British carriers may shrink..

[Stormbringer]

*Glances at Iraq and the 30,000 British troops that invaded*

Anyway please do explain why the UK has been steadily beefing up its force entry capability for the last decade if it only wants to conduct peace keeping missions?

Perpetual urge to do what the US says from the government. Something most of us do not approve of. It's a pointless endevour that in no way serves the interests of the UK - and frankly, if the great british voters (TM) would elect leaders who wouldn't follow the US like a lost pup, that wouldn't be happening.

That may be the case. I'm not going to debate British politics. But if you're going to enter these wars you generally need the capability. Hell, you just might need them for a purely British campaign someday.

A credible carrier force is needed to help fufill the missions Britian is undertaking. There's simply no substitute that meets the needs. Undertaking these sorts of endeavours with having what you need only increases casualties.

[LordShaithis]

Odd, I recall our guys hauling ass for the (supposedly) uber-fortified Baghdad while letting the Brits handle Basra. Not that we don't appreciate the help, we do, but don't act like we use Brits as cannon-fodder.

[NecronLord]

That may be the case. I'm not going to debate British politics.

[Spock]That is wise[/Spock]

But if you're going to enter these wars you generally need the capability. Hell, you just might need them for a purely British campaign someday.

Chances are if we need that much power against an enemy, we're finished. britain isn't going ot be a superpower in the forseeable future. The EU, just might, but they'd need to sort out the politics there (Bellisconi, ugh)

A credible carrier force is needed to help fufill the missions Britian is undertaking. There's simply no substitute that meets the needs. Undertaking these sorts of endeavours with having what you need only increases casualties.

Again, we aren't remotely likely to need to undertake a nation supression (TM) mission alone anyway. Though the two new carriers should be built (I'm even in favour of taxing people more for it {IOW, I'm going to be applying to work at the Inland Revenue soon - frickin tuition fees.}) we don't need Nimitz-Enterprisesque supercarriers.

[NecronLord]

Odd, I recall our guys hauling ass for the (supposedly) uber-fortified Baghdad while letting the Brits handle Basra. Not that we don't appreciate the help, we do, but don't act like we use Brits as cannon-fodder.

Why do you think the US could haul ass to Baghdad? Because they didn't have to stop in the south.

[Stormbringer]

Chances are if we need that much power against an enemy, we're finished. britain isn't going ot be a superpower in the forseeable future. The EU, just might, but they'd need to sort out the politics there (Bellisconi, ugh)Quote:

No, I don't think any one is suggesting that you need a fleet of supercarriers. But Britian does need credible fleet carriers if it's going to keep undertaking missions like it has. And as Sea Skimmer pointed out, they would have been decisive in the Falklands.

You don't need a superpower's navy or even matching WW20-esque levels. But a respectable navy is needed and modern carriers are an integal part of that.

Again, we aren't remotely likely to need to undertake a nation supression (TM) mission alone anyway. Though the two new carriers should be built (I'm even in favour of taxing people more for it {IOW, I'm going to be applying to work at the Inland Revenue soon - frickin tuition fees.}) we don't need Nimitz-Enterprisesque supercarriers.

Again, no one is suggesting that. But decent fleet carriers would be a real boon to the Royal Navy and the UK's armed forces in general. You ought to wake up your government on that score.

[Ubiquitous]

Don't be too worried by these cuts. The latest touted size of the carriers were 70,000 tons. If we expect a 20,000 ton reduction, then we are at 50,000 ... around the level originally envisaged for the 48 aircraft platform.

It appears that the RN has played a very crafty game of inflating the plans to ensure that their original idea came to fruition. After all, a 70,000 ton carrier with an air wing of just 48 would be very inefficient, whilst a 50,000 ton carrier with a 48 aircraft limit seems far more efficient and reasonable.

It looks like the 70,000 ton carrier has gone, but we are still getting what the RN wants. So all is not lost; remember, the RN has learned the lessons of CV-01, it wont let the same mistakes happen again, however much the RAF tries to scupper the plan.

[phongn]

It appears that the RN has played a very crafty game of inflating the plans to ensure that their original idea came to fruition. After all, a 70,000 ton carrier with an air wing of just 48 would be very inefficient, whilst a 50,000 ton carrier with a 48 aircraft limit seems far more efficient and reasonable.

Could be worse - you could have 100,000 ton carrieres with only 48-odd aircraft.

[Ubiquitous]

Well I have good news. A defence analyst at a forum I visit who is 'in the know' has dismissed these latest reports:

"There is a lot of garbage and disinformation being circulated about CV(F) at the moment. There was some stuff put out a few weeks back about the program being on the verge of collapse due to disagreements between Thales and BAE Systems - when those were discredited, these have started to circulate. I've made some enquiries and the current reports have no official foundation. In fact, there is a discrete enquiry going on as to who is responsible for circulating the bad data.

One finger of suspicion is pointing at the RAF - they have a long history of trying to sabotage any and every RN aviation program It does appear that there are some RAF officers who are assiduous in repeating any negative information they hear about CV(F), however the current feeling is they are the medium, not the source.

Another finger of suspicion is pointing at DCN. There is a power battle going on in France at the moment between DCN and Thales over who controls French naval shipbuilding. The center of balance of that argument is France's second carrier. One school of thought (lead by DCN) wants that carrier to be a repeat CdG, the other (lead by Thales) sees that carrier as part of the CV(F) program. If the latter course is chosen, it will break DCNs monopoly of French naval design and construction - to the great benefit of France. Thus, discrediting and damaging CV(F) is very much in DCNs interest.

For the record, and for what its worth, my sources speak very highly of both BAE Systems and Thales with reference to CV(F). BAE Systems have been described as making sterling efforts to create a flexible and effective management team while Thales have been described as going far beyond the call of duty is establishing themselves as a honest and reliable partner."

Hmm!

[Sea Skimmer]

Well I have good news. A defence analyst at a forum I visit who is 'in the know' has dismissed these latest reports:

Please credit authors for their work, in the case Stuart Slade. It will also get you further then quoting anonymous sources.

[phongn]

Posting a link to the message also helps.

[Uraniun235]

Odd, I recall our guys hauling ass for the (supposedly) uber-fortified Baghdad while letting the Brits handle Basra. Not that we don't appreciate the help, we do, but don't act like we use Brits as cannon-fodder.

Why do you think the US could haul ass to Baghdad? Because they didn't have to stop in the south.

Sounds like good teamwork to me.

[LordShaithis]

Indeed. I've always been very appreciative of Britain's willingness to lend us colonists a hand.

I'm just saying, claiming we use them as auxilliaries and "let them die first" is a bit rude.