooded. But you can't really base decisions about the defence of the UK on the fact some random clouds dumped rain on us for the last week and a half.

Perhaps if it rained heavily during the Summer of 1939 you'd have advocated the same thing ?

Guten Nacht.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
Good...


I thought carries were white elephants to you?



Originally posted by Harlequin
with the provison of mag cats and the angled deck - IF the F35B is cancelled then a replacement (naval typhoon or rafale) could be used instead.


That's interesting, mind if I ask where you read the magnetic catapult and angled deck information? The carrier will initially have a ski ramp and a conventional running the length of the deck...



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   
if you look at the picture in the link i provided you will see the angled deck quite clearly , also in the link provided by another user they state that after the life of the F35 conventional CATBAR aircraft will be used and the equipment will be available from the get go to use them - and if the french get on board as i beleive they will , the rafale is a CATBAR type (or maybe STOBAR).



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by Harlequin
Good...


I thought carries were white elephants to you?



Originally posted by Harlequin
with the provison of mag cats and the angled deck - IF the F35B is cancelled then a replacement (naval typhoon or rafale) could be used instead.


That's interesting, mind if I ask where you read the magnetic catapult and angled deck information? The carrier will initially have a ski ramp and a conventional running the length of the deck...

The Naval-Technology.com link I posted above goes into greater detail and hints at the magnetic cat as wellas the angled deck.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Interesting that the deck could possibly be refitted with a catapult to allow angled deck operations with a heavy fighter. However magnetic catapults are a long shot, I think, for a host of reasons. Also I can't see the UK initially doing such a refit when it's main operational fighter for the carriers will be the F-35B.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Well at least the sailers can store a lot of ipods on those things,imo we dont need them-as it has been mentioned there isnt a threat to us that warrants the use of these
Its just boys and their toys playing trump cards and getting boners with the thought of us having these carriers.Little things please little minds

IMO we would be better of spending this Militery money on other ways to fight the potential enemey.I am sure the top brass have got a big list of future weapons and armour they would like more funding on-perhaps stealth camo armour-sonic weapons-high orbit craft that can take off and reach a target anywhere on the planet within a short time frame to put special troops quickly there when needed most.The list must be endless

and what do we do?buy two bloody big lumps of metal that are good for putting armies near countries borders and become very big targets for potenial enemys who may not have sandals and ak47's but fast smart missiles and stealth subs

just seems so dated,yeahh we can and will use them but big deal.get those trump cards out lads



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
To those who disagree with the carriers, tell me how we could have dealt with a situation like the Falklands without HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes? It might not be the Falklands next time, since there are fourteen areas across the world (literally) that we have a duty to defend. Without aircraft carriers, this job would be either far more difficult than it otherwise would be or completely impossible.

Not to mention if we ever have to attack another country. Yes, I agree, right now this seems very unlikely - but no one can predict the future. Even a decade from now (when the new carriers are both finally in service) the world will be different. In 1985, could anyone have imagined that the USSR would have collapsed and Eastern Europe would have been free in less than a decade? In 1998, could anyone have predicted what happened on 9/11? No.

The world is rapidly changing and is highly unpredictable, and that's why we need to have the capability to react to any potential threat. Relying on other countries to protect us isn't an option - no one rushed to our aid with direct military help back in 1982, did they?

I hope that we never have to use them in combat, but I'd certainly feel much safer knowing that we had the means to retaliate should the worst happen.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join