Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Google

Become a Subscriber!

Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!

Read more...

Why did we build a huge Aircraft carrier?

What's Hot
axisusaxisus Frets: 28280
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.
0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
«134567

Comments

  • Winny_PoohWinny_Pooh Frets: 7731
    The military industrial complex controls more of the government's decisions than ordinary citizens. Its true in the vast majority of nations, especially the USA where military spending the the largest % of GDP in the world.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • GarthyGarthy Frets: 2268
    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.
    Have you just got a small phillips screwdriver in your tool kit?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • BridgehouseBridgehouse Frets: 24578
    If we didn't have a big aircraft carrier then I suspect that we would have additional threats that weren't terrorists. 

    You gotta be ready to down those big flocks of aggressive albatrosses you know.
    2reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • ESBlondeESBlonde Frets: 3576
    Random thoughts.

    The status symbolism is quite grand. Anyone with the standing capability to sink a carrier (which is typically part of a combat group/fleet while at sea) must also have assets that can be attacked and lost. The planning and design stage is a medium term project with something like this - even now we are still waiting on the offensive part (the aircraft) to be built and commissioned.

    That said I would have thought the sabre rattling days of the UK were over, we have now decided to give up our beach landing vessel capability and replace it with a carrier facility. It enables up to project power and partake in international incidents abroud without putting 'boots on the ground' and risking British lives.

    It's good to know we still have the ability to create a navel vessel at home, so much ship building capacity has been moved elsewhere.


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
  • SporkySporky Frets: 27570
    It's really difficult to land on a tiny aircraft carrier.
    "[Sporky] brings a certain vibe and dignity to the forum."
    16reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • crunchmancrunchman Frets: 11413

    We don't have a plane like a Harrier any more so it's a full size carrier, or no carriers at all.  Small carriers like we had with the Invincible class aren't an option.

    Whether they are needed I'm not sure, but we wouldn't be able to mount an operation like the Falklands without carriers.

    These were conceived before things like drones became an issue.  Not sure how the next generation of warfare will look but it could be very different.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • DLMDLM Frets: 2513

    Lack of bingo fields, old chap!

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4JEoCPXTeMg/hqdefault.jpg

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • munckeemunckee Frets: 12255
    Its out of service due to some significant problems, it has leaks and can't go back to the original facility apparently because of a new bridge which has been built.

    As mentioned above its partly to retain some presence on the world stage and partly for the falklands etc.  Although our navy seems small compared to what it was we still have one of the largest and best navies in the world.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RavenousRavenous Frets: 1484
    axisus said:
    Considering that the main threats these days seem likely to be Terrorism and cyber stuff,

    If we completely get rid of our military, then we'll start to see a lot more "old fashioned" threats re-appear over our horizon. (For those of us who believe in a horizon.)

    Of course it's debatable if we decide to partly get rid of our military, but I'm giving the short answer.  To some extent it is a vanity project as you say, but if you're one of the bigger guys in the playground you won't have every scrawny little git picking on you.

    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • EricTheWearyEricTheWeary Frets: 16253
    Wasn't this the one that people said was ordered to appease Gordon Brown's constituents? Something like that. 
    Tipton is a small fishing village in the borough of Sandwell. 
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • VimFuegoVimFuego Frets: 15475
    because if we didn't sensibly invest that money on making politicians looking all hard and stuff then the government would only spunk it away on hospitals or schools or roads or some such rubbish.

    I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 5reaction image Wisdom
  • RolandRoland Frets: 8590
    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?
    The life of these things is easily 20 years, often more, and political situations can change far faster. Who would have forseen the Yugoslav conflict? Remember that the Falklands episode arose, in part, because the Argentines saw the decommissioning of an Antarctic survey ship as a reduction in Britain’s interest in the area. A carrier also has a role in disaster support activities. Then we get onto the subject of manufacturing and support jobs, and continuing ship design capability.

    Remember too that military reasoning does not get discussed in public. There was fuss in the press about the cost of sending one Vulcan to drop a stick of small bombs across Port Stanley airfield. The Argentines filled the holes within hours ... and then moved all of their fast jets back to the mainland. We were expecting to lose at least one of our carriers to air attack, and the Vulcan sortie reduced that risk significantly.
    Tree recycler, and guitarist with  https://www.undercoversband.com/.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 4reaction image Wisdom
  • Danny1969Danny1969 Frets: 10356
    Are we talking about the Queen Elizabeth ? I did the Christmas gig for the crew of that at the Guildhall in Portsmouth on the 21st Dec ......... the singer got confused about which boat  the punters were from  and kept referring to them as QE2 people  until a member of the top brass came and had a word .... very funny :)

    Aircraft carriers are the key to any war, if you got carriers you can get close enough to bomb them, IF you have planes mind! 
    www.2020studios.co.uk 
    3reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • KilgoreKilgore Frets: 8599
    The military industrial complex controls more of the government's decisions than ordinary citizens. Its true in the vast majority of nations, especially the USA where military spending the the largest % of GDP in the world.
    Total spending by the US far exceeds the next biggest spenders combined. But there are plenty of countries that spend a larger % of GDP than the US.
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • crunchmancrunchman Frets: 11413

    In the new world, I wonder if you could do it on a budget with swarms of kamikaze drones?  Without a human pilot, getting the plane back intact isn't a such a priority.  Could you pack some high explosive into a drone instead of dropping bombs?

    That would have limits, and you wouldn't be able to attack another ship 200 miles away at sea like that, but you could probably put reasonable quantities of drones into smaller ships to get some aerial capability.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • Is a cruise missile not essentially a drone?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71955
    edited January 2018
    Wasn't this the one that people said was ordered to appease Gordon Brown's constituents? Something like that. 
    Exactly that. To provide jobs in Scotland and specifically in Rosyth.

    While I don't object to that in principle, something far more useful should have been built with the same money and jobs.

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • SporkySporky Frets: 27570
    crunchman said:

    In the new world, I wonder if you could do it on a budget with swarms of kamikaze drones?  Without a human pilot, getting the plane back intact isn't a such a priority.  Could you pack some high explosive into a drone instead of dropping bombs?

    I think you may have just described a cruise missile.
    "[Sporky] brings a certain vibe and dignity to the forum."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RavenousRavenous Frets: 1484
    crunchman said:

    In the new world, I wonder if you could do it on a budget with swarms of kamikaze drones?

    Apart from the cruise missile example a few people have mentioned, there have been studies into using a swarm of small drones. They probably aren't fast enough to threaten fast jets, and they certainly won't hurt armoured ships, but in battlefield use yes.

    (Also some research is going on into using fast autonomous jets for defence, and a small group of these would be good enough to beat human pilots. But that's going off topic as you'd need a carrier to recover these afterwards - too big and expensive to be disposable.)

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • GarthyGarthy Frets: 2268
    Ravenous said:
    crunchman said:

    In the new world, I wonder if you could do it on a budget with swarms of kamikaze drones?

    Apart from the cruise missile example a few people have mentioned, there have been studies into using a swarm of small drones. They probably aren't fast enough to threaten fast jets, and they certainly won't hurt armoured ships, but in battlefield use yes.

    (Also some research is going on into using fast autonomous jets for defence, and a small group of these would be good enough to beat human pilots. But that's going off topic as you'd need a carrier to recover these afterwards - too big and expensive to be disposable.)

    The autonomous plane that can safely pull 15g but can only react to a situation, vs a human that can anticipate but at a lower performance envelope in an interesting quandary but the military tend to like pilots and operators because they can choose not to fire ordinance.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.