Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£4 Billion each my erse!!!
Anyone who thinks these will come on on time, on budget and actually work is using some sort of illegal substance!!
But just as long as the swabbies have their big flat floating bar then who are we to complain about the colossal waste of money.
This is going to turn out just like the Olympics and the Scottish Parliament building. The final cost is going to be several times the initial "cost".
Anyone who thinks these will come on on time, on budget and actually work is using some sort of illegal substance!!
But just as long as the swabbies have their big flat floating bar then who are we to complain about the colossal waste of money.
This is going to turn out just like the Olympics and the Scottish Parliament building. The final cost is going to be several times the initial "cost".
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a feeling I am not alone in wishing that every penny washed away on the b----dy Olympics be spent instead on, say giving troops decent vehicles & kit, or even the UK a transport infrastructure suited to the 21st Century...anything but the sodding Olympics.
As for CVF, well if money were no object, and things like cost over-runs & date slippages didn't exist I'd be a lot more for it - but as it seems to be fact I expect we can make the most of it.
That last phrase is the only real thing which has screwed our services - their 'can do' attitude & making do with rubbish kit is taken for granted.
Even the pessimistic ISD's above don't count for when, if ever, will the CVF's have all the proposed aircraft & other kit...
As for CVF, well if money were no object, and things like cost over-runs & date slippages didn't exist I'd be a lot more for it - but as it seems to be fact I expect we can make the most of it.
That last phrase is the only real thing which has screwed our services - their 'can do' attitude & making do with rubbish kit is taken for granted.
Even the pessimistic ISD's above don't count for when, if ever, will the CVF's have all the proposed aircraft & other kit...
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Althenick,
"Come Come now Bill...
Would you have the Armed forces Ill equiped to do the bidding of the current and future governments (which BTW we all vote for)"
Nice one.
It is a real shame their is no tongue in cheek smiley as it would have sat perfectly at the end of your post.
Of course the only things missing from the UK Armed Forces TOE are these two ships. Once we have them we will no more squaddies complaining about a lack of good footwear, radio, weapons, body armour etc etc.
They will just be happy to know that somewhere beyond the horizon, the dark blues have somewhere they can play more than 40 games of tennis at the same time (thanks to the BBC for helping to visualise the deck space
)
Cheers
BHR
"Come Come now Bill...
Would you have the Armed forces Ill equiped to do the bidding of the current and future governments (which BTW we all vote for)"
Nice one.
It is a real shame their is no tongue in cheek smiley as it would have sat perfectly at the end of your post.
Of course the only things missing from the UK Armed Forces TOE are these two ships. Once we have them we will no more squaddies complaining about a lack of good footwear, radio, weapons, body armour etc etc.
They will just be happy to know that somewhere beyond the horizon, the dark blues have somewhere they can play more than 40 games of tennis at the same time (thanks to the BBC for helping to visualise the deck space
)Cheers
BHR
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wilts
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we need these aircraft carriers Yes does more need to be spent on equipment for our ground troops Yes does the air force need a dozen Airbuses to form a reliable trooping schedule and a better AT fleet NOW yes. yes the there is a need for more rotors Yes.
Do we need to subsidise MP'S £10.000 for new kitchens £750 for new TV i think we all know the answer to that one NO
Do we need to subsidise MP'S £10.000 for new kitchens £750 for new TV i think we all know the answer to that one NO
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all you chaps to whom modern Naval warfare is a total mystery, enlightenment may be found at; http://www.uknda.org/my_documents/my..._the_brink.pdf
If you think the CVF is totally good news for the Andrew, it probably isn't. Unless the Defence Budget is restored to the percentage of GDP it was before SDR it will very likely result in a DD/FF force of not much more than 15 ships.
Anyway, reading of the RUSI paper is encouraged.
If you think the CVF is totally good news for the Andrew, it probably isn't. Unless the Defence Budget is restored to the percentage of GDP it was before SDR it will very likely result in a DD/FF force of not much more than 15 ships.
Anyway, reading of the RUSI paper is encouraged.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 80
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, BHR - you've given me an idea.
When these two leviathans are afloat they could be used to stage the advertised 40 games of tennis (each) which would get Wimbledon condensed into three days so we won't have our TVs clogged up with f
g tennis for two weeks. 
When these two leviathans are afloat they could be used to stage the advertised 40 games of tennis (each) which would get Wimbledon condensed into three days so we won't have our TVs clogged up with f
g tennis for two weeks.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They will just be happy to know that somewhere beyond the horizon, the dark blues have somewhere they can play more than 40 games of tennis at the same time (thanks to the BBC for helping to visualise the deck space )
...They may also be happy to know that in the future if required that they will be able to call upon CAS despite lack of HNS for aircraft. No doubt they will also be delighted to know that if they recieve casualties then they will be flown to a place with excellent medical facilities and relatively safe (unlike most field hospitals)
Look beyond the now Bill
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Althenick,
“They may also be happy to know that in the future if required that they will be able to call upon CAS despite lack of HNS for aircraft.”
You mean Falklands 2? Since the envisaged airgroups dwarf the current committed CAS aircraft in both Iraq and Afghanistan which enjoy HNS.
“No doubt they will also be delighted to know that if they recieve casualties then they will be flown to a place with excellent medical facilities and relatively safe (unlike most field hospitals)“
Fair play to that but I am pretty sure that Ocean, Albion, Bulwark et al have decent medical facilities.
”Look beyond the now Bill”
By ordering two ships designed to fight a war more than quarter of a century ago?
But hey ho do not let the facts and changing world situation spoil a pork-barrel of massive proportions for BWOS.
Cheers
BHR
“They may also be happy to know that in the future if required that they will be able to call upon CAS despite lack of HNS for aircraft.”
You mean Falklands 2? Since the envisaged airgroups dwarf the current committed CAS aircraft in both Iraq and Afghanistan which enjoy HNS.
“No doubt they will also be delighted to know that if they recieve casualties then they will be flown to a place with excellent medical facilities and relatively safe (unlike most field hospitals)“
Fair play to that but I am pretty sure that Ocean, Albion, Bulwark et al have decent medical facilities.
”Look beyond the now Bill”
By ordering two ships designed to fight a war more than quarter of a century ago?
But hey ho do not let the facts and changing world situation spoil a pork-barrel of massive proportions for BWOS.
Cheers
BHR
If HNS isn't available, chances are the op won't be politically sustainable anyway.
Carriers are nice to have, but we haven't NEEDED them since 1982.
And the money being spent on two CVF and 82+ JCAs would fund an awful lot of more useful, more necessary kit - including the entire Future Rotorcraft budget.
Carriers are nice to have, but we haven't NEEDED them since 1982.
And the money being spent on two CVF and 82+ JCAs would fund an awful lot of more useful, more necessary kit - including the entire Future Rotorcraft budget.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: I wish someone would tell me
Age: 47
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurance
Defence is not a business, it is the nations insurance policy. Just because you have had two burglaries doesn't mean you cancel your buildings insurance! Same applies to the forces we require. You may be right about HNS support today, but what about the political climate in 10-15 years time? Do you want to take the gamble? Try cancelling your buildings or car insurance and see how comfortable you are!
Stop in-fighting and helping the treasury out, and start telling them to pay the bloody premiums! If only we could be a little bit unified in our approach, god forbid we might work as a team!
Stop in-fighting and helping the treasury out, and start telling them to pay the bloody premiums! If only we could be a little bit unified in our approach, god forbid we might work as a team!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL410
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Carriers are nice to have, but we haven't NEEDED them since 1982."
We haven't NEEDED ICBMs since their inception 50 years or so ago... Means nothing. As has been said - coherent armed forces are an insurance policy and anyone that sees it otherwise is sadly misguided.
The way I see it, if you want expeditionary warfare, which according to SDRs passim, we do, then you need carriers and all the support that goes with them. Whether we need them quite in the shape that we're gettting them and at such cost to other capability, is another matter. I can't help but feel that the needs of the UK would be better met with 3 smaller ships, but what do I know? Penis envy is a strange thing, especially when it comes to super-carriers.
I find it quite sad that the supposedly informed are largely content to ignore the lessons of history. I do wonder if the problems we are facing in the economy right now are the chickens coming home to roost from the Govt's apparent total lack of appetite for strategic thought, whether it be economic or military.
We haven't NEEDED ICBMs since their inception 50 years or so ago... Means nothing. As has been said - coherent armed forces are an insurance policy and anyone that sees it otherwise is sadly misguided.
The way I see it, if you want expeditionary warfare, which according to SDRs passim, we do, then you need carriers and all the support that goes with them. Whether we need them quite in the shape that we're gettting them and at such cost to other capability, is another matter. I can't help but feel that the needs of the UK would be better met with 3 smaller ships, but what do I know? Penis envy is a strange thing, especially when it comes to super-carriers.
I find it quite sad that the supposedly informed are largely content to ignore the lessons of history. I do wonder if the problems we are facing in the economy right now are the chickens coming home to roost from the Govt's apparent total lack of appetite for strategic thought, whether it be economic or military.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, whatever happened to giving Royal Navy vessels a punchy and relevant name, like Resolute or Furious. Look out for "The Namer of Her Majesty's vessels" name appearing in the New year honours list.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the names were politically quite sensible - can you imagine the headlines in the Daily Mail if Broon tries to axe Queen Elizabeth or Prince of Wales?
I'd also have liked to have seen some names from the heyday of RN carrier aviation resurrected such as Eagle, Hermes, Courageous, Formidable or Glorious. However, I think QE2 and HMS Duke of Edinburgh would also have been a nice combination, particularly given the latters RN service.
Anyway, good news that CVF appears to be moving (albeit slowly) forward.
What we have to do now is ensure F-35 is not overemphasised. More important is arguably the C2 and J6 capabilities of the vessels. The latter in particular seems to be paid scant attention to by the RN but will be utterly essential if embarked assets are to be correctly supported.
Regards,
MM
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But hey ho do not let the facts and changing world situation spoil a pork-barrel of massive proportions for BWOS.
Nobody (apart from a few RN officers in the 1960's) could have forseen the the south atlantic adventure - but it happened, and it happened because the argentinian Mil thought that with the decomm of the UK's last conventional carrier would deter the UK from trying to retake the islands.
If HNS isn't available, chances are the op won't be politically sustainable anyway
PS - the last time I looked the Argentinean's had not relinquished their claim to the Malivina's only that they would not persue sovereignty through force.
And we all know the worth of the word of a poltician
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote
That is why the UK Armed forces must be equipped to meet ALL Scenario's not just the one's we THINK are going to happen.
Unquote
Spot on observation.
Mine would be to build catapults and arrestor gear into them to make them usable by our allies. Will STOVL-only capability make us a 'Billynomates' navy?
That is why the UK Armed forces must be equipped to meet ALL Scenario's not just the one's we THINK are going to happen.
Unquote
Spot on observation.
Mine would be to build catapults and arrestor gear into them to make them usable by our allies. Will STOVL-only capability make us a 'Billynomates' navy?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will STOVL-only capability make us a 'Billynomates' navy?
Arguably therefore, STOVL offers greater opportunities for mutual coorperation.
Regards,
MM
Magic
Surely if the CVFs were to be cat and trap they would be more flexible i.e they could accept all carrier borne aviation (inc FW AEW/transport)whereas a STOVL only carrier, such as the plans for QE2 and PoW, can only accept STOVL/RW assets from those nations you mention (two of which are not best known for forward leaning on operations). Personally I think we should have gone cat and trap with the CV variant for many many reasons. I assume the French carriers that are being built as part of the "partnership" are cat and trap.
Surely if the CVFs were to be cat and trap they would be more flexible i.e they could accept all carrier borne aviation (inc FW AEW/transport)whereas a STOVL only carrier, such as the plans for QE2 and PoW, can only accept STOVL/RW assets from those nations you mention (two of which are not best known for forward leaning on operations). Personally I think we should have gone cat and trap with the CV variant for many many reasons. I assume the French carriers that are being built as part of the "partnership" are cat and trap.