Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Britain's vast new aircraft carriers will make enemies 'think twice' about starting war
The Telegraph, U.K. ^ | May 20, 2016 | Ben Farmer

Posted on 05/20/2016 10:50:25 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki

Longer than the Houses of Parliament and able to launch up to 108 air strike sorties per day, Britain’s new aircraft carriers will make potential enemies “think twice” about starting future wars, their senior naval officer has said.

The new Queen Elizabeth Class carriers will be become Britain’s most potent conventional weapon and change the way the Royal Navy does business, Capt Simon Petitt said.

The two vast 67,000 tonne vessels, which have cost £6.2bn for the pair, are the largest warships ever built in Britain.

The first of the ships to be ready, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is due to start sea trials next year and is expected to be ready for its first deployment in 2021. Its sister ship, the Prince of Wales, is being built alongside at Rosyth on the Firth of Forth and is expected to be ready around 18 months later.

The vast ships, which are being built by an army of 10,000 workers, have a four acre flight deck and are taller than the Niagara Falls.

Each vessel will have more than 3,000 compartments and as well as a crew of nearly 700, will also be able to accommodate another 900 air crew and Marines.

Capt Petitt, senior naval officer for the two vessels, said they would become the UK’s “most potent strategic weapon bar the continuous at sea deterrent.”

“It is about stopping wars rather than starting them. If someone does want to start a war I think they might think twice if they see one of these ships coming over the horizon.

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: aircraftcarrier; britain; greatbritain; hollow; navy; royalnavy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last
To: StoneWall Brigade

See my post here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3432390/posts?page=40#40


41 posted on 05/20/2016 12:36:19 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Semper Fidelis - Molon Labe - Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: lacrew
Interesting. Seems that a few years ago, they were mothballing equipment due to money shortages.


Make work money for the union ship-builders, mainly in Scotland.

42 posted on 05/20/2016 12:41:47 PM PDT by az_gila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; sukhoi-30mki; All
"But, in an effort to save a little money (relatively speaking) they are building large 67,000 ton aircraft carriers that have been needlessly hobbled in terms of their own situational awareness, self-protection, and strike capabilities."

In the modern era, Carriers require a fast, capable picket line of Aegis destroyers...nuke subs...and back-up carriers.

Or, they must be relegated to being part of a US Navy Carrier Battle Group.

I don't believe Britain has sufficient surface and sub-surface assets to protect these ships operating independently. I would like to be wrong, but don't think I am.

43 posted on 05/20/2016 12:49:56 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
The Royal Navy's Type 45 Daring destroyers are VERY capable multi-role anti-air destroyers with capabilities close to equal to any Burke destroyer...their missiles lack the range of the really Long Range standards, and their magazine is smaller (48 missiles) but other than that...they are very capable and strong.

In addition, they have been integrated into the US Navy's CSG defense program:

Their Astute SSNs are on par with our Virginia class too.

Problem is, they only have about sixe of each.

Probably enough to provide two Type 45s and one Astute for any one of their carriers deployed.

44 posted on 05/20/2016 1:26:03 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Semper Fidelis - Molon Labe - Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Ok, so I looked at the skateboard ramp. Looks about 10 feet high. So the difference is the the plane will leave the deck ten feet higher off the water than a plane leaving a flat surface. So what? Seems that going up the ramp would slow the plane down a bit. I don’t get the purpose of the ramp.


45 posted on 05/20/2016 1:31:27 PM PDT by duckworth (Perhaps instant karma's going to get you. Perhaps not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Ok, so I looked at the skateboard ramp. Looks about 10 feet high. So the difference is the the plane will leave the deck ten feet higher off the water than a plane leaving a flat surface. So what? Seems that going up the ramp would slow the plane down a bit. I don’t get the purpose of the ramp.


46 posted on 05/20/2016 1:33:58 PM PDT by duckworth (Perhaps instant karma's going to get you. Perhaps not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

They’ll be flying the ISIS flag inside 3 years.


47 posted on 05/20/2016 1:37:50 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam should be banned and treated as a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
"Problem is, they only have about sixe of each. "

Thus my comment about sufficient assets.

They have good tech, good history and knowledge...but no ship building program to speak of.

Truly sad given their history.

48 posted on 05/20/2016 1:43:03 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Yep.

The Royal Navy should have 12 of each (the Darings and the Astutes). But they do not.

Just the same, if needed, I do believe that they could get one of their carriers out and sufficiently protected for strike at sea or ground support operations.

If they wanted to do both (assuming both were available) one of them would most certainly have to buddy up with a US Navy CBG.


49 posted on 05/20/2016 1:47:18 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Semper Fidelis - Molon Labe - Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: duckworth

10 feet higher and at an increased angle.


50 posted on 05/20/2016 2:33:49 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: duckworth
Ok, so I looked at the skateboard ramp. Looks about 10 feet high. So the difference is the the plane will leave the deck ten feet higher off the water than a plane leaving a flat surface. So what? Seems that going up the ramp would slow the plane down a bit. I don’t get the purpose of the ramp
10 foot higher and with a vertical velocity component. So it is now flying a semi-ballistic path even without full wing support. It gives 1-2 seconds before it starts descending - enough to accelerate from 85 to 170 knots and full wing supported flying
51 posted on 05/20/2016 6:52:50 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools - Solon, Lawmaker of Athens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson