Decision To Bet Future On Carriers Could Be A Gamble Too Far

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by soleil, Oct 24, 2010.

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. "Aircraft carriers get named after heads of state because they symbolise their nations"

    I can't think of one British carrier that has been named after a Head of State.
     
  2. It reads strangely because it suggests that all aircraft carriers are named after Heads of State, whereas it doesn't happen that often .... off the top of my head Charles de Gaulle, Juan Carlos, Harry S Truman etc .... but it's basically a clumsy stylistic device based on the word "symbolise" to lead into "this carrier deal symbolises Labour’s utter incompetence with money".
     


  3. Just like the Tories black Wednesday debacle and it does amuse that many here leave the snouts in the trough bankers out of the equation, when it comes to the current financial mess we find ourselves in. :)
     
  4. Unfortunately it's part of an ongoing spin campaign to suggest that "the carriers" are the principal cause of all the ills in the defence budget and that they are Gordons job creation scheme for Scotland - no account of the work being done in Devon, Portsmouth, Liverpool, Tyneside, Derby and elsewhere. It needs to be rebutted as loudly as possible, because if we're not careful, there will be no ships and no realistic prospect of ever getting any again.

    It IS Gordon's fault in that having agreed we needed carriers in SDR 98, he consistently failed to provide the funding for them, although the MoDs own DEP (or whatever it's called now) section is complicit in this. There is a very good reason that the contracts have a penalty clause and that is the long-drawn-out Maritime Industrial Strategy process by which Paul Drayson withheld the order until BAES & VT had consolidated into BVT and Babcocks bought DML. Given that background and over five years of waiting, no wonder the companies insisted on watertight cancellation clauses.

    Remember, there are people out there who believe that T45 is THE answer to air defence and don't believe an air threat will exist that can't be countered by land-based air. Worse, there are pongo-centric types who believe that anything not on the ground in Herrick or indeed SF-type scaled is not "the future". These are the same people who believe that there is no submarine threat and that being able to deploy a force of DD/FF will be sufficient for RN worldwide role......
     
  5. For those of us not currently serving, can someone give some input to this.
    It seems pretty optimistic (read: foolhardy) to build something around a device that has yet been shown to work. Although in theory it could well be a standard in a decade hence.

    It would also push back the fully operational date back to 2024 (as I assume a refit would have to wait until it is finished in the first place).
     
  6. Be very careful here, Older J, you are encroaching on the hallowed Procurement's Emperor/Clothes territory.......
     
  7. I'm not sure if you are being serious.
    However caution being the better part of valour (and not singing from the same hymn sheet), I will carefully back away from the thread.
     
  8. I take your very valid point but most day to day tasking is DD/FF size. The Carriers' (note the optimism) value will be when some threat to Overeas Territories and wider National interests arise. We should be mindful of the mineral wealth of the South Atlantic and, in due course, Antarctica. A force of 19 DD/FFs, of which some will be in Upkeep/FTMP, is barely enough to screen the Carriers, let alone cover other commitments. As ever, one hull can only be in one place at a time. Remind me how many of the current 25 cover the Caribbean, South Atlantic, West Africa triangle?

    I think history will show that when numbers go down, they stay down.
     
  9. POL

    Indeed. However, our DD/FF commitments are ultimately there to provide a threat of further force if required. The fact that we send the ships on Armilla, APT(N) & APT(S) etc is not just to provide a patrol / int gathering unit, or indeed a DIOPS or Distex capability. Ultimately those ships are there to demonstrate that the area is of strategic interest to the UK and that threats to that area will have consequences. Unfortunately, you can't actually provide consequences with just a DD/FF and while an SSN provides consequences in spades, it only covers one part of the spectrum.

    The slightly rambling point I'm trying to make is that "global navies" without air-power don't exist (as I'm sure you know). We either have a globally capable navy, which means having the three capabilities always identified in the Maritime CP (Air, submarine and amphibious) or we collapse back on OPV, MCMV and some SSK, tend our EEZ and hope no-one's nasty to us.
     
  10. Re: Decision To Bet Future On Carriers Could Be A Gamble Too

    Not_a_boffin. I believe that we largely agree.

    Normong_Gruntham. That seems to be the way we are heading. What you describe so eloquently, though, seems to be undervalued. It is that "meet and greets and flag waving" that has gained us friends and kept friends in the past. Keeping things "sweet" can be a far cheaper option than resolving matters that are going "sour". Regrettably, it's near impossible to put a value on that. If it could be given a value, perhaps those t*rd skinning buggers in the Treasury might realise the true investment and return for our money.
     
  11. going back to older joiners point. i believe the CVF was designed to allow it to switch to cat&trap at a later point in its commision i saw in one presentaion that the space to be used for the counter weights in the trap system would be used for a massive gym or cinema when the ship was in the STOVL config. if the electric cat isn't yet working they can install a conventional one either U.S or French built.
     
  12. The only steam cats available are US built C13s of various types (they provide the French ones too). If EMALS works then that's easier to fit as no steam plant (or more importantly, steam-trained clankies) required. The Mk7 Mod 4 arresting gear would do nicely and there is space provision in the design for both.
     
  13. Whatever the outcome I think it is about time that the Band of the Royal Marines removed Rule Britannia from their repertoire.
     
  14. Nah! Big does not necessarily equate to Best. We can still show Johnny Foreigner a thing or two and will be able to continue doing so for a long, long time even if we don't have the resources for sustained and comprehensive campaigns.
     
  15. :wink: If we ever get them ,flying F35Cs :wink: CVF has a purely-electric ship propulsion system, provided by four Wärtsilä 38 diesel engines (~ 40MW total) for cruising and low-speed maneuvering, and two Rolls-Royce Marine MT30 gas turbine (36MW each, 72MW total) for high-speed power.

    The design allows for 1 or 2 more MT30s to be installed easily, thus providing all the power needed for EMALS/EMCAT
     
  16. Err, no it doesn't. This is utter b8llocks. The arrangement for the existing MT30s is so tight that there is insufficient room for the waste treatment plants which are to port (with ducting across the hangar deckhead!!!).

    That doesn't mean that EMCAT can't be fitted, it's a question of capacitance (energy storage) rather than installed power and that can be achieved.
     

Share This Page