Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Just 2 Carriers

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   
The UK will be replacing its 3 Invincible class carriers with 2 new carriers in future years. The Invincible class currently carry Harriers and some helicopters. The new carriers will carry helicopters and the F35 (if it isn't still too heavy). They will be twice the size and carry many more aircraft (if they aren't chopped down in size because of budget problems)



Even though they should be much better, is just 2 Carriers enough?

- Can they keep them both ready to go constantly?

Even though they are really expensive, I feel at least another should be built.

Some useful links

Royal Navy Future Carrier

Royal Navy CVF - Move mouse over the RN Forces and Bases Button then click Surface Fleet. Then click on future ships on the top left menu. Then click Future Carrier on the new menu that appears.

[edit on 12/6/04 by Hyperen]




posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Its not enough but the govenment expect that the US will provide the extra firepower in any (the next) war



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   
the goverment have come to the conclusion it`s cheaper to fly men and equipment to a war zone than to sail.With the united nations and N.A.T.O there are alot of friendly countries where runways and bases can be used to attack or defend neighbourers.



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   
There wasn't in the Falklands



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by weirdo
the goverment have come to the conclusion it`s cheaper to fly men and equipment to a war zone than to sail.With the united nations and N.A.T.O there are alot of friendly countries where runways and bases can be used to attack or defend neighbourers.


do you want your country relying on others though? if x ally doesnt want you to attack someone for whatever reason they can deny you from using their air fields, its more of a reliance issue with carriers really.



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 05:06 PM
link   
True.but one area of operation that hadn`t risen before and hasn`t reoccured for 21years will not be considered.If it was to have happened now we would have made better use of the U.N and N.A.T.O these organisations were formed to deal with such acts, for example the invasion of Kuwait.

The amount of money and resources to keep an aircraft carrier operational are huge.The Americans would probably find it cheap to by a few islands like Australia and build airfields than to kept it`s carrier groups operational



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I dont think we could mount a operation on the scale of the Falklands at the present time, our forces are cut to bone,new systems are being scrapped and our commitments get ever greater.
But saying that the UK armed forces always seem to find a way to do what is asked of them which I find quite amazing.



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Weirdo face it, you can't defend the UK's actions, it is a sign of poverty, and loss of status. Great Britain was the most powerful nation on earth 90 years ago. The dollar was 5 dollars to a pound, it had the most ships, the best ships and the newest ships. Then somewhere along the line you britts thought it'd be a good idea to just dump the whole "empire" thing and this is the result.

You're a poverty stricken nation, Germany's industrial base is again superior to your own, Germany and France are practically sleeping together, meaning if it weren't for America you'd probably be a replacement for Algeirs for France that they had lost. The French navy is superior to your own. Half of your people want to lose their autonomy to a "European Union" that is dominated by France and Germany.

You're pathetic.

I wouldn't mind being made king of that dump because I could sure do a hell of a lot better as an autocratic ruler of that nation than your Parliment has ever done.

UK's first order of business should be regaining its empire...but as we see it can't even afford to do that because it can't even build 2 replacement carriers let alone opperate its 3 current carriers...despite the fact both the current class of Invincible and the new class are not even comparable to the United States' Nimitz class.

The Nimitz carries 85-90 aircraft in varried assortments plus helicopters. It can steam more than 250,000 miles before needing refuling.

This is the sign that due to the moronic British public, which became very reclusive after WW2, Britain is not even worth considering a mole on the earth. And only has "symbolic" say in world politics because America feels some sort of attachment to our distant cousins way over there.

The reality is America, Russia, and China. And then followed by a 2nd teir of the French, Germans, Japanese, and so forth....

I don't even know where to classify Britain. If war were to errupt between China and America, Britain would need to rebuild its entire navy...and they'd probably do so using American supplies...

What ever happend to Britain? Not to mention your Prince Charles is a puff...and the whole Royal family is not even legitimate, the crown of Britain belonged, belongs, and shall always belong to the Stuarts.

Ahh nothing like a little nation bashing for the early afternoon...sorry chap but you know really...when France surpasses your naval capabilities...you need to either wake-up, or admit you are nothing. Because you sure as hell won't be something by trying to justify your current predicament.

Either petition your parliment to grow balls, or just be content being an island base for America in Europe.



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 05:30 PM
link   
namehere

That`s why America and Britain are so friendly not just economics, you scratch our back we will scratch yours.When it comes to war it`s not just superior fire power that is required.America needed help with the iraq operation.I am not trying to diss America but America hasn`t got the best record compared to the size of it`s military.One example of to much resources that cost lives was Desert One that started in 1979.Vaught who was in charge of the intelligance turned down help from German GSG9 to infultrate into Tehran as a t.v crew.In the debrief late it was established that to many units (Delta,Rangers, Navy Seals,Air force,C.I.A) were working to there on agenda.the J.C.S staff chose to bypass the existing and proven system and set up a new command and control structure.In reality this had more to do with satisfying there own individual services needs.
the plan was to complex it involved 21 differant agencies or units using 51 differant radio frequencies with more than 150 code words and call signs and there were 17 differant landing zones and airfields.the mission violated the first rule of all covert operations,known as KISS or keep It Simple Stupid.Sometimes you need to know that you need help



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I disagree Weirdo, I believe that the UK's involvement with America's opperations is entirely symbolic. Again refer to the "Island base in Europe" comment. It fully depends on what types of wars would be fought in the future though...conventional or non-conventional. Conventionally Britain couldn't save itself from an invasion by France, that's pretty obvious now. Non-conventionally Britain is a great ally, Ghurkas, Commandos, any number of British special opperations is just dandy...and helpful.

But as far as actual help? America doesn't need any. Help from you in our case simply makes the job easier, it doesn't make the job possible. And that's what I truly deem as "help"...when you need someone because they make the difference from a mission impossible to a mission possible.

Again...you guys just need to grow some balls, and beat-up your liberals. They are the reason you are considering 2 new carriers instead of "oh hell we'll just make 15 new carriers..." like it used to be. The Navy was never a question 90 years ago...why it is now is example of the loss of power, and status that I was talking about.



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Freemason

How did we manage to upset you so much.Why if we`re so unimportant do you feel so threatened that you need to defend yourself so aggressively.Are you happy with Bush(the mad Texan)
.Our humour so civilised.



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I'm not upset and no where did I defend myself, it's just the manner in which I post.

Straight-forward and blunt...it often looks harsh but it's not meant to be.

I've merely showed you "this is the problem, here's why"...and so it is...it's over-simplified sure but meh, the problem is the same none-the-less.

I figured I'd post on such when I saw you guys arguing about the Falklands...I think it was you who said "it's a one time thing and hasn't happend again in over 20 years" (paraphrased.)

I don't feel unimportant either, you are mistaking my motives probably in an attempt to shield yourself from the truth.

See I didn't just randomly go off on the current bastard crown that sits in the throne, my ancestory is directly decended from Duke Charles Brandon of Suffolk whom married a Tudor and Edward "longshanks".

Sure I may have enough uncles and cousins that someone else is direct enough to be more worth something, and I know the Stuarts have their own direct lineage...but the Stuarts and Tudors and basically MY family was kicked out by Cromwell...

-shrugs-

Either way, if I were in charge of Britain you'd not be in the dump you're in now. And so this is my "constructive criticism" of your current situation.

As I said weirdo it seems you are dellusional, you are stating that "oh well the current situation is good for these reasons" the reality is the situation is bad...and you need to fix it.

I mean dang...for a "world power" you don't have a lot of Nuclear Weapons...

And oh yeah, the Falklands...were one incident but remember that Britain is an island...without a Navy...you're nothing.



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   
By the way what type of war are you expecting with so much manpower.Or is it just a way of Employing hundreds of thousand of people and help your economy moving.True your a larger country but with all your Fat overweight(cannot use self control to stop eating huge burgers) Big mouthed overopinionated stupid (lets face it look at your previous leaders)people you couldn`t organise Jack#. That whilst your brave men are around the world causeing wars and luckily there dieing not us.Dic heads like you sat on your arse just prove the case



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 05:55 PM
link   
You couldn`t run a childs party cos you`d previosly upset everyone nevermind a country.Worry about your on country you are not totally faultless.We ask for help when required but we are blessed with brains and can negiotiate DIPLOMATICALLY it`s in the dictionary when we need to.You post is full of crap that cannot be proved.



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Everything that is better then the older thing that is being replaced gets build at a smaller number.

Look at the F-22 and other new tech military peices.

Out,
Russian



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   
may i say if britain is so unenportant then why did u want us to come in both iraq wars?for the banter?
also if u dont need us then go away im sure the russains will be very happy being our friends we europeans arnt as backward as u think
also that thing about needin a navy well ur true ,thats why wwe have the best trained navy in the world,also our army,navy,airforce and varios other forces are the best trained 2
also yeah sure lets go spend our mone buyingn 15 carriers great plan sir oh just thought id mention that youv just bancrupted the country sir and that the navy will not be able to use the fancy 15 carriers.
that bit about growing some balls? why dont u grow 1 and actually sit down and negotiate. you do remember how to negotiate, right?
also where the hell do u get the idea that the monarchy rules the gov?they are figure heads.
im not gona mention any thing about friendly fire cause frankly lets leave that 1 outa this argument for a change, shall we?

[edit on 12-6-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Are some British support.Thanxs


If that d**kh**d was within reach l wouldn`t be so AAARGGGHHH


Wonder what crap will come next



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weirdo
Are some British support.Thanxs


If that d**kh**d was within reach l wouldn`t be so AAARGGGHHH


Wonder what crap will come next

less of that !

lets keep thing sensible and to prove a point , ok man?



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by weirdo
namehere

That`s why America and Britain are so friendly not just economics, you scratch our back we will scratch yours.When it comes to war it`s not just superior fire power that is required.America needed help with the iraq operation.I am not trying to diss America but America hasn`t got the best record compared to the size of it`s military.One example of to much resources that cost lives was Desert One that started in 1979.Vaught who was in charge of the intelligance turned down help from German GSG9 to infultrate into Tehran as a t.v crew.In the debrief late it was established that to many units (Delta,Rangers, Navy Seals,Air force,C.I.A) were working to there on agenda.the J.C.S staff chose to bypass the existing and proven system and set up a new command and control structure.In reality this had more to do with satisfying there own individual services needs.
the plan was to complex it involved 21 differant agencies or units using 51 differant radio frequencies with more than 150 code words and call signs and there were 17 differant landing zones and airfields.the mission violated the first rule of all covert operations,known as KISS or keep It Simple Stupid.Sometimes you need to know that you need help


what do spec ops have to do with air projection via carriers? our naval and air power areas have a much better record than ground forces in our military so thats not relevant to this thread really.

we're allies for more than simply "scratch our back we will scratch yours" its more to do with cultural and social links really.



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Freemason, oh how wrong you are.

France and Germany? Growth rates that are close to 0.2% per annum whilst Britain stays above 2%

Unemployment? Just a shade over 900,000 here in a Nation of 62 million. Germany? 7 MILLION UNEMPLOYED! Berlin is littered with half finished buildings! Paris is a dump. The French navy uses large parts of the Government to maintain a force it has never used.

Britain is adapting and moving with the times. The Invincible class carriers were medium ASW carriers designed to provide maritime protection and close support air cover. Relics of the cold war threat books these need replacing and will be replaced with vessels that meet new threats. We have a need for more first line strike aircraft such as the JSF and Raptors due to the war on terror, Why should we carry Sea Harriers and Sea King helicopters to bomb nations that are landlocked with no navy?

It is an adaptation to the times. France maintains a fleet roughly the same size as the the Royal Navy when it is not needed.

It just doesn't matter anymore, We have Nuclear Weapons, If we say you're our bitch then you are.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join