Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Royal Navy: Just Giving Up?

This report from the Conservative opposition that the British government is potentially thinking about delaying plans to build two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers seems to me to be an admission from the the Brits that they're not even going to pretend that they're a world-class naval power anymore.

I'm betting that Admiral Horatio Nelson is spinning at about 2000 RPM in his crypt right about now.

Bell-ringer 1533 12 Dec 08: Here's a discussion of the official announcement of a "one to two year" delay in carrier construction.


Blogger Mark said...

Maybe they plan to use the savings to beef up their submarine force instead?

12/10/2008 9:13 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Brits have been great U.S. allies. We could offer them a buy-one, get-one deal on two of our own carriers.

Proceeds from that transaction could be used to "beef up" our own submarine force. COM-N

12/10/2008 11:00 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

That wouldn't be a bad deal. I drove past the USS Constellation and the Independence which are tied up here in Bremerton next to each other. Since both ships are waiting to be dismantled & scrapped or made in to artificial reefs, why not let the RN have them at a reasonable price? I'm sure the UK would save a few pounds on refits and modernization.

Thanks, J.

12/10/2008 11:16 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why not just give them the Tarawa class as we decommission them? They have the Harriers already.

12/11/2008 6:18 AM

Blogger Steve Harkonnen said...

Anon, since our Tarawa-class carriers had lots of engineering and design flaws, selling these to the Brits might make them our enemies.

As for the Brits delaying their carriers, no wonder. It's their overall economy. Besides, for years, the British Navy has lost emphasis on sea power and the way things used to be. However, they still maintain Faslane up in Scotland and I suspect her submarine forces will remain intact thanks to Russia's renewed interests in sending out patrols again.

12/11/2008 8:20 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Steve for a guy who lists his occupation as Janitor, you seem to profess a lot of navy knowledge. Would not you think that after the long life of the class that a lot of the problems had been worked out of the Tarawa class. Besides what is cheaper for the Brits, fixing a free ship or building a new one?

12/11/2008 9:15 AM

Blogger Nereus said...


Why don't you ever post the RPM of Admiral Rickover????

Assuming that he isn't taped securely to the shaft making turn's for XX Knots


12/11/2008 9:38 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Iteresting site here:

Save The Royal Navy

12/11/2008 11:47 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love it! 2009 Lend-Lease to save the RN. In 1940-41 we gave them 50 vintage 4 stack destroyers. For New Years lets give'em the Kitty Hawk. We can also throw in some A-6's, S-3's, and F-14's sitting in the boneyard at Davis-Montham AFB. That'll keep'em busy trying to keep all that vintage stuff operating.

Seriously, with no merchant marine to speak of, and no overseas colonies, why do they need carriers? Probably just to keep up with France, Spain, and Italy.

My two cents, and keep a zero bubble......


12/11/2008 12:50 PM

Blogger Fred Genest said...

I'd just like to point out that buying someone else's "old" military equipment isn't necessarily easier or cheaper. Look at our (Canada's) subs...

Speaking of Canada, how come we can't get a free carrier or two?

12/11/2008 7:54 PM

Blogger Harry Buckles said...

Perhaps the people of the United Kingdom, via their democratically (kinda) elected government, have determined that the nation is better served by its citizens not being denied medical treatment due to lack of insurance instead of being able to drop bombs anywhere in the world.

12/11/2008 8:53 PM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

I notice in your profile that you're a Submariner; I added your blog to my blogroll on the right.

12/11/2008 11:57 PM

Anonymous John Dallman said...

Well, it's confirmed that they're going to delay the carriers:

Since one of the reasons for building them is to give work to shipyards in areas that are safe Labour, in Scotland, it is most unwise to assume that the Conservative Party, if it wins the next election, would continue the carriers. Yes, they are entirely capable of using the delay to the carriers as a stick against the current Government, and then "sadly" cancelling them when in power. It's behaviour typical of politicians; just because they have "conservative" in their name, don't assume they behave like US conservatives.

12/12/2008 4:41 AM

Anonymous John Dallman said...

Damn, URL didn't come through. Try it as the link from my name here - no, The Register is not my blog.

12/12/2008 4:43 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

..Speaking of Canada, how come we can't get a free carrier or two?
Hey Fred. Just get your government to ask for the Kitty Hawk and promise to buy some F18s for it. Good deal all around, but where the heck would Canada put it?

12/12/2008 8:58 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Canada did operate a light Fleet Carrier after WWII for a couple of years, HMCS Magnificent of the RN Hercules class. Magnificent was completed in 1948 and loaned to Canada. At same time Canada operated two light cruisers, HMCS Ontario and HMCS Quebec.

Keep a zero bubble....


12/18/2008 3:14 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home