Comprehensive Spending Review - bases safe, both carriers on

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by dogdriver, Jul 25, 2007.

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. Announced in parl as we speak:

    The Comprehensive Spending Review has been agreed and a brief summary announced in Parliament by SofS.



    The DEL will be:

    08/09 34bn

    09/10 35.3bn

    10/11 36.9bn

    (not including ops or defence modernisation fund).



    SofS has also announced the agreement to build the two new carriers, Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales, which will enter service in 2014 and 2016.



    All three naval bases will be retained, albeit with some reductions to personnel.



    A priority in the CSR period will be the improvement of accommodation for Service personnel.
     
  2. Re: Comprehensive Spending Review - bases safe, both carrier

    The announcement means continued uncertainty over the future of Devonport Naval Base, and places the city in the firing line for cutbacks, according to a senior defence source. Read the story at thisisplymouth
     
  3. Re: Comprehensive Spending Review - bases safe, both carrier

    Good news and a smack in the grid for the Labour whingers, I would have preferred one of them to be called HMS Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. =)
     
  4. Are they still going to move some big ships up to faslane. That was the buzz earlier this year. This came from a pretty good source as well
     
  5. Not heard that one. Thought the whole point was that Portsmouth had the capability to take them alongside at this moment in time. Other bases would have to "develop" the capability which would naturally have an additional cost implication.

    SF
     
  6. Re: Comprehensive Spending Review - bases safe, both carrier

    I think there was a mention of Portsmouth being their base port in the Commons debate today.
     
  7. Re: Comprehensive Spending Review - bases safe, both carrier

    Faslane currently has the capability for taking FF and DD's, last october saw the biggest JMC in years with over 60 ships involved with many alongside including Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderoga's from the USN. It was quite amusing having the septics moored just in front of almost the entirety of Faslanes surface fleet (God bless the Sandown's). The buzz of possibly taking some T23's in Faslane was passed down from the Command. The justifivcation given at the time was for retention and recruitment. It seems that the number of recruits from Scotland and Northern England has fallen consistently since the closure of HMS Cochrane (sad day). the placement of some larger ships in Faslane would hopefully improve drafting options and help with the problem. Allegedly :salut:
    Personally I think its a top banana idea.
     
  8. The problem with closing one of the few remaining bases we have is the concept of putting too many eggs in one basket. Oh hang on, I forgot. The number of eggs has been reducing steadily too.

    SF
     
  9. Re: Comprehensive Spending Review - bases safe, both carrier

    I'll believe those flat-tops when I see them. Especially with Mr McBrawn in No. 10. Bet they don't survive a general election if he wins.
     
  10. Re: Comprehensive Spending Review - bases safe, both carrier

    If who wins? :confused:
     
  11. Dont' think we will see any T23's going up to Faslane, perhaps a couple of T45's. Personally I can see the carriers home based on the Clyde. They cannot fit into Pompy or Guzz.
     
  12. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    'Big ships' used to be cruisers and above. O tempora O mores.
     
  13. HMS Eagle was 804ft long (Ark was 800ft) And 135ft wide, with a full complement of 2, 500. Looking at the new measurements theres not any real difference, In real terms, why dont they just get them off the Yanks and save millions, they will end up bastardised at best. And if you really believe we will get them, then bless you, you have far more hope than i do, but i hope that you are right.
     
  14. Your talking rubbish. Pompey is quite suitable for the CVF's, as is the case, the DSec has already announced that they will be based in Pompey.

    You won't get any T45's going to Faslane I can assure you on that.
     
  15. Willsonline, You`re not THE Wills are you?
     
  16. The new carriers cannot get into Pompy without SIGNIFICANT dredging. Their beam would also cause complications to the commercial traffic.

    WRT the T45, I can assure you that it is a possibility.
     
  17. I was on a survey ship a couple of years ago when we surveyed the approaches to Pompey harbour strictly for the purpose of taking the carriers. We also had to find out what impact dredging a channel would have on the wreck site of HMS Driftwood (Mary Rose), 'cos there's still stuff down there.
     
  18. Exactly and I'm guessing that the results of your survey said they couldn't get in. The dregging of Pompey harbour over the life of the carriers would hundreds and hundreds of millions. A lot more than it would to commision a designated berth elsewhere.
     
  19. Re: Comprehensive Spending Review - bases safe, both carrier

    Informative, thanks. I wasn't necessarily referring to Faslane when I said the Clyde. What about Coulport?
     
  20. The draught of HMS Eagle was 33ft (10.1M), makes me wonder where all the tonnage is coming from, I know it`s a bit longer but even so, by the way is it displacement or dead weight?
     

Share This Page