• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

BAE asked to look at options for carrier cuts

#1
Doesn't sound good…


BAE asked to look at options for carrier cuts

Published Date: 08 September 2010
DEFENCE firm BAE Systems has been asked to look at options for cutting the number of new supercarriers it is building, the firm told a defence committee today.
Ian King, chief executive of the firm, told a Defence Select Committee that it had been asked to look at future options including 'one carrier or no carriers'.

The request comes as the government carries out its Strategic Defence Review, which is looking at ways to save cash in the armed forces.

The government is currently committed to delivering two carriers, an option which is still on the table.

BAE has already begun work on the first of the two carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth. They are being partly built in Portsmouth.

BAE asked to look at options for carrier cuts - Portsmouth Today
 
#2
Bugger. And because I need to fill it out, shit as well.


Hopefully it's all scenario covering anyway, or even just another 'leaked' report.
 
#6
options for cutting the number of new supercarriers
I love that line...it make's it sound as though 10 of them are being built instead of just 2...Build both or build none, 1 is a joke and more then that, dangerous. It give's a false sense of capability.
 
#7
I love that line...it make's it sound as though 10 of them are being built instead of just 2...Build both or build none, 1 is a joke and more then that, dangerous. It give's a false sense of capability.
Exactly my reaction... You can't really cut so much as half the number of carriers being built.
It should read they are cutting one of the two carriers to be built.
 
#8
Cross posted from FA18 thread

I wouldnt read too much into the Times report. It seems that as part of the cost options, BAE has been approached to let the MOD know what the impacts would be of various potential options. The fact that all those options have previously been looked at and rejected over the last 12 years is relevant - it tells you that whatever decision is made will be taken based on industry consultation.

The key point to note is 'equivalent other programme' as this implies that even if the carriers were cancelled, replacement vessels would be ordered to put them into construction. Interesting to speculate what 4Bn of orders would look like.

Finally, why is the Times still going on about the aircraft carrier sovereignty link, which was dismissed last week?
 
#9
The key point to note is 'equivalent other programme' as this implies that even if the carriers were cancelled, replacement vessels would be ordered to put them into construction. Interesting to speculate what 4Bn of orders would look like.
The orriginal 12 Type 45s would make a nice start.
 
#10
In the early 90’s I read a report which commented on the 3 super carriers for the Royal Navy.

Even then it stated that although the Navy had asked for 3 they would only get one and have a choice on either keeping the Royal Marines or have a second carrier.

If the Navy was going to give up the Marines the Army planned to combine them with the Para to form its main shock troops. The role of Para/airborne troops would be taken up by the regular Infantry as a roulement (sp) role. The Army would also loose all its MBT.

Now I now this was 13 years or so ago but each time I hear about defence cuts I keep remembering this.
 
#12
I'd say it's a mixture of the Government looking at options, and BAE trying to stir up a bit of support. I reckon we'll get our carriers, even if it means paying a heavy cost elsewhere.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
In the early 90’s I read a report which commented on the 3 super carriers for the Royal Navy.

Even then it stated that although the Navy had asked for 3 they would only get one and have a choice on either keeping the Royal Marines or have a second carrier.

If the Navy was going to give up the Marines the Army planned to combine them with the Para to form its main shock troops. The role of Para/airborne troops would be taken up by the regular Infantry as a roulement (sp) role. The Army would also loose all its MBT.

Now I now this was 13 years or so ago but each time I hear about defence cuts I keep remembering this.
The numbers might be reduced but I think the Iraq experience will have done enough to remind the great and the good that MBTs cannot be done away with all together. As I recall, they had a very calming effect on the population.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
Here we go. The Limp'Dim component of the coalition, doing their bit for the Kremlin. I bet the twerp 'Sven' is orgasmic!
I rather suspect that the Kremlin would be quite happy for us to invest most of our naval and air spending on two lumps of metal that we can't protect properly.
 
#19
FORMER_FYRDMAN said:
Blokeonabike said:
I rather suspect the Kremlin couldn't care less.
Any reason?
Despite what feelings we may have based upon past imperial glory, the UK is pretty much a spent force militarily speaking except as a bolt-on to US foreign policy.

So, just why would the Kremlin be concerned in any way?
 
#20
The numbers might be reduced but I think the Iraq experience will have done enough to remind the great and the good that MBTs cannot be done away with all together. As I recall, they had a very calming effect on the population.
We would love the think so, and the 120 mm IED defuzer was always handy.

But these decisions are made by people looking for cost cutting not defence capabilities.
 

Latest Threads