Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
dat, I didn't say that. I said more countries than the RN could berth at or overfly. I didn't say the RAF could overfly where the RN could not.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember the fact that over 70% of the world’s surface is covered by sea, 80% of countries have a coastline and most of the world’s population lives within 300 miles of the coast.
The carrier group can't be in the Falklands, protecting the oil rigs in the North Sea, hunting pirates off Somalia, disrupting drug operations in the Caribbean, providing CAS in Afghanistan (or whatever conflict we get drawn in to next) and flying the flag elsewhere all at the same time. Yet if the carriers are built then with such a limited number of FF/DD the surface "fleet" will be limited to being in one place at one time protecting the carrier. So we get to pick one battle and hope nothing else is going on at the same time.
If we had the money then great, but we don't and putting all of our eggs in one carrier shaped basket is short sighted.
A logical assumption is that the Navy is playing the long game here and reason that in a few years time they'll be in a better position to argue for an increased fleet. But when this is likely be at the cost of capabilities in the other services and also reduces our total defence capability across the next decade - and this includes the Navy since it could do a lot more with a large fleet of FF/DD rather than the carriers - then it is about single-service empire building rather than defence of the realm.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David Cameron ‘rules out slash and burn defence cuts’
Robert Fox and Martin Bentham
08.10.10
David Cameron has intervened to prevent “slash and burn” cuts to the Armed Forces after holding a private meeting with defence chiefs.
The Prime Minister is understood to have decided that there will be no reduction in the operational strength of the Army while the fighting in Afghanistan continues.
He has also agreed that both of the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers will be built and that, instead of implementing widespread and large-scale cuts immediately, a “rolling review” of defence spending will take place over the next two years. Key decisions on the future strength of the Army will also be put off until 2015 — which Mr Cameron has set as the deadline for a British withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The Prime Minister's intervention over cuts to the Ministry of Defence's £37 billion-a-year budget came during a private summit with defence chiefs held after a meeting of the National Security Council yesterday. He is understood to have emphasised his determination to minimise the impact of cuts on the Armed Forces.
“It is not going to be slash and burn,” one source said. Details of the Government's plans will be announced in a strategic defence and security review — due to be published the week after next, the day before the outcome of the public spending review is revealed.
The decision to go ahead with both new aircraft carriers is understood to have been taken partly because contractual commitments mean that it would be equally expensive to cancel one.
Plans to use vertical take-off aircraft on the carriers have been abandoned, however, and cheaper jets that take off and land by using a catapult and wire will be used instead. The second carrier might also be converted from its conventional use to operate as a “floating platform” for commandos.
The Navy is also expected to be allowed to buy new frigates for 2020, and the Royal Marines will be retained instead of being merged with the Army's Paratroop Regiment, as some reports had suggested. However, the helicopter budget is expected to be reduced by as much as £1 billion. Ministers are expected to insist that this will not affect operations in Afghanistan.
All the planned changes are subject to confirmation at a final meeting of the National Security Council prior to publication of the defence review.
PM has realised the world is a more dangerous place
At last, the Prime Minister has taken charge of the radical overhaul of defence and foreign policy, though not in the direction previously advertised.
Chairing a session of the new National Security Council yesterday he and senior ministers put the final lick of paint to the Strategic Defence and Security Review due to be unveiled on October 19 — a day before the voice of doom of the Treasury, George Osborne, announces the Comprehensive Spending Review.
The timing is the clue. “The review document will be very thin, a statement of intent more than definitive plan for cuts,” a Westminster insider said last night.
The plan now is to have a rolling review looking at all aspects of defence management, the armed forces, and equipment procurement, over the next two years or so. There will have to be some cuts, though nothing on the scale previously suggested. One of the target areas is the helicopter budget. The number of machines will be reduced. The Trident replacement will be delayed by a year or two, but will go ahead in one form or another — as will the aircraft carrier programme, though with a different variant of the Lockheed Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.
These are mere details compared with the overall change of strategy the Prime Minister appeared to agree at the meeting yesterday. What has changed? First the Americans became alarmed that after appearing in Douglas Hurd's words “to punch above its weight,” Britain under the Hurd protégé David Cameron was preparing to punch well below its weight.
Second, defence industry warned Cameron that the Treasury's scorched earth plan for cuts would wreck defence manufacture, which employs directly more than 300,000 skilled personnel.
Finally, the world is a far more dangerous place than even when Mr Cameron went through the door at No 10 in May. Hot spots are breeding, and at least six of them hint of wars and violence that touch vital British interests.
It is no time for British defences and defence capabilities to be lowered — whatever the Treasury audit clerks may say. Mr Cameron appears to have got the message.
Robert Fox
Defence Correspondent
Robert Fox and Martin Bentham
08.10.10
David Cameron has intervened to prevent “slash and burn” cuts to the Armed Forces after holding a private meeting with defence chiefs.
The Prime Minister is understood to have decided that there will be no reduction in the operational strength of the Army while the fighting in Afghanistan continues.
He has also agreed that both of the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers will be built and that, instead of implementing widespread and large-scale cuts immediately, a “rolling review” of defence spending will take place over the next two years. Key decisions on the future strength of the Army will also be put off until 2015 — which Mr Cameron has set as the deadline for a British withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The Prime Minister's intervention over cuts to the Ministry of Defence's £37 billion-a-year budget came during a private summit with defence chiefs held after a meeting of the National Security Council yesterday. He is understood to have emphasised his determination to minimise the impact of cuts on the Armed Forces.
“It is not going to be slash and burn,” one source said. Details of the Government's plans will be announced in a strategic defence and security review — due to be published the week after next, the day before the outcome of the public spending review is revealed.
The decision to go ahead with both new aircraft carriers is understood to have been taken partly because contractual commitments mean that it would be equally expensive to cancel one.
Plans to use vertical take-off aircraft on the carriers have been abandoned, however, and cheaper jets that take off and land by using a catapult and wire will be used instead. The second carrier might also be converted from its conventional use to operate as a “floating platform” for commandos.
The Navy is also expected to be allowed to buy new frigates for 2020, and the Royal Marines will be retained instead of being merged with the Army's Paratroop Regiment, as some reports had suggested. However, the helicopter budget is expected to be reduced by as much as £1 billion. Ministers are expected to insist that this will not affect operations in Afghanistan.
All the planned changes are subject to confirmation at a final meeting of the National Security Council prior to publication of the defence review.
PM has realised the world is a more dangerous place
At last, the Prime Minister has taken charge of the radical overhaul of defence and foreign policy, though not in the direction previously advertised.
Chairing a session of the new National Security Council yesterday he and senior ministers put the final lick of paint to the Strategic Defence and Security Review due to be unveiled on October 19 — a day before the voice of doom of the Treasury, George Osborne, announces the Comprehensive Spending Review.
The timing is the clue. “The review document will be very thin, a statement of intent more than definitive plan for cuts,” a Westminster insider said last night.
The plan now is to have a rolling review looking at all aspects of defence management, the armed forces, and equipment procurement, over the next two years or so. There will have to be some cuts, though nothing on the scale previously suggested. One of the target areas is the helicopter budget. The number of machines will be reduced. The Trident replacement will be delayed by a year or two, but will go ahead in one form or another — as will the aircraft carrier programme, though with a different variant of the Lockheed Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.
These are mere details compared with the overall change of strategy the Prime Minister appeared to agree at the meeting yesterday. What has changed? First the Americans became alarmed that after appearing in Douglas Hurd's words “to punch above its weight,” Britain under the Hurd protégé David Cameron was preparing to punch well below its weight.
Second, defence industry warned Cameron that the Treasury's scorched earth plan for cuts would wreck defence manufacture, which employs directly more than 300,000 skilled personnel.
Finally, the world is a far more dangerous place than even when Mr Cameron went through the door at No 10 in May. Hot spots are breeding, and at least six of them hint of wars and violence that touch vital British interests.
It is no time for British defences and defence capabilities to be lowered — whatever the Treasury audit clerks may say. Mr Cameron appears to have got the message.
Robert Fox
Defence Correspondent
Reminds me of the line about "it's so confused around here that people are stabbing one another in the chest".
Going to cat/arrest for the carriers has some interesting implications.
For the JSF program, it leaves the Marines standing alone with Dave-B, which is not a happy program right now, because of technical difficulties and delays, because of doubts as to the feasibility and utility of forward basing, and because in the emerging concept of "from the sea" operations, STOVLs on amphibs are only a marginal improvement to the force.
Dave-C, on the other hand, is currently trailing behind the other two versions: CF-2 and 3 won't even fly until next year. Given the delays involved in converting the carriers, the UK doesn't have to order jets until 2015 or later... but the USN won't close out the Super Hornet line until Dave-C is proven solid, so that could remain a contender. (What if the RN leased some SHs, and flew off land and US carriers to retain skills?)
Meanwhile, the reference to "cheaper" is interesting since the story always used to be that the B and C would cost about the same. So cheaper means Super Hornet, or that the projected cost of the B has gone way up, or that the C has become cheaper, and if you think the last is a serious contender you probably think Barney is a real dinosaur.
Further complicating the issue is that the RAF wants F-35 for deep strike, because of its LO qualities, and I suspect would be underwhelmed even by the Ultra Hornet.
Going to cat/arrest for the carriers has some interesting implications.
For the JSF program, it leaves the Marines standing alone with Dave-B, which is not a happy program right now, because of technical difficulties and delays, because of doubts as to the feasibility and utility of forward basing, and because in the emerging concept of "from the sea" operations, STOVLs on amphibs are only a marginal improvement to the force.
Dave-C, on the other hand, is currently trailing behind the other two versions: CF-2 and 3 won't even fly until next year. Given the delays involved in converting the carriers, the UK doesn't have to order jets until 2015 or later... but the USN won't close out the Super Hornet line until Dave-C is proven solid, so that could remain a contender. (What if the RN leased some SHs, and flew off land and US carriers to retain skills?)
Meanwhile, the reference to "cheaper" is interesting since the story always used to be that the B and C would cost about the same. So cheaper means Super Hornet, or that the projected cost of the B has gone way up, or that the C has become cheaper, and if you think the last is a serious contender you probably think Barney is a real dinosaur.
Further complicating the issue is that the RAF wants F-35 for deep strike, because of its LO qualities, and I suspect would be underwhelmed even by the Ultra Hornet.
So cheaper means Super Hornet
JFZ - Good question, since the B has the equivalent of an extra engine. However, the official line is that both are about the same price.
And before anyone starts going "C model for the RAF, greater range" let me repeat that the C is very heavy, that any range improvement is largely attributable to replacing the internal gun with JP-8, and that the C will be slower than the A.
So if the RAF wants range, it would be a lot cheaper to pull the gun out of the A than to try to lighten the C.
And before anyone starts going "C model for the RAF, greater range" let me repeat that the C is very heavy, that any range improvement is largely attributable to replacing the internal gun with JP-8, and that the C will be slower than the A.
So if the RAF wants range, it would be a lot cheaper to pull the gun out of the A than to try to lighten the C.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have though the replacement of the lift fan with fuel had a greater effect than the lack of internal gun, which of course Dave-B lacked anyway.
In any case, surely better, i.e. cheaper, to have a common variant for H.M. Armed Forces PLC than two - in which case it has to be -B or -C.
As mentioned, redesigning the carriers as proper flat-tops increases their capability no end, whether through interoperability with our allies or purchase of additional types in the future.
In any case, surely better, i.e. cheaper, to have a common variant for H.M. Armed Forces PLC than two - in which case it has to be -B or -C.
As mentioned, redesigning the carriers as proper flat-tops increases their capability no end, whether through interoperability with our allies or purchase of additional types in the future.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always thought that we should go a similar way to the Italians. Yes they are looking at the B, but in part because it will be the only thing that will be capable of operating off their small carriers. So, in our case the C for the Navy. 60-odd Cs, enough for a single air wing and attrition. And later, when economic conditions permit, the Dave-A for the RAF as partly as a replacement for the Tornado, depending on what ever is left of its fleet post SDSR. We loose STOVL, but does it really matter.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The implementation of STOVL in Dave-B is so philosophically/fundamentally half-arsed that its a danger, what with the extra fan and bombed up rolling vertical landings. I'm still a bit incredulous that the lip-service to real world operational requirements that is the Dave-B design has been tolerated off the drawing board.
I hope we stay well clear of it until the designers have had a word with themselves.
I hope we stay well clear of it until the designers have had a word with themselves.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Save the Royal Navy
Oldnotbold,
thanks for reviving this link, I had forgotten it existed! In particular I noticed it says:
Which all say to me it is a mistake to sacrifice escorts and reduce the size of the RN in order to get carriers - even if they do contribute to one or two of the tasks above.
thanks for reviving this link, I had forgotten it existed! In particular I noticed it says:
The RN is particularly short of escort vessels needed to protect merchant shipping from submarine, air or missile attacks.
In addition to the actual RN submarines that carry these weapons, there is a need for trained and experienced personnel to man them and other submarines and ships to protect them at times. The RN is already short of these resources.
As with protecting trade, the RN simply does not have the number of ships needed to patrol the large areas used by terrorist traffic.
The concept of a 'fleet in being' is a cornerstone in the defence of the UK and its interests.
The current government has allowed the RN's fishery protection fleet to fall to a laughable 3 vessels dedicated to patrolling UK waters.
As a 'cost saving measure' the government plans to privatise search and rescue cover from 2012 and replace experienced RN and RAF crews with private contractors.