Serious Thread - New British Aircraft Carriers

[St Jon]

In a time of Global recession is it right that Britain should be spending £5bn, already £1.9bn over-budget, on the two largest Warships she has ever possessed?



There are arguments within the UK already as to the genuine military usefulness of these vessels. These arguments do not come merely from those who would oppose Military Spending on principle but also from senior members of the Defence Staff as well as from within the the MoD itself.

The specifications are as follows:~

HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH AND HMS PRINCE OF WALES

• Displacement: 65,000 tonnes
• Length: 280m (920ft)
• Width (at flight-deck level): 70m (230ft)
• Keel to masthead: 56m (184ft)
• Nine decks (plus flight deck)
• Speed: 25+ knots
• Range: 8,000-10,000 miles
• Aircraft: 36 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and four Airborne Early Warning aircraft, plus EH 101 Merlin helicopters
• Crew: 1,450 (including air crew)
• Weapons: Phalanx close-in weapon systems; 30mm and mini-guns

Is this worthwhile in a World where traditional War is no longer a serious possibilty and the British Army is fighting Counter-Insurgency Conflicts with a pitifully ill-equipped Army that lacks modern ATV's, Heavy Transport Helicopters and relies upon America for, not always reliable, close tactical air support. Without mobility British Soldiers are dieing in Afghanistan whilst we have a Tank Army still sitting in Germany, large numbers of Euro-Fighter Air-Superiority Fighters and enough ICBM's to wipe out every major population centre in the World - whatever the British Government may say about land based missiles, tactical weopons and traditional air-delivered nuclear bombs. In contrast our Soldiers have to rely on, in some cases, equipment that is approaching 50 years old!

[Space05us]

[Kuciwalker]

Is this worthwhile in a World where traditional War is no longer a serious possibilty and the British Army is fighting Counter-Insurgency Conflicts with a pitifully ill-equipped Army that lacks modern ATV's, Heavy Transport Helicopters and relies upon America for, not always reliable, close tactical air support.

Yes, given that these carriers are exactly what would allow you to provide your own close air support overseas.

[Asher]

British Navy

American Navy

American Navy Sailors on Shore Leave

[Dinner]

When you buy capital ships like this you're not doing it because of a short term economic condition but instead because it fits your long term strategic needs. The recession won't be here 30 years from now but those ships will be.

[Dinner]

There are arguments within the UK already as to the genuine military usefulness of these vessels.

The British aircraft carriers have seen loads of action over the years (not least in both Iraq wars, Yugoslavia, and in Afghanistan) and without them Britain's ability to project power would be extremely limited. These ships are about half the size of a modern super carrier but the current aircraft carriers are ancient and a bad design to begin with so they need replacing. I'm sure in the decades to come Britain will find they need these ships.

[Jon Miller]

I would think that keeping building things in a recession (for the government) is a good thing?

I mean, when the government stopped the production of the SSC it created a minirecession.

[Dinner]

Final assembly is occurring in France but major subsystems are being built in Britain so it should still help the economy. I believe the French navy is also buying one so Britain will get a slice of that as well.

[Felch]

From the specs, they look smaller than the Nimitz class and the new ones the USN is building (Ford class? IIRC). And two ships really means only one in theater at a time, since the other will be travelling or in port. Still, I'm happier with these in British hands than Russian.

[Gibsie]

As long as they can't be sunk by a Decepticon protoform invasion taskforce from space, I'm all for them

[Winston]

The poll question is a little dubious. More than a little, actually. I take it that you're asking if the points of view contained in your opening posts are correct. However, a poster in a hurry could take it to be the other way around ("Do you support the acquisition of carriers for the Royal Navy?"). Or, he could be at a total loss as to what you're asking, and therefore not cast his vote at all.

That is, if he's British; as otherwise you're clearly not interested in people's opinion on this matter.

[Dis]

big mistake. Do they really have any interests worldwide that need aircraft coverage? (that the U.S. isn't more than willing to do).

The future is in unmanned aircraft.

Check this puppy out. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529955,00.html

[Dis]

The British aircraft carriers have seen loads of action over the years (not least in both Iraq wars, Yugoslavia, and in Afghanistan) and without them Britain's ability to project power would be extremely limited. These ships are about half the size of a modern super carrier but the current aircraft carriers are ancient and a bad design to begin with so they need replacing. I'm sure in the decades to come Britain will find they need these ships.

I agree with this on the basis that they are willing to fight more wars. But why get involved in any wars in the first place? They have no interests that really need protecting do they? Do they have any overseas territories left (that are in danger zones)? Yes they help out the U.S. but why must they continue doing that?

But if they do insist on fighting more wars, they will need replacement for their carriers soon. They are obsolete as it is.

But I still say the future is in unmanned aircraft and cruise missiles.

[St Jon]

The poll question is a little dubious. More than a little, actually. I take it that you're asking if the points of view contained in your opening posts are correct. However, a poster in a hurry could take it to be the other way around ("Do you support the acquisition of carriers for the Royal Navy?"). Or, he could be at a total loss as to what you're asking, and therefore not cast his vote at all.

That is, if he's British; as otherwise you're clearly not interested in people's opinion on this matter.

That's not fair as opt4 is 'not British but still have an opinion'.

Of course this is primarily a British question - nobody else is paying for them or crewing them - but I am very interested in hearing other's opinions. It is quite a big issue in the UK now and an American perspective is very useful as, if nothing else, it gives an idea of how you guys believe their allies should be investing in Defence. Likewise those from other nations who have an opinion on World politics will see that these vessels represent not only a lot of money but also a fundamental policy decision in UK Government as to its' role in the World.

As British I regard it as a serious question that not only my fellow countrymen have anything to say on. Most of the replies have taken the Thread as serious and offered some very interesting replies regardless of the nationality of the poster.

[OzzyKP]

Of course this is primarily a British question - nobody else is paying for them or crewing them - but I am very interested in hearing other's opinions. It is quite a big issue in the UK now and an American perspective is very useful as, if nothing else, it gives an idea of how you guys believe their allies should be investing in Defence. Likewise those from other nations who have an opinion on World politics will see that these vessels represent not only a lot of money but also a fundamental policy decision in UK Government as to its' role in the World.

I think this sets up the question well.

As Kuci noted, carriers are very useful for providing air support to operations of any kind really, and thus they are probably the most useful ship the British could build. As far as whether they should have a modern military or not, the answer seems to clearly be yes. Is there still danger in the world? Yes. Is military defense still necessary? Yes.

You never know what threats will exist 20 or 30 years in the future. Counter insurgency does indeed seem to be the way to go in the future, but who knows? Things can change suddenly and unexpectedly. But even if there isn't any conventional wars on the horizon, carriers are useful for bombing mud huts in the desert too.

So if defense is necessary, then the options are providing it yourself or freeloading on America's dime. Relying on the US for protection should not be an option. Europe's habit of spending their budget on social programs while sending us the bill for their defense while blasting our military buildup is more than a little annoying. The UK, certainly, pulls their own weight far more than the continent and I'm quite glad to keep it that way.

How to use the military, and how and whether to get involved in various wars is of course a political decision that isn't related to whether to have the military in the first place. You shouldn't be a bully or America's lapdog, but providing your own defense? Absolutely.