It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Giant carrier deals to be signed

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 04:03 AM
Giant Carrier Deals to be signed

The Ministry of Defence is expected to sign contracts for the creation of the UK's biggest ever aircraft carriers.

The 65,000-ton ships, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, will cost a total of £4bn

These two are a marked upgrade from the Invincible Class "through deck cruisers", but I have to question the wisdom of spending so much when the rest of the UK armed services seem to be suffering funding wise, and the Navy probably won't have enough warships/subs to provide two CBG's of an "accepted" make up.

I predict that only one will get built, and the other will be shelved.

[edit on 3/0708/08 by neformore]

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 04:55 AM

What a complete waste of money in my opinion. We (the people of UK) are taxed more and more every day, and for what? So the government can continue to waste money on projects like these and pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They should look closer to home and sort out the bloody mess the country is sliding deeper into.

Rant over.

ps I’m not an anti-war protester far from it, BUT it is as I have said POINTLESS.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:35 AM
reply to post by smartie

I'd rather spend it on colossal great ships that promote the image of GB as a powerful world entity than giving the money to jobless, useless thugs who promote the decline of our country with their YouTube videos of stabbings.

I'm glad to pay my £180 tax per week towards this venture, seeing as most of the money will filter back into the economy.

[edit on 3/7/2008 by spitefulgod]

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:14 AM
reply to post by smartie

I got 3.2 billion.
Thats better than 4 billion.
The UK NEEDS these carriers and more ships.
The navy has been gutted lately.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 11:17 AM
Why not just re-condition the kitty hawk? It still would be a more capable carrier then these, supporting more aircraft.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 11:25 AM
yes this is the fleecing of great britain. these ships run on fossile fuels instead of nuclear power and have to be resupplied every 7 days
so instead of north sea oil going to drive your lorries instead its going to be hauling these 65000 tonne boats around the globe.

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 09:12 PM
reply to post by greysave

And nuclear powered carriers would of been the way to go

i rekon the kittyhawk would be stuffed.

Kitty Hawk was laid down by the New York Shipbuilding Corporation, Camden, New Jersey, 27 December 1956; and launched 21 May 1960, sponsored by Mr. Neil H. McElroy; and commissioned 21 April 1961 at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Captain William F. Bringle in command.


posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:47 AM
So guys, now the UK is slipping into recession, do you still agree with wasting £3 - 4 billion on these carriers.

Q. Where is the money coming from?

A. A population that cannot afford to give it.

So I say again, what a complete waste of money.

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:43 AM

Originally posted by greysave
Why not just re-condition the kitty hawk? It still would be a more capable carrier then these, supporting more aircraft.

I think that is an incorrect assessment in most spheres of capability except maybe vintage

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:49 AM
reply to post by Daedalus3

You can bet that, if the USN is getting rid of an aircraft carrier, their holy of holies in ships, it's no longer a top-of-the-heap ship. Maintenance costs alone on the Kitty Hawk would be outrageous. Bigger ship + older systems + more maintenance = huge personnel requirements and manning is far more expensive over the life of a capital ship than construction is.

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 10:25 AM
#ty hawk is in a mess - nearly as much as the indian carrier is.

*cough* invincible is for sale*cough*

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Harlequin
#ty hawk is in a mess - nearly as much as the indian carrier is.

*cough* invincible is for sale*cough*

Unfortunately the invincible won't be able to play host for the shiny new
MiG-29Ks that now are in danger of lying around carrier-less for a year or two.
So its going to have to be the Gorshkov and/or the indigenous carrier which also IMHO will not be seaworthy till the fag end of the next decade and may not be operational till 2020 (though they boast of dates circa 2015)

The Invincible can be bought by the Thai or Chilean Navies.
How's about selling it to the Argies?

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 12:25 PM
meh - brazil might just buy rafale for Focht before that happens

when is the indian navy phasing out the harrier?

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 10:46 AM
reply to post by Harlequin

Not sure but not for sometime I would imagine. They would prefer to do so when the naval LCA comes into operation in confident numbers, but I doubt that could happen before 2015. So I would speculate that the harriers would remain till then and a few years more at least.

Also with the limited upgrades that the Se Harriers were to be undergoing, it seems that any date pre-2020 doesn't seem likely.


Seems the upgrades include the ELTA 2032 fire control radar and successively the ability to fire the Derby.

Seems that the possibility of the days of the technological superiority exhibited by the Harrier (read Falklands) may not be over yet.
When are the USMC Harriers slated to be withdrawn from service?

[edit on 12-7-2008 by Daedalus3]

new topics

top topics


log in