Times details proposed UK defence cut options
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,881 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
The escort group we can probably afford for the new Carriers is below..
I'd be interested to hear exactly which bit of the money "isn't there", given that the ships are essentially paid for. There are 30 of the F/W aircraft on order (apparently) and that the manpower for the ships and the air squadrons is already there and part of the existing budget.
There are still manning challenges to overcome, but that is primarily recruitment / retention in pinch trades against authorised strength - as opposed to completely new money.
There's an awful lot of myth and legend about. Don't forget that the "options" which started this thread are also primarily about freeing up money for the cyber / spook wish-list in a financially neutral NSCR, not as a direct result of QE/F35.
There are still manning challenges to overcome, but that is primarily recruitment / retention in pinch trades against authorised strength - as opposed to completely new money.
There's an awful lot of myth and legend about. Don't forget that the "options" which started this thread are also primarily about freeing up money for the cyber / spook wish-list in a financially neutral NSCR, not as a direct result of QE/F35.
[QUOTE=Frostchamber;10024859]Just for the record, not everyone on here shares the antipathy to the carriers that has become notably more vocal in some quarters as the vessels approach service entry....Defence needs to be properly funded and I'd respectfuly suggest that commentators would do well to get behind that idea rather than approaching things from an internecine perspective.
./QUOTE]
Blah, Blah, Blah....
What makes you the voice of reason? Why do you think you have the right idea and the authority to preach to others?
Sorry old chap, this is a discussion of an important topic. Now, I will give a couple of my thoughts... I have read a certain amount of similar banter from those who supposedly think everyone should be waving bunting for the new boats and "those that don't are the enemy". Well, you can stick that misplaced and abusive criticism where the Sun doesn't shine.
Now, stick to arguing your point and do not abuse others with self righteous and incorrect opinions.
OAP
./QUOTE]
Blah, Blah, Blah....
What makes you the voice of reason? Why do you think you have the right idea and the authority to preach to others?
Sorry old chap, this is a discussion of an important topic. Now, I will give a couple of my thoughts... I have read a certain amount of similar banter from those who supposedly think everyone should be waving bunting for the new boats and "those that don't are the enemy". Well, you can stick that misplaced and abusive criticism where the Sun doesn't shine.
Now, stick to arguing your point and do not abuse others with self righteous and incorrect opinions.
OAP
[quote=Onceapilot;10024921]
Abusive? Really? I'm sorry if you think that because that certainly wasn't the intention. I'd suggest that nothing I said above comes close to some of the abuse I've seen meted out at times to those who dare to swim against certain tides. It would appear that in your book anyone who doesn't fall in line with the "bin the carriers" meme is in turn the enemy and has "incorrect opinions" and can be talked down to. Stones and glass houses old chap...
Just for the record, not everyone on here shares the antipathy to the carriers that has become notably more vocal in some quarters as the vessels approach service entry....Defence needs to be properly funded and I'd respectfuly suggest that commentators would do well to get behind that idea rather than approaching things from an internecine perspective.
./QUOTE]
Blah, Blah, Blah....
What makes you the voice of reason? Why do you think you have the right idea and the authority to preach to others?
Sorry old chap, this is a discussion of an important topic. Now, I will give a couple of my thoughts... I have read a certain amount of similar banter from those who supposedly think everyone should be waving bunting for the new boats and "those that don't are the enemy". Well, you can stick that misplaced and abusive criticism where the Sun doesn't shine.
Now, stick to arguing your point and do not abuse others with self righteous and incorrect opinions.
OAP
./QUOTE]
Blah, Blah, Blah....
What makes you the voice of reason? Why do you think you have the right idea and the authority to preach to others?
Sorry old chap, this is a discussion of an important topic. Now, I will give a couple of my thoughts... I have read a certain amount of similar banter from those who supposedly think everyone should be waving bunting for the new boats and "those that don't are the enemy". Well, you can stick that misplaced and abusive criticism where the Sun doesn't shine.
Now, stick to arguing your point and do not abuse others with self righteous and incorrect opinions.
OAP
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,881 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
Notaboffin,
Probably this bit on the Beeb site
Probably this bit on the Beeb site
But it's not just the cost of the two aircraft carriers that concerns MPs, said the BBC's defence correspondent Jonathan Beale, but the new jets that will fly off them and the other warships needed to protect them.
The availability of ships to protect the carriers may also limit how they can be used and there are still technical and cost challenges for the new F-35 jets, he added.
The availability of ships to protect the carriers may also limit how they can be used and there are still technical and cost challenges for the new F-35 jets, he added.
No apology sought OAP, PPRuNe is a harsh mistress and she demands a certain thickness of skin.
Your response just struck me as being unecessarily over the top, and telling me that it's a discussion of an important topic certainly struck me as condescending. You're 100% entitled to disagree with me but I'm not sure I accept that I should stop giving my views because you deem them to be incorrect. I also struggle to see how anything I said could reasonably be described as abusive, but am happy to let others be the judge of that.
Your response just struck me as being unecessarily over the top, and telling me that it's a discussion of an important topic certainly struck me as condescending. You're 100% entitled to disagree with me but I'm not sure I accept that I should stop giving my views because you deem them to be incorrect. I also struggle to see how anything I said could reasonably be described as abusive, but am happy to let others be the judge of that.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I'd be interested to hear exactly which bit of the money "isn't there", given that the ships are essentially paid for."
"The hole in the Ministry of Defence's budget is apparently £1.7bn a year, plus the annual cost of up to £500m a year of the UK's Continuous at Sea Nuclear Deterrent. According to a senior government source, "without the cash this would mean cancelling significant conventional capability to affect our operational footprint and status"."
Regretfully we are faced with an enormous short-fall in resources
What do you suggest cutting going forward so we have enough cash to run the carriers and their associated air wing?
"The hole in the Ministry of Defence's budget is apparently £1.7bn a year, plus the annual cost of up to £500m a year of the UK's Continuous at Sea Nuclear Deterrent. According to a senior government source, "without the cash this would mean cancelling significant conventional capability to affect our operational footprint and status"."
Regretfully we are faced with an enormous short-fall in resources
What do you suggest cutting going forward so we have enough cash to run the carriers and their associated air wing?
The problems for MOD spending are made worse by the lumping-in of peripheral "defence" spending (to account for 2%), failure to achieve any of the previous "efficiency" savings, and the required growth of cyber/terror costs in a "cost neutral" "Defence" review.
The question of "what should be cut instead then?" has been continually ducked by many who support the continued funding of the QEc capability. I predict that any response will be either, "we must push the Gov for more funding" or, "cut back unnecessary costs", ie hollow out!
OAP
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,881 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
Nothing against a carrier force, I just feel that the time for UK PLC to operate full size carriers has past. The supporting infrastructure is no longer there, defensive shield, auxiliary support fleet and the air power needed.
It all just seems a pointless exercise in overkill and is as if the Navy had fought to regain its carrier force without thinking how they would man, support and pay for them. If we still had squadrons and squadrons of aircraft to operate off them I could understand it, but to build a ship that hasn't got the aviation assets to fill it seems a total waste of money... I still think an angled deck would have also been the way to go because they instantly strangled its capability and interoperability with cross decking at the outset. Fill it with your F35 fleet and one missile and you have lost the lot..
Getting back to the. Original post, with the list of ships being shown as possible cutbacks, one feels a lot of those measures are cutbacks allowing the monies to go into these white elephants..They are and will be for years a draw on the Defence budget we can ill afford or support. I do like the 50 year life of the carriers, that will probably equate to 10 years UK, 30 years Indian or Brazillian Navy, and 10 years someone else's.
It all just seems a pointless exercise in overkill and is as if the Navy had fought to regain its carrier force without thinking how they would man, support and pay for them. If we still had squadrons and squadrons of aircraft to operate off them I could understand it, but to build a ship that hasn't got the aviation assets to fill it seems a total waste of money... I still think an angled deck would have also been the way to go because they instantly strangled its capability and interoperability with cross decking at the outset. Fill it with your F35 fleet and one missile and you have lost the lot..
Getting back to the. Original post, with the list of ships being shown as possible cutbacks, one feels a lot of those measures are cutbacks allowing the monies to go into these white elephants..They are and will be for years a draw on the Defence budget we can ill afford or support. I do like the 50 year life of the carriers, that will probably equate to 10 years UK, 30 years Indian or Brazillian Navy, and 10 years someone else's.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,881 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
Take a chill pill.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 71
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Royal United Services Institute ‘white paper’provides an interesting insight into the argument of either continuing withE-3D Sentry, at an estimated cost of £2 billion for the capability sustainment programme or, spending a similar sum to replace it in the nearer future and therefore taking the ISTAR programme beyond the Sentry E-3D 2035 out of service date.
The final paragraph of the white paper quotes: “As such, with state-on-state conflict seemingly a growing possibility and new threat technologies already posing challenges for even the modernised E-3s fleets of the USAF and FAF, the RAF should not be reluctant to consider a more unconventional solution for its ABM&S requirements over the next 20 or soyears, instead of simply patching up the E-3D Sentry fleet through a capability sustainment programme in the hope that ‘it will do’ until the US provides aNATOwide E-3 replacement”.
From a politicians viewpoint, might this be a likely ‘no brainer’?
The final paragraph of the white paper quotes: “As such, with state-on-state conflict seemingly a growing possibility and new threat technologies already posing challenges for even the modernised E-3s fleets of the USAF and FAF, the RAF should not be reluctant to consider a more unconventional solution for its ABM&S requirements over the next 20 or soyears, instead of simply patching up the E-3D Sentry fleet through a capability sustainment programme in the hope that ‘it will do’ until the US provides aNATOwide E-3 replacement”.
From a politicians viewpoint, might this be a likely ‘no brainer’?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing against a carrier force, I just feel that the time for UK PLC to operate full size carriers has past. The supporting infrastructure is no longer there, defensive shield, auxiliary support fleet and the air power needed.
It all just seems a pointless exercise in overkill and is as if the Navy had fought to regain its carrier force without thinking how they would man, support and pay for them. If we still had squadrons and squadrons of aircraft to operate off them I could understand it, but to build a ship that hasn't got the aviation assets to fill it seems a total waste of money... I still think an angled deck would have also been the way to go because they instantly strangled its capability and interoperability with cross decking at the outset. Fill it with your F35 fleet and one missile and you have lost the lot..
Getting back to the. Original post, with the list of ships being shown as possible cutbacks, one feels a lot of those measures are cutbacks allowing the monies to go into these white elephants..They are and will be for years a draw on the Defence budget we can ill afford or support. I do like the 50 year life of the carriers, that will probably equate to 10 years UK, 30 years Indian or Brazillian Navy, and 10 years someone else's.
It all just seems a pointless exercise in overkill and is as if the Navy had fought to regain its carrier force without thinking how they would man, support and pay for them. If we still had squadrons and squadrons of aircraft to operate off them I could understand it, but to build a ship that hasn't got the aviation assets to fill it seems a total waste of money... I still think an angled deck would have also been the way to go because they instantly strangled its capability and interoperability with cross decking at the outset. Fill it with your F35 fleet and one missile and you have lost the lot..
Getting back to the. Original post, with the list of ships being shown as possible cutbacks, one feels a lot of those measures are cutbacks allowing the monies to go into these white elephants..They are and will be for years a draw on the Defence budget we can ill afford or support. I do like the 50 year life of the carriers, that will probably equate to 10 years UK, 30 years Indian or Brazillian Navy, and 10 years someone else's.
Just sell them to France- they do have serious overseas dependencies and do not mind using what forces they have without worrying about what others will say.
A complete and utter waste of money. Its not like they will provide a tech leg up to a ship building industry or anything like that and we will certainly not go to war alone again whatever happens to our various dependencies and why should we. say the yanks decided to invade Bermuda to stop it siphoning off corporate tax revenue from USA would we do anything, could we do anything -NO
Spain cuts access to Gibraltar=are we going to invade Spain , which would be attacking a NATO country-no of course not.
We need to scrap all three forces and replace by a unified structure a la Canada and focus on rapid response ground troops for use in Uk or abroad. A modest fighter defence and ground attack capabilty and Atlantic/inshore navy focused on border protection and defence of merchant vessels.
No more nuclear subs -too expensive and who are they targeted on Russia?
We have a lot of skill in making military kit and we should focus on making things thata re light manouverable - high lethality capabilityand exportable so we can earn export money from our expertise and history.
there you go fixed in ten minutes -who needs an MoD either
A complete and utter waste of money. Its not like they will provide a tech leg up to a ship building industry or anything like that and we will certainly not go to war alone again whatever happens to our various dependencies and why should we. say the yanks decided to invade Bermuda to stop it siphoning off corporate tax revenue from USA would we do anything, could we do anything -NO
Spain cuts access to Gibraltar=are we going to invade Spain , which would be attacking a NATO country-no of course not.
We need to scrap all three forces and replace by a unified structure a la Canada and focus on rapid response ground troops for use in Uk or abroad. A modest fighter defence and ground attack capabilty and Atlantic/inshore navy focused on border protection and defence of merchant vessels.
No more nuclear subs -too expensive and who are they targeted on Russia?
We have a lot of skill in making military kit and we should focus on making things thata re light manouverable - high lethality capabilityand exportable so we can earn export money from our expertise and history.
there you go fixed in ten minutes -who needs an MoD either
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"high lethality capability and exportable"
yes & no - unfortunately a lot of UK kit, especially ships, are very high spec and very costly compared to alternatives in the export trade. We design for top end warfare, most countries don't want or need that capability
yes & no - unfortunately a lot of UK kit, especially ships, are very high spec and very costly compared to alternatives in the export trade. We design for top end warfare, most countries don't want or need that capability
"high lethality capability and exportable"
yes & no - unfortunately a lot of UK kit, especially ships, are very high spec and very costly compared to alternatives in the export trade. We design for top end warfare, most countries don't want or need that capability
yes & no - unfortunately a lot of UK kit, especially ships, are very high spec and very costly compared to alternatives in the export trade. We design for top end warfare, most countries don't want or need that capability
What a shame they didn't look at where the money is actually going. QEC isn't even the biggest budget line in the Navy EP. Nor is the combined QEC and F35 the biggest item in the overall EP - in total or in in-year spend. Typhoon is still by far the biggest spend (total and in-year) and FSTA is only just below the combined QEC/F35.
That's before you start looking at the submarine budget....
That's before you start looking at the submarine budget....
Would be interesting to understand the background.