Future Carrier (Including Costs)
As far as I can work out, the bow's pointed across the middle of Portsmouth Harbour. In any case, Northolt is a similar distance away but in the right direction; Boscombe Down is quite a bit closer.
My guess is they're waiting for the wind to go round to somewhere in the North...
My guess is they're waiting for the wind to go round to somewhere in the North...
The Times article mentioned earlier:-
Giant carriers are symbols of our national delusions
Giant carriers are symbols of our national delusions
Was going to suggest Southampton, which is near wher I will be on Tuesday. But thought they would want somewhere to stop and fill up with a ski jump
or pop up a Voyager for fuel
or pop up a Voyager for fuel
It's so unbalanced it's almost a joke. The Economist ran an article a few weeks back that wasn't exactly pro-carrier but at least talked about things they COULD do rather than just pour a bucket of brown stuff over the whole idea.
What should worry the RN is this is two pages in the nearest thing we have to a Govt mouthpiece of a paper on the day after a General Election
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not repair the "fault" in the USA.....then wait for a USAF Tanker headed to the UK with a gaggle of USAF Fighters and tag along with them?
How long will the aircraft have been out of service before it gets back to normal flight operations either ashore or at sea?
When is the ship scheduled to return to at-sea operations?
When is the ship scheduled to return to at-sea operations?
Well Christmas and New Year are coming... so don't hold your breath....
Then there are the smaller ‘flat tops’ the US Navy has at its disposal. LHAs of the eleven planned total America class are already operating F-35Bs as well as, it seems, the eight LHDs of the Wasp class. That’s all in addition to full-fat nuclear carriers like the one in the Max Hastings article.
All of a sudden, the US investment in carrier air and its share of their defence budget appears much greater than he is prepared to admit, doesn’t it?
Behold USS America Sailing With A Whopping 13 F-35Bs Embarked Aboard
Originally Posted by Tyler Rogoway 14 Oct 2019
USS America (LHA-6) is executing "routine operations" in the eastern Pacific, but her complement of aircraft is anything but. Deployed aboard are no less than 13 F-35Bs, and possibly even more stowed away in her hangar deck. This is the closest we've seen the USMC and the "Gator Navy" come to executing the notional "Lightning Carrier" concept, which would see the amphibious assault ships packed with nearly two dozen F-35Bs in the full-on fixed-wing aircraft carrier role. You can read all about this idea in this past feature of ours. It even eclipses the USS Wasp's (LHD-1) cruise to the South China Sea last Spring when it was spotted with ten F-35Bs aboard...
TBF he was concentrating on the cost of the UK's carriers not an in depth critique of the place of the CVN as opposed to smaller vessels. There was a decent discussion in the Economist of the USN's issues and a good and fair general round up in the latest World Naval Review.
You could, apparently, buy a QE fitted with cats & traps, for the cost of the mid-life refueling of a CVN
You could, apparently, buy a QE fitted with cats & traps, for the cost of the mid-life refueling of a CVN
It was a bit odd quoting the total cost of the carriers as a percentage of one years defence budget. Sorry I meant economically illiterate.
Carrier supporters should be less worried about the flaws in Sir Max’s screed and more concerned by the timing and nature of its publication: in a Conservative mouthpiece just one day after an election victory which has altered the political landscape. I will make the same point that I did in this thread a few months ago: Boris’s senior adviser, Dominic Cummings, is on record (do a text search for ‘aircraft carrier’) with almost exactly the same views as Sir Max on the carriers and Defence acquisition in general.
[A digression: after making my earlier point I was taken to task by pr00ne for my assessment of Cummings’s influence, with Brexit then being fought over in Parliament and the courts. But Cummings had a winning strategy sussed while those tactical and procedural battles raged, as should now be clear to all but the most stubborn. #classicdom indeed.]
Back on thread. Defence spending is unlikely to change much from 2% GDP given other priorities facing the new Government. Many will have noticed that Johnson/Cummings understand all too well the electoral potency of schools, police and the NHS, while the Tories’ newly-minted northern electorate probably cares a lot more about infrastructure investment than about overseas interventions of the sort which originally precipitated the carrier requirement. Staying at 2% GDP might even be a real-terms cut if the worst Brexit predictions come true and are projected forward, so any SDSR is likely to be about re-slicing the existing pie and not about who gets extra helpings. This matters for the MOD because the black hole in the equipment budget is well on the way to being open once more, and that matters for the carriers because their groups and air wings are a long way from being fully funded.
When controversial decisions loom, it’s the spin doctor’s job to prepare soft landings for likely outcomes. I see Sir Max’s article as an example of the genre. And as I sit here typing this post, the morning paper review on Radio 4 is saying that Monday’s Times will carry an article on how the MOD will be one of the first departments in Cummings’s crosshairs as he gets stuck into his Whitehall reform agenda. With that near-real-time affirmation of my thesis, I shall leave it there.
[A digression: after making my earlier point I was taken to task by pr00ne for my assessment of Cummings’s influence, with Brexit then being fought over in Parliament and the courts. But Cummings had a winning strategy sussed while those tactical and procedural battles raged, as should now be clear to all but the most stubborn. #classicdom indeed.]
Back on thread. Defence spending is unlikely to change much from 2% GDP given other priorities facing the new Government. Many will have noticed that Johnson/Cummings understand all too well the electoral potency of schools, police and the NHS, while the Tories’ newly-minted northern electorate probably cares a lot more about infrastructure investment than about overseas interventions of the sort which originally precipitated the carrier requirement. Staying at 2% GDP might even be a real-terms cut if the worst Brexit predictions come true and are projected forward, so any SDSR is likely to be about re-slicing the existing pie and not about who gets extra helpings. This matters for the MOD because the black hole in the equipment budget is well on the way to being open once more, and that matters for the carriers because their groups and air wings are a long way from being fully funded.
When controversial decisions loom, it’s the spin doctor’s job to prepare soft landings for likely outcomes. I see Sir Max’s article as an example of the genre. And as I sit here typing this post, the morning paper review on Radio 4 is saying that Monday’s Times will carry an article on how the MOD will be one of the first departments in Cummings’s crosshairs as he gets stuck into his Whitehall reform agenda. With that near-real-time affirmation of my thesis, I shall leave it there.
Last edited by Easy Street; 16th Dec 2019 at 00:16.
I cannot but wait till the argument begins about scrapping two brand new aircraft carriers due to budget issues.
Without doubt this will be a Fan Dance that Gypsy Rose Lee would envy.
Without doubt this will be a Fan Dance that Gypsy Rose Lee would envy.
It won’t be about scrapping. It’ll be about how to allocate future expenditure. So the arguments will be over deployment cycles, readiness, numbers of escorts and aircraft, mission types, etc.
Last edited by Easy Street; 16th Dec 2019 at 07:11.
UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
According to the Times Cummings has been put in charge of the review into the MoD and its works........................ he is on record as saying
"the involvement of Mr Cummings, who has sketched out some views on defence in a private blog, is likely to be met with trepidation. In a post published in March, before he joined the government, the former Vote Leave campaign director hit out at the programme to build the carriers, the second of which was commissioned last week. Calling the scheme a “farce”, he added that it “has continued to squander billions of pounds, enriching some of the worst corporate looters and corrupting public life via the revolving door of officials/lobbyists”. Scrutiny by MPs had been “contemptible”, he said, adding that the vessels “cannot be sent to a serious war against a serious enemy”.
According to the Times Cummings has been put in charge of the review into the MoD and its works........................ he is on record as saying
"the involvement of Mr Cummings, who has sketched out some views on defence in a private blog, is likely to be met with trepidation. In a post published in March, before he joined the government, the former Vote Leave campaign director hit out at the programme to build the carriers, the second of which was commissioned last week. Calling the scheme a “farce”, he added that it “has continued to squander billions of pounds, enriching some of the worst corporate looters and corrupting public life via the revolving door of officials/lobbyists”. Scrutiny by MPs had been “contemptible”, he said, adding that the vessels “cannot be sent to a serious war against a serious enemy”.
". So the arguments will be over deployment cycles, readiness, numbers of escorts and aircraft, mission types, etc." I don't think so
For balance, I will add that the RAF should be just as (if not more) worried about the degree of scrutiny which Cummings will apply to ‘Tempest’. And there is a great deal more future expenditure needed to make that a reality.