Articles

In July 2007 it was announced that the government had started ordering equipment needed for the 2 massive aircraft carriers for the RN. (work on the actual ships should start in 2009) At about 65,000 tons, they will be the largest ships ever built for the RN and their size means they will be built in pieces (or 'super blocks') at various locations and assembled (adjacent to Gordon Brown's constituency) in Rosyth.

Why we must have them
They are very flexible instruments of power and if used wisely can be a huge force for good. They will be a little piece of British sovereign territory that can deploy to anywhere on 2 thirds of the surface of the globe. They can be used to influence events from over the horizon by their very presence without firing a shot. They will be a symbol of Britain's strength but be able to mount humanitarian missions on a large scale.

Recent ill-informed reactions in the media have included;
"Carriers are relics of British imperialism"
While they can, and will be used to project power abroad, they are no more relics of imperialism than any other type of armed forces. (one man's ˜imperialism' is another man's 'preserving peace and stability') They are the cornerstone of naval fleet operations (centered around the carrier battle group). They form a vital protective air umbrella for any operations from full-scale war to peace-keeping. Without carriers British sailors lives are in danger. History shows carrier aircraft are by far the best defence for ships against other aircraft. Operations such as the recovery of the Falklands would not have been possible without carriers. In fact had the RN possessed the large CVA-01 carriers cancelled by the Labour Govt of 1966, it could be argued the Falklands conflict might never have happened as they would have been such a powerful deterrent to invasion.

"We should go for cheaper small carriers with unmanned drone aircraft"
While new technologies should be considered, there is no substitute for humans in control. However good robot technology becomes, it will never be as flexible or intelligent as humans decision-making. Unmanned Ariel Vehicles (UAVs) are likely to be a useful tools in future in support of manned aircraft rather than a replacement for them. Clearly the conventional manned fighter/bomber has a solid future and many nations are investing in new 'conventional' carriers including the US, China, Russia, France, and others.

"We can't afford them lets just spend the money on the NHS, tax cuts, pretty flowers etc" (See article) Yes they are expensive but they will be a powerful and flexible asset, and should have a long service life (It is not uncommon for carriers to serve for 40 years with upgrades). Their construction and maintenance will provide thousands of jobs across the UK and help maintain the industrial and shipbuilding base the RN needs. Their combined cost of about 4 billion pounds is actually great value for money compared to the 19 Billion pound cost of the RAF Typhoon programme.

"Carriers are no use against terrorists and suicide bombers"
In a narrow sense this is true, but while we are currently facing immediate threats from terrorism it does not mean there will not be 'conventional' conflicts in the future and we must retain the capability to fight effectively. Building carriers is taking the wise long-term view that we can't predict events. We can't base our defence procurement on the short-term needs of today but try to invest in flexible systems such as carriers that give us lots of options in the future. However naval power, even today, is far from irrelevant to terrorism. Carrier based aircraft have already been used for intelligence gathering and strikes against terrorist bases. Carriers also can be used to exert a strong deterrent to nations that maybe sponsoring or harbouring terrorists.

The challenges to face before delivery.

• Although in the long-run building very big carriers makes sense as it allows flexibility in upgrading and operating different aircraft, the sheer size and scale will throw up complex engineering problems which will have to be overcome. UK has not built a carrier since Ark Royal (5) completed in 1985 and not built a large carrier since HMS Ark Royal (4) was launched in 1950. There are also no suitable dry docks in the primary naval bases of Portsmouth (where they will be based) or at Devonport.
• It would not take great foresight to say costs will probably rise. The government has forced industry to form the 'Carrier Alliance' so that different companies will be responsible for different bits of the project at locations throughout the country. This sounds like a recipe for complications. Lets hope that this project is better managed than previous big projects such as the Astute submarines or the RAF typhoon!
• Having ordered expensive carriers the government now has a great excuse to ignore RN calls to order the other ships and submarines vital for a balanced fleet. Without sufficient escorts and support ships the carriers will be of very limited use, even a liability. It is the express purpose of this website to campaign for those vessels to be ordered.
• An expensive program such as this will be a tempting target for cancellation by future governments who may want to release some quick cash, should they need to bribe the electorate with spending on more popular services.
• The aircraft (or main armament) that will fly from the carrier do not yet exist in a proven form. There have been complex political negotiations with the US about the development or the JSF (F-35). It has been decided the main aircraft will be the Short Vertical Take Off (STVOL) F35B which should fly by 2012. Complex international projects like this do not have a good track record of delivering on time and on budget.
• Enough experienced manpower (and pilots in particular) may be hard to come by if the RN manpower continues to shrink at the current rate.
• By going for a less controversial gas turbine/electric propulsion instead of nuclear power, their fuel bill will be very high. (Not to mention their carbon footprint). How much oil will be available and what will it cost in 40 years time? Electric propulsion systems on this scale are still very much at the leading edge of marine engineering and will present big challenges.
• To be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, the choice of names is potentially problematic. Apart from being long and unwieldy mouthfulls, In a couple of decades time, given today's hostile media, who knows how the royal family will be perceived by the public? Do we want the ships so closely linked to an institution who's long-term future is so uncertain. Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales is not a particularly popular figure and the QE2 is also a name more closely associated with a luxury cruise liner in the public mind. Why not chose simple, punchy and uncontroversial names such as HMS Lion & HMS Tiger?

This is an unofficial site and does not have any endorsement by the Royal Navy
© copyright savetheroyalnavy.org 2008