Carrier trouble!!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Apple_Catchers, Jul 7, 2011.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. A bit like saying "You may get wet if it rains unless you take cover"

    This is just more typical media (or Daily Mail at least) speculation over a total non-story based on a bit of attempted political point scoring by Margaret Hodge. It may become a story later but for crying out loud give it a rest!
  2. Is this the same Labour female MP who was voted Britains worst politician, who wasted oodles of money on an IT system to keep track of every child in the, subsequently scrapped and is the MP for Barking? She is of course an expert on defence issues, is she not.
  3. Just like Cameron and Osborne then?

    Anyway politico point scoring aside - it's what they all do all the time, the actual report is by the NAO not Hodge's committee. Rather than just labouring the point of the carriers it reiterates what everyone knew already, the SDSR was flawed because it was driven by cost not strategy.
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2011
  4. Money? surely not we've got money to give away.
    Like the 800 million he has just given to Mozambique for vaccinations.
    And annually the British public raise millions(children in need) to give British children basic services NO government will finance.
    Pathetic. And help for returning servicemen, well when the government challenges an award made to a disabled squaddie in open court, that just about sums up the contempt the British are held in by there own "masters".
    And please don't tell me we can vote them out as when 6 of one faces half a dozen of the other maneuverability is somewhat restricted.
    So defence is well down the agenda.
    They are bringing 500 home in the near future, probably to face redundancy, so there will be a bit more for cleggs crusade to save the world.
  5. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    I'm just utterly amazed that the NAO have actually published this. Didn't the Navy actually say delaying the CVF project would save near term spending but actually force an overall increase on the project in the first place!

    The decision to swap a/c variants was a wholly sensible capability led move, the cost increases are marginal in the overall scheme and are balanced out to a considerable degree by cost reductions in the whole life costs of the a/c themselves.

    The NAO report mentions the unproven nature of the cats/traps, which is partially correct as the proposed systems [UK and US electro/mag systems] aren't operational yet, but have been used on concrete decks to push an F-18 into the air, so they're way past concept/assessment stage. Whilst I acccept there remains a degree of risk, as with all construction programmes, I suspect there is far less risk than the NAO suggests.

    The biggest risks, and one's we do recognise, are the skills gaps we will start to endure as we lose experience of FW/FJ operations.
  6. I'm still with wurtz on this one, technical capability has IMHO less to do with it than the money.
    It has been suggested in previous threads that the two carriers were a gift from the outgoing government to attempt to hang an Albatross around the new boys neck.
    Even if this were the case, it remains that if we are to maintain the stance we have made on the security worldwide, a carrier is a necessary tool. And like the Victory the invincible class are very nostalgic souvenirs of a passed age but need replacing. And soon.
  7. WD, did I read somewhere that we already had staff across the pond gaining experience in FW/FJ ops ?.
  8. Correctamundo.
  9. Cheers Monty.
  10. Some pics of the recently refitted lusty

    Attached Files:

Share This Page