Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Navy To Reduce To Smallest Size Ever To Save Carriers

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8049674/Navy-to-reduce-to-smallest-size-ever-to-save-carriers.html

Under the plans, the number of warships would be cut by almost half to just 25, with frigates, destroyers, submarines, minesweepers and all amphibious craft scrapped.

Even if built, the new carriers could sail without any British aircraft to fly from them after admirals "mortgaged everything" to persuade ministers not to abandon the £5.2 billion programme. The ships could also be delayed for years and redesigned to save money, defence sources have disclosed.

In a final appeal to the National Security Council, Navy chiefs yesterday offered to make cuts that would reduce the senior service to its smallest since the time of Henry VIII.

One new aircraft carrier is already under construction, but the fate of the second has emerged as the central issue of the Government's Strategic Defence and Security Review, which is supposed to frame military planning for the next decade.

With less than two weeks until the review is due to report, government spokesmen last night insisted that "no decisions have been taken" on the second carrier.

A meeting of senior Cabinet members yesterday stopped short of a formal decision on the carrier order, although insiders now believe both ships will be built. However, the timetable and the specification for the carriers remain in the balance.

Options still on the table include delaying delivery by several years and redesigning one or both ships to carry cheaper jets or even helicopters. Alternatively, the second carrier could be built but put on "extended readiness", effectively mothballed as soon as it was completed.

Am I reading this right they are saying they will have no aircraft to fly from them? What are we going to do play football on the flight deck? Or do they mean we'll have to buy US aircraft to use on them rather than British built aircraft?

So we can have the aircraft carriers but then have no escort vessels to protect them with? Brilliant military strategy there.

Genius.

As a taxpayer I really like spending my money on pointless crap that doesn't function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i believe that we are choosing between american and french built aircraft already in action with thier respective navy's. so its just the fact the aircraft wont be british made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we need a large Navy anyway? What good is a Navy in defending us against anything other than sea-based threats? Are there wolf-packs of U-boats still prowling round the north Atlantic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph...e-carriers.html

Am I reading this right they are saying they will have no aircraft to fly from them? What are we going to do play football on the flight deck? Or do they mean we'll have to buy US aircraft to use on them rather than British built aircraft?

So we can have the aircraft carriers but then have no escort vessels to protect them with? Brilliant military strategy there.

Genius.

As a taxpayer I really like spending my money on pointless crap that doesn't function.

60 million nation and only 25 warships .... what a disgrace ... it will look soon like some banana republic ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we need a large Navy anyway? What good is a Navy in defending us against anything other than sea-based threats? Are there wolf-packs of U-boats still prowling round the north Atlantic?

majority of countries are very close to the shore ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does it mean about them not flying British aircraft?I thought that it was decided years ago that these ships would be flying the American built F-35 Lightning. They cannot surely mean that the planes will be US Navy planes, with US pilots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we need a large Navy anyway? What good is a Navy in defending us against anything other than sea-based threats? Are there wolf-packs of U-boats still prowling round the north Atlantic?

Simple - trade.

If the chinese decide they want all the LNG from the Gulf that comes to us via ship they send their navy to intercept the tankers and route them to China. If we have no navy we are powerless to stop them. Then we have to proctect the oil fields in the north sea, Greenland, Falklands.

Edited by ralphmalph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seeing as todays threat is from terrorists. 25 ships including maybe one aircraft carrier is plenty.

Argentian want the Falklands, Iran wants to control the Straits of Hormuz, etc, etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does it mean about them not flying British aircraft?I thought that it was decided years ago that these ships would be flying the American built F-35 Lightning. They cannot surely mean that the planes will be US Navy planes, with US pilots?

they will be british pilots, just the planes foreign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does it mean about them not flying British aircraft?I thought that it was decided years ago that these ships would be flying the American built F-35 Lightning. They cannot surely mean that the planes will be US Navy planes, with US pilots?

aye, they'll be Joint Strike Fighters (F35) - mostly american, but british funded as well.

I guess the problem with the navy is that with the current fighting in afghanistan featuring the army/RAF, they can't really cut back on those arms without getting bad PR.

The last time the navy was the main power behind a campaign was the falklands, and that's now knocking on for 30 years ago (or to put it in context, bigger than the gap between the world wars)

I reckon the next stage of navy development will be crewless ships full to the brim with missiles you can just park off a coast and not give a shit if anyone fires at them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Chinese deng anti-ship missile does MACH 10 - unstoppable.

Big, slow, very expensive, impossible to replace RN carriers.

You can't send these carriers to sea without an adequate surface and sub-surface fleet protection - i.e. loads of escorts, destroyers, and submarines, etc.

At most they can stay on station for 12 weeks and re-supplying them during this time is a huge expensive task.

I can see these aircraft carriers stuck in port most of the time because they will be too expensive to sail or we will be too scared of them getting sunk.

Edited by The Masked Tulip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple - trade.

If the chinese decide they want all the LNG from the Gulf that comes to us via ship they send their navy to intercept the tankers and route them to China. If we have no navy we are powerless to stop them. Then we have to proctect the oil fields in the north sea, Greenland, Falklands.

Hunter killer subs would be cheaper and better able to protect us because they would have a better chance of protecting themselves.

China is massively increasingly its submarine fleet.

The US is testing the USS Independence - if we want surface ships, which we do, we would be wiser to buy into this design than into the carriers.

The carriers are more to stop Argentina re the Falklands than anything else... but if the Chinese sell them some Deng anti-ship missiles then... oh dear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argentian want the Falklands, Iran wants to control the Straits of Hormuz, etc, etc, etc.

as a taxpayer,none of them are of any use to me, we should be able to defend these isles from attack. and weve always got nukes for the argies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we could rent carrier space from the yanks....you know, like railtrack let the line space out to Onerail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon the next stage of navy development will be crewless ships full to the brim with missiles you can just park off a coast and not give a shit if anyone fires at them

Yes, I would agree with that.

It is an interesting article.

"That could mean carriers enter service even though Britain lacked warplanes to fly from them. To fill the “capability gap”, the UK would have to borrow jets from an ally."

This sounds somewhat like a recipe for disaster, I have read of reports of the British armed forces not being given operating codes for US equipment before.

And I wonder why these ships won`t be using a catapult launch system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Chinese deng anti-ship missile does MACH 10 - unstoppable.

Big, slow, very expensive, impossible to replace RN carriers.

You can't send these carriers to sea without an adequate surface and sub-surface fleet protection - i.e. loads of escorts, destroyers, and submarines, etc.

At most they can stay on station for 12 weeks and re-supplying them during this time is a huge expensive task.

I can see these aircraft carriers stuck in port most of the time because they will be too expensive to sail or we will be too scared of them getting sunk.

Give that boy a coconut

The plan is barking and seems purely designed to justify the excess number of Admirals in the MOD

The US Carrier fleet always operates with a convoy of supporting destroyers, frigates and other ships to protect it from incoming missile and submarine attack.

British carriers would be useless without this support and you could well see the entire fleet sunk in afternoon in the event of a serious conflict

The money would be better spent on smaller surface ships that at least could be used to deter piracy, protect food convoys etc (nb check out how many British carriers were sunk by German submarines in World War 2 )

The lesson of the 1950s is that Britain should NOT be trying to project power East of Suez. We can not afford it.

Edited by realcrookswearsuits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Chinese deng anti-ship missile does MACH 10 - unstoppable.

Big, slow, very expensive, impossible to replace RN carriers.

You can't send these carriers to sea without an adequate surface and sub-surface fleet protection - i.e. loads of escorts, destroyers, and submarines, etc.

At most they can stay on station for 12 weeks and re-supplying them during this time is a huge expensive task.

I can see these aircraft carriers stuck in port most of the time because they will be too expensive to sail or we will be too scared of them getting sunk.

rubbish, our carriers built of crepe paper would just let that thing pass tight through.

a much more powerful weapon the Chinese have is witholding the supply of rubber jockstraps from our MPs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give that boy a coconut

The plan is barking and seems purely designed to justify the excess number of Admirals in the MOD

The US Carrier fleet always operates with a convoy of supporting destroyers, frigates and other ships to protect it from incoming missile and submarine attack.

British carriers would be useless without this support and you could well see the entire fleet sunk in afternoon in the event of a serious conflict

The money would be better spent on smaller surface ships that at least could be used to deter piracy, protect food convoys etc

The lesson of the 1950s is that Britain should NOT be trying to project power East of Suez. We can not afford it.

+1

Chinese sub surfaced 2 years ago in the middle of a US carrier battle-group.

No, whether it was forced to surface or not is a moot point. The point is that it surfaced right next to a carrier and presumably for hours, if not several days, it was in a position to put that carrier at the bottom of the ocean.

People think torpedoes are still like in the WW2 firms - you know, they see it coming, try to avoid it and it puts a hole in the side that the gallant crew can defuse or close the bulkheads on.

As we saw in Korea recently, one modern torpedo will break most ships in two. At the very least they will crippled a carrier. Two will sink a carrier no problem. They are wake-homing as well to which there is basically no defence.

Fire a Deng missile and a couple of wake homing torpedoes at the same time - no chance.

If we get these carriers we will be entirely dependent on US escort protection. Problem is, an enemy could sit a submarine 1 mile outside Portsmouth and the carriers could be sunk before they reach that 'protection'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These carriers, like Trident replacement and the Europfighter, are vanity projects for the military. In the case of the Navy, one could foresee that in a conflict, most of the efforts of the military go into protecting the carrier from attack! The Trident replacement, being a largely American system and operable only with permission of the US government (I think I read), means that we're no longer an independent nuclear power. I cannot foresee any circumstances where we would need to use nuclear weapons when the US would not be using them too. And is the Eurofighter Typhoon going to remain as arm-porn at airshows, too expensive to risk in combat? None have been deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq (from what I can gather on the internet - I'm not an expert!) but 4 have been out in the Falklands!! Not much chance of them being shot down or engaged in mid-air combat there!

Edited by blankster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Chinese deng anti-ship missile does MACH 10 - unstoppable.

Exactly, you only need a couple of Iranian's in a speed boat defending their oil and gas from our greedy mitts with one of these, and our carrier is toast. Total waste of money. By the time it's ready it'll be as obsolete as a WW2 Battleship.

Hunter Killer Submarines are the way forward, plus next-gen trident submarines to keep the likes of the Israeli's in check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These carriers, like Trident replacement and the Europfighter, are vanity projects for the military. In the case of the Navy, one could foresee that in a conflict, most of the efforts of the military go into protecting the carrier from attack! The Trident replacement, being a largely American system and operable only with permission of the US government (I think I read), means that we're no longer an independent nuclear power. I cannot foresee any circumstances where we would need to use nuclear weapons when the US would not be using them too. And is the Eurofighter Typhoon going to remain as arm-porn at airshows, too expensive to risk in combat? None have been deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq (from what I can gather on the internet - I'm not an expert!) but 4 have been out in the Falklands!! Not much chance of them being shot down or engaged in mid-air combat there!

Christ, I had no ides we needed permission from the Israeli's, cough, sorry the Americans to use next-gen trident. That's a F$CKING OUTRAGE!!! We'll truly be nothing but Zionist puppets then.

I totally take back what I said about next-gen trident, just refurb our old subs so we have control, I'm sure a trident nuke won't be any less effective at wiping out Tel Aviv in 30 years as it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 140 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.