It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
The UK can have one of ours!!! We, after all, have ELEVEN aircraft carriers (and associated battle groups).

Link

As a former US Submariner, I can tell you that they are easy targets to take down. More symbolism than effectiveness as a war asset.

[edit on 10/25/09 by StonyJ]

[edit on 10/25/09 by StonyJ]




posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Didn't MEAN to be a "thread killer"!!!!!



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by StonyJ
 


No offense but even submarines have limits to what they can currently do as of now, which is to launch dozens of aircraft and attack land or ship targets continously and rearmed and attack more. Yes the carrier is a big target but theres the reason why you submariners are to do your job and protect the carrier as well as other operations along with other vessels of the battle group. Until there is such a thing as submarine supercarrier, we just have to stick with the carriers.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by StonyJ
The UK can have one of ours!!! We, after all, have ELEVEN aircraft carriers (and associated battle groups).

Link

As a former US Submariner, I can tell you that they are easy targets to take down. More symbolism than effectiveness as a war asset.

[edit on 10/25/09 by StonyJ]

[edit on 10/25/09 by StonyJ]


I share your views. I was always ambivalent about the RN getting the carriers and those increasingly expensive JSF's. The theory that they would be vital to the conduct of the 'expeditionary' wars we would find ourselves fighting had more to do with Emperor Balir's world view and the Navy's vanity than any sensible strategic policy. Even in happier economic times, the Carriers and aircraft would have driven a coach and horses through the Navy budget. One point that has to be borne in mind is that the Navy and RAF would have shared the costs of the JSF's (like the combined Harrier force) . Now it seems the whole cost will have to be met by the Navy.

More Astutes and Frigates. That's what we need.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Could this be because in planning and finance stage there will not be a Britain as such because in 15/20 years time we will all be in a "super" Europe, lets speculate
Britain does the submarines
french do the ships
Germans do the tanks
Spanish do the airplanes
etc, just my 2 euros worth



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by StonyJ
 


Yup,
Just like the battleship was rendered completely obsolete by air power in WW2, the aircraft carrier is now just a giant expensive floating target.

Great for threatening third world countries, but useless in a serious future war..

*Edited for spellin..


[edit on 26/10/2009 by Silver Shadow]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Personally, I predicted something akin to this a long time ago.

Thread from '08 - Giant carrier deals to be signed

I'm suprised they are building both, but as it stands the outcome is virtually the same from an air group point of view.

The amphibious assault platform idea is an interesting one. It smacks of the "through deck cruiser" description that finally got approval for the Invincible Class carriers. Call it one thing, build it, use it for something else.

F-35? Pah - doubt it will happen. Navailised Typhoon or upgraded Harriers anyone?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
the bulk of the cost for the new carriers is the $150 million per copy of the JSF - and thats todays prices not IF the contracts are signed


cutting 138 down to 50 , can see that getting cut further as the `phoon gets bombed up



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Seems like a decent idea at last. Lets face it, the JSF program is an overhyped and out of control mess and the only direction unit costs are going is up. Without a doubt, this is the reason the 2nd carrier is getting canned. The £600m saving on replacing the HMS Ocean is also a big bonus.
A large assault carrier would be a positive asset in most of the conflicts currently being fought around the world. A large helicopter capacity, room for a UAV wing, marines, supplies, medics etc. Just the kind of thing thats needed in a prolonged ground war against a lesser power. The giant carriers are all well and good, but lets be honest, against a major power they're cannon fodder; simply too big a prize to ignore for an decent enemy. Against minor powers, the large air wings are needed to do the initial pounding and then become increasingly superfluous.
I reckon this is decent news for all except reasons of prestige.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
It so annoys me, that the Government rescues the fraudsters in the financial sector, while our Armed Personell have to suffer.

Completely disgusting!!!

Shame on them. They the Government have nothing but contempt for all our armed forces.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Not really cutting the second carrier, just not buying the airwing, so if it is in refit then surely the one airwing can be transferred, meaning we can always have one carrier with those shiny new JSF's (or Naval Typhoons...)

But we could do with more Type-45's and Astutes though, they had their numbers slashed, when we really do need more.


Originally posted by foxhoundone
Could this be because in planning and finance stage there will not be a Britain as such because in 15/20 years time we will all be in a "super" Europe, lets speculate
Britain does the submarines
french do the ships
Germans do the tanks
Spanish do the airplanes
etc, just my 2 euros worth


French ships and German tanks? Ewww, thats worse than swearing at your grandma, don't say that again.....

Britain builds better ships (CVF, Type-45), better subs (Astute), better tanks (Challenger 2) and better planes, so maybe we should just convert our entire industry to making Europes weapons. They can do everything else.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
We had Illustrious here in Liverpool for the weekend, Pictures

Was really great for the Family, everyone in the City was allowed to go have a look around, great flyby's for 3 days now we have had all kinds flying around the City, on her arrival the show was cool, with landing after landing, watching her squadron flying off to land bases, and a huge Royal Marine recruitment push.

Cammel Lairds in Birkenhead is hoping to get the landing deck contract fingers crossed, shows how things change in a few days, because all the news on the day she arrived was about the new carriers, and the spreading around British ship yards of different construction processes for them.

Should all be on that link I posted, this Government needs gone and soon, and the tories are no better, what are we going to do



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ulala


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




I think it would make a lot of sense to the pull the trillions a year in worldwide defense spending and bring it home.

You can fly a British strike fighter off of those carriers and afford them both.

We will keep our overpriced stuff and you guys can try harder to build your own.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Dont get it.

That all I have to say!



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laurauk
It so annoys me, that the Government rescues the fraudsters in the financial sector, while our Armed Personell have to suffer.

Completely disgusting!!!

Shame on them. They the Government have nothing but contempt for all our armed forces.


This move may in fact benefit those who are doing the actual fighting. I've never quite understood how The Navy has managed to get most of the 'shiny new toys' over the recent years, particularly when compared to what the Army has received in both equipment and number infantry regiments.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Fang
 


Hmms tell that to the T/A Soldiers whom I may add was about to have thier training cut, with a saving of 17 million a year.

They go on the front line the same as regular troops. How is thier training not as important. (I apologise for ranting, another topic for discussion).

The Government has had nothing but contempt for our armed forces since they took power. You just have to look at the promises that have been made to our servicemen and women and they have been broken time and time again. Oh fine bail out idiots who cannot even count, aka the banking sector or shoul I class it as the Conman Sector, At the expense of our Servicemen and women.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Laurauk]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
woah what a waste of money . everyone knows the world is going to end in 2012 so why bother starting them


Mod Note: Please stay on Topic – Review This Link.

[edit on 27/10/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Oh we can't afford the JSF? What a surprise....

Why can I see us still using the same but "New and improved" harriers for the considerable future...



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Why not, the Harrier is a superb plane, it takes up less room on deck, is easier to maintain and in the low threat environments we will be in for the next couple of decades provides all the close air support we could want. Top up the flight groups with a dozen Rafales on each carrier and we would be fine.

But wait, we signed on to buy these over priced under engineered f-35s which are out matched by the generation before. Not to mention only single engined on a carrier is never a good idea.

Jensy



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Good for the gov of the UK.
One more country that keeps it's military industrial complex in check.

Rule the waves? Please. lol

space is where it's at. a few nuke subs, a whack of satellites and you can dominate pretty much any country on the planet.

there is no need for a big fleet, its money wasted taht can be spent on better stuff, like books for school children for instance.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join