Subscribe
Notify of
guest
30 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ian

Very proud of the amazing work from so many people. Well done, really well done!

Iqbal Ahmed

The Guardian reported:
‘A champagne breakfast was held on board the Type 45 destroyer HMS Diamond for senior people from the Ministry of Defence’.
No wonder we don’t get the bang for our buck in terms of defence expenditure.

4thwatch

Great Day for all who worked so hard for this. UK back in the Blue Water Navy business, where she rightly belongs.

Danny McHugh

Fantastic and about bloody time

Ian Willis

An utterly pointless, planeless heap of steel. at best a target for mach 10 missiles and at worse a liability with no purpose.
‘Britannia rues the cost’; a shameless monument to our inability to let go of our Imperial past.

Andy B

Of course as an island which depends on the majority of its food from overseas – we’ve no need to protect our sea-lanes – all natural chokepoints. Nor do we have any responsibility for the 250,000 tax paying British citizens who live and work in our overseas territories. Have they no right to defence ? Or are they a mere imperial embarrassment too ?
And then finally – do we not have a responsibility as one of the richest countries in the World to uphold international law on the high seas – against piracy or even nation states who want to carve out new islands in the South China Sea.
Lets not forget that £1.5bn, ie. some 25% of the cost of these ships was paid for nothing, so that they could be delayed for 2 years as the Brown government actually ran out of money in 2008 and couldn’t pay its contractors – 13 years of socialist folly led to a bankrupt country, and still at £3.1bn each they are still 30-40% cheaper than the new Ford class carriers.
The carriers will in time get better defences, more escorts and more F35’s, but not if it was upto apologists like you who bend over at first sight of trouble and run away. £3.1bn spent preventing a war is better than having to spend twice as much and cost more lives because we were unprepared and weak.

Neil

300% cheaper as ford class carrier cost 13 billion dollars or 10 billion pounds,rather have 3 x queen elizabeths

Grubbie

More like 30 billion, you have to include the entire weapons system. You do get to use some of those assets for other purposes however,such as using the F35s for situations unsuitable for carriers.

Ron

The USN is currently thinking that it should, perhaps, have more, smaller carriers. c. 3 USN Admirals consider that we have got it right in this design. We also get two highly capable ships for the price of one of theirs …. including the extra cost due to poor political leadership.
Some people, who perhaps suffer from Tunnel vision, an abject misunderstanding of history and a ‘village’ mentality, do not realise that the world is a dangerous place and any Nation, such as our successful democracy; which has been fought for and developed over hundreds of years needs Deterrence and Defence from a myriad of threats.
Go back to the books and seek out information on the benefits bestowed on the world by our nations involvement in it’s development.

Rick

Entire program was done right. The Carriers are a bargain, crew of 1,800, life span of 50 years. U.S. Carriers have crew of
5,000. How much does that cost to operate? Britain now has the big stick, a conventional deterrent to go with nuclear deterrent.
Invincible Class was an inadequate conventional deterrent. Argentina perceived Britain as weak, that’s why they attacked.

Michael

Keep in mind that on the US carriers , half of the 5,000 crew is the embarked airwing. The American carriers deploy with 65-70 aircraft in six squadrons and around 2,500 pilots and maintainers.

Bruce Willams

Absolute bollocks Ian!

Ted

Great day for Great Britain, she is just the sort of warship a post Brexit, global trading, nation will need. Well done Royal Navy.

Ian Willis

I can just see it now, Post Brexit Britain threatening to use our shiny new gunboat in between grovelling for trade deals from China and India.
Funny how most of the world can do international trade without carriers and nuclear submarines. We have international courts to settle disputes. Imagine if we had a automotive industry like Germany or electronics mega corporations like Japan instead of building these monuments to a past era.
These war machines will only suck us in to other peoples wars we shouldn’t get our noses into that we can’t win anyway.

jon livesey

“Funny how most of the world can do international trade without carriers and nuclear submarines.”
That is because most of the Worfld can depend on countries with Navies to keey the ocean trade routes safe at no cost to them. Do please try to think just a little before posting.

Dern

Funny that, Japan has a pretty strong military, a Navy that is larger than the Royal Navy, and 4 carriers….

David Stephen

There is something deeply wrong with you.

Ron

Grow up and Get Real. We are not to blame for all the worlds ills. Why is Japan altering it’s stance on Defence and spending more money on Defence procurement? Why are Western and Eastern mainland European Nations doing the same? Do you think that, having withdrawn from the ‘Empire’ we want to re- establish it? … the answer to that one is No ….. and while you are growing up and getting real I say again: get an education and look at the world without hand ringing guilt for mistakes made by people in the past. You may be interested to know that they were not all British .. The Romans? Genghis Khan? Arab and Tribal Slave Traders in Eastern and Western Africa? Various Dictators of all leanings etc etc. oh, and which Country and Navy took the lead in the start of the abolition of slavery? A task that is not yet complete. How was the nation of Sierra Leone formed and by whom? And please, please look deeper into the cause and reasons for the current world epidemic of Terrorism. You may surprise yourself and find out that it is not because of Colonialism or some, perhaps ill advised, actions initiated by British Politicians. Go to work!!

Iqbal Ahmed

We need these carriers like a hole in the head. Mutton dressed as lamb comes to mind. We are not a ‘great power’ no matter what some blue rinsed flag wavers think on this forum. We need to retire gracefully from the Empire business before we are one day slapped down in our interventions by a power that can fire back.
These are offensive vessels intended to be used outside of our territorial waters and beyond NATO commitments. This is ‘carrying a big stick’ on the cheap; without a proper air group, runway/launch system, crew, escort or anti ship missile defence. We also don’t have the global network of bases the US does to support a carrier battle group.
These carriers will not be used against ‘high end’ adversaries. As for protecting the trade lanes, the Somalian anti piracy activities bringing together many nations, often adversaries, are a fine example rather than unilateral posturing. Detaching a destroyer or frigate to assist is all that is needed. Regardless of our carriers, I don’t see us deploying significant forces to the Straits of Hormuz or South China Sea within striking distance of a power with one of the largest missile forces (Iran) and the worlds largest air force (China) respectively. Following the US into another war is not militarily feasable.
Finally, there is no public consensus on the use of these vessels in their intended ‘power projection’ role. Note the vote against intervention in Syria, the fact the armed forces are undermanned because younger people like me don’t support the blind patriotism of ages past and the clear fact Save the Royal Navy is full of only people who support the Conservative Party and not Labour and the Lib Dems. What does a site like this have to do with criticising socialism? Hence the undervoting and criticism of Labour governments, even though it was they who agreed the carrier programme to save jobs, rode on this forum.

David Stephen

Mutton dressed as lamb means an old person or thing trying to look young, so wrong turn of phrase for a start. As to the rest of your comment, that’s not even worth a response. Young people like you, are self absorbed and delude, you know nothing of geo politics or military strategy.

David Stephen

Sorry, deluded.

Iqbal Ahmed

As an analogy of a fading power trying to hold on to our ‘great power status’ through cosmetic trinkets like carriers and trident compared to the many younger BRICS countries and other ascendant economic powers, it works well enough.
The only way for the UK to be a ‘great power’ (look sexy) is to be a part of the EU (sugardaddy).
Btw, how is it that ‘Saving the Royal Navy’ on this site always predominantly means more expensive military ships and weapons systems? Why not save the Royal Navy by concentrating more articles on how to recruit and retain personnel? Preserve naval bases? Improving forces housing and their children’s schooling? How to entice more people from minority communities to enlist (eg. Army’s Sikh regiment)? How to improve the navy’s standing amongst the Scottish, given the issue of Trident basing.
You’re mostly right wing fiscal conservatives here, right (except in matters of military funding!)? So what about more articles on Mismanagent in resources and long term procurement plans before you ask the taxpayer for more money and prosecution of BAE and top brass for corruption in procurement and improving policies around senior officers joining weapons manufacturers straight after leaving the service? This site touches on some of these subjects but needs to go further.

David Stephen

The UK is a great power. The EU is a great stone around our neck that we will soon be rid of. Recruitment is a problem because like I said your generation are way to self absorbed. Minority regiments are a ridiculous idea. If a Sikh wants to serve he can do it in a regular regiment of which there are already way to many. Again your turn of phrase is a bit off. Sugardaddy refers to an older and richer entity and considering we have paid in far more than the EU has ever returned it does not fit.

Andy B

Dear Iqbal,
I enjoy this site and its contents, but am not a Tory, in fact I despise Cameron and May. Sorry but that rather holes your infantile argument below the waterline. People like you never stand up for Britain – but the reality is, that the weaker a nation, the more likely war is.
Forget terrorist attacks, the prosecution of a real War, one against China, North Korea or Russia, is what we have to prepare for, and in doing so deter our opponents through our unity and strength. Forget delusions of grandeur and thinking about Empire, those are yesterday’s arguments. Our adversaries today only respect military strength, not Jeremy’s bad breath and his juvenile student union politics – Putin would laugh in his face. This man is a KGB killer.
China’s defence budget has been growing by 8-12% a year for over a decade, so too has India’s. Russian spending is up 8% per year in the last 7-8 years, whilst most spending in the West has been stagnate if not falling.
Since 2008 Russia has invaded South Ossetia, Georgia, Eastern Ukraine and annexed the Crimea – and we in the West have done nothing but looked on. NATO citizens have been kidnapped off the streets of the Baltic States only to end up in Russian prisons and we do our best to ignore it. And Russia’s response, emboldened by our weakness is to push even more. (Remember the Rhineland in 1936) The Bear must be checked, but we cannot do so by reducing our defence expenditure and hiding under our bedsheets. What is your strategy to combat this, sit down have a conversation and then run away. Treasure the democracy you have, read and learn your history and then pay the price it requires to defend it.
The world outside Europe (and sometimes inside) is a horrible place. I’m glad you are not on a wall defending it for us. Once you’ve rubbed the shit out of your eyes, tell me how we should defend our airspace against Russian bombers probing us nearly every month – why are they even here 2500 miles away ? Is that a friendly act ? Or why in the past couple of years we have caught Russian submarines in the Irish Sea near our submarine bases ? Why are Russian and even Chinese warships doing in our waters ?
Then, tell me why it is militarily important to support our Northern flank and stand with our Norwegian and Icelandic allies. Do you even know what the GIUK gap is ? and the role of our SOSUS warning nets.
I fear you have much to learn

Michael

Very well said.

Iqbal Ahmed

Andy, the threat from terrorism is the ‘real war’, one played out every week on our streets and television sets. You’re more likely to be a victim of terrorism than a renactment of ‘Red Dawn’ with Russian parachutists in London, say. There is a palpable disconnect with reality to think otherwise. This is why we need a well funded police and Intelligence response and funding for community cohesion projects.
The geopolitical threats from Russia, NK and China will be dealt with in a multilateral way (sanctions, tech embargoes, cyber security co-operation and political pressure) lead by the USA rather than use of ‘hard’ military power like Aircraft carriers, planes and tanks by a peripheral ally such as Britain.
Besides, the Russian threat is overstated. Russia has even less cause to think of itself as a ‘great power’ than us. The gangster Putin may have delusions of recreating the Soviet Empire but his country is in the midst of a recession due to EU led sanctions, which Britain organised and which will sadly become weaker when we leave the EU. The Russians have intervened and invaded Non NATO countries but its hard to see how Britain could have stopped Putin invading the Crimea, even with our Aircraft carriers. And nobody wanted to start a war over Syria.
As for Russian probing of our airspace, do what the Turks did. Any aircraft in our airspace gets shot down. The RAF has sufficient new planes like the Typhoon and older ones to accomplish this. What are the Russians going to do, tell their thieving billionaire oligarchs not to run off with the loot to the UK anymore?
Also, Russian rearmament has started from a low base, as much of their naval equipment is rusting radioactive Soviet era tat. For example, their sole aircraft carrier has a tug permanently assigned to it as it breaks down so often! Their aircraft electronics and radars are also less sophisticated and much of their troops are conscripts ie. good for peeling potatoes but nothing more dexterous.
China is economically dependent on the West to change the East Asian status quo by force and the people NK are starving and in no position to pose a threat to the UK. They are so malnourished that the average NK individual us shorter than the average SK citizen; same people. A country still using WW2 and Korean War era equipment is no threat to us. We can work with China to try to manage their nuclear and missile threat. It’s not in the Chinese interest for instability in their own backyard.
We have a navy large enough for the defence of these islands. Anything more would only lead to another Iraq or Afghanistan. Use if ‘Hard’ military power is inconceivable against Russia, China or NK because it would quickly lead to nuclear trigger. We need to improve defence against sub war attacks like terrorism and cyber warfare. Aircraft carriers, tanks and planes are so Cold War! Stop fighting the last war. The next one will probably be triggered by a freckled 13 year old kid sitting in his mums bedroom in Beijing, hacking into the old Windows XP operating system on our new HMS White Elephant!

David Stephen

That last sentence sums up your level of knowledge regarding military matters. It really is a foolish and uninformed statement. The value of naval power and particularly carriers is undeniable. The UK has always been a maritime power and our past and current prosperity is based in no small part on strong naval foundations. The history of Britain is the history of the Royal Navy and you would do well to study it. The world is not the benign environment you suggest, there are always threats to our national interests. Unless you advocate disarmament then you have armed forces and if you have armed forces then being able to take any fight out of your own backyard and in to the enemies is preferable. The Royal Navy is now and always has been the best way to do this.

Ron

Did I not read an article the other day which quoted some Turkish official commenting in a News sheet, that is reputedly a mouthpiece of the Turkish government, that Turkey could overrun France in two days and Germany in three? Do we have potential hostility from a fellow NATO member?

Ron

Refer you to my second comment to Alan Willis above.

Andy B

Hear Hear Ron – absolutely right. Otherwise we’d be bringing a legal claim against the Romans ???