Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Old 16th Feb 2007, 10:28
  #1001 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Defence Industrial Strategy: update - 15 Feb 07

I think what you're looking for starts at paragraph 15. However, the committee's comments sum it up:


19. We are disappointed that the required restructuring of the surface ship industry has not taken place and that this has delayed the main investment decision on the Future Carriers. It is possible, though not inevitable, that this may result in later delivery of the carriers. This in turn may lead to a capability gap which could be both damaging to the defence of the country and expensive to deal with. On the other hand it might lead to the project being better managed. We accept that the MoD is right to insist on the speedy restructuring of industry, and we will be keeping a close eye on this important matter as it progresses.

20. In mid-January 2007 press reports suggested that the delay in making the main investment decision was because the Future Carrier programme was to be cancelled because of budgetary pressure on the Royal Navy. Lord Drayson was asked whether the Future Carrier programme would be cancelled. He said the rumours should be considered “quashed”. We were concerned to hear reports that the Future Carrier programme might have been cancelled because of budgetary pressures. The programme is a key element of the ‘Carrier Strike’ capability needed by our Armed Forces and vital to the future of the UK maritime sector. We welcome the assurance provided by the Minister for Defence Procurement of the Government’s continuing commitment to this programme.

LFFC is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2007, 22:32
  #1002 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,811
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
I've been away for a week and it would appear that this thread has slipped off the radar.........

However, from The Scotsman: Tories raise concerns over UK's naval power

Among the issues worrying MPs and officers are:

........The much-delayed process of ordering two aircraft carriers. First announced in 1998, the carriers have still not been formally ordered from shipbuilders. MPs on the Commons Defence Committee this month warned that could delay delivery so much that Britain is left without working carriers in the next decade.


Nothing on Hansard yet.

Last Monday, The Times had a more hopeful story.

The Times understands that the Treasury has now agreed to fund the carriers, which will cost between £3.6 billion and £3.9 billion.
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 26th Feb 2007, 22:40
  #1003 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 2,007
Received 16 Likes on 8 Posts
Not so optimistic when combined with the one they ran today:

Treasury Threatens to cut £35 billion of defence projects
Archimedes is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2007, 07:29
  #1004 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
I can see the Treasury's point -re FRES. This project has been around for some years and MoD seems no further forward. The recent HoC report…..

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ce/159/159.pdf

acknowledges the inextricable link to C130 and A400M. C17 gets one mention, but quantity of aircraft is not discussed, nor the (assumed) reliance on the US C17 fleet. I don’t pretend to know all the details but to me it looks like another BOWMAN waiting to happen. That is, the budget (£15Bn we’re told) doesn’t include a raft of equipment and capabilities required to actually make it work. Also, if we bought Military off the Shelf (MOTS) it would promote interoperability with our allies which, although not policy, would be a big advantage.

Come to think of it, I’ve described CVF perfectly….
tucumseh is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2007, 18:19
  #1005 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WEBF,

"I've been away for a week and it would appear that this thread has slipped off the radar"

Dear God what a disaster????

Imagine folks finding something else to talk about?????



Cheers

BHR
BillHicksRules is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2007, 15:04
  #1006 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,811
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
At least CVF appears safe.....

On Monday, there was a debate on the Royal Navy in the House of Commons.

Hansard

That this House notes the assessment of the Government’s 1998 Strategic Defence Review that two Future Aircraft Carriers are needed in the post-Cold War world to provide a seaborne base from which British military power can be projected and that a destroyer and frigate fleet of more than 30 ships would be needed to maintain two concurrent medium-scale deployments; views with concern the view expressed by Admiral Sir Alan West, when First Sea Lord in 2004, that the reduction of the destroyer and frigate total from 35 to 25, instead of the 32 promised in the Strategic Defence Review, meant that the country was taking risk on risk; notes with dismay persistent suggestions that six more will be mothballed, leaving an effective destroyer and frigate force of only 19; demands urgent clarification from the Government about its proposal to close Portsmouth or Devonport naval bases and calls upon the Government to provide an assessment of the implications for the long-term strategic vulnerability of the remnants of the surface fleet; sympathises with Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the current First Sea Lord, that a failure to proceed with the Future Aircraft Carriers, which have still not been ordered though scheduled in 1998 for deployment by 2012 and 2015, would make his position untenable; and calls on the Government to clarify its intention on naval procurement in the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review.

This motion was defeated by Government MPs. However, a number of important subjects were discussed with many good points made by the Opposition parties. Beware though, that Dozy Doris (Portsmouth North) strikes again.
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 28th Feb 2007, 18:23
  #1007 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And once again a Minister confirms the intent to order CVF:
Will the Minister tell us when the order will be placed for the two new carriers that the Navy so desperately wants?
Mr. Ingram: If the right hon. Gentleman participated more in defence debates more, he would understand—
Mr. Ellwood: He knows!
Mr. Ingram: If I had the answer today, I would love to announce it from the Dispatch Box. We have moved through the phases of developing and maturing the procurement process for the aircraft carriers. When we get everything into the right position—that requires industry to play its part—we will make the announcement.
Which is more than can be said for FRES, Typhoon Tranche 3, FSTA etc
Bismark is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2007, 18:20
  #1008 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WEBF,

For a change you actually posted something worth reading in its entirety.

The Tories made a lot of valid points about the failures of the government to keep to its own plans etc.

My feelings are though that were they to gain power next time round we will not see a whole lot of change of direction.

As I have said before on many threads we have to have a military we can afford and we have to limit where we send them as a result.

It is pointless wishing we could afford all the shiny kit we want but it aint true.

IMHO it would be better to have an armed forces smaller than we have now but fully equipped and staffed, with realistic overseas commitments.

The alternative is what we have now.

Cheers

BHR
BillHicksRules is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2007, 20:04
  #1009 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Defence spending currently represents 7% of total Govt expenditure. We could afford an awful lot more shiney toys if the political will was there. The drivers for the present situation are not economic, but political- the guys at the top simply don't understand the subject that they are responsible for. From Tonys pov the services have consistently performed and delivered, from Gordo's pov the MoD consistently hasn't. Hence the disconnect.
Sunk at Narvik is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2007, 15:33
  #1010 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,811
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
Sunk this was on the BBC website recently. Incidentally 7% of Government spending - we should be so lucky!

The problem is that senior civil servants in the Treasury don't have to go to war and get shot. Paul Beaver

Yes the Hansard link was interesting. Interesting bacause the Government refuse to accept that cutbacks or delays have happened, blah blah blah. Interesting to hear the Sea Harrier being mentioned repeatedly. This does remind us that as frigate and destroyer numbers have been cut, the importance of carrier based aviation is increased.

Meanwhile - some potential bad news for our French colleagues.

France’s Royal Opposes Second Aircraft Carrier
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 5th Mar 2007, 19:09
  #1011 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WEBF,
I think you will find the reason carrier aviation has increased in importance is because the Labour Party want to show that they are investing in the Armed Forces, not just gutting them and sending them out to be gutted.
The main problem is that Blair and Brown have such conflicting opinions.
If Blair had a Chancellor who he could make do what he wanted then the country would be bankrupt with a huge armed force.
If Brown had PM who was not the poodle of the moron in the White House then we would have a streamlined but well equipped Home Defence force.
As Sarkozy puts it so succintly but in his case self-defeatingly, one has to choose between one thing and another. No country, not even the US can afford every demand on the tax dollar.
You want something it has to be paid for.
I have said it many times before. I would cancel the carriers. Easily done since they aint been ordered yet. Cancel a replacement for Trident, same as above.
Then you have some real money to play with.
Cheers
BHR
BillHicksRules is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2007, 19:54
  #1012 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WEBF,

Meanwhile - some potential bad news for our French colleagues.
I read this as good news for the French as Mme Royal has no hope of election and the other two are firm supporters of CVF-FR style
Bismark is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2007, 08:07
  #1013 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bill

"I would cancel the carriers. Easily done since they aint been ordered yet. Cancel a replacement for Trident, same as above.
Then you have some real money to play with."

Hmmm, but no way of defending your forces overseas and no way of effectively detering a nuclear armed enemy.

This sort of silly internal bunfight just plays into gordons hands. one service points and shouts that carriers arn't needed, the other points and shouts thsat FRES is to expensive. He who shouts the loudest wins, Gordon picks on the loser and the country ends up where it was in 1982.

Whats actually needed is a little more money for the MoD to enable it to do its job properly- all the service brass need to stand together against political bullying.
Sunk at Narvik is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2007, 11:34
  #1014 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sunk at Narvik is right. Inter Service banter is brilliant and long may it reign. Matters are different, though, when the audience is politicians or Joe Public who votes for the f**kwits. That's where we need solidarity and resistance to any hopes of divide and rule. We do need each CoS and CDS to stand his ground. So often we let the view of what may well be needed in the future to be distorted by the needs of the current tribal skirmishes.

I don't consider myself paranoid but I sometimes wonder if rebellion by the Service Chiefs is being provoked. It would be a great excuse to reorganise the Forces and their place within the Constitution for the "public good". Of course, that passing paranoia extended itself to the timing of the "cash for peerages" matter in relation to votes on Upper House reform.
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2007, 19:19
  #1015 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SAN,

We have no carrier borne AD at the moment and yet I seem to remember a news item or two about some troops being abroad at the moment

As for Trident stopping a nuclear attack on the UK I think that that is best answered with .

Even the US is realising the concept MAD deterrence is no longer applicable, hence the current attempt to get a "missile shield" system in place.

This does not deal with the fact that the most effective way to deploy nukes to either the UK or the US is by truck not by rocket.

It comes back to value for money and getting the right tools for the right jobs.

We are not spending enough on the boys on the ground to allow properly equipped forces to be sent overseas never mind having them defended by carrierborne aircraft. Therefore lets stop going overseas and killing our youngest and bravest in defence of political expediency and corporate greed.

Trident is not going to stop a rational enemy from launching a nuclear attack since no rational leader would do such a thing. As for the irrational enemy, aint nothing going to stop him/her when the time comes.

A nuclear deterrent is a failure if you use it and a waste of money if you do not.

Cheers

BHR
BillHicksRules is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2007, 20:05
  #1016 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,811
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
If you must talk about Trident etc do it elsewhere! Not in any way related to CVF!!

Oh, and in response to a comment you made, the reason that carrier based aviation has increased in importance (not just for the UK) in recent years is because of the end of the Cold War and the move towards expeditionary and littoral operations. Hence CVF has been the centre of all the RN's long term plans for over a decade.

Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 6th Mar 2007 at 22:25.
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 6th Mar 2007, 20:45
  #1017 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: .....................................
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you must talk about Trident etc do it elsewhere! Not in any way related to CVF!!
Whose a grumpy little puppy tonight..............I personally don't think we need Trident or Carriers. More destroyers with Cruise missiles that is the way forward. Use the money saved from the carriers on the front line troops who are fighting the real war on the ground.
samuraimatt is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2007, 22:00
  #1018 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WEBF,

"the reason that carrier based aviation has increased in importance (not for the UK) in recent years is because of the end of the Cold War and the move towards expeditionary and littoral operations"

This would be true if the Admirals made the decisions about what to buy and what to take.

However, in the real world, where the SHAR was too expensive to waste time or money on any longer; and where perception politics are more important than reality; then symbols are more important than logic and planning.

Cheers

BHR
BillHicksRules is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2007, 10:22
  #1019 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
B H R

In practical terms, the Admirals may have insufficient influence over the decisions on what to buy. It is, however, senior Naval staff who draft the statements of requirement for what they actually need. The strategic deterrent is another matter all together and if the Navy is tasked with providing it, they propose the most efficient, economical and survivable means. SD has nothing to do with the CVF other than being the sponge that may remove its funds. If that's your worry, I share it but debating the need for SD is outside the scope of this Thread.

samuraimatt

I concede that you may be at the correct grid reference but would suggest you are on the wrong planet.
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2007, 12:32
  #1020 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: brizzle
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CVF vs Trident

WEBF Quote

If you must talk about Trident etc do it elsewhere! Not in any way related to CVF!!


It surely could be. Do we really nead a stealthy nuclear deterrent these days? We should have the deterrent but need it be Sub based why not return to smaller warheads based on cruise missiles which could be deployed aboard, yes you guessed it CVF for air carriage and aboard all surface ships or attack subs capable of launching cruise missiles as well as the RAF. This way we would have a nuclear deterrent, a reinforced reason for CVF with suitable air platform and a bucket load of money to do it with. Its a few years since we needed the capability to hide our nukes and have the ability to strike at the other side of the world. Most places we might need to 'nuke' are now within striking distance of the coast.

Might be enough money left over for FSTA, more helo lift and the odd school/hospital.

S

air raid warning red
sharmine is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.