HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
Piginapoke said:
Yes but your older brother doesn't cost £8bn just to hang about on the off-chance. With limited funds you need to prioritise your risks, and I can't see what risks the carriers are designed to counter. In addition, the MOD states that the F35 cost will run to £194bn by 2028 , which seems reasonable if you think there's a fair chance of you going to war and needing stealthy, expensive planes.
I think we can rule out a European war needing a carrier capability in the long term, Middle East conflicts are well served by existing air bases, South and North America seem unlikely to need bombing any time soon, Russia and China would be an act of suicide, which leaves us with what- Africa?
I'm no pacifist, but any defence spend has to start with considering risks, which to me seem to be costal and littoral defence to stop the illegal flow of migrants, the defence of trade routes and compliance with international obligations. This all needs many more, cheaper units than the RN has now (now just 6 destroyers and 16 frigates). What we do not need are two white elephants cruising round the Atlantic waiting for it to kick off in Chad.
wars generally to happen when an aggressor feels their intended victim doesn't have the capacity or will to resist. Having QEC at our disposal assures that most players won't mistake us, or those we sponsor, for such. As such its impossible to calculate its value, and any assurance its a white elephant is personal bias rather than considered thought. We live in a turbulent world, only yesterday an interest - one we are currently somewhat at odds with but thought was essentially a considered, closely aligned Allie where despite our ups and downs the preservation of peace and mutual interests was at the forefront - was making threats about arbitrarily seizing essential UK owned medical resources and casually interfering in an essential peace treaty.I think we can rule out a European war needing a carrier capability in the long term, Middle East conflicts are well served by existing air bases, South and North America seem unlikely to need bombing any time soon, Russia and China would be an act of suicide, which leaves us with what- Africa?
I'm no pacifist, but any defence spend has to start with considering risks, which to me seem to be costal and littoral defence to stop the illegal flow of migrants, the defence of trade routes and compliance with international obligations. This all needs many more, cheaper units than the RN has now (now just 6 destroyers and 16 frigates). What we do not need are two white elephants cruising round the Atlantic waiting for it to kick off in Chad.
Wildcat45 said:
Piginapoke said:
So you’d bomb China/Argentina/KSA in those circumstances? That’s ridiculous.
I keep telling you that carrier operations are not exclusively about bombing things.Please try to understand this.
hidetheelephants said:
Wildcat45 said:
Piginapoke said:
So you’d bomb China/Argentina/KSA in those circumstances? That’s ridiculous.
I keep telling you that carrier operations are not exclusively about bombing things.Please try to understand this.
Piginapoke said:
hidetheelephants said:
Wildcat45 said:
Piginapoke said:
So you’d bomb China/Argentina/KSA in those circumstances? That’s ridiculous.
I keep telling you that carrier operations are not exclusively about bombing things.Please try to understand this.
Interesting fact one of the pilots was an American on exchange posting , it would have become complicated if a shooting war had started.
PRTVR said:
Piginapoke said:
hidetheelephants said:
Wildcat45 said:
Piginapoke said:
So you’d bomb China/Argentina/KSA in those circumstances? That’s ridiculous.
I keep telling you that carrier operations are not exclusively about bombing things.Please try to understand this.
Interesting fact one of the pilots was an American on exchange posting , it would have become complicated if a shooting war had started.
I'm conscious that I'm sounding like a white flag waving pacifist here, and I'm really not. This country, over hundreds of years, owes its wealth, influence and even survival to the RN and it's a key national asset. My concern is that we've built these carriers either due to some rose tinted view of the UK's place in the world, a very odd global risk assessment or a Scottish shipbuilding jobs programme, and the resources and people they will take up will materially reduce the ability of the RN to carry out its much more important roles.
The carriers remind me of battleships. Even though the UK invented the aircraft carrier, making battleships effectively obsolete, we kept building them at huge cost throughout WW2 for zero benefit. In a similar way, threats the UK have moved on from countries needing an aircraft carrier parked off the coast to threaten/harm them as needed, and the RN needs to move on too.
Piginapoke said:
Evanivitch said:
Piginapoke said:
Can you give some examples of how?
Did you look up Freedom of Navigation?Evanivitch said:
Piginapoke said:
Evanivitch said:
Piginapoke said:
Can you give some examples of how?
Did you look up Freedom of Navigation?Piginapoke said:
Still waiting?
We're still waiting for you to justify why carriers are white elephants.What's strange is you acknowledge that we should be defending trade routes and meeting our obligations, but you also think throwing a dinghy in front of China/Russia is in someway an effective way of showing we are willing to defend our trade routes and meet our obligations. Why send fighting ships at all, why not send diplomatic ships to do these activities? No one's going to actually start a fight are they?
Evanivitch said:
Piginapoke said:
Still waiting?
We're still waiting for you to justify why carriers are white elephants.What's strange is you acknowledge that we should be defending trade routes and meeting our obligations, but you also think throwing a dinghy in front of China/Russia is in someway an effective way of showing we are willing to defend our trade routes and meet our obligations. Why send fighting ships at all, why not send diplomatic ships to do these activities? No one's going to actually start a fight are they?
Russia and China are undoubtedly aggressors to the UK, but you have to look elsewhere nowadays (eg cyber warfare, asymmetrical trade, political influence) to see how. They have zero interest in closing international waters, China is already fleecing the West and making us ever more reliant on it, Russia exports £220bn of oil every year, why on earth would they want to stop trade?
Stop reading history books, start reading a better newspaper.
Piginapoke said:
Evanivitch said:
Piginapoke said:
Still waiting?
We're still waiting for you to justify why carriers are white elephants.What's strange is you acknowledge that we should be defending trade routes and meeting our obligations, but you also think throwing a dinghy in front of China/Russia is in someway an effective way of showing we are willing to defend our trade routes and meet our obligations. Why send fighting ships at all, why not send diplomatic ships to do these activities? No one's going to actually start a fight are they?
Russia and China are undoubtedly aggressors to the UK, but you have to look elsewhere nowadays (eg cyber warfare, asymmetrical trade, political influence) to see how. They have zero interest in closing international waters, China is already fleecing the West and making us ever more reliant on it, Russia exports £220bn of oil every year, why on earth would they want to stop trade?
Stop reading history books, start reading a better newspaper.
Piginapoke said:
They have zero interest in closing international waters, China is already fleecing the West and making us ever more reliant on it, Russia exports £220bn of oil every year, why on earth would they want to stop trade?
Stop reading history books, start reading a better newspaper.
Maybe you should read a better newspaper. Do you not remember the fuss recently when Russia and Japan and China and Japan got into disputes about various islands and the various threats issued when American ships tried to exercise their rights of freedom of navigation in international waters?Stop reading history books, start reading a better newspaper.
If carriers are such a 'white elephant' why does every major military power have them, and is planning on replacing them with new ones as opposed to scrapping them and not replacing them at the end of their life?
I’m thinking he’s just trying to get people wound up.
It has been explained to him. I tried to be charitable and as others have, provided answers and examples.
He’s not having it.
I suggest he goes and reads some books by Eric Grove “Vanguard to Trident” would be a good starting point.
It has been explained to him. I tried to be charitable and as others have, provided answers and examples.
He’s not having it.
I suggest he goes and reads some books by Eric Grove “Vanguard to Trident” would be a good starting point.
Wildcat45 said:
I’m thinking he’s just trying to get people wound up.
It has been explained to him. I tried to be charitable and as others have, provided answers and examples.
He’s not having it.
I suggest he goes and reads some books by Eric Grove “Vanguard to Trident” would be a good starting point.
The view that these carriers are white elephants isn’t exactly internet trolling though. It has been explained to him. I tried to be charitable and as others have, provided answers and examples.
He’s not having it.
I suggest he goes and reads some books by Eric Grove “Vanguard to Trident” would be a good starting point.
I think they’re great but there’s a lot of resistance to and arguments against large carriers these days.
Piginapoke said:
Evanivitch said:
Piginapoke said:
Still waiting?
We're still waiting for you to justify why carriers are white elephants.What's strange is you acknowledge that we should be defending trade routes and meeting our obligations, but you also think throwing a dinghy in front of China/Russia is in someway an effective way of showing we are willing to defend our trade routes and meet our obligations. Why send fighting ships at all, why not send diplomatic ships to do these activities? No one's going to actually start a fight are they?
Russia and China are undoubtedly aggressors to the UK, but you have to look elsewhere nowadays (eg cyber warfare, asymmetrical trade, political influence) to see how. They have zero interest in closing international waters, China is already fleecing the West and making us ever more reliant on it, Russia exports £220bn of oil every year, why on earth would they want to stop trade?
Stop reading history books, start reading a better newspaper.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-navy-destroy...
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/chinas-c...
https://www.arctictoday.com/russian-ambassador-acc...
Meanwhile, smile and wave, boys.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38745364
Ayahuasca said:
An argument against is that the carrier represents a huge proportion of RN resources in a single ship. How many frigates and destroyers could we buy with the same money?
How wise is it to concentrate so much resource in a single, sinkable, ship?
Type 45 is £1Bn a ship, frigates are £250-500m a pop.How wise is it to concentrate so much resource in a single, sinkable, ship?
How many more sailors do you need to crew more hulls? Recruitment, as per every economic down turn, is going well. But typically when times are good back home, it crashes again.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff