Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Absolutely - but if you sound off about how you are turning up off other people's coasts "to send a message" don't be surprised if they get your message and decide to act on it........................
Such as what? If the RN are in international waters or transiting territorial waters under the right of free passage then any military action against them is an act of war.
There are many ways to make life uncomfortable for the Brits without starting a shooting match
but if they did sink a QE what would you do?? Invade???
The public wouldn't fancy escallation and you might discover a sudden shortage of allies.....
but if they did sink a QE what would you do?? Invade???
The public wouldn't fancy escallation and you might discover a sudden shortage of allies.....
The idea that a sinking of one or both of the new Carriers would generate a "War" is laughable at best.
Absolutely it would be a genuine "act of war" but that does not equate to "War" itself.
As the Man. asked....who and how would you invade the perp's turf?
Lay out the assets available to the British Military to accomplish such a feat....remembering if they can sink a Carrier....then sending some Amphib ships and some Frigates and the odd Destroyer to the bottom would be well within their means too.
Allies in the retaliation.....like the American Navy showing up in the Falklands or the Suez Canal maybe?
Absolutely it would be a genuine "act of war" but that does not equate to "War" itself.
As the Man. asked....who and how would you invade the perp's turf?
Lay out the assets available to the British Military to accomplish such a feat....remembering if they can sink a Carrier....then sending some Amphib ships and some Frigates and the odd Destroyer to the bottom would be well within their means too.
Allies in the retaliation.....like the American Navy showing up in the Falklands or the Suez Canal maybe?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting the ex Captain of QE, Jeremy Kydd quoted saying
"“We are constrained by the F-35 buy rate even though that was accelerated in SDSR in 2015, so initial operating capability numbers in 2020 are going to be very modest indeed.
We will flesh it out with helicopters, and a lot depends on how many USMC F-35s come on our first deployment in 2021. But by 2023, we are committed to 24 UK jets onboard, and after that it’s too far away to say.”
"“We are constrained by the F-35 buy rate even though that was accelerated in SDSR in 2015, so initial operating capability numbers in 2020 are going to be very modest indeed.
We will flesh it out with helicopters, and a lot depends on how many USMC F-35s come on our first deployment in 2021. But by 2023, we are committed to 24 UK jets onboard, and after that it’s too far away to say.”
The idea that a sinking of one or both of the new Carriers would generate a "War" is laughable at best.
Absolutely it would be a genuine "act of war" but that does not equate to "War" itself.
As the Man. asked....who and how would you invade the perp's turf?
Lay out the assets available to the British Military to accomplish such a feat....remembering if they can sink a Carrier....then sending some Amphib ships and some Frigates and the odd Destroyer to the bottom would be well within their means too.
Allies in the retaliation.....like the American Navy showing up in the Falklands or the Suez Canal maybe?
Absolutely it would be a genuine "act of war" but that does not equate to "War" itself.
As the Man. asked....who and how would you invade the perp's turf?
Lay out the assets available to the British Military to accomplish such a feat....remembering if they can sink a Carrier....then sending some Amphib ships and some Frigates and the odd Destroyer to the bottom would be well within their means too.
Allies in the retaliation.....like the American Navy showing up in the Falklands or the Suez Canal maybe?
But I still fail to see why the Chinese would suddenly decide to attack a foreign warship acting in accordance with international law. It's all a bit Tom Clancy.
Last edited by Bing; 12th Feb 2019 at 16:26.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With an isolationist in the white house the UK would be left high and dry. No pun intended.
Wee,
The Man in the White House is not an isolationist....far from it.
What he is....is a President who puts American National Security and Economic Interests "FIRST".
He looks to our allies to pick up their share of the cost of their own defense.
He also intends to avoid unnecessary and endless wars.
Lots of folks here ranted about "Bush's War" in Iraq....which followed the one in Afghanistan....which continues till today nineteen years later....and now whine about the current President who is working to see and end to that war.
He has brought the North Koreans to the negotiating table....something no other President has been able to accomplish.
Under this President we are seeing American Troops leaving Syria.
In time we will see our Troops leaving Afghanistan and Iraq....and some other places as well.
Bush and Obama got us tangled up in places we had no need to be....we do not see that happening with the current President.
If our National Security interests are at risk....under this President you can count on his support.
Otherwise....don't expect to see us getting involved.
I am quite happy to see the change in thinking by the President.....as far too many lives have been lost due to bad decisions in the past.
The Man in the White House is not an isolationist....far from it.
What he is....is a President who puts American National Security and Economic Interests "FIRST".
He looks to our allies to pick up their share of the cost of their own defense.
He also intends to avoid unnecessary and endless wars.
Lots of folks here ranted about "Bush's War" in Iraq....which followed the one in Afghanistan....which continues till today nineteen years later....and now whine about the current President who is working to see and end to that war.
He has brought the North Koreans to the negotiating table....something no other President has been able to accomplish.
Under this President we are seeing American Troops leaving Syria.
In time we will see our Troops leaving Afghanistan and Iraq....and some other places as well.
Bush and Obama got us tangled up in places we had no need to be....we do not see that happening with the current President.
If our National Security interests are at risk....under this President you can count on his support.
Otherwise....don't expect to see us getting involved.
I am quite happy to see the change in thinking by the President.....as far too many lives have been lost due to bad decisions in the past.
SASless, I'm sure a percent in the US will agree with you and share your opinions. I've see repeated what you said.
Some would say Trump puts Trump's interests before everything else. The last president that was also good for aussie ADF was Bush jr, I think he was also good with the UK defence forces. The agreements that were signed stand both countries well.
As to the rest. the pentagon doesn't share this opinion on overseas deployments, as does a long list of other gov agencies. When you break it, you own it.
Nato hasn't committed another $, than that was already agreed to before Trump.
NK hasn't changed a thing for 50 years. Push forward till the west reacts and draws the line, Go forward with unfulfilled promises, till things settle down. Then back to their fundamental path. NK won with no US/SK exercises. A big mistake on the US part.
Some would say Trump puts Trump's interests before everything else. The last president that was also good for aussie ADF was Bush jr, I think he was also good with the UK defence forces. The agreements that were signed stand both countries well.
As to the rest. the pentagon doesn't share this opinion on overseas deployments, as does a long list of other gov agencies. When you break it, you own it.
Nato hasn't committed another $, than that was already agreed to before Trump.
NK hasn't changed a thing for 50 years. Push forward till the west reacts and draws the line, Go forward with unfulfilled promises, till things settle down. Then back to their fundamental path. NK won with no US/SK exercises. A big mistake on the US part.
Golder, we shall see. Remember....mark a Man by his actions and not by his words.
The "Break it...you own it!" Rule is exactly what got us into endless war.
At some point....we have to withdraw....as we just plain cannot afford it financially.
Had we stopped with the over throw of the bad guys early in the Afghan War....and not sent in Conventional Forces...perhaps that War would not have dragged on for so long.
Had we not gone into Iraq....or gone in and established order....and left.....it would not have been the disaster it became.
If we had not overthrown the Leaders in Egypt and Libya....perhaps we would not have the mess we do in the Middle East.
We. had a President that "led from behind"....went in for Regime Change....and who refused to admit Islamic Terrorism was the threat it really was.
Trump has a different view of things....as he is not a politician and does not think like a politician....he is a business man....who makes decisions in a much different way than the previous Presidents have done.
That does not make him wrong....it does make him different.
We have not had a whole lot of success using the traditional advisors and traditional method of decision making have we?
Let's see how the North Korea thing works out, how our trade issues with China get resolved, and how economic sanctions work on Russia and Iran.
Then we can critique Trump's results.
The "Break it...you own it!" Rule is exactly what got us into endless war.
At some point....we have to withdraw....as we just plain cannot afford it financially.
Had we stopped with the over throw of the bad guys early in the Afghan War....and not sent in Conventional Forces...perhaps that War would not have dragged on for so long.
Had we not gone into Iraq....or gone in and established order....and left.....it would not have been the disaster it became.
If we had not overthrown the Leaders in Egypt and Libya....perhaps we would not have the mess we do in the Middle East.
We. had a President that "led from behind"....went in for Regime Change....and who refused to admit Islamic Terrorism was the threat it really was.
Trump has a different view of things....as he is not a politician and does not think like a politician....he is a business man....who makes decisions in a much different way than the previous Presidents have done.
That does not make him wrong....it does make him different.
We have not had a whole lot of success using the traditional advisors and traditional method of decision making have we?
Let's see how the North Korea thing works out, how our trade issues with China get resolved, and how economic sanctions work on Russia and Iran.
Then we can critique Trump's results.
Getting back to the UK and its carriers what's the current status of the two carriers? When does QE resume F35 trials and when does the 2nd carrier in outfit start sea trials?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QE is back to Rosyth in the spring for routine recertification of her hull, and will resume operational service after that. Prince of Wales is due to sail on her sea trials in the autumn, and under current plans the third phase of Lightning trials will be conducted from her deck shortly thereafter. All subject to change of course.
How often do they have to recertify the hull?
I can't remember this on other ships.....
I can't remember this on other ships.....
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QE is back to Rosyth in the spring for routine recertification of her hull, and will resume operational service after that. Prince of Wales is due to sail on her sea trials in the autumn, and under current plans the third phase of Lightning trials will be conducted from her deck shortly thereafter. All subject to change of course.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As of last year PoW was scheduled to carry out DT3 trials whilst QE was in dry dock, but as I said plans are always subject to change. At the time PoW was due for completion by the summer, as was QE's dry docking period. With PoW slipping to the Autumn, they seem to have decided to swap QE back to DT3 host ship and pull her drydocking forward a few months. We shall see.