Pointblank
Senior Member
The lack of a anti-ship missile is not a concern, when the ships are meant to be used in task groups with ships that do have anti-ship missiles. Many air-defence warships do not carry anti-ship missiles, such as the Flight IIA Arleigh Burke destroyers.
If the T45s are doing their intended job ie escorting a carrier, then the carrier's aircraft will be able to deal with any surface threat at far greater range than any weapon you could fit to the Darings. It would only be a problem if they were operating independently from any task group, which shows the importance of forward planning.
Forgive me if I do not share your enthusiasm for the Carriers. At £2 Billion a piece, they cost the same as the US's Nimitz Carriers, but lets be honest, they ain't no Nimitz, as both Queenie and Prinny are going to be Diesel powered and lack therefore sufficient power to operate Steam Catapults (with instead a vague commitment to install electric ones at a later date if such things are ever invented
)
We do however see a Defence Secretary awarding a contract to his own constituency, which is so blatant I am astounded.
So we have money for these new; toys recession and all, but nothing to replace the Nimrods (despite the Oxford Coroner calling for the fleet to be grounded) and other now clapped out gear that UK forces are expected to continue to use to undertake their current commitments. In other words nothing that we really need but money instead for prestige project for a future theoretical threat that nobody is able or prepared to identify.
Looks like the British Taxpayer and Serviceman is stiffed once more!
)We do however see a Defence Secretary awarding a contract to his own constituency, which is so blatant I am astounded.
So we have money for these new; toys recession and all, but nothing to replace the Nimrods (despite the Oxford Coroner calling for the fleet to be grounded) and other now clapped out gear that UK forces are expected to continue to use to undertake their current commitments. In other words nothing that we really need but money instead for prestige project for a future theoretical threat that nobody is able or prepared to identify.
Looks like the British Taxpayer and Serviceman is stiffed once more!
Forgive me if I do not share your enthusiasm for the Carriers. At £2 Billion a piece, they cost the same as the US's Nimitz Carriers, but lets be honest, they ain't no Nimitz, as both Queenie and Prinny are going to be Diesel powered and lack therefore sufficient power to operate Steam Catapults (with instead a vague commitment to install electric ones at a later date if such things are ever invented
We do however see a Defence Secretary awarding a contract to his own constituency, which is so blatant I am astounded.
So we have money for these new; toys recession and all, but nothing to replace the Nimrods (despite the Oxford Coroner calling for the fleet to be grounded) and other now clapped out gear that UK forces are expected to continue to use to undertake their current commitments. In other words nothing that we really need but money instead for prestige project for a future theoretical threat that nobody is able or prepared to identify.
Looks like the British Taxpayer and Serviceman is stiffed once more!
The price tag is misleading, they are not £2Billion a piece. A BIG chunk of the buying price is going towards restructuring the British shipbuilding industry. If we had invested in the Industry a couple of decades ago then you could knock at least a billion off the price tag now.
Electric catapults? I hope they have been invented, because the new class of US CVNs will have four of them each and they've already started work on them. I think General Atomics might have something to say on the subject seeing as how they are building the cats now...
Why do we need carriers? Well seeing as we're a landlocked country at the heart of Europe completley self sufficient in food, fuel and raw materials for our immense manufacturing industry, we can do without a navy altogether and just rely on the army and the air force to defend us... Just as well we aren't an island nation dependent on overseas trade from the far side of the world for our very survival. Then we'd actually need a navy. A navy without aircraft carriers is just a coast guard, because once warships venture beyond their own 'air umbrella' of AEW and fighter aircraft, they become vulnerable to enemy aircraft/missiles/ships/subs.
Nimrod replacement? Be patient, it's coming. It's called Nimrod MRA4, though as usual the numbers have been cut to unreasonable levels. They do work though. It would be foolish to base the next fifty years defence plans on the present operations. Iraq is winding down and that in itself will relieve some of the pressure on ops in the 'Stan.
Neutral Zone
Junior Member
I'm just finally glad that the new carriers are going to be built some 10 years after they were first proposed! I just hope that other programmes of capabilities aren't going to be cut to meet the bill. There's no point building 2 carriers if you haven't got a credible escort force!
Mr T
Senior Member
As Obi Wan said, that isn't the cost per carrier. Any comparison with the Americans is flawed given the generous exchange rate, but the US carriers still cost more (£2.27 billion).
Well that's sort of what you need your navy to do. You can't ask a potential matter to wait five years while you order an aircraft carrier - you have them or you don't!
More generally - what Obi Wan said.
Yes,totally agree re the need for aircraft carriers,only question I have is,will 6 type 45's be enough protection for them,and serve the RN's other air defence needs at the same time?
Surely we would need at least 8,2 for each A/C,leaving 4 for other needs,or am I showing my lack pf knowledge?
Have to say,I share some of the concerns,re the winding down of capabilities in other areas,in particular the cutback's in infantry,surely boot's on the ground are needed,in the sort of light/medium op's envisaged in the latest defence White Paper?
Also the cutback's to the Chally's,down to 250!
Am I the only one who think's defence spending should be upped,given the interventionist nature of "our" foreign policy?
Surely we would need at least 8,2 for each A/C,leaving 4 for other needs,or am I showing my lack pf knowledge?
Have to say,I share some of the concerns,re the winding down of capabilities in other areas,in particular the cutback's in infantry,surely boot's on the ground are needed,in the sort of light/medium op's envisaged in the latest defence White Paper?
Also the cutback's to the Chally's,down to 250!
Am I the only one who think's defence spending should be upped,given the interventionist nature of "our" foreign policy?
Mr T
Senior Member
Depends what the Navy's needs are. If it's to have multiple deployments into hot zones with no coalition support, then the answer is no. But that is never going to happen. 6 will probably be enough, but it will mean there will be very few low-intensity missions such as Iron Duke has been on recently.
You know the answer to your question, surely.