Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Prime Minister suggests the Navy to get one carrier
Whilst watching BBC Scotland tonight, I saw the PM talking about the closure of shipyards on the Clyde. Now it may just have been a slip of the tongue but
he said " jobs in the ship building yards on the Clyde are secure until "THE" carrier is completed"
Well it wouldn't surprise me, but you would think they really ought to break the news if it has been decided. The problem for politicians is that regardless of how much they scheme and lie they will always let there guard down at some point and invariably in a normal low key conversation will let something slip. Come on Mr B deny it.
The carriers are being built in modular sections, with bows, stern, and other compartments allocated across the yards according to their facilities and expertise. No single yard will actually "build" a carrier. The sections are then to be joined together at Rosyth.
i've often wondered since reading about LIBERTY ships during ww2,
what tolerances are the modules built to?
given the recent swings in temp from winter to summer, how is expansion and contraction of the (huge amounts) of metal factored into the build?
UK is an Island Nation - Chinese building up a significant Navy - Russia on brink of financial collapse but very active on the military front = NOT getting 2 Carriers and the JCA for them - STRATEGIC FOLLY! Wake up Brown et al. Shake the Army from their smug 'one war' focus and get them to look above the trench lips and smell the vodka and Crispy Duck that are about to waft over!!
Grimweasel, the army don't want to do what you say. They and the rest of us are being forced to concentrate on the war we're fighting because there's no money nor people left to think about the next. What's wrong with crispy duck anyway?
Seeing as the FAA are desperate to remain in existance, despite being unable to man up 2 FJ Sqns, and the RAF have no desire to operate off a boat, maybe one carrier for one RN Sqn is an acceptable compromise. The Navy get to retain the FAA but spend more time on the boat (which is entitely fair, because they are the Navy). The RAF get to operate from land. Result!
I keep asking this question with no response - but shouldn't these major strategic defence decisions be made as a result of of Strategic Defence Review?
Why are we not having a Strategic Defence Review here and now to ascertain exactly where H M Govt want its military (and nation) to be in the future?
I do not care what the ultimate decision is and can see the arguments for only 1 carrier as equally as I can for Typhoon, Trident, A400M and the raft of other projects that are approaching their project pinch point.
But I really hope that whatever decision is made is as a result of a strategic long term view of the country's requirements and not as a panic fire sale.
If we are to end up as a British Defence Force, no longer in the UN Security Council and following an isolationist Foreign policy then so be it - but those that make these decisions must be accountable and responsible and do so in the full knowledge of what they are doing.
History has sadly got some very severe lessons in nations that reduce its investment in its military due to the financial pressures of a recession.
One carrier is as much use as a chocolate fireguard. The whole idea of having 3 of the Invincible class was to be able to have one on patrol, one in work up etc to take over and one alongside for refit etc.
2 Carriers is pushing it but is do-able, if you were to go to one carrier you might as well save the money and not bother with any.
Building and operating one of anything is always expensive. We knew that with the BRISTOL and, if we're honest, knowing it again with OCEAN.
OCEAN is a singleton and, like any other warship she needs significant Upkeep Periods. Inevitably, there are Fleet Fleet Time Support Periods. During those Periods, amphibious assault with insertion and support by air is very limited. As we have the CVSs and the LPDs, it isn't catastrophic and we get away with having just one LPH.
Transpose that to a Carrier. Well, actually, you can't. Only a Carrier can do what a Carrier does.
Last edited by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU : 5th July 2009 at 11:17.
Reason: Can't Type
Onlywatching, I disagree with your statement: 'One is still better than none, which is a quite possible alternative at the moment!'
One carrier is worse than none. It gives the impression of having a capability (to politicians and the public) without any guarantee that the capability could actually be delivered when needed. The expense of building and supporting it in service would strip resources from many more useful and versatile capabilties.
I also thought important policy statements were ment to be made in the House of commons.
It wouldn't surprise me if this is the case. Anyway there will be 2 carriers in the New Navy one will be the Queen Elizabeth the other the Charles De Gaulle so the European Navy will have 2 carriers.
And even if we get a strageic defence review it will be fudged in such a way that it will be treasury driven not defence/foreign office driven.
Bunker, we will still have some capability whilst that ship is in Fleet Time, it will just make a headache for the Planners based on single hull availability and no back up.
With only 2 hulls we were already taking risk on concurrency and availability, even more so if one would have to be re-roled to LPH to fill in for OCEAN.
Personally I think you're reading the tea leaves. You've got GB, the man who's lost the plot so much that he was talking about 0% rises in spending, who uttered one sentence that is open to interpretation or, as the first poster said, could have been a stumble.
I know everyone's waiting for the knives to fall, but this is sheer speculation.
Linear Mode
