Defence Review Result at End of October
It was in the Daily Mail today, 1 x carrier and about 100 Fast Jets from the R.A.F. expected to bite the dust. It also says that the planned buy of 140 F35s will be reduced to 40. Not worth the effort if you ask me. I wonder if the 100 R.A.F. Jets are taken from the reduced F35 order?
FB
FB
And another thing
Dr Julian Lewis MP is usually a strong and reasonably well informed supporter of defence (admittedly with a dark blue bias) and yet I can't recall a single statement from him in the last couple of months. Has he been got at?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(admittedly with a dark blue bias)
Does this mean the next order will be for 28-gun three-masted frigates?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pressure Cooker..
Have we seen the effects of 4-sided pressure on darling dave and his team...
They haven't managed a full sentence yet without a withering attack on the 'fairness' policies they are peddling. Surely any Government does Government business in Parliament not on the TV and media...they appear much the same as the last lot...just a different shade of yellow streak...
5d2d
They haven't managed a full sentence yet without a withering attack on the 'fairness' policies they are peddling. Surely any Government does Government business in Parliament not on the TV and media...they appear much the same as the last lot...just a different shade of yellow streak...
5d2d
Be afraid, be very afraid.
They did a spectacular U Turn on free milk. They have just cocked up Child benefit with a school boy error. Single income household on 44K loses it but two income house where each earns say 43K still gets it. They are now back peddling like crazy. That kind of chimpery just goes to show that they have not a clue what they are doing.
So, we may well get the ****ty end of the stick because we can't moan/strike or fight back.
A total waste of space, every one of them.
They did a spectacular U Turn on free milk. They have just cocked up Child benefit with a school boy error. Single income household on 44K loses it but two income house where each earns say 43K still gets it. They are now back peddling like crazy. That kind of chimpery just goes to show that they have not a clue what they are doing.
So, we may well get the ****ty end of the stick because we can't moan/strike or fight back.
A total waste of space, every one of them.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brown wades into defence cuts debate
Gordon Brown has lent his voice to calls for the building of two new aircraft carriers to be spared George Osborne's axe. The former prime minister claimed in an interview with the BBC that the carrier programme was vital for the future of the UK's security.
Quite despite the fact that many of the workers are Polish, I can quite understand why Gordon Brown is so concerned.
Can Britain afford not to build £5bn Royal Navy aircraft carriers? - 28 Feb 10
But given this headline from one year ago, I'm suprised that the Carrier debate is still going on!
Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle.
"We have 1,500 people who are serving the country here who are building and assembling parts of the aircraft carriers and they will be essential to the defence of Britain in future years," he said.
"We've got 170 apprentices here who have been taken on specifically for the aircraft carrier and they deserve the right to know that the work that they're doing, which is of great national importance, is going to continue."
"We've got 170 apprentices here who have been taken on specifically for the aircraft carrier and they deserve the right to know that the work that they're doing, which is of great national importance, is going to continue."
Can Britain afford not to build £5bn Royal Navy aircraft carriers? - 28 Feb 10
– with work being done in Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle and the backyard of the Prime Minister's constituency in Fife, there are also accusations this is a job creation scheme for key Labour seats.
Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle.
A lot of the lobbying in support of the carriers, esspecially from the Scottish government and Scottish MPs, is based on the negative impact on jobs (and skills?) in Scotland that a cancellation would have - rather than any strategic need for carriers as such.
Once again we return to the basic question - is (part) of the purpose of the defence budget to create/maintain jobs in this country?
Answers on a postcard to Mr D Cameron, 10 Downing Street.......
Oh yes, and what are these shipyards going to build when/if the carriers are finished?
Once again we return to the basic question - is (part) of the purpose of the defence budget to create/maintain jobs in this country?
Answers on a postcard to Mr D Cameron, 10 Downing Street.......
Oh yes, and what are these shipyards going to build when/if the carriers are finished?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But given this headline from one year ago, I'm suprised that the Carrier debate is still going on!
Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle.
Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle.
There's another one now, using the second carrier as a "pared-down floating platform to ferry helicopters, troops and vehicles", according to "senior defence sources". Is this the re-emergence of 2009's amphibious helicopter carrier story, as I don't quite understand how it would work. Just sitting in port doing nothing, unless needed. I'm getting seriously confused reading about this now.
Building an economy aircraft carrier could save £1bn, Cameron to be told | UK news | The Guardian
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I am wrong but the feeling I am getting from listening to various political annalysts is the Government are going to make cuts just to save money and not really concentrate on what we actually need to operate.
I just have the funny feeling the wrong things are going to be axed.
I just have the funny feeling the wrong things are going to be axed.
Spot on! but then it was ever the case. They won't deciding they need more of anything at all. They'll chop things though. The worry is how much General Sir David Richards gets to influence the outcome.
FB
FB
I agree totally with Deliverance....
Take a simple, Army equivalent. We mothball all our tanks in nice plastic, moisture free plastic bags, and wait. 10 years later we find ourselves in a situation where we need to use them. So we unwrap them and prep them - the easy bit. Where do the crews come from? You can look around the Army and find a (very) few with previous tank time, but not enough. Where do your tank junior commanders and junior ranks come from. Anyone who was a junior rank on tanks 10 years ago has probably been promoted, or left. Where is your current operating practice, experience, etc..... A total cluster f*$k!
With regard to the carriers, all the navy guys on here talk about the problems preserving deck handling skills amongst the RN. There will be quite a steep learning curve if we get two full time carriers. Now imagine the situation where we have one, but in mothballs. When you try and bring it back into service x years later you need to find 700 odd crew, which the RN doesn't have spare - so you have to rob other vessels (or does the plan include 700 RNR to backfill robbed ships?). Let alone the issue of the experience levels of these 700 odd people. Then there is the fact that the aircrew aren't experienced at flying off a carrier! It will be a total disaster - and probably result in some fatalities - cue relatives suing the MOD. I once read that the deck of the carrier is one of the most dangerous working environments around!!!
Still - nice of a general to suggest mothballing bits of another service. Oh, and I thought that (unlike when it was originally conceived) FSTA would spend most of it's time in a transport, rather than a tanking role. While I agree that the PFI deal is rubbish, I don't see that a reduction in AAR requirement will have much impact on the hours flown by FSTA - at least not while UK armed forces are still "expeditionary" and the Army wants flying in and out of its latest area of conflict! (YES - I know there are DAS issues with FSTA!)
To suggest that things be mothballed is simply a con. It saves most of the money but gives everyone (almost) a war and cosy feeling that the capability can be resurrected - whereas it fact it probably can't, especially with the increasing passage of time!
Take a simple, Army equivalent. We mothball all our tanks in nice plastic, moisture free plastic bags, and wait. 10 years later we find ourselves in a situation where we need to use them. So we unwrap them and prep them - the easy bit. Where do the crews come from? You can look around the Army and find a (very) few with previous tank time, but not enough. Where do your tank junior commanders and junior ranks come from. Anyone who was a junior rank on tanks 10 years ago has probably been promoted, or left. Where is your current operating practice, experience, etc..... A total cluster f*$k!
With regard to the carriers, all the navy guys on here talk about the problems preserving deck handling skills amongst the RN. There will be quite a steep learning curve if we get two full time carriers. Now imagine the situation where we have one, but in mothballs. When you try and bring it back into service x years later you need to find 700 odd crew, which the RN doesn't have spare - so you have to rob other vessels (or does the plan include 700 RNR to backfill robbed ships?). Let alone the issue of the experience levels of these 700 odd people. Then there is the fact that the aircrew aren't experienced at flying off a carrier! It will be a total disaster - and probably result in some fatalities - cue relatives suing the MOD. I once read that the deck of the carrier is one of the most dangerous working environments around!!!
Still - nice of a general to suggest mothballing bits of another service. Oh, and I thought that (unlike when it was originally conceived) FSTA would spend most of it's time in a transport, rather than a tanking role. While I agree that the PFI deal is rubbish, I don't see that a reduction in AAR requirement will have much impact on the hours flown by FSTA - at least not while UK armed forces are still "expeditionary" and the Army wants flying in and out of its latest area of conflict! (YES - I know there are DAS issues with FSTA!)
To suggest that things be mothballed is simply a con. It saves most of the money but gives everyone (almost) a war and cosy feeling that the capability can be resurrected - whereas it fact it probably can't, especially with the increasing passage of time!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Up where we belong
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst watching a report on the latest promises of more CH47 etc for Afghanistan the othjer night it took my 15 yr old son about 2 minutes to get a grasp of the problems associated with introducing new or enhanced kit - logistics, training, currency etc. It beggars belief that such concepts are beyond the ken of those paid to take such important decisions.
Biggus I could not agree more with your comments. Also in my experience readiness is the least understood and most badly managed concept in the UK forces. Everyone likes the idea of lowering readiness, ie saving money but nobody likes the consequences of having insuffient forces around when you need them. This is exacerbated by a unwillingness by politicians to activate readiness sufficiently early to allow forces at readiness to properly train and prepare but a marked enthusiasm for getting involved in operations at short notice. Consequently, when push comes to shove the military is left trying to make a 'best effort' response cobbling together anybody and anything that is available to meet the required timescales.
We mothball all our tanks
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
One mothball theory might be to take, shall we say, a Type 42 and put it in a coccoon. We keep the rest of the T42 operating thus maintaining the potential of a cadre to bring the mothballed one in to service. The fallacy is that the active one under goes modification, proper maintenance etc whereas the mod standard of the other one rapidly approaches obsolescence.
A second system that was applied to both Vulcans and Nimrods and possibly other types too, is to put a number of aircraft into reserve called IRR (IIRC) which means they are actually in the standard modification and maintenance regime and used on the flight line as normal but with the fleet flying hours predicated only against the declared active jets. The cunning plan here is you reduce your maintenance force by the proportion of aircraft put in to reserve and you don't fund the fuel, spares or weapons.
The latter is probably the most cost effective way keeping your stocks up to scratch. I don't think it would work with ships because any ship needs a crew.
A second system that was applied to both Vulcans and Nimrods and possibly other types too, is to put a number of aircraft into reserve called IRR (IIRC) which means they are actually in the standard modification and maintenance regime and used on the flight line as normal but with the fleet flying hours predicated only against the declared active jets. The cunning plan here is you reduce your maintenance force by the proportion of aircraft put in to reserve and you don't fund the fuel, spares or weapons.
The latter is probably the most cost effective way keeping your stocks up to scratch. I don't think it would work with ships because any ship needs a crew.
That is the most utterly delusional piece of BCW advocacy that I have heard in years.
Consider the intelligence, diplomatic and political steps that would have to be gone through to even start activating forces. Now consider the incentive that gives an adversary to act (whatever action that might be) before that process is complete.
Pshaw - it makes me so frustrated that I can't even think of a joke about Beavers and mothballs.
Consider the intelligence, diplomatic and political steps that would have to be gone through to even start activating forces. Now consider the incentive that gives an adversary to act (whatever action that might be) before that process is complete.
Pshaw - it makes me so frustrated that I can't even think of a joke about Beavers and mothballs.