# MP's expecting Defence Statement in Commons..



## Gavin Gait

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6914788.stm

Possibility at last that they are about to announce the orders for both of the new RN Carriers


----------



## Pompeyfan

Davie

I think you will find the announcement will be after Prime Ministers Questions today. The Defence Secretary is also expected to announce the future of Porstsmouth's naval base. David


----------



## Paul UK

The man from Westminster say yes to the two carriers but 1) I will belive it when the sail in and 2) no mention of pompey.

Paul


----------



## Pat McCardle

I can see the £3.8bn counting up already. I wonder what these 2 carriers will eventually cost the taxpayer? Incidentally, I approve of the traditional RN names for these vessels(Thumb)


----------



## Paul UK

Pat McCardle said:


> I can see the £3.8bn counting up already. I wonder what these 2 carriers will eventually cost the taxpayer? Incidentally, I approve of the traditional RN names for these vessels(Thumb)



Yes I agree HMS QE and HMS POW

That is Prince Of Wales not Prisoner Of War

Paul


----------



## johnalderman

Total waste of money in my opinion.


----------



## Pompeyfan

Jack

No, it is not a waste of money. These carriers are way overdue. We have not had full sized aircraft carriers since HMS Ark Royal was decommissioned in 1978.

But our problems began before that when the then Labour Government decided to scrap our aircraft carriers, and scrap the TSR2, said to be the most advanced aircraft of its time. Instead, they ordered the American swing wing F111 which could fly at slow speeds such as onto the deck of an aircraft carrier, only to find we would have no aircraft for them to land on by the time we received them?!. Tyical politicians.

Our present aircraft carriers were designed as Cold War helicopter platforms later adapted to carry Harrier Jump Jets.

The navy already having to scrap or mothball ships ships, facing financial cuts and cutting back in training.

We have always been able to defend our shores albeit it with the help of others especially America, but a great navy has always been our strength and has helped us to keep the Great in Britain stopping those who want to take away the freedom we have always enjoyed and fought for when need be, and still do.

So yes, we need these new ships, and others as well and more finance and equipment to all our armed forces to keep our country free, and to help operate forces around the world as we have always been able to. The new carriers will carry up to 40 stealth jump jets and a fleet of troop carrying and attack helicopters.

It is becoming even harder however with a depleting merchant navy as well as as RN because one thing is for sure, if we had to rely totally on other countries to bail us out like we have them in the past, we are in big trouble. 

It would seem that Portsmouth has been saved as expected for the time being at least by being one of several yards, including Clyde, Rosyth and Barrow where 10,000 jobs will be created. David


----------



## Tomvart

Pompeyfan said:


> Jack
> 
> No, it is not a waste of money. These carriers are way overdue. We have not had full sized aircraft carriers since HMS Ark Royal was decommissioned in 1978.
> 
> But our problems began before that when the then Labour Government decided to scrap our aircraft carriers, and scrap the TSR2, said to be the most advanced aircraft of its time. Instead, they ordered the American swing wing F111 which could fly at slow speeds such as onto the deck of an aircraft carrier, only to find we would have no aircraft for them to land on by the time we received them?!. Tyical politicians.
> 
> Our present aircraft carriers were designed as Cold War helicopter platforms later adapted to carry Harrier Jump Jets.
> 
> The navy already having to scrap or mothball ships ships, facing financial cuts and cutting back in training.
> 
> We have always been able to defend our shores albeit it with the help of others especially America, but a great navy has always been our strength and has helped us to keep the Great in Britain stopping those who want to take away the freedom we have always enjoyed and fought for when need be, and still do.
> 
> So yes, we need these new ships, and others as well and more finance and equipment to all our armed forces to keep our country free, and to help operate forces around the world as we have always been able to. They will carry up to 40 stealth jump jets and a fleet of troop carrying and attack helicopters.
> 
> It is becoming even harder however with a depleting merchant navy as well as as RN because one thing is for sure, if we had to rely totally on other countries to bail us out like we have them in the past, we are in big trouble.
> 
> It would seem that Portsmouth has been saved as expected for the time being at least by being one of several yards, including Clyde, Rosyth and Barrow where 10,000 jobs. David


Hear Hear(Applause), I would express only two notes of caution here though:

1. The builders are a shaky alliance, between 2 rivals - BAE Systems/VT and THALES, the design is THALES, BAE are 'Lead' and are known to dislike the THALES design!

2. The JSF which the Carrier is being designed to carry as its Carrier Air Group and her means of power projection, is late, over budget and is beset with numerous technical issues. The main worry with JSF though is the problem about Technology release from the DoD to us, and Intellectual Property rights for the UK technology - the British technology once fitted to the aircraft automatically becomes proprietary of the US DOD (under the ITAR regulations) and us Brits then need to ask permission of the DoD to use it elsewhere! (knowing the history of this rivalry between US & UK - TSR 2 is a prime example - I think we may be onto a loser!) either way it's bloody Madness - and a little concerning considering some of the major amounts of UK Technology going into that aircraft.

In my opinion they would have better spent the money in 'Navalising' the Typhoon II and building the carrier in a CTOL configuration sooner rather than the later (AFAIK the plan is to build the carriers as STOVL and then convert to CTOL/STOVL hybrid later.

Regards,

Tom


----------



## Pompeyfan

Tom

Many thanks for such qualified observation. It will be interesting to see what happens if of course we get to hear of any squabbling between the rival companies?. David


----------



## Gavin Gait

The squabling between the RN and the US Congress has , apparently , been settled in April/May with a Memorandum of understanding that we will have access to all the software codes , etc needed to make the use of the new JSF totally independant of the US ( I think the fact that the French Navy intend building a CV variant of the QE Class made Congress sit up and think that we could easily just build 2 CV's and buy French aircraft for them ).

The have been designed to be readily converted into CV's with arrester wires and Electro-Magnetic Catapults ( being built now for the next class of USN CVN's ) in fact one variant of the design has the angled deck with 2 catapults midships and arrester wires for using the USN E-2C Hawkeye 2000 Airbourne Radar aircraft and the ramp at the bow for using the STOVL version of JSF.

Davie


----------



## Paul UK

Pompeyfan said:


> Tom
> 
> Many thanks for such qualified observation. It will be interesting to see what happens if of course we get to hear of any squabbling between the rival companies?. David




David I think this will depend on what the French want from a carrier and what we want. As I understand it they will get one and us two .

Look forward to them, as always I say if we ask are people to lay down their lives they should have the best equipment possible.

Paul


----------



## Tomvart

Davie Tait said:


> The squabling between the RN and the US Congress has , apparently , been settled in April/May with a Memorandum of understanding that we will have access to all the software codes , etc needed to make the use of the new JSF totally independant of the US ( I think the fact that the French Navy intend building a CV variant of the QE Class made Congress sit up and think that we could easily just build 2 CV's and buy French aircraft for them ).
> 
> The have been designed to be readily converted into CV's with arrester wires and Electro-Magnetic Catapults ( being built now for the next class of USN CVN's ) in fact one variant of the design has the angled deck with 2 catapults midships and arrester wires for using the USN E-2C Hawkeye 2000 Airbourne Radar aircraft and the ramp at the bow for using the STOVL version of JSF.
> 
> Davie


Davie, 
That may be the case or rather the case that the media are being fed but the ITAR problem WILL bite us in the **** and cause us major problems with the US having proprietary rights over EVERYTHING in that aircraft, what then happens when we try to market some of OUR technology to a Non US buyer - lets say the Hot gas technology, for which the UK/BAE Systems is the recognised world authority (we have provided the lions share of the input into the JSF powerplant)? The ITAR regulations that we were forced to sign up to - in order to become a so called 'Partner' say that this is forbidden.
(Cloud)


----------



## johnalderman

Well its all a matter of opinion and I expressed mine. Everyone I hope has the right to an opinion, you may disagree with my opinion Pompeyfan, but that doesnt necessarily make it wrong.


----------



## Pompeyfan

Jack

I quite agree, it is all about opinion. Mine is based on the fact that we have defended our country by always having good armed forces. That includes a good navy. If we don't build new aircraft carriers, we are leaving ourselves wide open. In fact, with the navy losing so many ships, we could already be in a difficult postion to defend ourselves as we have always been able to.

In an ideal world it would be wonderful to have no need for any defence at all. But sadly we still live in a world where others want to take away the freedom we have enjoyed throughout our history. These people will do whatever it takes to bring our country to it's knees. Therefore, we have to be one step ahead by doing whatever it takes to continue to defend our shores, and if that means new aircraft, or new missiles then so be it. 

It is well known that others want to defeat us. That is not an opinion, but fact.

Therefore Jack, if you think it a waste of money to build new aircraft carriers, what in your opinion is the best and cheapest way to defend our country?. David


----------



## johnalderman

I would suggest that Aircraft carriers are not a defencive tool, more a means of attack, the £3.8 billion would in my opinion be better spent on a robust defence of our shores, if we are talking about defending ourselves we have no need for aircraft carriers, there are hundreds of runways dotted around the country for our aircraft to use.


----------



## Tomvart

johnalderman said:


> I would suggest that Aircraft carriers are not a defencive tool, more a means of attack, the £3.8 billion would in my opinion be better spent on a robust defence of our shores, if we are talking about defending ourselves we have no need for aircraft carriers, there are hundreds of runways dotted around the country for our aircraft to use.


We tried that approach in the 60's and 70's, thats why labour got rid of Carriers and the RAF were given the role of protecting the fleet when away from the UK.

Then we had the Falklands the RN and MN learned the lesson that Air defence cannot be provided for from an airfield thousands of miles away through the loss of many ships and many more good men.

Unfortunately we had learned that lesson the first time round the hard way back in 1941 when we lost POW and Repulse to massed Japanese air attacks off Singapore (with no Carrier support). Thats the problem with us Brits - we never retain the lessons we learned.

Tom


----------



## Pompeyfan

Jack

Fair enough, but defending ourselves does not always mean defending our shores litterally. We need that also, but we also need to go further afield at times to assist our allies and other countries which has either a direct or indirect threat to our country.

These methods we have worked for both ourselves and our allies over the years, so why change now. That is all I am saying. David


----------



## Gavin Gait

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7238829.stm


----------



## Tomvart

Davie,
Thanks for the post.
It's nice to see that Rosyth is getting it's just deserves at last, I honestly thought the place was done for after the RN pulled out and closed the Naval Base and surrounding support bases.
I have many happy memories of Rosyth, The Naval base, Dockyard and the surrounding area, the place deserves some good fortune.
Regards,
Tom


----------



## Steve Woodward

Carriers not a defensive tool - isnt the best means of defence attack ?


----------



## Landlubber

Steve Woodward said:


> Carriers not a defensive tool - isnt the best means of defence attack ?


Quite right Steve. Let's get in first and nuke all our potential enemies before they become a threat.

(Cloud)


----------



## SAH

Will the Carriers be as much use against the Taliban navy as,The RAF Typhoon are against there air force, Or a BIG PAY DAY for the defence contractors


----------



## Tomvart

SAH and Land lubber, have you both forgotten what a close run thing the Falklands were? Or are your memories as short as our myopic government who are renown for killing our servicemen needlessly through this kind of tactical ineptitude? 
Had we not had those 2 small carriers in 1982, we would have lost the struggle and been publicly humiliated by Argentina - losing a lot more men and ships than we did, Carriers are not always a means of Power projection, that is a concept that the US Navy is designed around, not the RN.
RN strategy has the Carrier providing a mobile airbase and command platform to support land operations and to provide fighter and AEW cover for what is left of our fleet, this mobile airbase provides essential Air superiority that our troops on the ground consider essential when operating beyond the boundaries of the Air cover that the RAF can provide from our current limited number of Airbases. 
Although the Taliban may not have a Navy, A sizeable UK carrier with a reasonable Carrier Air Group could provide Close Air Support, SEAD, CASEVAC, Supply and reconnaissance services that the British troops on the Ground consider essential - That is the way all troops are trained to operate these days, and it is this that gives our blokes on the ground the advantage and keeps the number of British and NATO troops KIA down to a minimum.
If we are going to continue to support troops posted abroad and provide protection for the likes of the Falkland Islands, we cannot have a Navy without Carriers.
Tom


----------



## ddraigmor

Great news - but will we have the men and women to man them........?

Jonty


----------



## AncientBrit

Having observed over the past couple of months, the difficulty experienced by todays RN getting one small carrier in condition to go out of sight of land.
Where exactly do you envision these Super Carriers finding repair and maintenance facilities whilst boldly going forth around the world?
Singapore, Hong Kong, Malta, Simonstown, Bermuda, Gibraltar, Chatham all in the past. Devonport I see is suffering the usual union/management squabbles.
Previous posts in other threads have stated that Britain needs a navy to defend its supply lanes, whilst at the same time other threads are telling us that Britain no longer has a MN! As for defending Blighty's mighty shores from invading hordes. Ask yourself honestly, who would want to invade Britain and why?
In 1957, aboard HMS Lagos, I took part in Febex and Marchex. The RN contingent at that time consisted of 5 carriers, 1 battleship, 5 cruisers and a screen of over 30 destroyers and frigates. The mere mention of such a fleet, brings a gleam ...and tears to the eyes of old timers. No matter how new and modern they may be, 2 carriers and a sprinkling of escorts somehow doesnt project the image of Brittannia Ruling the Waves and to spend untold billions of taxpayers money seems, to me, on a par with the Canadian Navy buying those subs when what we really needed was ice-breakers.
AB


----------



## Tomvart

AncientBrit said:


> Having observed over the past couple of months, the difficulty experienced by todays RN getting one small carrier in condition to go out of sight of land.
> Where exactly do you envision these Super Carriers finding repair and maintenance facilities whilst boldly going forth around the world?
> Singapore, Hong Kong, Malta, Simonstown, Bermuda, Gibraltar, Chatham all in the past. Devonport I see is suffering the usual union/management squabbles.
> Previous posts in other threads have stated that Britain needs a navy to defend its supply lanes, whilst at the same time other threads are telling us that Britain no longer has a MN! As for defending Blighty's mighty shores from invading hordes. Ask yourself honestly, who would want to invade Britain and why?
> In 1957, aboard HMS Lagos, I took part in Febex and Marchex. The RN contingent at that time consisted of 5 carriers, 1 battleship, 5 cruisers and a screen of over 30 destroyers and frigates. The mere mention of such a fleet, brings a gleam ...and tears to the eyes of old timers. No matter how new and modern they may be, 2 carriers and a sprinkling of escorts somehow doesnt project the image of Brittannia Ruling the Waves and to spend untold billions of taxpayers money seems, to me, on a par with the Canadian Navy buying those subs when what we really needed was ice-breakers.
> AB


AB
Some good points - well made, however as you say things have moved on since the days when we had 'proper fleets' with Battleships (now obsolete), cruisers and several carriers, the main reason for having such a large fleet in '57 was because we had bases all over the world and we needed to protect them, as you rightly point out, we don't have any now, apart from maybe the airbases at Ascension, Gib and the Falklands - consequently the new generation of warships are designed with that in mind - and this is partly the reason why they cost so much (MTBF of key equipment is significantly higher, allowing the ships to operate away from base for long periods).
Although I and I am sure many other Brit SN'ers would agree that it would be outstanding to have a large fleet as we did 50 years ago, there is neither a requirement nor the resources for one.
As to who would want to invade - ask the millions of Asylum seekers who risk life and limb to get in annually - The UK is still appealing to some, I still love the place warts and all - It is far from perfect, It has its troubles, Political correctness, misguided and corrupt politicians, Yobs, Graffiti, High taxation - however, It's where I was born, It's my home and always will be special to me, no matter how much it gets rubbished by people who no longer live here, and most importantly IMHO it’s much better than anywhere else in the world I have been to in 23 years at sea. 
As to spending billions of taxpayers’ cash, IMHO it's money well spent, with what has been happening in the Middle east we have all taken our eyes off the ball - we need to be looking to the East, for our next threat to stability - Look at the order of battle in China and more importantly Russia and tell me we don't need mobile Air Defence. 
I suppose we could go with the tree hugging liberals and put all of our tax to incentivising youngsters and fat flatulent freeloaders to sit at home and not go out to work (Cloud)? Then look for help across the Atlantic to our closest ally to defend us?
Anyway the money for the Carriers is not 'wasted', The Lion’s share of it will be spent supporting the UK Shipbuilding and the UK Defence Industry, and paying British workers who pay British tax - So the majority of the money spent will go back into the economy.
Britannia hasn't had any hope of ruling the waves for over half a century, all we are looking for is the ability to defend ourselves and our troops when deployed.
Tom


----------



## LEEJ

Can I make a couple of points please. To Pompeyfan I would like to ask who are these people who want to bring us to our knees that we need aircraft carriers as the best means of defense and for Tomvart I believe the number of asylum seekers last year was in the region of 23,000 of which something like 17,000 were refused entry. I make the point in the interest of abit of balance.

Rgds
LeeJ


----------



## Gareth Jones

I remember the Falklands war and how vulnerable our ships were to the Exocet missiles - at that time the Exocets were just about obsolete - so what anti ship weapons are available now? 
Warships are OK to knock 3rd world nations about, but if we have a go at anyone with a bit of technology available, keep the warships in port because they wouldnt last 2 mins at sea !
the only reason we maintain any kind of naval might is to "defend" the persian Gulf!


----------



## Tomvart

LEEJ said:


> Can I make a couple of points please. To Pompeyfan I would like to ask who are these people who want to bring us to our knees that we need aircraft carriers as the best means of defense and for Tomvart I believe the number of asylum seekers last year was in the region of 23,000 of which something like 17,000 were refused entry. I make the point in the interest of abit of balance.
> 
> Rgds
> LeeJ


Lee,
I suppose I may have overdone the figures....slightly! I was simply trying to illustrate that for some, the UK is still 'desirable'.
Regards,
Tom


----------



## Chouan

johnalderman said:


> I would suggest that Aircraft carriers are not a defencive tool, more a means of attack, the £3.8 billion would in my opinion be better spent on a robust defence of our shores, if we are talking about defending ourselves we have no need for aircraft carriers, there are hundreds of runways dotted around the country for our aircraft to use.


Exactly. Carriers are a means of projecting force, not of defence.



SAH said:


> Will the Carriers be as much use against the Taliban navy as,The RAF Typhoon are against there air force, Or a BIG PAY DAY for the defence contractors


Again, exactly. Where is the major threat against us coming from?



Tomvart said:


> We tried that approach in the 60's and 70's, thats why labour got rid of Carriers and the RAF were given the role of protecting the fleet when away from the UK.
> 
> Then we had the Falklands the RN and MN learned the lesson that Air defence cannot be provided for from an airfield thousands of miles away through the loss of many ships and many more good men.
> 
> Unfortunately we had learned that lesson the first time round the hard way back in 1941 when we lost POW and Repulse to massed Japanese air attacks off Singapore (with no Carrier support). Thats the problem with us Brits - we never retain the lessons we learned.
> 
> Tom


If we’d had an adequate defence of the Falklands under the Tories, we wouldn’t have needed a Task Force to get them back. This is still not an adequate argument in favour of building Carriers.

“As to spending billions of taxpayers’ cash, IMHO it's money well spent, with what has been happening in the Middle east we have all taken our eyes off the ball - we need to be looking to the East, for our next threat to stability - Look at the order of battle in China and more importantly Russia and tell me we don't need mobile Air Defence. 
I suppose we could go with the tree hugging liberals and put all of our tax to incentivising youngsters and fat flatulent freeloaders to sit at home and not go out to work ? Then look for help across the Atlantic to our closest ally to defend us?
Anyway the money for the Carriers is not 'wasted', The Lion’s share of it will be spent supporting the UK Shipbuilding and the UK Defence Industry, and paying British workers who pay British tax - So the majority of the money spent will go back into the economy.
Britannia hasn't had any hope of ruling the waves for over half a century, all we are looking for is the ability to defend ourselves and our troops when deployed.
Tom”

But where and why will we be deploying them? Is subsidising foreign owned shipyards a good way to spend tax payers money? 

Do we REALLY need them, or is this more an emotional appeal to have a Navy that looks good again?


----------



## Tomvart

Gareth Jones said:


> I remember the Falklands war and how vulnerable our ships were to the Exocet missiles - at that time the Exocets were just about obsolete - so what anti ship weapons are available now?
> Warships are OK to knock 3rd world nations about, but if we have a go at anyone with a bit of technology available, keep the warships in port because they wouldnt last 2 mins at sea !
> the only reason we maintain any kind of naval might is to "defend" the persian Gulf!


Gareth,
Any ship is vulnerable to Anti ship missiles - including so called Hi-tech navies such as the USN - for evidence of this see the USS Stark incident:
http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm 
or here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_(FFG-31) 
In 1982 - Exocet was far from obsolete and remained a very potent threat for a decade or so to follow (Stark was hit in '87).
You might also want to look at the gulf war, when hi tech equipment on 2 US Ships failed to 'lock on' and destroy a silkworm missile, which was detected, tracked and destroyed by an RN Ships Seadart Missile fired from HMS Gloucester, The Silkworm missile was inbound for USS Missouri and was seconds from impact. Lucky for them that the British government didn’t heed your advice and keep our woefully inept warships in port as they wouldn’t last 2 minutes at sea?
http://www.seayourhistory.org.uk/content/view/492/641/1/5/
http://www.wingweb.co.uk/missiles/Sea_Dart.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dart_missile
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/naval-forces/11482-gulf-war-trivia.html
The 1982 Sheffield sinking (by single Exocet) could have been avoided for several reasons, however the main one must be lack of Airborne Early Warning (AEW), the last AEW aircraft in use with the RN was the Fairey Gannet, the Gannet was fixed wing and could fly from the deck of a CTOL (Conventional Take Off and Landing) Aircraft carrier, by 1982, the last CTOL RN Carrier had been scrapped (HMS Ark Royal), So the task group were in effect blind to sea skimming missiles such as Exocet, until of course it was too late.
We now have Seaking ASAC (Airborne Surveillance and Control) Helicopters fulfilling this crucial AEW role, these were brought in very soon after the Falklands lessons had been learned.
If, in your words 'the only reason we maintain any kind of naval might is to "defend" the Persian Gulf' Can you explain to me and the countless thousands of RN Matelots who have spent months at sea on numerous successful operations since the Falklands why they were there:
Gulf war 1 & 2
Bosnia
Kosovo
Indonesia
Beirut
Sierra Leone
Cambodia (UN)
Worldwide disaster Ops - Tsunami, Hurricane relief etc.
Worldwide Drug Interdiction Ops.
Maritime interdiction Ops.
General Patrol duties and Anti piracy ops.

As to new generation AS Missiles, there are many on the market, most of which would spoil your day:
Missiles Of particular note from my training (about 7 years out of date) are:
Chinese missiles of the C80x, CSS and CAS class (Kraken, Silkworm, Seersucker, SILEX etc).
Russian – Ones that I recall being particularly afraid of were SSN 19 – shipwreck, SSN 22 Sunburn, SSN 25 Switchblade (AKA Harpoonski for obvious reasons) .
Western Nations - Tomahawk TASM, Harpoon, Martel, Exocet, RBS 15, Kormoran, later versions of Ottomat, Exocet is still classed as a viable threat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-ship_missiles
Regards,
Tom


----------



## Chouan

Tomvart said:


> Gareth,
> Any ship is vulnerable to Anti ship missiles - including so called Hi-tech navies such as the USN - for evidence of this see the USS Stark incident:
> http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm
> or here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_(FFG-31)
> In 1982 - Exocet was far from obsolete and remained a very potent threat for a decade or so to follow (Stark was hit in '87).
> You might also want to look at the gulf war, when hi tech equipment on 2 US Ships failed to 'lock on' and destroy a silkworm missile, which was detected, tracked and destroyed by an RN Ships Seadart Missile fired from HMS Gloucester, The Silkworm missile was inbound for USS Missouri and was seconds from impact. Lucky for them that the British government didn’t heed your advice and keep our woefully inept warships in port as they wouldn’t last 2 minutes at sea?
> http://www.seayourhistory.org.uk/content/view/492/641/1/5/
> http://www.wingweb.co.uk/missiles/Sea_Dart.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dart_missile
> http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/naval-forces/11482-gulf-war-trivia.html
> The 1982 Sheffield sinking (by single Exocet) could have been avoided for several reasons, however the main one must be lack of Airborne Early Warning (AEW), the last AEW aircraft in use with the RN was the Fairey Gannet, the Gannet was fixed wing and could fly from the deck of a CTOL (Conventional Take Off and Landing) Aircraft carrier, by 1982, the last CTOL RN Carrier had been scrapped (HMS Ark Royal), So the task group were in effect blind to sea skimming missiles such as Exocet, until of course it was too late.
> We now have Seaking ASAC (Airborne Surveillance and Control) Helicopters fulfilling this crucial AEW role, these were brought in very soon after the Falklands lessons had been learned.
> If, in your words 'the only reason we maintain any kind of naval might is to "defend" the Persian Gulf' Can you explain to me and the countless thousands of RN Matelots who have spent months at sea on numerous successful operations since the Falklands why they were there:
> Gulf war 1 & 2
> Bosnia
> Kosovo
> Indonesia
> Beirut
> Sierra Leone
> Cambodia (UN)
> Worldwide disaster Ops - Tsunami, Hurricane relief etc.
> Worldwide Drug Interdiction Ops.
> Maritime interdiction Ops.
> General Patrol duties and Anti piracy ops.
> 
> As to new generation AS Missiles, there are many on the market, most of which would spoil your day:
> Missiles Of particular note from my training (about 7 years out of date) are:
> Chinese missiles of the C80x, CSS and CAS class (Kraken, Silkworm, Seersucker, SILEX etc).
> Russian – Ones that I recall being particularly afraid of were SSN 19 – shipwreck, SSN 22 Sunburn, SSN 25 Switchblade (AKA Harpoonski for obvious reasons) .
> Western Nations - Tomahawk TASM, Harpoon, Martel, Exocet, RBS 15, Kormoran, later versions of Ottomat, Exocet is still classed as a viable threat.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-ship_missiles
> Regards,
> Tom


All of these operations could have been carried out without Carriers, so why do we need 2 new ones?


----------



## LEEJ

Point of information: USS STARK attacked by Iraqi jet when Saddam US friend and blamed in surreal way on Iran. Possibly of note for the future.


----------



## Tomvart

Chouan,

Agreed - SOME of those operations could have been carried out without carriers, however - for 3 of them, the RN's contribution was based around the carrier and it's air group (I was there), in fact all 3 carriers spent long periods of (very expensive) time engaged in them. The point I was trying to make in that paragraph is that the RN do not solely exist to operate in the Persian Gulf as suggested by Gareth.

From your previous post - Can I ask how the MOD is going to subsidise foreign Shipyards if and when they order the carriers?

Your last point, and I am not sure if you are leading me on here after all of the previous discussion.....If a Navy is to operate away from its own shores, effective air defence is an absolute must, the reasons the Argentineans’ attacked when they did was due to a weak UK Defence policy and perceived - weak UK Armed forces, The Falklands would never have happened at all, had if we retained a strong DETERRENT force with the ability to deploy away from the safety of home waters with mobile air superiority ( Fixed wing aircraft carriers). The simple fact we needlessly lost ALL of those ships and so many good men was because we did not have that all important air superiority - We need carriers for protection or we need to change Government foreign policy and we then sit back and let the US be the world’s policeman alone, It’s not you, me or the fat flatulent halfwits in Westminster who stand to lose their lives when we overstep the mark as we almost did during the Falklands war.
Regards,
Tom


----------



## slick

All,
Amongst the items I keep about my person is a French Key ring in silver plated nickel showing a picture of the Indien Ocean with initials F.M.F across it they stand for Force Maritime Francais, obviously someone thinks it is worth keeping a presence there. 
We live in an increasingly dangerous and smaller world, to paraphrase an earlier politician speak quietly and carry a big stick.
Yours aye,
Slick


----------



## Tomvart

slick said:


> All,
> We live in an increasingly dangerous and smaller world, to paraphrase an earlier politician speak quietly and carry a big stick.
> Yours aye,
> Slick


Slick,
Thanks - thats a nice one, sums up perfectly what I have been trying to say!
Regards,
Tom


----------



## Chouan

But, if we'd kept Endurance going, without talking about withdrawing it, the Argentineans wouldn't have thought about attacking or invading. And, a small squadron of even obsolete attack aircraft at Port Stanley would again rule out any chance of any further attacks. 
We don't need Carriers, because the sole role of Carriers is to project power, be it political or military power, world-wide.
That is no longer our role, and it is only wishful thinking, and an emotional, indeed, nostalgiac, need, that makes us want to hang on to it.
We don't have enough soldiers to fulfil our current roles in Afghanistan Iraq and the Balkans. Where else are we going to go where we are going to need two new biggish Carriers if we can't even fulfil our roles there properly?!


----------



## Chouan

"From your previous post - Can I ask how the MOD is going to subsidise foreign Shipyards if and when they order the carriers?"

I didn't say "Foreign Shipyards" I said foreign owned.


----------



## Tomvart

Chouan said:


> "From your previous post - Can I ask how the MOD is going to subsidise foreign Shipyards if and when they order the carriers?"
> 
> I didn't say "Foreign Shipyards" I said foreign owned.


Taken from the Naval Technology website......
Work will be shared among a number of companies, including BAE Systems' Govan and Scotstoun yards in Glasgow, which employ 3,000 people.

The Ministry of Defence said that about 40% of the carriers work would be carried out by the joint venture between BAE Systems and VT Group – 15% in Portsmouth and 25% in Glasgow. Thales and Babcock will carry out 16% of the work and the remainder will be carried out by BAE Systems at Barrow by its integrated system technologies division.

So 84% of the work is going to UK Shipyards/industry, so does that mean that VT and BAE Systems are both foreign owned? 
Well fancy that? I spent the last 7 years working for a Foreign outfit and just didnt realise it, approx 55% of BAE is British, 45% foreign owned but no more than 15% to any one shareholder and the government still holds its 'golden share', VT AFAIK are a British company, employing British taxpayers in it's UK Yards, so by my reckoning - just about everyone on the CVF project will be a British taxpayer with the two major partners London registered blue chip companies on the LSE.
Other countries may have shares both of these companies but they are far from 'foreign owned', although I will admit that Thales is majority foreign owned and can't speak for Babcock, again almost all of Babcocks people in the Rosyth yard are British taxpayers.
Tom


----------



## Tomvart

Chouan said:


> But, if we'd kept Endurance going, without talking about withdrawing it, the Argentineans wouldn't have thought about attacking or invading. And, a small squadron of even obsolete attack aircraft at Port Stanley would again rule out any chance of any further attacks.
> We don't need Carriers, because the sole role of Carriers is to project power, be it political or military power, world-wide.
> That is no longer our role, and it is only wishful thinking, and an emotional, indeed, nostalgiac, need, that makes us want to hang on to it.
> We don't have enough soldiers to fulfil our current roles in Afghanistan Iraq and the Balkans. Where else are we going to go where we are going to need two new biggish Carriers if we can't even fulfil our roles there properly?!


Chouan, if you honestly think that the Rusty Red plum was going to scare off Galtieri (even with the outstanding Nick barker as her CO) you are way off the mark, even with a small obsolete airbase - as long as we had no protection for our fleet, Galtieri was going to have a go, as I said in numerous previous posts, A Carrier is a very potent deterrent, a mailed fist in a kit glove.
There is nothing nostalgic in my comments, more anger to be quite honest.
The reason that we don't have enough soldiers, equipment and ships is through successive weak governments who put more faith and cash into a corrupt Welfare system than Its own Defence, who continue to commit our armed forces to roles they struggle to accomplish, and taxpayers & voters like yourself who continue to complain when we try and procure weapons systems to allow our hard worked troops to fulfil those roles.
I will not change my opinion on the Carriers, I have very strong feelings on this, one of the Key reasons is because I lost 2 shipmates in the Falklands War to what I see was neglect by the UK Government in failing to provide adequate AEW & Air defence for the task group and fitting the ships out with Inferior equipment & Uniform. 
You obviously do not agree with that and that is your prerogative and right. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Regards,

Tom


----------



## Chouan

"a corrupt Welfare system"
That's a strong allegation to make. I'd like to see some evidence for it.

If you look at the thread on the Falklands elsewhere on this site you'll see all the arguments about the cause of the Falklands War, which I won't repeat in any depth here. Suffice it to say it was the message sent to Galtieri by the proposed withdrawal of the Endurance, signalling a withdrawal from the Falklands themselves that encouraged Galtieri's aggression, not the Endurance itself. 

The previous government's stance on the Falklands had seen off Argentine aggression without the necessity for war. If Galtieri had been deterred by a strong POLITICAL stance, which Thatcher had not made, then there wouldn't have been an invasion, there wouldn't have been any need for a Task Force, or Carriers, and you wouldn't have lost any mates. 

Yes, our government does "continue to commit our armed forces to roles they struggle to accomplish" 

however I take great personal exception to your following statement:

"taxpayers & voters like yourself who continue to complain when we try and procure weapons systems to allow our hard worked troops to fulfil those roles."

I have no objection to paying taxes to procure the necessary equipment for soldiers, sailors and airmen who are fulfilling those roles, even if I think those roles are in error. But, I don't think that new, large, Carriers are systems that our forces in Iraq, or Afghanistan, need.

Don't make sweeping generalisations and class me as one of those who do complain just because I don't agree with where you want the money spent.


----------



## Tomvart

Chouan said:


> "a corrupt Welfare system"
> That's a strong allegation to make. I'd like to see some evidence for it.
> 
> If you look at the thread on the Falklands elsewhere on this site you'll see all the arguments about the cause of the Falklands War, which I won't repeat in any depth here. Suffice it to say it was the message sent to Galtieri by the proposed withdrawal of the Endurance, signalling a withdrawal from the Falklands themselves that encouraged Galtieri's aggression, not the Endurance itself.
> 
> The previous government's stance on the Falklands had seen off Argentine aggression without the necessity for war. If Galtieri had been deterred by a strong POLITICAL stance, which Thatcher had not made, then there wouldn't have been an invasion, there wouldn't have been any need for a Task Force, or Carriers, and you wouldn't have lost any mates.
> 
> Yes, our government does "continue to commit our armed forces to roles they struggle to accomplish"
> 
> however I take great personal exception to your following statement:
> 
> "taxpayers & voters like yourself who continue to complain when we try and procure weapons systems to allow our hard worked troops to fulfil those roles."
> 
> I have no objection to paying taxes to procure the necessary equipment for soldiers, sailors and airmen who are fulfilling those roles, even if I think those roles are in error. But, I don't think that new, large, Carriers are systems that our forces in Iraq, or Afghanistan, need.
> 
> Don't make sweeping generalisations and class me as one of those who do complain just because I don't agree with where you want the money spent.


Reference your statement _“The previous government's stance on the Falklands had seen off Argentine aggression without the necessity for war”_
I agree,however this was not achieved by politics alone, it was by the mailed fist inside a kid glove, we had the forces available (including carriers) to retaliate against any aggression and the opportunist Galtieri seen this.
Additionally my earlier argument mentioned that we need to stop focussing on the Middle East, which is not the major threat to us, we need to look to the East for that and build our forces accordingly, otherwise we will be caught with our trousers down (again). I also agree that the Middle east was not our war and we should not have got involved, however that is all water under the bridge now.
I concede that ‘corrupt’ may have been a poor choice of word for our welfare system. Abused, Misguided, Defrauded and Fleeced may have been more appropriate. 
A painful reminder of the system being wrong was when I returned to my family from a 9 month Gulf deployment in 1997 and was invited to go out for a beer or two with an old school mate, who was ‘long term unemployed’, to be perfectly honest as a father of 2 young children and a mortgage holder, I couldn’t really afford it, however my unemployed mate seemed to have more than enough cash to flash around, all paid from the taxpayer to fund his gambling, drinking and smoking habits, interestingly enough, he also was having his council tax paid, free child care for his children, his mortgage paid (or part of it), and his wife’s training funded by the taxpayer, they were even driving a car, care of you and I. Needless to say, being stubborn and principled - I stayed in!
Now to a bloke who has not had One day unemployed since leaving school in 1978 this came as a bit of a shock to me. I am not saying a welfare system is not a good thing, but it needs to be better run than this. I feel the system incentivises people not to work, with the workers and providers for this system taxed to the extreme to fund it, it’s wrong.
I find the Budget figures stunning, 07-08 expenditure - from a total budget of £589 Billion, somewhere in the region of £290 Billion is absorbed into 'Welfare' (that figure includes the long term sick man of Govt Departments – Health which takes £105Bn), we paid almost as much in Loan Interest payments (£31Bn) than we do for Defence (32Bn) - I find that criminal and hard to justify for an Island nation with so many foreign commitments and 3 armed forces stretched to breaking point (I actually feel that the RAF and Army are past the point of no return.)
As I said earlier Chouan, everyone is entitled to an opinion, we have both expressed ours publicly in some detail, they obviously differ widely and we will have to agree to disagree.
Regards,
Tom


----------



## LEEJ

Tom, 
please dont go down this line as its like reading the Daily Mail or Express. As you are/have worked on the Nimrod MRA4 you will be aware that these fine and absolutely unnecessary aircraft are to cost the taxpayer in the region of 
£290 MILLION PER PLANE!! Now that is abusing the system. I wont mention the Type 45'S.

Rgds,
Lee


----------



## Tomvart

LEEJ said:


> Tom,
> please dont go down this line as its like reading the Daily Mail or Express. As you are/have worked on the Nimrod MRA4 you will be aware that these fine and absolutely unnecessary aircraft are to cost the taxpayer in the region of
> £290 MILLION PER PLANE!! Now that is abusing the system. I wont mention the Type 45'S.
> 
> Rgds,
> Lee


Lee,
Sounds like trolling to me but here goes........Please explain your last comment about Nimrod and what relevance it has to the carrier discussion?
Regards,
Tom


----------



## LEEJ

Hi Tom,
I referred to the Nimrod in response to your comments about how thw welfare state is exploited by the unemployed. My angle on this subject is that it is a red herring by the establishment. The real bludgers are tax avoiders, privatised industries who are then bailed out by taxpayers, ex-politicians who become consultants to companies they oversaw whilst in office, etc,etc. 

In 2005 the RN main surface fleet consisted of some 30 frigates and destroyers and yet there was 46 admirals and 88 commodores. Who is milking the system? However, having said that, back to the debate re the carriers. 

Rgds,
Lee


----------



## Chouan

Lee, I agree entirely. In terms of real costs to the taxpayer, which is worse? The benefit cheats? or the multi-national corporation tax evaders who are subsidised by us by the billions of pounds? as you so rightly point out.


----------



## wigger

I am no expert but a few points spring to mind, assuming we don't want to be a country without any armed forces that is more of a laughing stock than we are at present.

I think plans to sell Invincible, 2 Assault ships and various Destroyers/Frigates also had something to to with Argentina invading the Falklands as well. So the inablity to send aircraft (on carriers) probably played more of a part than withdrawing a survey ship.

We currently have 2 carriers which are well past their sell by date including a fleet flagship that cannot sail out of UK waters without returning twice for faults to be rectified.

Regarding the armed forces in general, the RAF does not seem to be particularly well resourced at present either, too much money was wasted on an aircraft of average ability, Typhoon. Still, as its the only vaguely decent frontline attack aircraft the RAF have, (and its going to be around for a long time to come), make better use of it and give it some improved range, adapt it for carrier duties. A carrier version of Typhoon (and JSF if we have to have it) on suitable carriers would be quite useful

Carriers are a far better, more versatile investment than a Trident replacement, now THERE is a purely offensive weapons platform that we could do without, and no, I am some anti-nuclear green type person (far from it) I just think conventional forces will always be a more useful asset to a nation rather than a WMD. Far better to spend money on ships that WILL be used in some shape or form, than subs that will cost the earth, and are built with the purpose of not being used in anger.


----------



## Tomvart

(Applause) 
Nice one.
Thanks ****** I was starting to think I was the only 'For' on the site!
Regards,
Tom


----------



## johnalderman

One thing is for sure, as long as we continue to spend vast amounts of money on more and more ingenious ways of blowing ourselves apart, mankind is still at its savage stage and is a long way from the finished article.


----------



## Chouan

"I think plans to sell Invincible, 2 Assault ships and various Destroyers/Frigates also had something to to with Argentina invading the Falklands as well. So the inablity to send aircraft (on carriers) probably played more of a part than withdrawing a survey ship."

It wasn't just a survey ship, it was what it represented.

To quote from another member on a previous thread on the subject of the Falklands:

"Under a previous British government when it was learned that the Junta were rattling sabres prior to reclaiming the Malvinas, one of HM submarines was discreetly dispatched to southern latitudes. This naval operation was picked up by Argentine intelligence, as was intended. What discussions were held by the Junta are unknown, but the invasion plans were put on the back burner. No lives were lost, no flags were waved. No shouts of "Rejoice Rejoice" from outside No. 10, after the TV cameras were ready. Under the Rt Hon Margaret Thatcher PM it was decided, for financial reasons, to withdraw the patrol vessel HMS Endurance, which they termed "a rustbucket". This IMHO sent the wrong signals to the Junta, who promptly launched their invasion."

No need for Carriers then either. Read any book on the Falklands war and it'll tell you the same. The invasion came because Galtieri thought that Britain lacked the political will to oppose it. The evidence for this was:

1) The Tories' Nationality Bill that was to strip the Islanders of British Citizenship, and
2) The withdrawal of HMS Endurance

These 2 acts confirmed to him that he had a green light to invade.

"Carriers are a far better, more versatile investment than a Trident replacement, now THERE is a purely offensive weapons platform that we could do without, and no, I am some anti-nuclear green type person (far from it) I just think conventional forces will always be a more useful asset to a nation rather than a WMD. Far better to spend money on ships that WILL be used in some shape or form, than subs that will cost the earth, and are built with the purpose of not being used in anger."

I conditionally agree, except that we don't need the Carriers either. We've never needed an "independent Nuclear deterrent", mainly because it's never been independent. We've never been in a position to use one without American permission. So why have one?!

Finally, if we're going to spend on our forces, we need to spend on the forces that need the kit, the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, who need armoured vehicles that can do the job. Not on pointless Carriers to do a job that doesn't need doing. 

I've yet to hear an effective argument to justify their existence.


----------



## wigger

I've yet to hear a valid reason for not building them either, its just one of those controversial subjects that will go on and on. I think we all agree that our armed forces are under funded, I'm just not sure why the land forces are more deserving, especially to the detriment of the others. Yes, I agree that the kit in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment is seriously bad which is a travesty, but I can think of better solution to that problem that would save a huge amount of money and more importantly lives.


----------



## Chouan

****** said:


> I've yet to hear a valid reason for not building them either, its just one of those controversial subjects that will go on and on. I think we all agree that our armed forces are under funded, I'm just not sure why the land forces are more deserving, especially to the detriment of the others. Yes, I agree that the kit in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment is seriously bad which is a travesty, but I can think of better solution to that problem that would save a huge amount of money and more importantly lives.


Which is?

To address your first. If the MoD wishes to spend untold billions of taxpayers money, I want to hear a good reason for it. I wouldn't want to be told that I've got to come up with a good reason for them NOT to spend it! I rather think that you, as a self-appointed spokesman for the MoD need to convince me, as a self-apponted spokesman for the tax payer, why we need 2 new carriers when our pressing defence needs, we are constantly told, is tp counter global terrorism. I can't see carriers doing much to stop that.


----------



## wigger

Woah, calm down Chouan. Thats just my opinion (I think I am allowed one), I speak for ME, and me alone if nobody else agrees, i'm not going to trip on it too hard.

I would say that Pompeyfan and Tomvart have come come up with some good reasons for the carriers, apologies if I have missed anybody else. And you too have come up with some good points as well. We're just never going to agree are we, and thats cool.

Anyway, back to wasting money and lives,( a bit of a diversion from the carrier topic I know) Get out of those 2 areas, I can't really see any reason to keep forces there in the long term, nobody is going to come out of the current situation having gained much. Global Terrorism will rise either way until the reasons behind it are resolved and they are not reasons that will necessarily be solved by military intervention, and no I do not have an answer, I wish I did.


----------



## Ted Else

Might as well add my 'pennyworth' - this is an aptly named web site - 'Ships Nostalgia' - GB is no longer G but relys, as always, on our American cousins. These two CV's will be a waste of money if viewed soley from a Brit 'domestic viewpoint' but if viewed from the wider 'Western standard' view point then they might well prove valuable assets if a serious threat is made against 'our' values. The EU has not been mentioned here as yet - but France has by far the most powerful Navy in Europe and these two Carriers will not alter that fact - but as somebody has already written - I'll believe them when I see them. Rgds All


----------



## Chouan

****** said:


> Woah, calm down Chouan. Thats just my opinion (I think I am allowed one), I speak for ME, and me alone if nobody else agrees, i'm not going to trip on it too hard.
> 
> I would say that Pompeyfan and Tomvart have come come up with some good reasons for the carriers, apologies if I have missed anybody else. And you too have come up with some good points as well. We're just never going to agree are we, and thats cool.
> 
> Anyway, back to wasting money and lives,( a bit of a diversion from the carrier topic I know) Get out of those 2 areas, I can't really see any reason to keep forces there in the long term, nobody is going to come out of the current situation having gained much. Global Terrorism will rise either way until the reasons behind it are resolved and they are not reasons that will necessarily be solved by military intervention, and no I do not have an answer, I wish I did.


Sorry if you thought I expressed myself a little too strongly. I had no intention to offend, and of course you're entitled your opinion, no matter how misguided!!!


----------



## Derek Roger

Chouan said:


> Sorry if you thought I expressed myself a little too strongly. I had no intention to offend, and of course you're entitled your opinion, no matter how misguided!!!


Do these decisions not come down to " those with a need to know ?"

I would think so and that would exclude a lot of the rubbish which has been displayed of recent times .

Derek


----------



## wigger

Ted is right, as I have said before on other discussions I'll believe it when I see these carriers in the Solent and not before.

Re our little discussion, I would not dare accuse anybody of being misguided as I see every opinion as valid whether I agree or not, thats probably just me. We will never all agree and thats what makes this site interesting sometimes. Night all!


----------



## sparkie2182

my home shipyard .... the former vickers of barrow, a renowned buildyard of yesteryear, has seen a reduction of its workforce from over 15000 in 1986 to around 1500 today.
even if the carrier contract is made, the shipyard must recruit skilled men from the northeast and scotland, as the barrow skilled workforce has largely either left town, retired or died.
the apprentice training schools here were demolished years ago, and no apprentices worth the name are being trained.
trades such as shipwrights are now mere footnotes in industrial history.
there is growing concern over the number of "astute" class submarines to be ordered, and the doubt over the carriers is less than heartening.
this shipyard is, nevertheless, the lead build yard for the r.n........and if it is allowed to decline further, there will not be an r.n. to talk about in future.....

the entire r.n. may be members of ships nostalgia...........


----------



## Ted Else

Yes 'Sparkie 2182', I agree with your last comment. 
When that dreaded day finally arrives and we become part of a 'United States of Europe', the British Royal Navy may just fade away - rather like the Royal Canadian Navy - and if it is lucky - maybe likewise to become just part of an 'Arm' (there is no RCN now). There will for sure be some 'argueing, wringing of arms and gnashing of teeth' etc but it will inevitable if 'we' are led further toward the USoE.


----------



## Gavin Gait

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7278149.stm

Corus wins £65m navy steel deal










Corus has won a contract to supply 80,000 tonnes of steel to the Royal Navy for its two new aircraft carriers


----------



## Tomvart

CORUS.......Are they now owned by TATA the Indian motor company? A Sign of the times I suppose.
I must admit, I am not a fan of the Twin Island THALES Design, although I am sure many GS matelots will be glad to see the Wafu's banished from the traditional Shared Bridge/Flyco and isolated on the after island! 
Regards,
Tom


----------



## Chouan

So we are subsidising foreign owned companies as I suggested, in terms of steel providers and designers and builders to build 2 carriers that are superfluous to our domestic defence needs.


----------



## Tomvart

Superfluous to your requirements, I thought we ageed to disagree, lets leave it eh Chouan?


----------



## Chouan

Chouan said:


> So we are subsidising foreign owned companies as I suggested, in terms of steel providers and designers and builders to build 2 carriers .


To project our foreign policy world wide.
Is that better?


----------



## fred henderson

Assuming that this project goes ahead, we are not subsidising anyone. We are buying the best design (that makes a change for MoD) from a British company, employing British designers, that has French shareholders. We are buying the steel on the best and most secure value for money basis from a British company, employing British steelworkers, that has Indian shareholders. Both seem to be good deals for Britain.

Fred(Thumb)


----------



## Chouan

fred henderson said:


> Assuming that this project goes ahead, we are not subsidising anyone. We are buying the best design (that makes a change for MoD) from a British company, employing British designers, that has French shareholders. We are buying the steel on the best and most secure value for money basis from a British company, employing British steelworkers, that has Indian shareholders. Both seem to be good deals for Britain.
> 
> Fred(Thumb)


I'm confused by this, Im afraid. Thales is a French company, which has some British empoyees because it took over a British company, Racal, and has a joint venture with BAE Systems, which itself is only a partly British company. So I don't know where you've got your "British Company ..... that has French shareholders" idea. It is a French Company, (27.1% of which is the French government) which may have some British shareholders. 
Corus is wholly owned by Tata, which is Indian, based in Bombay, owned by Ratan Tata, although there are, I should imagine, some British shareholders.
We are, therefore, in these deals, quite categorically subsidising foreign owned companies. Yes, we are employing some British workers, but at a phenomenal cost to the taxpayer!


----------



## SN NewsCaster

*Portsmouth gains in naval carrier deals (BBC News)*

Portsmouth will help build two new carriers for the Navy, with budgets of almost £4bn.

More from BBC News...


----------



## Gavin Gait

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7483942.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7486683.stm

FINALLY !!! Only about 6 years late !!!


----------



## MM²

*Waste of money*

These carriers are a waste of money, like the Eurofighter and most other defence projects.

Someone said earlier 46 admirals 30 ships that says it all. The bloated defence establishment needs to be cut down to size.

Why don't we design and build some innovative merchant ships. That'll preserve some valuable skills, generate the possibility of future orders and they may even earn their money back.


----------



## Pompeyfan

Defence of our country can never be waste of money. The problem is that Governments, especially this one trying to save money, our troops fighting in the name of the Queen and dying due to lack of equipment.

I remember a past Labour Government in the 60s when they scrapped the TRS 2, the most advanced British fighter of it's time replacing it with a carrier born American F-111 only to announce that by the end of the 60s, all carriers would be scrapped. Typical Government logic, so nothing has changed their then if we have new carriers but no frigates to protect them. And to show no biassed, all parties are as bad.

At the end of the day no expense should be spared to defend our country especially when money is wasted hand over fist elsewhere including MPs expenses.

The freedom we enjoy today is because we have always had a good navy, good air force and good army and good friends. We had to liberate or beat those who now want us to join them. No it's our country, so lets defend it like we always have whatever the cost.

David


----------



## SN NewsCaster

*Ships deal will secure 2,000 jobs (BBC News)*

English shipyards are to benefit from a £3.2bn MoD contract for two of the UK's largest ever aircraft carriers. 

More from BBC News...


----------



## chadburn

From what I read some people appear to believe that the "Cold War" is over, don't you believe it Russia is more active now than it has ever been in the past with China close behind and then the "others". Whether we like the expense or not M.A.D. has to continue to protect our Freedom, I totally agree with David, our Servicemen deserve the best which they are not getting at the moment. My Son in Law bought most of his gear privately.


----------



## ssr481

chadburn said:


> From what I read some people appear to believe that the "Cold War" is over.....


Not by a long shot is the Cold War over.. the Russians, in reasserting their military strength, have been running long range Bear reconnaissance patrols over Alaska. Two Bears were intercepted by a pair of F-22s out of Elmendorf AFB in Alaska in May... After the September 11th attacks here in the US, any aircraft that is remotely suspicious is intercepted...


----------



## Pat Thompson

Greetings,

It will be interesting to see how much gets lopped off the flight deck to fund the ever ravening maw of the grotesquely avaricious MPs who get to vote on their pay and expenses today. Give me another 6 foot on the flight deck anyday.

Aye

Pat Thompson

You can't get enough photos of "O'Boats"


----------



## Chouan

Effective defence isn't a waste of money. But these carriers aren't being built for defence, they are being built for *Offence*, as the First Sea Lord announced today, to enable us to "_project our firepower world-wide_". That isn't defence, that is offence in anybody's language.


----------



## ssr481

But being able to project power, in one's defense, is important, don't you think??? Imagine having to wait hours for air support, when the capability of a carrier offshore to do the same is available..


----------



## Chouan

But what do we need to defend world-wide?


----------



## johnalderman

We don't need carriers to defend the British Isles, there are endless shore based runways available.


----------



## McCloggie

It could be argued that the best form of defence is to be offensive!

As an ex-Navy type from Fife I am of coursr glad to see the news but I do wonder at the real cost, what else will be cut from our already stretched Pongo and Crab (sorry Army and RAF) friends and indeed from the the more conventional RN itself. 

We will have two super carriers and now a total of six modern destroyers to support them unless more orders are placed. It takes years for new projects to come to fruition as this one has shown so by 2010 how many suitable supporting frigates/destroyers will the RN actually have? I fully support the defence business and agree that Russia (let alone the Chinese) are flexing their muscles with new found oil/gas wealth but what exactly are we going to do with these vessels?

I have the feeling that this not only sounds like vote buying (guess where the Broon has his constituency - Dunfirmiline!) but also of some potential greater European led Naval policy where we will be forced to act as a single Navy. How else will we be able to protect the carriers, find the suitable manpower, be able to drydock/maintain these ships? 

Defence policy of course needs to change to meet the needs but remember when the Trident boats were introduced and the sunsequent loss of conventional frigates, submarines etc.

McC


----------



## SN NewsCaster

*Ships deal good for manufacturing (BBC News)*

The contract to build the UK's biggest ever aircraft carriers will be good news for the West Midlands, industry experts have predicted.

More from BBC News...


----------



## Pompeyfan

McCloggie said:


> It could be argued that the best form of defence is to be offensive!
> 
> As an ex-Navy type from Fife I am of coursr glad to see the news but I do wonder at the real cost, what else will be cut from our already stretched Pongo and Crab (sorry Army and RAF) friends and indeed from the the more conventional RN itself.
> 
> We will have two super carriers and now a total of six modern destroyers to support them unless more orders are placed. It takes years for new projects to come to fruition as this one has shown so by 2010 how many suitable supporting frigates/destroyers will the RN actually have? I fully support the defence business and agree that Russia (let alone the Chinese) are flexing their muscles with new found oil/gas wealth but what exactly are we going to do with these vessels?
> 
> I have the feeling that this not only sounds like vote buying (guess where the Broon has his constituency - Dunfirmiline!) but also of some potential greater European led Naval policy where we will be forced to act as a single Navy. How else will we be able to protect the carriers, find the suitable manpower, be able to drydock/maintain these ships?
> 
> Defence policy of course needs to change to meet the needs but remember when the Trident boats were introduced and the sunsequent loss of conventional frigates, submarines etc.
> 
> McC



I think you are spot on McC. And a European led naval policy could well come in at some stage with us forced to act, just like we pay the most into these faceless Eurocrat coffers.

Defence of our country is not just from our shores as history and current enemies prove. 

David


----------



## johnalderman

What current enemies ?


----------



## Pompeyfan

johnalderman said:


> What current enemies ?


Those our troops are currently losing their lives fighting and those who given the chance would blow us all to kingdom come. It takes years to build ships. The enemy is not so clear cut as it used to be like World War 2 for example. Basically we don't know what is around the corner so need to be as prepared as possible. Best to be wise before the event than after it. However, I doubt if we could ever put a task force together again like the Falklands but that proved what we can do at short notice if we have the ships and material.

David


----------



## Chouan

Pompeyfan said:


> Those our troops are currently losing their lives fighting and those who given the chance would blow us all to kingdom come. It takes years to build ships. The enemy is not so clear cut as it used to be like World War 2 for example. Basically we don't know what is around the corner so need to be as prepared as possible. Best to be wise before the event than after it. However, I doubt if we could ever put a task force together again like the Falklands but that proved what we can do at short notice if we have the ships and material.
> 
> David


Oh, you mean the enemies we created for ourselves by siding with the Americans over Iraq! And those we created for ourselves by joining in with the Americans in their "peacekeeping" in Afghanistan!
I thought for a moment that somebody had attacked us first! You know, an aggressor, rather than somebody that we had attacked. Afterall, I'm not sure that we had any quarrel with Iraq.


----------



## Pompeyfan

Does not matter who did what rightly or wrongly to cause the situation we are now in. I don't think that 9/11 for example had any baring on Iraq at the time. Perhaps now, but not then because those who did that had an axe to grind with America long before the war in Iraq.

There are so many experts AFTER an event. What do we do, wait for a country to bomb us with a nuclear weapon then react?. 

If World War 2 taught us anything it is that you don't wait for those hell bent on destroying us and our way of life to build up weapons or support.

Lots of mistakes have been made and Iraq and Afghanistan is possibly a prime example of current mistakes. On that issue I totally agree with you Chouan. We should have never gone into Iraq with the Americans and should not be in Afghanistan.

However, whether right or wrong we are, and our troops are there many without proper protection. That is for us the people to do something to lobby the Government to either bring them home or properly equip them. Unless being there is in the long term interest of this country, I would bring them home.

As it is so easy to be wise after the event. We need to be ready for whatever may come our way whether we create our own problems or not. We do not leave our doors open for anybody to come in, we try to ensure we have food in the house, not wait until it has all gone, and some of us stock up in case there is a shortage of something. So what is wrong with a country making sure it can defend itself before it is attacked. Surely it is better to be prepared than have nothing at all because nobody knows who tomorrows enemy may be whether we create them ourselves or not.

David


----------



## johnalderman

Ah I see get you're retaliation in first. Maybe if we didn't waste this money on these carriers we might be better placed to give our front line troops the equipment they apparently lack.


----------



## Pompeyfan

johnalderman said:


> Ah I see get you're retaliation in first. Maybe if we didn't waste this money on these carriers we might be better placed to give our front line troops the equipment they apparently lack.


It is all about interpretation. You can retaliate unless provoked can you?! (EEK) Yes, we could certainly use the money ear marked for the carriers on front line troops today. But what about tomorrow, what about the future of our children?. My great grandson is 7 and I fear for his future. I do not have the answers to life, and I have never met anybody that does. Those who never made mistakes never made anything. I would not want to be in our politicians shoes because whatever they do is wrong. They are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. It is the easiest thing in the world to criticise, but not so easy at finding answers and looking ahead as to how the world may be in 30 years time for example. Will our children look back wishing we had done this an that and criticising why we didn't or why we *did*?. 

Only time will tell if these new carriers was a mistake or not. I happen to think it is the right decision, but that is just an opinion, it is not a known fact. Nobody has the definitive answer on that score yet because nobody knows what is around the corner, but it is common sense to be as prepared as we can based on current events and history. We can only base future planning on what is happening now, and using history.

Building these carriers will also provide jobs in Pompey and other areas.

David


----------



## Ricky Dooley

Tom, Hear hear!!


----------



## Steve Woodward

Pity we didnt have them in 1982


----------



## Chouan

"The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia (for Mesopotamia read Iraq) into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour.(T.E. Lawrence)"
One of my favourite quotes at the moment.

We are constantly told by our soldiers that they are under equipped. We are constantly told by their senior officers that they are under manned. we are constantly told by our political leaders that the reason for this is lack of investment. The service people, we are told, live in poor conditions in this country, because refurbishing barracks etc costs too much. We can't retain soldiers because paying them sufficient to keep them costs too much.
Yet we can spend nearly £4 billion, with much of the money going to foreign owned companies like Tata steel (Indian) Thales (French) and BAE (45% foreign owned) on two new Carriers for some unspecified future threat when there is a real problem, that of Islamic terrorism, that we face now.
I can't see the logic in this at all, I'm afraid.
If their purpose is to provide jobs in Pompey, and similar places, you could secure jobs in these areas for a lot less than £4 billion. And if that is the purpose, I don't see why the rest of the country should subsidise those areas when the ship building industry in the Tees, the Tyne, and yes, even the Wear was allowed to die without any concern.


----------



## Chouan

Steve Woodward said:


> Pity we didnt have them in 1982


Why? We didn't need them. We had the ships to do the job. We lacked the political will to let the Argentinians know what we would do. They wouldn't have made any difference as a deterrent, as it was the politicians who caused the problem.


----------



## Gavin Gait

Russia is planning to build 6-8 aircraft carriers , Nimitz sized at that , has restarted building SSBN's , ordered more SSN's , developing and building a pretty large SSK fleet , re-equipping her surface warships , building new fighters and bombers ( including developing new long range strategic bombers , stealth bombers ) and testing brand new tank/armoured troop transports , etc.

India is about to take control of the first of 2 Oscar II class SSGN's from the Russian builders , they are building their own SSBN and SSN designs , they are building their own aircraft carrier ( as well as buying a modernised ex-russian stovl carrier ) , are upgrading all of their Nuclear weapons ( both warheads for bombs and missiles and the missiles themselves ) and buy quite a lot of Russian warships ( with a mixture of Russian and French weapons ).

Pakistan is building up a medium sized SSK fleet , modernising her surface fleet , upgrading all of their missile systems ( including Nuclear capable ones ) and fighter / bomber aircraft.

Iran is pushing ahead trying to gain enough experience in enriching Uranium to build their own Nuclear weapons ( do not ever forget that the current leadership in Iran has sworn to "wipe Israel off the map forever ) , has built up a large amount of coastal minelayers , MGB's , Missile patrol boats , Russian built Kilo class subs and developed their own ( or more likely North Korean designed ) inshore subs which will be almost impossible to find until they attack ( all armed with Russian built Skhval "rocket" torpedoes capable of 250 knots + underwater ).

China is building up her Army , Airforce and especially her Navy at a scale unseen since the early part of WW2. They are developing their own Aircraft Carrier designs and intend building 4-6 over the next 10-12 years , building their own submarines ( modified Russian designed Kilo boats , has "annoyed" the Russian's somewhat of late ) including SSN's and a new SSBN class. They intend to have true "Blue Water" ( Open Ocean ) capability by the end of 2020.

None of us can foresee the future but I will only say one thing , we can never forget Neville Chamberlain's infamous "Peace in our Time" nonsense.


----------



## Pompeyfan

Chouan said:


> Why? We didn't need them. We had the ships to do the job. We lacked the political will to let the Argentinians know what we would do. They wouldn't have made any difference as a deterrent, as it was the politicians who caused the problem.



I am afraid that with the Argentinians they only understood one message. I think they were given enough warning as to what may happen if they did not retreat from the island.

I know exactly what you mean Chouan, and agree with you. It seems crazy spending money on new carriers when our troops are going short, but life is not that straight forward when planning for the futrure. But as I have stated, it is so easy to be critical of politicians, but not so easy when in their shoes. No wonder leaders go grey so quickly. They are under immense pressure making decisions that many of us would not want to make.

David


----------



## Pompeyfan

Davie Tait said:


> Russia is planning to build 6-8 aircraft carriers , Nimitz sized at that , has restarted building SSBN's , ordered more SSN's , developing and building a pretty large SSK fleet , re-equipping her surface warships , building new fighters and bombers ( including developing new long range strategic bombers , stealth bombers ) and testing brand new tank/armoured troop transports , etc.
> 
> India is about to take control of the first of 2 Oscar II class SSGN's from the Russian builders , they are building their own SSBN and SSN designs , they are building their own aircraft carrier ( as well as buying a modernised ex-russian stovl carrier ) , are upgrading all of their Nuclear weapons ( both warheads for bombs and missiles and the missiles themselves ) and buy quite a lot of Russian warships ( with a mixture of Russian and French weapons ).
> 
> Pakistan is building up a medium sized SSK fleet , modernising her surface fleet , upgrading all of their missile systems ( including Nuclear capable ones ) and fighter / bomber aircraft.
> 
> Iran is pushing ahead trying to gain enough experience in enriching Uranium to build their own Nuclear weapons ( do not ever forget that the current leadership in Iran has sworn to "wipe Israel off the map forever ) , has built up a large amount of coastal minelayers , MGB's , Missile patrol boats , Russian built Kilo class subs and developed their own ( or more likely North Korean designed ) inshore subs which will be almost impossible to find until they attack ( all armed with Russian built Skhval "rocket" torpedoes capable of 250 knots + underwater ).
> 
> China is building up her Army , Airforce and especially her Navy at a scale unseen since the early part of WW2. They are developing their own Aircraft Carrier designs and intend building 4-6 over the next 10-12 years , building their own submarines ( modified Russian designed Kilo boats , has "annoyed" the Russian's somewhat of late ) including SSN's and a new SSBN class. They intend to have true "Blue Water" ( Open Ocean ) capability by the end of 2020.
> 
> None of us can foresee the future but I will only say one thing , we can never forget Neville Chamberlain's infamous "Peace in our Time" nonsense.


Great post Davie, far better put than I ever could. Well done (Applause) 

David


----------



## Binnacle

Pompeyfan said:


> Jack
> 
> I quite agree, it is all about opinion. Mine is based on the fact that we have defended our country by always having good armed forces. That includes a good navy. David


"always having good armed forces" ?????

David, that is not based on historical fact. In 1939 we were unprepared for war. Battle of Britain was a close run thing, as was the Battle of the Atlantic.
A "good navy" does'nt need to send an armed merchant cruiser against a battleship. The pleas of Admirals, Generals and Air Marshals had been ignored for years.


----------



## Pompeyfan

Binnacle said:


> "always having good armed forces" ?????
> 
> David, that is not based on historical fact. In 1939 we were unprepared for war. Battle of Britain was a close run thing, as was the Battle of the Atlantic.
> A "good navy" does'nt need to send an armed merchant cruiser against a battleship. The pleas of Admirals, Generals and Air Marshals had been ignored for years.



I would not know Binnacle, I was not born when the war began, all that I know is that we won, so we must have done something right?!. But is any country ever totally prepared for war?.

I have spoken to family and friends who served in the war, my uncle was with Monty, and a crew mate on the old Arcadia was aboard HMS Rodney in the war, so he had a few tales to tell including when they met Bismark. He had her chief gunner and many others in his sick bay. My uncle also had many tales to tell. And my dad was a coastguard our house peppered with German bullets as planes came over the sea climbing and firing as they climbed over the cliff. I came along at the end of 1944 when most of it was over. Good timing (Jester) 

David


----------



## SN NewsCaster

*Companies win £91m ship contracts (BBC News)*

Seven UK firms are awarded contracts totalling £91.5m to provide parts for the Navy's new aircraft carriers.

More from BBC News...


----------



## Chouan

"None of us can foresee the future but I will only say one thing , we can never forget Neville Chamberlain's infamous "Peace in our Time" nonsense."

Read your history. 
1) He gave us the time to rearm. Without the Munich agreement we wouldn't have been even nearly ready for war when it came.
2) He knew it was nonsense. He even turned to Alec Douglas-Home and said words to the effect of "I wish I hadn't said that", as he knew that war was coming.
3) He knew that the British people were absolutely against war. No matter what he thought was right. He could not have taken us to war against Germany in 1938. Public opinion was absolutely against it. He had to accept what Hitler was doing, but, prepare for the future.
4) Going to war in 1939 over Poland was suicide in any case. We couldn't afford it and whatever happened we'd lose one way or another. We can't afford these carriers either, we're trying to be a power in the world that we no longer are. Trying to maintain the illusion that we're a world power is a form of vanity that will lead to economic suicide.


----------



## Pompeyfan

Chouan

As you said yourself, none of us can foresee the future.

History records that we won World War 2. You can do a Post Mortem as to what happened before it, the mistakes that were made, what politicians said and public opinion. But as they say in football: "We are in the results business". A team may play badly, the manager apply wrong tactics, pick the wrong players, wrong formation and so on, yet they still win the game. History records that they won the game, nothing else.

But if you look deeper, you will see why they won and how we won World War 2, like how we came together as a country whatever public opinion before it, and I think you will find the German people were equally against war. But when the chips are down there is no better country on this planet to rally round. Our islands may be small, we may no longer be the force we were as navy, merchant navy, army or air force, but you will never beat that British spirit, the never say die attitude that has made us one of the most respected nations on earth but has also has made other countries jealous which is why some want to take away our identity, a country that has not only liberated others far bigger than us, but who's tiny island has populated best part of the Western World. 

Any defence of this proud nation must be good, learning from the past when we were not prepared. Money is but paper. Even if we poured the entire nations wealth into the NHS for example, it would still not be enough.

Life is about results, learning from past mistakes such as what Neville Chamberlain and all other politicians said which in hindsight was a load of nonsense. We are all experts in hindsight but life is not that simple, never has been and never will be.

No, we can't afford these carriers, but we can't afford not to have them either. 

History could well prove you right Chouan, but this is Great Britain you are talking about, not some lilly livered country who submits to the first sign of aggression. 

So if these carriers help keep our proud nation safe, provide jobs for people who would otherwise be scraping to feed their families then bring them on.

David


----------



## Steve Woodward

Chouan said:


> Why? We didn't need them. We had the ships to do the job. We lacked the political will to let the Argentinians know what we would do. They wouldn't have made any difference as a deterrent, as it was the politicians who caused the problem.


One of the reasons we lost so many ships in 1982 was lack of warning of an air raid ie lack of airborne radar, the cobbled together useage of a Sea King HC was a good idea but we really needed a fixed wing mounted system, for that you need a carrier.


----------



## Peter4447

Steve
From memory was it not the dear old Fairey Gannets that they got rid of just at the wrong moment.
Peter


----------



## Steve Woodward

It was indeed Peter, a few of, what I think was the ugliest plane in the air, would quite possibly have saved a lot of lives : if you dont believe me that they are ugly look HERE


----------



## Chouan

The government's latest money saving expedient is to use outside contractors for military training. The contractor is called Metrix, and there are, apparently, serious doubts about their suitability. Nevertheless, savings have to be made and this seems to be an area where savings can be made, despite Metrix failing "to deliver the desired level of military discipline, ethos and culture that is required and that trainees will leave the training establishments ill-prepared for service in operational commands". 
We can afford to spend fortunes on carriers, but can't afford to train our troops properly!


----------



## wigger

So what is going to fill the AEW role in the future, are the Sea King's going to soldier on until they are obsolete or is there a plan to replace them? I did see an article a while ago that mentioned the possibility of buying a few of E2C Hawkeye's, but I can't imagine that would be very cheap.


----------



## Gavin Gait

The Sea Kings will probably be used to start with until the money is spent fitting out a few of the EH101 Merlins with a similar type of set up ******.

The design of the new carriers is for the possibility that they can be converted at any time into standard conventional carriers with arrester wires and catapults ( Electro Magnetic ones as being developed for the next generation of USN Carriers ). The design has an option to have a single waist catapult and arrester wires so the option of buying a few E2C's is there but they would need to take that decision now so the arrester gear and catapult can be designed and ordered.


----------



## JimC

Tomvart said:


> SAH and Land lubber, have you both forgotten what a close run thing the Falklands were? Or are your memories as short as our myopic government who are renown for killing our servicemen needlessly through this kind of tactical ineptitude?
> Had we not had those 2 small carriers in 1982, we would have lost the struggle and been publicly humiliated by Argentina - losing a lot more men and ships than we did, Carriers are not always a means of Power projection, that is a concept that the US Navy is designed around, not the RN.
> RN strategy has the Carrier providing a mobile airbase and command platform to support land operations and to provide fighter and AEW cover for what is left of our fleet, this mobile airbase provides essential Air superiority that our troops on the ground consider essential when operating beyond the boundaries of the Air cover that the RAF can provide from our current limited number of Airbases.
> Although the Taliban may not have a Navy, A sizeable UK carrier with a reasonable Carrier Air Group could provide Close Air Support, SEAD, CASEVAC, Supply and reconnaissance services that the British troops on the Ground consider essential - That is the way all troops are trained to operate these days, and it is this that gives our blokes on the ground the advantage and keeps the number of British and NATO troops KIA down to a minimum.
> If we are going to continue to support troops posted abroad and provide protection for the likes of the Falkland Islands, we cannot have a Navy without Carriers.
> Tom


What do we do when the peoples of these far-off places decide they don't want to be part of the UK.? What is the cost per head on cash and human lives to defend these places? Some of us rememember HMS Vanguard.. beautiful ship , cost a fortune and never fired a shot in anger! My own humble opinion is that we will never again be called upon to fight the kind of war such carriers are designed for. We will of course, fight the stealth type - you know- the one where operators sit in remote bunkers operating unmanned aircraft via satellite link - much as the RAF and USAF are doing already. I have a sneaking suspicion that these carriers are obsolete already. Ok, if it keeps people in jobs, makes people rich, sweetens unsavory politicians for a time or whatever so be it. However by the time these things are operational the speed of technology will have already left them with a distinct smell of mothballs. Call me a synic if you will but like a lot of us out here, I've been there, seen it and got a drawer full of T shirts to prove it.


----------



## wigger

Big carriers will probably be obsolete at some point in the future, but at the moment, a lot of countries are putting vast amounts of money into producing new ones (or refitting older ones) so that time seems to be some time away. The US Navy will soon finish the last of the Nimitz Class carriers, and with 10 of them at their disposal, you'd think that would be sufficient, but they are still looking at an improved design that will replace the current ships so it looks like they will be around for a long time yet.

Stealthy Unmanned aircraft do seem to be the way forward, but they will only get larger as they are given more offensive roles, and as the size grows you still need something to operate them from. Maybe something the size of a Nimitz class is a bit unnecessary, but the Invincibles are too small. I'm not sure how far away we are from unmanned fighters/bombers, but looking at the aircraft entering service at the moment, F-22 etc, or still being developed like the JSF, it won't be anytime soon.


----------



## johnalderman

I would have thought the various missiles that are already available are unmanned fighter/bombers.


----------



## slick

All,
The Argentines are going in for a bit of sabre rattling (DT 09/07/2008), I would suggest that we live in a very uncertain world and the lowering of ones guard could be humiliating if not fatal.
Yours aye,
*Slick

"The more you sweat in Peace the less you bleed in War*"


----------

