Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is far deeper and wider than the CVF arguments.
By means of a very clever Trojan Horse move, Labour (of any vintage) has helped the Forces to paint themselves into a corner. Stretch them to breaking point, deny them the funds to maintain and sustain themselves, set them against each other in competing for “their” share of what may or may not be available and harvest the counter arguments. Add the counter arguments together, provided by the Chiefs of Staff, and cut the Forces on expert and informed advice. In pursuit of that, take further advice from an “independent think tank“, now in the form of the Institute for Public Policy Research.
So how independent is the IPPR? I can’t better the New Statesman fn its assessment; http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2009/04/ippr-research-labour-social
Bearing in mind the credentials of the New Statesman, the IPPR must qualify as far left if the NS think it leans to the left.
Now look at the contributors to the IPPR report;
the Lord G Robertson. Left wing, uncommitted to nuclear weapons and very pro EU (albeit not for unified Forces)
the Lord P Ashdown. Leftish Liberal, uncommitted to nuclear weapons, not averse to a Federal Europe, not averse to becoming a “second rate power” and an accomplished former Marine (landcentric?) with enough experience of violence to, perhaps, prefer to avoid it.
the Lord C Guthrie. Patron of the UK National Defence Association, supported A Blare’s intervention in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, critical of G Brown’s reluctance to spend funds on Defence, uncommitted to SSBNs, and a very “landcentric” thinker.
Sir J Greenstock. Uncommitted to nuclear weapons, committed expert on conflicts between minor Nations and a professional Public Servant who’s true beliefs could be almost anything.
I would imagine that Labour will dispute these findings but will, behind the scenes, be happy to “reluctantly” accept the recommendations. The only sticking point for the Government will be job losses. To use a metaphor that I’ve used before, the waiters are slowly taking over the hotel.
As regards Obama writing us out of any Trident re-lifes; not unless he wants to totally renegotiate the Polaris Sales Agreement, as amended.
By means of a very clever Trojan Horse move, Labour (of any vintage) has helped the Forces to paint themselves into a corner. Stretch them to breaking point, deny them the funds to maintain and sustain themselves, set them against each other in competing for “their” share of what may or may not be available and harvest the counter arguments. Add the counter arguments together, provided by the Chiefs of Staff, and cut the Forces on expert and informed advice. In pursuit of that, take further advice from an “independent think tank“, now in the form of the Institute for Public Policy Research.
So how independent is the IPPR? I can’t better the New Statesman fn its assessment; http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2009/04/ippr-research-labour-social
A left-leaning think-tank focused on social justice and the environment. Formally independent but traditionally close to New Labour.
About New Statesman
FOUNDATION
The New Statesman was created in 1913 with the aim of permeating the educated and influential classes with socialist ideas. Its founders were Sidney and Beatrice Webb (later Lord and Lady Passfield), along with Bernard Shaw, and a small but influential group of Fabians. The Webbs' previous publication, The Crusade, had existed to gain support for the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, and for Beatrice Webb's National Committee for the Prevention of Destitution. However, it had died after less than two years, when it became obvious that no government would swallow the Minority Report whole, with all its socialist implications. The New Statesman was created to fill the gap.
FOUNDATION
The New Statesman was created in 1913 with the aim of permeating the educated and influential classes with socialist ideas. Its founders were Sidney and Beatrice Webb (later Lord and Lady Passfield), along with Bernard Shaw, and a small but influential group of Fabians. The Webbs' previous publication, The Crusade, had existed to gain support for the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, and for Beatrice Webb's National Committee for the Prevention of Destitution. However, it had died after less than two years, when it became obvious that no government would swallow the Minority Report whole, with all its socialist implications. The New Statesman was created to fill the gap.
the Lord G Robertson. Left wing, uncommitted to nuclear weapons and very pro EU (albeit not for unified Forces)
the Lord P Ashdown. Leftish Liberal, uncommitted to nuclear weapons, not averse to a Federal Europe, not averse to becoming a “second rate power” and an accomplished former Marine (landcentric?) with enough experience of violence to, perhaps, prefer to avoid it.
the Lord C Guthrie. Patron of the UK National Defence Association, supported A Blare’s intervention in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, critical of G Brown’s reluctance to spend funds on Defence, uncommitted to SSBNs, and a very “landcentric” thinker.
Sir J Greenstock. Uncommitted to nuclear weapons, committed expert on conflicts between minor Nations and a professional Public Servant who’s true beliefs could be almost anything.
I would imagine that Labour will dispute these findings but will, behind the scenes, be happy to “reluctantly” accept the recommendations. The only sticking point for the Government will be job losses. To use a metaphor that I’ve used before, the waiters are slowly taking over the hotel.
As regards Obama writing us out of any Trident re-lifes; not unless he wants to totally renegotiate the Polaris Sales Agreement, as amended.
Last edited by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU; 30th Jun 2009 at 11:28. Reason: Finger Trouble
Read the report today and it sounded like a manifesto for the Liberal Democrats.
The report contains some very wishful thinking and emphasis on some EU nirvana which will never be met. The Army's fingerprints can be seen all over it. Increase the size of land forces to 120,000 increase spending on homeland defence but get the money from the Defence Budget. How to do that? Well, scrap a whole load of Challenger II, scrap CVF, JCA, T45 and Astute, despite the document acknowledging the need to protect worldwide interests which would require a "Blue Water" Navy and the fact that T45 is replacing T42 which is 1960s technology on a par with Vulcan and Victors.
What is also mentioned, but not advertised widely in the "sea-blind" media, is the recommendations that Tornado goes (F and GR) and that UK Air Defence is heavily reduced (Watch out Scopies).
How will we balance these issues? by reliance on Europe, and by increasing our "security forces" (i.e. The Police and the widely talked about Home Defence force). It seems that the Army are winning the argument, with the support of the Police and other Liberal politicians and have successfully divided the RAF and RN (nice one Torps!)
The report contains some very wishful thinking and emphasis on some EU nirvana which will never be met. The Army's fingerprints can be seen all over it. Increase the size of land forces to 120,000 increase spending on homeland defence but get the money from the Defence Budget. How to do that? Well, scrap a whole load of Challenger II, scrap CVF, JCA, T45 and Astute, despite the document acknowledging the need to protect worldwide interests which would require a "Blue Water" Navy and the fact that T45 is replacing T42 which is 1960s technology on a par with Vulcan and Victors.
What is also mentioned, but not advertised widely in the "sea-blind" media, is the recommendations that Tornado goes (F and GR) and that UK Air Defence is heavily reduced (Watch out Scopies).
How will we balance these issues? by reliance on Europe, and by increasing our "security forces" (i.e. The Police and the widely talked about Home Defence force). It seems that the Army are winning the argument, with the support of the Police and other Liberal politicians and have successfully divided the RAF and RN (nice one Torps!)
Yes, I can see us returning to an "not east of Suez" policy. Pity about the Falklands and Afghanistan. Damned inconvenient.
Nurse,
Quote: With the AWACS future you propose would it be feasible/cost effective to fit Rivet Joint Kit onto a "Retired" AWACS airframe? Unquote.
Umm, I bet nothing is cost effective when you take into account the UKs ability to procure/ project manage many things on time, on quality & on cost! There's no budget for it. Probably cheaper to store the E3Ds & lease/ buy some second hand RJs. Procuring RJs is probably one of the programmes that will continue.
Technically there will also be massive (impossible to overcome problems) with mutual interference between the listening kit and the transmitting kit!
As aside, and I'm well out of the loop now, but if I was the RN I would be doing my damndest to work out how to deploy & recover UAVs from a CVS.
Nurse,
Quote: With the AWACS future you propose would it be feasible/cost effective to fit Rivet Joint Kit onto a "Retired" AWACS airframe? Unquote.
Umm, I bet nothing is cost effective when you take into account the UKs ability to procure/ project manage many things on time, on quality & on cost! There's no budget for it. Probably cheaper to store the E3Ds & lease/ buy some second hand RJs. Procuring RJs is probably one of the programmes that will continue.
Technically there will also be massive (impossible to overcome problems) with mutual interference between the listening kit and the transmitting kit!
As aside, and I'm well out of the loop now, but if I was the RN I would be doing my damndest to work out how to deploy & recover UAVs from a CVS.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger:- deep breath in deep breath out relax.....Its only a think tank not govt policy(Yet). I would sugest the current piracy problem has refocused a few minds seaward. I wonder How useful a large carrier would be out on the Horn of africa with lots of merlins aboard or a CVN with a few Sqns of S3B's and Ocean Hawks.
The overspend is alarming but the tone of the memo is that the company are trying to deal with it. But I do wonder how much of it has been created by the slowing of the project to marry up with the JSF. Budgets are way to tight and that has been caused by the annual reductions in real budgets. As a first of class I would be surprised if Queen Elizabeth didn't go over budget and be delayed. Hopefully we don't end up like CVA-01. But that wouldn't surprise me at all.
I think their report is highly optimistic. Ashdown was interviewed on BBC R4 today programme and said about looking for allies outside the Atlantic area and actually if we align ourselves with some of our Commonwealth Allies more closley Like Australia, New Zealand & Canada having the Global reach of carriers makes alot more sense.
I do wonder if the New Australian AD destryer could be adapted to a Type 22/23 replacement?
The overspend is alarming but the tone of the memo is that the company are trying to deal with it. But I do wonder how much of it has been created by the slowing of the project to marry up with the JSF. Budgets are way to tight and that has been caused by the annual reductions in real budgets. As a first of class I would be surprised if Queen Elizabeth didn't go over budget and be delayed. Hopefully we don't end up like CVA-01. But that wouldn't surprise me at all.
I think their report is highly optimistic. Ashdown was interviewed on BBC R4 today programme and said about looking for allies outside the Atlantic area and actually if we align ourselves with some of our Commonwealth Allies more closley Like Australia, New Zealand & Canada having the Global reach of carriers makes alot more sense.
I do wonder if the New Australian AD destryer could be adapted to a Type 22/23 replacement?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technically there will also be massive (impossible to overcome problems) with mutual interference between the listening kit and the transmitting kit!
Yes Buy more RJ's for 32sqn to replace the HS125's & Bae 146's great idea
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NURSE. Types 22/23 are not Anti Air; they're ASW and AS. We've already spent the money getting the best AAW DD. Every additional one we now buy is, arguably, saving us money.
Agree that aliance within the Commonwealth has many advantages. A better option than Europe.
Agree that aliance within the Commonwealth has many advantages. A better option than Europe.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Types 22/23 are not Anti Air; they're ASW and AS. We've already spent the money getting the best AAW DD. Every additional one we now buy is, arguably, saving us money.
Its just not that simple; its the weapon systems and sensor integration that costs the big £ and that would all have to be new.
TBH, we might be better off with a few "Oceans", with a strengthened flight deck. Run the GR7/9 off them, along with Merlin. IIRC the Ocean cost the same to procure as a single T23. Once GR7/9 dies then i'm afraid its back to the LPH role, with the possible addition of a TLAM type weapon & a maritime UAV?
Its a long way from ideal, but then we are financially screwed and needs must. Still keeps a few people in jobs, too.
TBH, we might be better off with a few "Oceans", with a strengthened flight deck. Run the GR7/9 off them, along with Merlin. IIRC the Ocean cost the same to procure as a single T23. Once GR7/9 dies then i'm afraid its back to the LPH role, with the possible addition of a TLAM type weapon & a maritime UAV?
Its a long way from ideal, but then we are financially screwed and needs must. Still keeps a few people in jobs, too.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder How useful a large carrier would be out on the Horn of africa with lots of merlins aboard or a CVN with a few Sqns of S3B's and Ocean Hawks.
Not as useful as several smaller warships operating rotary winged aircraft.
Not as useful as several smaller warships operating rotary winged aircraft.
Has been carriers.
Now a dose of economic reality is hitting the MOD (with more penpushers than combat soldiers), thanks to the Great Helmsman's fiscal incompetence over the last twelve years.
Can the long suffering 'little people' whose taxes are paying for this see:
a) Unified defence forces on the lines of the Israeli Defence Forces and an end to the expensive vertical layers of 'top brass' in all three services?
b) Payment for past services rendered to all those servicemen who carried out the MOD's wishes prior to April 1975 finally receiving a pro-rata pension? Or is discrimination going to be allowed to continue on the basis of an arbitrary date?
with fraternal greetings,
ambi
Can the long suffering 'little people' whose taxes are paying for this see:
a) Unified defence forces on the lines of the Israeli Defence Forces and an end to the expensive vertical layers of 'top brass' in all three services?
b) Payment for past services rendered to all those servicemen who carried out the MOD's wishes prior to April 1975 finally receiving a pro-rata pension? Or is discrimination going to be allowed to continue on the basis of an arbitrary date?
with fraternal greetings,
ambi
Thread Starter
Now the steel cutting (on the first of the main hull sections) has started: RN website news article
First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band said:
"The QE Class, together with the supporting aircraft forming the Carrier Strike, represent a step change in defence’s capability, enabling Britain to deliver airpower from the sea wherever and whenever it is required. This strategic effect, influence and, where necessary, direct action will give us an unprecedented range of options to deal with the challenges of an uncertain world at a time and place of our choosing.”
“These ships are not just spare airfields, they are an instrument of national power: the ‘big stick’ which can be waved by the Government in areas of strategic interest to influence, coerce and deter.”
Guided by Scott Ballingal, a 21 year old BVT apprentice from Erskine who will be working on the Carriers, Rear Admiral the Princess Royal pushed the button to start the computer guided laser that cut the first piece of steel for the hull of these immense new ships.
Scott is one of 70 new apprentices who have been taken on by BVT to support work on the carrier. The programme has reinvigorated apprenticeship schemes at the prime shipyards and provides a solid workload for the coming years.
Three other major sections (called lower blocks) of the ship will be assembled at yards at Portsmouth and Rosyth. Other fabrication work will be done at the Appledore shipyards in Devon. Each block will be transported to Rosyth dockyard where they will be joined together to form the hull of the ship.
While construction is just beginning, the project has moved on apace since the manufacture contract was signed in July last year, with £700M worth of sub-contracts placed for the equipment and furnishings that will kit out the ships from the weapons systems to the galleys and cabins. UK industry has also benefited from the development phase of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and is well placed to win further work as this programme progresses well into the 21st century.
With respect to delays and cost increases, I think Blandy hit it on the head when he said...
Before the anti-carrier mafia get started - read the full article on the Beeb. It notes that the cost overrun is primarily driven by MoD (well Treasury as we all well know) driven delays ie. longer term material & wage inflation, change in accounting. The article notes that it is felt that the project is actually being run well. (as you would hope - they have had long enough to design & derisk the bloody things)
There's a story in my local paper about how a council funded composting facility is over budget - once again largely due to a political decision to run to project over a greater length of time. There's also an advert for shipyard apprentices, to work on CVF amongst other things.
First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band said:
"The QE Class, together with the supporting aircraft forming the Carrier Strike, represent a step change in defence’s capability, enabling Britain to deliver airpower from the sea wherever and whenever it is required. This strategic effect, influence and, where necessary, direct action will give us an unprecedented range of options to deal with the challenges of an uncertain world at a time and place of our choosing.”
“These ships are not just spare airfields, they are an instrument of national power: the ‘big stick’ which can be waved by the Government in areas of strategic interest to influence, coerce and deter.”
Guided by Scott Ballingal, a 21 year old BVT apprentice from Erskine who will be working on the Carriers, Rear Admiral the Princess Royal pushed the button to start the computer guided laser that cut the first piece of steel for the hull of these immense new ships.
Scott is one of 70 new apprentices who have been taken on by BVT to support work on the carrier. The programme has reinvigorated apprenticeship schemes at the prime shipyards and provides a solid workload for the coming years.
Three other major sections (called lower blocks) of the ship will be assembled at yards at Portsmouth and Rosyth. Other fabrication work will be done at the Appledore shipyards in Devon. Each block will be transported to Rosyth dockyard where they will be joined together to form the hull of the ship.
While construction is just beginning, the project has moved on apace since the manufacture contract was signed in July last year, with £700M worth of sub-contracts placed for the equipment and furnishings that will kit out the ships from the weapons systems to the galleys and cabins. UK industry has also benefited from the development phase of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and is well placed to win further work as this programme progresses well into the 21st century.
With respect to delays and cost increases, I think Blandy hit it on the head when he said...
Before the anti-carrier mafia get started - read the full article on the Beeb. It notes that the cost overrun is primarily driven by MoD (well Treasury as we all well know) driven delays ie. longer term material & wage inflation, change in accounting. The article notes that it is felt that the project is actually being run well. (as you would hope - they have had long enough to design & derisk the bloody things)
There's a story in my local paper about how a council funded composting facility is over budget - once again largely due to a political decision to run to project over a greater length of time. There's also an advert for shipyard apprentices, to work on CVF amongst other things.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2009
Location: England
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naivety of the IPPR report
The IPPR report undoubtedly gives the impression of being a structured consideration of UK's defence priorities, based on foreign policy goals, linked to the likely threats, current resource constraints and so on. However is that all that drives UK defence policy?
If MOD took IPPR (and others') perspective, it would join several European countries, in having a very practical, cost-effective, but essentially 'reactive' military capability. The IPPR report ignores the arguments for maintaining UK's strategic and technological soveriegnty (it effectively argues to pool this in Europe).
Over the last 40+ years UK has invested many billions in technology which was very expensive, unprofitable, was never used in anger, but which did maintain UK's strategic advantage - such as nuclear warheads, intercontinental missiles, long-range bombers, submarines, aircraft carriers, battlefield weapons, jet fighters, air-air missiles. Many of these products could have been sourced overseas more cheaply, but they weren't, because once a nation pulls out of this technology, it is generally irreversible.
Therefore, despite the IPPR and others' 'disarming' arguments, the UK may well carry stretching its budget up to and beyond the elastic limit, to try to stay in the 'high-tech' end of military capability, however illogical and even perverse it may appear.
If MOD took IPPR (and others') perspective, it would join several European countries, in having a very practical, cost-effective, but essentially 'reactive' military capability. The IPPR report ignores the arguments for maintaining UK's strategic and technological soveriegnty (it effectively argues to pool this in Europe).
Over the last 40+ years UK has invested many billions in technology which was very expensive, unprofitable, was never used in anger, but which did maintain UK's strategic advantage - such as nuclear warheads, intercontinental missiles, long-range bombers, submarines, aircraft carriers, battlefield weapons, jet fighters, air-air missiles. Many of these products could have been sourced overseas more cheaply, but they weren't, because once a nation pulls out of this technology, it is generally irreversible.
Therefore, despite the IPPR and others' 'disarming' arguments, the UK may well carry stretching its budget up to and beyond the elastic limit, to try to stay in the 'high-tech' end of military capability, however illogical and even perverse it may appear.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVS???? 26 years so far in a salt water environment in the Case of Ark.......
USS Enterprise (CVN-65), formerly CVA(N)-65, is the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and the eighth U.S. naval vessel to bear the name. Like her predecessor of World War II fame, she is nicknamed the "Big E." At 1,123 ft (342 m), she is the longest naval vessel in the world, though her 93,500 tons displacement places her as the eleventh heaviest supercarrier, surpassed only by the 10 carriers of the Nimitz-class.
Enterprise is a single class ship and is currently the oldest active vessel still in commission under the United States Navy, excluding the ceremonial commission of USS Constitution. As the oldest carrier in the fleet, she is currently scheduled for decommissioning some time in 2014-2015 depending on the life of her current reactors and when the construction of her replacement, the USS Gerald R. Ford, is completed.[4] Efforts for an earlier retirement in 2012-2013 are under consideration but have yet to be approved by Congress.[5] The earliest possible retirement date would still mean that Enterprise will retire with over 50 years of continuous service, the longest for any aircraft carrier in the history of the USN.[5]
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28CVN-65%29
USS Enterprise (CVN-65), formerly CVA(N)-65, is the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and the eighth U.S. naval vessel to bear the name. Like her predecessor of World War II fame, she is nicknamed the "Big E." At 1,123 ft (342 m), she is the longest naval vessel in the world, though her 93,500 tons displacement places her as the eleventh heaviest supercarrier, surpassed only by the 10 carriers of the Nimitz-class.
Enterprise is a single class ship and is currently the oldest active vessel still in commission under the United States Navy, excluding the ceremonial commission of USS Constitution. As the oldest carrier in the fleet, she is currently scheduled for decommissioning some time in 2014-2015 depending on the life of her current reactors and when the construction of her replacement, the USS Gerald R. Ford, is completed.[4] Efforts for an earlier retirement in 2012-2013 are under consideration but have yet to be approved by Congress.[5] The earliest possible retirement date would still mean that Enterprise will retire with over 50 years of continuous service, the longest for any aircraft carrier in the history of the USN.[5]
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28CVN-65%29
Certainly CVF is planned for a 50 ye operational life, and their are several ex RN carriers (and other ships) that are still supposed to be operational in other Navies. I'd argue that its not the hull thats the problem, its the maintenance and updates of the kit inside them.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Enterprise is made of very thick steel, as the Americans had learned the hard way in the Pacific.
Unlike the U.K's CVS, where like most things in the U.K. services, hard won lessons seem all too easily forgotten; remember the tragic accident a few years ago when even a CBLS practice bomb penetrated the deck, severely injuring a member of crew.
That is not meant to cause offence, I have been at Test Ranges where even red-hot Harrier Test Pilots ( not the famous one ! ) have had finger trouble & released stores when they didn't mean to - resulting in a stiff debrief as to what happened & why it wasn't going to happen again.
It should be borne in mind however that the R.N. have a habit of selling off warships which then go on to serve many more years with other navies - witness the type 22's, even type 23's, let alone Hermes with the Indian Navy, laid down at the end of World War II and only just being retired.
Before anyone jumps to blame the current useless government, remember that Thatcher was going to sell Invincible to Australia before the Falklands War saved her political arse - and it, with it's many casualties then & since, need never have happened if her government looked half serious about defence.
She also binned the P1216 STOVL Harrier replacement without a second glance, rodgering a good opportunity for U.K.Ltd and leaving us later to buy the seemingly inferior F-35B at any price the U.S. think they can get away with.
I can see the Indians ( I dealt with them on Sea Harrier FRS51, a great highly professional team, though not too sure about groundcrew support, from photo's I've seen ) having their sights firmly set on Invincible, and using her for a good few years !
She would be very useful in Australia after all, in the event they could afford Harriers or I suppose F-35B.
Towards the end of their lives, the old Bulwark ( 'Rusty B' ) and Ark Royal were known for the lower compartments filled with concrete - one way of stopping water ingress I suppose, but I don't think I'll try it on my little fibreglass 'yacht'...
How about we sell off surplus Admirals & keep the ships ?!
Unlike the U.K's CVS, where like most things in the U.K. services, hard won lessons seem all too easily forgotten; remember the tragic accident a few years ago when even a CBLS practice bomb penetrated the deck, severely injuring a member of crew.
That is not meant to cause offence, I have been at Test Ranges where even red-hot Harrier Test Pilots ( not the famous one ! ) have had finger trouble & released stores when they didn't mean to - resulting in a stiff debrief as to what happened & why it wasn't going to happen again.
It should be borne in mind however that the R.N. have a habit of selling off warships which then go on to serve many more years with other navies - witness the type 22's, even type 23's, let alone Hermes with the Indian Navy, laid down at the end of World War II and only just being retired.
Before anyone jumps to blame the current useless government, remember that Thatcher was going to sell Invincible to Australia before the Falklands War saved her political arse - and it, with it's many casualties then & since, need never have happened if her government looked half serious about defence.
She also binned the P1216 STOVL Harrier replacement without a second glance, rodgering a good opportunity for U.K.Ltd and leaving us later to buy the seemingly inferior F-35B at any price the U.S. think they can get away with.
I can see the Indians ( I dealt with them on Sea Harrier FRS51, a great highly professional team, though not too sure about groundcrew support, from photo's I've seen ) having their sights firmly set on Invincible, and using her for a good few years !
She would be very useful in Australia after all, in the event they could afford Harriers or I suppose F-35B.
Towards the end of their lives, the old Bulwark ( 'Rusty B' ) and Ark Royal were known for the lower compartments filled with concrete - one way of stopping water ingress I suppose, but I don't think I'll try it on my little fibreglass 'yacht'...
How about we sell off surplus Admirals & keep the ships ?!
Last edited by Double Zero; 10th Jul 2009 at 13:54.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It takes a very canny person to ' screw over ' the Indian Navy - BAe tried it, and failed miserably- I was there !
God knows what it's costing to rejuvinate the Russian carrier, but I suppose the temptation to fly off Mig 29's was too great to resist.
In an ideal world Invincible would have been stored & maintained in dry dock, but as long as her hull is sound the rest is an opportunity to fit the latest kit, as long as one has suitable aircraft...
God knows what it's costing to rejuvinate the Russian carrier, but I suppose the temptation to fly off Mig 29's was too great to resist.
In an ideal world Invincible would have been stored & maintained in dry dock, but as long as her hull is sound the rest is an opportunity to fit the latest kit, as long as one has suitable aircraft...
Last edited by Double Zero; 10th Jul 2009 at 14:19.