Re: Who needs an aircraft carrier?
I don't know if this was mentioned on the last 2 pages.
I watched this whole debate on holiday whilst waiting for some rain to clear (house of commons).
The new carriers were ordered by Labour. Typical labour spending money on stupid ideas without applying any logic.
The new carriers were already ordered, it would cost the government MORE money to buy themselves out of the contract, that it would to continue to build both carriers, hence why both are still being put forward to be built.
Labour also orderd the in-correct planes, ones that cost more, are less effective, carry less armunment, do less miles, and were more expensive. Hence why the planes are on hold whilst the newer cheaper better versions come out and will be installed to the carriers.
The current carriers (from someone I know within the navy) are useless. As said, they cost more to maintain than it does to scrap them hence why they are going. There is only ever 1 out at sea. I think its Illustrious is constantly in dry dock, and the other two, generally only one is out at sea, the other being also in dry dock.
As much as I love the harrier, they are old, and won't cut it against modern planes. They are only good as bombers, of which the Tornado is also better at. They are continuing orders on the Tornados and Eurofighters.
Last edited by Daimo; 10-11-10 at 04:14 PM.
|