I personally think we should have the carriers, but truth be known, if it wasn't for the byzantine contracts that the M.O.D. got themselves enmeshed in and the they could save as much as a penny, or even break even, by cancelling the carriers, this Government would do just that. Like I say though, I'd sooner have them than not.

As for the Typhoon, to lose it would compare with the Navy losing all its T45 Destroyers and the carriers.

FB:)

FODPlod,

In post 1272 you point out, quite rightly, the costs overruns for Typhoon:

"...Overall, it is costing the Department £20.2 billion, £3.5 billion more than it first expected, to buy a third fewer aircraft. This is equivalent to the purchase cost of each aircraft rising by 75%, from £72 million to £126 million..."

What makes you think that exactly the same thing won't happen to JSF/F-35? When I occasionally read the F-35 thread on pprune delays and expected cost overruns seem to be a common theme...

Can you actually see the UK ending up with the 140 odd airframes that were originally envisaged? At the price originally expected?


I believe in the case of the A-400M we already have the classic supermarket offer....."23 for the price of 25"....or something akin to that. A deal like that must have people rushing to buy.


What was the original price/planned numbers vs final cost/final numbers for Astute, Type 45, etc? Let alone original vs final price for the 2 carriers.

Biggus

No to both! And given the strange attitude that the non-FAA admirals seem to have towards FW FAA I sometimes wonder whether they would be bothered if there were any aircraft or not - just as long as they got their two big ships to play with! And as the pressure on the budget increases as F35 costs increase, with the resultant demands to make savings elsewhere, I suspect the RN hierarchy will be 'quick' to pass control of all FW to the RAF so that such budgetary pressures will be 'forced' upon the light blue pot (i.e. capability gap with earlier out of service date for the GR4) and not the dark blue (i.e less T45 / support vessels etc). All just my view of course - expect to see it from 2015 onwards is my guess :suspect:

Given that the RN will soon have at least 3 x 3* FAA admirals and has about 5 x 2* FAA admirals and that the next First Sea Lord is likely to be FAA (and is a potential CDS), I wouldn't make any assumptions about the future direction of the FAA and its aircraft!!

And given the tainted sate of the current RAF heirachy v-a-v the current politicians, I wouldn't make any assumptions about the future direction of the RAF and its aircraft.

"the RN will soon have at least 3 x 3* FAA admirals and has about 5 x 2* FAA admirals"

Not top heavy at all :ok:

8 FAA Admirals!

How many FAA Squadrons?

By OA:

Quote: "what we really need to do from a UK Joint point of view is run an investment appraisal of buying carriers against spending the same amount on some additional tankers..... "


As long as that includes the CVA's ability to act as the JFHQ, C3I platform, ASW platform, Stores & Personnel transport, Disaster Relief vessel etc then crack on.

andyy

Surely the RN ships which would currently be required to protect the Carrier could provide Task Groups to carry out those roles.

Cat,

Unlike their RAF counterparts FAA officers are not "single role" and all of these fine chaps will have driven ships as well as being fly-ers (fliers they certainly are).

But apart from that, point well made!

Andyy,

The investment appraisal itself wouldn't, (other than as additional costs for role equipment) but the COEIA ( Combined Operational Effectiveness and Investment Appraisal) would, as part of the effectiveness element

JSP 507 refers.

Damn, must get out more!

Cpt Pugwash - many thanks!

Cazatou - Only in part. And as I'm sure that we'd all agree, aviation assets are a great enabler & force multiplier so its the carrier's ability to carry aircraft that enhance its ability in all the roles I mentioned. And carry out some of the roles simultaneously.

Cuts, cuts, cuts!
 

Pentagon Reportedly Mulls Large JSF Cut

Second sentence from last. 2014.

Even the CO of the nuclear submarine HMS Turbulent (as featured on TV here) is "a qualified FAA pilot". Expand the page here and read the last line.

Talk about value for money. What do RAF pilots do when they're not posted for flying duties? ;)

Concentrate upon some other aspect of their core business of military aviation, rather than have to be distracted by a sideline? :}

So they are not really FAA stars but RN and what is their primary role?

Erm, Royal Naval Officer

And driving a submarine isn't liable to improve someone's core ASW helo skills? Sounds a bit narrow-minded to me.

I think you mean that they can't multi-task. :)

66 Pages on a decision that will never be reversed or changed!

Harrier has gone, Tornado does the biz! Full stop!

We all regret the decision but now it's time to move on!

C'mon Mods - Close this drivel down!

It's getting in the way of progress!

Foldie;)

Foldie - If it's too hot for you, just keep out of the kitchen. You don't have to click on the thread. Is it that difficult to resist? ;)

Wow.

Just out of curiosity how many of those are FW???