Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UK to get 2 new Aircraft Carriers

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I'm glad to see the order has finally been confirmed.

For those in this thread that have criticised, it seems plainly obvious you know little about what a difference carriers can make.

As for the mention of the Falklands carriers having been "old", only Hermes was old. Invincible was brand, spanking new in 1982! They were up to the task, but what you seem to be overlooking is that during the Cold War, the RN's sole role was ASW in the GIUK gap. Not expeditionary.

Now we are facing up to Global responsibilities and the 2 new carriers will allow us to project power. Not only offensive, but in disaster relief and humanitarian as well. The bulk of British operations over the past 20 years have actually been humanitarian in nature. Bosnia, Kosovo, Africa (various), anti-drugs in the Caribbean, you get the pocture.

To call them death boats and to bitch about flooding, when in all honesty there is little the Government can do they haven't done already, is quite honestly pathetic.

People had warnings days before the floods came, so if they still left there furniture and belongings on the ground floor and haven't got insurance, then sorry, tough luck.




posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I pretty much feel the same way as Shrunk on this, its a differance in opinon and people are not going to agree with each other. Another few billion for the military industrial complex, more billions ploud in to war. Military isn't about defending these days, its about invading and country building for economic intrests of the ultra wealthy. People seem to think it's the "Goverments" money, it's not it's ours. Goverment isn't there to protect us, it's there to represent us. If the people want to help the flood victims out the money should be spent there. Im just sick and tired of silly money going into projects like this, it's offensive minded not defensive.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
The thing is, 10,000 NEW jobs are being created with this order. It's not like we just throwing away 3.5 Billion, this is a boost for the economy!

I don't suppose you know that 64% of ALL money spent in the UK is actual Government spending? Without the Government spending money, the economy would bottom out and we'll all be in the pits.

They already spend hundreds of millions a year on flood defences and are set to spend even more. From MY point of view, that's MY money being spent to protect people who want to live in pretty little villages on flood plains. Is that fair for the rest of us? In a selfish way, no, but in the grand scheme of things, one could argue it is money well spent and money that needs to be spent.

just because you have a clouded vision of what the military does these days, just because of Iraq, you seem to be forgetting that the military is heavily relied upon to do SO much good, both in country and out.

Exactly where would those poor saps in the flooded area's be without the Army, Navy and RAF? Without ANY water for starters, Walham would have flooded causing 350,000 people to go without power and may people would have died if it wasn't for the efforts of our guys and girls in uniform.

To whine about the "military industrial" complex, whilst also benefiting from it is very hypocritical.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
The thing is, 10,000 NEW jobs are being created with this order. It's not like we just throwing away 3.5 Billion, this is a boost for the economy!


Paid via Tax, how much are these oversized aircraft carrier's going to cost to run? we just spent billions on new nuculear subs.


I don't suppose you know that 64% of ALL money spent in the UK is actual Government spending? Without the Government spending money, the economy would bottom out and we'll all be in the pits.


Govement money comes from tax, people would be better off with less taxes and the economy would be better because people would have more money.


They already spend hundreds of millions a year on flood defences and are set to spend even more. From MY point of view, that's MY money being spent to protect people who want to live in pretty little villages on flood plains. Is that fair for the rest of us? In a selfish way, no, but in the grand scheme of things, one could argue it is money well spent and money that needs to be spent.


Oxford a pretty little village? 6 counties were flooded, the goverment is still wanting to build more houses in these area's due to the housing crisis we have at the moment. If we are building more and more houses in these area's more billions should be spent on flood defenses, the problem with flood defenses are it protects a certain area and makes another more vunerable.


just because you have a clouded vision of what the military does these days, just because of Iraq, you seem to be forgetting that the military is heavily relied upon to do SO much good, both in country and out.


We went to Afghanistan to find Al Qaeda and Osama, we ended up nation building so they can have a pretty nice oil pipeline they were so desperate to make. Iraq we went there because of "Weapons of mass destruction" they were not there and we continue to stay and nation build whilst creating more war in the area so we can spend more money being there.


Exactly where would those poor saps in the flooded area's be without the Army, Navy and RAF? Without ANY water for starters, Walham would have flooded causing 350,000 people to go without power and may people would have died if it wasn't for the efforts of our guys and girls in uniform.


Thats a damn twist of information there, never did i say we shouldn't have a army, navy & RAF but spending billions on two big ships just to sit their and look pretty is a different matter.


To whine about the "military industrial" complex, whilst also benefiting from it is very hypocritical.


Where am i benifiting from having two giant carriers? your trying to make out im against the Military im not, im against offensive minded military where billions are wasted.

[edit on 25-7-2007 by estar]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
double post delete

[edit on 25-7-2007 by estar]

[edit on 25-7-2007 by estar]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I think this is great news. See the vid on the link. The vid is apparently 2006 - so assume the design will change as the detailed design is resolved.

MOD website

The carrier is designed to be "reshaped" and as the ships career will be way passed 2055, we can only guess what will lift off from its deck in a few decades time. Like the Daring class destroyers it has a low crew compliment - reflecting high levels of automation.

Floods of the type in the UK in recent weeks are exceptional. No one can predict the weather or our future. The UK may not be "under threat", but our interests, allies and obligations may well be.

Cheers



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Shrunkensimon, perhaps we should spend more money on / or at least try to stop the illegals from entering the UK, that way we do not have to provide them housing, give them handouts all above and before we look after our own TAX PAYING citizens.

With the extra money saved we could build better sewers and drainage as you suggest, at the same time we could also be able to fill our hospitals with the medical staff and equipment they so sadly lack and pay them a decent wage too.

To be free to be able to choose what we do is down to the very fact that the Royal Navy has defended our country time and again along with the Army and RAF, helping preserve our right to do what we bl**dy well want to do.

We are an island nation and therefore that very fact demands we have a navy capable of defending our beautiful Green and Sceptered Isle.

If I had the decision to make, then the armed forces would have a 50% increase on their budget, no better defence than offence you know.

Wolfie_UK



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I wonder why the new carrier has two islands on the deck instead of one? Two seperate functions?



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
I wonder why the new carrier has two islands on the deck instead of one? Two seperate functions?


Damage control and survivability, redundancy, seperation of sensors, wind over deck, exhaust trunking and machinery fit below decks etc...

Take your pick

Regards



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi

Damage control and survivability, redundancy, seperation of sensors, wind over deck, exhaust trunking and machinery fit below decks etc...

Take your pick

Regards


I'm certain it can be done with just one island on the deck, like the American version, unless this is what the Brits usually prefer.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by estar


Where am i benifiting from having two giant carriers? your trying to make out im against the Military im not, im against offensive minded military where billions are wasted.

[edit on 25-7-2007 by estar]


look.

we need more carriers.

we should have about 9.

AND 200 FRIGATES...

we are an island...


we should INVADE Iran...thay are a real threat to the U.K...

THEY HATE US BECAUSE WE GAVE RUSDIE A KNIGHTHOOD...THEY HATE OUR DEMOCRATIC PRICIPLES AND OUR FREEDOM...

THEY ARE A MENACE...

THEY ARE DEVELOPING NUKES...ON MISSILES...

THOSE MISSILES COULD ATTACK ENGLAND...


WE NEED TO SEND CARRIERS as a show of force...

to impress them...


also we should have nukes on the carriers for a pre-emptive strike on tehran...

by being against our military you are in effect trEcherous to the u.k

the english race is one of the most important civilising forces in the world...

we must defend the english race...

AT ALL COSTS.

hip hip

hip hip hooray.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   


Paid via Tax, how much are these oversized aircraft carrier's going to cost to run? we just spent billions on new nuculear subs.


They're not oversized, they're rather small still. As for the nuclear subs, we need a deterrent. Or would you prefer we all sing koombaya and hope that someone else who is big and powerful doesn't take a fancy to us?



Govement money comes from tax, people would be better off with less taxes and the economy would be better because people would have more money.


How ironic. You want lower taxes but in the same breath ask for billions to be spent on flood defences? Can't have it both ways.

The money the Government spends is on huge projects, which no matter how low tax was, the Public would not either want or be able to afford. Government collects the money and does it for them.



Oxford a pretty little village? 6 counties were flooded, the goverment is still wanting to build more houses in these area's due to the housing crisis we have at the moment. If we are building more and more houses in these area's more billions should be spent on flood defenses, the problem with flood defenses are it protects a certain area and makes another more vunerable.


No need to preach mate, I live in one of those counties. And while I am at work tonight, the Thames looks like it is going to breach. I have taken precautions.

As you said, no matter how much is spent on defences, the water has to go somewhere. It's all about managing the risk. You cannot make it go away.



We went to Afghanistan to find Al Qaeda and Osama, we ended up nation building so they can have a pretty nice oil pipeline they were so desperate to make. Iraq we went there because of "Weapons of mass destruction" they were not there and we continue to stay and nation build whilst creating more war in the area so we can spend more money being there.


Indeed. Two folly's because Blair is a spineless lapdog. Don't let Blair degrade your opinion of the Armed Forces. They don't want to be there either, but the will of the Politicians takes precedent, unfortunately.



Thats a damn twist of information there, never did i say we shouldn't have a army, navy & RAF but spending billions on two big ships just to sit their and look pretty is a different matter.


As I have explained and you have willfully ignored, they are not just going to "sit there and look pretty". Don't be such a fool.



Where am i benifiting from having two giant carriers? your trying to make out im against the Military im not, im against offensive minded military where billions are wasted.


Carriers are also great command ships, great Humanitarian vessels as well as great warships. You quite obviously don't know the role carriers play in today's world.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Can someone put a stop to this, I do no think this is not the type of discussion that the Weaponry Forum if for...



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Okay okay okay, the RN can make a compromise. These aircraft carriers can be great for flood control. Just tip them over, boom- flood wall...just kidding.

However for all those sitting there like "
theyre just spending our money, we'll never need these. None of this is ever going to happen" Just look at history. As someone has said you guys are an island. It's not like someone with a really good navy couldnt invade you. History has a tendancy to repeat itself, so say someone did invade you. How do you expect to defend yourselves in the case of an emergency or suprise attack. IF someones plotting to attack you, generally youre not going to get a lot of warning. They won't be like okay guys were going to invade soon so get ready THEN you can build an aircraft carrier. It's just better to be ready. So I'm happy that the UK is doing something. They shouldn't have to rely on everyone else to defend them, especially with the territories that they're obligated to protect.




posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
As an American I don't mind my nation's military defending you guys, hell I'd be willing to do it myself as soon as I'm enlisted. But I'm glad that the Royal Navy is finally getting some long overdue carriers. The geopolitical landscape tends to turn ugly at the worst moments, so it's good to have a pair of aircraft carriers for when that happens.

Hopefully the RN won't need them, but war is rarely convenient.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Britain has been built on War and blood...We've been having wars and killing people for centuries........It's never going to change until we meet our match!!
The people like war...They like there big war machines...It makes them proud to be British...I'm English....I think it's pathetic how our government acts...Our army deserves everything it gets in Iraq and Afghanistan...The soldiers don't deserve it..There just doing there jobs...If our government really cared about foreign affairs...They would be in Darfur or a few other places not to mention..
The ships are for the next crusade against some poor country trying to stand on there own 2 feet.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I just read the outline of the specs for these carriers and was surprised to see that armor plating and hull reinforcement have already been dropped by MoD to save money.

Considering the new generation of Russian of anti-ship missiles that are being seeded out there and that the USN has admitted before congress that they have no defense against, and that can sink a Nimitz class carrier with a conventional warhead, is this really such a good idea? Especially considering they're roughly 2/3s the size of a Nimitz?

They are in the end warships; built for war, not for budgets or for humanitarian purposes. I have no problem with the justification, but worry they'll be even more vulnerable than need be, considering they're such high-value targets.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
For some time now the Navy has forgone any armour plating on almost all warships.

The theory being, it is better for a missile to pass through the ship than slam into it
..

Nah, seriously, they rely on not being seen or hit at all, rather than the old days of taking 80 odd 15-inch shells in one sitting.

Speed and stealth are the key words today, and you may ask how a carrier could be stealthy. They can mitigate the returns somewhat, but the aim of game is not to shot at all. Basically, if your in a position to have a couple of Sunburn's skimming your way, then your in the wrong position.

If your worried about the carriers armour, you should take a close look at some of the smaller ships. The hull is literally cm's thin.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
For some time now the Navy has forgone any armour plating on almost all warships. The theory being, it is better for a missile to pass through the ship than slam into it
..

Basically, if your in a position to have a couple of Sunburn's skimming your way, then your in the wrong position.

If your worried about the carriers armour, you should take a close look at some of the smaller ships. The hull is literally cm's thin.


So basically crossed fingers and hoping they don't sneak one within 600kms of you? Might as well go back to wood.

Seriously, we've seen no real naval engagements since WWII but offensive weaponry has advanced tremendously, to the point it's so asymetrical the navy just hopes it doesn't happen. Good deterrent in a way. Who wants to sail their fleet straight to the bottom of the sea?

So you counter your disadvantage by standing off and making sure you never go to war with anyone with a sub or a sunburn and a pt boat I guess. A real modern naval battle would be simply appalling.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   
It's all down to who can trick whom and who gets off the first shot, seeing as it can be so destructive.

My older bro told me a story of when he was on HMS Iron Duke doing exercise with the Yanks in the Caribbean during the late 90's. Basically, they were up against a USN Destroyer and a Sub.

They stayed quiet enough to avoid the sub and then lured the destroyer in with their Radar. They turned it off when they got to close, maneuvered, "killed" the destroyer then went on to finish off the sub. Probably alot of luck involved, but it did the trick!

The whole point of the carrier battle group is to protect the carrier. Their are screens of smaller ships, both ASW and AA, with subs on the prowl as well. It's all about positioning and deception.

The absolute last thing in the world you want to happen is two carrier battle groups being close enough to each other that there is a slugfest. Probably wouldn't ever happen, mind, but if it did, it would be very messy indeed.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join