Britannia rule the waves...

[Abbey Marie]

Maybe you all know this, but I just learned that Britain does not possess even 1 aircraft carrier. Drummond. Noir is this true? If so, how did you get to this point?

[Noir]

Maybe you all know this, but I just learned that Britain does not possess even 1 aircraft carrier. @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287). @Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517) is this true? If so, how did you get to this point?

I think at the minute we have one, but not necessarily any aircraft to carry on it. There will be another carrier added over the next few years too.

These things have been an issue for as long as I can remember - overcosted, unwanted by many etc, but various governments have persisted with them so they’re just about ready. The last of the previous generation of carriers were from the Cold War and decommissioned a few years ago.

[STTAB]

Maybe you all know this, but I just learned that Britain does not possess even 1 aircraft carrier. @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287). @Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517) is this true? If so, how did you get to this point?

Why on Earth would these countries bother investing THEIR money into such things when they can just rely on the US to save their asses if the shit hits the fan?

[Abbey Marie]

Why on Earth would these countries bother investing THEIR money into such things when they can just rely on the US to save their asses if the shit hits the fan?

I get your point, and I’m sure there are many countries that fit this description. But I have a hard time believing that England is one of them.

[Abbey Marie]

I think at the minute we have one, but not necessarily any aircraft to carry on it. There will be another carrier added over the next few years too.

These things have been an issue for as long as I can remember - overcosted, unwanted by many etc, but various governments have persisted with them so they’re just about ready. The last of the previous generation of carriers were from the Cold War and decommissioned a few years ago.

Thanks, Noir. That’s good info.

[Gunny]

I get your point, and I’m sure there are many countries that fit this description. But I have a hard time believing that England is one of them.Take a look at Cana-duh's military. They know we ain't letting anyone move in on our Northern border. They might want to rethink that strategy in light of the events on our Southern one :)

[Gunny]

Thanks, Noir. That’s good info.Noir is correct. No planes for it until 2021-or-2.

Maybe if they get on alright the new PM can get some loaners from the President :)

[Drummond]

Thanks, Noir. That’s good info.

I don't think the UK has ever exactly been replete with aircraft carriers. I remember that the last Labour-led regime - which was kicked out in 2010 - felt that us actually having as many as two of them was something to be proud of.

In 2016, our last aircraft carrier - THEN - was sold for scrap, having been in service for 32 years instead of the intended 20. If I remember correctly, we had a short period when we used France's stock of them to take off & land our planes from ?

Noir is right, though. We now have one, built in 2017. HMS Queen Elisabeth, I think. The Guardian did one of its 'War & Peace' rambling essays about it, as they considered the issue controversial (the Guardian is a Leftie paper). They called its existence a 'vast folly'.

There's been a lot of argument about them .. whether our running our own 'fleet' of them (did 2 qualify as a 'fleet' ?) was worthwhile. Mostly it was on grounds of cost. Some felt it'd be a case of massive expenditure undertaken just for the prestige of having them. One view held to was that aircraft carriers were tactically unsound ... big vessels, easily targeted, easily attacked, and if one of our ever turned up in a region with political sensitivities in play, it would send too bluntly provocatively aggressive a political message (like an armaments-bristling version of a seafaring Kim Darroch, say, only without all the added inconvenience of verbal diarrohoea !)

Anyway, whenever it comes up (rarely), the subject always manages to create heated debate. Cost v prestige ? Affectations of Empire ? Yep. You guessed it. The Left hates them.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't think the UK has ever exactly been replete with aircraft carriers. I remember that the last Labour-led regime - which was kicked out in 2010 - felt that us actually having as many as two of them was something to be proud of.

In 2016, our last aircraft carrier - THEN - was sold for scrap, having been in service for 32 years instead of the intended 20. If I remember correctly, we had a short period when we used France's stock of them to take off & land our planes from ?

Noir is right, though. We now have one, built in 2017. HMS Queen Elisabeth, I think. The Guardian did one of its 'War & Peace' rambling essays about it, as they considered the issue controversial (the Guardian is a Leftie paper). They called its existence a 'vast folly'.

There's been a lot of argument about them .. whether our running our own 'fleet' of them (did 2 qualify as a 'fleet' ?) was worthwhile. Mostly it was on grounds of cost. Some felt it'd be a case of massive expenditure undertaken just for the prestige of having them. One view held to was that aircraft carriers were tactically unsound ... big vessels, easily targeted, easily attacked, and if one of our ever turned up in a region with political sensitivities in play, it would send too bluntly provocatively aggressive a political message (like an armaments-bristling version of a seafaring Kim Darroch, say, only without all the added inconvenience of verbal diarrohoea !)

Anyway, whenever it comes up (rarely), the subject always manages to create heated debate. Cost v prestige ? Affectations of Empire ? Yep. You guessed it. The Left hates them.

Hasn’t your guys being held hostage brought some ammunition (pardon the pun) to the argument for these carriers?

[Drummond]

Hasn’t your guys being held hostage brought some ammunition (pardon the pun) to the argument for these carriers?

You mean, the current Iranian tanker dispute ?

I don't think anyone has so much as discussed aircraft carriers as an appropriate answer. If we consider issues like defence or of naval deterrence, it's destroyers / battleships that'd be discussed. Such ships are better manoeuvred and in tighter waters, where, say, a stretch of water is narrow.

I remember reading that our even maintaining an aircraft carrier, not least because of its size, is a problem for us. Our coastline is mainly surrounded by shallow waters. We even have to wait for the tides to be right before one can sail into port.

By the way, we had a greater stock of them (once !) than I'd believed. Just skimmed an article that claimed we had nineteen of them once ... though that was back in WWII.

[Gunny]

I don't think the UK has ever exactly been replete with aircraft carriers. I remember that the last Labour-led regime - which was kicked out in 2010 - felt that us actually having as many as two of them was something to be proud of.

In 2016, our last aircraft carrier - THEN - was sold for scrap, having been in service for 32 years instead of the intended 20. If I remember correctly, we had a short period when we used France's stock of them to take off & land our planes from ?

Noir is right, though. We now have one, built in 2017. HMS Queen Elisabeth, I think. The Guardian did one of its 'War & Peace' rambling essays about it, as they considered the issue controversial (the Guardian is a Leftie paper). They called its existence a 'vast folly'.

There's been a lot of argument about them .. whether our running our own 'fleet' of them (did 2 qualify as a 'fleet' ?) was worthwhile. Mostly it was on grounds of cost. Some felt it'd be a case of massive expenditure undertaken just for the prestige of having them. One view held to was that aircraft carriers were tactically unsound ... big vessels, easily targeted, easily attacked, and if one of our ever turned up in a region with political sensitivities in play, it would send too bluntly provocatively aggressive a political message (like an armaments-bristling version of a seafaring Kim Darroch, say, only without all the added inconvenience of verbal diarrohoea !)

Anyway, whenever it comes up (rarely), the subject always manages to create heated debate. Cost v prestige ? Affectations of Empire ? Yep. You guessed it. The Left hates them.I think in the case of (mostly) self-contained countries, aircraft carriers are a matter of force projection. For actual defense of the homeland, it would be better used as a ruse than a weapon. I don't see it as necessary.

As nefarious meddlers in others' affairs in faraway lands however, they are essential in toting the aircraft to the battle :)

[icansayit]

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--nZOTevrm--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/zgrnryfwt8wbri75ujhl.jpg



IF G.B. has no carriers (anyone can see) The Stealth Paint Job didn't work for this photo.

[Abbey Marie]

@icansayit (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=3857)

Don’t you guys standing on the edge worry you’ll fall off? It looks like a long way down...

[Kathianne]

@icansayit (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=3857)

Don’t you guys standing on the edge worry you’ll fall off? It looks like a long way down...

LOL! I've thought the same. I rarely have motion sickness, but can get vertigo when looking down!

[Gunny]

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--nZOTevrm--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/zgrnryfwt8wbri75ujhl.jpg



IF G.B. has no carriers (anyone can see) The Stealth Paint Job didn't work for this photo.

Knowing nothing about it, it looks pretty sharp, huh? :)

[Gunny]

@icansayit (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=3857)

Don’t you guys standing on the edge worry you’ll fall off? It looks like a long way down...


LOL! I've thought the same. I rarely have motion sickness, but can get vertigo when looking down!It IS a long way down :)

You get used to it. Oh. And you don't fall over :)

[icansayit]

What you can't see, are safety nets around the entire perimeter of the flight deck. Anybody who falls and hit's the water...probably does so intentionally. Those nets are designed to catch PLANES as well.


It is a long way down. Not for the faint hearted though. But standing about 3 feet from the edge is the norm.

It's either very windy, and cold, or no wind...and Hot as....well, you know what I mean?:laugh::salute:

[Gunny]

What you can't see, are safety nets around the entire perimeter of the flight deck. Anybody who falls and hit's the water...probably does so intentionally. Those nets are designed to catch PLANES as well.


It is a long way down. Not for the faint hearted though. But standing about 3 feet from the edge is the norm.

It's either very windy, and cold, or no wind...and Hot as....well, you know what I mean?:laugh::salute:Uh huh. I'm LMAO at you. Safety "nets". Yeah, I imagine 2" unprotected cable woven into nets will catch planes. I'd rather hit the water, thanks. Those things up close didn't look very forgiving, not to mention the good 20-30 ft of momentum you're going to have getting there. But nothing's perfect, right? :)

[icansayit]

Uh huh. I'm LMAO at you. Safety "nets". Yeah, I imagine 2" unprotected cable woven into nets will catch planes. I'd rather hit the water, thanks. Those things up close didn't look very forgiving, not to mention the good 20-30 ft of momentum you're going to have getting there. But nothing's perfect, right? :)


Those nets are strong enough to catch flight crew on the flight deck, and even planes, preventing them from going overboard.

Looks aren't everything. Do you really believe the navy would put something there that DIDN'T WORK??

I stand corrected. MAYBE NOT FOR MARINES WHO WANT TO TEST THEM!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Noir]

Hasn’t your guys being held hostage brought some ammunition (pardon the pun) to the argument for these carriers?

The two being built now have been under design and construction for well over a decade. It would take a very large current event for the argument to be made that we need more, never mind the fact that if that decision were made in this parliament they wouldn’t be seeing completion until say 2035

[Kathianne]

Not cheerful reading and it's 2 years old, but as Noir points out, that is not long when looking at Naval ships:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uk-military-navy-commentary/commentary-what-the-u-s-should-learn-from-britains-dying-navy-idUSKCN10L1AD


AUGUST 10, 2016 / 6:11 AM / 3 YEARS AGO
Commentary: What the U.S. should learn from Britain’s dying navy
David Axe
12 MIN READ


Britain used to boast the most powerful navy in the world. No more.

That’s a serious problem for allies like the United States.


Traditionally, Britain’s Royal Navy has been the U.S. Navy’s closest partner. The two have fought together against most every foe. So any weakening of the Royal Navy also erodes Washington’s naval power.


Today, however, the Royal Navy is a shadow of its former self. Government budgeteers have repeatedly, and excessively, cut the numbers of its ships, planes and manpower. It can barely patrol the United Kingdom’s own waters, much less project British influence abroad.


Though London officials now vow to reverse the decline, it might be too late. With morale plummeting, and its few remaining ships frequently malfunctioning at sea, the Royal Navy’s suffering might be terminal.


The timing couldn’t be worse. The West is mobilizing to defeat Islamic State, deter an increasingly aggressive Russia and manage China's meteoric rise as a world power. The British fleet's collapse is an object lesson for cash-strapped governments struggling to balance competing budgetary needs in a seemingly ever more volatile world.

Yes, navies are expensive. They require long-term planning, work and funding. In peacetime, the fleet’s benefit is often invisible, marked by the absence of overt conflict.


Yet navies remain crucial to national defense. Patrolling international waters with sophisticated sensors and powerful, long-range weaponry, they can respond more quickly to crises and bring more firepower to bear than can air forces (which require nearby runways) and armies (which move slowly).

...

As recently as 1982, the Royal Navy could quickly muster no fewer than 115 ships — including two aircraft carriers carrying jet fighters, plus 23 destroyers and frigates — to retake the Falkland Islands from Argentina.


Today, the British navy doesn’t even have jet fighters. It mothballed its last Harriers in 2010. It possesses just 89 ships. (By comparison, the U.S. Navy and Military Sealift Command, the Pentagon’s fleet of support ships, have roughly 400.)


Britain’s fleet has declined amid steady defense budget cuts, from 4.1 percent of gross domestic product in 1988 to 2.6 percent in 2010. Reductions in 2010 sliced another 8 percent in real terms. As part of a defense review in 2015, London vowed to stop cutbacks on the fleet. But the damage has been done.


On paper, the Royal Navy’s 89 ships include one helicopter carrier, six amphibious assault ships, six destroyers, 13 frigates, seven attack submarines and four ballistic-missile submarines. The rest are minesweepers, survey ships and other support vessels, many no larger than the U.S. Coast Guard’s small patrol ships.


Only the six destroyers, 13 frigates and seven attack submarines can be considered true frontline vessels, with adequate sensors, weapons and protection to fight and survive in a battle with a sophisticated foe. The other ships require escort through dangerous waters.


Roughly half the ships are in routine maintenance or training at any given time. Several others are committed to small standing patrols, which leaves just a handful of vessels to respond to emergencies.


But that’s assuming there are enough sailors to operate the ships. The Royal Navy has shed people faster than ships. Britain had 39,000 sailors in 2000. It now has a little more than 29,000, at least 2,000 short of its authorized strength.

Fleet planners tried to address the personnel shortage by sidelining two of its most powerful ships. This summer, for example, the Royal Navy placed the large Type 23 frigate HMS Lancaster in “extended readiness”: It was tied up pierside, its crew assigned to other vessels.


Meanwhile, the new Type 45 destroyer HMS Dauntless suffered serious problems with generators and entered port for repairs that could last at least until 2019. As with Lancaster, the fleet dispersed Dauntless’ sailors to other vessels.


With those vessels out of action, the Royal Navy’s real strength dropped from 26 fighting ships to an unprecedented modern low of 24.


Last month, the new attack submarine HMS Ambush collided with a merchant vessel off Gibraltar. The sub suffered serious damage and limped back to Britain for repairs that could take months, if not longer.


That accident reduced the Royal Navy’s undersea combat strength by nearly 15 percent. It was a stark reminder that Britain has almost no naval strength in reserve.

...

Under successive Labour and Conservative governments, London has consistently cut the Royal Navy for more than a decade, while denying that the cuts were detrimental to national security. The government pointed to several multibillion-pound shipbuilding programs for new frigates, destroyers and submarines, as well as an ambitious plan to build two new large aircraft carriers and outfit them with F-35 stealth fighters.


But the new ships are too few, too late. They are also too lightly armed to adequately replace older vessels. Much less to expand and enhance the fleet.


In recent years, the Royal Navy has replaced 12 old Type 42 destroyers with just six new Type 45s, which are larger and more heavily armed than the Type 42s but mechanically unreliable. In addition, there are too few to handle all the missions the older vessels once undertook.


The fleet is getting just seven new Astute-class attack submarines, to replace 12 old Swiftsure- and Trafalgar-class subs. As with the Type 45 destroyers, the Astutes are bigger and pack more firepower than the ships they’re replacing. But like the Type 45s, the Astutes have proved difficult to operate. In any case, there aren’t enough to cover all the areas the older submarines once patrolled.


Today there are 13 old Type 23 frigates in the fleet. The government has approved just eight new Type 26 frigates. Meanwhile, it is promising to build at least five smaller Type 31s to help keep up the fleet’s strength. But the lighter Type 31s could lack the firepower and protection to be a credible deterrent to Russia’s far heavier vessels.


Indeed, many of Britain’s newest ships are remarkably light. London has placed orders over the past two years for several small, lightly equipped patrol vessels. The net effect is a Royal Navy that’s increasingly made up of small, underarmed vessels that maintain the official ship count, but continue the hollowing-out trend that has steadily sapped its real strength.


The new aircraft carriers are perhaps the best examples. The two Queen Elizabeth-class ships, which are 920 feet long and displace more than 60,000 tons of water, are the biggest warships Britain has produced. When they enter frontline service in 2020, they should restore the at-sea aviation capability that the Royal Navy lost when it retired its Harrier jets in 2010.


The Queen Elizabeths, however, were planned for a larger fleet. An aircraft carrier requires more planes and escorts than Britain can provide. The U.S. Navy, for example, never deploys a carrier without 60 aircraft aboard and a convoy of three or four destroyers and cruisers, a submarine and several supply ships.


The Royal Navy expects to deploy just one carrier at a time and keep the second at home. It projects that its new carriers will deploy between 12 and 24 F-35s — too few to use the ships to their full potential. In addition, assigning the vessels needed to accompany and supply the carrier — three or four frigates and destroyers as escort and a several supply ships to sustain it — would monopolize the Royal Navy’s entire deployable strength.

A 60,000-ton carrier can accommodate 50 or more aircraft. London plans to buy just 48 F-35 fighters, which means many could be in maintenance or training at any given time.


Navies are indeed complex and expensive. Stop paying attention to your fleet, and it will go away. For Britain’s allies, there’s a powerful lesson in that.


(David Axe is the editor of War Is Boring and a regular contributor to the Daily Beast. He has written for Danger Room, Wired and Popular Science.)

[Drummond]

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--nZOTevrm--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/zgrnryfwt8wbri75ujhl.jpg



IF G.B. has no carriers (anyone can see) The Stealth Paint Job didn't work for this photo.


Yes, well, I take it that this'll be the one that both Noir and I have already referred to, in our posts.

Value this pic !! A British aircraft carrier is a rare thing these days. Now you see it ... now you (invariably) don't !! :rolleyes:

I think we should put Kim Darroch on it, just to cover all bases. Though, what our enemies have done, to earn such an encounter :rolleyes::rolleyes:........

[Drummond]

The two being built now have been under design and construction for well over a decade. It would take a very large current event for the argument to be made that we need more, never mind the fact that if that decision were made in this parliament they wouldn’t be seeing completion until say 2035

H'm. Britain at its best. Eh, Noir ?

Never mind. All that was before Boris took over as PM. His new injection of gung-ho enthusiasm for actually, yes, GETTING THINGS DONE and to be PATRIOTICALLY OPTIMISTIC, should galvanise things a bit.

Is that a cringe I detect coming from you, Noir, ol' son .. ?? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Noir]

H'm. Britain at its best. Eh, Noir ?

Never mind. All that was before Boris took over as PM. His new injection of gung-ho enthusiasm for actually, yes, GETTING THINGS DONE and to be PATRIOTICALLY OPTIMISTIC, should galvanise things a bit.

Is that a cringe I detect coming from you, Noir, ol' son .. ?? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Im not sure what you’re trying to say here.