http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8125466.stm

- Pretty interesting article. Any opinions? We had a discussion a while ago here about the usefuleness of Carriers, if I recall.

Carriers, or more generally their support fleets, are extremely expensive and nominally don't accomplish a lot unless you're actively bombarding distant countries. I'm mildly surprised they've lasted as long as they have.

I can see why a "world power" would want to keep at least one or two light carriers around such that it had an active training cadre and technological platform in case it ever had to build any in the future, but Britain's in specific have been a pretty huge net loss since the Falklands. Submarines can accomplish the same force projection and interdiction much more cost-effectively in most cases short a full-scale war.

I think it's become obvious that the Cold War era defense spending was never sustainable, and Russia may have turned out to be the winner after all since they stopped throwing so much money down the hole a lot sooner. I'd disagree about the nuclear weapons, since those are some of the most efficient arms available, and it's prohibitively expensive to restart a program. A nuclear-armed sub fleet is a standing reason why no one can ever seriously engage in war with you.

I agree that the cost of such weaponry is outrageous, but the ability to project military operations using such naval vessels cannot be discounted, The only item in the arsenal that trumps a carrier group is the ICBM, and I really do not see that as a viable option if we are ever going to seriously address disarmament.

A carrier group can affect devastating destruction on a hostile nation, and pretty much everyone knows this which is why they are granted respect. If a Trident submarine (or two) is traveling with the group, we are talking major impact.

Those who are talking about cutting back on these expenditures are more often than not those who have no military experience, and who believe Ahmanutjob and kwazy Kim really don't want to be aggressive, but just need some love and hugs. They also probably play druids, damn treehuggers. :p

ultimate phallic symbol.

and there is nothing that can project power better atm.

No, you cannot fight a war with them.. I think everyone realizes this.

besides.. from that?

The report says Britain would be deluded to think the US would always help Britain out.

morons. A stupid statement.

I honestly cannot think of a reason the US would not do what ever the British needed in any war. But it makes for a good reason to have carriers which is why I think they said that.

Also nothing projects power better than a Carrier. Nothing. Subs are great and awesome, but they are not carriers.

Well OK, let's put it like this then: does Britain *need* a new Trident nuclear fleet, or expensive new carriers?

edit: perhaps in context of this article, which is particularly revealing on jobs and costs: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8125449.stm

I'd go so far to say that Britain categorically does not need new, expensive carriers. They could probably use new, cheap carriers provided they're mothballing or selling the old ones. If I had to pick one or the other, I'd take the subs.

Bankrupting yourself fighting WW2 again far more a threat to national security than China's future showboat program.

I actually agree with Malse, Id pick some nuclear triton subs, since Britain already has decent carriers, but seems lacking on the nuclear subs.

I'm not sure that any of the argument is valid, IMO. It's one of those 'popular' issues that arises during tight economic times.

Our military spending is a mere 2.5% of our GDP which, while puts us quite high up the list in relative military spending terms, is obviously a mere tuppence of what the UK, as a welfare society, spends on education, health-care or any other ministry expenditure.
Not only that, but military inflation has ballooned while our spending has remained static, meaning we're dolling out the same amounts, for less. In the middle of two highly operative field-conflicts, this has been, IMO, devestatingly restrictive.
$35bn is not much for the US, as an economy that's roughly ten times the size as our own, but it represents a large piece of expenditure for a European nation (and that is, indeed, what we are now - European, not global or commonwealth). Nonetheless, in real terms I believe it is an insignificant committment if it gives even a *cosmetic* boost to our military standing in an increasingly militarised - and polarised - world order.
The Trident subs are a must (though deeply hypocritical when we're sanctioning Iran for the same ambition). The problem is, Carriers are seen as a luxury, and NO ONE right now wants to hear the word 'luxury' in the middle of an economic slump. Nonetheless, I believe it would be deeply shortsighted to neglect our naval and armament projecticle capacity because we don't like spending a penny more than we should, despite the hyperbolic price of our welfare state.

Sometimes I wish Britain had a more American attitude to its military. I know of course we're more committed than most European countries, and are certainly labelled as hawkish by jealous continental states (in part obviously because of our American alliance), but complaining about military expenditure when it represents no more than 2.5% of our budget is, quite simply, NUTS.

Britain is an island with a rapidly growing population and limited resources to feed that population. It is highly likely to be highly dependent upon access to the sea for the foreseeable future (though the chunnel certainly mitigates that traditional dependency somewhat). This means that Britain's security is likely to always require a significant naval force to be available. The question should be what should comprise that naval force. Large surface ships, small surface ships or submarines?

Let's look at submarines. Right now Britain is looking at upgrading its aging "boomers" with an expensive new Trident program. Assuming Britain wishes to keep its nuclear deterrent intact, perhaps they are taking the wrong tact. Ballistic missile submarines are pretty much a one-trick pony. Their task is to hide and protect their missile armament until such time as it is needed, being in effect an insurance policy and nothing more. Given Britain's more limited funds to build and maintain a large standing force, I would suggest they should look at different types of subs for their jobs.

Rather than building just a very few Trident missile subs, they could theoretically build a larger number of attack subs and give them the capability of using nuclear armed cruise missiles. While putting some portion of their nuclear component at risk with each mission, the loss of a single attack sub would have less effect than losing a boomer and the subs could be used for more than just a "force in being". While Tridents carry more nuclear "umph", the deterrent should not be lost just because each individual missile has a smaller warhead and shorter range. All of Britain's potential foes have coastline cities after all, and a nuclear armed Tomahawk style missile could take them out just fine.

Anti-submarine capabilities are key to keeping Britain's sea lanes secure. While the Russian submarine threat has drastically subsided, it isn't gone and China is drastically increasing its naval forces (including submarines). I've heard the best anti-sub platform is another sub, but aircraft have traditionally been very important as well. Britain needs more long range maritime patrol craft than it currently has on hand for this purpose. I'm leery of advocating aircraft carriers for this purpose. In my mind a carrier is more of a power projection tool to move air assets closer to distant trouble zones where land bases are not available. They have worked great when pitted against smaller powers, but they haven't been tested in the last fifty years against major powers with the means to retaliate against them. I'm not at all sure they are survivable under modern full scale warfare. Still, they are damned useful as a threat when some tin-horn dictator decides to stir up regional trouble. Having one or two is probably highly useful, but I'm not sure the larger fleet carriers are what Britain needs or can afford. As mentioned, they require large escort groups which also jack up the cost of carrier operations. Perhaps they should look at the smaller style carriers they have used in the past.

In my mind a carrier is more of a power projection tool to move air assets closer to distant trouble zones where land bases are not available. They have worked great when pitted against smaller powers, but they haven't been tested in the last fifty years against major powers with the means to retaliate against them.

As much as I hate to say it I agree with that. same as surface to surface missles rendered the Dreadnaughts obsolete. modern technology in missles, subs and aircraft may signal the end of large carrier fleets.