New British Aircraft Carriers

[ozzy72]

Two new Royal Navy aircraft carriers may have to be smaller than planned after Britain's biggest defence contractor, BAE Systems, reportedly warned that it could not build the designs to budget, it emerged today.
The Financial Times said the Ministry of Defence had been told that the project would cost up to

[Craig.]

i really think they should consider the extra expense, our navy has slowly but surely become a floating joke, i mean as good as the harrier is it just doesnt compair favourably with other countries planes, we dont have a single proper aircraft carrier, and we are supposed to be a major world player, we have a few cool smaller ships but those are useless without decent carrier ops.
maybe its a major screw up or maybe FT just got their facts and figures wrong, but either way we desperatly need those super carriers.

[Blade]

Aircraft Carriers are the most major part of US diplomacy. Basically we can have a carrier, off the coast of any country that has a shoreline, within one week at the most. The aircraft carriers are even faster than our frigates, they can power up to 35+ knots with its two nuclear reactors, the Enterprise has four. To be a major world power you need military projection. The first and last power to leave a conflict is the aircraft carrier, and forever will be. Now about the UK. You guys live on an island and they are squabbling about building a couple of super carriers YOU NEED. No disrespect to you guys in the UK, I don't mean it but compared to our Navy, your Navy is a defence force. Also you guys have got to get nuclear powered surface ships. All your ships are fossil fueled at the moment, and if you venture out of unrefueled range from the UK, you need to either bring an oiler with you to replenish, or depend on another country to do it for you. Sending the Navy down to the Falklands worked in 82', but what about now? Could the UK afford to send the fleet down to the Falklands now if Argentina decides it wants to play big boy on the block? Keeping it refueled WITHOUT U.S. help? You would have to have continuous traffic of supply ships and oilers day and night, 24 hours a day, to keep aircraft refueled, ships running, etc etc. Our aircraft can fly off the decks for two weeks before needing an refueling of jet fuel. Our ships NEVER run with less than 70% fuel load, NEVER. So that IF the oiler is hit in conflict, the ships have enough fuel to make it to a friendly port. At all times there are two oilers with every battle group, and one arms supply ship. US has foward refueling points at Deigo Garcia, to refuel our oilers. Also at Pearl Harbour, and ports on the US coast. Naples and Signoella, Italy, have refueling points for the Med. Japan also has refueling areas, along with Roosevelt NAS in Puerto Rico to cover South America. We can project and travel anywhere in the world with our battle groups, now at a total of 11. What would happen if the US said no to the RN using our refueling stations (god forbid)? The RN would be stuck to home waters or to the range of the fleet oilers.

[Iroquois]

Smaller ships, at least you guys have some modern ships. The US has told Canada's navy that they like to have war games with us because out ships are similar to their enemies. We also recently bought some subs from the Royal Navy that leaked.  :P

[ozzy72]

Tragically the country that once ruled the oceans has its most recent triumph (without working with anyone else) in the successful invasion of a Spanish beach by Royal Marines!!! You should never ever let an officer be in charge of anything more sophisticated than a brick!!!
Alas Erik is right, Britain is lagging far behind in material at the moment, and thanks to Blair we are stretching what little we have far beyond its capabilities. Something is going to give soon.
I just hope the MoD gets the funding it needs to sort out the mess the politicians have got the British Armed Forces into, otherwise a re-run of '82 is possible, but the outcome more in doubt.

Ozzy

[Oz]

Yep, Blade said it all. Nuclear propulsion is the thing of the future...for ships. Aircraft carriers equiped with nuclear reactors can sail for 30 years without having to 'recharge'. I think the UK could definintely benefit from some big sized carriers and other ships, and try to bring back the image of 'the largest navy in the world', or at lease stay very close behind the US

[Blade]

Maybe if Blair pleaded with us we would give you the USS Kitty Hawk when it's retired near the end of this decade. Even though it will be 50 years old by then its still a super carrier, or maybe the Enterprise if Blair kisses up to the president. The F-35 is due to start next year or the year after I think. You guys should ask us to build a carrier for you. Newport News Ship Building has had VAST experience in building the worlds largest and most powerful warships. They could easily make one to your specifications for sure. But the problem is that it would show that the UK is unable to build its own ships. It will make you guys look bad in the world community for not building it yourself.

[Craig.]

like i said we have some pretty nifty hi tech smaller ships, but are lacking in the carrier deparment. personally i dont think we need hand me downs from the US as it would be a waste of money and life span would be rather short, a new super carrier would by the time it enters service would keep us set till at least 2060 and i think the F-35 is due for service in 2010-2011 somethign round that area.

but this is definatly an area the government cant afford to cut costs on.

[Blade]

But just think. If you guys got just one of our older carriers, you would be in the elite league, ONLY second to the US. Just think of it. Harriers, JSF's, OR until the JSF's come out, just think of it Navalized Eurofighters

[Hagar]

Same old story. Pathetic. When will our "esteemed" leaders learn that Britain is no longer a world power? I won't say what I really think or this thread will be locked. This one is close to the mark Ozzy.

[Craig.]

from some of the specs and pics these new carriers, are pretty much equal to the US ones anyway. although final plans are still not even avaliable, including the main question, will they be cat launch straight out, ski jump straight out or will they be ski jump with the option to modify to cat launch. thats gonna come into play if the costs are cut

[Crumbso]

If we start begging for hand me downs. Other countries and our own people will believe even more that we are becoming Americas lap dog. We need these ships to be british made.

If Blair would stop farting about and sort out the taxes and if they really wan't even raise them without making covert raises that cripple small business owners we might get some decent funding for the MoD.

[ozzy72]

Don't I know it Doug. Alas our esteemed leaders seem to have their esteemed heads somewhere rather unhealthy even for a yoga master.
I don't think the hand-me-down scheme would make any friends in Britain (no offence to the generous offers from our American cousins), we still believe in our superiority.
Mind you during the Cold War we were Americas largest aircraft carrier...... I've yet to see any other one that could take B-52s or SR-71s
Alas our politicians our handicapping our forces beyond belief. Maybe its time to put Maggie back in power, at least she understood the importance of the military, and look what happened to anyone silly enough to mess with it.... and her
As a former British serviceman I know we have a wonderful military, with great talents and ability, but trying to take on a sophisticated enemy with nothing more sophisticated than rocks and clubs is suicide...

Ozzy

[Crumbso]

Are they going to navalize some of the the typhoons?

Because as good as the F-35 is I bet its going to be very expensive.

[Craig.]

i believe the answers are no and no they arnt, the whole requirement for the F-35 was for it to be an advanced cheap replacement for the worlds aging fleets. admittidly they arnt going to be cheap, they are also apparently rather good value for money