BAE wins contract for new UK Carrier. "Ours are still bigger." Says Bush

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Lonestar


I suspect the reason why it's not Nuclear powered falls under a couple reasons:

1) It was a matter of cost, which could have chopped up some more of the British Fleet.

2) It's really easy to hose up on a Nuclear Carrier if you don't know what you are doing. The first US CVN (the Enterprise) has *8* reactors in it. The French CVN is powered by Sub reactors, and it barely makes 30 kts, well below the "unofficial" official speed of 50 or so for Nimitz CVNs.

3) Not every country will allow a CVN in port. That's why the only carriers we stage out of Japan are older CVs.

1) Who cares? It's going to run overbudget anyway.
2) Well, we can learn from past errors, and see also above.
3) Doesn't seem to bother America.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Why does the UK need carriers?

[*End Is Forever*]

Because otherwise the Unions will complain...?

A multi-billion pound order to build the next generation of Britain's aircraft carriers has been dubbed "the greatest day for shipbuilding in the north-east of England".
Union officials said the news that yards on the Tyne and Tees were to share in the BAE Systems-led contract to build two new carriers for the Royal Navy, would create thousands of jobs.

The contract is expected to create about 2,000 jobs and secure a further 10,000 at UK shipyards.

Kevin Curran, northern regional secretary of the General, Municipal and Boilermakers' Union (GMB) said: "This is fantastic news for the UK manufacturing.

"It's is great news for working people in our country, and it's a wonderful boost for those of us who want to maintain a manufacturing industry in this country."

Mr Curran, whose union represents shipyard workers on the Tyne and Tees, added: "Today is a proud and emotional day for me - and for all those who have worked so hard to revive the shipyards.

"When I first came to the North East from London in 1997, I was told the Shipyards were a 'sunset' industry.

"However, today we have proven that there can be a sustainable future for our shipyards and UK manufacturing if we have the leadership, the commitment and the political will to make it happen.

"The Government deserves great credit for their support for the UK's manufacturing industry."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2709883.stm

[*End Is Forever*]

Keynesian hole-diggers anyone?

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Because otherwise the Unions will complain...?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2709883.stm

Since the cost is 2.9 billion pounds, or approximately a quarter million pounds per job created/secured - why not negotiate with the unions for 100K per worker to sit at home? I'm sure that something could be worked out.

[Sandman]

Even the CGI is crap. And that's the preferred design of carrier.

I reckon that they should have done something really innovative, like a catamaran carrier with two flight decks, or improve my favourite mad military machine, the carrier sub.

[Lancer]

Well, if europe ever decides to try to do something on its own, a couple of those will apply the spank from above.

Thing is, you will only have 2...so which oceans get em and which don't?

[Sava]

If anyone could get close enough to even see the two towers on that carrier, it'd probably be dead anyways. So I doubt its a decoy. You'd think after spending 2.9bn pounds (however much that is in US$) they'd be able to make a better model of it. I could create a better picture in 2hrs with photoshop.

[TheStinger]

If the argies want the falklands back there gonna have to invade now

[David Floyd]

In terms of names, perhaps the Ark Royal for one of them?

[Dis]

I saw one of those Invincible class carries next to our ship- a helicpoter carrier called USS Guam.

I think they are really tempting fate by calling their ships invincible . You'd think they'd learn after calling the Titanic unsinkable.

[TheStinger]

I would think Hermes, Nelson or Rodney.

Possibly named after a royal( Hope not)

[Dis]

Also the Enterprise is not screwed up . I was stationed on that ship for 4 years.

Ahh who am I kidding. That design was really screwed up. We had some Inconel and some Stainless Steel steam generators. The RD system is/was a pile of crap.

Oh well it works- for the most part. And it is still a very fast carrier that doesn't need refueling except for jet fuel. Only because the age and past damage (it was run aground in San Fransisco bay doing some damage to #4 shaft) do they restrict the speed. The Enterprise has previously set speed records for carriers.

[TheStinger]

can you imagine a carrier race, that would be cool

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Dissident

I think they are really tempting fate by calling their ships invincible . You'd think they'd learn after calling the Titanic unsinkable.

Sort of like how Hitler got antsy about having a ship called 'Deutschland' in harms way?

IIRC, a previous 'Invincible' (battlecruiser) exploded with the loss of virtually all the crew at Jutland in 1916.