Defence Select Committee recommends Axing Carrier Project

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by flippineck, Mar 27, 2008.

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. Hmmmmmmmmmmm

    To be honest the CVF project is just as much about replacement ships as it is jobs and keeping dokcyards open.

    It would take some hell of a politician to cancel the CVF project. The current 3 ships could be extended, and plans could be drawn up at a later date for new ships...

    The MOD will probably dither on and delays wil grow, thats how it is.
  2. What worries me is that Arbuthnot MP is a Tory, which means that with a change of government likely in 2010 we're probably not going to do much better under a Tory Government. Also they're all thinking about the war we are fighting now and not the one we could be fighting.

    Personally I think that the last two 1SLs and the current one haven't really done very well if we're still having this argument
  3. Re: Defence Select Committee recommends Axing Carrier Proje

    In a report critical of how the government procures new weapons, the cross-party Commons defence committee will challenge it to explain "what roles the two future carriers will perform ... and what capabilities these ships will give us that could not be provided in other ways".

    So that'll be the RAF boasting of their capabilities then......

    The MPs suggest plans to replace the RAF's Lynx helicopter could be vulnerable.

    Mmmmm? They don't have Lynx, as far as I'm aware. Usual Guardian shite, gossip, half truths and lies. I'd take the story with a big pinch of salt as its not been picked up by any of the other daily rags.
  4. Re: Defence Select Committee recommends Axing Carrier Proje

    You could well be right, but then to a lot of Journalists aircraft means RAF - how many reports have you read in the past about "RAF Helicopters from Culdrose" carrying out a rescue?
  5. Re: Defence Select Committee recommends Axing Carrier Proje

    Oh FFS. It never ceases to amaze me how many of you dark blue get off on such ill informed paranoia. Think carefully buffer. If you don't get CVF, what chance have we got of getting our share of JCA which is a very important capability for us?

    The vast majority of my Service support CVF and view it as a Joint procurement (albeit many don't quite understand why they sould be so big).

  6. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    onAfter Nott, Heseltine etc I would not place too much hope on Cameron & co. THEY JUST DON'T GET IT! The Naval Staff ought to have got at these politicos long ago before they formed up in an such an ill-informed way to pick holes in our defences.
  7. Re: Defence Select Committee recommends Axing Carrier Proje

    Uhmmmmmm dont often agree with our sideways walking fraternity brethren, but MM does have a valid point. If the carries are cancelled we wont need the JCA for either the Navy or RAF as the order will be so small it could not be justified via the bill. (i know the MoD wastes money hand over foot before anyone asks :pukel: . To think the mone will be pumped into other projects is laughable as our loved Government will just absorb into paying for their lavish exspense bill. :thumright:
  8. Re: Defence Select Committee recommends Axing Carrier Proje

    I wouldn't rise to it MM

    however i have to say that if the Defence Select Committee has asked all three single service chiefs what alternatives there are then we may be in for a bumpier ride.

    We haven't exactly covered ourselves with glory in building T45
  9. MM do you know for a fact that CAS openly supports CVF? Nothing on his website as ever said so.
  10. Errr, no, they couldn't. Aside from the minor problem that they're incompatible with Dave and cannot be made so and that the GR9 will run out of life before 2020, the material state of the two operable ships themselves is poor. Don't even ask about R05......

    There is no plan B. Small carriers cannot provide sufficient justification for their procurement in the approvals process we have. While we might all think that a 25-30 a/c ship would be good to have, it cannot meet the requirements of the acquisition scrutiny process and therefore would not pass. In case anyone thinks that shrinking the ship will generate some sort of huge cost benefit, it won't. There are already upwards of £1bn sunk costs in the design of the new ships to date. That would need to be repeated in any new design process and would need to include the regeneration of a design team capable of doing it (not that this lot have covered themselves in glory, but at least they've got there in the end).

    Off the shelf alternatives? The US LHA(R)? Italian Conte de Cavour? Spanish / Australian LHD? All provide something - generally up to a dozen fast jets, but again, can that something be justified against the acquisition scrutiny process? Can they do Fleet Air Defence (probably not - too few a/c), so why buy them if we have to operate with someone else's AD assets anyway?

    We are either in the power projection game or we're not. If we're not, then the rest of the fleet is up for grabs as well. Amphibs & Royal - what for? that's power projection isn't it? Don't do that anymore....DD/FF - to escort what exactly? Believe it or not there are no protection of merchant shipping against a proper threat requirements on the RN at the minute. SSN - to do what, ping the odd TLAM at Terry when he gets uppity? RFA? No - global ops not required mate.

    So - balanced fleet or OPVs all round. And while all this is being debated, the rump of the RN will decay to an unsustainable level anyway....and we're not far from that now.

    Haven't been able to read the DSC report yet, but I'm surprised that they seem to be arguing for a programme cancellation, rather than an EP uplift. SDR was actually a very good document, even if it did build on the previous work in 95-96. It did (does) outline exactly what UK ought to be capable of. The problem is that the mendacious [email protected] in power have not funded what SDR said was needed and worse, have deployed our forces way above what the force structure it derived was capable of. The situation has been exacerbated by the DEC/DPA/DLO and now DE&S refusing to kick up a fuss and just keeping sliding everything right. Anyone else remember the phrase "bow-wave" that was in common use about the EP over ten years ago?

    And breathe...........
  11. Why would it? Does the First Sea Lord wax lyrical about FSTA, Typhoon, A400M or MRA4 on his website?! :roll:

    And no I haven't checked!

  12. Re: Defence Select Committee recommends Axing Carrier Proje

    Either that is crap record keeping or General Kevin is performing at his best again.

    If the latter happens, we will need a lot of FFs to fill that gap.

    Anyway, it's good to see that the Committee is composed of true experts:

    Mr Holloway, you're a star. You are just what Humphrey Littleton needs on his popular Radio 4 Teatime programme.
  13. MM I am with you, having spent a bit of time recently with the light blue they all seem to be 'on side' with the CVF, if anything they are more than happy for the RN to foot the bill for a joint asset that they will fly their aircraft from.

    Not a Boffin - is there scope to reduce the 2 carriers to one therefore saving money and a bit of face or is there some support/contractual issue that means it is 2 or nothing?
  14. I had thought of that but I doubt our politicians had/would - if the Argies are so inconsiderate I am sure our friends in westminster can put a spin on it so that it was a cunning plan to lure the Argies into a trap!!!!
  15. Unless some clown runs down BFFI and places too many/too long gaps between guard ships, we don't need a carrier to win back the Falklands. We do need the carriers for the Joint doctrine of expeditionary warfare.

    As I've said previously, the Air Force and Army will gain more from the carriers than the Navy will. Remember that the cost and any over-runs will be paid by the SSN, DD, FF and MW flotilla.
  16. There is little point in having only one (this is not Highlander!) which is why the French are buying PA2 to operate with Charles de Gaulle. Again, the whole procurement case was based on having the capability continuously which means at least two (with some fairly demanding AR&M justifications). Either you have a robust capability or you don't have any as far as the equipment approvals process is concerned. This tends to be the part that people don't understand. The way MoD defence procurement works you can't have a "that would be useful" capability - it has to be fully justifiable or it doesn't happen.

    Contractually, there are no issues as there is as yet no contract. However, were I the soon to be amalgamated BAES Surface Ships and VT Shipbuilding and had spent over a year sorting out workshare and equity arrangements based on two ships, I might just demand a substantial renegotiation - more cost and delay. Were I Babcock(North) I might also ask for a payback of the £50m I've just committed to modifying my drydock facility.

    There is little to be saved from the EP (no really!) by dropping from two to one. At a guess around £1bn tops - although the operating costs would obviously be lower in terms of manpower.
  17. So your not going to get your 'flattops', I don't think any sane person ever thought you would! and what use are they anyway? Lets face it Great Britain is no more! not even 'Little Britain' really, home for cast offs and throw outs, and any kind of fanatic, but great forget it!!

    So why do you need a Navy? It's there to defend the Merchant Navy, and it can't do that, even tho' the Merchant navy is a shadow of it's former self - better to cut your loses, reduce ships an size of ships to what we can sustain and need, and leave it at that.

    The only part of the Navy doing any good at the moment are the Royal Marines - the rest................................................
  18. Th RN might not be as mighty as it was in the past, but it needs all the help it can get. Your comments are hardly helpful to the many young men and women trying to do the best that they can in difficult circumstances.

    As good as the RMs are they would be worth feck all if their ships come under air attack and we have no CVF to defeat the enemy in the air.
  19. I am moving quarters this weekend so will be out of computer touch for a few days, hopefully by next week Browne will have signed the contract for the 2 CVF and ordered JSF "C" and we can all relax...!

Share This Page