Once over their initial knee-jerk, surely the Army would understand. A major role being pushed for the CVF is support to expeditionary warfare. To me, that involves inserting and sustaining the Army in far away and unfriendly places.

"Less room inside, less usable decks, even in daylight, no higher max alt, smaller radar, no gain in speed."

Well, apart from all that, its a great idea :O

Factions inside the Ministry of Defence are tryin to kill off the Royal Navy's future carrier programme , according to recently retired head of the Service
Former First Sea lord Alan West , last month [ Dec ] warned in a speech given to the Royal Overseas League that , despite that the Goverment has committed itself to building the two ships , there are those who are keen to "Derail procurement " of the 65,000 ton vessels .
Sir Alan warned that not building the future carriers will deliver a devastating blow to Britian's Global Standing and undermine efforts to safeguard national security in the long term .


Quote from Ships Monthly Feb 07

also indication in airforces monthly say that the navy can have either SSBN or Carrier but not both. But another article said that a feasability study for Typhoon navalised variant have been ongoing

So will we have an aircraft carrier?

Nurse, IIRC the nuclear deterrent bit of the budget actually has very little to do with the navy, and is kind of ring fenced off. It's regarded as a national toy rather than matelot's, so suspect that they wouldnt be forced to make that choice, as anyone in their right mind would say "why thankyou m'lud, we'll take the carriers" and let the politicians throw up their arms in uproar and the lack of credible deterrent...

maybe in the old days it was seperate ringfenced budget but we're dealing with a treasury that can't be trusted and have shown their willingness to screw the armed forces

Nurse

Fascinated by this tidbit:

"a feasability study for Typhoon navalised variant have been ongoing"

Do you have a link or can you refer me to a paper article on that?

Re the carriers, Blairs recent speach on HMS Albion refered to a "£14bn" build program for the RN. Grabbing my calculator I came up with this (nicked from another board):


Astutes

First three subs had £3.5bn budget = £3.5bn
(unit cost £1.16bn each)

Boat 4 assumes 25% reduction= £870m

Boats 5,6,& 7 assume a 50% reduction
on original budget price (£580m each) = £1.74bn


T45's

The cost figs for these are all over the place but I feel safe with a figure of £650m per ship all inclusive of PAAMs. So six ships at £650m each = £3.9bn

CVF's

Assume budget of £3.8bn for two ships= £3.8bn



Tonys bill = £13.81bn

(2 x CVF, 7 x Astute, 6 x T45)


Just speculation of course.

If all goes well of course, you could put most of the army and their vehicles into Ocean, Albion, Bulwark, Largs Bay, Mounts Bay, Lyme Bay and the other one..., transport the whole caboodle anywhere in the world, (Bar parts of the asian interior, protect them with Type 45 and CVF assets, Land them with support of assets such as Merlin and Osprey, under the cover of Searchwater 2000 or it's son. Once ashore CAS will be provided by the host of JCA/Typhoon/Rafale (or WEBFs knackered SHARs). All provided and supported in theatre. For R&R, soldiers and marines could be rotated through the ships for rest, food and laundry, without the threat of being motared and in air-conditioned comfort. Once the conflict was over, load them all back again, stop by a few ports for cocktail parties and a bit of diplomacy!

CVF is needed. Not just for the navy but to support the Army and Marines and the RAF. It is a purple asset. Stop knocking the asset and start looking at what it can do for you!:ok:

"The UK government remains tight lipped about the status of Britains contingency 'Plan B', which is understood to centre on at least two paid study contracts examining navalised Eurofighter Typhoon proposals."

Airforces monthly February 2007. Article oint Strike fighter and the UK by John Lake, pages 26-30


Also last paragraph makes interesting reading as well

" Though aircraft carriers now form the cornerstone of the Royal Navies contribution to joint operations, it is believed that the most senior Admirals have been told that they can have the new aircraft carrier or a replacement for the Trident strategic deterrent- but not both."

How small do you think the army is and how large do you think the Bay class are?
the 4th ship being cardigan bay perhaps or one of the 6 point class?

cept of course thats the next round of defence cuts will reduce the army to a point were it all can be put on the RFA and RN landing force.

Thanks Nurse,

Adm West in Febs WarshipsIFR states that the money is there for the carriers in the EP- it even allows for contingency and inflation (an MoD first that'll impress Gordo). Earlier FOI responses have confirmed this and its not affected by Son of Trident.

I'm confident the CVF's will happen.

I'm more concerned about the existing state of the fleet and its ability to react to current crisis- such as a beefed up Armilla Patrol in any upcoming unpleasentness in the Gulf.

Oh and lets not forget the F-lands were the neighbours have form :ugh:

I hope the Carriers happen but am not confident. and even getting the carriers with out the surface and sub surface escort groups then they are white elephants. Would much prefer a conventional carrier as oppoused to a STOVL one.

I note there is no mention of

Type22/23 replacement
HMS Clyde
Replacement for the Rover class tankers
Replacement of the Leaf class tankers
Replacement of Fort Austin and Fort Rosalie

And given that the AOR support for a carrier group will be fairly extensive can we support the CVF?

Yep- I'm assuming Tony knows the difference between RN and RFA and that RFA costs are not included in his £14bn. All very fustrating of course- being left to complete guesswork to work out the structure of the future fleet.

Ref FSC- if this prog goes ahead there won't be design or build capacity in UK yards for this until CVF is well underway. The DIS lays out the "drumbeat" for major warships of one every 12-18 months so (again) I'm guessing these will be either further T45 derivatives or FSC, or some combination "cruiser".

All this would be fair and reasonable imo- a future defence/industrial strategy that makes sense- however this lot have completely lost the plot with the current "extended readiness" threats, the laying up of Invincible and the scrapping of SHAR. Utterly deplorable. Forget the "War on Terror"- read Will Huttons piece on China in todays Observor:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comme...995252,00.html

Not sure how relevant Ministerial statements and speeches are but the one common theme in all of them is this Government's commitment to CVF. TB mentioned it in ALBION (an essential capability), Lord Drayson mentioned it at his City Forum speech (cornerstone of the Maritime Industrial Strategy), Min(AF) mentions it regularly at Defence questions -you do not hear FRES, FOAS (or whatever it is now called), FSTA mentioned hardly at all. In addition this Govt have never walked back on SDR, they just have not funded it sufficiently. Really the only major project ready for funding NOW is CVF. Done deal!

Back to MASC for a few moments. I found a couple of very interesting articles on Spyflight.

Firstly: Northrop Grumman E-2A/B/C/D Hawkeye

The harsh lesson of what can happen when a naval task force gets involved in a shooting war without an effective Airborne Early Warning (AEW) system was drawn into sharp focus during the Falklands War of 1982.

Now, post Sea Jet we have AEW but no fighters. Progress? But I digress....sorry about that. This is a very interesting article, covering the World War Two origins of AEW and then the issue of having to integrate the necessary avionics into a carrier capable airframe. It also mentions the thermal management issue (which I believe was part of the problem with Nimrod AEW3). It mentions MASC in passing towards the end. The mention of CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability) is a reminder that MASC will contribute to the capability of the entire future fleet (not just carrier based aircraft).

Secondly: Westland Sea King AEW2 and ASaC.7

After the upgrade from AEW2 to ASaC7:

The new helicopters saw action in Gulf War II, where their overland capabilities enabled them to operate as a mini ‘J-STARS’, giving commanders on the ground the ability to monitor activity at the front by viewing the Link 16 picture. The Sea King ASaC.7 helicopters are likely to remain in service until 2015 and possibly beyond, given the UK’s abysmal record in defence procurement. Eventually the Sea King ASaC.7 helicopters will be replaced by a new platform identified under the Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control Project. Although the purchase of the E-2C Hawkeye 2000 as a replacement would probably be the preferred option, the chances are that the UK government will be unwilling to agree to the two new carriers planned for the RN to be equipped to operate fixed wing aircraft. This leaves either an AEW version of the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey or an AEW version of the EHI Merlin – given the history of UK defence procurement; my money would be on the AEW Merlin, nevertheless only time will tell, but jobs in marginal constituencies and politics will always outweigh the preferred military choice.


Spyflight also has an article on the Islander/Defender, including a picture of one with a large radome attached to the nose.

WEBF,

Obviously a quality source you have quoted there!

What Tosh. What is Dave if not fixed wing?

DID: France Steaming Ahead on PA2/CVF Carrier Project

.......Mer et Marine updates the status of the PA2/CVF program, and excerpts are translated by Defense-Aerospace. The article quotes a MOPA2 official as saying that "there is a strong will on both sides to reach the next milestone" - the French 'Dossier de Lancement et de Realisation,' which is similar to 'Main Gate project approval', by end of March 2007, following a binding offer to the French defence procurement agency DGA in December 2006. If, as currently planned, the British program also reaches Main Gate Approval around March 2007, there is some optimism that an industrial cooperation agreement could be signed and made public in April 2007, during the final Anglo-French ministerial meeting before the French presidential election in April.

Meanwhile, the French are working to get US clearance for a steam catapult system to incorporate into their carrier (the British plan to deploy the F-35B which uses a take-off ramp and vertical landing instead)......

Little dedicated steam plant AIUI. Serves only the cats. Use of Trent exhaust heat might help maintain steam reservoir pressure, but they'll probably be in the wrong place and it runs the risk of recreating the Great White Turbine problems that will dog T45........

Latest from Drayson
 

http://www.publications.parliament.u...07011849000004

All very promising, until you read the bit that effectively says, no industry consolidation to "Shipco", no CVF production order.....

I don't think anyone in the maritime industry questions the logic of "Subco", but the case for "Shipco" is far from clear-cut. Since when did handing over control of the MoD shipbuilding and shiprepair business to BigAndExpensiveShips sound like a good idea? Does no-one remember the NAPNOC shenanigans that resulted in Albion & Bulwark having capability stripped out of the design daily prior to contract signature? Which bit of "cost escalation needs some sort of competetive pressure to control it" are these people missing?

Above all else, if you were a VT shareholder, would you believe that signing over your (successful and recently recapitalised) operation lock, stock, and barrel to BAeS was going to happen cheaply, given the respective liabilities of the two companies?