Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
Re: Aircraft Carriers
They are no more incompetent than the previous government. There is little to choose in British politics.
The UK tries to be a great power but it lacks the resources, have been so lacking since WWII. In those circumstance you estimate the costs of everything too low, are confronted by cost overflows and then rob Peter to pay Paul. A small country like the UK has no business to own nuclear weapons and the attendant submarines, but they decided the last time it was considered that the SSBMs are to be replaced around 2030, even when there is no likelihood of paying for such a project. The Netherlands lost it position as a great power around 1700 so we have got used to that, but the first opportunity for the UK to see the change was only in 1956.
So now they need large aircraft carriers to defend the remains of the Empire, i.e. the Falklands and Gibraltar. The Chagos Islands they gave to the US to build the Diego Garcia base after first illegally deporting the inhabitants. Human rights anyone?
They are no more incompetent than the previous government. There is little to choose in British politics.
The UK tries to be a great power but it lacks the resources, have been so lacking since WWII. In those circumstance you estimate the costs of everything too low, are confronted by cost overflows and then rob Peter to pay Paul. A small country like the UK has no business to own nuclear weapons and the attendant submarines, but they decided the last time it was considered that the SSBMs are to be replaced around 2030, even when there is no likelihood of paying for such a project. The Netherlands lost it position as a great power around 1700 so we have got used to that, but the first opportunity for the UK to see the change was only in 1956.
So now they need large aircraft carriers to defend the remains of the Empire, i.e. the Falklands and Gibraltar. The Chagos Islands they gave to the US to build the Diego Garcia base after first illegally deporting the inhabitants. Human rights anyone?
Equation
Lieutenant General
Re: Aircraft Carriers
Aren't they causing more of tax payers money by being more indecisive?
Aren't they causing more of tax payers money by being more indecisive?
Re: Aircraft Carriers
If their people decidedly do not want them, they will vote in people who will get rid of them. That hasn't happened and I believe the citizens of the UK understand how vital such security is for their own interests.
Sad that anyone has to have them, but history has shown that if you have a big enough stick, you can fend off the barbarians waiting at the border, of whatever sort they may be. So I expect England will keep its nukes and have its carriers, although their entire Navy will be less in numbers than before, what they do have will be effective and potent.
Well, that is for the UK to decide, not anyone else. They have them, and like it or not, they are part of the "club." And they have had them for about as long as the US and Russia.
If their people decidedly do not want them, they will vote in people who will get rid of them. That hasn't happened and I believe the citizens of the UK understand how vital such security is for their own interests.
Sad that anyone has to have them, but history has shown that if you have a big enough stick, you can fend off the barbarians waiting at the border, of whatever sort they may be. So I expect England will keep its nukes and have its carriers, although their entire Navy will be less in numbers than before, what they do have will be effective and potent.
Last edited:
Re: Aircraft Carriers
Sorry master delft, but I'm going to stick with the Headmaster on this one, the day you throw down your weapons, is the day you invite some belligerant to be your master, and from the looks of some of the creeps loose today, you can pry it from my cold dead fingers. Seriously some of the Heavy Lifters could use a little help and encouragement, God Save the Queen! and God Bless Great Britain and God Bless Will's and Harry!
Sorry master delft, but I'm going to stick with the Headmaster on this one, the day you throw down your weapons, is the day you invite some belligerant to be your master, and from the looks of some of the creeps loose today, you can pry it from my cold dead fingers. Seriously some of the Heavy Lifters could use a little help and encouragement, God Save the Queen! and God Bless Great Britain and God Bless Will's and Harry!
Re: Aircraft Carriers
In short, nobody. It's a collation government. There should be a re-election instead.
I always feel that when they started EF2000 project, they should design and develop a carrier based version. as well (like the French). Now, it's too late for that. In theory they still can. But it would be way too expensive. Now, they whole QE project is all depending on F35B/C...
In short, nobody. It's a collation government. There should be a re-election instead.
I always feel that when they started EF2000 project, they should design and develop a carrier based version. as well (like the French). Now, it's too late for that. In theory they still can. But it would be way too expensive. Now, they whole QE project is all depending on F35B/C...
Re: Aircraft Carriers
The Netherlands don't own nuclear weapons. The UK doesn't have any enemies armed with nuclear weapons. Iran, which has two or three nuclear armed enemies, has decided not to develop them, that to do so would be sinful. The UK has signed and ratified the non-proliferation treaty in which it promises to abolish its nuclear weapons. It is unable to develop the missiles to "deliver" those weapons and has to lease these from the US. It is unable to develop aircraft for use by its huge and overly expensive aircraft carriers. It is habitually described by a financial commentator on a Dutch radio station as a banana republic ( well, its not a republic, but he foretold the financial troubles we suffer from since 2008 from about 2002, so that's a detail I'm prepared to overlook
).
OT
The Netherlands don't own nuclear weapons. The UK doesn't have any enemies armed with nuclear weapons. Iran, which has two or three nuclear armed enemies, has decided not to develop them, that to do so would be sinful. The UK has signed and ratified the non-proliferation treaty in which it promises to abolish its nuclear weapons. It is unable to develop the missiles to "deliver" those weapons and has to lease these from the US. It is unable to develop aircraft for use by its huge and overly expensive aircraft carriers. It is habitually described by a financial commentator on a Dutch radio station as a banana republic ( well, its not a republic, but he foretold the financial troubles we suffer from since 2008 from about 2002, so that's a detail I'm prepared to overlook
).
Re: Aircraft Carriers
We all hope it never comes about, but if there is anything history has taught us, it is that it can easily happen and faster than you can get ready for it if you are not ready already.
In today's world, Russia, China, heck, even France, along with Iran, potentially Pakistan, etc. are all potential adversaries the UK could face...and more.
The best way to avoid it is to remain strong. I believe the UK, within its constraints, will try and remain strong. And that will mean maintaining a credible nuclear deterant, and a credible Navy with a couple of aircraft carriers...which is what this thread is, of course about.
So to get back to that topc. user the following link to go to some military videos I am putting together. The 4th or 5th one down is a really neat video of a US Supercarrier, the USS George Washington, CVN-73, experiencing overwash from high seas over her bow. Mighty high seas to do that because that deck is 50 ft or more out of the water.
There are potential adversaries abounding for the UK and any free country.OT
The Netherlands don't own nuclear weapons. The UK doesn't have any enemies armed with nuclear weapons. Iran, which has two or three nuclear armed enemies, has decided not to develop them, that to do so would be sinful. The UK has signed and ratified the non-proliferation treaty in which it promises to abolish its nuclear weapons. It is unable to develop the missiles to "deliver" those weapons and has to lease these from the US. It is unable to develop aircraft for use by its huge and overly expensive aircraft carriers. It is habitually described by a financial commentator on a Dutch radio station as a banana republic ( well, its not a republic, but he foretold the financial troubles we suffer from since 2008 from about 2002, so that's a detail I'm prepared to overlook
We all hope it never comes about, but if there is anything history has taught us, it is that it can easily happen and faster than you can get ready for it if you are not ready already.
In today's world, Russia, China, heck, even France, along with Iran, potentially Pakistan, etc. are all potential adversaries the UK could face...and more.
The best way to avoid it is to remain strong. I believe the UK, within its constraints, will try and remain strong. And that will mean maintaining a credible nuclear deterant, and a credible Navy with a couple of aircraft carriers...which is what this thread is, of course about.
So to get back to that topc. user the following link to go to some military videos I am putting together. The 4th or 5th one down is a really neat video of a US Supercarrier, the USS George Washington, CVN-73, experiencing overwash from high seas over her bow. Mighty high seas to do that because that deck is 50 ft or more out of the water.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Re: Aircraft Carriers
events in 1982 proved that UK will always need a aircraft carrier, if Falklands didnt happen, UK would probably have not have any carriers or even planned
plus now after 9/11 UK is always with the international community, so again a carrier is vital, just look at Libya, Typhoons were making 3-4 hours flights to bomb Libya and fly back to UK, to fly Typhoon for 1 hour costs in excess of £50,000, so u can imagine the logistical nightmare
i always say, these 2 carriers will certainly put the "Royal" back into the Royal Navy
events in 1982 proved that UK will always need a aircraft carrier, if Falklands didnt happen, UK would probably have not have any carriers or even planned
plus now after 9/11 UK is always with the international community, so again a carrier is vital, just look at Libya, Typhoons were making 3-4 hours flights to bomb Libya and fly back to UK, to fly Typhoon for 1 hour costs in excess of £50,000, so u can imagine the logistical nightmare
i always say, these 2 carriers will certainly put the "Royal" back into the Royal Navy
- Status