One carrier to be re-designed - so ?????????

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by pg55555, Oct 18, 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. According to the BBC website ;

    "....... The BBC has also learned that at least one of the new carriers will be redesigned so that it can deploy normal fighter aircraft that do not need a Harrier-style vertical lift capability.

    The new design would allow American and French joint strike fighters to land on the new carrier. ......"

    So !

    Does that mean we are only get one carrier ?


    We are going to get two different types of F-35s ?


    WHAT ??????

    It makes no sense.

  2. I think thats shite as well
  3. Sorry, I should have looked around more. The Daily Telegraph has this (see :- )

    Whether one believes it or not ;

    Navy aircraft carrier will be sold after three years - and never carry jets

    One of the Navy’s new £3 billion aircraft carriers will never carry aircraft and will sail for only three years before being mothballed and possibly sold, ministers will announce on Tuesday.

    The Government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review will also confirm that Britain will not have an effective “carrier strike†capability – a working aircraft carrier equipped with fighter jets – until 2020.

    David Cameron had wanted to scrap one of the two carriers, the largest and most expensive vessels in British naval history, but the review found that contracts signed by the previous government meant that doing so would end up costing the taxpayer more than going ahead with both. As a result, the two carriers will enter service, but one will be mothballed as soon as possible. …………….

    …………… • The Navy’s fleet of warships will drop from 24 to 19 and it will lose 4,000 personnel. Harrier jump-jets will be scrapped next year but no F35 Joint Strike Fighters will be available to replace them until 2020. …………..

    ……………………… The decision on the new carriers has been at the heart of tense and prolonged Whitehall negotiations over the future of the Armed Forces.

    Due to cost almost £6 billion, they were demanded by the Navy but strongly opposed by the Army and by General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff.

    The final plan for the carriers was approved by the Cabinet on Monday, at a meeting in which Mr Cameron told ministers that the decisions on the future of the Armed Forces, had been “the hardest thing I have had to deal with†since entering No 10.

    On Tuesday, the Prime Minister will outline a timetable under which Britain’s one fully operational aircraft carrier, HMS Ark Royal, is immediately retired. The Navy’s other carrier, HMS Illustrious, will continue to function as a helicopter platform stripped of jets before retiring in 2014.

    The first of the new carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, will enter service in 2016, configured to carry helicopters, not jets. The second new carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, will arrive in 2019. At that point, HMS Queen Elizabeth will be put into “extended readinessâ€, effectively mothballed indefinitely.

    Government sources indicated that the Queen Elizabeth was unlikely to return to service after that, and could well be sold to another country to recoup some of the cost of building it. “There are no plans for it after 2019 and it could well be sold. No one wanted the second carrier but we had no choice,†said one source. “No one is pretending this is an ideal situation, but this is what we were left with.â€

    A senior defence source added: “This is not a perfect set of circumstances. There is no political benefit for us but it is the right thing for the country. It would have been more expensive to cancel than build the aircraft carrier.â€
    Further angering Navy chiefs, the defence review will confirm that Harrier jump-jets will be abandoned next year but the RAF’s Tornado will be spared to operate in Afghanistan.

    Scrapping the Harriers will create a “capability gap†of nine years, with Britain unable to fly fast jets from an aircraft carrier until 2020, when the new JSF enters service.

    Government sources tried to play down the significance of the gap, insisting that Britain had agreements allowing RAF jets to fly from overseas bases in most strategically sensitive parts of the world. But insiders admitted that the situation was “far from perfectâ€.

    Until 2020, Britain is likely to rely heavily on allies with a carrier strike capability, most significantly France.

    Mr Cameron will meet President Nicolas Sarkozy next month to discuss expanding Anglo-French military co-operation, with naval collaboration at the top of the agenda.

    As The Daily Telegraph disclosed in August, one of the new carriers will be redesigned with a catapult to launch aircraft.

    That means that Britain will have to pull out of plans to buy a specially-designed short take-off vertical landing model of the JSF.

    Abandoning this model could jeopardise jobs at Rolls-Royce, which was helping build it, and antagonise the US, Britain’s partner in developing the aircraft.

    However, the catapult system will allow the Prince of Wales to carry French and US aircraft. It also means that the new carrier will be equipped with the conventional form of the JSF, which the Royal Navy believes is more powerful and cost-effective than the jump-jet.

    Navy chiefs were said to be extremely unhappy about the decision to axe the Harrier jump-jets, claiming that ministers had “underestimated the risk†from the move.

    Sources raised doubt over the lack of carrier strike capability, questioning whether the RAF would be able to secre airbases for its jets if Britain needed to fight abroad.

    “I can’t see Oman happy to have Tornados flying from its territory to bomb Iran,†said a source.
  4. It makes no sense whatsoever.

    It tears up all the planning for the two carriers (including the need for two in the first place).

    It means (or rather implies that there is a back-romm deal with the French government/navy).

    It LOOKS as if Cameron has pulled a fast one on the Navy by agreeing to two carriers and then selling one off. (As if the "trick" with the extra 1% defence cut wasn't bad enough - a typical negotiating ploy).

    I'm afraid that the conservatives have shown their real understanding of defence is just as bad as Labour.

    It will be interesting to see all the overheads now ploughed into just one hull.

  5. It certainly will be a "fast one" if the Fleet still looses DD/FFs and amphibious assetsto implosion level to pay for the carrier we don't effectively get.

    Does Sir Mark have a cunning plan?
  6. To paraphrase Moltke, no battle plan survives contact with the enemy or a government that places short-term financial expediency above long-term national security.
  7. Maybe 'Ivan' has some old stock of inflatable A/C that would make it all look better?
  8. Also, will lose 4,000 personnel, and warships reduced from 24 to 19. Earlier predictions were a lot worse than that.

    Does anybody more familiar with the navy structure have an idea where the personnel will be trimmed, or is this completely impossible to answer?

    I'm still just a noob.
  9. Manpower cuts in the thousands often appear worse than they are when you factor in natural wastage. It is all about maintaining balance. The decision on "how to" reduce the manpower figures is therefore going to be the more interesting discussion than the "how many" - and that isn't going to be done in a dog watch I would suspect.
  10. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    Concur with Broadside; Applying some careful manpower levers (reducing availability [and need] for FTRS, 2OE etc) will improve the outflow and carefully reducing the intake in some key areas all will help the overall manning balance get down by a few thousand relatively quickly.

    You could also take a very hard look at the individuals on the P7 list (or whatever the new MEDCATs are), that would throw up a few hundred very quickly.

    The key issue it to understand WHEN the individual services have been told to make the saving by. If there are graduated or even deferred for a few years this exercise will be relatively painless. If it were to be by, say next Mar, that would be whole different kettle of poisson.
  11. Raleigh hasn't had its gates open for a while now, so couple that with stopping 2oe/ftrs i can't see there being a need for redundancies.
  12. back to the carriers- does anyone know why we didn't go in with the yanks on the conventional launch version of the JSF from the out set?
  13. is that all branches? i may have got the wrong end of the stick.
  14. because at that time 1996 were were stovl experts and needed a stovl replacement for harrier that was small enough to operate from cvs.
  15. ****BREAKING NEWS****

    All kicking off at Cott/Witt!!

    News to follow when I get a safeguard on the rumours!!!
  16. Thanks for adding the above link. The informed members of public are now offering up their unrivalled and impressive knowledge of warfare. in addition to all the 'self-publlicitist seeking experts' the BBC keep rolling out this morning.

    Some of the comments are truly hilarious and have brightened up a dismal day. :lol:
  17. :oops: :oops: and Dear John from Hendon .. Thinks Carriers are undefendable..... He must think the operate alone, and not in a task force group :lol: :lol: :lol:
  18. The design process (15 years odd) had many iterations (see RicardB's site) - essentially the carriers were envisaged to be "strike carriers" i.e. basically amphibious assault support. Here it was found that STOVL fighters would generate more sorties than CTOL fighters.

    What a STOVL carrier couldn't do was long-range strikes, "alpha strikes" and big AEW aircraft. This is why they are NOT regarded as "proper" "Attack" carriers.

    You get what one can afford and design for, the Queen Elizabeths were designed to a budget for a specific purpose (with space reserved for change of use and "growth"). this is now being changed on a political whim.

  19. Hermes, normally I'd find them hilarious too but unfortunately the view of the uneducated masses appears to also be the view of those that make the decisions. It's all to depressing to be funny.

Share This Page