Originally posted by Ulala
It's quite unbelievable that one project can see its costs rise by 25% in only a year.

£5 billion ? That's over USD$8 billion. Can't help thinking the RN would be better served by 3 Wasp class ships with any money left over being used to increase the numbers of Type 45's. That'd make for a better balanced fleet too.

Part of the battle is the carriers are supposed to be safeguarding the jobs of the shakey shipbuilding industry in the UK.
Glasgow, Portsmouth and to a lesser extent the NW region (Barrow-in-furness?) where dancing in the streets that there would be jobs galore upon such a project being announced, years of work and so on.

I wonder how much chance these new carriers have got at being sunk via a diesal attack sub?

Awful lot of money to be blown, not to mention loss of life.

I know the chances are slim considering we are not at war with anyone, but how good are the british defences against submarines?

[edit on 7/1/2009 by Nelly-UK]

Originally posted by Nelly-UK
I wonder how much chance these new carriers have got at being sunk via a diesal attack sub?

Awful lot of money to be blown, not to mention loss of life.

I know the chances are slim considering we are not at war with anyone, but how good are the british defences against submarines?

[edit on 7/1/2009 by Nelly-UK]

So-so I'd estimate, but don't forget a carrier would not be sailing without it's own escort of destroyers, heli's and attack submarines in tow.

The last time the RN rolled out properly was the Falklands War and HMS conquerer was on escort duty then, sinking the Belgrano which was, AFAIK preparing to launch an attack on the carrier fleet (albeit it was just outside the exclusion zone).

Originally posted by Nelly-UK
I wonder how much chance these new carriers have got at being sunk via a diesal attack sub?

Awful lot of money to be blown, not to mention loss of life.

I know the chances are slim considering we are not at war with anyone, but how good are the british defences against submarines?

The Royal Navy has advanced anti submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities. Duing the Cold War the RN was tasked with ASW duties and had the Cold War gone "hot" then their main role would have been sinking Soviet subs.

I believe the Type 23 frigates are highly capable ASW ships.

Everyone talks about "cold war weapons"... The 1998 Strategic Defence Review in the UK recognised that the RN had to change to conform to a post Cold War world. The result was the re-introduction of large carriers to the fleet in order to "project power" with the need for the RN to change from a two dimensional "versus the Soviets" navy to something more capable of contending with a range of threats and circumstances.

I for one think that the UK require this capability. If you remove the fleet, then you remove the ability to respond to events which will have a detrimental effect on the UK. You also remove the ability to assist allies and friends. The Falklands was unexpected and if it was not for the RN I wonder what state Sierra Leone would be in. The RN has played an active role in Iraq One and Two and in Afghanistan and a host of other (often unreported) activities.

Plus, like it or not the UK is a major international power both economically, socially and culturally. The billions given to the banks shows the UK can afford to fund a worthwhile Royal Navy.

Reports from "left leaning think tanks" should be taken in the context they are written and the initial questions posed.

A replacement for Trident is a different matter. The arguements with that one go further than "deterrent". It is all politics. To some extent, the twnty billion over 30 years is the price the UK will pay for a seat at the top table of the UN.

Regards

Originally posted by Laurauk
Even if we get one built, if we can afford the other one, can we not refit maybe 2 off the Invincicble carriers, or will they be defunct .

I believe they are not big enough to carry the F35 or allow it to take off?

Actually I can see after the next general election, If the Tories are elected into office, they might cancel the building off the Prince Of wales.

Nu Labour will likely cancel as well, they just won't admit to it.

well if we stop paying money to all the people who have been scrounging the system in the uk and all the financial people who have screwed this country up as we might be able to do this , we need trident , we need those carriers, we need more boots on the ground, and we need better equipment for our troops

we need to look long and hard to why we dont have the money for these things thats why we are in this mess

Originally posted by KDM_Souljah
we need to look long and hard to why we dont have the money for these things thats why we are in this mess

Because the government we have at the moment seems to think its a good idea to give our money away to foreign countries rather than our own people, just last week the prime minister was proposing to give one billion away to African countries because they had recently exited from a war, how about he gives another one billion to our troops that are still fighting one? and wasn't it just last year when we gave India 80+ mill in aid and a week later they spent 90+mill upgrading their fighter jets? then you have the recent car scrappage scheme the majority of the cash from this goes to foreign companies and countries and all of this when our country is on the point of bankruptcy

Originally posted by Ulala
They won't call them HMS Scotland or HMS England for fear of the effect on public morale when they sink to the bottom of the briny bree in some future war.

They cannot be called them HMS England / HMS Scotland as those two ship names have no tradition in the RN. The names QE and POW have a RN tradition and a lineage. As they are RN ships, if they are sunk in action you can be sure they would have fought with distinction to the end.

Regards