No new carriers?

I’m disappointed, but not surprised, to hear that the two Royal Navy “super-carriers” are not going to be built.

Defence budgets are under huge pressure because of the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan and the planes that the ships were meant to carry wouldn’t have been ready for years after the ships came into service. These two things alone put a huge question mark over the project.

I was also a little bit sceptical about the process, the Navy accepted some serious cuts on the promise of the two new carriers. The cuts have happened and now the carriers have been cut too, all very neatly done!

The government needs to think carefully about the role in the world that they want to play and tailor the armed forces accordingly. At the moment we are trying to be the world police with the budget of the local park wardens. It can’t go on.

10 responses to “No new carriers?

  1. But we should expect nothing else from this Lie-bour government. Blair and Brown have caused the deaths of vast numbers of our service personnel through their penny pinching.We are an island and our Navy, once the envy of the world, should not be humiliated in this way.

  2. But we should expect nothing else from this Lie-bour government. Blair and Brown have caused the deaths of vast numbers of our service personnel through their penny pinching.We are an island and our Navy, once the envy of the world, should not be humiliated in this way.

  3. I went to a discussion with the late Lord Tim Garden where he talked about the carrier plans. He was clear that carriers are really only for the big boys who want to proudly display their power on the world stage, and really weren’t relevant to the modern world. Also if we did buy carriers, building ones with all the bells and whistles the navy wanted, and in UK shipyards as local/Labour politics would dictate meant ships that were far too expensive.IF we did buy carriers, then we should have bought off the shelf low spec ones built by a US manufacturer at a fraction of the price. The money saved could have bought a lot of better (safer) kit for our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

  4. I went to a discussion with the late Lord Tim Garden where he talked about the carrier plans. He was clear that carriers are really only for the big boys who want to proudly display their power on the world stage, and really weren’t relevant to the modern world. Also if we did buy carriers, building ones with all the bells and whistles the navy wanted, and in UK shipyards as local/Labour politics would dictate meant ships that were far too expensive.IF we did buy carriers, then we should have bought off the shelf low spec ones built by a US manufacturer at a fraction of the price. The money saved could have bought a lot of better (safer) kit for our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

  5. The Royal Navy was a bit clever by “pre-naming” the carriers after HM Queen Elizabeth II, and HRH Prince of Wales, as this makes them JUST-THAT-BIT harder for politicians to cancel!Having said that, what respect have they shown for other respected indigenous symbols of the British establishment (Infantry Regiments anyone?)

  6. The Royal Navy was a bit clever by “pre-naming” the carriers after HM Queen Elizabeth II, and HRH Prince of Wales, as this makes them JUST-THAT-BIT harder for politicians to cancel!Having said that, what respect have they shown for other respected indigenous symbols of the British establishment (Infantry Regiments anyone?)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s