MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Thousands Bid Farewell to Ark Royal
Around 250 sailors led crowds on a march through Portsmouth, to say a final farewell to the axed aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal. Portsmouth is the Royal Navy flagship's home. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWas at Portsmouth today, all I can say is, goodbye to a great ship,
Jan 23rd, 2011 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0like all arks she will not be forgotten, just hope nothing happens for ten years,
AHHHHHHH the sentimentality of it all it makes one want to cry specially for the poor bas...ds they screwed all over the planet
Jan 23rd, 2011 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I do love an embittered Irishman, quite makes my day!
Jan 24th, 2011 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry to see her go but I still believe the days of the big carriers is gone.
Particularly now that the Chinese appear to have developed a missile that can take a carrier out. This is currently worrying the US greatly.
Still, the UK is expanding the submarine fleet and they are much harder targets ...... but appear quite effective at taking out the opposition. with missile ranges these days, a sub can achieve quite a lot.
”What will be the next strategic shock? I cannot predict it - nor can the Government. To lose our maritime strike capability in such dangerous times is short-sighted.”
Jan 24th, 2011 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Might as well bid farewell to the whole damn fleet... saves having all those parties over and over.
O Gara always makes me chuckle!
Jan 24th, 2011 - 02:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Russians have had 'anti-carrier' and 'anti-AWACS' missles for years, hasnt changed american big carrier policy, but it might for us, this time mainly due to poor funding and terrible contracts by the government. Daft thing is, the current new carrier debacle and the now binned Nimrod replacement, were both originally meant to be good value for money, now we have a non-nimrod fleet and public is £4 billion out of pocket...for no product, it is a national embarressment.
“Particularly now that the Chinese appear to have developed a missile that can take a carrier out. This is currently worrying the US greatly.”
Jan 24th, 2011 - 04:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think so, carriers still offer so much more benefits and even the chinese believe, they're building carriers.
Apparently the Chinese only need ONE missile !
Jan 24th, 2011 - 04:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Rotted, UK is not getting rid of your carrier because of the “Chinese missile”, is because can't afford it.
Jan 24th, 2011 - 04:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0wrong, we can afford it we just prioritise funds differently, UK inter war periods has always poorly funded the military, coffers ruled by civil servants.
Jan 24th, 2011 - 04:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes the chinese, russians, indians and USA still building carriers, the americans building the largest ever carriers as we speak.
The invincible class were built for cold war anti sub missions, since the withdrawl of the Sea Harrier, they havent had a fleet defence fighter anyway, so the loss of the present ability will not change capabilities, the type 45's offering the best air defence the Royal Navy has ever had, no small carrier with a handful of short range VSTOL aircraft can match it. If we drop this absurd money pinching idea of sharing carriers with the French, then a decent carrier ability will be restored.
Food for thought -
Jan 24th, 2011 - 05:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/china-testing-ballistic-missile-carrier-killer/
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/china-testing-ballistic-missile-carrier-killer/
IMHO, and as a clay shooter of many years experience ... the bigger the target, the easier it is to hit. Now I'm no expert in military matters, but that seems simple enough to me!
Do your clay targets have layered defences then?
Jan 24th, 2011 - 09:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0( ) Hoyt
Jan 24th, 2011 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree 100% with your opinion about those Carriers .
Big fat expensive sitting ducks; defenseless against incoming technology………
A swarm of ~100 advanced missiles simultaneously showering from all directions over a that big lump of slow heavy metal….
Layered defenses? my buttocks :-)
Anyhow.... I hope that the UK continues wasting tons of money into this megalomanic project using the Falklands as excuse.
Eventually, the British politicians will need a scapegoat.....
Blame the Falklands :-)
You are very dramatic Think, maybe too much time on the Drag scene for you
Jan 24th, 2011 - 09:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Layered defenses?
Jan 24th, 2011 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0What a turnip!
Erm no turnips in layered defenses you ignoramus
Jan 24th, 2011 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have my own views Y but I recognise yours. I believe that there now exist better ways of getting the 'Bang' to where it needs to be than exposing large amounts of personnel to the dangers of attack. You differ! Fair enough.
Jan 24th, 2011 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0HMS Ark Royal, Illustrious and Invincible were originally developed as Through Deck Cruisers rather than fully fledged Aircraft Carriers. Together with another great British invention, the Harrier, they provided excellent service. Whilst their time is now gone I regret their passing.
Jan 24th, 2011 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(16) hoyt
Jan 24th, 2011 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You killed that Yird :-)
Eventually, the British politicians will need a scapegoat.....
Jan 24th, 2011 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Blame the Falklands :-)
Dont you mean blame the argies, And is not your aircraft carrier an [x]
royal navy ship,
sinking royal barges......farewell to the kingdom......by monarchy....
Jan 24th, 2011 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You've shrunk our battleships”
Jan 24th, 2011 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/3151008/Youve-shrunk-brour-battleships.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=Our+Boys
The Prophecy of the Fox
”Her army and her navy
England shall cast aside;
Soldiers and ships are costly things,
Defence an empty pride ...
Just as well its a British military then Marcos :D
Jan 24th, 2011 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Redhoyt, the missile they refer to as the ' carrier - killer ' is a Dong-Feng 21 intermediate balistic missile, which with current SM2/3 and the newer Sea Viper system are all able to tackle. The layered approach uses these missles, plus shorter range missles, close range radar guided phalanx type plus the countermeasures, added to the fact the dong feng isnt operational and much of it is hype as to its effectiveness.
One word: Maginot.
Jan 24th, 2011 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One word : Hazlenut.
Jan 24th, 2011 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hazlenut?
Jan 24th, 2011 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is that Welsh for Hazelnut?
Well you wanted a one word game, so i gave you one word..!
Jan 24th, 2011 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“On word game” ....and you misspell it?
Jan 24th, 2011 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don’t they teach you spelling in the military? :-)
I wouldnt know, im not military and im afraid even british can create a typo now then then gringo
Jan 24th, 2011 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry………
Jan 24th, 2011 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong again
”Hazlenut” is not a typo……
”Hazlenut” is a misspelling of “Hazelnut”…..
A typo is a mistake made in the typing process.
The term includes errors due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger, but usually excludes errors of ignorance, such as spelling errors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographical_error
Im afraid it is a typo buttercup, an error in fingers pressing buttons in the right order buttercup
Jan 25th, 2011 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0#27 - is that 'on' or 'one' :-)
Jan 25th, 2011 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for the info Y, I bow to your greater knowledge.
Nah not greater matey , just setting Think a little straighter, as he thinks UK is sending carriers into a ' rain ' of ' carrier killers ', the daily star couldnt write more over dramatic headlines!
Jan 25th, 2011 - 01:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your greater knowledge Y is “upholded”
Jan 25th, 2011 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think that “adecuately” sets out the position, although I'm sure a certain “vane” individual will not agree with “on” thing I say.
Chuckle Chuckle
Like i said, he doesnt make mistakes, just tactically configured distractions, so we cant see his killer comments outflanking us...armed with ....a WEB SITE LINK ...da daaaaaaaa!
Jan 25th, 2011 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
Jan 25th, 2011 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Apparently the Chinese only need ONE missile !”
Jan 25th, 2011 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Y Draig Goch is correct and using this missile first requires you to find in in thousands of miles of water, then track and hit a moving target from upto 2000 miles away. This is no easy task. Thats saying this weapon even works.
Then it has to get through all the carriers air defences from it's own and other ships defending it.
Submarines are still a greater threat to aircraft carriers than these new missiles.
The use of aircraft carriers are much greater than other ships like destroyers and such which are rather limited in what they can do.
A destroyer for example “Type 45” only has the capability to defend it self from air attacks, ships and a limited ground and sub attack role.
A new aircraft carrier, like the ones we are getting deployed in a warzone can dominate an area of upto 1,000 km and is capable of defending itself far better from air attacks and can attack ground sea or air targets with upto 50 aircraft on it, all loaded with upto 7-8 missile systems. A type 45 can carry maximum of 48 missiles.
I think you greatly underestimate the importance of carriers. A perfect example of this is the falklands war, which without the carriers would not have been possible, at all. More destroyers and frigates would not have won that war.
Which is why most of the worlds navys all want aircraft carriers.
Don't be concerned about the UK's new carriers.
Jan 25th, 2011 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You just need to think it through. So the Chinese have a missile, so what? Consider the effect of a WW2-era torpedo in the right, or wrong, place. What's the difference?
Carriers, notably U.S. carriers, have been sunk before. It's not the end of the world.
But when the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers arrive in a theatre of operations, they will be game-changers. Three times the size of HMS Ark Royal.
Where and when the British Government said that the reason of getting rid of this carrier is because any Chinese missile treat? Put it in your heads, you live on a credit card for too long and now you have to pay it back.
Jan 25th, 2011 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You need to read up Marcos before giving an out of sequence comment. The type 45's are only in service with interim weapons fit, again due to budget cuts, they wull recieve other fits later. Besides, imagine China having the actual guile to use a weapon to kill 3000 people in one attack, thats going to get one hell of a reply from the Yanks, China wouldnt dare use such a weapon, it would be an act of pure desperation.
Jan 25th, 2011 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If I am correct most countries including china, will only use whatever it takes to get the job done, for to use more powerful weapons, they would know what the other side could retaliate with , so I presume if you used a more powerful and destructive missile that kills thousands, you can expect to be hit with a similar amount of power, then the escalation begins, just how far would you escalate your conventional weapons before [M A D ] would ensure the destruction of mankind, for it only takes one to do it, so I think only minimal weapons would be used,
Jan 25th, 2011 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I may well be way of the mark and completely wrong, but other more experienced bloggers will point the way, [just an opinion]
Well thats the problem isnt it Briton, you just hope you have the biggest stick and have a gentlemans agreement not to use things like Nukes or Bio weapons if war does break out. Problem with the yank carrier, it would take a small nuke to sink one, or as mentioned earlier, the more likely threat is from submarines. As the North Koreans did earlier this year, torpedo a ship and deny all knowledge despite what we all know. A big ole Dong-feng missile launch will be obvious to anyone with average satellite surveillance, especially when targetted at a 100,000 tonne piece of USA real estate floating about!
Jan 25th, 2011 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes I totally agree,
Jan 26th, 2011 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0we know that those who have nukes are few, but the list is growing,
and some of those are not friendly at all, but I hope that A deterrence is all we will need ?
Now if argies got a nuke, they'd turn the Falklands into a barren desolate ...oh hang on, it is a barren desolate place :D i just prefer it radioactive fall out free :D
Jan 26th, 2011 - 02:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0What about of going back to your playstation.
Jan 26th, 2011 - 03:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0(34) Mostly completely irrelevant though.
Jan 26th, 2011 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also prone to stepping on her own land mines and wriggling.
apparently our glorious government has decided to repair the [HMS Victory] and keep it in service, just in case its needed,
Jan 26th, 2011 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0its cheaper quicker and sails like the wind ?
its a pointless effort to be honest, they are too small to be of any practical use, it was HMS Hermes in the falklands that provided the bulk of the airpower , Harrier GR9's are ground attack aircraft and no use in real air defence other than point defence...but with current state of argie airforce, they would still win the air war. The baffling scrapping of Nimrod is the biggest loss the UK has faced in decades, im told they have 3 fully built and ready to go MRA4's which are going to be shot up in ballistic testing, $4 billion for no aircraft, sickening, the Russians must be pissing themselves with laughter
Jan 27th, 2011 - 05:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's only a 10 year gap witch isn't much in the long term. The Nimrod is a shame but i guess we just didn't have the money. They could always bring them back when the budget goes back up in 10 years. Once something is “scrapped” it's not melted down it's usually stored incase it's needed in an emergency.
Jan 27th, 2011 - 05:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0The harriers were great but there days were over it would not hold up a moment against any new aircraft.
Our equipment often costs a lot more than other nations get it for because of the prefrence of creating most of it for ourselves and having a good defence industry.
I never knew they were going to destory them, strange.
Jan 27th, 2011 - 05:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ohwell the design is not lost they can always build more in the future if they need to i guess.
Trouble is, anything can happen in months let alone ten years,
Jan 27th, 2011 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If 'something' were to happen, for instance... Argentina retaking Malvinas, there is no way the UK would come up with the nerve to come back for them years later.
Jan 28th, 2011 - 04:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not giving in to negotiations or fighting back at a time of invasion is one thing, but attacking Argentina years later to try and retake Malvinas would be a very different thing.
We all know for the UK, this is nothing more than a political game, it has nothing to do with being right or wrong. We also know Malvinas is the gateway to Antarctica, no possible way to claim Antarctica through legitimate means so they tried expanding their EEZ from Malvinas outwards. Nice try ;-)
If Malvinas did go BACK to Argentina, there is no way in hell the UK could sustain its claim on Antarctica, it can't even sustain it now.
I think we're all missing the big picture, it's got nothing to do with the damn kelpers and their bullshit 'self-determination'.
But that's me.
Not to worry Brits about saying goodbye to the Ark Royal, thanks to Wikileaks was revealed the new British navy.
Jan 28th, 2011 - 05:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E06cNv55jTs&feature=related
(51) Lots of if's and maybe's but even then I wouldn't be so sure.
Jan 28th, 2011 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0“If 'something' were to happen, for instance... Argentina retaking Malvinas, there is no way the UK would come up with the nerve to come back for them years later.”
Jan 28th, 2011 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What about you though? do you have the 'nerve' to come back for them years later....27 years later and counting...
:-)
Notwithstanding the potential for long-range missiles from the Chinese, Russians or, in time, Iranians, the idea of a portable airfield is still attractive IF accompanied by sufficient satellite and airborne surveillance. Moreover, the next generation of aircraft carriers should be built in Belfast. The Scots charge too much! Faugh a Ballagh!
Jan 28th, 2011 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ten years for the rgs to grow apair of cojones ... Nah! We're safe!!
Jan 30th, 2011 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!