Royal Navy CVF Carrier

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#5
lsadirty said:
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:
 

pingbosun

Lantern Swinger
#6
sgtpepperband said:
lsadirty said:
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:
G'day all

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 :oops:] and wheel chairs will be allocated as necessary at the QM's desk.

pingbosun

 

Old_Hand

Lantern Swinger
#7
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.
 
#8
Warships
Q10. [138673] 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 £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......
 
#9
lsadirty said:
Has anyone thought of her they're going to crew one, let alone 2 of these beasts? Probaby goodbye another 4 frigates/destroyers.
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.
 
#11
If Gordon wants a good news announcement

Else

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......
 

Allnightin

Lantern Swinger
#12
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.
 
#13
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?
 
#14
Not_a_boffin said:
Warships
Q10. [138673] 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 £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......



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:
 
#15
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.

[align=center]Warships[/align]

5. Mr. Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con): What plans he has to order warships for the Royal Navy.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Over the next 20 years we expect to contract for, or build, more than 20 major warships, including nuclear attack submarines, new aircraft carriers and more air defence destroyers, and to begin a new class of fleet escorts. Numerous Royal Navy support ships will also come into service over this period.

Mr. Wallace: There has been some exploration of the possibility of working with the French in a joint venture on the two super-carriers. It is probably welcome that we should share costs by joint working on design and other aspects, but will the Minister take this opportunity to rule out any option that includes building the ship in French yards, and guarantee that our carriers will be built entirely and wholly in British yards?

Mr. Ingram: I would like to think that we could bid for the French ship to be built in British yards as well—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would see that as a major success, but would still say that the converse would somehow be wrong. We have a deep and growing relationship with the French on this, and their contribution to the cost has been welcome. We are working to get common design, which again we welcome in terms of our relationship over the decades ahead with the French as a major ally. Let us take this a step at a time. At present our plan is to build those ships in British yards, and that is what we seek to do. That is what the maritime industrial strategy is all about, and every encouragement should be given to it.

Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is good news not only for the Navy but for the UK defence industry? Will he join me in congratulating organisations such as Northern Defence Industries, which is working hard to ensure that medium-sized and small enterprises access the supply chain for these contracts, not only in the north-east but throughout the north of England?

Mr. Ingram: Yes, I can say “Hear, hear†to that. It is important that the areas that have that expertise, and have had it for a good number of years, see this as a major opportunity. The more small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chain see that opportunity—and, more importantly, seize it—the better it is for our industrial base overall. We have a strong supply chain, and support not only for the maritime industry but across the range of defence industries. I give every encouragement to those organisations, including the particular one mentioned by my hon. Friend, to work hard to ensure that they maximise the opportunities available to them.

Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): To what extent does the Minister agree that there is no point in having aircraft carriers if we do not have the aircraft to fly off them? In the event that the joint strike fighter project fails, what discussions is the Minister, or his officials, having with the French about the possibility of flying Rafale aircraft from our aircraft carriers?

Mr. Ingram: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is advocating that; I suspect not. We have said that we intend the joint strike fighter project to succeed, and every effort has been put into that. I thank everyone who lends weight to that argument in their visits to the United States and impresses on people there the importance of our engagement and our relationship with them. There is a plan B, but as I have already said, we want to succeed with plan A. I do not think that plan B should be ventilated at this stage, but it is not along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

John Robertson (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab): Can my right hon. Friend update us on the Type 45s, two of which are sitting in my constituency being fitted out, with a third to join them before the end of the year? What is happening with ships Nos. 7 and 8 in particular, as we know that four are required to defend each aircraft carrier? [ Interruption . ]

Mr. Ingram: I am being asked to give a short answer—I do not think that that will be the case, but I shall do my best.

We are concluding our negotiations on ships Nos. 4 to 6, and until those issues are resolved we cannot move on to the next development, which would be that of ships Nos. 7 and 8. I have said this to my hon. Friend before, because he constantly asks this question—and rightly so, because he represents the interests of his constituents and those shipyards extremely well. No doubt he will be the first to ask the question again as we get closer to a final decision.

Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD): I welcome what the Minister has said about the carriers, which enjoy support across the House. Will he give us some indication of how the Ministry’s thinking is developing on future procurements, given the need for the Navy to play a part in rapid responses in conflict and humanitarian situations? In particular, what response does he have to those who argue in defence journals and elsewhere that too much of our naval capability is geared up to anti-submarine warfare, and that we need more multi-purpose ships and small, faster, more versatile craft for the future?

Mr. Ingram: First, I do not think that there is universal acceptance on both sides of the House that we need the aircraft carriers; I am sure that some would argue that we do not. It is up to them to articulate that, but if they do say so they will be wrong. In terms of anti-submarine warfare, some of the recent changes in defence have been because of our understanding of the changing nature of the submarine threat. We cannot make a complete exit, because we do not know when things could change. We need to keep a number of options open, not only in terms of the surface fleet and the submarine fleet but across the range of personnel who give essential protection from the air and elsewhere. All those issues have to be taken into account. The planned expenditure on the Royal Navy over 20 years is £14 billion. Clearly, if the threat changes within that time scale the need to procure different types of vessels will be taken fully into account, based on the military assessment at that time.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): What are the implications for the future naval building programme if existing warships can be used more intensively by, for example, having two alternate crews?

Mr. Ingram: We are trialling that approach to keep the ships at sea for longer. That is one issue about the size of the Navy versus its capability. The more capable the ships, the longer there should be between refit and maintenance work. The ships can thus be kept at sea and closer to the point of deployment. It is then a case of working out how best to use the Navy personnel who serve on those ships. Trials are under way, and the Navy will take account at all times of any adverse impact on the naval personnel involved in such a process. Let us wait and see how it works. However, I would have thought that my hon. Friend would welcome the opportunity to deploy ships at sea for longer than at present, when they have to return to base port or home port and are therefore not in action.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): The Minister boasts about the order book, but I understand that, in the past five years, the Government have ordered only one ship—an offshore patrol vessel. Is not it the case that, by selling off perfectly serviceable Type 23 frigates, mothballing six ships out of a surface fleet that has already been cut from 35 to 25 and relentlessly reducing orders for Type 45 destroyers and attack submarines, the Government have demoralised the once proud Royal Navy, all at the behest of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who does not understand Britain’s armed forces?

Mr. Ingram: That was a bit of a rant, which does not relate to reality. The Navy is not being mothballed. Ships are in different states of readiness—it has never been the case that all ships are maintained at a high state of readiness at all times. Ships have to go into refit and undergo modification, with new equipment being fitted to them. That means that they fulfil a different role.

We are considering a development programme of £14 billion, and I have listed the ships that are in the process of being contracted for or built. The hon. Gentleman’s comments are inaccurate. I suggest that he read my parliamentary answer about what has been procured under the Government. That will help educate him.

Mr. David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab): Does the Minister understand that small and medium-sized enterprises have grave concerns about the aircraft carrier. They put the delay down to the involvement of the French. Can he allay their fears?

Mr. Ingram: As far as I know, the French are not causing the delay. If anything, the delay is about ensuring that we have the best fit for the building capacity in the yards. That is where the ongoing, progressive and helpful discussions between Vosper Thornycroft and BAE Systems are leading. All that will be greatly beneficial. As I said in response to an earlier question, there are great opportunities, and industry should be getting itself best placed in its planning to maximise the time when it can make a bid for different aspects of that programme. Matters are complicated by the fact that the programme is not signed off and the steel cutting is therefore not under way. Once that happens, the pace will quicken and the enterprises should be assured that there is a good future ahead for them.
 
#16
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!
 
#20
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
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top