Heads should roll

[asperity]

Defence

 

Why has nobody accepted responsibilty for this debacle? Oh silly me, it's government. No-one is ever at fault in government! :evil:

 

How can they envisage what role an aircraft carrier will play in 2031 anyway. They aren't able to plan for the next 12 months!!! :roll:

[Evil Sid]

What amazes me is that they will have to modify both the planes AND the aircraft carrier to enable it to do what it SHOULD have been designed to do in the first place. It is also only able to operate for about a third of a year. probably have a waiver to say that the warranty will be void if this vessel is exposed to the wrong type of sea water.

 

If it wasn't true people would think you were making it up.

[Peter T]

Defence

 

Why has nobody accepted responsibilty for this debacle? Oh silly me, it's government. No-one is ever at fault in government! :evil:

 

How can they envisage what role an aircraft carrier will play in 2031 anyway. They aren't able to plan for the next 12 months!!! :roll:

 

A couple of years back, WBC held meetings at the Village Hotel, asking people what they thought that people would want in 30 years time? Most of those there, will probably be dead by then.

[Dizzy]

Seems we are being left with no real defence anymore as they have (or are) scrapping most of it and what they are replacing it with must really be making others countries laugh at us especially if what that says is true too Asp.

 

Surely these sorts of things should not be splashed across the internet for the world to read.

 

I was reading the other day that our HMS Westminster which was sent out to Libya only actually had four missiles on board As they are fired in pairs that meant only two attacks would have been possible had it been necessary.

 

It is actually had the capacity of 32 Seawolf missiles and 8 Harpoon missiles (I think).

 

But then again this may be just the press scaremongering again or maybe a tactical move to make us look pathetic, vulnerable and unprepared when we are not really

[observer]

The problem is, that the UK has always attempted to punch above it's weight on Defence, spending a larger proportion of it's GDP on Defence than most European States. Plus our capacity being stretched by Bliar's ego over recent decades and the complete incompetance of MOD procuement; has left the MOD with the largest Ministerial deficit. So, now that the Duke of E has been made the Lord High Admiral of the Navy; perhaps we can afford to provide him with some ships to play with in his bath?!

[Wireboy]

These new aircraft carriers are needed. Plain and simple.

 

The RN has not had any aircraft carriers since the 1970's. The Current Invincible class are "through deck cruisers" designed solely for helicopters. It was fortunate that they could take the Harrier as these were STVOL. (short take off vertical landing)

 

The last aircraft carrier in the RN was the old HMS Ark Royal which decommission in 1979.

 

The UK does not have over seas territories any more so a large aircraft carrier is needed to deliver strike aircraft any where in the world. Who can predict where a conflict will be in 20, 30 or 40 years time?

 

The new Queen Elizabeth carriers displace 60,000 tons. (5,000 more than the old Ark) and will be the biggest ships ever built for the Royal Navy. They have been given a life span of 50 years. That means the hull will last for 50 years and then they will require re-fits every 5 years or so to keep them up to date. A 50 year ship will get good use and you will get your moneys worth.

 

We are in a very dangerous position at the moment with no carrier/harriers available. HMS Illustrious is still around but now only as a helicopter carrier along with HMS Ocean as the Harriers have retired.

 

If the Falklands come under attack again there is no chance the UK can muster up a force the same as 1982 and I doubt our current capability off re-taking the islands.

 

If HMS Queen Elizabeth was around now it would be the ultimate deterrent around the world.

 

The extra costs’ now coming in is down to poor planning. The carriers should have been fitted with catapults and arrestor gear from day one. Now we have these we can use American and French planes on our carriers and we can also send our planes to there’s.

 

The Labour idea of having the carriers at STOVL limited the range and payload of the planes and limited them to our carrier only.

 

A navy is built around carriers. You build one carrier then have destroyers and frigates and submarines to protect it. With that kind of fleet the Royal Navy will remain a strong power. Without the carriers we end up with destroyers and frigates which are good ships but cannot strike the way an aircraft carrier can.

 

I think the government and the people need to have a sit down and ask themselves, Do we want to remain a power around the world? If so aircraft carriers are needed. If not, scrap the carriers and revert the Royal Navy to strictly UK costal water protection only.

 

HMS Queen Elizabeth is coming together nicely in Rosyth dockyard and it would be a shame to mothball it straight away. But my understanding is that HMS Queen Elizabeth will enter service and the second carrier HMS Prince of Wales will enter "Extended Readiness." Basically when HMS Queen Elizabeth enters refit HMS Prince of Wales will be the choice carrier and vice versa.

 

That seems a good idea as only one carrier is running at one time which will keep costs down and it will also extend the life of both ships.

[observer]

Think the pertinent question in all that WB, is "do we want to remain a power around the world"? Or more to the point, "can we afford to remain a power around the world".