Why did we build a huge Aircraft carrier?

darthed1981

VimFuego said:

fuck that, let america fight america's corporate wars. I'm sick and tired of our young men coming back with lumps missing (or not at all) just to enhance someone's profit margin. Shit, I wouldn't mind so much, but we never even get to see the money, all that shit gets offshored.

It's a little more complex than that, but your basic point is hard to argue with.

War is horror and young people dying screaming for their mothers, innocent children burning alive, babies suffocating in rubble, whole villages murdered.

We can't ever forget that when talking about the toys.

VimFuego

if, since the end of WW2, we'd engaged in what, for want of a better term, we could call honourable wars, then I'd be all in favour of sending our forces out to instill law and justice on the world. But, with the exception of the Balkan campaigns, all of which could be resourced from land bases, we haven't. Even Korea was just a pissing contest between 2 ideologies, at huge cost to the civilians and young conscripts we sent out there. 
Our politicians seem to have an enormous inability to wield these deadly forces responsibly, so I feel it is our duty to ensure they don't have the means to wage war. Or at the very least, to judge them harshly when they ignore us.

darthed1981

VimFuego said:

Our politicians seem to have an enormous inability to wield these deadly forces responsibly, so I feel it is our duty to ensure they don't have the means to wage war. Or at the very least, to judge them harshly when they ignore us.

Well as a citizen of a democracy you have a right and arguably a duty to be heard and participate in the debate, I'd say you are doing pretty well at that.

prowla

The problem with an aircraft carrier is that it needs a supporting fleet.

prowla

VimFuego said:

if, since the end of WW2, we'd engaged in what, for want of a better term, we could call honourable wars, then I'd be all in favour of sending our forces out to instill law and justice on the world. But, with the exception of the Balkan campaigns, all of which could be resourced from land bases, we haven't. Even Korea was just a pissing contest between 2 ideologies, at huge cost to the civilians and young conscripts we sent out there. 
Our politicians seem to have an enormous inability to wield these deadly forces responsibly, so I feel it is our duty to ensure they don't have the means to wage war. Or at the very least, to judge them harshly when they ignore us.

The Falklands was an honourable war, or was it just a conflict?

VimFuego

well, the falklands were the result of  series of failures by thatcher. It was well known that the junta had been making sabre rattling threats in the year leading up to the invasion, yet the govt went out of it's way to send signals that some could read (and the junta did read) that we weren't serious about defending the falklands. It would have been much simpler to forestall the invasion, but intelligence was misinterpreted or ignored. The result was 250 odd dead young men. 

Emp_Fab

Sorry Vim, the result was 904 dead young men.  The Argentinian conscripts were still young men.

stickyfiddle

Getting away from the utter horror that is war for a minute...

I think the badger suggestion is good, but maybe a more "Home Alone" approach could be employed.  I suggest drones full of toy cars, deployable via remote, so the enemy troops all stand on them and fall over. Would that work?

ICBM

darthed1981 said:

The second, complementary objective is what we bring to the table as (lets face it) a junior partner in the Pax Americana.  This is the role we have played in Kosovo, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Syria etc.  Britain to pull it's weight (and indeed exceed it) in this role, has certain exceptional capabilities for a country of our size.  One of these has always been to take on a role otherwise requiring the deployment of a US Carrier Battle Group.

...

We aren't alone, we are part of NATO and if the current stand-off with Russia gets worse, or if god forbid there was a war in the Far East, we might be glad of being able to send a big well-defended warship with stealth aircraft to take part in the USA's next conflict, rather than having to deploy some troops on the ground.

Edited your quote for clarity.

This in a nutshell is everything that we *don’t* need or want in our “defence” capability - the ability to act as America’s  stooge in ill-advised military interference around the world.

It has caused immense damage to our national interest, international reputation, security and economy, not to mention destabilising whole regions and leading to millions of deaths and a refugee crisis, and wasting the lives and health of British service personnel.

The sooner we stop doing this the better, and losing the capability would be the most effective way of ensuring it.

Deadman

axisus said: 

Considering that the main threats these days seem likely to be Terrorism and cyber stuff, why have we built the world's biggest and most hittable target? Seems like some kind of ludicrously expensive vanity project. By all means correct me on my naive view, I'm perfectly happy to be educationalized.

Modernisation. Future proofing. Readiness. Call it what you will. 
JSF on its decks with Poseidon P8 also in support will mean we're a force to be reckoned with once again. That might not be important to some people but that's because we haven't needed it yet. Hopefully we never will.

axisus

I still maintain that in a 'real' conflict it would be very easy to hit and destroy. 

cacophony

the real problem in the world isn't our carriers, or anybody elses come to that. it's politicians, and the frankly appalling people we elect to make decisions that call these assets into use.

i have always maintained that, if we decide to 'do a blair' and get involved in something that most of the right-thinking world can see is both immoral and doomed . then twenty members of the house of commons should be selected at random, sent for a week or two's training in nbc survival/first aid. then when the british forces roll over the border into whatever shitstorm they've embroiled us in, those politicians should be in two warrior afv's in the first wave.

no exceptions, for age, sex or illness. if they can send people into harms way, they should be willing to put themselves in the same position.

then we may see a less hawkish attitude to getting involved in other people's wars.

munckee

Deadman said:

axisus said: 

Considering that the main threats these days seem likely to be Terrorism and cyber stuff, why have we built the world's biggest and most hittable target? Seems like some kind of ludicrously expensive vanity project. By all means correct me on my naive view, I'm perfectly happy to be educationalized.

Modernisation. Future proofing. Readiness. Call it what you will. 
JSF on its decks with Poseidon P8 also in support will mean we're a force to be reckoned with once again. That might not be important to some people but that's because we haven't needed it yet. Hopefully we never will.

I can never decide where to stand on that, on one hand we have ensured we are one of the top military forces in the world, on the other Germany are not and they seem to be doing okay, not much threat to Australia or Canada either.

VimFuego

Deadman said:

axisus said: 

Considering that the main threats these days seem likely to be Terrorism and cyber stuff, why have we built the world's biggest and most hittable target? Seems like some kind of ludicrously expensive vanity project. By all means correct me on my naive view, I'm perfectly happy to be educationalized.

Modernisation. Future proofing. Readiness. Call it what you will. 
JSF on its decks with Poseidon P8 also in support will mean we're a force to be reckoned with once again. That might not be important to some people but that's because we haven't needed it yet. Hopefully we never will.

this goes back to my main point, where are we likely to need to defend that would require an aircraft carrier? Surely all military spending plans must be based on where are we likely to need this resource and what are we hoping to achieve with it. Let's at least be honest, an aircraft carrier is about imposing your will overseas, it's is not a defensive resource, it is offensive. Is this what we want to be, part of america's bully gang?

Deadman

VimFuego said:

Deadman said:

axisus said: 

Considering that the main threats these days seem likely to be Terrorism and cyber stuff, why have we built the world's biggest and most hittable target? Seems like some kind of ludicrously expensive vanity project. By all means correct me on my naive view, I'm perfectly happy to be educationalized.

Modernisation. Future proofing. Readiness. Call it what you will. 
JSF on its decks with Poseidon P8 also in support will mean we're a force to be reckoned with once again. That might not be important to some people but that's because we haven't needed it yet. Hopefully we never will.

this goes back to my main point, where are we likely to need to defend that would require an aircraft carrier? Surely all military spending plans must be based on where are we likely to need this resource and what are we hoping to achieve with it. Let's at least be honest, an aircraft carrier is about imposing your will overseas, it's is not a defensive resource, it is offensive. Is this what we want to be, part of america's bully gang?

Who knows? Could be anywhere. It doesn't necessarily have to be the actual defence of British soil. There are all sorts of scenarios. An aircraft carrier makes us a mobile force. Don't forget they can also carry marines and helicopters as well as strike aircraft.

I don't condone getting involved in "other people's wars" but still think it's a good thing to have this in our arsenal because it gives us options. You can argue all you want that it's a waste of money etc etc but the fact is that none of us know what the future holds. You can't base the country's entire future defence on what's happening this week.

VimFuego

heh, strawman, I'm not saying we should base our defence spending on what is happening this week, I'm saying that I'm hoping that whoever decides this is looking at the next couple of decades and deciding on this. 
I'd actually be interested to hear what scenarios you can come up with where an aircraft carrier is the best tool. We seem to manage to carry out air sorties in our immoral war in afghan OK, that's pretty far from British soil. 

ICBM

Deadman said:

I don't condone getting involved in "other people's wars" but still think it's a good thing to have this in our arsenal because it gives us options. You can argue all you want that it's a waste of money etc etc but the fact is that none of us know what the future holds. You can't base the country's entire future defence on what's happening this week.

No, but you can base it on the total experience of the last sixty years. Ever since Suez, interfering in other parts of the world - usually at the behest of America - has almost universally only caused us trouble. If we're not going to do that we don't need aircraft carriers.

The only times we have actually used them for our own benefit would be the Falklands - which we would never have had to re-take at all if our government had not been so inept as to withdraw the forces necessary to defend them in the first place - and Sierra Leone, which was a worthwhile intervention (and notably nothing to do with the US) but still would have been possible without an aircraft carrier - the Harriers were not used in combat, only for 'reconnaissance and reassurance' missions.

Deadman

VimFuego said: open

heh, strawman, I'm not saying we should base our defence spending on what is happening this week, I'm saying that I'm hoping that whoever decides this is looking at the next couple of decades and deciding on this. 
I'd actually be interested to hear what scenarios you can come up with where an aircraft carrier is the best tool. We seem to manage to carry out air sorties in our immoral war in afghan OK, that's pretty far from British soil. 

Granted. But quite simply, Afghanistan needed setting up first. And it took a hell of a lot of drawing down. And we relied on (for example) transport aircraft to move aircraft every day of the week. It was a massive undertaking, hidden from public perception most of the time. You say it was immoral, we'll have to leave that argument for another day

Scenarios? A foreign aggressor attacks one of our allies and we respond (immediately). A foreign aggressor does another Falklands on us by wading into one of our overseas territories and we (can) respond immediately. 

We're not reinventing the wheel here. Lots of countries have carriers.

Deadman

ICBM said:

Deadman said:

I don't condone getting involved in "other people's wars" but still think it's a good thing to have this in our arsenal because it gives us options. You can argue all you want that it's a waste of money etc etc but the fact is that none of us know what the future holds. You can't base the country's entire future defence on what's happening this week.

No, but you can base it on the total experience of the last sixty years. Ever since Suez, interfering in other parts of the world - usually at the behest of America - has almost universally only caused us trouble. If we're not going to do that we don't need aircraft carriers.

The only times we have actually used them for our own benefit would be the Falklands - which we would never have had to re-take at all if our government had not been so inept as to withdraw the forces necessary to defend them in the first place - and Sierra Leone, which was a worthwhile intervention (and notably nothing to do with the US) but still would have been possible without an aircraft carrier - the Harriers were not used in combat, only for 'reconnaissance and reassurance' missions.

If only we could mould our future based on the past. Life would be so easy.

On that basis we also don't need a nuclear capability. 

ICBM

Deadman said:

On that basis we also don't need a nuclear capability.

That's an excellent point.

Remind me again how having Polaris deterred General Galtieri from invading the Falklands. If I remember rightly he ignored it, knowing that we could not use it.

Or how having Trident deterred Putin from annexing Crimea and eastern Ukraine. He just called our bluff, explicitly reminding the West that Russia is also a nuclear power.

Or how it deters Islamist terrorists?