Noddy question -

What will happen to Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal? Sold/scrapped?

IIRC, Invincible was commissioned in 1978. That makes her 28 years old. The other two 4 or 5 years newer. Since the new carriers have a projected life of 50 years, this implies that the old ones are only halfway through their lives.

Is there any plan to retain the three existing ones in order to get maximum value from our investment (and increase fleet flexibility)?

Originally there were plans to have 5 Invincibles. Each one the centre of an ASW taskgroup. Then that got chopped back to three with two operational and now three with one operational. A 25 yr design life is the norm in the RN, not 35 or 50.

IWho is going to man them? What sort of manpower numbers are we talking? Will enough people want to join the forces by the time they are in service? Does the Navy still have the apeal it used to? Are the current carriers 100% manned?

Actually crew numbers on a CVF aren't that different from a CVS due to enhanced automation. It will have a bigger bar as well.

Along with this massive CV fleet you are talking about....where are the escort and supply vessels going to come from? You cannot rely upon the Canadians....a two ship navy is not going to be of much use to the UK as escorts.

EU becoming a super power? Now that is a joke...you cannot agree on the size of a pint of beer for crying out loud.

What the UK should do is accept third world status...declare itself a Neutral Power...and ask the French and Dutch to protect you.

Invincible has already been withdrawn from service. A still serving friend of mine said she was in quite a poor state when she went.

She's been decommisioned and placed at readiness 5. I've not heard about her being in a poor state. She did have a £30m refit just two years previously. Invincible was the hardest worked in their early years, Ark the least (living up to her forebear's nickname of Park Royal).

Despite being old, I would rather "cruise" on a CVS any day, rather than spend 5 mins on the "O" boat. Its rather concerning being light blue and having more time afloat than some of the Fleet Air Arm

Sorry boys this discussion is now ilrelevent. So much dosh has been spent sorting out Mrs B liars hair that all future military spending is cancelled.:yuk:

In an earlier post, FF said:

And where is the Carriers AAR support going to fly from? E3Ds? ASTOR? R1s etc?

Carrierborne aircraft will need less tanker support due to being nearer to the area of operations. I'm sure I've read somewhere that FSTA will cost more than CVF, which is incredible! But since you've mentioned it, why not convert some F35s to act as "buddy buddy" tankers? In the old days weren't some Buccs used in an AAR role?

MASC will provide many of the capabilities of the E3D and ASTOR. As for R1 (I assume you mean the Nimrod R1) you may have a point, but there are platforms other than aircraft that can perform an ELINT role.

CVF is absolutely critical to the Navy's Strategic Plan(s).

So is MASC, which does not appear to get the attention it deserves. In the last few years the fleet has been cut a lot, and one of the assurances given by Ministers was that "due to increased interconnectivity.........blah blah blah". But without excellent sensors this will count for nothing. The more capable MASC is the more capable the Fleet and Joint Forces operating with it will be.

I thought that early Buccaneers (pre-spey) couldn't get off the deck with weapons and fuel so the navy used Scimitars with buddy packs to refuel the Buccs once they were airborne
Anyway, back to the cvs debate. . .

"All it needs is to further intergrate and its there"

How 'bout starting with a common currency? The EU will fracture or stay in its current transitional form rather than present itself as a counter weight to the US. Not that there are that many US lovers, as there are far too many differing strategic goals to allow a homogenous foreign policy to succeed.

We need to start cutting steel and doing the hundreds/thousands of other things that need to be done - much of this will use the same technology as the Type 45 Destroyer.

Surely getting the construction of the hull modules should start NOW, why do the Government insist that every decision about the outfitting (CTOL vs STOVL for instance) before work can start?

Times have changed???????????

Have you ever been in a CVS in EDAMP lately?

Gone are the days when a crate for the dockies could get you some "extra" jobs done! Indeed I would say your assumptions demand we need more than 2!!!!! DML = Dockyard Matey Limited!!

Whilst I am at it...............as a WE fanatic........please tell me what the WE Branch actually do. In LUSTY we were over ran by them.....the most embarassing sight I ever saw was the then WEO saluting as the Sea Dart launcher was hoisted off the ship........pitiful to say the least!

If you ant to be a fanatic.....how about FAA fanatic..............??

Don't be too hard on him Jungly, a working Sea Dart system and an obliging target beats a video game any day.

Yes we do but then we are comitted to the programme and Brown can't cut it to save money at a later date. I will be very surprised if CV ever see water. The RN will probably end up as a flotilla of Type 45's, 3 ssk(n), some minehunters, 3 survey vessels, 4 patrol boats and the amphib fleet. As sea power will be seen as irrelevant in a modern world and not fitting with Brown Labour world view. I think the only thing likley to save them is them being built in the New Prime Ministers backyard.

Marinised (or Marinated) Typhoon?
 

Not sure if anyone's thrown this into the debate yet but...

JSF:

1) Technology transfer issues (US angst over EU military sales to China?)
2) Budget overruns (approx. 15% and climbing)
3) Programme delays (CVF ~ 2012, JSF ~ 2015)
4) US budget constraints (build F22, JSF CTOL (USAF) and JSF CV (USN), but cancel JSF STOVL(USMC))

Typhoon:

1) Don't want to buy 232 but probably have to (contractual penalties)
2) Tranche 3 = 90 aircraft (design not frozen)
3) Maritime variant of Typhoon currently being scoped by Industry (strengthened mainspar, landing gear and hook etc.).

If we have to buy 'em, we might as well use 'em . . .

. . .don't you think?

:ok:

Achtung, my dear boy. Your plan unfortunatley has two major flaws.
The first, is that it appears to be cost effective, and the second, and by far most important is that it makes some sort of sence. The powers that be will never consider it due to those two points.

Fly Navy.

maccer82,

(Christ! I've misspelt Achtung haven't I? Ze humiliation . . .)

You are probably right. I am not Navy but I am a fan of CVF. Losing JSF might be a bit of a capability disaster, but it's going to cost ~10Bn and why do we need Stealth anyway? Surely we're not crazy enough to take on a technically advanced enemy without our US friends, who can use their stealthy jets to get us an invite to the party. OK, so we'll have to sit on the touchline with the half-time oranges and the fat, wheezy boys with a note from Matron . . . but only for a few weeks. Completing/converting the Typhoon purchase might cost (say) 5Bn leaving a tidy lump sum that could be used to complete CVF (and a few other programmes) to spec. You'd also save all the cash that would need to be spent in order to run two fleets . . . training, spares, weapons etc.

Of course, all this assumes that Typhoon can be converted for Maritime ops . . .

AS

(call me ouch-tongue)

The whole idea of the stealth on the aircraft is for a 'first day of war scenario' after that pylons will probably be fitted to give it a better payload anyway, and in the process buggering up the stealth characteristics. Why don't we leave this first day of war sneaky beaky business to the yanks and we can jump in with aircraft with decent payloads (Typhoon) at a later date? Anything can be navalised if you throw enough money at it :ok: