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

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Wikiposts
Search
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)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 16th Dec 2019, 08:41
  #5781 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,401
Received 361 Likes on 210 Posts
Apparently quite a few people sweating across the UK military - industrial complex.................. he doesn't take prisoners................

But we had the Admirals writing in the Times letter pages rebutting Hastings article today ... this will run and run.............
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2019, 09:06
  #5782 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,788
Received 75 Likes on 34 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
Apparently quite a few people sweating across the UK military - industrial complex.................. he doesn't take prisoners................

But we had the Admirals writing in the Times letter pages rebutting Hastings article today ... this will run and run.............
Cummings saw off the Remain establishment and he will have the military establishment for breakfast, lunch and dinner if it takes him on in the political arena (of which the press is part). A better approach would be to welcome the scrutiny. The military-industrial complex has grown lazy; brief consideration of the concept of ‘defence inflation’ should make that clear. Cummings is not anti-military, in fact some would say he is obsessed with military thinking. Moreover the 2% needs to be spent somehow as I can’t see Johnson allowing that target to be missed. There is plenty of innovation going on in various corners of the defence and security establishment and Cummings will want to reward that in favour of continually replenishing the corporate trough. BAES will be keen to play the ‘jobs’ card but that is full of weaknesses for Cummings to exploit: witness for one the difficulty in exporting anything.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2019, 10:39
  #5783 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 526
Received 167 Likes on 90 Posts
Originally Posted by Easy Street
BAES will be keen to play the ‘jobs’ card but that is full of weaknesses for Cummings to exploit: witness for one the difficulty in exporting anything.
That'll be the UK that is the 3 or 4th largest defence exporter in the world? Going to have to go some to move up that ladder, given who's above us.

It will be interesting to see how DC squares "the MIC" with the defence jobs in the North and Scotland argument. Interestingly, many of the "inefficiencies" are entangled with process to ensure VFM and prevent fraud, as well as annualised budgets for capital projects - which John Parker had as the most important fix in his shipbuilding strategy and which strangely has yet to win HMT approval......
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2019, 11:08
  #5784 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 766
Received 544 Likes on 196 Posts
F-35B launch from QNLZ in Portsmouth apparently scheduled for 1230 today.
Video Mixdown is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2019, 11:19
  #5785 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,788
Received 75 Likes on 34 Posts
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
That'll be the UK that is the 3 or 4th largest defence exporter in the world? Going to have to go some to move up that ladder, given who's above us.
Shipbuilding is in a different space to aircraft and weapons, which have underpinned our export ranking on the basis of our willingness to export to the Gulf and our past success in doing so. But we are ever more dependent on partnership to reach our advanced domestic capability goals, and the Gulf states are becoming ever less palatable as export destinations for many of our potential partners. And partnerships tend to involve right of veto over exports. So it's not just MIC vs jobs; it's MIC vs jobs vs foreign policy. I agree that it will be fascinating to see how DC sets about it.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2019, 18:51
  #5786 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 831
Received 98 Likes on 51 Posts
Originally Posted by Video Mixdown
F-35B launch from QNLZ in Portsmouth apparently scheduled for 1230 today.
Video on the BBC news website
Timelord is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2019, 21:26
  #5787 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 3,258
Received 640 Likes on 231 Posts
Given that the future has arrived as it were, could not the thread, seemingly going for ever and a day, be retitled please?
langleybaston is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2019, 07:10
  #5788 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,401
Received 361 Likes on 210 Posts
More letters in the "Times" today .

A cynic might think they ran the Hastings article to stir up some action.................... but also reporting "support for a review" from senior Tories
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2019, 20:40
  #5789 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I wonder how long before the carriers are listed as "Fisheries protection assets"?

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2019, 11:28
  #5790 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,401
Received 361 Likes on 210 Posts
looking at the Ben Wallace speech (see the SDR thread) not long at all....................
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2019, 14:31
  #5791 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Onceapilot
I wonder how long before the carriers are listed as "Fisheries protection assets"?

OAP
If they tied that in with "homeland security" as opposed to "lets go bomb them back to the stone age" type of political direction [please note that] an awful lot of people would say well done...
weemonkey is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2019, 10:08
  #5792 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,924
Received 139 Likes on 64 Posts
weemonkey,

Be VERY careful what you wish for!

If the review was scoped as you suggest, and merely focuses the UK armed forces on home defence, you would end up with maybe 4 Typhoon AD squadrons, 1 wedgetail AEW Sqn, 1 P-8A squadron, a couple of radar stations, the SAS, a few ceremonial Guards regiments, a few OPV's and that would be about it.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2019, 10:28
  #5793 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: glasgow
Posts: 297
Received 29 Likes on 16 Posts
Proone,
Isnt that precisely the point.....?
falcon900 is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2019, 10:59
  #5794 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,788
Received 75 Likes on 34 Posts
weemonkey said “homeland security” which pr00ne twisted to “home defence”; I don’t think they are quite the same thing as ‘security’ has wider scope and includes such things as protection of shipping elsewhere. And unless pr00ne is proposing to withdraw from NATO then we have Alliance burden-sharing responsibilities to fulfil which would add to the minimalist shopping list he presented.

The problem weemonkey alludes to is aggravated by a perceived need for force elements to be kept ‘busy’ to justify their existence; why, for instance, are Typhoons still taking part in Op SHADER? So I think an important issue for this review will be readiness states and what we expect our NATO contribution to do while waiting for WW3. Less interfering in far-flung corners and more focus on training would improve retention and might even reduce pressure on the wage bill.

Trouble is, the carriers were acquired precisely to interfere in far-flung corners, and rebranding them as ASW platforms for the NATO context doesn’t really help the case for the rest of the F-35 acquisition programme. That’s just the kind of problem that Cummings will focus on.

Last edited by Easy Street; 23rd Dec 2019 at 11:10.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2019, 15:43
  #5795 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Just sticking with the carriers,....We have a ridiculous situation where, the sensible requirement for UK security to have 5th Gen combat aircraft has been corrupted. Notwithstanding that the RN have an impressive submarine capability that includes the UK Nuclear deterrent, the aspirations of the Navy top brass rose, unfettered almost, to include a brace of (almost) Capital ships, at the cost of a better balanced surface fleet and, to the gross detriment of the RAF. Furthermore, the capability of the UK carriers is overstated. They are vulnerable and, their specifications and limitations have neutered the performance of the 5th Gen aircraft that they will carry. The carriers vulnerability is well known and compounded by the fact that in a serious conflict, at sea they represent targets that are likely to be proportional and free from collateral risk, such that they may be targeted by Nuclear weapons within the limitations of LOAC. The use of Nuclear weapons against fixed base airfield targets is generally much more difficult within LOAC. Moreover, the fatuous argument that the location of the carriers would be unknown to a capable enemy is, just that. The RAF have been lumbered with a 5th Gen combat aircraft that is unfairly compromised by the requirements of the Navy carriers.
I firmly believe that continued progress down this flawed concept of capability should be brought to a cost effective close. The most likely way forward might be the continued operation of a single carrier. The Navy may wish to consider the ways to better balance their fleet. The RAF should be equipped with less compromised 5th Gen aircraft and not shackled with the Naval limitations. Just my opinion.

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2019, 15:48
  #5796 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pr00ne
weemonkey,

Be VERY careful what you wish for!

If the review was scoped as you suggest, and merely focuses the UK armed forces on home defence, you would end up with maybe 4 Typhoon AD squadrons, 1 wedgetail AEW Sqn, 1 P-8A squadron, a couple of radar stations, the SAS, a few ceremonial Guards regiments, a few OPV's and that would be about it.
We really should be "moving away" from expeditionary warfare in the middle east, when the danger on the borders of Europe is growing, to consolidate on the security of "home base" If properly executed your list would do for Scotland and the Northern Approaches; Monday to Friday.



weemonkey is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2019, 22:23
  #5797 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by weemonkey
We really should be "moving away" from expeditionary warfare in the middle east, when the danger on the borders of Europe is growing, to consolidate on the security of "home base" If properly executed your list would do for Scotland and the Northern Approaches; Monday to Friday.
No we shouldn't.

Radical Islam is bad enough as it is, to ignore it and let them act with impunity would imperil us all.

There is a good argument for whom the target(s) should be, however.
BVRAAM is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2019, 00:02
  #5798 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by BVRAAM
No we shouldn't.

Radical Islam is bad enough as it is, to ignore it and let them act with impunity would imperil us all.

There is a good argument for whom the target(s) should be, however.
The evidence to date suggests that the military are entirely incapable of suppressing 'radical Islam'. Indeed, military interventions have simple metastasized the problem.
The failure has been palpable, whether in Afghanistan, Libya, Mali or even Nigeria. If there has been a successful intervention, it is well hidden. Even the Israeli experience suggests the problem is intractable militarily.
There may be a solution, but just the military sure is not it.
etudiant is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2019, 08:16
  #5799 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by etudiant
The evidence to date suggests that the military are entirely incapable of suppressing 'radical Islam'. Indeed, military interventions have simple metastasized the problem.
The failure has been palpable, whether in Afghanistan, Libya, Mali or even Nigeria. If there has been a successful intervention, it is well hidden. Even the Israeli experience suggests the problem is intractable militarily.
There may be a solution, but just the military sure is not it.
Nobody said it was exclusively a military issue, because it's not. It's societal and political as well - people are not easy to radicalise unless their environment allows them to be; extreme poverty keeps the recruitment pool filled.

Unfortunately, we must continue to use the military and law enforcement to disrupt the leadership of these organisations, and a well equipped Carrier Air Wing, or two, is just one of the tools for that job. Nobody in their right mind wants a repeat of 9/11.
BVRAAM is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2019, 09:07
  #5800 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The carriers really are a monumental waste of time and money, with negative impacts far beyond the decks themselves. The sooner they are junked the better. In the short term I expect the SDSR to propose the laying up of one of them, along with a commitment to a number of F35As. And then it will simply be a matter of time before the other one is quietly pensioned off and the whole sorry saga can be bought to a conclusion.
andrewn is offline  


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.