Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by sgtpepperband, May 17, 2007.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Royal Navy CVF carrier
I've just come... :wink:
I'm joining back up..!
If HMS Implausible and HMS Unlikely enter service before 2020 I'll be very surprisedâ€¦ :?
Has anyone thought of her they're going to crew one, let alone 2 of these beasts? Probaby goodbye another 4 frigates/destroyers.
Yeah,; the RN is recruiting in Cuba and Poland! :lol:
I'm waiting any day now for a recall to address, the shortage of qualified matelots, with the extra tidbit for my signature, that Crutches [get all your dirty minds above the navel ] and wheel chairs will be allocated as necessary at the QM's desk.
I happened to be watching PM questions yesterday and he was asked a question on the future of the RN. He stood and said that because of the advanced technolgy there was a requirement for only 25 Destroyers and Frigates also with the 2 assault ships and together with the 2 new aircraft carriers that are being built there would be no other warships needed.
Q10.  Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): For what reason the numbers of frigates and destroyers to be deployed by the Royal Navy have been reduced from the total set out in the 1998 strategic defence review.
The Prime Minister: As we said in the White Paper that we published in July 2004, we judged at that time that we needed fewer destroyers and frigates because of the reduced conventional threat and because of the improved technology of the new warships that are now coming into service. We are therefore putting more resources into programmes such as the future aircraft carriers and the Bay class landing ships, which will be vastly more capable and versatile than the ships that they are replacing.
Dr. Lewis: That is indeed what was said in 2004, but what was said in 1998 was that we needed 32 frigates and destroyers. The warships then were just as technologically advanced as the ones referred to several years later. When it comes to believing the Prime Minister or believing successive First Sea Lords who have said, in and out of office, that we need 30 frigates and destroyers, I know which I would believe. The Prime Minister has cut them from 35 to 25. Will he now guarantee that he is not going to cut them further by mothballing another six frigates and destroyers?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asks why the situation is different as between July 2004 and 1998. It is true that in 1998 we said that there should be32 such frigates and destroyers, and in 2004 we reduced that number to 25, but we then increased the number or the capability of the alternative vessels.
Dr. Lewis indicated dissent.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should wait for the answer before he shakes his head; he may shake it afterwards. As a matter of fact, we are the party that has increased defence spending, whereas his party cut it by 30 per cent. The amount of money that we are putting into the new warship programme, which is huge and amounts to Â£14 billion over the next few years, is exactly the same as was predicated back in 1998, but we are spending it differently. That is change, and very sensible too.
Call me picky, but virtually none of what Bliar said makes technical or even grammatical sense......
Supposedly they're going to have the same manning requirements as a current CVS as a resault of automation, economies of scale etc.
Most of the phots are of old designs that were binned - a few current ones but nothings come out for a year or so now.
But when are they going to to order them ffs??
If Gordon wants a good news announcement
New defence review as part of upcoming CSR and quite possibly endex for RN as a whole.
VT have already called MinDPs bluff - no order, no ShipCo......
The Bay class are bigger, will have a dock and can't beach. CVF will have more, bigger and faster aircraft but won't have any weapon systems worthy of the name or even EW and will require presumably T45 escort at all times. Neither type is a frigate or detroyer the last time I looked and they still can only be in one place at a time. I don't see how the PM can say that we can manage with such a reduction in numbers of FF/DD and his answer - especially his last bit to Julian Lewis about dissent - shows his inability to grasp this brief.
As useful as they would be, I suspect the CVFs will cripple the Navy for no other purpose than to give the Army expeditionary reach. Counter narcotics (OK, OCEAN in the Carib), counter piracy, trade route potection contraband supression and worldwide "image" projection needs many hulls in many places. So what will the 21st Century RN have?
If Labour have increased defence spending I've not noticed it - fewer ships, slashed budgets etc etc etc. Bliar has no ******* idea. He plays with the RN like my 3 year old plays with plastic ships in the bath - badly. If he spent less money on benefits for all the loafing bastards on the dole and stopped handing out our tax money to anyone with a sob story we'd be able to afford a few more ship's and do our job properly :knob: :banghead:
Just to provide the big picture, this House of Commons exchange on 14 May 2007 is worth quoting in its entirety. The delay ordering CVF all seems to rely on BAe and VT getting their acts together. Add to this the business of acquiring JSF (CTOL or VSTOL? - rather an important decision affecting the design of the vessel) from the USA plus our calamitous history of collaborating with the French over CNGF and none of this bodes well for CVF in-service dates of 2012 and 2015.
Not entirely accurate (but no surprise for this bunch of shysters). The CVF order delay may be being blamed by MoD/Liabour, but it is my understanding that VT and BAE have a joint venture ready to stand up pretty much as soon as the minister sits down after announcing the CVF order. However, they have recently told MinDP that it won't happen without the order, mainly because MoD has now started kn0bbing about looking at allowing the French to build at least one block of the UK ships, thereby destroying all the workload predictions that the VT/BAE joint venture was predicated on.
Smart procurement? Maritime Industrial Strategy? All based on some fairly dodgy work from RAND - bunch of @rse!
Why not save Â£1 billion and buy a couple of these 50,000 tonne beauties 'off the shelf' from the Americans. $4.8 billion equates with Â£2.4 billion at current exchange rates.
Nice pics, but not much cheaper than CVF but a lot less aircraft.
At least Â£1.2 billion cheaper is significant.
maybe cheaper but it's not that much of an increased capability to the 2 carriers we have now. personally i'd prefer to see the new carriers configured for the CTOL version of the JSF
Separate names with a comma.