Who needs an aircraft carrier?

[Biker Biggles]

So.Do we need one,two or no carriers at all?In a truely brilliant bit of clear thinking our government has said it will scrap HMS Ark Royal(our only fixed wing aircraft carrier)and all the Harriers it carries immediately.However,we will still build two new carriers,the first to come on stream in 2016,but not fitted out to carry any fixed wing aircraft,and the second one in 2020,fitted out with fixed wing capability.At this point we get rid of the 2016 carrier,no doubt at huge expense.So for ten years we dont need any fixed wing capability,then we do.Makes perfect sense to me.

[Bri w]

Bet the Argies are getting the plans out of the cupboard...

You and me both-------Oil and Falklands come to mind. You would think that they could mothball the Harriers under deck along with the ship during the interim



Somebody might get egg on their face with this one

[Biker Biggles]

This is what I dont get.HMS Ark Royal and the Harriers may be old and no longer cutting edge,but they are still capable of providing air cover at moderate cost for many years to come.Say about till 2016?Then a new carrier should be ready,which could be equiped for fixed wing aircraft,possibly Harriers until the new fighters are ready.The second carrier may be surplus to requirements and could be cancelled,I dont know about that,but the Navy would keep its air cover.

[gruntygiggles]

It's the plan to ground the Harriers that upsets me on a personal level as I gre wup waiting as patiently as I could between air shows to go and see them and the Vulcan.

On a national security level, I think it's a ridiculous plan. With the world climate as it is, I think it's beyond incompetant to make a decision that effectively prevents us from offering air support for our ground troops and engage in air to air combat in certain areas.

What a way to tell the world we won't be as prepared as we should be for the next 6-9 years!

[Biker Biggles]

This government does seem to be particularly prone to following the banana skin school of policy making I fear.Yet another ill thought out kneejerk reaction.
Usually governments get like this after years in office when they run out of steam and ideas.

[Bri w]

Lets send our ships out without air cover. How on earth do the forces project defence beyond the range of, say, and Exocet missle?

[timwilky]

None of it makes sense. We either don't need aircraft carriers anymore or we do.

However, I don't think all the problem is with the coalition. I mean who would order a couple of aircraft carriers the first to be delivered years before the JSF will be available.

unless of course you intended to move the harriers from Ark Royal to the new carrier as it came on stream as a stop gap to prove the new carrier before JSF

Yeah we need aircraft carriers, they are having them built as the money has all ready been allocated work started. many years of design work already paided for. They are vital to transport mass forces and equipment to wherever needed.
I work for indirectly for the navy, with the naval engineers and the ship builders.

Remember this is only a budget and in can all change if needed.

ps im bias keeps me in a job

Originally Posted by robh539

Yeah we need aircraft carriers, they are having them built as the money has all ready been allocated work started. many years of design work already paided for. They are vital to transport mass forces and equipment to wherever needed.
I work for indirectly for the navy, with the naval engineers and the ship builders.

Remember this is only a budget and in can all change if needed.

ps im bias keeps me in a job

Rob, dude, think you are missing the point of the post. Don't think anyone is saying these ones shouldn't be built, more that they shouldn't be getting rid of the current one and harriers until the news ones are ready!