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.

CVF

Old 5th Mar 2008, 10:39
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Stockport
Posts: 29
CVF

80,000 tonnes of steel ordered from Corrus at a value of £65 million pounds for two aircraft carriers. Orders also placed for fibre optic cable and reverse osmosis plant.

Slowly the MoD seems to be making progress.
comet 4b623PW is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2008, 11:24
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,926
Bloody disgraceful. They need to be cancelled so that we can pay for the really vital kit that we're struggling to afford.

And cancellation needs to come before serious money is spent.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2008, 11:53
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 501
I'd like to know:
1) Where the raw material for the steel is sourced from
2) Who supplies the fibre optic cables and osmosis plants

China, perhaps, or Russia?
27mm is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2008, 12:18
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: On the Outside
Posts: 64
This'll be interesting - China is snaffling up the world's supply of iron (and concrete) faster than the world's factories can produce it! I wonder how much Corus is going to have to cough to get its hands on the raw materials for all that lovely steel...
noregrets is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2008, 13:34
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Jacko. Is your view not a trifle short sighted?
Mr-AEO is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2008, 13:38
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,926
If we could afford everything that we need, my view on CVF would be entirely different.

In this climate, it's a niche, luxury capability we can't afford.

I wish things were different.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2008, 14:06
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 57
Posts: 144
90% from Corus plants here in the Uk apparently. Dunno where they get their ore from though. Does it matter?
Sunk at Narvik is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2008, 14:29
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 178
Jacko

Plenty others see it as a key strategic asset for the next 50 years. Just take a look over on ARRSE to get a more lucid view from those who REALLY are at the teeth end.

As well as risking future security you also become a Brown apologist by calling for these types of cuts to pay for current ops. It is singularly his fault that our troops haven't the correct equipment - not the CVF, Typhoon tranche 3 or FRES project. If this cutting continues to other supposedly irrelevant projects the UK armed forces will be reduced to an ill balanced rump, with no capability outside COIN ops.

We get news every day of Russia and China rearming... of natural resource prices going through the roof as demand exceeds supply. The future contains plenty of risks outside fighting in sand pits. How do our politicians and opposition respondÖ by promising to pump another 2% of GDP into a hole called NHS or risking the nationís finances on dodgy mortgages.

I donít know why Iím bothering. Many have made more insightful and intelligent ripostes to you previous bellicose posts on CVF Jacko, but like a fked parrot you canít help but splutter the same line over and over again.
hulahoop7 is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2008, 14:57
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 76
Posts: 1,538
Originally Posted by hulahoop7 View Post
Plenty others see it as a key strategic asset for the next 50 years.
Whilst not disagreeing with your sentiments but 50 years seems rather optimistic for modern warships. Ark Royal from launch in 1955 to paying off in 1979 lasted only half that time.

Victorious managed 1941-1968 or 47 years which was not bad especially for a ship started in 1937.

Hermes on the other hand lasted only 1959 to 1986 before being sold.

Even Invincible 1977-2010 will have only done 33 years.

It looks more likely that we will either sell them on early or the Navy will seek new toys long before the 50 years is up.
Wader2 is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2008, 15:08
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 57
Posts: 144
Better to compare them with USN carriers. How long will Kitty Hawk have been in service when she retires/gets given to the Indians?

Ark Royal was a wartime build and the quality was pretty poor apparently. Victorious had her career cut short due to fire in a galley (excuse for early retirement) but generally speaking all the post WW2 carriers were just to small to operate modern jets.

Generally speaking, the bigger the hull, the longer she'll last.
Sunk at Narvik is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2008, 15:23
  #11 (permalink)  
Red On, Green On
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 20
Posts: 6,487
Wader2 - the penultimate Ark was launched in 1950, but not commissioned until 1955 - and she was on the stocks for seven years as well. Let's hope the new carriers don't take twelve years ...
airborne_artist is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2008, 15:36
  #12 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,317
Hermes/Viraat will be 50 next year and she's still serving well. So much so that she's likely to out live her airgroup!
Navaleye is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2008, 15:48
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,926
A f*cked parrot, eh? We're resorting to animal based insults, are we.

Still, at least I'm a parrot who can spell, and add up.

And yours is not an insightful and intelligent riposte, however much you might like it to be.

Unless you're willing to pay substantially higher taxes, in order to give defence a really major increase in its GDP share, then we simply cannot afford everything. I don't personally oppose increased taxation, as I'm not some selfish, libertarian, demi-Thatcherite nonce, but I do recognise that tax increases are not supported by the majority, and so are unlikely to happen.

The equipment programme needs more money, even without the cost of ongoing ops (which are, if we believe the Government, funded separately anyway). So something has got to give.

We are not the USA. We are not Russia. We are a minor power, in the second rank, and as such, while we need solid expeditionary capabilities, we do have to cut our coats according to our cloth. We need, flexible, versatile, agile and cost effective assets - and carriers are none of those things. We haven't NEEDED a carrier since 1982, and we are unlikely to NEED one again (that's not to say that Carriers aren't useful, and aren't nice to have, if you can afford them, and it's not to say that they haven't proved useful, and wouldn't prove useful again) but there are other more important priorities, for kit that is essential, rather than just nice-to-have.

We need tankers, recce and SEAD every time we go on operations, and with QRA activity getting back to Cold War levels, and with a need to sustain a Falklands fighter commitment, I'd venture to suggest that four AD squadrons is nowhere near enough, while our FJ force has been over-stretched (yes, over-stretched, not stretched) for a decade or more.

By binning the CVF and JSF we could afford virtually everything else that we need, and failing a massive injection of cash, binning both programmes seems to me to be the best option.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2008, 16:10
  #14 (permalink)  
Magnersdrinker
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Agree with Jacko on this , do we really need a Carrier, yeah agree nice to have and flex your power around the globe, but with 2 carriers with say 60 JSFs (at a guess) what use is that against a North Korea /China
We have no long range cabability except our subs really.
I think the priorities are a bit wrong IMHO considering defence spending is getting reduced even more,the money needs to go to the right places, for the last 10 years this has not been the case and its unlikely it ever will.
 
Old 5th Mar 2008, 16:35
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 178
Are you really serious Jacko. Are you saying these 3 things with a straight face?

1. We need, flexible, versatile, agile and cost effective assets - and carriers are none of those things.

2. We haven't NEEDED a carrier since 1982, and we are unlikely to NEED one again.

3. I'd venture to suggest that four AD squadrons is nowhere near enough.
hulahoop7 is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2008, 16:39
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 1,912
If we could afford everything that we need....
We can afford everything we need. Unfortunately it not a matter of whether we can afford it but where the government would rather spend money in order to secure votes. The sinkhole that is the NHS for instance or buying votes throughout the North East.

£42 billion to prop up a reckless bank then later nationalise it or spend that money equiping the armed forces to do what you expect of it? Which would buy the most votes in a part of the country that cares more for the colour of the rosette than what the person wearing the rosette is saying?
The Helpful Stacker is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2008, 16:52
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 246
Jacko,

I do like the way so you say:


1. We have not needed carriers since 1982


then go onto say:


2. We need to sustain fighters in the Falklands

Remind me, when was the last time fighters were used in combat in the falklands??

Last edited by Door Slider; 5th Mar 2008 at 18:55.
Door Slider is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2008, 17:07
  #18 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,317
1. We have not needed carriers since 1982
Tell that to the team on Invincible in GW2 operating day and night sorties of 4 GR7 and 4 FA2s. A balanced strike package. Invincible was contributing to the US carrier effort, but could have operated in support of UK ground forces independently.
Navaleye is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2008, 17:58
  #19 (permalink)  

Untitled
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 87
By binning the CVF and JSF we could afford virtually everything else that we need, and failing a massive injection of cash, binning both programmes seems to me to be the best option.
That would assume that if CVF and JSF were cut, the money ring-fenced for CVF and JSF and bound up in their various political contracts / agreements would be available for other military spending.

Not a chance - it would disappear into Gordon's general expenditure pot quicker than a scalded whippet, with maybe a paltry percentage remaining for some 'new boots', or something.

If these things were cut, cuts they would be, not reallocation!
Polikarpov is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2008, 18:10
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MARS
Posts: 1,033
Jackonory.........on and on...change the bloomin record.

Your whole issue is...The MOD hasn't got enough money, to give the RAF all the lovely toys it wants so therefore I want a slice of everyone else's cake! If there are not enough SH, Tankers, Transport etc, that's not the RN's fault, it is Typhoon's fault, MRA4's fault, NIMWACS fault, Scampton's fault, the Dead Sparrow's fault, the airbases up the ying yang's fault....try looking at your own NAVAL (yes I can spell!) for a change!

What you are afraid of, is that when CVF is in service with Dave/Rafale/Marinated whatever, where will the requirement for your beloved Typhoon be? OBSOLETE!

That is why you are so narrow minded and blinkered in your vision. You should try and take a leaf out of Magic Mushroom's book and show that you are not talking out of your..................
Widger is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.