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.


Royal Navy surrendering one of its aircraft carriers!

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 05:38 PM

The Royal Navy has agreed to sacrifice one of its two new aircraft carriers to save about £8.2 billion from the defence budget.

The admirals, who have battled for a decade to secure the two new 65,000-ton carriers, have been forced to back down because of the soaring cost of the American-produced Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft due to fly off them.

The move is a blow to the navy’s prestige and has come on the heels of Gordon Brown’s announcement last month that he was axing one of the navy’s four Trident nuclear deterrent submarines.

It is too late for the navy to renege on contracts to build the two carriers, the Queen Elizabeth, due to go into service in 2016, and the Prince of Wales, due to follow in 2018. Although the second carrier will be built, it will be used as an amphibious commando ship, with only helicopters on board instead of JSF aircraft.

The move will leave the navy without a carrier when the Queen Elizabeth goes into refit, leaving open the possibility that it might have to borrow one from the French navy. In a meeting with Brown last year, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, had suggested that refits of French and British aircraft carriers should be co-ordinated.

Technically its not like losing one of its carriers, more like one would be a true supercarrier while the other is amphibious vessel. And they could still have Harriers on board as well.

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by deltaboy

We once ruled the waves.. and with failure after failure from governments and funding we are now perilously weaker than before...and we have to borrow one from the FRENCH of all countries..


Sort it out Gordon! Jesus i could do a better job than him.
If the warriors of my ancestral family could see this country now, they would be rolling in their graves

what's next "oh by the way to help pave the way for the new immigration highway coming over the channel.. we are scrapping 50% of the military" grrr *smashes head against wall*

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 05:54 PM
reply to post by deltaboy

Sad state of affairs.

The Royal Navy has seen better days.
Well if they cant afford it then so be it.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by darkwing81]

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Raider of Truth
Sort it out Gordon! Jesus i could do a better job than him.
If the warriors of my ancestral family could see this country now, they would be rolling in their graves

Yeah, just imagine having them eat Samosas and Naan or having to go to the grocer who cant even speak proper English or all those "black chaps" loitering about everywhere! For shame!

[edit on 24-10-2009 by IAF101]

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:05 PM
reply to post by IAF101

glad you picked up on part of what i was getting at although most likely sarcastic

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:13 PM
A 65,000 ton helicopter carrier ?

Isn't that a bit bonkers ? Nevermind. I guess it leaves open the possibility of converting HMS Prince of Wales when funds permit.

"When funds permit". It never ceases to amaze me that the government can conjure up £50 billion in an afternoon to save the banks ... yet are so parsimonious when it comes to defending the country.

And don't trust the Tories on this either. Always remember the 1981 Defence White Paper.

Labour. I so hate them. CVA-01, TSR2 and now this bleedin' shambles.

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:49 PM
Hahahah i knew something like this would happen.

How humiliating that we might have to borrow a carrier off the French.

Wouldn't the carriers be obsolete by the time they are completed anyway?

I am sure Admiral Lord Nelson would be spinning in his grave.

[edit on 24/10/09 by Kram09]

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:51 PM
They have plans. You wont be needing a millitary!

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:53 PM
Mind you, it's not the ship's fault. They're coming in on time & in budget.

It's those damn, pesky American airplanes coming in late and overbudget ... tut, tut, tut.

Must try harder, USA, must try harder ...

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:56 PM
I doubt that the JSF is the sole reason they want to scrap one of the carriers.

Couple this with the push to eliminate your nuclear deterence (aka Tridents) you pretty much have yourself a fancy coastal defence force there albiet one superbly trained and equipped.

So if say the Agentinians get Frisky when the one carrier is in refit, Im sure the French will loan you one. Its just not that easy however and the French with two carriers themselves and not dammlikely to loan one out. We are not talking about loaner cars here from your auto mechanic.

[edit on 10/24/09 by FredT]

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:30 PM
reply to post by FredT

At least the British & French carriers have been bought and paid for with real money, I suppose, rather than us having to borrow from foreign banks and governments to pay for them. The US national debt is what, $22 trillion ? By my calculation that'd pay for over 500 Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers

If the Argentinians made a play for the Falklands again ?

A major difference now is that Mount Pleasant has a decent airfield, combined with a Tornado squadron and VC-10 refuelling aircraft ... and with sufficient warning the RAF could get reinforcements down there to provide further protection British airspace and shipping.

If the RAF failed, mm, it'd be problematical.

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:33 PM
Wow... by reading the title I thought it was attacked and they had actually surrendered it.

Glad to see that didn't happen at least.

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:35 PM
Just be happy you have one! All we've got here in Canada are Frigates that can carry helicopters.

I figured it out: If each Canadian contributed $240.00 to the Government, we could build an aircraft carrier. Pitch in an extra $100.00 or so and we could fill it with an entire wing of aircraft. I wish people weren't so selfish.

In conclusion, I am so deeply sorry to hear of the downgrade of one of your future carriers. But be happy you have one.

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:53 PM
reply to post by For(Home)Country

HMS Invincible the Canadians could probably get for nothing ... it's sitting in dock awaiting it's fate.

I fear the following image might just break the forum ... but it's a new artists impression of HMS Queen Elizabeth/HMS Prince of Wales. Yippee we're getting two of them, even though one will be as useless as the Charles de Gaulle.

Even larger pic here ...

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Ulala]

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 08:31 PM
reply to post by Ulala

Actually, in the 1960's, we were right behind the Royal Navy in terms of power.
Believe it or not, that was a full Canadian Carrier Battlegroup. I didn't even know we ever had such a thing!
Best of luck to you Britain! You're a lucky country to even have one!

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 08:38 PM
Interesting that they can't cancel construction, so they're turning one into the most ridiculously huge assault ship ever constructed.

To be honest though, what realistic threat to itself does the UK face that requires big-deck carriers?

I sort of wish we'd (the US) get rid of some of ours, just to reduce the temptation to go gallivanting around the planet poking hornet's nests with sticks (and dragging our poor gullible friends along). Maybe we could sell you guys across the pond a Nimitz or two at a really good price? I'm pretty confident they'd be in good hands then at least.

Personally, I'd much rather see my tax money get us to Mars or at least an NEO.

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 08:39 PM
reply to post by For(Home)Country

Is that HMCS Bonaventure ? The aircraft carrier ? Sweet if it is. Australia had a couple of ex RN carriers too, quite a few countries did ... even Holland.

I take back the offer of HMS Invincible ... seemingly she's in a terrible state, props have been cut off, anchors removed, the engines have been raided for spare parts. You might not want her after all. Even the newly refitted flagship HMS Ark Royal you wouldn't want either, she's had two engine room fires in as many weeks.

Contact the USN if you want a carrier, matey, couple of years and they'll be having a fire sale.

posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 01:48 AM
these : super carriers are a joke limited range and supplies. i was reading in online sprcs had to refuel every week thats a lot of fuel . and why did they give up hms invincible before either of these ships put to sea?

posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 02:09 PM
Seems they keep cutting back on the military to me, when we need to be spending more on them and getting them better equipped.

But as long as we can defend ourselves then does it really matter all that much. Think of the money that will be saved.

Plus all we really need is nukes and we'll be fine, LOL

posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 05:25 PM
But the Navy is not losing a Carrier. It's still getting two. I smell the Navy's spin doctors at work. The real losers here are the RAF, as there will only be sufficient JSF's purchased to equip one carrier, making the replacement of The RAF's Harriers (the JSF was never, as the article incorrectly states, a replacement for the Tornado). The CVF's were designed to have a dual capability (assault ship) and there is always the possibility of buying further JSF's at a later date.
HMS Ocean, the current Helo assault ship is due to go out of service in 2016 so there is a need for another hull to fulfil this role.
Bearing in mind the state of the Defence procurement budget, I'm surprised they are not axing the second carrier. It's not the cost of the carriers that's the problem, it's the spiralling cost of the JSF.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in