HMS not quite so Invincible
NEW CARRIERS LESS SAFE
BRITAIN'S new aircraft carriers have been STRIPPED of vital safety features to save money.
The two £3.9 billion vessels are more like HMS Vulnerable than HMS Invincible - the class they will replace - because they are being built from steel that's 20 per cent thinner to reduce the budget.
The 65-tonne HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are being built on the same framework as commercial vessels such as oil tankers.
The "modular" design lets the Royal Navy ships "flex" in rough seas, but it also means they are less able to withstand major bomb or rocket attacks.
The Ministry of Defence agreed to the design because development costs hit £5billion before construction had even started and the project is already running £1billion over budget.
The decision raises major questions about the safety of the carriers, which will have 1,500 crew and 40 aircraft on board.
A senior navy source said: "The carriers are not battleships, they are aircraft carriers and so have limited defences. This is based on an American concept where you have the carrier and defensive ships positioned around the outside."
It means the navy will still have to deploy a protective screen of destroyers and frigates around the new carriers. But it is already short on battleships because of budget cuts. The last defence review said Britain needed 12 Type 45 destroyers, but just six are being built. The first came into service this week and the rest will follow in stages up to 2015. In addition, 12 minesweepers and 10 frigates have been cut from the fleet.
It may mean the navy is unable to deploy both new carriers at once.
Tony Blair promised the Royal Navy the carriers, which will be based in Portsmouth, when he came to power 12 years ago.
They were supposed to be finished this year, but the HMS Queen Elizabeth is now scheduled to go into service in 2014, with the Prince of Wales following two years later.
Tory candidate for Portsmouth North Penny Mordaunt said: "We need the carriers and if questions are being raised as to their specification we need to address these head-on."
Unseen SuBo video
Floods UK in pictures
Winking lovely
VANDAL AGED 2 NICKED
Bullies suicide drive
Nurses to be sacked for carers
M&S boss's secret file on 'nutters'
This article has 8 comments
Typical rubbish beat up.
By Craig. Posted August 16 2009 at 11:22 AM.
Typical government defence cuts. Always giving money away to everyone else but the British, and never funding our forces properly. Excuses, excuses. I want to sleep at night knowing it would be foolish for an enemy to attack us.
We will not have enough ships to escort these carriers if cuts get any worse!
By Andy Varley. Posted August 13 2009 at 2:57 PM.
Well what a typical story for our armed services.
Typical goverment trying to get aircraft carriers at a by 1 get 1 free price.
Stop spending money on 2nd houses and ponds and start funding our mod and personal properly!!
By Kieran. Posted July 28 2009 at 5:09 PM.
What are you all complaining about? Where else are we going to get the money to fund the prisons and detention centres? Cons and illegals apparently have rights too!!!!!!!!!!!!
By scewylewy. Posted July 26 2009 at 12:04 PM.
Another Labour timebomb waiting to go in the future.
By steve tea. Posted July 26 2009 at 9:28 AM.
And it looks like they won't have any planes to fly off either as our Sea Harriers are al being scrapped next year. All our new Type 45 destroyers will go to sea without complete weapons systems as well. Sshhh! Don't tell the enemy.
By Gordy. Posted July 26 2009 at 8:49 AM.
When will this government learn you cannot run an armed service on the cheap all our service personel deserve protection.
By Patriotic. Posted July 26 2009 at 5:11 AM.
Yes, but don't worry, we won't need them because Tony Blair is going to bring peace to the Middle East.
By Major Bonkers. Posted July 26 2009 at 12:32 AM.