Royal Navy surrendering one of its aircraft carriers!

www.timesonline.co.uk...



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.

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..

OH THE SHAME!

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*

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]

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]

reply to post by IAF101

---

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

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.

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]

They have plans. You wont be needing a millitary!

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 ...

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]

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.

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.

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.

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 ...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Ulala]

reply to post by Ulala

---

Actually, in the 1960's, we were right behind the Royal Navy in terms of power.
Picture
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!

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.

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.

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?

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

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.