# HMS Queen Elizabeth



## renrich (Jun 4, 2008)

Just read a report that says that The UK is going to build two new 65000 ton aircraft carriers to be named Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales. Hope they follow though and build them to help share the load with the US. They will be the largest warships ever built by Britain.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 4, 2008)

Hope they have better luck that the other two ships with those names.


----------



## Aggie08 (Jun 4, 2008)

No kiddin. For comparison, how big are our carriers? What will the new ships be outfitted with?


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jun 4, 2008)

Nimitz class carriers go over 100,000 ton fully loaded.

TO


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 4, 2008)

.


----------



## trackend (Jun 5, 2008)

I would of preferred some other names perhaps Indomitable ,Bulwark or Avenger, all previous carriers. 
I also hope the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) proves itself 
it seems a much neater device than the old steam catapult.
It's good that they are being built in the UK.
For a nation of our size I think the UK is doing its far share already Renrich perhaps it would be better if a few more nations that have sat on their arses did their share, Instead of standing on the sidelines watching and critisiing the nations involved in overseas duties.
S*** they don't even get involved in aid work while vessels Like USS ESSEX standby off Burma full of relief aid ready for the go ahead soon as those dick heads in power on shore sort their act out.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 5, 2008)

I thought that England would have realized in the meantime that its colonial empire has vanished. Unless one wants to export his politics to other parts of the world, why should a country such as England need aircraft carriers? To protect the Falkland’s and St. Helena? In order to conduct humanitarian actions? 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Glider (Jun 5, 2008)

The UK has had more experience than most with the use of small carriers and their value has been proven time and again. Its worth noting that a number of countries have observed this and are building small/medium sized carriers, including France, India, Spain, China, Russia, Italy, Australia. Some such as Australia are going to use them as assult ships not carriers but the option is there. A number of British carriers have switched between Aircraft Carriers, Assult ships and back again. 
They give the armed forces the priceless advantage of flexibility.


----------



## trackend (Jun 5, 2008)

The British (not English) empire disappeared many years ago Kruska and we certainly have no illusions of that. But in order to meet the obligations that all members of the UN Nato have, and being a small Island race, having a viable sea power is vital to meet this and for our own protection. 
Based on your premise no one should be able to project their military influence beyond their shores.
Sorry guys in the US looks like you're going to have to scrap your fleet and no long range aircraft Hang gliders and Row boats with shotguns only please .


----------



## Kruska (Jun 5, 2008)

Hello trackend,

The US has projected its political views on this planet for the past 65 years, they are a superpower and want to stay one – most favorable – the only one, so aircraft carriers make sense, and don’t forget, wherever they go they will enlighten the world with McD, KFC, Coca and Pepsi cola, and democracy who wants Fish Chips and a Queen  

BTW, could you enlarge your avatar or make it a signature .... ah ... my mouth is getting watery...

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 5, 2008)

The sad part is you need a Carrier to pass even food out in some parts of the world ...


----------



## Kruska (Jun 5, 2008)

Haztoys said:


> The sad part is you need a Carrier to pass even food out in some parts of the world ...



Yes, crazy planet isn’t it? Imagine how many cargo ships and food one could rent/buy for an aircraft carrier.

Regards 
Kruska


----------



## renrich (Jun 5, 2008)

The report says that the cost of the ships will be 8B dollars. They will carry F35B Lightning II strike fighters. The UK's other carriers are to be retired as these come on line. When you think about it, with the global economy we live in, keeping the sea lanes open is more important than ever and being able to project power into the littoral regions of the world is enjoyed by only a few nations. Our British cousins have stepped up and helped regularly and I hope they are able to follow through on this endeavor. An interesting point in the report was that no warship of this size has ever been built in Britain and a carrier had not been built in 20 years.


----------



## trackend (Jun 5, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello trackend,
> 
> The US has projected its political views on this planet for the past 65 years, they are a superpower and want to stay one – most favorable – the only one, so aircraft carriers make sense, and don’t forget, wherever they go they will enlighten the world with McD, KFC, Coca and Pepsi cola, and democracy who wants Fish Chips and a Queen
> 
> ...



Harry Ramsdons Fish chips were very popular with the americans the last time I went to the Epcote center.
apart from that Chicken tikka massala is now officially the national dish of Britain

And I cant enlarge my avatar the last time I did her bra could'nt take the strain.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 5, 2008)

Absolutely right Renich, sea lanes are huge. Never get any press but disrupt the shipping around the world and you would see major problems abound.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 5, 2008)

trackend said:


> And I cant enlarge my avatar the last time I did her bra could'nt take the strain.



Pffff...th .. holy sh..t almost spilled my coffee on the laptop 

Well anyway enjoy those carriers. Unfortunatly Germany doesn't have one, they could name it "Neu Schwanstein" and promote more Bavarian beer, bretzels and sausages to the world. If the world sealanes are threatend we will count on the US fleet to do their very best as we did in the past 63 years.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 5, 2008)

Why do I find that somehow pathetic, Kruska. I hope you are kidding.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 5, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Hope they have better luck that the other two ships with those names.



??? Huh? 

The Queen Elizabeth {WWI Battleship} fought at Jutland, was flagship in the Gallipoli campaign 1915, in WWII in 1940 was damaged in the attack on Dakar, was flagship of the Mediterannean fleet 1941, mined by Italian frogmen repaired, then was flagship of the Eastern fleet in 1944 used her guns for shore bombardment in Indonesia Malaysia among others, finally the WWI warhorse was retired in 1946.

In the 1940's the 80,000 ton ocean liner QE2 was {along with sister ship} the largest ship in the world in 1942, and was fast enough to sail across the Atlantic *ferrying American troops* without escort, as the U-boats could not catch her. By 1943 she could carry up to 20,000 troops at a time.

Not too shabby....



trackend said:


> I would of preferred some other names perhaps Indomitable ,Bulwark or Avenger.



Avenger Ark Royal - or Victorious Valiant would be my pick. {Illustrious Indomitable ok too}



renrich said:


> *Our British cousins have stepped up and helped regularly* and I hope they are able to follow through on this endeavor. An interesting point in the report was that no warship of this size has ever been built in Britain and a carrier had not been built in 20 years.



Yes but don't forget the Aussies, and some Canucks too. One of the few silver linings in the otherwise pile of s**t that would be President Obama, perhaps once Bush is gone we can get a proper conservative government up north. {The liberals bash our Tories by comparing them to Bush stooges}



trackend said:


> The British (not English) empire disappeared many years ago.



*Never!!!* {Oh bloody hell!}



Kruska said:


> Hello trackend,
> 
> who wants Fish Chips and a Queen
> 
> ...



Yes Trackend, we don't want any of your bloody useless British invensions here!  

What kind of dingbat would think there would be any use for the steam engine, the telephone, the electric motor. {or the flush toilet?}


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 5, 2008)




----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2008)

The British thought the telephone was useless when it was first invented... just like the De Havilland Mosquito was useless... and countless other wonderful creations. The dyson vacuum had to be taken to Japan to get backing and Dyson is a British person ! I'm sure no one outside of Britain has heard of dyson, but he invented bagless vacuum cleaners.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 5, 2008)

Great one, pD. Hell the QE2 is now floating hotel in Los Angeles. We have had numerous meetings there. So in that vein, Britain's inventions continue to support meaningless meeting agendas, serve as places for business men to rack up after a hard's day drinking and provide a place for the world's oldest profession to prosper.

God save the Queen!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2008)

YEAH! The only nation that provides for everyone but itself ! Go Britain !


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 5, 2008)

You have to admit though that a CVF with a few wings of F-35s will be quite impressive. Certainly more impressive than Russia or France.


----------



## trackend (Jun 6, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> You have to admit though that a CVF with a few wings of F-35s will be quite impressive. Certainly more impressive than Russia or France.



Dont hold your breath Matt our MOD just succeeded in blowing half a billion quid on 8 Chinooks that can only fly in fair weather, its on here and makes for sorry reading.
BBC NEWS | UK | The 'sorry saga' of UK's Chinooks
I love those pen pushers they should have their offices relocated to the firing butts on Sailsbury plains.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 6, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Why do I find that somehow pathetic, Kruska. I hope you are kidding.



Why? Maybe there could/should be a bigger picture?

NATO is a Cold War relict; it is not suitable to serve the purpose of today’s challenges in this world anymore. The common enemy, threat or fear is no more – therefore individual interests and conflicts of interest between the US and the EU states are developing and showing up more and more.

To propagate international unity against terrorism in order to keep NATO as it was, is not enough since the means to combat this threat differentiate to much already between the US and Europe.

Unfortunately there is no USE and therefore there is no UE Armed Forces. One European country such as England can’t achieve anything just alone by its own. Building 2 carriers is one thing, protecting, supplying and tactically employing them is another thing. As such England could only rent them out to the US Fleet or put itself under US command.

As long as there is no USE every individual European country will have to depend on the USA as they have done in the past 63 year’s incl. Germany. Somehow England seems to be closer to the US at present, whilst France and Germany and others do not agree in many aspects with US politics and views and as such placing themselves under US command.

Germany and France have not supported the US view and action against Iraq for the 2nd Gulf war, they will not share the US view or even actions against Iran. Therefore both countries have to take into consideration that sooner or later the US might not be willing to help or sacrifice its soldiers for the sake of these two countries or others when they might be in trouble or need. 

Look at the US how many companies or models do they have to concentrate on for military hardware – and then look at Europe.
There is just one MBT producer and model in the USA in contra to 6 in the EU, so one can imagine the cost/efficiency ratio. For the carriers, France will buy from England? or Germany from France? and Italy from who? Therefore the costing for England to build these carriers just for their own and at the end they will still depend on the US for support in order to deploy them doesn’t pay off in my view.

IMO individual European military programs are just a sign of national pride, shortsightedness and inability to contribute towards a common European cause and therefore a waste of money. A strong united Europe together with the USA on equal terms is a future sense making solution to me and not national individualism and rubbing shoulders with big brother USA hoping for a favor in return.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## The Basket (Jun 6, 2008)

United Kingdom or Britain.

England does not have a navy.

The British Empire exists...Thats why this forum is in English!

The new carriers...if ever built...will employ skilled people and be effective against lesser powers.

Fish and chips and The Queen is far better than what some countries have exported.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 6, 2008)

Australia has plans for a sea control ship which at this stage will not include any fixed wing capability. They are called the Canberra class. They might be under threat due to the change of government

Anyway heres a picture of what they may look like


----------



## trackend (Jun 6, 2008)

The news today is announcing the idea of a EU force once again, so what happens if the UK decide to get involved overseas but the German's, French etc dont, will it be majority voting. I dont think so.
I did not vote for going into the EU when we had a referendum originally as it was obvious from the start that federalism was on the agender. If you want United States of Europe then good luck mate. I am British not American, French German or anything else I live in the UK because I choose to not because I have to.
I really resent having a body not elected by my fellow countrymen making laws that I am expected to obey. I also resent my taxes being used to fund the biggest MP expenses grave train in the world. IMO It is not pride that our armed forces are here it is because history has proven over and over again that if you fail to maintain a reasonable defensive caperbility some tin pot dictator turns up and wants to rule the world or your part of it. The least that those who stood alongside eachother to defend democracy can do is to maintain a force even with finacial constaints of a smaller GDP that can take an active part in keeping democracy not just relying on the US to do the work. 
Two new carriers are nothing to do with pride, pride in your nation is about the people and their achievements not the fact you have a big boat. The carriers enable the UK to project its international obligations as well as its own defensive/political requirements without need of land based aircraft and the accompaniing problems of locating, establishing maintaining overseas airpower/forces.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 6, 2008)

I wouldnt write off NATO just yet as not needed. Russia is much weakened, but recovering. The states of the forme SU other than Russia can generally be described as weak corrupt and economically unviable. The Russians have a nasty habit of never giving up, and coming back when you least expect it.

Having said all that, squabbling between the european powers over the centuries has caused more wars than anybody wants to admit


----------



## Kruska (Jun 6, 2008)

Hello trackend,

Having a USE first in order to set up a UE Armed Forces is understood, and not the other way around as some idiotic EU politicians are trying. The Europeans who settled in the now USA, still keep their little national ticks, but they understood the meaning of a united states and this is the reason why they are now where they are = No.1. 

The process of a USE will take maybe 20 or 40 years, but every small step in that direction adds to the shortening of this timeframe. And individual military programs do not; they are contra productive to closing the gap or to nearing each other.

Honestly the sooner GB decides what they want, stay independent or whatever, the sooner Europe will have a chance to grow together. For me I am very clearly a European with Bavarian heritage, and a very close friend of mine is a European with Scottish heritage. 

But I still like your avatar. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kruska (Jun 6, 2008)

Hello trackend,

Having a USE first in order to set up a UE Armed Forces is understood, and not the other way around as some idiotic EU politicians are trying. The Europeans who settled in the now USA, still keep their little national ticks, but they understood the meaning of a united states and this is the reason why they are now where they are = No.1. 

The process of a USE will take maybe 20 or 40 years, but every small step in that direction adds to the shortening of this timeframe. And individual military programs do not; they are contra productive to closing the gap or to nearing each other.

Honestly the sooner GB decides what they want, stay independent or whatever, the sooner Europe will have a chance to grow together. For me I am very clearly a European with Bavarian heritage, and a very close friend of mine is a European with Scottish heritage. 

But I still like your avatar. 
*Sorry double post* 
Regards
Kruska


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2008)

Absolute bollocks to that. I hope Great Britain quickly decides to shed itself of the EU; the Continent of Europe has failed time and time again to control Britain by force, so they attempt to do so through diplomacy. 

Britain is an island nation and there's a lot of national pride. A country should be able to defend its own borders, and if Europe doesn't want to then so be it but Britain isn't European, it's British. 

Trackend, that Chinook shambles isn't the first time the government has f*cked up military orders... the Tornado is a perfect example.


----------



## trackend (Jun 6, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello trackend,
> 
> Having a USE first in order to set up a UE Armed Forces is understood, and not the other way around as some idiotic EU politicians are trying. The Europeans who settled in the now USA, still keep their little national ticks, but they understood the meaning of a united states and this is the reason why they are now where they are = No.1.
> 
> ...



They have decide Kruska they signed up that does not mean I have to agree with it even if I am in a minority. I preffered when we had much closer global trading links with NZ, Australia, Canada ,indian etc too many eggs in one basket for my liking 

I wonder what the citizens in the US or most other nations would say if Mexico told them they had to imprison a US citizen who had broken a Mexican law but he was on US soil at the time, and the US did not even have that law on their statute. I doubt if being dictated to by another country that they must apply others countries laws dispite not having them would go down like a lead balloon in many countries



Europe wins the power to jail British citizens - Times Online


----------



## Kruska (Jun 6, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I wouldnt write off NATO just yet as not needed...



A defense union is needed for Europe that is for sure, if NATO provides the appropriate means is questionable. Unclear legal situations and interpretations make common actions already impossible and questionable and Bush’s world policy have already divided European countries among each other and caused a rift between Europe and the USA.

NATO has already proved itself in the past too many times as a non reliable organization during the Cyprus occupation, Angola, Mozambique, Falkland conflict, Spanish Sahara, 9/11 and its consequences, Iraq II, and Afghanistan by placing political/economical interests and definitions above the organizations principles.

NATO’s future development or continuation will also depend a lot on the oncoming election in the USA. Undeniable Germany and France have a very different opinion in regards to the function and implementation of NATO then the US and its little cousin.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Freebird (Jun 6, 2008)

trackend said:


> I doubt if being dictated to by another country that they must apply others countries laws dispite not having them would go down like a lead balloon in many countries
> 
> 
> 
> Europe wins the power to jail British citizens - Times Online



I think that the last post was very subversive, call the Brussells Gestapo to apprehend the poster...    


Canada got some used subs from the UK, maybe we can get a couple of the used "Invincibles" when they retire them...


----------



## Kruska (Jun 6, 2008)

plan_D said:


> Britain is an island nation and there's a lot of national pride. A country should be able to defend its own borders, and if Europe doesn't want to then so be it but Britain isn't European, it's British.



And where do these British come from?  Well anyway that is what democracy is all about - majority rules -. So lets hope for your benefit that your feelings will be shared by the British majority. 

Regards
Kruska (European)


----------



## Freebird (Jun 6, 2008)

Kruska said:


> And where do these British come from?  Well anyway that is what democracy is all about - majority rules -. So lets hope for your benefit that your feelings will be shared by the *British majority*.
> 
> Regards
> Kruska (European)



And in 20 years the "Majority of people in Britain" might have other ideas about who needs to be attacked..... 


Regards
Alex (still British!)


----------



## Kruska (Jun 6, 2008)

trackend said:


> They have decide Kruska they signed up that does not mean I have to agree with it even if I am in a minority. I preffered when we had much closer global trading links with NZ, Australia, Canada ,indian etc.........]



As a good sport and democrat you don't have to agree with it but you have to accept it.  

Off course I can understand that the Commonwealth had its benefits for Britain, and that most British people have a good remembrance to those days. But I think it blurs the picture – GB today is stronger on economical terms then what it was 20 or 30 years ago, don’t you think so?

Surely not everything that some of those EU monkeys debate or decide is perfect, many times it is totally off for one side but perfectly okay for the other side. The good part is that EU law stands above national law – a milestone towards a real united Europe. And it is the European Parliament voted by its national populations alone that decide upon these new EU laws; they forward, decide and implement them together. PURE DEMOCRACY

The American founder states have done that already in 1776, and they are still working and improving on it, jolly good show old lad, isn’t it?

Regards
Kruska


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2008)

_"And where do these British come from? Well anyway that is what democracy is all about - majority rules -. So lets hope for your benefit that your feelings will be shared by the British majority."_

Weren't all humans from Africa originally? I suppose your idea that all of Europe (Britain included) being one race means that it all should come under the same rule. I believe Herr Hitler wished the same thing, only his attempts through force brought a lot of attention from non-Europeans. 

I hope for the benefit of Great Britain that the British government allows the British people to decide. I can see that you want to send your nation into the blue sea of the EU; the funny thing being that European will never truly be standing side by side - we're all too much alike. The majority of people still remain glued to the idea of nation first, foolish ideals later thankfully. 

I sure hope that Britain realises its friendship is much stronger than that with its "brethren" in Europe. When the British government allows the British people to voice their opinions, then it'll become obvious to all the Great Britain is not European - the whole shambles has been some deluded politicians dream which should be erased from British shores. 

Being a new country maybe Germany doesn't realise the significance of its history; especially since they continually try to erase the last 100 years of it. 

And how can you honestly compare the United States to Europe? The U.S. having a 200+ year history to its name which is filled with expansion in the name of the United States; whereas Europe has simply been a line on a map within which rests several different cultures, languages, histories and global aims. Do you honestly think that uniting France and Germany (two extremely violent neighbours) is as simple as New York agreeing with Vermont?

Unfortunately, Alex...you are right, unless something is done soon.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 6, 2008)

freebird said:


> And in 20 years the "Majority of people in Britain" might have other ideas about who needs to be attacked.....
> Regards
> Alex (still British!)



Hello Alex,

Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer – hey it even rimes.

Okay so what does this Islam demonstration have to do with a unified Europe? It shows that GB law is too lenient on these scum bags; in Bavaria the Riot police will give them the taste of rubber, water cannons and CS gas for displaying hatred slogans… Exterminate those…… and disguising their faces.

So GB help to adopt/support some Bavarian laws into Europe and things will get much better. In Germany these freaks are free to do the same. 

Regards
Andy (Still European)


----------



## Kruska (Jun 6, 2008)

plan_D said:


> Weren't all humans from Africa originally? I suppose your idea that all of Europe (Britain included) being one race means that it all should come under the same rule. I believe Herr Hitler wished the same thing, only his attempts through force brought a lot of attention from non-Europeans.



Jesus Plan_D, if you are a war generation person I might be able to understand you and your view, certainly I wouldn’t share them.

No I don’t think all the humans came from Africa, and the majorities of the Germanics in Britain are from Scandinavia and not Germany.

Germany is being kicked in the ass for its last 100 years on every possible occasion, most notably by the Brits. Germany and France have become friends – both sides have their fair share of dickh…ds, but I have never had a negative or WW2 brainwashed idiot encounter in France, but believe me 2 minutes in an English pup and of goes WW2.

The Americans derive from the same culture and countries as we do (besides Michael Jackson and Muhammad Ali) and they learned to do it – so if these Cowboys managed to do it, then it can’t be that difficult. 

BTW, if we want to continue on this topic we might have to open a new thread, otherwise the carrier guy’s are going to get mad at us.

Regards
Kruska (Still European)


----------



## timshatz (Jun 6, 2008)

freebird said:


> ??? Huh?
> 
> The Queen Elizabeth {WWI Battleship} fought at Jutland, was flagship in the Gallipoli campaign 1915, in WWII in 1940 was damaged in the attack on Dakar, was flagship of the Mediterannean fleet 1941, mined by Italian frogmen repaired, then was flagship of the Eastern fleet in 1944 used her guns for shore bombardment in Indonesia Malaysia among others, finally the WWI warhorse was retired in 1946., :



My bad, confused my Queens. Meant the Queen Mary, that's the one that blew up. That's the problem with being an American, one queen is pretty much like any other.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2008)

_"Jesus Plan_D, if you are a war generation person I might be able to understand you and your view, certainly I wouldn’t share them."_

What's wrong with pointing out that a unified European nation is the same idea as Herr Hitler? My comment should give you some idea of Great Britain's unwillingness to join in this farce called Europe, we more than most because unlike the rest of them we resisted and didn't falter.

_"No I don’t think all the humans came from Africa, and the majorities of the Germanics in Britain are from Scandinavia and not Germany."_

Well, it's time you glanced across the internet because all humankind apparently came from Africa. I hope you are aware that native peoples of the British Isles shared the same culture, religion and politics as the Scandinavia long before the Viking invasions. The Norsemen and Germanics were only mixing with their own kind when they began to produce alongside native British; that being the norse side, of course. As I'm sure you're aware that the British Isles consisted of countless races of all varieties from the Britons to the Celts to the Picts. The norse did not add an extra race to the mix - they simply increased the norse race already present in the British Isles.

_"Germany is being kicked in the ass for its last 100 years on every possible occasion, most notably by the Brits. Germany and France have become friends – both sides have their fair share of dickh…ds, but I have never had a negative or WW2 brainwashed idiot encounter in France, but believe me 2 minutes in an English pup and of goes WW2."_

Of course, the Great British public will mention "the war" when in the presence of Germans; unlike France the British nation held firm. It's quite unfortunate because Britain was preparing for war against France, and on the side of Germany until '38. 

What would you call a "WW2 brainwashed idiot encounter"; does the whole "Two World Wars and One World Cup" chant get to you? Your violent past with France goes back a lot further than 100 years; Napoleonic and Franco-Prussian wars ring a bell? You believe the world has moved on in the past 60 years from 1945? Maybe you don't receive negativity in France because they've got nothing to boast about !!! 

I've been to Germany, I went to see Adler a couple of years ago, it's a great nation. And I got along great with everyone from there; although it may not count for little (and I care nought if it does or not) but I have defended Germany in many a discussion/argument on this site, and in day to day life. So, I have nothing against Germany... but what you don't realise is that there's still a big black mark against it's name. And if you can't handle national banter, then remain within your own borders. 

_"The Americans derive from the same culture and countries as we do (besides Michael Jackson and Muhammad Ali) and they learned to do it – so if these Cowboys managed to do it, then it can’t be that difficult."_

That is true, but the Americans all joined hands because they had one common goal and that was to remove themselves from Europe. They were starting afresh and removing the European tag from their names; the U.S now has it's own culture that is all one and the same... they've had one civil war; compare that to the amount of "civil" conflicts that have been fought inside Europes borders.


----------



## renrich (Jun 6, 2008)

Being a Texan and an American and an Anglophile, I hope that Britain maintains her distance from the EU. I like Queen Elisabeth and Prince of Wales.


----------



## trackend (Jun 6, 2008)

I stand by what by I said about the EU, I am and never have been in favour of it as far as my nation is concerned what others want is a matter for themselves. But then thats the advantage of having democracy in europe, its just a shame it took millions of lives to maintain it that way, good job somebody had a few carriers (and some other naval hardware) and plenty of friends outside europe. Oh Ive gone full circle. 


Anyway guys these here carriers.

I think the split command and control Islands are a pretty neat Idea, I'll be interested to have a look once they are commissioned. With new aircraft and new carriers designed with the JSF in mind it should hopefully produce two very effective vessels.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 6, 2008)

timshatz said:


> My bad, *confused my Queens.* Meant the Queen Mary, that's the one that blew up. That's the problem with being an American, *one Queen is pretty much like any other*.




We understand, and symathise with your confusion.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 6, 2008)

trackend said:


> Anyway guys these here carriers.
> 
> I think the split command and control Islands are a pretty neat Idea, I'll be interested to have a look once they are commissioned. With new aircraft and new carriers designed with the JSF in mind it should hopefully produce two very effective vessels.



I wonder if the dual islands are for redundancy if damaged?

Trackend - do you know how many of the Invincible's are still being used? Could the F-35's be used on them as well?


----------



## timshatz (Jun 6, 2008)

HMS Freddie Mercury! Jeez, now that would be a scary ship to be assinged. 

Ship Moto: "If you drop the soap, just use the water"


----------



## Kruska (Jun 6, 2008)

plan_D said:


> _"Jesus Plan_D, if you are a war generation person I might be able to understand you and your view, certainly I wouldn’t share them."_
> 
> What's wrong with pointing out that a unified European nation is the same idea as Herr Hitler? My comment should give you some idea of Great Britain's unwillingness to join in this farce called Europe, we more than most because unlike the rest of them we resisted and didn't falter.
> 
> ...



Regards
Kruska


----------



## trackend (Jun 6, 2008)

The dual command centres I believe are for ship control in the foward island and air control in the rear the space in between will house two hoist platfoms.
I dont believe anything currently onboard Invincible will be employed on the new carriers. The ski jump launch system has not been finalised in the design but it is looking like they may have the ski jump and MALS with arrestor gear so both f35's and more conventional aircraft can be used from the same vessel. I always thought Doug Taylor the inventor of the ski jump should of got something for coming up with the idea but as usual being already serving in the Andrew the navy decided against it.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 6, 2008)

trackend said:


> I dont believe anything currently onboard Invincible will be employed on the new carriers. The ski jump launch system has not been finalised in the design but it is looking like they may have the ski jump and MALS with arrestor gear so both f35's and more conventional aircraft can be used from the same vessel.



What I meant was I was wondering if the Invincible's could be adapted to carry the F-35.

It might be just my opinion but Canada is badly in need of a support ship for operations overseas, in the past we had to beg for air support from the Dutch or the UK.

It would seem to be a much better idea to buy an old Invincible class and refurbish as a VTOL/helicopter support ship.

Or are the Invincibles too worn out?


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Jun 6, 2008)

plan_D said:


> unlike France the British nation held firm *from behind the English Channel*.


Fixed for you. I'm sure that had the Meuse and Somme Rivers been 25 km wide at their narrow point, France too could have held firm.  



plan_D said:


> It's quite unfortunate because Britain was preparing for war against France, and on the side of Germany until '38.



Quite true. Britain was diplomatically much closer with Hitler's Germany than with France during a certain period. Quite disconcerting really, but this has been discussed on another thread. See here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...ce-could-ve-prevented-their-loss-11164-2.html

As for the EU, I'm not sure how some people are mixing heritage/race with the political and economic issues. One of the visions of the EU was that a Europe that was economically viable and independent was a Europe that would not war with itself. Given the past history of European wars, this was obviously a solution that sounded good to a great many people in the aftermath of the 2nd World War. There have been a few big mistakes, IMO, as to how these ideas were implemented. For one, I think it evolved way too quickly. I can vaguely remember talk in the mid-late 1980s about how all of this would have a timetable. Instead, that was thrown out the window and EU membership grew at a fast pace, much too fast for many people. 

I think it is hugely important that a level of transparency be maintained, and that referendums must be held in each country, and be respected. So far, this has worked- The first EU constitution was voted down by some countries and the results were respected by their respective governments. Had they not been respected, their would have been bloodshed.

The other big problem, is that the EU should have remained in Western Europe and should have never included the former Eastern bloc countries. The EU should have included only France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, and perhaps a few of the Scandanavian countries if they wished it. The UK should not be a part of it, nor do I want them to turn to the Euro currency. UK membership should have been turned down from the onset. 

Lastly, just before leaving office, President J. Chirac was in serious talks with various leading economists about the possibility of attaching the Euro to the Gold Standard as opposed to it's relationship with the US $. I'm not sure what has happened to this idea, but I like it a lot as it is much less inflationary that the US $ - and yes, I've invested heavily on the Euro over the past 6 years, and so I do hope this happens.


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2008)

trackend said:


> I always thought Doug Taylor the inventor of the ski jump should of got something for coming up with the idea but as usual being already serving in the Andrew the navy decided against it.



I think you will find that he was given a cheque but I cannot remember for how much.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 7, 2008)

freebird said:


> What I meant was I was wondering if the Invincible's could be adapted to carry the F-35.
> 
> It might be just my opinion but Canada is badly in need of a support ship for operations overseas, in the past we had to beg for air support from the Dutch or the UK.



Why "beg" after all we are NATO buddies  

IIRC there was a plan to refit cargo ships or naval tenders in order to deploy the F-35 and helicopters. Holland was one of these proposers, what happened to this interim aircraft carrier idea? And wouldn’t it serve the purpose just as well?

Unless one would be a USS America with all the defensive equipment and units around it, (which Canada or England could never afford) the carrier would have to be located positioned in a safe spot anyway.

Since Canada and England are so close with the US, why not just rent a US carrier – incorporated into a USN fleet and equipped with the F-35 and other existing winged or rotary aircrafts. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kruska (Jun 7, 2008)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> For one, I think it evolved way too quickly. I can vaguely remember talk in the mid-late 1980s about how all of this would have a timetable. Instead, that was thrown out the window and EU membership grew at a fast pace, much too fast for many people....



On the contra, after both leaders, René Coty, of France and Konrad Adenauer of Germany came to the IMO fantastic decision of further promoting a united Europe in 1957 and the positive step of the Benelux countries in 1958 in order to make the Europeans grow together, increase prosperity, counter balance to the Warsaw Pact and prevent further wars, thing actually slowed down very fast –mostly due to Charles de Gaulle who opposed England’s membership application. After Giscard d’Estaing from France and Helmut Schmidt from Germany (both good friends) picked up the issue again in the 70’s the EU vision started to pick up pace again.
After François Mitterrand from France and Helmut Kohl from Germany became involved, the EU in the middle 80’s really started to take solid forms despite disagreements with Margaret Thatcher.

It is the national biased people in Europe that object this idea, but luckily in the European countries of importance these people are a minority when it comes to actual voting/election results.

Unfortunately but as a matter of fact England or GB has always played a very dubious part in European history especially since the 17th century, by constantly rallying opposing sites into wars. Very successfully and professional until today they are the masters of deceit and hidden “diplomacy” in Europe. According to Plan_B – Hitler and GB against France – what more needs there to be said? 

Therefore the majority of the EU countries are not in trust towards GB as they are still attached to their persistent policy of creating trouble, maybe good for GB, but bad for the EU. One will see if the old faction in GB will keep the upper hand or if a new EU minded GB will emerge. 

The eastern extension of the EU only verifies the intensions of the EU as to support the economical growth and stability of all EU countries.

Interesting side note: Konrad Adenauer was fired from his position as Major of Cologne in 1945 by the British General Barraclough for being incompetent – the actual reason was that the British wanted to hinder his plan to set up a Rhine-Republic (Germany and France).

Regards
Kruska


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2008)

_"Fixed for you. I'm sure that had the Meuse and Somme Rivers been 25 km wide at their narrow point, France too could have held firm."_

You're right, France didn't have the English Channel for its defence. However, it did have the largest army in Western Europe, an oversized defensive line, and the rest of Western Europe helping it out. But this discussion has been had before... I think the last discussion went on for six weeks before one side folded.  

As for the rest of your post, VG, I actually agree. 

_"Unfortunately but as a matter of fact England or GB has always played a very dubious part in European history especially since the 17th century, by constantly rallying opposing sites into wars. Very successfully and professional until today they are the masters of deceit and hidden “diplomacy” in Europe. According to Plan_B – Hitler and GB against France – what more needs there to be said?"_

This says it all, and certain European countries wonder why they get abuse from the British. There's no point in trying to hide your distaste toward Great Britain. For some reason, Kruska, you are the prime example of the typical European who believes that Britain was the source of all evil while forgetting all of Europes past - the Spanish Empire in South America, France's attempt European conquest (Germany's crushing defeat in 1806), Germany's two World War ventures. Great Britain's part in European history has been no more dubious than Germany, France, Spain or Netherlands. 

Maybe it just upsets the continent because English is the ruling language.

And as for your last posting... if I was wrong, prove it so. And if I confused you, what part was confusing? I'll spell it out for you.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 7, 2008)

plan_D said:


> This says it all, and certain European countries wonder why they get abuse from the British. There's no point in trying to hide your distaste toward Great Britain. For some reason, Kruska, you are the prime example of the typical European who believes that Britain was the source of all evil while forgetting all of Europes past - the Spanish Empire in South America, France's attempt European conquest (Germany's crushing defeat in 1806), Germany's two World War ventures. Great Britain's part in European history has been no more dubious than Germany, France, Spain or Netherlands.
> 
> *Again your overwhelming nationalist pride forces you to generalize: I do not distaste GB at all, but its hideous policy and the stupitity of the other European leaders who allowed and made it so easy for GB to manipulate European policy for centuries, fortunatly they woke up and the EU will make sure that this negative GB attribute will have no more effect on manipulating EU countries into wars and endangering the stability of European countries.*
> 
> ...



Regards
Kruska


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2008)

Kruska said:


> On the contra, after both leaders, René Coty, of France and Konrad Adenauer of Germany came to the IMO fantastic decision of further promoting a united Europe in 1957 and the positive step of the Benelux countries in 1958 in order to make the Europeans grow together, increase prosperity, counter balance to the Warsaw Pact



I always thought that the counter balance of the Warsaw Pact was NATO from a millitary position as for an economic position Europe was already doing well. European countries woldn't stand a chance against the WP without NATO. The withdrawl of France from NATO at a critical time also tends to undermine the view that security was a first priority 



> It is the national biased people in Europe that object this idea, but luckily in the European countries of importance these people are a minority when it comes to actual voting/election results.


Its interesting that when they get the chance to vote how many of those election results go against the political leader even France voted NO last time around and the upcoming Irish vote looks like it could also be a No vote. The political leaders do almost everything they can to stop people voting.



> Unfortunately but as a matter of fact England or GB has always played a very dubious part in European history especially since the 17th century, by constantly rallying opposing sites into wars. Very successfully and professional until today they are the masters of deceit and hidden “diplomacy” in Europe. According to Plan_B – Hitler and GB against France – what more needs there to be said?


This is the best of the lot. After the Napolenic wars how many wars in europe did the UK 'rally opposing sides into wars'. For instance what the GB do to start the Franco Prussian war of 1870?



> Therefore the majority of the EU countries are not in trust towards GB as they are still attached to their persistent policy of creating trouble, maybe good for GB, but bad for the EU. One will see if the old faction in GB will keep the upper hand or if a new EU minded GB will emerge.


This is a matter of opinion but its worth noting that the UK has implemented more pieces of EU regulation and law than either France or Germany.



> The eastern extension of the EU only verifies the intensions of the EU as to support the economical growth and stability of all EU countries.


Do you mean the inclusion of Turkey into the EU, something the the UK is very keen on and Germany isn't? In other words the UK are keen to expand the EU and Germany isn't.



> Interesting side note: Konrad Adenauer was fired from his position as Major of Cologne in 1945 by the British General Barraclough for being incompetent – the actual reason was that the British wanted to hinder his plan to set up a Rhine-Republic (Germany and France).


I admit that I don't know why he was removed but equally I have never heard of him being removed because of wanting to set up a new Rhine Republic with France. It is debatable how far this would have gone as the French would almost certainly have wanted to be in the driving seat as they in their view 'won the war', in France. That would have been unacceptable to everyone else apart from France

Regards
David


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2008)

_"Again your overwhelming nationalist pride forces you to generalize: I do not distaste GB at all, but its hideous policy and the stupitity of the other European leaders who allowed and made it so easy for GB to manipulate European policy for centuries, fortunatly they woke up and the EU will make sure that this negative GB attribute will have no more effect on manipulating EU countries into wars and endangering the stability of European countries."_

A great example of contradiction there. 

So, are you claiming now that Great Britain has dictated all wars fought in Europe over the past 400 years? Get real, Kruska. And outrageous claims like that only puts meat to the bone that is your obvious hatred for Britain. To you Britain has made Europe the bloodbath that it's been since day one.

_"IMO a united Europe would never have allowed a Hitler to rise in Europe in the first place, and even if, Hitler would have been stopped latest in 1937 and no WW2 would have ever taken place."_

If Germany was in the same position in 1937 then Europe isn't united, is it? You'd have every country in Europe bar Germany together, which aside from Italy and Spain was practically the deal in 1939. Unfortunately for your ideals nations will always seek what is best for their nation.

As for your languages comment; Spanish is the easiest language to learn in full. English is the easiest to speak, but the hardest to read and write - apparently. The reason the world runs on the English language is simple - the British Empire.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 7, 2008)

plan_D said:


> _"Again your overwhelming nationalist pride forces you to generalize: I do not distaste GB at all, but its hideous policy and the stupitity of the other European leaders who allowed and made it so easy for GB to manipulate European policy for centuries, fortunatly they woke up and the EU will make sure that this negative GB attribute will have no more effect on manipulating EU countries into wars and endangering the stability of European countries."_
> 
> A great example of contradiction there.
> 
> ...



Regards
Kruska


----------



## The Basket (Jun 7, 2008)

English is an easy language to learn?
And the problem with that is?

What is your point?

I have never visited Germany...although I did own a Volkswagen once


----------



## Kruska (Jun 7, 2008)

The Basket said:


> English is an easy language to learn?
> And the problem with that is?
> 
> What is your point?
> ...



Regards
Kruska


----------



## The Basket (Jun 8, 2008)

I do own a French car. owned two.

A Puegeot and a Citroen. and I will own another. I would give much to have a go in a Citroën DS. The car I adore most.

I don't buy the idea that German cars are better. Some modern Volkswagens are now not even built in Germany.

I live in Fife near Edinbrugh.

I have never learnt or studied German but I ty my best with Spanish as I do enjoy Spanish culture and their way of life. 

Plan D is most patriotic when it comes to attacks on our green and pleasant land.
And with good reason.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 8, 2008)

Hello The Basket,

Depends on what you “feel” and the content of an accusation and therefore respond to as being attacked. If someone would tell me that Hitler was a typical German and was supported by a majority of the Germans in 1933 who wanted to rule Europe and now Germany is trying to do the same thing I would indeed feel attacked. If however someone would tell me that Hitler played diplomatic games in order to conquer and control Europe and caused millions of dead, why should I feel attacked? – It’s a fact.

I noticed that a lot of the British people love Spain or Tenerife, how is that? To my impression Spanish lifestyle and culture is actually very distant from British lifestyle. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## starling (Jun 8, 2008)

do not forget that the royal navy has boomers lying at sea,waiting;just in case we are threatened by another maniac like napolion,king wilhem or hitler.starling.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 8, 2008)

Well some British do seem to have difficulties in writing in English.

It is Napoleon not napolion, and Kaiser Wilhelm II, not king wilhem, and Hitler not hitler.
I always thought that Britain’s boomers are part of NATO contra Warsaw Pact or Russia, well now I know a lot more. Should I be surprised?  

Regards
Kruska


----------



## The Basket (Jun 8, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello The Basket,
> 
> Depends on what you “feel” and the content of an accusation and therefore respond to as being attacked. If someone would tell me that Hitler was a typical German and was supported by a majority of the Germans in 1933 who wanted to rule Europe and now Germany is trying to do the same thing I would indeed feel attacked. If however someone would tell me that Hitler played diplomatic games in order to conquer and control Europe and caused millions of dead, why should I feel attacked? – It’s a fact.
> 
> ...



Well...Hitler was Austrian. I agree that saying that modern Germany is equal to Nazi Germany is a bit too far and not something which can be acceptable on this gentlemanly forum.

The not being able to spell bit is all to clear...

I can only speak as I find and the relaxed Spanish attitude with the Sun is a big factor. My fellow Britishers seem to have drinking problems and cheap Spanish booze is another factor.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 8, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Don't let Plan_D know that Lucky you didn't own a French car



Kruska, don't get the wrong idea about PlanD. In the past I found his points of view often quite realistic and he is absolutely not a blind nationalist. Don't let the fact that you disagreed twice cloud your judgement about him.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 8, 2008)

Hello Marcel,

Thanks for the wink, but honestly I do not have any problems with Plan_D, I happen to grow up amongst a very international community in my fist 20 years, which also included a lot of Brits. So I do know them pretty well. 

As I mentioned earlier I have quite a lot of good friends in GB, and many have a very solid knowledge about our forum topics, but if one touches their prime issues they immediately feel attacked or put down – which sometimes makes an ongoing discussion very hard if not to say impossible. But that is the way they are and I am not different.

I can see if I discuss with some WW2 Pub brawler (they do have enough of them in Germany as well) or someone like Plan_D so don’t worry. 

But they have far more Pubs in England then Germany  

Regards
Kruska


----------



## starling (Jun 8, 2008)

all i am saying is remember,never let yourselves become easily imo led by despotic megalomaniacs again,or those b...nope,better not.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 8, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello Marcel,
> 
> Thanks for the wink, but honestly I do not have any problems with Plan_D, I happen to grow up amongst a very international community in my fist 20 years, which also included a lot of Brits. So I do know them pretty well.
> 
> ...



Okay, just to make sure.
I disagree on the amount of pubs, though, I've had a holiday in Bavaria, once


----------



## Freebird (Jun 8, 2008)

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about aircraft carriers?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2008)

I think it was, Freebird. 

Kruska,

_"Where did I say all wars? please don't start to act like a small boy"_

You honestly believe I'm not going to feel the need to strike back when you post patronising and pathetic little lines like that? Maybe you didn't say all wars but you certainly implied a lot , or all, of Europes wars. You fail to pinpoint which wars you're actually talking about. 

_"No they would have attacked Germany which had an inferior Army, such as the EU attacked Serbia"_

That's a nice thought but France had the largest army in Western Europe, and they didn't attack Germany in 1939 while it was at war with Poland and Italy wasn't involved. 

_"And because you know how to read and write German or French you came to this conclusion? A German text translated into English reduces itsself to about70% of the content"_

No, that's not how I came to that conclusion. My statement was quite reasonable actually. English is easier to speak because it is a simple language. However, when it comes to reading and writing you have many problems like "reading" and "Reading" which are both pronounced differently because one is a place name! And then you've got "their", "they're" and "there". There's countless silly little grammer rules.

This discussion is irrelevant, however. Learning languages is all about your age and native tongue; German and English are extremely close to one another. And while a European would find Japanese difficult, someone from China would find it relatively easy. 

_"We didn't talk about the world, but Europe. And nobody would dispute that the world business language is English due to the British Empire, so?
Did I say that I have a problem with that? - after all it is a very easy language.

You seem to have a desperate need to emphasize on anything related to England/English"_

Whether English was an easy language or not, the world would run on it. I have a need to keep the facts clear, Kruska. We wouldn't anyone forgetting history. Europe uses English because it would be left behind if it didn't.

_"Don't let Plan_D know that Lucky you didn't own a French car"_

Basket, you owned a German car! And a French car! You absolute traitor! I have to admit though my [French] 206 is a really nice car, and my friends [German] Polo GT ain't half bad, and then my other friends [Italian] Punto ...well, that isn't so good.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 9, 2008)

plan_D said:


> Basket, you owned a German car! And a French car! You absolute traitor! I have to admit though my [French] 206 is a really nice car, and my friends [German] Polo GT ain't half bad, and then my other friends [Italian] Punto ...well, that isn't so good.



I think Polos are made in Spain!
I like my French cars and they have done what I asked....just like my Passat Panzerwagen did. 
I would own a British car but my budget doesnt stretch to a Aston Martin.

I am hoping Kruska says what he wants to say. He certainly has been trying his best to get under good ole British skins.


----------



## trackend (Jun 9, 2008)

The Basket said:


> I think Polos are made in Spain!
> I like my French cars and they have done what I asked....just like my Passat Panzerwagen did.
> I would own a British car but my budget doesnt stretch to a Aston Martin.




Go for a Morgan then TB


----------



## Glider (Jun 9, 2008)

Or a Caterham 7, you can even build it yourself to save some money.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 9, 2008)

what happened to this thread...arent we supposed to be discussing the new British carriers????


----------



## Kruska (Jun 9, 2008)

Well a Caterham 7 looks like a boat, and it could "carry" a British  

And good Lord its from £32,295 onward. - a reasonable downpayment for a 2nd hand "Aston Martin".

Regards
Kruska


----------



## renrich (Jun 9, 2008)

I think I started this thread and it is supposed to be about the new British CVs. To get back on track, I believe that the influence of sea power may be greater today than ever before. Hopefully the US will continue to keep it's fleet up to date and Britain will put into commission those new CVs. I will use my position as thread starter though and express my preference for Japanese cars. Have a Ridgeline and FX45.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 9, 2008)

In reference to a FX45 let me say …….,

As I mentioned before, wouldn’t it make more sense for GB to rent an existing carrier from the USN and supplement it with their own crew and hardware. Since I still believe that the carrier needs to be incorporated into a fleet in regards to protection they might even consider just to deploy own units onto a USN carrier. After all they are NATO and on even terms - political opinions -with the US.

More or less like the Bundeswehr units that payed and manned the Pershing missiles for the NATO or US ARMY in the 60's to the 90's. 

Regards 
Kruska


----------



## The Basket (Jun 9, 2008)

Would go for a Jag...but the price of petrol is a killer.

Still like French cars. They aint saying nuffink. Just a car.

Ah the British car Industry...ahhh.
The British was once a byword for engineering excellence.

Including our Battleships. The new carriers will be our flagships to the greatness our Historical right to have British Naval Power.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 9, 2008)

The Basket said:


> The British was once a byword for engineering excellence.
> 
> .


not in automobiles for the average guy they weren't


----------



## Freebird (Jun 9, 2008)

parsifal said:


> what happened to this thread...arent we supposed to be discussing the new British carriers????



Or are we on the wrong thread?  



renrich said:


> I think I started this thread and it is supposed to be about the new British CVs. To get back on track, I believe that the influence of sea power may be greater today than ever before. Hopefully the US will continue to keep it's fleet up to date and Britain will put into commission those new CVs.



Yes I think that the F-35's look to be a big step up from Harriers.



Kruska said:


> Why "beg" after all we are NATO buddies



 Thanks, Kruska, but we can't "mooch" off of others forever...

If there is a major problem, the foreign aircraft will be sent first to support it's own nation's troops. The only real solution is to provide your own cover.



Kruska said:


> IIRC there was a plan to refit cargo ships or naval tenders in order to deploy the F-35 and helicopters. Holland was one of these proposers, what happened to this interim aircraft carrier idea? And wouldn’t it serve the purpose just as well?



Interesting question, I hadn't heard of that plan. Of course the original CVE's were converted merchants. But for long overseas deployments I would think that purpose built CVL's would be more efficient?



Kruska said:


> Unless one would be a USS America with all the defensive equipment and units around it, (which Canada or England could never afford) the carrier would have to be located positioned in a safe spot anyway.



Not so. Canada has a half dozen Destroyers or Frigates + some support ships, so a task force with a CVL + few other ships would work just fine. Of course it would likely be deployed in the Persian Gulf or somewhere like that, combined with other US UK vessels, to provide mutual protection.

I would think the primary purpose would be to provide ground support to Canadian troops, opponents such as Iran or Syria or whoever are not likely to be able to send large numbers of modern aircaft against the fleets. I would think that a small CVL group should be able to defend itself without too much difficulty.



Kruska said:


> Since Canada and England are so close with the US, why not just rent a US carrier – incorporated into a USN fleet and equipped with the F-35 and other existing winged or rotary aircrafts.



I dont think any are available now....


----------



## parsifal (Jun 9, 2008)

any one know what the projected deckload will be, and what are the vital stats of the new ships. Are the brits finally going to utliae a decent AA system. And do they intend to provide proper AAW DD support as well???


----------



## parsifal (Jun 9, 2008)

If countries like Australia, Thailand, India and Spain put small carriers to sea, why cant the germans. Now that the imminent threat of invasion from the east has receded, surely it is time for the Germans to act more as a team player and contribute to the collective defence obligations currently being shouldered by a few nations for the benefit of the many??


----------



## Freebird (Jun 9, 2008)

parsifal said:


> any one know what the projected deckload will be, and what are the vital stats of the new ships. Are the brits finally going to utliae a decent AA system. And do they intend to provide proper AAW DD support as well???



What are your thoughts on a good defensive armament? A couple of twin 4" or 4.5" turrets for duel AA/anti-ship? What kind of missiles? 

I suppose it depends on the latest doctrine, if it is assumed to always be part of a task force, it might rely on the support ships for that. But I somehow doubt it will have the "Lexington" style 8" guns...  



parsifal said:


> If countries like Australia, Thailand, India and Spain put small carriers to sea, why can't the Germans. Now that the imminent threat of invasion from the east has receded, surely it is time for the Germans to act more as a team player and contribute to the collective defence obligations currently being shouldered by a few nations for the benefit of the many??



Good point. Maybe the French could send a "DeGaulle" task force too?


----------



## Kruska (Jun 10, 2008)

parsifal said:


> If countries like Australia, Thailand, India and Spain put small carriers to sea, why cant the germans. Now that the imminent threat of invasion from the east has receded, surely it is time for the Germans to act more as a team player and contribute to the collective defence obligations currently being shouldered by a few nations for the benefit of the many??



Germany is still bound to its constitutional laws (A present by the Allied in 1949) that make deployment of military units an almost unsolvable political issue. To change these respective laws Germany would need a 68% parliament vote in favor.
Look at German troop deployments today – more or less they are confined to transporting food and water or help to train the foreign police forces and set up Kindergartens and hospitals.

Germany and the NATO should partner with respect to a European defense force and in return the others take over the so called out of area deployments. Big NATO members such as Spain, France, Italy or England could therefore reduce their European commitments (e.g. Serbia) and free resources for these out of area deployments.

But the “mistrust” among European countries will not make a country such as England reduce its military “backup” towards Europe – Germany. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## parsifal (Jun 10, 2008)

not in automobiles for the average guy they weren't

yes i spent more time UNDER my Healey than in it, but still on those occasions that it did work, it was a charm to drive


----------



## parsifal (Jun 10, 2008)

Germany is still bound to its constitutional laws (A present by the Allied in 1949) that make deployment of military units an almost unsolvable political issue. To change these respective laws Germany would need a 68% parliament vote in favor.
Look at German troop deployments today – more or less they are confined to transporting food and water or help to train the foreign police forces and set up Kindergartens and hospitals.

Germany and the NATO should partner with respect to a European defense force and in return the others take over the so called out of area deployments. Big NATO members such as Spain, France, Italy or England could therefore reduce their European commitments (e.g. Serbia) and free resources for these out of area deployments.

But the “mistrust” among European countries will not make a country such as England reduce its military “backup” towards Europe – Germany

Kruska

Are you saying they are prohibited by treaty from deplying carriers in a defensive role? I was not aware of that. I also thought the peace treaty with the western nations dated from 1952, not 1949, and it was this 1952 that finally allowed the Federal Republic to bear arms for "defensive" purposes


----------



## parsifal (Jun 10, 2008)

*What are your thoughts on a good defensive armament? A couple of twin 4" or 4.5" turrets for duel AA/anti-ship? What kind of missiles? *


I am no expert in this area at all. The creme de la creme is the US Aegis system as deployed on the Arleigh Burkes. But this has the problem of being very expensive. australia has opted for the far cheaper (but less capable) Spanish AAW DDAs. As I understand these basic systems could be transferred to a different hull. So I guess if the Brits are looking for something affordable, like the Australians, then the Spanish system appears to the second best system available. 

The really big challenge facing AAW is the threat from surface skimming cruise missiles. Since they broke onto the scene in 1982, they have advanced steadily. Back in my era of the '80s, the solution was a mixture of the CIWs (like Vulcan) and the British Anti missile system for longer ranged protection (name escapes me right now). The Brits were kicking themselves back in '82 for not having invested in the NCDS system, that essentially allowed the weapon system of one platform, to be controlled by the detection systems and processing capability, from other sources. For example, if your trackers were plotting the progress of a distant strike, they could directly plug into the computers of a support DDG to "guide" the anti-missile missile over the horizon, which is the great problem in tracking and shooting down cruise missiles



*I suppose it depends on the latest doctrine, if it is assumed to always be part of a task force, it might rely on the support ships for that. But I somehow doubt it will have the "Lexington" style 8" guns...  *
Agreed, but some things have not changed since WWII, a TF is a carefuly selected conglomerate of ships selected for an expected threat. Where the threat is unknown, or multi-dimensional, it has to respond accordingly

*Good point. Maybe the French could send a "DeGaulle" task force too*

If that means supporting the US, I have serious doubts that they will


----------



## Freebird (Jun 10, 2008)

parsifal said:


> The really big challenge facing AAW is the threat from surface skimming cruise missiles. Since they broke onto the scene in 1982, they have advanced steadily. Back in my era of the '80s, the solution was a mixture of the CIWs (like Vulcan) and the British Anti missile system for longer ranged protection (name escapes me right now).



That was the "SeaWolf" system IIRC. Also there was the "SeaCat" which I think was supposed to be dual SSM/SAM



parsifal said:


> If that means supporting the US, I have serious doubts that they will



Perhaps things will be different after the US election.....


----------



## renrich (Jun 10, 2008)

Don't the Brits have some surface ships with AA missile capabilities? I don't believe that conventional 4 or 5 inch guns are effective any more in AA defense. I may start a thread about cars in the past.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 10, 2008)

renrich said:


> Don't the Brits have some surface ships with AA missile capabilities? I don't believe that conventional 4 or 5 inch guns are effective any more in AA defense. I may start a thread about cars in the past.



They have quite a few DDG's missile Frigates that do. Probably will just have light AA guns, and rely on the DDG's which still have the 4" guns I think.

I would think that the CV would have only the light AA and light SAM's, but will be nice to hear more info on it...


I guess the theory is that there are times when the escort DDG's are elsewhere or otherwise engaged, so it is a good idea to have an inherent AA capability on the carriers


----------



## Kruska (Jun 10, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Kruska
> 
> Are you saying they are prohibited by treaty from deplying carriers in a defensive role? I was not aware of that. I also thought the peace treaty with the western nations dated from 1952, not 1949, and it was this 1952 that finally allowed the Federal Republic to bear arms for "defensive" purposes



Hello parsifal,

Since I do not want to “pollute” two threads please refer to my post #13 at UK casualties in Afghanistan if you should be interested in my answer regarding your above post.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Glider (Jun 10, 2008)

A general comment on RN SAM's. Generally the SAM missiles deployed by the RN have been as good as the best at the time of deployment. 

Seacat
The first small SAM for deployment on frigates and othr small vessels. There were a number of versions of differing complexity but it was deployed in about 19 navies.

Sea Slug
Not the most attractive missile but it had a good range and was very accurate. They ran out of targets during the development but it was big, heavy and expensive.

Sea Dart
Again a sophisticated system with good range and a capable surface to surface missile. 
The only missile in the world to shoot down an anti shipping SSM in actual combat 

Sea Wolf
A short range missile but arguably the most accurate in the world. In a number of tests it has shot down cannon shells in flight.

Aster
A european missile which is being used on the Type 45 Destroyer to escort the new carriers.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 11, 2008)

Glider said:


> A general comment on RN SAM's. Generally the SAM missiles deployed by the RN have been as good as the best at the time of deployment.
> 
> Seacat
> The first small SAM for deployment on frigates and othr small vessels. There were a number of versions of differing complexity but it was deployed in about 19 navies.
> ...



The Sea Slug Sea Cat were also SSM capable like the Sea Dart correct?

Are all of these types still in use today?


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2008)

freebird said:


> The Sea Slug Sea Cat were also SSM capable like the Sea Dart correct?
> 
> Are all of these types still in use today?



The Sea Slug didn't have a chance against SSM's and whilst in theory the last of the Sea Cats did have a chance, in practice it was slim. 

It depended on a modification which meant that the missile wouldn't fly into the sea no matter what input it was given. The idea then was that the Seacat would be launched at the incomming missile at minimum altitude (6ft if I remember correctly) until the two met.
There have been some reports that when HMS Glamorgan was hit by an Exocet in the Falklands the Seacat deflected it up so it hit the deck by the hanger instead of lower down the hull, but there is no evidence one way or the other. The ship was turning towards the missile and healing over which could equally have had a similar effect.

The Sea Slug is no longer in service and I believe that most of the Sea Cats have also been removed.

Lots of missiles claim to be capable of anti SSM but very few are. The interesting thing about the Sea Dart is that they didn't claim to be anti SSM but when the chips were down it worked. This was much to the delight of the USS Missouri which was the target, and the USS Jarrett who missed it with their Phalanx.
Another interesting thing about the Sea Dart is that it was a pretty good SSM itself. In trials it blew 50ft off the bows of the target ship. Not enough to sink it but more than enough to put anyone off.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 20, 2008)

With Russia, the real big threat everyone forgets is not Russia but China, its next door neighbour. China has the world's largest airforce and is modernizing its military forces. So the question still remains, what is China doing that it needs to modernize its military forces for? Therefore NATO is still needed not to focus on Russia but to keep an ultra close eye on China.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 20, 2008)

China is building its navy for one primary purpose, to take back Taiwan. They need to hold the straits long enough to get their ground forces acreoss safely.

A secondary concern is the containment of india, who has a navy worth worrying about.

The Chinese at this point are not thinking of mounting any sort of direct challenge to US naval supremacy.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 20, 2008)

Hello parsifal,

I really don’t think so. China is building up its navy due to its vast coast line and to exert pressure in order to secure their resources and shipping lanes within their territorial boundaries.
They are doing nothing else than any other country, such as the UK, the USA, India or Russia.

HealzDevo: They don’t even have the largest air force on paper, and in practical efficiency their present air force capability couldn’t even match the combination of Germany and France. At the present spending rate, it will take China more then 25 years to catch up with present NATO strength – not including the USA with Japan and Korea plus India and Russia. Oh yes sorry plus Australia  . 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## HealzDevo (Jul 5, 2008)

Don't forget you are thinking the same way Europe thought about Japan pre-WWII. Big shock when things went South that Japan wasn't as backwards as previously thought...


----------



## Glider (Jul 5, 2008)

Very good point and there is no doubt that the Chinese are doing all they can to bridge the technology gap and doing it very effectively.


----------



## renrich (Jul 5, 2008)

Much of China's ecomomy is based on exporting goods and they feel that they need a navy to both protect the shipping in and out of China and to protect their coast line. Without their huge export market their economy is in troutble and their government is in trouble. Right now a sea blockade would be a problem they could do little about.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 5, 2008)

...and the Spratly's, and that larger Island Japan, and the need to keep the energy and raw materials flowing. Unless Taiwan does something rash, that has to be low on China's list.


----------



## trackend (Jul 5, 2008)

Contracts for the new carriers were signed this week so looks like it's a go for the build


----------



## renrich (Jul 5, 2008)

That is good news. Albion is rising again.


----------

