The end to the UK's new carriers?
- Thread starter sidthesexist
- Start date
So where's the £1b come from if the contract is already signed?
Who thought up a deal where the contract could only slide one way?
That's exactly the quote I was thinking of.
Britain has been caught unprepared for several wars in the last century (the last being the Falklands). I think we need to be prepared to fight if and when the time comes. We might not need them at the moment, but no-one can see into the future, and I'd rather see a prepared Britain over one struggling to defend herself or her allies.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 944
Brown & co?
The project isnt going to be extended so that its synchronised with the arrival of our new planes, far from, the admiralty has already conceeded that the carriers will be operating with current aircraft for the time being.
Fairly sure specs havnt changed either.
Either way I seriously doubt that this is going to mean that the carriers are scrapped, the work has started, the navy needs them etc.
Our current carriers are toys, we're due new ones.
Saying that I wouldnt be suprised if we only saw one around the scheduled timetable, and the other one a fair bit later.
Certain branches are already tight within the navy, and thats before the increased manning that the larger carriers will require.
Don't think an aircraft carrier will do much good when the country has been obliterated by nukes.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- York
PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY
The Defense Department and a handful of allies have launched an effort
to ensure the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is capable of
conducting the most devastating mission in modern warfare --
delivering a nuclear bomb.
F-35 partners include a number of nuclear-capable NATO alliance
members
not exactly massive news, lots of fighter bombers can deliver nukes now.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- York
Yes but if you looked at his reply he said what goods a carrier if the lands been obliterated. If you have a carrier carrying say 10 planes loaded with nukes would you still think about attacking??
I would actually prefer for them to be building 3, so that 2 could be operational and 1 in repair / refit. With only 2 we'll be lucky to ever to have them both operational at the same time.
As far as I aware, the JSF isn't going to be ready for the Carriers so they were going to continue to use the latest varient of the Harrier until they became available.
As far as I aware, the JSF isn't going to be ready for the Carriers so they were going to continue to use the latest varient of the Harrier until they became available.
Yes but if you looked at his reply he said what goods a carrier if the lands been obliterated. If you have a carrier carrying say 10 planes loaded with nukes would you still think about attacking??
why would we need a carrier all our nukes are in Trident missiles onbord subs. we don't have any bombs to put on plans. it's the yanks that do that.
It's much easier to destroy a tanker than to track down and destroy all our subs. plus we'd have to get that carier pretty close to them, and somehow protect all the planes while they flew through massive AA fire and the other countries airforce.
much easier to just blast them to hell with SLBM's than trying to drop a bomb on them.
plus if their attacking us they're going to attack us with icbms first the carrier wont stop them.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- York
sorry mate but during the Falkland’s war Britain dip into Nato stock with the Sidewinder L, the latest version (at that time) of the air to air missile. So do you think they cauld ask its partners (NATO) to lend them a couple of free fall Nukes?
As of 2005 it is believed that approximately 110 tactical B61 nuclear bombs are stored at RAF Lakenheath for deployment by USAF F-15E aircraft.
Why use risky free fall bombs and put a carrier group + it's planes in great danger and a mission likely to fail when a SLBM is much more effective and unstoppable?
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- York
Because: they are stoppable Currently, British Trident commanders are able to launch their missiles without authorisation, whereas their American colleagues cannot. At the end of the Cold War the US Fail Safe Commission recommended installing devices to prevent rogue commanders persuading their crews to launch unauthorised nuclear attacks. This was endorsed by the Nuclear Posture Review and Trident Coded Control Devices were fitted to all US SSBNs by 1997. These devices prevented an attack until a launch code had been sent by the Chiefs of Staff on behalf of the President. The UK took a decision not to install Trident CCDs or their equivalent on the grounds that an aggressor might be able to wipe out the British / USA chain of command before a launch order had been sent
It is somewhat useful to be able to deter attacks against our interests from the vast majority of countries that don't have that capability.
God i hate this government, for years now they have delayed these carriers, just recently they change the launch from 2014 to 2016 and god only know's what the time table is for the 2nd one, and they said they have done this because of cost!?!?!?!??! Now when in the history of the world has delaying a military contract every help with costs !!!!! only brown could come up with some thing so stupid.
That moron had the chance to build these things since 2006 when times were good and there was money about now because of the idiot these carriers may be in serious trouble.
That moron had the chance to build these things since 2006 when times were good and there was money about now because of the idiot these carriers may be in serious trouble.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- York
Sorry forgot to say :
Trident control system is believed to be based on the plan set up for Polaris in 1968, which has now been declassified. A closed-circuit television system was set up between 10 Downing St and the Polaris Control Officer at the Northwood headquarters of the Royal Navy. Both the Prime Minister and the Polaris Control Officer would be able to see each other on their monitors when the command was given. If the link failed – for instance during a nuclear attack or when the PM was away from Downing St – the Prime Minister would send an authentication code which could be verified at Northwood. The Commander in Chief would then broadcast a firing order to the Polaris submarines via the Very Low Frequency radio station at Rugby. The UK has not deployed control equipment requiring codes to be sent before weapons can be used, such as the US Permissive Action Link, to preclude the possibility that military officers could launch British nuclear weapons without authorisation.
Trident control system is believed to be based on the plan set up for Polaris in 1968, which has now been declassified. A closed-circuit television system was set up between 10 Downing St and the Polaris Control Officer at the Northwood headquarters of the Royal Navy. Both the Prime Minister and the Polaris Control Officer would be able to see each other on their monitors when the command was given. If the link failed – for instance during a nuclear attack or when the PM was away from Downing St – the Prime Minister would send an authentication code which could be verified at Northwood. The Commander in Chief would then broadcast a firing order to the Polaris submarines via the Very Low Frequency radio station at Rugby. The UK has not deployed control equipment requiring codes to be sent before weapons can be used, such as the US Permissive Action Link, to preclude the possibility that military officers could launch British nuclear weapons without authorisation.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
Interesting read.
