CVF
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Stockport
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Slowly the MoD seems to be making progress.
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.
And cancellation needs to come before serious money is spent.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: On the Outside
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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.
In this climate, it's a niche, luxury capability we can't afford.
I wish things were different.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 respond… by promising to pump another 2% of GDP into a hole called NHS or risking the nation’s finances on dodgy mortgages.
I don’t know why I’m bothering. Many have made more insightful and intelligent ripostes to you previous bellicose posts on CVF Jacko, but like a fked parrot you can’t help but splutter the same line over and over again.
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 respond… by promising to pump another 2% of GDP into a hole called NHS or risking the nation’s finances on dodgy mortgages.
I don’t know why I’m bothering. Many have made more insightful and intelligent ripostes to you previous bellicose posts on CVF Jacko, but like a fked parrot you can’t help but splutter the same line over and over again.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 80
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
If we could afford everything that we need....
£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?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
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 17:55.
Suspicion breeds confidence
1. We have not needed carriers since 1982
Untitled
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
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..................
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..................