Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
I think you will find that the RN would gladly have taken the Harriers back and indeed offered to do so 3 years ago when Torpy/Timo were playing their silly games.
All the while the RAF operated the Harriers the RN were relatively happy, someone else was paying the lion's share of the cost and the FAA was kept turning over. But now, as a result of the political games the RN has played over the last few years, the RAF have been forced to make a choice. Either lose a small force of less-capable FJs that the RN has an interest in or cut a large slice of a more-capable fleet, resulting in two smaller, less economical to operate fleets?
The RAF brass have been pushed into a corner and have made a call. Perhaps the RN brass should have thought a little more carefully.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More from the Telegraph...
Navy aircraft carriers not operational for 26 years - Telegraph
Sgt. Slabber that one is even more nuts than the previous sell-off story.
2020 - unless there has been a drastic realignment of the proposed F-35 production schedule that is actually the date as to when there should be enough F-35s (whatever version) available to form an airwing by which time HMS PoW should have finished sea trials and will be fully available itself. 2036 - erm is Lockheed Martin going to stagger deliveries to us until then, especially if there are only 40-60+ ordered. I doubt it. I think if we ordered all 138 as originally planned, the last aircraft would have been delivered around 2034, however.
Navy aircraft carriers not operational for 26 years - Telegraph
Sgt. Slabber that one is even more nuts than the previous sell-off story.
2020 - unless there has been a drastic realignment of the proposed F-35 production schedule that is actually the date as to when there should be enough F-35s (whatever version) available to form an airwing by which time HMS PoW should have finished sea trials and will be fully available itself. 2036 - erm is Lockheed Martin going to stagger deliveries to us until then, especially if there are only 40-60+ ordered. I doubt it. I think if we ordered all 138 as originally planned, the last aircraft would have been delivered around 2034, however.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nr.EGHI, UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mick...
I would suggest a realignment of the "delivery" schedule, plus trials, training, LSD, ISD, IOC, etc., etc. Harding must have got those dates, info, suppositions, etc., from somewhere. Surely he would not have made them up, would he?
As for the supposition that French/US Navy a/c will operate from Prince of Wales, how long will it take to install the support infrastructure for their cabs? It will not be so bad if UK Air goes for 35C rather than 35B, but for Rafale?
Whatever, this entire SDSR has been nothing more than can of SH!TE from day 0.
As for the "aid" to the tune of a billion (ish) GBP to india - this is what it is buying this year: India Nears Fielding Of New SAM Systems | AVIATION WEEK
Go figure...
2020 - unless there has been a drastic realignment of the proposed F-35 production schedule...
As for the supposition that French/US Navy a/c will operate from Prince of Wales, how long will it take to install the support infrastructure for their cabs? It will not be so bad if UK Air goes for 35C rather than 35B, but for Rafale?
Whatever, this entire SDSR has been nothing more than can of SH!TE from day 0.
As for the "aid" to the tune of a billion (ish) GBP to india - this is what it is buying this year: India Nears Fielding Of New SAM Systems | AVIATION WEEK
Go figure...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2036 figure is risible - it's probably a lazy journo extrapolating a 2020 ISD for HMS "Chuck" and adding Commodore Steve Jermy's comment
Equals 2036. Rubbish - should be 2022-24. And Harrier GR9 ops are hardly the same as Dave-C CATOBAR ops with the associated air defence, C4ISTAR, LO and deep strike capability.
I appreciate that there is all of the deck handling stuff, but that's about to disappear, for perfectly sensible reasons previously discussed here - if we have to go down to one of GR4 or GR9 for budgetary reasons, then the only sensible answer given current operations and quasi-strategic capabilities is to keep GR4.
S41
"Once these carrier skills have gone they will take at least 16 years to build back up"
I appreciate that there is all of the deck handling stuff, but that's about to disappear, for perfectly sensible reasons previously discussed here - if we have to go down to one of GR4 or GR9 for budgetary reasons, then the only sensible answer given current operations and quasi-strategic capabilities is to keep GR4.
S41
Dr. Fox's comparison of the proposed aircraft-less carrier capability gap with the carrier gap of the late 70s is specious. The gap between the decommissioning of the old Ark and the first embarkation of 800 NAS aboard Vince was around two years, not ten!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say that the only reason the two CV's are still going ahead is due to political considerations - if they are cancelled, the shipbuilding industry in the North and Scotland will suffer a tremendous loss in their employment capacity, in the middle of the labour heartland, political suicide for the next election. So produce them and them sell them off.
Cutting our existing fleet down to one CV, is mad, it leaves no resilience, although with no aircraft and virtually no escorts, it does'nt matter anyway.
The Falklands will go, the oil is far too attractive, who has the balls in the current lot to say 'Sink the ??' if the Argies and any allies they can muster set sail. We have the SSN capability, just about, but leaders ...........
And for gods sake remove all overseas aid and put it defence, I'm tired of paying for India's £100Billion space programme.
Cutting our existing fleet down to one CV, is mad, it leaves no resilience, although with no aircraft and virtually no escorts, it does'nt matter anyway.
The Falklands will go, the oil is far too attractive, who has the balls in the current lot to say 'Sink the ??' if the Argies and any allies they can muster set sail. We have the SSN capability, just about, but leaders ...........
And for gods sake remove all overseas aid and put it defence, I'm tired of paying for India's £100Billion space programme.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I would say that the only reason the two CV's are still going ahead is due to political considerations
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
the two CV's are still going ahead is due to political considerations
Remember money spent is money gone and the Treasury ignores any waste from closures, scrapping etc. Money committed however would not feature in any savings plan.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sgt.Slabber. The production to delivery schedule remains the same as far as I know with multi-year contracts placed two years before each batch of aircraft is delivered, and the first due I think in 2014. I have no idea what the exact IOC is in the case of the UK (I guess should roughly be what S41 said) and will depend much on which version is ordered, but no around 2036 would be if all 138 aircraft are ordered and delivered, which is pretty much what has been planned all along. F-35 training is supposed to begin in the States within the next few years, but enough pilots are supposed to go through the training system for the UK to field a single air wing by the early 2020s. It'll also depend on the development of the F-35 itself, which isn't exactly keeping to schedule.
On the Harrier, even if it had remained in service until 2018, we'd probably still have had a gap of two years to get up to strength to be able to operate an air wing of F-35s, although obviously ten years now is a pretty big gap, but at least they have the sense to put some pilots through training on the F-18 now in the US prior to the start of conversion to the F-35. If that is anything positive to come from what will be announced later today... which isn't really.
On the Harrier, even if it had remained in service until 2018, we'd probably still have had a gap of two years to get up to strength to be able to operate an air wing of F-35s, although obviously ten years now is a pretty big gap, but at least they have the sense to put some pilots through training on the F-18 now in the US prior to the start of conversion to the F-35. If that is anything positive to come from what will be announced later today... which isn't really.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would really appreciate it if anyone could actually address the real issues in this article, rather than copping out. Anyone?
Flying from our new Carriers ? The RN or the RAF Ethos. The Phoenix Think Tank
Flying from our new Carriers ? The RN or the RAF Ethos. The Phoenix Think Tank
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nr.EGHI, UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mick,
I do not disagree. These dates being quoted now, e.g., 2020/2023? for 35? deployment availability on whichever deck is available makes a mockery of the 2016/2018? dates that were being touted this time last year. Has the CV/JSF(JCA) programme slipped that much?
In the mean time, you may have seen this: Defence cuts: David Cameron attacked by Royal Navy Harrier pilot - Telegraph
This, attributed to Cameron, is interesting: Mr Cameron thanked Lt Cdr Ward for "everything" he had done for his country but added: "I have listened to all the military advice, and the military advice is pretty clear that when we have to make difficult decisions, it is right to keep the Typhoon as our principal ground attack aircraft, working in Afghanistan at the moment, and it is right to retire the Harrier."
My bold. They have no idea...
I do not disagree. These dates being quoted now, e.g., 2020/2023? for 35? deployment availability on whichever deck is available makes a mockery of the 2016/2018? dates that were being touted this time last year. Has the CV/JSF(JCA) programme slipped that much?
In the mean time, you may have seen this: Defence cuts: David Cameron attacked by Royal Navy Harrier pilot - Telegraph
This, attributed to Cameron, is interesting: Mr Cameron thanked Lt Cdr Ward for "everything" he had done for his country but added: "I have listened to all the military advice, and the military advice is pretty clear that when we have to make difficult decisions, it is right to keep the Typhoon as our principal ground attack aircraft, working in Afghanistan at the moment, and it is right to retire the Harrier."
My bold. They have no idea...
Last edited by Sgt.Slabber; 19th Oct 2010 at 12:17.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
These dates being quoted now, e.g., 2020/2023? for 35? deployment availability on whichever deck is available makes a mockery of the 2016/2018? dates that were being touted this time last year.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it was nonsensical to claim that changing the dates would aline them to the JSF/JCA entering service because they would have really need to pushed them further. I think that was mostly short-term money driven, even if it was the result of adding overall cost to the programme in the longer-term. Dates haven't slipped that much, but there would have never been a full airwing available plus attrition aircraft in 2016-2018.
Shocking, if Cameroon thinks the Typhoon is in Afghanistan.
Shocking, if Cameroon thinks the Typhoon is in Afghanistan.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Torygraph: There has to be a day of reckoning for those who made this mess
Taxpayers reading the coverage of the SDSR this morning will be forgiven for wanting to grab their pitchforks and march on the MoD. To be told that the least worst option is to buy a £3bn aircraft carrier, deploy it without aircraft, then flog it to whichever tin-pot country desperate enough to buy a second-hand white elephant is such a rage-inducing development that David Cameron is going to have to work hard to explain it later today.
We will naturally focus on the detail of the defence review and whether Britain’s future strategic security needs can be met by post-cuts armed forces. But we should also devote some time to scrutinising the decisions and processes that got us into this mess. The scale of the waste is such that it is hard to view it without the words ‘criminal’ and ‘neglect’ coming to mind. On Friday the Coalition published the organogram of Whitehall to ‘clear out the crap’ and it is this kind of information that we should now use to ask questions of those whose signatures must be on these decisions. Starting with the defence secretaries who were on watch when contracts were negotiated and signed, to the senior MoD officials and forces chiefs who thought it was a good idea to endorse contracts that carried penalty clauses greater than the cost of procuring the equipment in the first place, we should draw up a list of those responsible. What about the politicians who are now enjoying lucrative directorships? Who are the officials looking forward to gold-plated retirement reinforced by lavish consultancy deals with defence companies? Should they be allowed to slip away into obscurity? And if all decisions funnelled back to a certain Fife MP who wanted to protect jobs at Rosyth, shouldn’t we say so and demand an accounting?
Taxpayers reading the coverage of the SDSR this morning will be forgiven for wanting to grab their pitchforks and march on the MoD. To be told that the least worst option is to buy a £3bn aircraft carrier, deploy it without aircraft, then flog it to whichever tin-pot country desperate enough to buy a second-hand white elephant is such a rage-inducing development that David Cameron is going to have to work hard to explain it later today.
We will naturally focus on the detail of the defence review and whether Britain’s future strategic security needs can be met by post-cuts armed forces. But we should also devote some time to scrutinising the decisions and processes that got us into this mess. The scale of the waste is such that it is hard to view it without the words ‘criminal’ and ‘neglect’ coming to mind. On Friday the Coalition published the organogram of Whitehall to ‘clear out the crap’ and it is this kind of information that we should now use to ask questions of those whose signatures must be on these decisions. Starting with the defence secretaries who were on watch when contracts were negotiated and signed, to the senior MoD officials and forces chiefs who thought it was a good idea to endorse contracts that carried penalty clauses greater than the cost of procuring the equipment in the first place, we should draw up a list of those responsible. What about the politicians who are now enjoying lucrative directorships? Who are the officials looking forward to gold-plated retirement reinforced by lavish consultancy deals with defence companies? Should they be allowed to slip away into obscurity? And if all decisions funnelled back to a certain Fife MP who wanted to protect jobs at Rosyth, shouldn’t we say so and demand an accounting?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the deficit reduction plan meets expectations there'll be plently of money in ten years to refit the first carrier and buy a whole damn ****-pot load of jets to go on it.
Not saying it'll happen, mind.
Not saying it'll happen, mind.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Henley on Thames
Age: 76
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh how I miss the Good Old Days !! When I joined up in 1964,everything seemed so settled and secure ; we had 7 (yes seven) carriers; two were LPH ,HMS Albion ,HMS Bulwark, and five were CVA ,HMS Eagle,HMS Ark Royal ,HMS Victorious, HMS Hermes ,and HMS Centaur. Aircraft in service included Sea Vixen ,Scimitar,Buccaneer,Gannet, Whirlwind 7, Whirlwind 9,Wessex 1,Wessex 3,Wessex 5,Wasp,Scout, Sea Balliol,Sea Prince,Sea Devon,Sea Heron,Hiller,Meteor ,Vampire, Sea Venom ( Airwork Services FRU),Hunter T8C,Hunter GA9, Hunter GA11 and even a couple of Dragonfly helos (BRNC Dartmouth ).
That year,1964,was the 50th anniversary of the formation of the Fleet Air Arm,as the Royal Naval Air Service had been formed in 1914 ; there was a big celebration & flypast at RNAS Yeovilton,with detachments from all Naval Air Squadrons and Naval Air Stations ( Yeovilton,Lossiemouth,Arbroath,Portland, Brawdy,Lee on Solent, Culdrose, Hal Far,Sembawang) and a "Royal Guard" of 100 for The Duke of Edinburgh ( I was in it !!). I hope to be invited to the 100th anniversary celebrations ,if there are any , in 2014 ! ---last year's Buckingham Palace Garden Party was most enjoyable !.
So what is my point,you ask ?? Well ; all those ships ! all those aircraft ! all those aircrew (which in those days included RAF, French,and American pilots & observers ) ! --- Where the F--K have they all gone ?? And why ?? Look at the state of the FAA today !! It is BEYOND BELIEF !!
1 "carrier", if you can call it that ; no dedicated fighter aircraft ; no proper AEW aircraft ; a few EXTREMELY expensive helos ; just two Naval Air Stations ; just one "assault" LPH ,slow,unlovely & unloved ,which probably wouldn't last five minutes in a war-zone . You couldn't make it up,could you ??
But at least we can now feel safer in the sure and certain knowledge that,even as I type these words, the FA 18 Super Hornets are being taken delivery of in the USA, in order that they and their aircrew will be fully operational by the time the two ,BOTH fixed-wing capable CVAs come into service, although the Government won't actually admit that .....yet !!
That year,1964,was the 50th anniversary of the formation of the Fleet Air Arm,as the Royal Naval Air Service had been formed in 1914 ; there was a big celebration & flypast at RNAS Yeovilton,with detachments from all Naval Air Squadrons and Naval Air Stations ( Yeovilton,Lossiemouth,Arbroath,Portland, Brawdy,Lee on Solent, Culdrose, Hal Far,Sembawang) and a "Royal Guard" of 100 for The Duke of Edinburgh ( I was in it !!). I hope to be invited to the 100th anniversary celebrations ,if there are any , in 2014 ! ---last year's Buckingham Palace Garden Party was most enjoyable !.
So what is my point,you ask ?? Well ; all those ships ! all those aircraft ! all those aircrew (which in those days included RAF, French,and American pilots & observers ) ! --- Where the F--K have they all gone ?? And why ?? Look at the state of the FAA today !! It is BEYOND BELIEF !!
1 "carrier", if you can call it that ; no dedicated fighter aircraft ; no proper AEW aircraft ; a few EXTREMELY expensive helos ; just two Naval Air Stations ; just one "assault" LPH ,slow,unlovely & unloved ,which probably wouldn't last five minutes in a war-zone . You couldn't make it up,could you ??
But at least we can now feel safer in the sure and certain knowledge that,even as I type these words, the FA 18 Super Hornets are being taken delivery of in the USA, in order that they and their aircrew will be fully operational by the time the two ,BOTH fixed-wing capable CVAs come into service, although the Government won't actually admit that .....yet !!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
To be told that the least worst option is to buy a £3bn aircraft carrier, deploy it without aircraft, then flog it to whichever tin-pot country desperate enough to buy a second-hand white elephant is such a rage-inducing development that David Cameron is going to have to work hard to explain it later today.
Equally to spend billions on the fixed wing aircraft and then sell it would also be madness.
Ergo, build and sell is the least worse option; bit like a builder finishing a house and selling at a loss rather than write off the initial outlay.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dorset
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't all of this simply a continuation of the way MOD procurement has always work?
The services argue to get ships or aircraft knowing perfectly well that the new kit will not be able to do what we want them to do.
Then once we are fully committed to the purchase, we point out the limitations and start arguing for extras.
In this case the extras just happen to be all of the aircraft.
Didn't they start calling SMART procurement a decade or so ago?
The services argue to get ships or aircraft knowing perfectly well that the new kit will not be able to do what we want them to do.
Then once we are fully committed to the purchase, we point out the limitations and start arguing for extras.
In this case the extras just happen to be all of the aircraft.
Didn't they start calling SMART procurement a decade or so ago?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Build and sell is the least worse option; bit like a builder finishing a house and selling at a loss rather than write off the initial outlay.