Yet another twist in the story of the Queen Elizabeth/Prince of Wales carriers

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by pg55555, Mar 2, 2012.

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. .

    It would SEEM ( ???? ) that despite anything that the US/USN are saying that the British government is taking the worrying reports about the carrier version of the F-35 very seriously (although I would GUESS that this is really about the large cost increases in changing the (designed to be supposedly easily convertible from STOVL to conventional carriers) one of the carriers (POW).

    Two of the stories are here ;

    UK aircraft carrier plans in confusion as ministers revisit square one | UK news | The Guardian

    Navy aircraft carrier plans hit by further delays - Telegraph

    I cannot work out what is really going on, but think it is POSSIBLE it is more about a contractual costs argument with BAE rather than the aircraft itself (???????)

    At least I can be consistent in noting that the government seems quite happy to contemplate standing on its head without recourse to any thoughts of strategic necessity or defence strategy. Oh to be a politican who doesn't need to think or explain themselves.

  2. This saga goes on and on , and will do for some time to come. For years the Navy have had to fight and cajole the powers to be about the need for a carrier capability. That what we once had has sadly gone, never to return, we are left with these ongoing stories about what might be or what could be. Around us there are countries that now have a reasonable presence in the carrier concept, just let us standby and watch and forget the idea that we will ever have anything near the capability we once had. Never mind the fact that we cannot afford all this imagined stuff. Most of us will be 6ft under and never see these pipedreams take place.
  3. "Cats and Flaps" - PMSL!!!! Cats and Traps, surely??

    It seems that we've got ourselves into a right mess with this project, and we're now kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. STOVL will be easier to implement but more expensive with a smaller range and payload (and it's not without it's own development problems either). CV version will have a better range and payload but is much riskier to implement requiring an expensive carrier conversion and complete retraining of personnel. Plus it has major developmental issues that will delay the aircraft until 2022 at least.

    The interoperabiity argument is flawed - the cynic in me says that we want a conventional carrier so that US and French aircraft can operate from it, not so that WE can operate from their carriers. That way we can still feel as if we are contributing even if we have no aircraft of our own.

    I can see this becoming too expensive to go either way, and pulling out all together. A great shame.
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2012
  4. I think that the RN would have been better off from the get-go if they had gone with the FA-18E/F. The amount of capability increase offered by the F-35 is not that much greater than the capability of current technology. The F-35 is a mess of a program and could wind up going the way of the RAH-66 Comanche that cost billions in development, but ultimately wasn't that much more capable than the AH-64 or AH-1Z. The F-18 would have also offered a cost-savings, and been operational sooner, which offered the RN power-projection capability without a gap.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Aye, I would have liked to have seen RN flying F18's. A little less on the stealth side but it's not like we haven't got infinitely capable T45's to provide death-shields wherever we like.
  6. VSTOL it is then ..... for the time being before another change of mind.
  7. I think that they just couldn't afford to change all the computer-generated press release videos from STOVL to CV :)
  8. Lygo's achievements included securing state aid for the Airbus 320 launch, helped by good relations with the industry minister, Norman Tebbit, a fellow pilot. He was typically outspoken about BAe's practice, under the old cost-plus system, of doubling or trebling prices to the Ministry of Defence by changing specifications, and worked towards fixed-price contracts.

    The late Raymond Lygo hit the nail on the head years ago, why don't people listen?
  9. EarlyChop. Remind me; What's the remaining useful fatigue life of the available F18s?
  10. Did they not continue to build new frames up until 1996? Just thinking a few more 4th gen with fancy avionics might have been an option over limited 5th gen frames...
  11. If we want FA18s we'd have to get new ones. The available ones in the Boneyard are nearly all mid 80s A-models.That doesn't make FA18 a bad idea though......
  12. fails_as_is

    fails_as_is Badgeman Book Reviewer


    Don't know what factual information this is based on or whether it adds just more noise to the mix.
  13. No noise, that's a pretty accurate assessment of where we are and where we're heading with F-35. I have a mate working on the aircraft in the US and he reckons the short-term cost savings we'll make in choosing F-35B will mean a long-term lack of inter-operability with our Allies and a reduction in strike capability. But I also understand that 2025 is a long time for the UK to be without any strike capability and we will struggle to grow our conventional deck-ops experience. Rock. Hard place.

    Playing devil's advocate, perhaps the real question is what role do we want to play in the world and do we need a strike carrier capability at all.
  14. Don't take any notice both papers are politically motivated, wrong, and have **** all else to write about.
  15. Slightly off topic, but it's hardly surpising that the budget for these carrier is going south. I work next door to Cammell Lairds, where they are building part of the topsides for the carriers. On Wendnesday they closed off the slip so they could land a helicopter carrying a sole person, dripping in braid who was carrying out an inspection on the topsides project. Whoever it was stayed for about an hour then got collected by the helo an sodded off. I wonder what the cost for that little excursion was as opposed to the lazy sod getting on the train and jumping a taxi. I know it's only peanuts in the greater scheme of things but someone is taking the p*&s somewhere
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Purple_twiglet

    Purple_twiglet War Hero Moderator

    Scouse - having a little bit of knowledge of how difficult it is to source helo flights for seniors, I'd say the following. Firstly, these days unless you are a 4*, its almost impossible to get a helo unless you have a bloody good reason. If you are a 4* you still need a good reason, and its not a case of just jumping on the nearest helo.
    Travel is massively scrutinised these days, and helos only tend to be used as a last resort. I'd suggest in this case it was because the Admirals programme was such that train/taxi would have involved overnight accommodation, meaning he couldnt do his job while stuck on the train - far better to use a helo for a short ride, than keep a senior bod out of the office for the sake of using the train.
  17. Also, if a cab\crew were to need the hours, rather than do a pointless "lets fly to that hill and turn round a go back" why not combine the two?

    Jumping Christ on a bike!! Have I just defended Woos?
    {Shakes head in utter disbelief}

Share This Page