Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Heathrow Harry,
I have no idea who you are talking to, and their importance or relevance, but I have just returned (Saturday morning) from a series of seminars and meetings with Business folk, politicians, military leaders, financiers and investors in Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok and Saigon, and I can assure you that those people most certainly DO see the UK as a significant player in a whole host of fields including investment, trade, defence, influence and partnership.
The pull out from the Far East in 1972 was regretted by all locally at the time but was totally understood as the end of a colonial era that was no longer appropriate for independent nations. As to our economic clout, we remain extremely important to these nations, just compare GDP's, spending power and growth rates and you will see why.
I have no idea who you are talking to, and their importance or relevance, but I have just returned (Saturday morning) from a series of seminars and meetings with Business folk, politicians, military leaders, financiers and investors in Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok and Saigon, and I can assure you that those people most certainly DO see the UK as a significant player in a whole host of fields including investment, trade, defence, influence and partnership.
The pull out from the Far East in 1972 was regretted by all locally at the time but was totally understood as the end of a colonial era that was no longer appropriate for independent nations. As to our economic clout, we remain extremely important to these nations, just compare GDP's, spending power and growth rates and you will see why.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF we deal with the "old Commonwealth" what do we bring to the military/strategic table? Any new deal has to be a two way street...
We don't bring numbers, we don't bring kit (almost all of them buy other peoples kit) and TBH we don' have a lot of anything...
All we have that are material to them are the SSBN's
The strategic concerns of India, Australia, NZ are China not Russia - we can provide long range strike capability that even the Indians can't achieve (tho they have a lot of short range N- capable systems)...... but are we willing to sign up for this? Otherwise I can't see any serious mutual military assistance that we can give them or them us
Canada is slightly different as Russia is a bigger concern to them but they are very much under the US umbrella anyway
I'd be happy to hear some suggestions as to what people think we add.................
We don't bring numbers, we don't bring kit (almost all of them buy other peoples kit) and TBH we don' have a lot of anything...
All we have that are material to them are the SSBN's
The strategic concerns of India, Australia, NZ are China not Russia - we can provide long range strike capability that even the Indians can't achieve (tho they have a lot of short range N- capable systems)...... but are we willing to sign up for this? Otherwise I can't see any serious mutual military assistance that we can give them or them us
Canada is slightly different as Russia is a bigger concern to them but they are very much under the US umbrella anyway
I'd be happy to hear some suggestions as to what people think we add.................
Speaking as a colonial, though not one you care about, I think the general attitude to the UK from my former part of the world is that it's worth kissing a bit of British arse to see if there's any aid money on offer but that it is a fair weather friend, scared and toothless and if you want anything serious done you go to the Americans and if you can't go to them you deal with the Chinese.
This is just an impression. I think the UK lost it's trust when it cut and ran and then joined the EU and severed its favourable trading arrangements. It is clearly a totally self-interested and self-absorbed country which is understandable because all countries are like that.
I think that the issue is about what will Britain invest in that it is prepared to fight to protect? That's what you have to convince people about. Why will the UK be reliable this time? e.g. the Chinese want oil - so they have a reason for reliably supporting you if you can supply it to them.
This is just an impression. I think the UK lost it's trust when it cut and ran and then joined the EU and severed its favourable trading arrangements. It is clearly a totally self-interested and self-absorbed country which is understandable because all countries are like that.
I think that the issue is about what will Britain invest in that it is prepared to fight to protect? That's what you have to convince people about. Why will the UK be reliable this time? e.g. the Chinese want oil - so they have a reason for reliably supporting you if you can supply it to them.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry if I didn' mention whatever a part of the Commonwealth you're from t ...
Flash's use of the "Old Commonwealth" = Oz, NZ, Canada India (maybe) and I'd guess you would add in South Africa but they certainly aren't a help in improving our strategic position..........
Too many Brits of a certain age think all we have to do is turn up waving a Union Jack, holding a picture of the Queen and refer to "our old comrades in arms" and all will be well. They have totaly forgotton the points you make -that we ditched them without ceremony when it suited us and they have had to make their own way in a turbulent world.
Now we've decided to take our ball away and no longer play with the Europeans we exepct them all to come flocking round and be gratefll we're offering them a chance to play with us again.........
I fear disapointment ahead.....
Flash's use of the "Old Commonwealth" = Oz, NZ, Canada India (maybe) and I'd guess you would add in South Africa but they certainly aren't a help in improving our strategic position..........
Too many Brits of a certain age think all we have to do is turn up waving a Union Jack, holding a picture of the Queen and refer to "our old comrades in arms" and all will be well. They have totaly forgotton the points you make -that we ditched them without ceremony when it suited us and they have had to make their own way in a turbulent world.
Now we've decided to take our ball away and no longer play with the Europeans we exepct them all to come flocking round and be gratefll we're offering them a chance to play with us again.........
I fear disapointment ahead.....
Heathrow Harry,
I don't see the relevance of the "old Commonwealth" in all this. The Commonwealth is what it is. But the nations that I have just returned from; Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam, all consider that the UK has a tremendous amount to offer them, and this also applies to other attendees, from Cambodia, Laos, The Phillipines, South Korea, Indonesia and Brunei. They regard the UK as a powerful nation that has military strategic capability and expeditionary reach beyond their experience. A military that has vast experience of actual operations over decades, and a political willingness to actually USE that military capability. The current deployment of RAF combat aircraft to Japan and South Korea has received wide publicity and generated a good deal of interest. They also view the UK as an increasingly independent economic power with many globally based multi-nationals and specialist businesses as well as a unique source of financial expertise and trading ability that is simply not available elsewhere. The UK experience in global politics, military intervention, cultural depth and "soft"power is seen as extremely valuable and attractive to them. They also noted the attitude displayed in India toward the PM and party that was the UK is no longer acting as an "old Friend" in allowing the Indians to enter and settle in the UK as easily as previously, you do not think that about somewhere that is a total irrelevance to you. The UK is also a huge potential market for their own economies with a level of growth not seen elsewhere in Europe, a population with huge personal spending power and stability and a sophisticated infrastructure. More than once did I hear comments along the lines that "there is a REASON why immigrants are desperate to get there."
Now I was very much for REMAIN, but the last two weeks has shown me that BREXIT does have a positive side in how we are viewed abroad, especially in Asia Pacific.
As to Australia, what of it? It is seen by folk that I have spent the last two weeks with as, largely, a bunch of Ex-pats that don't even belong there with a struggling isolated economy and wedded militarily and politically to the US and of no strategic importance whatsoever. I met with two Thai automotive industrialists who noted the complete and total withdrawal of Automotive manufacture from Australia announced in recent months, and they compared that to the UK automotive industry, where they are acutely aware that Nissan's most productive plant worldwide is located, that TATA of India are reaping immense rewards from their investment in Jaguar Land Rover, and that it was a place of potential investment interest and source of expertise.
Harsh words, but not MY opinion, merely ones that I heard expressed widely.
I don't see the relevance of the "old Commonwealth" in all this. The Commonwealth is what it is. But the nations that I have just returned from; Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam, all consider that the UK has a tremendous amount to offer them, and this also applies to other attendees, from Cambodia, Laos, The Phillipines, South Korea, Indonesia and Brunei. They regard the UK as a powerful nation that has military strategic capability and expeditionary reach beyond their experience. A military that has vast experience of actual operations over decades, and a political willingness to actually USE that military capability. The current deployment of RAF combat aircraft to Japan and South Korea has received wide publicity and generated a good deal of interest. They also view the UK as an increasingly independent economic power with many globally based multi-nationals and specialist businesses as well as a unique source of financial expertise and trading ability that is simply not available elsewhere. The UK experience in global politics, military intervention, cultural depth and "soft"power is seen as extremely valuable and attractive to them. They also noted the attitude displayed in India toward the PM and party that was the UK is no longer acting as an "old Friend" in allowing the Indians to enter and settle in the UK as easily as previously, you do not think that about somewhere that is a total irrelevance to you. The UK is also a huge potential market for their own economies with a level of growth not seen elsewhere in Europe, a population with huge personal spending power and stability and a sophisticated infrastructure. More than once did I hear comments along the lines that "there is a REASON why immigrants are desperate to get there."
Now I was very much for REMAIN, but the last two weeks has shown me that BREXIT does have a positive side in how we are viewed abroad, especially in Asia Pacific.
As to Australia, what of it? It is seen by folk that I have spent the last two weeks with as, largely, a bunch of Ex-pats that don't even belong there with a struggling isolated economy and wedded militarily and politically to the US and of no strategic importance whatsoever. I met with two Thai automotive industrialists who noted the complete and total withdrawal of Automotive manufacture from Australia announced in recent months, and they compared that to the UK automotive industry, where they are acutely aware that Nissan's most productive plant worldwide is located, that TATA of India are reaping immense rewards from their investment in Jaguar Land Rover, and that it was a place of potential investment interest and source of expertise.
Harsh words, but not MY opinion, merely ones that I heard expressed widely.
Last edited by pr00ne; 15th Nov 2016 at 01:10.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Any AvWeak Subscribers for more text content?
Britain Planning First F-35B Operational Carrier Embark Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
Britain Planning First F-35B Operational Carrier Embark | AWIN_Defense content from Aviation Week
Britain Planning First F-35B Operational Carrier Embark Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
"LONDON—British officials have begun planning for the first operational embark of the F-35B on the UK’s new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers in ..."
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was referingto "old commonwealth" as that was the termiology used above by those who thought we had a golden future outside the EU etc etc
No doubt many countries see benifits in dealing with us but from a military point of view they are either not players or will require soem serious commitments from us to help them out should things go pear-shaped for them...............
No doubt many countries see benifits in dealing with us but from a military point of view they are either not players or will require soem serious commitments from us to help them out should things go pear-shaped for them...............
Guest
Posts: n/a
Countries like the US and Saudi Arabia you mean?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt many countries see benifits in dealing with us but from a military point of view they are either not players or will require soem serious commitments from us to help them out should things go pear-shaped for them.............
I gotta ask. Will the UK have to come to the rescue of such "Old Commonwealth" nations as Canada, Australia, and India?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,251
Received 147 Likes
on
91 Posts
Harry
Ship building is not subsidised in the countries quoted,you should know, as it breaches EU guide lines, but as an idea to subsidise something that keeps people employed is not always a bad idea. After all are the Royal Navy ships not a form of subsidy, as we could have had them built in Germany like many other nations. Why UK PLC decided in its wisdom to walk away from manufacturing things is a good question, and the reliance on the service sector and invisible's is worrying in a nation of 60m +. Even the Swiss have good pharmaceutical and engineering sectors, not just banking, with a population a fraction of our size. I would also take issue with regards to how we are viewed in the Far East as I would agree with others that we are not viewed as an irrelevance, as you seem to imply, but we are not in the same league as Germany as a trading partner for example. With regards to military clout and the will to use it, and having had experience of it in Africa, the French take some beating much as it pains me to admit it.
Regards
Mr Mac
Ship building is not subsidised in the countries quoted,you should know, as it breaches EU guide lines, but as an idea to subsidise something that keeps people employed is not always a bad idea. After all are the Royal Navy ships not a form of subsidy, as we could have had them built in Germany like many other nations. Why UK PLC decided in its wisdom to walk away from manufacturing things is a good question, and the reliance on the service sector and invisible's is worrying in a nation of 60m +. Even the Swiss have good pharmaceutical and engineering sectors, not just banking, with a population a fraction of our size. I would also take issue with regards to how we are viewed in the Far East as I would agree with others that we are not viewed as an irrelevance, as you seem to imply, but we are not in the same league as Germany as a trading partner for example. With regards to military clout and the will to use it, and having had experience of it in Africa, the French take some beating much as it pains me to admit it.
Regards
Mr Mac
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Why UK PLC decided in its wisdom to walk away from manufacturing things is a good question"
building ships etc rarely makes a profit above 10-15% even in the best years - it costs zillions in investment and requires hands on management and location in Glasgow, Tyneside or similar and takes years to make money
Running a hedge fund costs nothing, you MAKE zillions in a few days and you don't have to meet anyone, manage anyone or even deal with the politicians (never mind HR, HSE,.....) and you can do it from a nice office in Mayfair
no brainer really
building ships etc rarely makes a profit above 10-15% even in the best years - it costs zillions in investment and requires hands on management and location in Glasgow, Tyneside or similar and takes years to make money
Running a hedge fund costs nothing, you MAKE zillions in a few days and you don't have to meet anyone, manage anyone or even deal with the politicians (never mind HR, HSE,.....) and you can do it from a nice office in Mayfair
no brainer really
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,251
Received 147 Likes
on
91 Posts
Harry
Comments like that are part of the reason that London, and the so called London elite, are despised by the majority of the rest of the UK which was partly shown with the Brexit vote. This was not just about Europe, but also the detachment of London based politicians from those people living in the rest of the country. As for living in Mayfair and making Zillions on hedge funds, great if you can live in splendid isolation, but what of the rest of the population. I am fortunate enough to be well paid and keep a house in Yorkshire and a flat in central London, and I can tell you the attitude I found in the country compared with London pre Brexit vote about "stiffing Londoners" was alarming. But being a canny Yorkshire man even though I was against leaving, I bet on the fact that we would, and did quite well out of it as well, though not the zillions you seem to be so impressed with a hedge fund gambler makes, as from my meetings and discussions with members of that profession, that appears to be largely what it is, high stakes gambling.
Have a good weekend.
Regards
Mr Mac
Comments like that are part of the reason that London, and the so called London elite, are despised by the majority of the rest of the UK which was partly shown with the Brexit vote. This was not just about Europe, but also the detachment of London based politicians from those people living in the rest of the country. As for living in Mayfair and making Zillions on hedge funds, great if you can live in splendid isolation, but what of the rest of the population. I am fortunate enough to be well paid and keep a house in Yorkshire and a flat in central London, and I can tell you the attitude I found in the country compared with London pre Brexit vote about "stiffing Londoners" was alarming. But being a canny Yorkshire man even though I was against leaving, I bet on the fact that we would, and did quite well out of it as well, though not the zillions you seem to be so impressed with a hedge fund gambler makes, as from my meetings and discussions with members of that profession, that appears to be largely what it is, high stakes gambling.
Have a good weekend.
Regards
Mr Mac
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
building ships etc rarely makes a profit above 10-15% even in the best years - it costs zillions in investment and requires hands on management and location in Glasgow, Tyneside or similar and takes years to make money
Running a hedge fund costs nothing, you MAKE zillions in a few days and you don't have to meet anyone, manage anyone or even deal with the politicians (never mind HR, HSE,.....) and you can do it from a nice office in Mayfair
no brainer really
Running a hedge fund costs nothing, you MAKE zillions in a few days and you don't have to meet anyone, manage anyone or even deal with the politicians (never mind HR, HSE,.....) and you can do it from a nice office in Mayfair
no brainer really
1. Shipyard managers make LOUSY hedge fund managers and vice versa. If your shipyards are idle, it is NOT because those managers have suddenly turned to financial management.
2. What's happening in the UK sounds very familiar. California used to have lots of heavy manufacturing jobs, including a huge aerospace sector, a robust automotive sector, and yes, shipyards. They are now ALL gone. Yeah, they make a lot of money making movies and designing (but not making) electronics in California and do so without all the perceived hassles of heavy manufacturing. But there are LOTS of folks who are not only willing but enjoy doing heavy manufacturing and would love to do so in California. So why don't they? The regulatory environment. California has very successfully pushed heavy manufacturing out of the state. I worked 25+ years in the Douglas plant in Long Beach which built literally 10s of thousands of aircraft. The entire plant is GONE. (as are the Convair, Lockheed, Glen Martin, Curtis, Martin Marrietta, LTV, etc etc plants.) I now work in Texas working on airplanes that were built in Long Beach. What you facetiously call a "no brainer" is in fact mindless stupidity. California is now trying hard to win back the jobs they forced out, but that ship has sailed.
Comments like that are part of the reason that London, and the so called London elite, are despised by the majority of the rest of the UK which was partly shown with the Brexit vote. This was not just about Europe, but also the detachment of London based politicians from those people living in the rest of the country. As for living in Mayfair and making Zillions on hedge funds, great if you can live in splendid isolation, but what of the rest of the population. I am fortunate enough to be well paid and keep a house in Yorkshire and a flat in central London, and I can tell you the attitude I found in the country compared with London pre Brexit vote about "stiffing Londoners" was alarming. But being a canny Yorkshire man even though I was against leaving, I bet on the fact that we would, and did quite well out of it as well, though not the zillions you seem to be so impressed with a hedge fund gambler makes, as from my meetings and discussions with members of that profession, that appears to be largely what it is, high stakes gambling.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken
"25+ years in the Douglas plant in Long Beach which built literally 10s of thousands of aircraft. The entire plant is GONE. (as are the Convair, Lockheed, Glen Martin, Curtis, Martin Marrietta, LTV, etc etc plants.) "
That's very sad to read, as a 8 then 12 yr old nipper I was taken round both lb and sd plants as a guest, sad to see the diversity of manufacturer's disappear.
Smoothest, coolest aircraft of that era that I flew in were Douglas products btw..
That's very sad to read, as a 8 then 12 yr old nipper I was taken round both lb and sd plants as a guest, sad to see the diversity of manufacturer's disappear.
Smoothest, coolest aircraft of that era that I flew in were Douglas products btw..
Bearing in mind todays belated press copy about RN ship strength, I remain convinced that the push for the big carriers was simply a budget grab by MOD. They were unable to make the case for the RN that the UK of today needs and so, have gone for huge bling and all the eggs in one basket (two actually) in the blind hope that the real need for other ships will become imperative and eventually be partly addressed.
One thing about the vulnerability of these big ships is that if they are ever employed against a country that really requires the use of their hi-tech conventional weaponry, they become perfect targets for tactical-use of nuclear weapons against them.
Just my opinion.
OAP
One thing about the vulnerability of these big ships is that if they are ever employed against a country that really requires the use of their hi-tech conventional weaponry, they become perfect targets for tactical-use of nuclear weapons against them. Just my opinion.OAP
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually see these ships as having 3 likely roles - in order below:
1. Providing Air Cover and a Logistics base for Tri-Service 'peace keeping' roles
2. As humanitarian base ships for when there are natural disasters (such as the NZ Earthquake or Philippines Tsunami)
3. Large military strike bases
Since items 1 and 2 are way more likely than 3, the ships should have been equipped for these sort of operations.
Unfortunately the budget grab outlined above has meant that the scenario they are outfitted for is likely to be 3, then 1 and 2.
Lastly, everyone knows that these ships must be operated as a carrier group. None of which (tankers, supply ships, destroyer screen, aircraft etc.) appear to have been really considered..............(including the manning and costs)
Hmmm - I am beginning to worry that failure to address these aspects will make the carriers more of a hindrance than a help to the RN going forward.
Arc
(A fan of air and sea power)
1. Providing Air Cover and a Logistics base for Tri-Service 'peace keeping' roles
2. As humanitarian base ships for when there are natural disasters (such as the NZ Earthquake or Philippines Tsunami)
3. Large military strike bases
Since items 1 and 2 are way more likely than 3, the ships should have been equipped for these sort of operations.
Unfortunately the budget grab outlined above has meant that the scenario they are outfitted for is likely to be 3, then 1 and 2.
Lastly, everyone knows that these ships must be operated as a carrier group. None of which (tankers, supply ships, destroyer screen, aircraft etc.) appear to have been really considered..............(including the manning and costs)
Hmmm - I am beginning to worry that failure to address these aspects will make the carriers more of a hindrance than a help to the RN going forward.
Arc
(A fan of air and sea power)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royal Navy 'woefully low' on warships - BBC News
Britain's defences are at risk amid uncertainty over plans to replace the "woefully low" number of Royal Navy warships, MPs have warned.
The Royal Navy has 19 frigates and destroyers, but a Defence Select Committee report says that number could fall unless there is a clear timetable set out for replacing older vessels.
It says the UK could "lack the maritime strength" to meet potential threats. But the Ministry of Defence says it is investing billions in the Navy's fleet.
The committee's report examines the MoD's plans to modernise the Royal Navy's escort fleet - including the introduction of two new classes of frigate and the enforced refit of engines on certain destroyers. MPs said they had "serious concerns" about the funding and timetable of the new fleet, and the country's ability to handle threats from areas like Russia.
They also attacked the MoD for the "extraordinary mistakes" in the design of Type 45 destroyers after it emerged they had faulty engines unable to operate continuously in warm waters.
"The UK's enduring presence in the Gulf should have made it a key requirement for the engines. The fact that it was not was an inexcusable failing and one which must not be repeated," the MPs' report said.And it added: "Failure to guarantee this would put the personnel and ships of the Royal Navy in danger, with potentially dangerous consequences."
Defence committee chairman Julian Lewis said MPs were "putting the MoD on notice" to deliver the modernisation programme on time. He said: "For decades, the numbers of Royal Navy escort vessels have been severely in decline.
"The fleet is now way below the critical mass required for the many tasks which could confront it, if the international scene continues to deteriorate."
The MoD says it is investing billions of pounds in two new aircraft carriers as well as new warships and submarines with the goal of increasing the size of the Royal Navy.
"This major programme of investment will ensure that the Royal Navy remains one of the world's most modern and powerful navies with a genuine global reach," it said in a statement.
It added that the Type 45 destroyer was a "hugely capable" ship, but it was "committed to improving" the vessel's "power and propulsion system".
Britain's defences are at risk amid uncertainty over plans to replace the "woefully low" number of Royal Navy warships, MPs have warned.
The Royal Navy has 19 frigates and destroyers, but a Defence Select Committee report says that number could fall unless there is a clear timetable set out for replacing older vessels.
It says the UK could "lack the maritime strength" to meet potential threats. But the Ministry of Defence says it is investing billions in the Navy's fleet.
The committee's report examines the MoD's plans to modernise the Royal Navy's escort fleet - including the introduction of two new classes of frigate and the enforced refit of engines on certain destroyers. MPs said they had "serious concerns" about the funding and timetable of the new fleet, and the country's ability to handle threats from areas like Russia.
They also attacked the MoD for the "extraordinary mistakes" in the design of Type 45 destroyers after it emerged they had faulty engines unable to operate continuously in warm waters.
"The UK's enduring presence in the Gulf should have made it a key requirement for the engines. The fact that it was not was an inexcusable failing and one which must not be repeated," the MPs' report said.And it added: "Failure to guarantee this would put the personnel and ships of the Royal Navy in danger, with potentially dangerous consequences."
Defence committee chairman Julian Lewis said MPs were "putting the MoD on notice" to deliver the modernisation programme on time. He said: "For decades, the numbers of Royal Navy escort vessels have been severely in decline.
"The fleet is now way below the critical mass required for the many tasks which could confront it, if the international scene continues to deteriorate."
The MoD says it is investing billions of pounds in two new aircraft carriers as well as new warships and submarines with the goal of increasing the size of the Royal Navy.
"This major programme of investment will ensure that the Royal Navy remains one of the world's most modern and powerful navies with a genuine global reach," it said in a statement.
It added that the Type 45 destroyer was a "hugely capable" ship, but it was "committed to improving" the vessel's "power and propulsion system".
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
"investing billions of pounds" sounds like a good answer, but ONLY if the billions are in the right area. Billions on 2 carriers without the necessary escorts/aircraft, or a paucity of destroyers/frigates for other tasks, is not necessarily 'billions' in the right place.
As with F35, "hugely capable" T45 only works if you have enough of the asset to be in 2 or 3 places at once.
As with F35, "hugely capable" T45 only works if you have enough of the asset to be in 2 or 3 places at once.