# Royal Navy Surrenders one new Carrier in Budget Battle



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

From the Times Online:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6888962.ece


----------



## Santos (Mar 16, 2005)

Am I surprised - NO

Chris


----------



## McCloggie (Apr 19, 2008)

Sad? Yes.

Surprised? Like Santos, NO.

One really has to ask how the RN will work with one ship though. A refit is likely to take years and training people to operate one ship will take time and money as well. Using another carrier will mean that the crew will need to be trained in the use of the "borrowed" ship as well. The whole point of having a rapid reaction ship based air strike capability would appear to have been lost and therefore you have to ask what is the point of having only one ship?

I would not be suprised if the remaining vessel was built and then offered up for sale almost straight away - that is what happened with the U-class submarines and what would have happened to the Invincible class ships if Nott's defence plan had not been scuppered by the annoying Argentinians walking into the Falklands.

McC


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

Been in the post for ages - simple really we can't afford it, weather a recession and fight a war in Afghanistan. Like i have said before the UK Government and to a large extent the UK populace really should have a more realistic view on our position in the world - we are punching way way above our weight and you can only do that for so long.


----------



## McCloggie (Apr 19, 2008)

I can only agree SM. 

In some ways I believe we could have a better navy with more ships if we (and I mean the politicians really) decided what the role was to be and then provided the necessary assets to undertake that role properly.

However, coming from a "RN Family" and spending 15 years in a blue suit - part time and full time - it still saddens me to see the continued decline of the service.

Just glad I am no longer part of it!

McC

McC


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

Mccloggie

Its not so much that we should have a bigger Navy than we should have a Navy/Army/Airforce which is *realistic* and realistically deployed. We have way too many in Afghanistan, more than we can afford and realistically maintain. It seems to be a blind spot of all politicians and the British public.


----------



## McCloggie (Apr 19, 2008)

We are singing from the same hymn sheet SM.

What I should have said was that a realistic policy would hopefully provide more ships of an appropriate type and if that were to lead to an overall increase in vessel numbers (of all types of ships) then that would be no bad thing.

The RN seems (as ever) to be tasked to all sorts of roles and ends up struggling to fulfill any one of them. A more realistic policy to define the roles might result in - for example - two or more "basic" vessels instead of one new very expensive state of the art warship.

That in itself may not be realistic as if the RN is to work with other ships (i.e. NATO) then a standardisation in equipment such as that for electronic warefare is essential. Consequently, in determining whatever the role may be it needs to be decided just how big the UK committment to joint actions will be and which areas of the world we are prepared to still police. 

McC


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

McC

Got ya now - yup same thoughts entirely(Thumb)


----------



## Peter4447 (Jan 26, 2006)

Now that the RN is loosing one fixed-wing carrier, I wonder just how long it will be before the six very high-tech, air defence Type 45 destroyers are reduced to four which will be seen as being adequate to fulfil future operational requirements by our politicians?
Peter4447(MAD)


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

Peter4447 said:


> Now that the RN is loosing one fixed-wing carrier, I wonder just how long it will be before the six very high-tech, air defence Type 45 destroyers are reduced to four which will be seen as being adequate to fulfil future operational requirements by our politicians?
> Peter4447(MAD)


What would be better was if they reduced the commitment such that we only require four


----------



## Donald McGhee (Apr 5, 2005)

The same old story is true here in NZ, a country that is very much dependent on sea trade routes. The current two frigate navy is inadequate, at least for blue water ops, but the larger offshore patrol craft should fill the economic zone patrol area relatively well, backed up by the new IPC's.
We seem to have moved on from the infamous "Charles Upham" purchase, 'nuff said about that!
Again politicians rule when any decisions are taken away from the Naval chiefs and the RN continues to suffer, as does the RNZN and will do so for as long as politicians have a say.
The RNZN is looking better now than it has done for a long time,as far as a modern fleet is concerned, lots of new builds, but the same old problem is still there, we can't get the people to man the ships!
Still, I'm only an ex Merchant mariner and a layman and stand to be corrected!(Whaaa)


----------



## vectiscol (Oct 14, 2006)

1) If the two carriers were to be built, would the Royal Navy be able to find enough sailors to man them?
2) Could Britain afford the fuel cost and carbon footprint of a 60,000 tonnes aircraft carrier and attendant escorts plus fleet supply train at sea?


----------



## Lancastrian (Feb 8, 2006)

Who gives a fig about carbon footprints?


----------



## sparkie2182 (May 12, 2007)

"Who gives a fig"

Shouldn't that be ***?


----------

