Aircraft carriers tend to be a very vulnerable target,so will she be protected by a strong fleet as the Americans do with theirs? Also a big well done to all those shipyard workers who built her.Despite the best efforts of the powers that be[past and present]Britain still has some of the best ship builders in the world.
I second that and I would suspect it will be very well protected by the new type 45 destroyers. 
What all 6 of them, from the 12 originally planned. Currently the navy has 19 destroyers and Frigates, 10 submarines or which 4 are our nuclear deterrent, which leaves 6 for protecting all our vital trading sea lanes for all the 50% of food and all the energy and goods we require. All in all 78 commissions ships.
The latest round of defence cuts means our armed forces are now a total joke,
I won't mention that the MOD has now issued a multi-billion procurement specification to replace the Nimrods that were about to enter operational service that CaMoron personally ordered scrapped and vindictively cut up.
78 commissioned ships is adequate for the defence of our shores. It may not be the navy of 100 years ago, with 28 dreadnoughts in just the Grand Fleet, but the power of each one of our ships is so much more than all of those old ships put together times the power of X.
As I have stated before in other threads, the Defence Budget, which basically covered the Royal Navy, with a tiny standing army, represented at one stage over 30% of the National Budget. If we want to go back to that to enlarge the Royal Navy to protect a
non-existent Empire, then let's scrape the NHS and all Welfare. Let's go back to children starving in the street with no permanent homes, or greatly over crowded ones, with thousands dying prematurely from illness.
No, so what do we want? What should the politicians do? Oh, and by the way Foreign Aid spending is just £10 billion, 1.4%, of the National Budget of £730 billion. So, cutting that may help to find more money for defence spending, but it is a drop in the ocean. The worth 0f £10 billion of "diplomacy" spending actually can bring large national advantages; keeping us at the power table; keeping the chance of trade agreements coming to the UK, and creating good will for the UK. Maybe a small percentage of that money is wasted, but the majority finds it's British goal.
As for Nimrod, it was a project completely out of control that still needed billions to keep going which was based on an aircraft of 1950's technology. Good money was being thrown after bad on a project that had already cost £4 billion for just 9 planes, and was still not operational. It was a Tory government who started the Nimrod project, to replace the ancient Shackleton's, so it was fitting that Cameron's government cancelled it all right at the start of their term in office to face the enormous challengers facing Great Britain Ltd. Why use the word "vindictively" when describing the Nimrod's scrapping I don't know. It was a decision, like so many, that needed to be taken so the UK lived within it's means.
Living within our means WILL result in more cuts, and must be no matter how painful if our country is going to face the future with confidence. And, to remind those that still have not understood the current situation as opposed to some romantic notion of the past, especially as we remember both WW1 and WWII, we have no longer an Empire to patrol. Even the great USA is cutting back on it's ideas of "military responsibility", as like us but with far larger amounts of cash involved, they no longer have the resources as at their peak during the American Century.
Author
Topic: Aircraft carrier (Read 4436 times)