Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Hmm, could the RN finally be getting out of the fixed wing flying business?
No doubt WAFU elements will accuse Liam Fox of being an an evil RAF sympathiser, planted in government to do their dirty work.
No doubt WAFU elements will accuse Liam Fox of being an an evil RAF sympathiser, planted in government to do their dirty work.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,021
Received 2,900 Likes
on
1,242 Posts
This is the only "Harrier Carrier" we can afford these days, and even that's pushing it!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not entirely true
Perhaps for the ships - yes; not much to be saved by scrubbing now I understand.
But for the aircraft???? How many?
And how many ships in Service at any stage? And how big an air wing? Lots to be saved in operating cost reduction by ringing the changes on this front.
Indeed, when it comes to boats, don't we have something of a track record of build and sell?
So still lots of potential for this project to go horribly wrong and save some money over the next 10 years.
But for the aircraft???? How many?
And how many ships in Service at any stage? And how big an air wing? Lots to be saved in operating cost reduction by ringing the changes on this front.
Indeed, when it comes to boats, don't we have something of a track record of build and sell?
So still lots of potential for this project to go horribly wrong and save some money over the next 10 years.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What, no jets!
THS,
If the RN are out of the “fast jet”, and therefore by default, the “force projection” business, then so is Great Britain. The RAF are good at what they do, but that isn’t going to sea for prolonged periods (they really do just see a ship as an airstrip with no need to integrate and be “the crew”). I work with a lot of RAF and they all say that if they wanted to go to sea they would have joined the navy and that really is fair enough. It was suggested in the 60s that land based options are difficult to protect and supply without significant resources (even more difficult now that the British land based forces are so much reduced). The physical world map hasn’t changed so how can shore based assets provide cover now any more than they could when Australia “moved” a few hundred miles to prove CAP cover, (damn big aircraft carrier the RAF had there).
Why don’t we just “do” a New Zealand, how’s that working out for them? http://www.warisboring.com/?p=1548.
Cheers now.
If the RN are out of the “fast jet”, and therefore by default, the “force projection” business, then so is Great Britain. The RAF are good at what they do, but that isn’t going to sea for prolonged periods (they really do just see a ship as an airstrip with no need to integrate and be “the crew”). I work with a lot of RAF and they all say that if they wanted to go to sea they would have joined the navy and that really is fair enough. It was suggested in the 60s that land based options are difficult to protect and supply without significant resources (even more difficult now that the British land based forces are so much reduced). The physical world map hasn’t changed so how can shore based assets provide cover now any more than they could when Australia “moved” a few hundred miles to prove CAP cover, (damn big aircraft carrier the RAF had there).
Why don’t we just “do” a New Zealand, how’s that working out for them? http://www.warisboring.com/?p=1548.
Cheers now.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said elsewhere, I sense that defence of British sovereign shores is what the forces are going to be limited to in the fairly near future - I fear massive force-changing cuts are on the way.
What, in anything anyone has said recently, gives you the impression that the British government even want to be in the Force Projection business any more?
What, in anything anyone has said recently, gives you the impression that the British government even want to be in the Force Projection business any more?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Army troop levels to be slashed by a quarter | News
It would appear that the writing is on the wall regarding the new Carriers.
Also under scrutiny for the possible axe are big-ticket items of new equipment, such as the projects for new aircraft carriers, a new class of frigate, the Joint Strike Fighter and a new family of fighting vehicles.
It would appear that the writing is on the wall regarding the new Carriers.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sincerely hope not.
Despite my criticism of some procurement projects that in my (limited) estimation do not make sound fiscal sense, I really do think that overall, the UK, in the long term will need the ability to protect far flung assets and interests away from MOB's.
Despite my criticism of some procurement projects that in my (limited) estimation do not make sound fiscal sense, I really do think that overall, the UK, in the long term will need the ability to protect far flung assets and interests away from MOB's.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical Robert Fox informed speculation, with some accuracy from MOD information releases and second guessing the SDSR outcome, which is some way off.
There is little doubt that the Army will face significant reduction post Afghanistan....but not before. There is no requirement for a standing Army and the "withdraw from Germany" option is unaffordable in infrastructure terms. The question is who will the Army take as hostages to fortune in their reductions...no doubt they will try and kill off/absorb the RMs (and thus amphibiosity as a quid pro quo).
All of the guff coming out of Hague and Liam Fox has been pro global presence and in position influence i.e. pro RN forward presence with CV and FF/DD/SMs. The real problem lies with the RAF who have backed the wrong horse with Typhoon. They should get real and go hell for leather with F35.
As far as DFID is concerned, the problem they have is that part of their funding is controlled via the NSC....hence the CVF jibe. And the public are against spending money on foreigners.
There is little doubt that the Army will face significant reduction post Afghanistan....but not before. There is no requirement for a standing Army and the "withdraw from Germany" option is unaffordable in infrastructure terms. The question is who will the Army take as hostages to fortune in their reductions...no doubt they will try and kill off/absorb the RMs (and thus amphibiosity as a quid pro quo).
All of the guff coming out of Hague and Liam Fox has been pro global presence and in position influence i.e. pro RN forward presence with CV and FF/DD/SMs. The real problem lies with the RAF who have backed the wrong horse with Typhoon. They should get real and go hell for leather with F35.
As far as DFID is concerned, the problem they have is that part of their funding is controlled via the NSC....hence the CVF jibe. And the public are against spending money on foreigners.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question is who will the Army take as hostages to fortune in their reductions...no doubt they will try and kill off/absorb the RMs (and thus amphibiosity as a quid pro quo).
If the Army swallow up the Royal Marines then that will be the end of Ocean, Bulwark, Albion and the rest. The end of CHF...the end of JHC ? although the JHC maybe renamed the MerChin Force
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do we need F35 if we don't have carriers? Are we completely 100% committed to buying all or some of them? It strikes me as completely unaffordable, and beyonde stealth, what capabilities do we get with it that we can't get elsewhere? (those were genuine questions - not rhetorical).
Even if the carriers are bought and paid for, Rafale is a damn sight cheaper, and allows greater interoperability with France (oh, and we can share / offload carriers...), which seems to be the way the wind is blowing.
The Army might face significant reductions post Afghanistan, but the RN and RAF will be facing them imminently... The apparent willingness to cut military capability rather than waste, and the lack of will to fund them properly, are the things that have really hit home to me how badly these cuts are going to hit the country as a whole. They're either slashing too much and using the financial crisis as the excuse, or we are completely and totally in the ****.
Even if the carriers are bought and paid for, Rafale is a damn sight cheaper, and allows greater interoperability with France (oh, and we can share / offload carriers...), which seems to be the way the wind is blowing.
The Army might face significant reductions post Afghanistan, but the RN and RAF will be facing them imminently... The apparent willingness to cut military capability rather than waste, and the lack of will to fund them properly, are the things that have really hit home to me how badly these cuts are going to hit the country as a whole. They're either slashing too much and using the financial crisis as the excuse, or we are completely and totally in the ****.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The carriers are probably safe (and thus so is F35) as, along with Trident, they will keep the UK on the top table with the US, and are the only vehs that give the government worldwide clout, on station and ready.....but not committed politically - you can't do that with shored based air or troops.
There is NO comparison between Rafale and F35....but there is a case for the carriers to be capable of operating Rafale and F18 (ie a cat/trap system).
There is a widespread recognition that the RN have been hit the hardest over the past few years and are the leanest of the 3 Services (after years of LEAN!), most contractor support, few in 2nd line posts etc. The real money is in acquisition where 10s of 1000s work.
There is NO comparison between Rafale and F35....but there is a case for the carriers to be capable of operating Rafale and F18 (ie a cat/trap system).
There is a widespread recognition that the RN have been hit the hardest over the past few years and are the leanest of the 3 Services (after years of LEAN!), most contractor support, few in 2nd line posts etc. The real money is in acquisition where 10s of 1000s work.
The real problem lies with the RAF who have backed the wrong horse with Typhoon. They should get real and go hell for leather with F35
Sadly, and to use RP terminology, to swap horses now would result in a huge 'up arrow' when we are looking for 'down arrows'. Cancelling further Typhoon orders saves nothing (or as close to it). Selling them to a third party doesn't help as the other nations will cry 'foul' and insist we still purchase our agreed amount before selling them on (perhaps even at a loss, and thats assuming we can find a buyer ..... www.webuyanyaircraft.com anyone???)
I believe we need the carriers. But we can't afford them (let alone all the support vessels that goes with them). I believe we need F35 (but would prefer the non VSTOL version). But we can't afford either of them. The carrier is therefore going to be seen as a big, easy target if it is not played correctly. The majority of the Army is safe for at least 5 years (apart from heavy armour but then the personnel will be re-brigaded to 'feed' the front line roulement). The RAF has little left in the cupboard to strip out (a couple of GR4 squadrons perhaps, JFH and the E3s? MRA4??). So where is this 10-40% saving coming from. From any uncommitted money. So how much of the carrier contract remains truly uncommitted? And if the Harrier goes in the SDSR then where is the 'capability bridge' for the carriers whilst we await F35 (or whatever) to come along?
Some dark days ahead - fingers crossed we'll get 1 carrier and just hope it's not needed in its five yearly visit to the dry dock. Of course, come the Winter I will hopefully have been proved wrong with 2 carriers confirmed, 30+ F35B FE etc etc. But I won't hold my breath.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The carriers are probably safe (and thus so is F35) as, along with Trident, they will keep the UK on the top table with the US, s.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any government worth its salt knows that defence of the nation comes first......although many modern generation politicians dont want to accept this, and a population unused to home based war have long forgotten it. The freedoms and liberties (including economic and business) are founded on those concepts which after all, UK policy in previous centuries established as the worldwide norm. Most of our younger generation have little concept of this given our appalling and "revisionist" education system that means many can't even read and count, never mind grasp how we need to constantly hold our own and be seen to be so doing. Many already think we have no relevance in the world and can just stick our heads in the sand and shut down our interaction with the real problems we all face.
We may have to trim our sails for sure and be far more selective on what we commit to, but as a leading nation with much to offer (albeit near bankrupt), we have to sustain our influence and as much potential fighting power as possible. As a trading nation with assets, territories and honourable committments across the globe still, we have to have power projection capability of some sort, as well as maintaining internal UK defence capability for the direct threats such as terrorism and unwelcome incursions to our airspace, and enough military to defend the state if civilian discipline breaks down be it from political motivation, economic stress or national disasters. We have to ensure it is also aligned to major political and economic shifts likely due to climate change and the emerging economic powers. YOU DON'T DO THIS BY RADICALLY DESTROYING YOUR CAPABILITES ..which given modern technological and manufacturing lead times cannot easily be restored.
Now - does the Nation in general understand this....No...why because after years of soft living and nanny state expenditure and attitudes we have become obsessed with spending on the NHS and social welfare matters at the expense of genuine economic prosperity - after all a prosperous nation is more healthy and less self-obsessed with trivia - even the English soccer team have lost the plot vis patriotic motivation IMO!. This rot set in after WW2 when we tried to build a "new Jerusalem" rather than lay the foundations of building a modern industrial base and hold our then position as the worlds biggest exporter (unlike the Germans and Japanese (and French) did with all the US aid cash. That said, even then governments of both flavours tried hard to spend enough defence cash on capabilities to keep us at the top table. For those thinking there is a get out here...going internal only definitely means the UK will be an offshore irrelevant island in the next fifty years - then where will the NHS funding come from as the Chinese laugh at us as they own all the world's natural resource companies (read what they have already done in Africa, South america and the Middle East), and the Indians and US own all our home based industries - and the Spanish our banks???
Our government has in part understood this - hence the potential smaller reductions in spending in The MoD.....although there are many things to be done if we had the balls to maintain many of our present fighting capabilities -including keeping the logistic back-up so essential to keep us in that very small group of nations that can effectively project a level of power realistically anywhere on the globe. Be proud of that..'cos its still true, as is the fact that defence and fighting is what we still do well at a world class level and are respected as doing so. Now is not the time to screw that up in the way several generations of politicians and investors have screwed up the other things we did so well. Forget not too, that we are still the world's 2nd biggest defence exporter on the back of our internal defence capability and reputation.
There will be sacred cows that go....it is politically inevitable.....but staying in the top league is where we should be if we are not to sink into final irrelevance. We need to maintain influence at every top table and by showing we do the most important things well, are still needed, and are willing to defend our interests when really neccessary - this is where its at as the world moves to a very different set of influences on our lives.
Mmmmm rant over
....and I'm all for keeping the Carriers...whoever flies the b***dy jets and what they are..as long as they get far enough, drop kit accurately, there's enough of them, and can still do some BVR shootdowns on the way out or home!!...and it has to be said the RN uniforms look smarter!!!
Cheers
We may have to trim our sails for sure and be far more selective on what we commit to, but as a leading nation with much to offer (albeit near bankrupt), we have to sustain our influence and as much potential fighting power as possible. As a trading nation with assets, territories and honourable committments across the globe still, we have to have power projection capability of some sort, as well as maintaining internal UK defence capability for the direct threats such as terrorism and unwelcome incursions to our airspace, and enough military to defend the state if civilian discipline breaks down be it from political motivation, economic stress or national disasters. We have to ensure it is also aligned to major political and economic shifts likely due to climate change and the emerging economic powers. YOU DON'T DO THIS BY RADICALLY DESTROYING YOUR CAPABILITES ..which given modern technological and manufacturing lead times cannot easily be restored.
Now - does the Nation in general understand this....No...why because after years of soft living and nanny state expenditure and attitudes we have become obsessed with spending on the NHS and social welfare matters at the expense of genuine economic prosperity - after all a prosperous nation is more healthy and less self-obsessed with trivia - even the English soccer team have lost the plot vis patriotic motivation IMO!. This rot set in after WW2 when we tried to build a "new Jerusalem" rather than lay the foundations of building a modern industrial base and hold our then position as the worlds biggest exporter (unlike the Germans and Japanese (and French) did with all the US aid cash. That said, even then governments of both flavours tried hard to spend enough defence cash on capabilities to keep us at the top table. For those thinking there is a get out here...going internal only definitely means the UK will be an offshore irrelevant island in the next fifty years - then where will the NHS funding come from as the Chinese laugh at us as they own all the world's natural resource companies (read what they have already done in Africa, South america and the Middle East), and the Indians and US own all our home based industries - and the Spanish our banks???
Our government has in part understood this - hence the potential smaller reductions in spending in The MoD.....although there are many things to be done if we had the balls to maintain many of our present fighting capabilities -including keeping the logistic back-up so essential to keep us in that very small group of nations that can effectively project a level of power realistically anywhere on the globe. Be proud of that..'cos its still true, as is the fact that defence and fighting is what we still do well at a world class level and are respected as doing so. Now is not the time to screw that up in the way several generations of politicians and investors have screwed up the other things we did so well. Forget not too, that we are still the world's 2nd biggest defence exporter on the back of our internal defence capability and reputation.
There will be sacred cows that go....it is politically inevitable.....but staying in the top league is where we should be if we are not to sink into final irrelevance. We need to maintain influence at every top table and by showing we do the most important things well, are still needed, and are willing to defend our interests when really neccessary - this is where its at as the world moves to a very different set of influences on our lives.
Mmmmm rant over
....and I'm all for keeping the Carriers...whoever flies the b***dy jets and what they are..as long as they get far enough, drop kit accurately, there's enough of them, and can still do some BVR shootdowns on the way out or home!!...and it has to be said the RN uniforms look smarter!!!
Cheers
Last edited by Tallsar; 14th Jul 2010 at 19:22.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK DG - I give in...Lets face it -both the RN and RAF uniforms are so 20th Century....but somehow a white shirt with gold just really goes well with that tan picked up in the Indian ocean!!..and its so photogenic!!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#2461
Got as far as
Just stop right there bro this ain't South America.
and enough military to defend the state if civilian discipline breaks down be it from political motivation, economic stress or national disasters.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A New Bagger
Today at Flight Global -
Linkage - PICTURES: Royal Navy offered AEW-configured AW101
An interesting pitch, and forward looking. I suppose that the companies need to provide an alternative to the Hawkeye if CATOBAR isn't going to be an option.
PS - I like the two tone grey scheme.
Linkage - PICTURES: Royal Navy offered AEW-configured AW101
An interesting pitch, and forward looking. I suppose that the companies need to provide an alternative to the Hawkeye if CATOBAR isn't going to be an option.
PS - I like the two tone grey scheme.