Add Comment

Here's an idea... given that there is a chronic shortage of prison places, why not commission prison ships to be built and build them in Scotland - two birds with one stone!? Or is that too simple and logical a solution for our 'leaders'to think of!?

[quote][bold]2for1[/bold] wrote: Here's an idea... given that there is a chronic shortage of prison places, why not commission prison ships to be built and build them in Scotland - two birds with one stone!? Or is that too simple and logical a solution for our 'leaders'to think of!?[/quote] Good idea but one filled up, sail them out to the mid atlantic and then scuttle them.

[italic][bold]Type-45 Destroyer programme sham:[/bold][/italic] [italic]June 05-2000 2000 UK PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES->>[/italic] http://www.parliamen t.the-stationery-off ice.co.uk/pa/cm19990 0/cmhansrd/vo000605/ debtext/00605-01.htm : The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar) is asked by Mr. Gordon Prentice what Labour govt policy is on the decommissioning of warships and submarines that were less than 20 years old. The reply was, in effect, [italic]"six older and, more importantly, less capable vessels were to be replaced by three type 23 frigates"...[/italic] But in fact, subsequent to this date almost 1/2 a dozen brand-new and close-to-brand-new Type-23 Frigates were sold off at substantially less than their construction-costs and/or significantly less than replacement costs, while many of the RN's very old and highly vulnerable Type-22 Frigates were kept operational... This despite all Type-22's severe and widely acknowledged vulnerabilities to 21st century threats like supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles (the SS-N-27 'Sizzler') and their basic mission competency inadequacies... It appears this trend continued from then up until today... culminating in the recent decision by Labour to not build the twelve Type-45's promised, and instead build only six... Of these six, two- apparently- are to be sold-on to Saudi Arabia. Making matters worse [bold]the few Type-45's that are being built are to be hugely 'stripped down versions'[/bold] ->> not fitted out with even 1/3 of the weapons and defensive systems their designers intended (see links below). [bold]The to-be-built Type-45’s won't be [italic]'multi-mission'[/italic] designation[/bold]. This meaning they will not be capable of performing any types of missions other than 'anti-air' defense. Unlike other nations' ships in this class, Type-45's will not be fitted out to enable the prosecution of: - anti sea-surface based; - anti sub-surface (sea) based; and - anti land-target based types of missions. [bold]Type-45's won’t be able to ship-launch torpedoes,[/bold] and- highly short sightedly- each will deploy only one helicopter- instead of the two that are industry-standard for this class of ship: (USA/South Korea/Japan/Germany/ etc) http://www.publicati ons.parliament.uk/pa /cm200203/cmselect/c mdfence/694/694we05. htm : Note the text: [italic]"Envisaged as a replacement for the Type 42 destroyers, the Type 45 will be a multi-role, general-purpose platform capable of operations across the spectrum of tasks…"[/italic] http://www.publicati ons.parliament.uk/pa /cm200102/cmselect/c mdfence/779/779ap09. htm Note the text: (1/2 way down the page) "[italic]MILITARY CAPABILITY "5. ...the Type 45—in common with all destroyers and frigates—will be a multi-role, general-purpose platform capable of operations across the spectrum of Defence tasks…"[/italic] (ALL 12 Type-45's that were 'promised' by Labour ought to be built- and are urgently needed- but if this occurs, Type -45's should not be dangerously stripped down versions- I.E. missing basic, industry-standard weapons and defensive systems- such as the case with ones currently under construction/sea trials,/etc. ) http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2007/11/27/ hms_diamond_launches _ouch_ouch/ http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type45.h tm http://www.defensein dustrydaily.com/DDG- Type-45-Britains-Shr inking-Air-Defense-F leet-04941/ [bold]The RN's newer and upgraded Type-23 Frigates[/bold] may well be proficient in dealing with subsurface threats with their "2087 sonar" abilities, but they [bold]have zero competencies against up-to-date airborne threats- like the SS-N-27 "sizzler" anti-ship missile.[/bold] Contradicting planners' specifications, the R.N.'s under construction new Type-45 Destroyers- with their world beating PAAMS anti-air warfare capabilities- are being built as stripped down versions, and not being equipped with 2087 A.S.W. capabilities... read: no anti-submarine capabilities); no on-ship torpedo-launch abilities; none, or at best very out of date "Close In Weapons Systems" (CIWS's) which are a basic industry-standard requirement for warships to use against incoming anti-ship missiles that the main weapons system misses and for defending against, fast-attack suicide boats & low-aircraft, etc. Instead, 25-year-old technology CIWS's are reported as possibly being installed once they are available to be cannibalized from 'retired' type-22 and 23 Frigate’s). http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type45.h tm http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2007/11/27/ hms_diamond_launches _ouch_ouch/ Similarly irresponsibly, Type-45's are not being equipped to deal with sea-surface based or land-based 'threats/targets'. The French are designating several of their newest Destroyers http://www.naval-tec hnology.com/projects /horizon2/ as 'land attack' models- equipping them with cruise missile launchers (Sylver 70’s) which are effectively a ’big’ version of the anti-air missile launchers (Sylver-50's) used on the RN’s new Type-45’s. Leading 'first-world' nations' warships need to be able to deal with threats/targets in all 4 spheres of battle: sub-surface, sea-surface, land-based and airborne. None of the R.N.'s in-service warships (aircraft carriers, Type 23 Frigates and Type-42 Destroyers) have this vital capability. http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type42.h tm (ALL of the US Navy's Destroyers produced since the early 1990's have these capabilities, as do South Korea's, Japan's and even Australia's recently produced/under construction Destroyers/Frigates. ... The US Navy's new generation of medium sized aircraft carriers as well as their new generation of 'super carriers' will.) Type-45's maximum radius of protection from airborne threats that could be afforded to other ships is purported to be about 4 or at most 4 and 1/2 miles from the respective Type-45.... Squadrons and fleets on missions almost never remain this close to each other for tactical and logistical purposes.... so the handful of Type-45's being built for the R.N. (see my comment above) will not be capable of providing anti-air cover for the whole R.N.... What happens when a Type-45 is faced with a sub surface threat and there is no Type-23 very nearby to 'protect it'?? What happens when a Type-23 is faced with an airborne threat and there is no Type-45 close-by to 'protect it'?? Answer: they'd be in trouble........ Sufficient numbers of Type-45's need to be built... not 4 or 6 or even 8, but the dozen promised by Labour, and enough to 'replace' ALL of the Type-23's and Type-42's presently in-service.... and enough to carry out extra duties perhaps escorting UK or other nations' aircraft carriers.... or providing cover for ships (like carriers/sub's) inserting commando's to land-based targets... and ALL Type-45's built need to be "fully equipped" and capable of dealing at least moderately competently with ALL 4 spheres of naval battle... [italic][bold]"RN's PLANNED NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS NEED RE-DESIGN"[/bold][/italic] The United Kingdom's planned new aircraft carriers are to be built with the French in a joint-project... ... Not necessarily a bad plan, but in order to ensure the resulting ships are not impotent duds, the country which for over 40-years has made the world's most capable and versatile aircraft carriers- the USA- ought to brought in to the project... If necessary, the French ought to be pushed out... Having vital-to-force-proje ction ships (the RN's 2 new 'big deck' aircraft carriers) co-built with France (as is planned)- a country without expertise in this field- rather than with a country which has decades of unequaled leadership in aircraft carrier technologies- the USA- is plainly illogical, ill-advised, & will result in, comparatively, 3rd-rate carriers with: - 20-year-old technologies; - [bold]severe and highly dangerous limitations in the types of weapons-systems and aircraft that they can be fitted with/accommodate/dep loy;[/bold] - severe deficiencies in versatility & upgrade-ability; & [bold]- not capable of operating Directed Energy Weapons (DEW's) for use against 21st century threats- such as super-sonic anti-ship cruise missiles.[/bold] [bold]UK versions of the joint UK/France aircraft carriers will be: - 10,000 tonnes lighter than the French ones; - without basic industry-standard weapons and defensive systems; and - without aircraft-launching catapults.…[/bold]... [bold]grievously restricting the types of aircraft and fixed-wing planes that can be deployed ('embarked' and flown off these ships) to "Harrier-type" only and needlessly diminishing the carriers’ potential usefulness and competencies.[/bold] The new French carriers will have catapults, thereby enabling the deploying of [italic]"Airborne Warning And (weapons/aircraft) Control"[/italic] (AWACS) type planes. http://www.defensein dustrydaily.com/brit ain-studies-ways-to- reduce-cvf-future-ca rrier-program-costs- 01028/ www.defenseindustryd aily.com/design-prep arations-continue-fo r-britains-new-cvf-f uture-carrier-update d-01630/ http://www.defensein dustrydaily.com/fran ce-steaming-ahead-on -pa2cvf-carrier-proj ect-01621/ [bold]For over 3 decades ship-deployed AWACS aircraft have been accepted by naval strategists as a vital requirement for any country wishing to have a "first tier" navy.[/bold] In order to be able to reasonably effectively conduct other than home-country littoral patrol operations, ship-borne AWACS aircraft are needed for navies/squadrons/nav al task-forces to prosecute missions and defend against targets in all 4 main warfare spheres: sea-surface based; sub sea-surface based; air-based; and land-based. Fixed-wing aircraft AWACS are indispensable for "beyond visual horizon" detection and identification of possible incoming threats; weapons control; weapons-targeting and for legitimate Theatre Air Defense. Imagine a scenario where RN carriers (and the whole of the rest of the Royal Navy!!) had to be 'protected' by French carriers.... with their fixed-wing AWACS planes... planes that the RN's planned new (and its present) carriers won't be capable of using... A good example of these types of planes can be found at- http://www.janes.com /news/defence/idr/id r080611_1_n.shtml : [bold]note the text:[/bold] [italic]"... In 1982 the Falklands (Malvinas) conflict provided a stark reminder of the vulnerability of surface forces operating in a hostile air environment without (AWACS) AEW support"... ".... The absence of such a capability in the face of sustained air attack gave the UK Royal Navy (RN) insufficient warning to counter threats at long range, and directly contributed to the loss of several ships...."[/italic] http://www.janes.com /defence/news/idr/id r060630_1_n.shtml Would this more easily take-out a copter-borne AWACS or a high-flying, comparatively fast fixed-wing aircraft-borne AWACS?? : http://www.janes.com /news/defence/naval/ idr/idr080612_1_n.sh tml : A summary of the UK's carrier folly can by found at links below.... the pages they link to also have useful links to reputable background material... [bold]- RN aircraft carrier [italic]aircraft-type[/italic] issue:[/bold] http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2007/12/19/ supersonic_stealth_j umpjet_f35b_rollout/ http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2007/12/19/ supersonic_stealth_j umpjet_f35b_rollout/ page2.html http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2008/06/12/ f35b_supersonic_jump _jet_first_flight/ http://www.aviationw eek.com/aw/blogs/def ense/index.jsp?plckC ontroller=Blog&plckS cript=blogScript&plc kElementId=blogDest& plckBlogPage=BlogVie wPost&plckPostId=Blo g%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42 d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7 Post%3a3460ee22-8582 -4dab-8eda-8a4c183db d40 : [italic]".... As for shipboard operations: when the UK decided in 1998 to build a second (class of- r.v.l.) carrier, their Lordships in the Admiralty were thinking of a 40,000-tonner, something about twice the size of today's Invincible-class. "...But they soon found that to sustain independent operations, the carrier force needed to be able to launch combat air patrol (CAP) and strike missions at the same time..." "That drove sortie rate, which drove the number of embarked aircraft, which drove the size of the carrier. By 2002 it had reached a size where it could (and still can) be modified to launch catapult-arrest jets..." "... Meanwhile, the (USA's) Marines are realizing that, to support a realistic number of JSFs and V-22s, they have to dedicate a ship to aviation, eliminating its landing craft...." "... [bold]The UK is facing another challenge: providing airborne radar cover for its carriers[/bold] . If the French build their second carrier to the same basic design (as the UK's versions- which is their plan r.v.l.), they have no problems (since their carriers will have catapults r.v.l.): just buy more E-2s. But the UK carriers will have to use helicopter-based (AWACS) AEW, which simply can't fly as high, or see as far, as the Hawkeye. A serious weakness, particularly against threats like the 3M54 Klub (page 21) missile...."[/italic] - [bold]RN aircraft carrier issue:[/bold] http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2008/05/18/ blighty_carrier_deal _announced/ http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2008/05/18/ blighty_carrier_deal _announced/page2.htm l : [bold]Note the text:[/bold] [italic]"...So what will we taxpayers get for our £2 bn per ship? Americans spending that much money get a Nimitz-class nuclear powered supercarrier, a ship which on its own can defeat most national air forces....." "...Funnily enough, we Brits won't get anything like that..." ".... The new UK carriers, for a start, will not be nuclear-propelled... ." "... The US Navy doesn't use nuke power just for fun - there are good reasons why it makes sense for carriers. In particular, nuclear is the only kind of modern-day warship propulsion which can easily generate the huge steam power required by current catapult launch systems. There are vague notions brewing in America regarding electrically-powered cats, to go with the electric transmissions favoured in the latest warships, but electric launchers won't be ready in time for the UK..." "...As a result, the Brit carriers- though easily big enough- won't have catapults at all. This means that they won't be able to launch normal carrier planes, and thus that the UK must buy the jump-jet version of the new F-35, at needlessly vast expense....."[/italic] http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2008/03/20/ v22_osprey_engine_li fe_snag_and_toss_rad ar/ [bold]note the text:[/bold] [italic]".... Ever since the Falklands - where the lack of a flying radar was a major factor in the UK taskforce's heavy losses to Argentine air attack - the RN has struggled along with an unsatisfactory helicopter-mounted solution..." "... Helicopters can't get as high or stay up as long as ordinary planes, and an airborne radar needs both height and endurance..." "... Britain's new aircraft carriers, though easily big enough, will not be equipped to launch and recover regular fixed-wing planes. This is so as to save money...." "Unfortunately, it means that Blighty must buy exceedingly complex and expensive aircraft to fly from the ships, such as the new F-35B supersonic stealth jumpjet...." "... And the RN, needing to replace its current, aged radar Sea Kings, would probably rather have Ospreys than another unsatisfactory helicopter.... "... They'd probably really rather have a much better E-2D Hawkeye carrier-radar plane for a fraction of the price, but the decision to buy slightly cheaper carriers ([bold]NOT NUCLEAR POWERED; WITHOUT BASIC, INDUSTRY-STANDARD DEFENSIVE WEAPONS SYSTEMS; AND WITHOUT CATAPULTS, r.v.l.)[/bold] rules that out...."[/italic] http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2008/03/27/ defence_report_nimro d_chop_maybe/ [bold]The Royal Navy has zero (fixed wing: Harrier-type) aircraft for its remaining aircraft carriers...[/bold] The situation since 2005 with the RN's (3) present 'pocket carriers': [bold]there are so few carrier-compatible fixed-wing aircraft available, that these carriers are having to be taken out-of-service- or left on active duty without fixed-wing aircraft like Harriers[/bold] : http://www.newbernsj .com/news/british_35 707___article.html/a merican_ship.html [bold]HMS Illustrious is 'on patrol' without Harriers- they're ALL in Afghanistan...[/bold] Illustrious was recently on exercises with the Indian Navy (and other countries in that part of the world) contributing only helicopters: http://www.reuters.c om/article/blogBurst /investing?type=hotS tocksNews&w1=B7ovpm2 1IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B 7pJeHult9GszE37UXlSp mUm&src=blogBurst_in vestingNews&bbPostId =Cz7MRMBsk1nP8BDbYKP c05d4aBFAUsiQgnjRQB8 VcBgLPWwD4&bbParentW idgetId=B7gSUbux1hpb z8uOa7TWsLnV : [italic][bold]"Indian Navy and Royal Navy in Konkan 2008 Exercise..." April 18-2008...[/bold] "...The Royal Navy will field the aircraft carrier HMS ILLUSTRIOUS (with six Merlin helicopters), guided missile frigate HMS WESTMINSTER.... The Indian Navy will be represented by guided-missile destroyers INS MYSORE and INS RAJPUT, the guided missile frigate INS GOMATI, Fleet Replenishment Tanker INS ADITYA and the submarine INS SHISHUMAR........"[/italic] [bold]Same with Illustrious's 'operational' sister- HMS Ark Royal, recently reported on BBC pages- no fixed-wing (IE 'Harrier-type') aircraft:[/bold] http://news.bbc.co.u k/1/hi/england/merse yside/7439245.stm http://www.royalnavy .mod.uk/server/show/ ConWebDoc.12975 ... [italic]"HMS Ark Royal is currently... configured to carry Sea King, Chinook and Lynx helicopters, and up to 400 Royal Marines, which together provide a powerful amphibious force...." "The ship is the UK's high readiness Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH) and Command Platform [bold]*[/bold] at short notice to deploy to any of the world's current trouble spots......"[/italic] and able to do what????? ([bold]*[/bold] IS NOT!! The RN's only (LPH) is HMS Ocean->> HMS Ocean has been out-of-service for 1-year. HMS Ark Royal is a 'fixed-wing type' aircraft carrier. r.v.l.) [bold]Illustrious's other 'in service' sister, HMS Invincible is not capable of putting to sea, although not decommissioned...[/bold] http://navy-matters. beedall.com/ : [italic]... "(a huge) problem is finding aircraft for the new carriers to operate. "Currently the Royal Navy simply does not (have) regular access to UK operated fast jet (fixed-wing) aircraft to operate from its designated high readiness strike carrier, HMS Illustrious." ... "Disastrously the Sea Harrier FA.2 is now long gone and the sole operational naval air squadron (800 NAS) re-equipped with the Harrier GR.7/9 is about to deploy (again) to Afghanistan, providing land-based close air support to NATO forces there." ... "In order to maintain some level of experience in the operation of fixed wing aircraft, HMS Illustrious recently operated 14 American (US Marine Corps) AV-8B Harriers for an exercise and will soon embark Spanish Navy Harrier’s for another." ... "Although the MOD has tried to put a positive spin on these deployments, the underlying desperation is impossible to hide." ... "Looking to the future, the RN’s plans to buy 60 Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA) dedicated to carrier operations have long been history, subsumed in to the RAF...."[/italic] [bold]In September-2007, HMS Ocean- the RN's, only dedicated helicopter carrier- was taken out-of-service for over 1 year for un-planned repairs:[/bold] http://www.mod.uk/De fenceInternet/Defenc eNews/EquipmentAndLo gistics/HmsOceanInLi neForMajorRefit.htm [bold].... leaving the RN with just about zero air cover... in an emergency/unexpected urgent situation....[/bold] Would a reasonably (or even a moderately) budgetarily competent company pay for the partial construction of a modest-sized house (read: aircraft carrier), IE walls and roof up, but without wiring, doors or plumbing (read: aircraft)?? ... & before the company has 'found the money' to pay for the modest-sized house's wiring, doors & plumbing- financially commit the company to building another house (read: new 'big deck' carriers) 3 times as big as the modest-sized one... … and then when they realize money is short... take steps to in effect 'block' money being found in the company budget to pay for wiring, doors & plumbing to be installed in either of the 2 houses?????? So, why would any govt commit to spend £4 billion building new 'glitzy' aircraft carriers if not going to do it properly?' 1 possibility is 'for public relations' purposes & to mislead 'for votes'; another is due to gross incompetence!! Contrast the above with the USA's approach to aircraft carriers: http://www.defensene ws.com/story.php?i=3 529451&c=SEA&s=AME : [italic]"Shipbuilding Funds Added to U.S. Navy Budget" : ... "An amendment regarding F/A-18 Super Hornet procurement also was adopted by voice vote at the urging of Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who warned the Navy won't have enough fighters as planes age." "Aircraft carriers are nice things to have and float around, but without airplanes they are not very good," Akin said...."[/italic] Below links have recent info regarding the under development F-35 aircraft that are planned to be deployed on the UK's new aircraft carriers.... http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2007/12/19/ supersonic_stealth_j umpjet_f35b_rollout/ http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2007/12/19/ supersonic_stealth_j umpjet_f35b_rollout/ page2.html [bold]The USA is presently redesigning its 'Nimitz Class' 'super carriers':[/bold] The resulting products will ALL be equipped with state of the art defenses, including extensive anti-missile defense systems- types of systems the RN's planned new carriers are not planned to have. The USA is also in the middle of redesigning its 'medium-sized' (LHD-class) aircraft carriers. There are approximately 1 dozen of the current 44,000 tonne models- which are each more than 2 times the size of the RN's present 20,000 tonne 'pocket' carriers- deployed around the world- supported by other US Navy warships/submarines- in Naval Strike Groups. The US's medium sized carriers use Harriers and the same aircraft that present RN 'pocket' carriers utilize. The US's new 'medium sized' aircraft carriers are projected to each cost roughly 1/3 of the UK's planned new carriers (maybe due to volume savings?)... so why isn't the UK participating in this project?? Even worse, without intending to be too repetitive, unlike the UK versions, France's new "big deck" aircraft carriers will be constructed with catapult-launch-of-a ircraft capability, from a "flat deck". French versions won't rely on ski-jump decks to launch aircraft like the UK's planned (& its present 'pocket') carriers... Compared to the UK's, France's new carriers will be: - far more capable; - able to deploy a much broader variety of aircraft, such as electronic countermeasure (ECM) & unmanned fighter aircraft; & in a business where 'size does matter'... - 10,000 tonnes heavier than the UK's (65k vs 75k). http://www.defensein dustrydaily.com/brit ain-studies-ways-to- reduce-cvf-future-ca rrier-program-costs- 01028/ www.defenseindustryd aily.com/design-prep arations-continue-fo r-britains-new-cvf-f uture-carrier-update d-01630/ http://www.defensein dustrydaily.com/fran ce-steaming-ahead-on -pa2cvf-carrier-proj ect-01621/ Its been well known for over a decade that providing "anti-air" defenses for the RN's non-front-line ships such as supply vessels, minesweepers & the like- let alone for its present 'pocket' aircraft carriers or any future "big deck" ones- CAN NOT BE DONE by any of the RN's dangerously outdated, Type-42 Destroyers or by its Type-22 & Type-23 Frigates. http://www.bloomberg .com/apps/news?pid=2 0601087&sid=akO7Y_OR w538&refer=home http://www.bharat-ra kshak.com/NAVY/Klub. html http://www.uscpf.org /html/events/2005/tr anscript.html http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type42.h tm Royal Navy destroyers sail without missiles..., June 10-2008: http://www.telegraph .co.uk/news/newstopi cs/politics/defence/ 2104716/Navy-destroy ers-sail-without-mis siles.html http://www.thisislon don.co.uk/news/artic le-23493071-details/ HMS+Defenceless:+Two +destroyers+sail+min us+missiles+to+save+ cash/article.do http://www.mailonsun day.co.uk/news/artic le-1025254/Two-Navy- destroyers-unable-mi ssiles--theyve-remov ed-save-cash.html?IT O=1490 http://news.bbc.co.u k/2/hi/uk_news/engla nd/hampshire/7442739 .stm [bold]SOLUTIONS??:[/bold] [bold]A quick-fix to the RN's aircraft carrier & out-of-date ships problems could be the USA 'lend/leasing to the UK' (2 or) 3 of their recently commissioned &/or nearing commissioning medium sized aircraft carriers[/bold] (L-HD's) along with their armaments, aircraft & related logistical equipment, etc. (it would also be a way of the US paying-back the UK for its W.O.T. support): - [bold]USS Makin Island[/bold] (LHD 8) (nearing commissioning); - [bold]USS Iwo Jima[/bold] (LHD 7) commissioned June 2001; These ships: - weigh-in at approximately double the tonnage of the RN's 2.5 decade-old, past-service-life Invincible Class carriers; - deploy the same types of fixed-wing aircraft as RN carriers, but have 2X the aircraft carrying & sortie capacity; - have far more versatile capabilities; & - are out fitted with very recent technology radars & anti-missile/anti-su bmarine warfare systems. LHD's would be far more appropriate for deployment by the UK to the Persian Gulf instead of (as recently) the highly vulnerable-to-21st-c entury-anti-ship-wea pons HMS Illustrious & her assigned anti-air 'cover': a dangerously outdated-technology Type-42 Destroyer & Type-23 Frigate: http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type42.h tm Money saved by lend/lease of the above US ships to the RN could be put towards the expedited construction of ALL of the 12 "FULLY EQUIPPED" Type-45 Destroyers promised by Labour in the late 1990’s, instead of the 4* stripped-down versions** that 'may' be constructed for the RN... (* Apparently, 6 Type-45's are to be built, with 2 of these being sold to Saudi Arabia.) (** http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2007/11/27/ hms_diamond_launches _ouch_ouch/ http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type45.h tm ) Similarly, the RN's egregiously vulnerable Type-22 & older-model Type-23 Frigates could be replaced cost-effectively & expeditiously by "anti-submarine specialty" & "land attack/expeditionary -support specialty" multi-purpose/multi- mission variants of the Type-45 being quickly designed & built... [bold]As part of a 'longer term' fix for the RN's aircraft carrier problems:[/bold] [bold]1) the USA ought to be brought in to the UK/French project- and a bigger more capable model of carrier that was nuclear-powered and with aircraft launch catapults ought to be designed.[/bold] Perhaps the UK might manufacture several of these for the US Navy? or [bold]2) instead of continuing with the misguided UK/French aircraft carrier project, the UK ought to 'call in a favour' from the USA & invite itself to be part of the USA's project designing & building the US Navy's medium sized aircraft carrier (LHD class) successor: the "LHA-6 class".[/bold] Projected to displace 51,000- 60,000 tonnes, LHA-6's will be leaders of their type, regarding: - offensive capacities; - anti-missile & anti-submarine defenses; - abilities to set aside sections as hospital ships; & - abilities to function as battle-space data command centre's. Also, LHA-6's MAY BE NUCLEAR POWERED, (dramatically lowering greenhouse gases) & to accommodate new high-energy need equipment & weapons like Directed Energy Weapon's (DEW'S). DEW's are thought by many experts to be the only type of ship-defense weapon likely to be able to counter 21st century naval threats like the widely marketed Russian SS-N-27 "Sizzler" missile. http://www.defensein dustrydaily.com/usa- broadening-conservat ion-focus-to-weapons -systems-02186/#more http://www.bloomberg .com/apps/news?pid=2 0601087&sid=akO7Y_OR w538&refer=home http://www.bharat-ra kshak.com/NAVY/Klub. html http://www.uscpf.org /html/events/2005/tr anscript.html Unless things change, the UK risks being overtaken by nearly all developed world countries in terms of its naval forces. The UK's new classes of Destroyer’s, MVD’s, and aircraft carriers could truly lead the world's navies in terms of quality and capabilities (for their type and displacement sizes)… but without significant effort to change mindsets in the current govt & possibly the MoD, countries like South Korea will "cut the UK's grass" to use a North American expression... and consequently take the trade-related benefits... Those that say "all Britain really needs is a small navy sufficient for defense and protection..." are not that wrong.... A 25 or 35 or 40 warship navy is 'small' when compared to the past navies of many nations- and many, many countries' the UK's size today, and to today’s 300-ship US Navy... Part of protecting the UK's interests rests with its armed forces being able to project 'the appearance' of overwhelming competence and capabilities- albeit for their small size- to potential adversaries... If the UK's armed forces are not only small, but also outdated and not-up-to-current-mi ssion-demands, countries that otherwise would not initiate conflict- will do so. Considering the pivotal, central position that the UK still plays in the world- in terms of its leading role membership on financial/trade, legal and political bodies- the result of hostile countries initiating conflict with the UK can and likely would have world roiling negative effects.... So why tempt fate.... The UK ought to be taking every step that is reasonably possible in order to retain the competence and capabilities of its armed forces... and to maintain its 'world-leading technological advantages' over possible adversaries…. South Korea is presently facilitating an extensive upgrade/expansion and warship replacement programme of its navy... perhaps to stay ahead of Japan, which is, to a lesser extent, doing the same thing.... Australia, similar to South Korea and Japan, is redeveloping and expanding its 'Royal Australian Navy'... and is looking at the feasibility of acquiring an aircraft carrier or two... to go with its new Destroyers and Frigates... ) The UK govt -with BAE Systems and VT- ought to be working with South Korea's govt and their shipbuilder "Hyundai" and looking at ways that the 'planned' new aircraft carriers for the RN (and for the French navy) could still be built- but with the UK's two sold on- under strict conditions- to the ambitious South Koreans or Australian’s or, perhaps the Indians…. http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2008/03/27/ defence_report_nimro d_chop_maybe/ http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2008/05/18/ blighty_carrier_deal _announced/page2.htm l http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type45.h tm http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2007/11/27/ hms_diamond_launches _ouch_ouch/ http://www.uknda.org /royal_navy/c-14.htm l http://www.janes.com /news/defence/idr/id r080611_1_n.shtml ______________ Roderick V. Louis, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, ceo@patientempowerme ntsociety.com