New Aircraft Carriers for UK

[CommanderJameson]

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

Good stuff! Carriers are great.

I wonder if the government has worked out what the carbon footprint of a 65,000 tonne killing machine is?

[Skywalker]

Without being doom and gloom about it...but I wonder if the RAF or the Army are angling for command - as the Fleet Air Arm seems to being subsumed by both Joint Force Harrier and the Joint Helicopter Command.

There must have been some trade offs to get these order. Can't wait ti see them completed

[Eric Mc]

Back to the 1920s.

[derestrictor]

Good, a small glimmer of common sense.

[clonmult]

Love carriers, but gotta think that the 4 billion that its costing would be better spent elsewhere?

And of that 4 billion, how much will the government get back in taxation?

[Shar2]

Skywalker said:

Without being doom and gloom about it...but I wonder if the RAF or the Army are angling for command - as the Fleet Air Arm seems to being subsumed by both Joint Force Harrier and the Joint Helicopter Command.

There must have been some trade offs to get these order. Can't wait ti see them completed

Actually, I believe the joint helicopter command is run by the Navy. The carriers are a nice addition to the fleet, but I think they dropped the ball again in that they look bloody awful, (and therefore probably will be), and they should have gone nuclear, therefore increasing the useable flightdeck area and increasing aircraft numbers and their fuel and weapons stocks. We also have the problem of a very limited supply of frigates and destroyers to protect them.

[GilbertGrape]

Would love to see these things being built. Would love to see the first day of assembly to see exactly how you would go about building one of these.

[DangerousMike]

what you always do:


unpack the box and lay out in the pieces in neat piles, count the screws etc.

[10 Pence Short]

GilbertGrape said:

Would love to see these things being built. Would love to see the first day of assembly to see exactly how you would go about building one of these.

I can just imagine them unfolding the instructions as they look up at the MASSIVE pieces that need snipping out of the plastic frame.

"Can anyone find part 46b?"

[GilbertGrape]

DangerousMike said:

what you always do:


unpack the box and lay out in the pieces in neat piles, count the screws etc.

All the same, I'd like to see it.

[pugwash4x4]

why the hell aren't we running nuclear carriers?

they will be a great addition to our ability for force projection- but i can see at least one of them being blown up because we can't protect it adequately. i dont know how many frigates we have at the moment but it's not many, and definitely not enough.

If we are going to be fighting 2 wars at once (which to my eyes seem to be very carefully managed in the media) then we need to learn to pay for them!

[tinman0]

Eric Mc said:

Back to the 1920s.

??

[Shar2]

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConMediaF...

[johnnywb]

I was sailing out of Port Solent last weekend and it's quite a sad sight to be honest, the number of rusting hulks just sat there in the hope someone might buy them and Illustrious (i think?) alongside being stripped.

I don't know how many ships are in the Royal Navy at the moment, but it can't be anywhere near the strength it once was and i do wonder if perhaps one day we're going to be caught napping.

[Slikk]

clonmult said:

Love carriers, but gotta think that the 4 billion that its costing would be better spent elsewhere?

And of that 4 billion, how much will the government get back in taxation?

er, all of it.. .. ..

[Thudd]

Yup, i'm sat here thinking there's 4billion we needn't have spent.

[Shar2]

johnnywb said:

I was sailing out of Port Solent last weekend and it's quite a sad sight to be honest, the number of rusting hulks just sat there in the hope someone might buy them and Illustrious (i think?) alongside being stripped.

I don't know how many ships are in the Royal Navy at the moment, but it can't be anywhere near the strength it once was and i do wonder if perhaps one day we're going to be caught napping.

May have been Invincible, as Lusty and Ark are still operational. Although saying that, Lusty obviously needed a good service having watched that Warship series.

[Eric Mc]

tinman0 said:

Eric Mc said:

Back to the 1920s.

??

When the RAF came into being in April 1918, the original "Fleet Air Arm" i.e the Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) was absorbed into the new air force. Therefore, from the Spring of 1918 the Royal Navy were no longer allowed to operate a force of aircraft.

With the development of proper aircraft carriers in the 1920s, although the Royal Navy operated the ships, the RAF retained control of the aircraft operating off those carriers. One of the results of this misguided policy was that the development of effective naval aircarft in the UK was held back as the RAF didn't really understand what was needed for aircraft based at sea and the Admiralty failed to develop proper air tactics for the fleet. The leaders in naval aircraft design in the 1920s and the 1930s were the Americans and the Japanese.

It was only on the eve of World War 2 that the Royal Navy was handed back control of the aircarft flying on and off its ships. But because of the low priority that had been given to naval aviation in the 1920s and 1930s, they entered the war with inappropriate and obsolete airraft. By the end of the war, a large portion of Royal Navy aircraft were American designs.

[tinman0]

cheers

[Hitch78]

Slikk said:

clonmult said:

Love carriers, but gotta think that the 4 billion that its costing would be better spent elsewhere?

And of that 4 billion, how much will the government get back in taxation?

er, all of it.. .. ..

What he said.