Serious Thread - New British Aircraft Carriers

[Serb]

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

Considering its demensions, 35 aircrafts is a joke (not to mention that F-35 is a joke alone) and its top speed of 25 knots, and its tiny crew and its point defence weapons - I say YES.

This boat is a complete joke. So, way to go Britain - rule the seas with that obsolete crap!

[Asher]

What's the biggest Russian aircraft carrier?

Speaking of jokes...most of the Russian navy is at the bottom of the ocean. And only a couple of them saw enemy action, most of them sink themselves through Russian stupidity or shoddy quality.

You're in no position here to judge, Serb.

[St Jon]

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.

The French were actually ditched about a year ago and all construction transfered to UK shipyards due to delay and failure to meet specification standards. Part of the £1.9bn cost overrun incurred so far.

[Lonestar]

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!

You don't stop buying longterm capital units like aircraft carriers because of a short term economic problem. During the Great Depression the US still bought CVs, CAs, and purchased long lead items for the BBs that were ordered at the end of the Depression.

Any RN carrier group is going to amazingly unbalanced anywhere, we're talking one escort for the carrier, if that, with maybe 25 F-35Bs on it(I don't believe for a moment the entire F-35B order is going to be made). The UK made a value judgment a long time ago to abdicate global power in favor of local European stuff, and failed to realign it's military accordingly when the USSR went under.

But hey, you(the political leadership of the UK) keep telling yourselves that a Navy that will have less than twenty surface combatants, and two carriers that have 25 warplanes on it, constitutes a balanced navy.

[ColdWizard]

The Brits should stop pretending they're still a naval power and send the money to the Canadian navy instead. They can then rely on the Canadians for naval support.

[SlowwHand]

I don't think it's money well-spent.

[notyoueither]

We could club a lot of seals...

[Straybow]

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.

The US is, in a way. Unless you Brits are paying us $1M a pop for air support, we are paying for your air support. Get your own carriers and you can't blame us when the pilot cokcs up and kills bystanders or friendlies.

[SlowwHand]

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.

I agree. Manned aircraft won't go away, but there's a great deal that unmanned can do.

[RGBVideo]

You don't stop buying longterm capital units like aircraft carriers because of a short term economic problem. During the Great Depression the US still bought CVs, CAs, and purchased long lead items for the BBs that were ordered at the end of the Depression.

Yeah, actually it's a good thing to increase production like this during depression, because wages are low so the goverment will get the products cheaply and you'll stimulate the economy by creating jobs for people who are on unemployment.

But how does the UK "defend" itself by building more carriers? suckers

[RGBVideo]

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?

You're not getting it. The British are PROUD to be US's buttboys and fighting their expensive wars for them for no benefit.

[Zkribbler]

Does anyone remember the Falkland Islands? There's a lot of Argentines who'd like a rematch. Maybe these two carriers will dissuade them from trying another invasion.

[Lonestar]

Does anyone remember the Falkland Islands? There's a lot of Argentines who'd like a rematch. Maybe these two carriers will dissuade them from trying another invasion.

The Argentine Navy and Air Force is not what is was in 1982(of course, neither is the RN and RAF), I'm having a hard time visualizing a situation where they could pull it off.

[Patroklos]

The Falklands War is exactly why Britain needs this. It showed quite conclusively that its carrier program was a relative failure. Sure they were able to carry the day in the end, but there should have been no contest. British surface combatants were level bombed for Christ's sake!

These carriers are a modest expenditure seeing as they are still not true carriers by contemporary standards (or standards of 20 years ago), but a vast improvement over their current capability. I am not sure why they are going with two, as three is pretty much a requirement for around the clock availability (one in the yards, one deployed, on in port/workups).

As for UAVs, they are indeed the future, but even right now they are the odd curiosity accomplishing very specialized goals. It will be decades before we have platforms with capability (and operability) parity with manned aircraft, and many years after than before they actually replace manned flight accross the board. Even then, the idea that we won't need readily available launch sites in theatre is ridiculous. The UAV question is irrelevant to the carrier debate. Manned or unmanned they are still perfect for providing access to enclosed or remote battle spaces.

[Heraclitus]

The UK, certainly, pulls their own weight far more than the continent and I'm quite glad to keep it that way.

Ahem

Defense Budget (in Billions)
United States of America 527.660
United Kingdom 59.638
France 54.592
Germany 38.145
Italy 33.454

Ok, Germany may be freeloading a bit (for a country of its size) and other EU countries probably are. But France sure as hell isn't and I think Italy isn't doing too bad either.


I do agree with you that we Euros need to stop freeloading thou, but you must understand that as long as NATO exists no Euro country in it will feel any real incentive to provide basic defense for itself.