What price a Carrier?
Lupus Domesticus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What price a Carrier?
I've been out of circulation for a couple of weeks so I don't know whether this subject has been raised or not - maybe it's old news already...
Previous Item | Contents | Next Item
Britain may lose 10 warships to pay for new aircraft carriers: report
LONDON, Oct 8 (AFP) - 00:29 GMT - Britain's Royal Navy is facing the loss of up to 10 warships to pay for two new aircraft carriers, the Daily Telegraph reported Tuesday.
The right-wing daily said that the finance ministry has insisted on axing up to six of the navy's 32 frigates and destroyers, and four minehunters, to cover the 13 billion pound (20 billion dollar, 21 billion euro) cost of the new carriers and their 150 joint strike fighter aircraft.
The paper quoted a leaked memorandum for Commodore Tim Laurence, the Ministry of Defence's director of navy resources and programmes, suggesting each cut should be announced separately to minimise the impact.
According to the memo, "disposal is still likely to be a difficult issue presentationally, both within the department and externally, as it involves a reduction in DD/FF (destroyer/frigate) numbers," The Telegraph reported.
A defence ministry spokeswoman said: "A review of capabilities against operational effectiveness and value for money is ongoing across all three services."
Top of the page Previous Item | Contents | Next Item
© 2002 AFP. All information displayed on this section (dispatches, photographs, logos) are protected by intellectual property rights owned by Agence France-Presse. As a consequence, you may not copy, reproduce, modify, transmit, publish, display or in any way commercially exploit any of the content of this section without the prior written consent of Agence France-Presse.
More of the same available on www.defense-aerospace.com
Previous Item | Contents | Next Item
Britain may lose 10 warships to pay for new aircraft carriers: report
LONDON, Oct 8 (AFP) - 00:29 GMT - Britain's Royal Navy is facing the loss of up to 10 warships to pay for two new aircraft carriers, the Daily Telegraph reported Tuesday.
The right-wing daily said that the finance ministry has insisted on axing up to six of the navy's 32 frigates and destroyers, and four minehunters, to cover the 13 billion pound (20 billion dollar, 21 billion euro) cost of the new carriers and their 150 joint strike fighter aircraft.
The paper quoted a leaked memorandum for Commodore Tim Laurence, the Ministry of Defence's director of navy resources and programmes, suggesting each cut should be announced separately to minimise the impact.
According to the memo, "disposal is still likely to be a difficult issue presentationally, both within the department and externally, as it involves a reduction in DD/FF (destroyer/frigate) numbers," The Telegraph reported.
A defence ministry spokeswoman said: "A review of capabilities against operational effectiveness and value for money is ongoing across all three services."
Top of the page Previous Item | Contents | Next Item
© 2002 AFP. All information displayed on this section (dispatches, photographs, logos) are protected by intellectual property rights owned by Agence France-Presse. As a consequence, you may not copy, reproduce, modify, transmit, publish, display or in any way commercially exploit any of the content of this section without the prior written consent of Agence France-Presse.
More of the same available on www.defense-aerospace.com
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the UK is going to get involved in opperations world wide then it needs organic air cover for the fleet , when the last of the "real " aircraft carriers was withdrawn (in the late 70,s ?) the RAF stated that they could supply the air cover to the fleet over most of the globe , its a bit unfortunate that the wars all seem to happen in bits of the globe that the RAF cant reach.
The ships that will be withdrawn are mostly from the over large anti sub warfare fleet that was nessesary during the cold war.
I see it as a major step forward putting the fleet air cover back in the hands of the navy , at the moment the policy is to fit the ship for but not with "cats and traps" but this desision has all the haulmarks of the "through deck cruiser" helicopter carrier that the navy got insted of the replacment aircraft carriers , fortunatly for the falkland islands someone in the admralty had the bright idea of putting the Harrier on the "through deck cruiser".
I predict that it wont be long before the ships are fitted with the "cats and traps" and the fleet gets its real air power back all be it 40 years late.
The ships that will be withdrawn are mostly from the over large anti sub warfare fleet that was nessesary during the cold war.
I see it as a major step forward putting the fleet air cover back in the hands of the navy , at the moment the policy is to fit the ship for but not with "cats and traps" but this desision has all the haulmarks of the "through deck cruiser" helicopter carrier that the navy got insted of the replacment aircraft carriers , fortunatly for the falkland islands someone in the admralty had the bright idea of putting the Harrier on the "through deck cruiser".
I predict that it wont be long before the ships are fitted with the "cats and traps" and the fleet gets its real air power back all be it 40 years late.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article appeared in the DT - probably the worst defence corresponding i have seen, with the exception of the Sunday Express guy who bases all his stories on what is posted here.
The DT is a conservative newspaper, this week is the Tory party conference, last weeks announcement was one of the key ones of the labour party conference - does anyone else see a trend emerging here?
If true we should worry - its a 15% cut to the surface fleet that we are talking about.
The DT is a conservative newspaper, this week is the Tory party conference, last weeks announcement was one of the key ones of the labour party conference - does anyone else see a trend emerging here?
If true we should worry - its a 15% cut to the surface fleet that we are talking about.
Mothball fleet?
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Floatin' on th' Black Pig, Yarr!
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are several mothballed ships in Portsmouth at the moment, and, looking at half the rest of the ships in the harbour you would only agree to a posting onto the crew if you are not scared of spiders.
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the DT article, HMS Sheffield, a Type 42 will most likely be sold to Chile, HMS Nottingham, damaged on a cross-country run, will be scrapped and Romania is considering buying two Type 22s.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
This was the known price of the carrier force when the decision was made several years ago. There is no surprise here.
If you look back you will find a couple of threads where this was discussed at the time. The major argument being made against the carriers was not their effectiveness, but the effect it would have on the rest of the RN. The present balanced fleet with frigates available for use to multiple remote locations being transformed as many are scrapped/sold off to fund the carriers and others having to be committed to carrier defence.
Now that this is starting to hit home I can foresee mounting alarm and opposition. Now that so much political capital has been sunk in the carrier force a cut back or cancellation is not an option. The only three viable alternatives are to find addition funds from the treasury, highly unlikely in the present climate, to reduce the size of the planned JSF force, or to re-allocate some of the costs elsewhere. A campaign to this effect has already started.
It has been apparent for some time that the present planned purchases of the JSF (150) and Typhoon (232) are incompatible, the total numbers exceeding the present requirement. The number of aircraft needed to replace the GR7/9 force is around 70-90 whilst development funds for system improvements for Typhoon tranches 2 and 3 are proving difficult to find - particularly for the Italians - and the choice of which aircraft is chosen for the manned element of FOAS remains to be made.
The case is already being made to substantially reduce the Typhoon order, or rather not to make the additional planned orders, and divert the funds to towards JSF. One proposal, being to replace the GR4 in the deep strike role with either some of the present JSF STOVL buy or, more likely, adopt a mixed fleet approach and convert a proportion of the order to the longer range USAF CTOL version. This case is made in this weeks AW & ST quoting "Senior Defence Ministry officials"
The funds, logically, could then be provided out of the RAF budget. The total JSF bill being around 10 billion. Based on the JSF replacing the RAF Harrier Sqns, you could make a case for the RAF paying at least half the cost of the first 75 and then for all the remaining 75 to replace the GR4 - a total of around 7.5 billion.
Which side of the argument BAe would support would depend on which aircraft they see, in the long term, as proving more profitable.
A decision does not, apparently, have to be made until 2005/6. I await future developments with interest.
If you look back you will find a couple of threads where this was discussed at the time. The major argument being made against the carriers was not their effectiveness, but the effect it would have on the rest of the RN. The present balanced fleet with frigates available for use to multiple remote locations being transformed as many are scrapped/sold off to fund the carriers and others having to be committed to carrier defence.
Now that this is starting to hit home I can foresee mounting alarm and opposition. Now that so much political capital has been sunk in the carrier force a cut back or cancellation is not an option. The only three viable alternatives are to find addition funds from the treasury, highly unlikely in the present climate, to reduce the size of the planned JSF force, or to re-allocate some of the costs elsewhere. A campaign to this effect has already started.
It has been apparent for some time that the present planned purchases of the JSF (150) and Typhoon (232) are incompatible, the total numbers exceeding the present requirement. The number of aircraft needed to replace the GR7/9 force is around 70-90 whilst development funds for system improvements for Typhoon tranches 2 and 3 are proving difficult to find - particularly for the Italians - and the choice of which aircraft is chosen for the manned element of FOAS remains to be made.
The case is already being made to substantially reduce the Typhoon order, or rather not to make the additional planned orders, and divert the funds to towards JSF. One proposal, being to replace the GR4 in the deep strike role with either some of the present JSF STOVL buy or, more likely, adopt a mixed fleet approach and convert a proportion of the order to the longer range USAF CTOL version. This case is made in this weeks AW & ST quoting "Senior Defence Ministry officials"
The funds, logically, could then be provided out of the RAF budget. The total JSF bill being around 10 billion. Based on the JSF replacing the RAF Harrier Sqns, you could make a case for the RAF paying at least half the cost of the first 75 and then for all the remaining 75 to replace the GR4 - a total of around 7.5 billion.
Which side of the argument BAe would support would depend on which aircraft they see, in the long term, as proving more profitable.
A decision does not, apparently, have to be made until 2005/6. I await future developments with interest.
Last edited by ORAC; 8th Oct 2002 at 23:24.
We downsized our 600 ship Navy during the Clinton years....maybe we can lendlease you a hundred of them....double the number due inflation since the last great war.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: **VN
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Small Point of order...HMS Sheffield is a Type 22 Batch 2 built in 1987, the Sheffield Type 42 was the one sunk in the Falklands War. She is the last Broadsword Class in service without a gun.
Will some of those reduced destroyers numbers be the new Type 45s, which should be looking after the carriers?
One more point on the carrier front. Will the new JSF air wings have their own AAR or will they be dependant on land based tankers, like the USN is increasingly finding itself when on real ops. The Ark had Bucc buddy tankers and the Yanks had some serious onboard AAR during Vietnam (KA-3 and KA-6). Since the last KA-6 left the US fleet they have had a problem launching those big Alpha strikes without land based tanker support. With the RAF still umming and ahhing about the VC10 tanker replacement those new floating gin palaces had better be shallow draft so they can get as close to their targets as possible.
Will some of those reduced destroyers numbers be the new Type 45s, which should be looking after the carriers?
One more point on the carrier front. Will the new JSF air wings have their own AAR or will they be dependant on land based tankers, like the USN is increasingly finding itself when on real ops. The Ark had Bucc buddy tankers and the Yanks had some serious onboard AAR during Vietnam (KA-3 and KA-6). Since the last KA-6 left the US fleet they have had a problem launching those big Alpha strikes without land based tanker support. With the RAF still umming and ahhing about the VC10 tanker replacement those new floating gin palaces had better be shallow draft so they can get as close to their targets as possible.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: **VN
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, the S-3 does carry a buddy pop, but according to my sources its a lot less capable then the previous types, which had dedicated centreline hoses.
Just struck me, with no cats 'n' traps these carriers wont be able to launce an E-2 class AEW. Let's see, no AAR, no (realistic) AEW, might as well paint 'em blue and call one Britannia.
Can't wait for the fly-on-the-wall series "Sailor II", though. Should be hitting the screens in summer 2016.
Just struck me, with no cats 'n' traps these carriers wont be able to launce an E-2 class AEW. Let's see, no AAR, no (realistic) AEW, might as well paint 'em blue and call one Britannia.
Can't wait for the fly-on-the-wall series "Sailor II", though. Should be hitting the screens in summer 2016.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps,
While the USN CVN's do still have their own organic tanker capability in the form of S-3B's, these assets are fairly limited in their ability to support carrier ops. Right now in ops over Afghanistan, the S-3 tankers play a VERY limited role and the carrier boys (US and French) are totally reliant on land based AAR to do a credible job. The Viking's are mainly employed as a 'safety blanket' for stuff recovering to the boat.
From my experience of recent ops in BH, Kosovo and Afghanistan, land based AAR is still the prefrred choice of the USN (even when they still had KA-6D's and ES-3A's to help out the AAR flow).
Once the S-3 is retired later this decade, I understand that the FA-18E/F will take the organic AAR role for the Spam flat tops. Bet the Hornet boys will love that!!!! Bring back the A-3!!!!
Similarly, the USN and French E-2C's are very much sidelined in Afghanistan ops due to lack of endurance and sensor limitations, but then maybe I'm a little biased!
Regards
M2
While the USN CVN's do still have their own organic tanker capability in the form of S-3B's, these assets are fairly limited in their ability to support carrier ops. Right now in ops over Afghanistan, the S-3 tankers play a VERY limited role and the carrier boys (US and French) are totally reliant on land based AAR to do a credible job. The Viking's are mainly employed as a 'safety blanket' for stuff recovering to the boat.
From my experience of recent ops in BH, Kosovo and Afghanistan, land based AAR is still the prefrred choice of the USN (even when they still had KA-6D's and ES-3A's to help out the AAR flow).
Once the S-3 is retired later this decade, I understand that the FA-18E/F will take the organic AAR role for the Spam flat tops. Bet the Hornet boys will love that!!!! Bring back the A-3!!!!
Similarly, the USN and French E-2C's are very much sidelined in Afghanistan ops due to lack of endurance and sensor limitations, but then maybe I'm a little biased!
Regards
M2
Getting back to the original topic.....
Is there an election coming up? I seem to remember that before last year's election the Telegraph was reporting that the Government was planning to bin the CVF and JSF. This (hopefully) is just scaremongering. Personally I think the coverage of defence issues in the mainstream media has been hit and miss - having said that, they sometimes get it right, for example, earlier this year there were very good articles in the Telegraph about the implications of the premature axing of the Sea Harrier.
The SDR stated that a minimun of 32 frigates and destroyers are needed. Personally I consider that a low number, bearing in mind we sent 23 of them to the Falklands in '82. Anyway, I am concerned that it just might be possible. After all, the SDR seems to have been discarded (reduction of Tornado F3 sqaudrons for five to four, premature demise of the SHAR, reduction in Nimrod MRA4 numbers, etc etc.)
A good number of frigates and destroyers are vital for a balanced fleet. In addition to supporting carrier or amphibious ship based task groups, frigates and destroyers are capable in their own right, for ASW, AAW, anti ship strike (using Harpoon), providing NGS, supporting SF operations and, to a limited extent C3.
Additionally, frigates and destroyers perform many "single unit" roles, the anti drugs operations of Atlantic Patrol Task - North in the Carribean are one example. Atlantic Patrol Task - South is another. So is the Armilla patrol. And it is sometimes forgotten that warships act as intelligence assests. Whilst it is true that a Type 23 frigate is better armed and more capable than, say, a Type 21 frigate twenty years ago, a ship can only be in one place at a time. Therefore if you have less, you can deploy to less places.
On a slight tangent (from Annova)...
MoD hoping to strike gold with salvage deal
A deal has been struck between the Ministry of Defence and a US salvage company to search for a treasure trove of gold coins worth up to £2.8 billion in a sunken British warship.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_685202.html
But will this money go to the MOD, or the Treasury coffers? And if it goes to the MOD, will the Navy get a fair share? (Useful for keeping certain key capabilities going....)
Is there an election coming up? I seem to remember that before last year's election the Telegraph was reporting that the Government was planning to bin the CVF and JSF. This (hopefully) is just scaremongering. Personally I think the coverage of defence issues in the mainstream media has been hit and miss - having said that, they sometimes get it right, for example, earlier this year there were very good articles in the Telegraph about the implications of the premature axing of the Sea Harrier.
The SDR stated that a minimun of 32 frigates and destroyers are needed. Personally I consider that a low number, bearing in mind we sent 23 of them to the Falklands in '82. Anyway, I am concerned that it just might be possible. After all, the SDR seems to have been discarded (reduction of Tornado F3 sqaudrons for five to four, premature demise of the SHAR, reduction in Nimrod MRA4 numbers, etc etc.)
A good number of frigates and destroyers are vital for a balanced fleet. In addition to supporting carrier or amphibious ship based task groups, frigates and destroyers are capable in their own right, for ASW, AAW, anti ship strike (using Harpoon), providing NGS, supporting SF operations and, to a limited extent C3.
Additionally, frigates and destroyers perform many "single unit" roles, the anti drugs operations of Atlantic Patrol Task - North in the Carribean are one example. Atlantic Patrol Task - South is another. So is the Armilla patrol. And it is sometimes forgotten that warships act as intelligence assests. Whilst it is true that a Type 23 frigate is better armed and more capable than, say, a Type 21 frigate twenty years ago, a ship can only be in one place at a time. Therefore if you have less, you can deploy to less places.
On a slight tangent (from Annova)...
MoD hoping to strike gold with salvage deal
A deal has been struck between the Ministry of Defence and a US salvage company to search for a treasure trove of gold coins worth up to £2.8 billion in a sunken British warship.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_685202.html
But will this money go to the MOD, or the Treasury coffers? And if it goes to the MOD, will the Navy get a fair share? (Useful for keeping certain key capabilities going....)
