Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 02/16/2009 View Sun 02/15/2009 View Sat 02/14/2009 View Fri 02/13/2009 View Thu 02/12/2009 View Wed 02/11/2009 View Tue 02/10/2009
1
2009-02-16 Britain
First Sea Lord: Iraq and Afghanistan have delayed new aircraft carriers
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by mrp 2009-02-16 12:32|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [6496 views ]  Top

#1 Answer: get rid of the millions of 3rd World scum back tn their place of origon. I would bet the UK mossie Social Security costs, if eliminated, would bring forward a Carrier completion date...Nah, too many moral issues there.
Posted by rhodesiafever 2009-02-16 14:30||   2009-02-16 14:30|| Front Page Top

#2 I would have thought that pouring N times the GDP down the black hole of the insolvent banks was a more immediate cause for belt tightening.
Posted by Cynicism Inc 2009-02-16 14:49||   2009-02-16 14:49|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm not surprised in the least.

A fleet carrier makes no sense for Britain, and makes no sense for a simple reason: Britain is no longer a major naval power.

Britain is down to under 60 major combatant ships and plans to cut that further for no better reason than the money is lacking. Ships are deployed without anti-air missiles. Ships are kept home more and more. When asked, Britain now responds to the request for ships with one, generally a frigate, to show the flag.

A modern fleet carrier task force would require several escort ships and a submarine to ensure proper protection. Britain doesn't have the ships to spare. I simply can't imagine putting the QE or the PoW in open waters with an inadequate escort; the price to be paid would be catastrophic. Because of that the fleet carriers would spend more time at home than at sea.

Frankly it would be better for Britain to admit that it is now, at best, a 2nd-rate naval power. It then would ask what sort of navy it both needs and can afford. That navy would best be centered on frigates to patrol the region (North Sea and northern Atlantic), submarines to interdict an enemy, and, if really needed for power projection, a light carrier (aka Hermes or Ark Royal) with helicopters, VSTOL aircraft like the Harrier, and (as technology improves) naval UAVs.

But a fleet carrier? It's an unaffordable bauble.
Posted by Steve White 2009-02-16 15:22||   2009-02-16 15:22|| Front Page Top

#4 I thought the headline meant that Iraq and Afghanistan have delayed constrction of their aircraft carriers. Yuk yuk.

Aircraft carriers are just huge targets, anyway. The age of supersonic cruise missiles has been here for a while, and we just haven't had a shooting war to prove it yet.
Posted by gromky 2009-02-16 23:57||   2009-02-16 23:57|| Front Page Top

23:57 gromky
23:55 Ming the Merciless
23:50 Ming the Merciless
23:25 Rednek Jim
23:03 Rednek Jim
22:54 Procopius2k
22:50 Procopius2k
22:47 Barbara Skolaut
22:40 Boss Cravilet8390
22:39 Atomic Conspiracy
22:37 Scooter McGruder
22:33 Rednek Jim
22:32 Atomic Conspiracy
22:13 trailing wife
22:05 trailing wife
21:45 Jules 187
21:31 mom
21:20 Barbara Skolaut
21:13 Deacon Blues
21:12 Deacon Blues
21:11 Deacon Blues
20:57 Anonymoose
20:50 Frank G
20:48 A_Rovian_Desciple
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com