TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
post removed by poster
Last edited:
kwaigonegin
Colonel
No having a single carrier is very ineffective.. Just ask the French. Your ship would not be out to sea half the time and purpose building just a single carrier would cost almost the same as building two carriers. Knowing Moore's Law the one time you need a carrier she'll be in drydock undergoing refit! Or if an enemy is smart, would time their operation as such if they deem naval avition a serious threat to the operation.
they are also not building them simultaneously.. The PoW is almost two years behind the flagship.
Heck if anything they should've built three! Like they did the invincible class.
Last edited:
What about paying for them? And paying for adequate training for three ships?
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Operating a carrier requires significant commitment and resources both in initial capital expenditure and operation costs however operating carriers is also not to be taken lightly by ANY Navy.. it's one of those do it right or don't do it at all.
If you have the will to operate carriers than you better suck it up and do it right otherwise you'll be like HTMS Chakri Naruebet of Thailand which has become nothing more than a royal yacht or even the Sao Paolo which has been out of commission half of her life in the last dozen years which ties in to my assertion in my earlier post.
Even the French who has operated 2 carriers for the longest time is now struggling with just the CdG and let's not even go into the myriad of problems she had faced since coming online.
If you want your Navy to have a carrier sailing the high seas 24/7/365 you BETTER have at least three otherwise go home.
As we are all aware now, PLAN is planning (no pun intended) on having at least 3 or 4 carriers in their fleet so they are very serious about their carrier commitment.. no doubt about it.
If the QE class was deemed too much than what they should've done was build a 'lesser carrier' but built three or them instead space out couple years apart so the cost is more manageable. Keep in mind that in large capital asset like a carrier has a singificant ecomoies of scale benefit to it and building 3 is not going to cost anywhere close to building just one x 3. the organix air arm while significant can be held back because in case of emergencies you can always put more fighters on the 'extra' carrier but you need that carrier to be available in the first place!
Either way my original post was a reply to Franklin giving my opinion on why having just a single carrier is a very bad decision. Two is OK but three is ideal especially for a traditional seafaring nation like the UK.
Last edited:
That's the reality of being a middle ranked power.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Unfortunately there was no way UK could afford to build 3 x QE Class just not possible even the two units was a big step and even then there was not enough money or time left to go full CATOBAR it was a compromise to just have ski jumps and F35B
Same thing with Type 45 we didn't go full harpoon or BMD or even Tomahawks cus if we did we could only build 4 units not the 6 units let alone the 12 envisaged originally
But that is still a powerful naval force outside USN
Same thing with Type 45 we didn't go full harpoon or BMD or even Tomahawks cus if we did we could only build 4 units not the 6 units let alone the 12 envisaged originally
But that is still a powerful naval force outside USN
Jura The idiot
General
yeah I've been following this thread since winter, I guess, and wrt the Royal Navy I've seen, twice maybe, the argument
"it would've been fiscally irresponsible to spend 10+ billion pounds and start building a huge Navy"
but also "the planned Navy wouldn't be able to retake ..." well, check this http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/mil...ter-rivalry-arms-buildup-6905.html#post291721 for an example of what's been retaken
an interesting webpage: check also the comments
