ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by mnairb

Still, those carriers will look ever so pretty tied up in Pompey dockyard - maybe they can convert them to a naval theme park.

Would make good prison hulks.

Originally Posted by Toastie

....the aircraft to fight from it are still on the drawing board and the performance of 65,000 tonne aircraft carriers on sand or rough terrain is yet to be proven, I'd say a pretty fair result all round.

You are aware that the F35B took its first flight the other week? And you're also aware of the contribution of US and French carrier aircraft to operations in Afgahnistan, the part US carriers played (and still play) in Iraq, and the contribution of shipborne aviation (ok not fixed wing) to Operation Telic?

Originally Posted by Toastie

Jobs secured in Fife which happens to be Broons homeland. Jobs secured in Govan which happens to be in the vicinity of an upcoming Bye Election. Jobs secured in Barrow which happens to be in the North West TV area, the same North West area as Crewe and Nantwich.

What ever these contracts may do they will not change Browns fortunes, these deals do not win votes, though they may stopt you losing more than you already have lost. The Torties founfd this out when they gerrymandered the nuclear refit work from Rosyth to Devonport

Originally Posted by Toastie

Meanwhile, defence analysts are saying we can't afford to build it and that the impact on procurement for other branches will be dire, the Navy are saying the aircraft for it won't be ready in time and half the current Navy is tied up alongside without the funding to put to sea.

As for analysts, you can always find a box full to support your view, the reality is that without that scale of carrier one will never be able to support ground forces much further away than Calais. Lets face if much of the air support in Afghanistan comes from a carrier in the Indian Ocean.

Originally Posted by Toastie

So given that we can't afford to run it, the bods to crew it don't exist, the aircraft to fight from it are still on the drawing board and the performance of 65,000 tonne aircraft carriers on sand or rough terrain is yet to be proven, I'd say a pretty fair result all round.

We can afford to run it all that is needed is to sack a few of the governments 'consultants'. The aircraft are nearing production and whilst later than planned they are making good progress. As for performance over sand or rtough terrain, fast jets work very well a few hundred feet above such surfaces, and often the only way of getting them there is with a flat top. No big carrier, no big power projection.

Mind you I still expect them to be cancelled before they are built.

Originally Posted by maxi_77

Originally Posted by Toastie

Jobs secured in Fife which happens to be Broons homeland. Jobs secured in Govan which happens to be in the vicinity of an upcoming Bye Election. Jobs secured in Barrow which happens to be in the North West TV area, the same North West area as Crewe and Nantwich.

What ever these contracts may do they will not change Browns fortunes, these deals do not win votes, though they may stopt you losing more than you already have lost. The Torties founfd this out when they gerrymandered the nuclear refit work from Rosyth to Devonport

Originally Posted by Toastie

Meanwhile, defence analysts are saying we can't afford to build it and that the impact on procurement for other branches will be dire, the Navy are saying the aircraft for it won't be ready in time and half the current Navy is tied up alongside without the funding to put to sea.

As for analysts, you can always find a box full to support your view, the reality is that without that scale of carrier one will never be able to support ground forces much further away than Calais. Lets face if much of the air support in Afghanistan comes from a carrier in the Indian Ocean.

Originally Posted by Toastie

So given that we can't afford to run it, the bods to crew it don't exist, the aircraft to fight from it are still on the drawing board and the performance of 65,000 tonne aircraft carriers on sand or rough terrain is yet to be proven, I'd say a pretty fair result all round.

We can afford to run it all that is needed is to sack a few of the governments 'consultants'. The aircraft are nearing production and whilst later than planned they are making good progress. As for performance over sand or rtough terrain, fast jets work very well a few hundred feet above such surfaces, and often the only way of getting them there is with a flat top. No big carrier, no big power projection.

Mind you I still expect them to be cancelled before they are built.

Whether you are gaining votes or not losing any more amounts to the same thing: A pretty blatant reannouncement of a project with jobs saved / created as the sugar coating for constituencies and areas proving a thorn in the Governments side or likely to do so. £10 to Arrse Charity if "Look at all the jobs we've created" doesn't get mentioned in the Glasgow West electioneering.

I vaguely remember all the stuff about Force Projection even if it was Junior JOTES some 20 odd years ago! For sure Naval Aviation is a great way of providing Air Support but to do it a lot of things have to fall into place and a lot of money needs to be available. Given the current administrations record on doing either, never mind both, I doubt these carriers will be delivering ordnance on target any time soon.

I reckon they probably will be built but by the time the cutbacks kick in they will be a shadow of their former self and prove to be like every other defence procurement idea, half baked, barely fit for purpose and starved of funding needed to reach whatever limited capability they end up with come champagne bottle smashing day. Fast Air is great but Blue Circle radar etc, operated by guys starved of training time who can't wait to get out because back to back tours in harms way is wearing a bit thin can only make up for so much in the way of shortfalls elsewhere.

As for releasing funds by sacking Government consultants, I admire your faith in common sense but sadly, although you clearly have a lot of it, common sense generally is one of the biggest contradictions in terms!

The 'savings' to be had when these ships are cancelled will make the bean-counters' figures look excellent.

PS. Such a pity these ships will not be 'paid for' by cancelling the stupid Olympics.

Hopefully by the time these ships come into service another Party with more focus on military spending (Tories?) will be able to afford to maintain these ships and expand the navy to look after them.

What Toastie said.

Signing contracts does not mean they will be built for US, IMHO they will be farmed out to the frogs or spaniolas or anyone else who puts up the gelt

Quote from bbc.c.o.uk:

"Speaking in Govan, Mr Browne said the carriers would provide "very large floating bases for the Navy and the RAF","

Do the RAF usually operate from flat tops or are we going to have "stealth" airbase closures? Before you know it the junior service wil be amalgamated into the newly formed Royal Navy Air Force (RNAF for short).

Call me a shrivelled up walnut wearing a tinfoil hat, but perhaps the BBC didn't switch off the microphone when they were told to and heard something they shouldn't have. Before you know it we'll be left with just the Navy and Army. Then come 2018 they will both join the 3rd European (North Western) defence force in place to defend Paris from its German allies.

(Takes tin-foil hat off)

Sorry, did that make any sense?