This is about BIG SHIPS, with no thought as to how these relics will be fueled... I suppose we will have to invade a few countries and steal their oil for our ships...

Ian, Freiburg,

£4 Billion? That's about 1/12 of a Northern Rock rescue! Much better than wasting it on a bank that got greedy, then got it's fingers burnt.
It's a shame, 'cos £1 Billion would have saved Rover, then we would have a Navy & a UK-owned stake in the car industry.

Andy P, Dereham, Norfolk

Signing up for two obsolete (already) carriers on top of new nuclear subs at a time when our economy is about to fall into a black hole is to say the least, ill timed. We need to be cutting public costs rather than spending like a schoolboy with a new credit card.

David T, Sheffield, UK

wait for "ooops, sorry, we changed our mind, we're skint"

peter c, devizes, wessex

Has there really been any debate about what best serves our military interests? What about sharing carriers with France, Australia, Canada, the US? What about smaller mini carriers carrying JSF? Still, after all the money that's been wasted on the obsolete Eurofighter Typhoon, why not?

John, Edinburgh,

Take it out of all the foreign aid which is just wasted .

M Wilson, Bidache, france

British naval strategy will be based around two ships. The concept is that they will be so powerful that they will be able to dominate their environment, a bit like the Spanish Armada concept. But history tends to favour nimble, highly networked fighters rather than those with a Maginot mentality.

Frank, Kingston, Jamaica

think people need to listen and try to resarch before shooting there months, off the 16B total is coming out of the small 34B budget the defence get each year, as the cost be over serveral years not just one off payment, the NHS got 3times the money than the military get, and your complaining.

James Lawton, pontefract, UK

also the fact is the NHS got billions of added to each year and it get worse so plz don't complain about braitin doing something right for a chance, mean it be over 25 years, for any really money be put into the armed forces.

James Lawton, pontefract, UK

I'm particularly disheartened by a few anti-scottish comments ; ie Paul Edwards from Telford --- "more money for the defence minister & prime ministers clans!". Not a particulary constructive or thoughtful comment. Ever thought Scotland was chosen due to its nuclus of talent & resources.

Bruce, Edinburgh,

Enlighten me. Are these carriers for protecting the Colonies, dealing with the Afghan tribesmen or dealing with the Russians? Once built, how will these ships generate economic strength in the country? The money would be better spent on building UK's nuclear power generation? Economic power counts.

Ron, Oxford,

We have very little heavy industry and engineering excellence is on a sharp decline. We need government to keep engineers in jobs, or we will not be able to build anything from power stations to our nuclear deterent
Spending this money on NHS means the country loses more engineers = less Money2 NHS

kevin, buckingham, buckinghamshire

Connect with Chris from Crewe, The Royal Navy has 2 carriers, not 3. Invincible has been decommisioned. The other 2 are fast coming up to their sell by dates. I'm not sure if these new carriers are the way ahead, but the 2 existing ones will soon not be worth the expense of upkeep due to their age

Mark, Plymouth,

Fantastic news!
1. 40 a/c air-group is for wartime with additional RAF aircraft – so we will have enough aircraft
2. The service life is 40-50 years; the amortised construction costs are quite small
3. We’re already building >=6 Type 45 destroyers to defend them and including against the SS-N-22

Chris, Bristol,

we should of never got rid of the ark royal. we need Propper aircraft carriers with Propper carrier based air craft. the av8 sea harrier dose a fantastic job but lacks the fire power and punch of the dedicated aircraft such as the tomcat.the Flaklands war brought home how little fire power we have

richard oakley, cannock, staffordshire

Connect with Chuck Paugh. The British public are well aware that they are not a world power, it's the Government that's in denial. Crack on Uncle Sam. PS, no more loans thank you. The last one took us 60 years to pay off. Some interest rate that.

Mark, Plymouth,

"Toys for the Boys" - not so much defence as offence. It seems that regardless of how much is spent on making war noises, peace is a goal that the Military-Industrial complex can never allow. Look at the huge profits and bribes involved in securing contracts, all that happens is racking up the bills

Frank O'Brien, Harlow, Britain

It amazes me that it has taken a labour government to take so long to order these two new carriers! They'd just make sure they have enough Type 45 Destroyers to protect them after having prematurely decomissioned so many Type 22, 23 and 42 frigates and destroyers!

Iain , Cambridge, UK

If our new aircraft carriers are as bad as the MoD’s computer graphics then we should cancel them today

Brian Christley, Abergele, UK

what fuel does it run on?

Natural gas or nuclear?

Goldfinger, Gloucester, UK

A disgraceful waste of public money on a half baked scheme that we cannot afford. Are our politicians totally mad as well as totally stupid? The only part that I can see makes any sense is that they will be built in Scotland - more money for the defence minister and prime ministers clans!

Paul Edwards, Telford,

And the protection force/screen for the carrier will be 4 rowing boats and a second hand dingy!

Alan, Luton,

Ships like this have been obsolescent for decades, although the US goes on wasting money on them (like so many other useless luxuries). They are huge targets - and we can't afford escorts or proper aircraft for them either. Built in Brown's constituency: that's all we need to know about them.

Tom Welsh, Basingstoke,

How can you protect them again a SS-N-22 Sunburn? Anti-ship supersonic missile would tear these in half. There s no defence against it.

Iran, China and Russia have it. Mugabe still doesnt..

Raul, London, UK

I would not object to the government spending on these vessel's if it put a stop to the waste on royal visits /trips etc - ie the 200k plus wasted on the heir to the throne's visit to the carribean recently and his sons expensive heli flights. Let them dip into their own pockets a bit more .
PG

PG, Ammanford, S/wales - UK

What's the point of showing we have the gear if this Country does not have the backing of the public for strikes. C'mon last year, some iranians took the RN saliors hostage, and we beg them. It was a disgrace, the yanks would have carpet bombed teheran, and 2nd they would not have never surrender.

Irwin, London,

We can not deal with Muagabe, what's the point of spending £16bn squids in military gears (in reality we all know the contractors will rip off with delays, so lets say £25bn-£35bn), this country is renowed for failures. I hope they had a penalty close for delays

Irwin, London,

"The French did and they have decided that rather than have two carriers, they should focus more on acquiring landing rights in the Indian Ocean." WHAT? Well, the French can land all they
want in the Indian Ocean but they may finding take-offs and
landings a little rough as well as staying afloat

John, Placentia, Republic of California

This is just about prestige, and might succeed in making people feel powerful but a complete waste of money for a country whose political leadership in foreign affairs is supine and weak. Why have the means to project power if you are unwilling to use it when necessary , as in Zimbabwe

Brian Eastwood, Petersburg VA, USA

People always complain about spending money when they feel safe and can't percieve any threats. Every time that we think that the threats to us no longer exist (ie the cold war) we cut back on defence . These cariers are our insurance policy for the future to ensure that we remain free Great Britain

Paul Ingham, Rugby, England

Building ships like these is how a nation projects hard power. The British people are putting their money where their mouth is, and well done for it!

Rob Anderson, London, United Kingdom

No mention of the French connection in the production of these aircraft carriers. Maybe that information does not fit well with the PR effort by the government to make itself look like the saviour of our industry. Britain: The biggest global exporter of weapons..meanwhile in Germany and Japan?

richard bond, London, England

Absolutely necessary for Britain, and a welcome investment. As a trading, island nation it is essential that we can protect our interests at sea. In the long run, perhaps we can start cracking down on piracy again.

It's about time that the Royal Navy was given the equipment it needs.

Stuart, Leicester,

The UK no longer owns enough territories or land to justify the expense of building such an enormous vessel. The UK needs to stop playing mercenary to the world and concentrate on taking care of problems at home. It is time that the UK faced the truth that it is no longer a world power.

Chuck Paugh, Portland, Oregon, USA

This out of date posturing on the world stage fools no one. Recent events have shown clearly that Britain can project its power around the world only by hanging onto America's shirt tails. The British people have demonstrated clearly that they don't want that. Our politicians are out of touch.

Neil, Gloucestershire, England

Go look up the term 'peace dividend' on wikipedia. Cold War ends, Europe cripples it's defence spending. Now when intervention is needed, our EU allies free-ride on the US military (as in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan). We in the UK can still act in defence of our own interests, eps. with the carriers.

Steve, Norwich, Norfolk

Yet another project that will gives those at the treasury a heart attack when it runs over budget. And they will need a heart bypass when the cost of running these two vessels comes across there desk.

Clive, Dartford, Kent

Is it simply that the armed forces have replaced the diplomatic corps as 'outdoor releif for the aristocracy'? Wouldn't want posh boys commanding kayaks.

Eric Skelton, Cardiff, Wales

Capital ships have never ever been a waste of money for the Royal Navy. Read your history books!
Chris

Chris, London,

Our position in the world DOES require the carriers, we are the 4th largest economy, (not 5th since the Chinese were hit badly by this downturn) and we have the second most expensive armed forces, add to this our island position id say that these ships are ideal not to mention a source of pride.

Tom, Epsom, UK

There may be alot of people that disagree with this but I think it is nessesary. The UK is an island nation and if we cannot 'Rule the waves' around us where would we be?

Jonathan Davies, Welshpool, Wales

I think its time for our country to take a step back and let some of the other wealthy countries take a greater share of world peace and politics. however just who would be able and willing is a major question, how would we feel if the EU was deciding foreign policy and providing the military backup

andy cameron, Falkirk, Scotland

I must agree, the country is falling to bits, everything is either so congested or doesn't work properly. What could be done with this money!!! There again 2 flash warships or another raft of snivel servants making life hard. Perhaps the warships are the best choice of 2 evils.

Mike, Cambridge, UK

It is about time the RN displayed some of its military power. Projecting, protecting and serving the free world. Those complaining of cost are living in the little britain mindset.

Pete, Sweden,

All this, whilst they are going to remove frigate maintenance from Devonport and replace it with "amphibious assault ship maintenance. Now thats what i call a real "fair swop" Lets look with interest as too how many of the vital support ships will be scrapped to make way for the 2 "uber carriers". ?

Ian Woolger, Budleigh Salterton, uk

Presumably such shipbuilding orders would not be going to Scotland in the event that the desires of the SNP come to fruition. Or hasn`t it dawned on them yet! I don`t see a few home ordered inshore fisheries/patrol boats keeping the yards going for long. They`ll be all indignant noise and no stick.

Jim, Herts,

There should be better ways to spend 16billion quid but I doubt if, by the time the money is spent , there will be nothing but universal sweetness and light. Regrettably we cannot or perhaps will not trust our neighbours to the extent that we
will forego the security of a massive retaliatory

Wilson Wylie, Strathalbyn, South Australia

Brittania rules the waves and all that.

Wake up Navy!

Vulnerable to a £500K missile.

These are the wrong weapons systems for today's demands and by the time they are in commission they will be twice the price.

Tha admirals must be very happy - but what about the squaddies?

R Bingham, Lauzun, France

What tomfoolery!!
The desiccated old Sea-Lords are living in rheumy martial dreams from the blood-thirsty pre-world war 1 era, when the construction of massive 'Dreadnought' battleships nearly destroyed the British economy - all in the name of military dominance and naval glory.
What vanity!!

Neil Souter, Lille, France

Why do we need these? Does Ireland suffer by not having them, or Germany, Spain,Brazil,etc. It is time UK politicians became realistic about our position in the world. Spend the money on transport or healthcare or just let us spend our own money!

chris clarke, chappaqua, USA

The Royal Navy have 3 aircraft carriers Invincible, llustrious and Ark Royal. One of them is usually in being maintained. None of them were designed to carry fixed wing aircraft. They were designed as helicopter carriers and had to be fitted with the ramps for fixed wing aircraft.

Chris, Crewe, UK

The current fleet will, I'm sure be sufficient to protect them. Anti-missile systems like goalkeeper change the way they need to be protected, and these days most threats don't have a standing navy, everyone who does were reasonably friendly with or wouldn't pick a fight with.

Chris, Crewe, UK

Small point. These ships will take many years to build. Much of the work will be in Govan and Rosyth. I assume that if Scotland gets total independence construction can, and will be, completed in the "United Kingdom", after all no major sea-going nation gets its capital ships built abroad

John Wilson, Portsmouth, UK

We might as well take advantage of Gordon Broone' Lisbon treaty, France and Germany want a Europe defence, so let them pay for them!, whilst we keep our hands in our pockets, and stop being the worlds police.
Because everybody sits back and lets us.
Instead employ people, on energy constructions.

Pauline, clacton, UK

Why do we need to spend so much on big equipment like this. It costs a lot, and is useful in battle, but why buy a big one when a small one will do the same thing? Probably a EU thing, but do we need to spend so much on the Army when we're allies with the US and EU? are we not safe?

Sunny Patel, Coventry,

I do find it funny how many people bleat on about 2 new carriers v the NHS. The NHS already bleeds the UK tax payer of £110 BILLION per year. That is 3 times the entire Defence budget. How much more money do you want to throw at the Sacred Cow that is the NHS? Save Tax, Privatise the NHS. NOW!

El Gordo, London, UK

They are more expensive to buy and operate than the larger more capable Nimitz class carriers. We won''t be able to afford the oil to send them to sea. We should have bought US design Nimitz nuclear's. Same money 40K tonnes bigger and carry lots more aircraft. The only benfit is in Labour marginals

Ethan, nr Dole Farm, UK

I will say however that this is an 8 year project at a total cost of £4 Billion. That equals 500 million per year. To put that in perspective that is the same amount we just GAVE the Pakistan government free of charge. I dont think people should preach about what they dont understand.

ben, london, uk

I was recently in the USA and visited a Task Force before it sailed for the Gulf. Two nuclear submaries , cruisers for air defence , and 4 destroyers for close quarter defence sailed with the carrier. In addition there were logistic ships. The Navy is too small to operate these vessels.

alistair stewart, aberdeen, scotland

This announcement coincides with the writ for the Glasgow East by-election. Much of the work, if it happens, will be done on the Clyde so is this just one more piece of Gordon Brown cynisism.

A.Williams, Cradley Heath,

They spend more on defense or a couple of ships than they do one the annual drugs budget for the NHS!

I'm honestly disgusted with the governed running my country!

How can we spend more on a bomb than healthcare! Get a grip of yourself!

I'm boiling about this me, REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Andrew, Newcastle, England, UK

They cost roughly the price of two Crewe and Nantwich by-elections.

Sean, Surrey, UK

A reporter explained how these ships would render every country on earth vulnerable to attack.
Blair justifed the invasion of Irag on grounds that the country represented a direct military threat to the UK. Does this mean that we now rely on the heads of other states to reject his flawed logic?

Robert, KINGSTON Upon Hull, UK

And before they can set sail they'll need destroyers, frigates and minesweepers to defend them.

Stephen, St. Ives, England

It is about time! This was studied to death. Historically a great sea faring Nation, I believe the UK is doing the right thing!

Bob Bush, Summerfield, FL, USA

how is it we spend 3x more money on the nhs than we do on the armed forces?
the majority of people in britain could get themselves medical care in the event that they need it, if however russia or china or both kick off there wouldnt be alot we could do without a properly funded armed forces.

will, grimsby, uk

The carriers seem like a straight forward purchase to me. When the US is the only nation having the power to project force, missions such as Darfur only get addressed if the US steps in. These carriers change that.

James R, Far Hills, USA

Admiral Band said that a navy was defined by its “big-ticket” items such as carriers, amphibious vessels and submarines, “not by minesweepers”.

Utter rubbish, I hope he remembers that after one of his "big ticket" items hits a mine or is disabled trying to inspect a suspect vessel.

J, London, UK

Joint Strike (F-35b) Fighters ARE NOT DELAYED...

The UK govt has been stalling on committing- in a contract- 'how many' will be purchased...

F-35 production start is scheduled for 2012...

The RN's carriers '05-'08 have no Harriers: due to cut-backs.

How would this change in 2016??

Roderick Louis, Vancouver, Canada

I find it funny these ships would cost up to 4 billion, yet 72 JSF aircraft, will cost 12 billion? You have state of the art hardware on 2 which weighs 65,000 tons each and then you have 72 aircraft which probably have less technology in them. I was thinking there would be more tech in the carrier.

Jonathan Jones, London, UK

do we really need these? they'll be outmoded obsolete behaemoths once built, we could easily use the money and deal with real defence by building proper relationships with the rest of the world instead of being a propaganda puppet for the United States and destroying our relationship with Europe.

Nick Scales, Farnham, disunited Kingdom

Is this the same glorious navy that recently ran up the white flag to a bunch of thugs in a speedboat? The same navy that has brave sailors that burst into tears when they have their i-pod taken away and they are told they look like Mr Bean?
The same navy that has sailors that confess on Iranian TV

Terry Jacklin, Dondas, France

We could eaily afford to buy dozens of carriers and equip our troops adequately at the same time if only the bottomless pit of welfare and benefits could be sealed off.

william davies, London,

Mega carrier could be protected only by Italian navy, they have too many ships and even more admirals
Problem is, when the shooting starts Italians will not like it and Rome will decide not to engage enemy - as they do already in Afghanistan

savo, london, uk

Yesterday they were saying how the NHS may not be fit for the future as we wont be able to afford the new and existing cancer drugs as well as new hi tech equipment!

YET they are willing to pay "what ever it costs" to the private millitary industrial complex to develop weapons!

War Pays!!!!

Andrew Towell, Hartlepool, England, UK

Great news for the R.N. However I sincerely hope this does not mean economies on other procurement programmes. My 22 year naval career was littered with 'cost reviews' i.e cuts which generally impacted on normal service operations and more importantly service men and womens conditions of service.

John, Minehead,

Very strange to build now super-size carrier - one hit from rogue state can finish it off.
By the time it enters the service it will be obsolete.

savo, london, uk

Did we agree to this to keep the EU happy by any chance? I noticed that a couple of weeks back, the EU crowd said that one of the new carriers should be permanently assigned to the EU force. Is this the price of membership? For EU to be independant of USA, it would need Nimitz style capability.

W Smith, Manchester,

Fantastic news for the Armed Forces, shipbuilding industry and Britains role in the world, we have been punching below our weight for too long. The forces budget should be massively increased anyway along with its manpower.

kirk, Rotherham, UK

Now we need to build some aircraft to put on them!

Pete, St Albans, England

Oh, & we will need to build an escort fleet to protect them. If we are not careful we will be endanger of creating a navy.
All joking aside, best of luck for the projects & good to see some serious spending on the military.

Pete, St Albans, England

I say again, what about the ships needed to protect these ships?
USS Ronnie Reagan gets 1 x guided missile cruiser, 3 x guided missile destroyers, 1 x guided missile frigate, 1 x Combat support ship.
The Iranians have Sunburn missiles. Can we protect our guys from these incredible weapons?

Phill, The Wirral, England

'Project Britains global interests'= dodgy financial interests in various failed states around the world. Perhaps if we stopped doing that we wouldn't being give people justfications for attacking us. Also how will an aircraft carrier help fight our greatest enemy global warming? Scrap it.

Ben, London, United Kingdom

So instead of having 9 x 20,000 aircraft carriers, we are going to have 3 x 65,000 carriers - and this will help project military power?!
Simple maths: with 9 carriers, military power can be in 9 places on the planet, including any natural disasters. With 3 carriers, only 3 places.

Hugo van Randwyck, London, UK

£3.9 billion plus a further £12 billion for aircraft; £15.9 billion. And since programmes like this NEVER come inside budget, the real cost will be at least £25, maybe £30 billion. Meanwhile public services continue to fall apart and we're all paying too much tax.

John Davies, Newport, Wales

When the history of the Brown goverment is written down, ordering these carriers will probably be the only good thing to come out of it.

Frederick Davies, Oxford, UK