UK and France to share aircraft carriers

UK and France to share aircraft carriers

www.thesun.co.uk

BRITAIN and France are preparing to reveal unprecedented plans to share the use of their aircraft carriers in a controversial step to maintain military power in an era of cost-cutting.

In a potential threat to thousands of shipyard jobs, the move would make it easier for Britain to scrap or downgrade one of the two replacement carriers which are already under construction at a cost of £5.2billion.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Source: www.thesun.co.uk...


The age of England's navy is long gone. They don't need to fund one or need one when they have America to defend them. Soon England and France will have no more AC's, money is tight, and the need is gone.

www.thesun.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

who cares i think its a good thing sharing is careing
it sounds like a good strategic advantage
if conflict does happen it means we can use thers as well as them useing ours
no other countrys do this

Foodman- And what makes England think America cares about protecting them with naval forces? I wonder what the Queen thinks about all of this, letting her glorious military forces dissipate and become replaced by forces from old traitors of the British empire. After all, she is my Queen as well.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi]

reply to post by Foodman


why the french
out of all the countries the bloody french

what next share airforce? Army
after that EU armed forces?

The French have one of the most bad-@ss aircraft carriers on the planet. The Charles de Gaulle.

reply to post by princeofpeace


Bad ass is right. It spends most of its time in dock being repaired. I would have much preferred these carriers were never ordered. The Navy will have to reduce the number of surface ships, amphibious support craft and subs to pay for them.

They've been ordered, so they should not now be scrapped, especially because construction has started.
It would be much easier to deal with the costs if the amount of wasteful spending, such as foreign aid, was cut dramatically.

But the French? Really? For almost two hundred years, the main reason FOR the Navy was to scare the French!

Yet another step towards the abolishment of the UK.

What happens if there is a major disagreement between France and the UK, and it leads to war? It can, and has happened before. The EU wont last, no empire ever does. Every empire falls. We cant rely on the US either because their empire is falling already.

The people who are behind this and allow it to happen in the UK should be beheaded for the traitors they are. This is nothing about the queen. This is about normal British people who are having their country invaded and rights stripped away, for what, money? Revenge for what our governments did in the past? Whatever the reason, its wrong.

The people behind these schemes need EXECUTING because they are DANGEROUS. Their continued existence endangers the entire planets species.

reply to post by Emphursis

Yes, but its now 2010, so we have moved on which is a good thing right? This is not about sharing the carriers, but sharing the amount of time our carriers are at sea. I trust the french as much as any other nation to be honest. Do we really want to commit our military to America? Do we want to follow America into the next war?

It makes sense to me to work more closely with our more peaceful european allies

reply to post by Foodman


This is an absolutely terrible idea. The British and French sharing carriers together? Well that just regulated to them getting destroyed about 10 minutes into combat.

Look why don't you try sell the other carrier to Australia instead? We'd love it! You wouldn't even have to change the name.

Since when has the US protected anyone.

If a massive oil field were to be discovered beneath Wolverhampton, the US is likely to declare England a terrorist nation and invade the place.

reply to post by belial259


The Aussies couldn't man it. They have serious manpower shortages in the Navy as it is, particularly in their Submarine Service. Australian military strategy has also moved on from a CVF being a 'must have'.

It is part of the Lisbon Treaty and more "sharing" will come of it. It has been in the making for a long time.
Otto Von Bismark is turning in his grave/ cloud.



some info here, but plenty more info flying around

www.assembly-weu.org...

[edit on 1-9-2010 by BANANAMONTANA]

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
Since when has the US protected anyone.

If a massive oil field were to be discovered beneath Wolverhampton, the US is likely to declare England a terrorist nation and invade the place.

Well they actually service and hold all the parts for our Trident missiles, so if we are ever to used those we will need to get them off America first

Britain is technically so dependent on the US that in effect Trident is not an independent system. For example, the British Trident missiles are serviced at a port in the state of Georgia and warhead components are also made in the US.

news.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Hi Jnr. How are you doing?

The article is not completely accurate. Yes the missiles are serviced in the US on a rota basis. Those being serviced are replaced by 'spares'. The bits that go bang! are British and are maintained in the UK.

I think it's a great idea, would'nt mind Australia and NZ share one for the South Pacific.

Originally posted by Fang
reply to post by belial259

 

The Aussies couldn't man it. They have serious manpower shortages in the Navy as it is, particularly in their Submarine Service.

Maybe they wouldn't if we cared. If we had a carrier for our F-35's which we don't have yet maybe more people would want to join. We are supposed to be getting more submarines. But as far as I know we don't actually do anything with them right now. Which is probably why nobody wants to go.

The defence whitepaper calls for Australia to be able to project force in our region. Given that other powers in this area have or are getting carriers why shouldn't we?

As far as I know we are already getting two pocket carriers of some sort to that could be used to carry helicopters or f-35's. Why not just scrap that idea and buy a real carrier?

Australian military strategy has also moved on from a CVF being a 'must have'.

Well I don't know what we'd do with it exactly. Maybe help attack North Korea or something. Although I can't see that being very popular.

The idea of having one has been bouncing around a bit. Like the whole Republic thing I guess. But many don't like the idea of Australia having something that is purely offensive and meant for force projection.

Personally I'd prefer more air superiority fighters and submarines. Or nukes.

You know now that I come to think of it. The Canadians look a little worried about their Navy and they sure could use one if things heat up in the Arctic. Maybe they'd buy it?

Someone should. From an economic perspective it's a terrible idea. So many people losing their jobs. So much money already spent. You really need to keep people in work over there things sure aren't looking good for you.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by belial259]

This has been denied by the MoD and the Sun puts it in a way that makes it sound like we're sharing the actual ship. We're not.

We're going to get 2, like we have ordered (the penalty clauses for NOT building them are higher than actually buiilding them!) and the French have paid for the same designs so they can build one. The plan is, apparently, to have 3 in total and rotate between the two british and 1 French so 1 is always at sea.

Of course, did anyone bother to check the facts or have you all swallowed the Sun story hook, line and sinker.

EDIT: To also save money, RAF and RN pilots have been training in the US recently on arrestor hook landings. Of course, as we have so many expert detractors here, everyone knows what this means, don't they?

If you ask nicely, I will tell you..

[edit on 1/9/10 by stumason]

This can not happen.
We can not ignore a thousand years of warfare, confrontation and mutual enmity!
We can not give up our ability to independantly defend ourselves.

The only nations we should ever consider sharing something like this with are those we know we can trust; Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

I doubt the accuracy of this report and suspect there maybe an element of sensationalism involved here.