Carriers to Get Official Approval Next Week

#1
LONDON (Thomson Financial) - The British government is set to give approval next week for the long-delayed construction of two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy, according to a report.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is expected to formally commit to the 4 billion pound programme next week and to tell the two companies that will build the carriers, BAE Systems Plc and VT Group Plc, that they can expect to receive a contract in mid-June, the Financial Times' weekend edition reported.

Link
 
#4
tomahawk6 said:
Why build carriers when the RN doesnt have the money to keep its current fleet at sea ? A carrier requires escorts to protect it.
And hopefully by the time they are built we will have a new Government who won't be trying to run two wars on the lowest comparitive peace time budget since Cromwell was in short trousers.
 
#5
jonwilly said:
Votes, carriers part built in Browns Scottish constituency.
john
The steel for the carriers was bought ages ago: the only 'confirmation' going on here is the finalising of the contract to actually cut the stuff. I have to say 'well played' to the Royal Navy who have played a really good game here.

T6 - never say never...
 
#7
I am 100% confident these carriers will be built, and I also think the RN with get more escorts, but only if they are clever.

I say they get one in the water, take it through some combat drills with the yanks and then go mental all over the front pages saying they dont have the escorts to protect their new carrier.

Play the game!
 
#8
All well and good, but 'playing the game' results in a couple of things

1.
A shortfall somewhere else.

2.
A reinforcement of the general view that defence acquisition is a game, a game played by boys in short trousers who want a more sweets than the next kid. Politicians will find it even easier to divide and rule and the Treasury will continue to view the MoD as its most wasteful troublesome child and keep the defence settlement as low as possible.
 
#9
Whats the alternative when you have a government that ignores the facts and does everything on the cheap.

All I am saying is I think its time the MOD started playing a bit off politics itself, and actually using the media a bit more.
 
#10
hopefully by the time the hulls start to take shape there will be a new government who might be willing to spend a bit more more money on defence, the two princes amongst others seem to be doing a good job at keeping the issue in the headlines.

Then we might be able to have the 12 destroyers we need rather than the 6 that are being built....

Next task is to deal with Seley Oak,

Duncan
 
#14
2 x CVF's

3 x Replacements for Invicible Class Carriers ( for Royal Marines able to carry Harriers and Helo's same as USMC)

Albion Class x 3 assualt ships

12 x T45's

Frigates and Destroyers back up to min 35 total
 
#15
Does anyone really think the Tories are going to provide a sustained and significant uplift in defence funding, especially when they have publicy committed to keeping the same spending plans as Labour

The defence community should call for a taxi and ask to go to reality street because hoping for more is not a sensible strategy.

We are facing an aging population that is going to massively increase pension, welfare and healthcare costs, the world is facing an economic downturn and the desire for reduction in public spending as a benefit of reducing taxation across the board is palpable.

Don't forget, the tories have just as bad a record on defence reviews and spending as labour so hoping the blue team is going to come riding over the hill with a big bag of cash is just wishful thinking.
 
#16
Dunc0936 said:
2 x CVF's

3 x Replacements for Invicible Class Carriers ( for Royal Marines able to carry Harriers and Helo's same as USMC)

Albion Class x 3 assualt ships

12 x T45's

Frigates and Destroyers back up to min 35 total
CVF is the replacement for CVS.

On what expertise are you basing these projected figures or did you just simply pluck them out of thin air? :roll:
 
#17
"We are facing an aging population that is going to massively increase pension, welfare and healthcare costs, the world is facing an economic downturn and the desire for reduction in public spending as a benefit of reducing taxation across the board is palpable"

Yes I agree with you in that sense, however watching the news yesterday, there seemed to be more talk about spending existing money better rather than spending more, I personally think that the whole social services budget needs to be looked at, I bet there could be lots of savings mad there

what annoyes me is that defence is asn easy target, if you were to cut 2000 civil service jobs in white hall there would be out cry, yet I bet you could loose double that and not really make any difference to government effectiveness

Duncan
 

mysteron

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
All I can see is the Bremner, Bird & Fortune sketch that they did in the late '90s (IIRC) talking about these carriers and never building them - but saying that you are.

As to the Deefence Budget - the only time when defence spending really increases is when the nation feel they are at war. Whether we are at war or not today in reality, has no bearing on the public perception - they will vote according to things that will sustain their 'reality' TV show lifestyles - Health, Education and Social Services.
 
#19
The original FT article can be found here. The specific type of aircraft to be operated and the required launch and recovery system have yet to be clarified unless someone knows better.

For those who harbour any doubts about the relevance of CVF, I offer the following. As in Iraq and Afghanistan, any future conflict is likely to involve boots on the ground. However, we don't want to be bitten on the bum when we don't have the luxury of host nation support for our troops and aircraft à la Falklands. We will therefore need to be able to transport, deliver, protect and sustain troops, armour, vehicles and aircraft. Even when host nation support is available, the environment may not be benign and we would still need to protect the ships carrying the food, fuel, ammo, spares and other stores and equipment needed for protracted operations. We will never have enough air transport to carry the vast quantities involved.

The current focus is on anti-terrorist and counter-insurgency ops but you don't cancel your fire insurance just because you've suffered a couple of burglaries. Who can say with confidence what emergencies will arise ten years from now? As has already been said, we need 10-12 Type 45 destroyers i.a.w. the 1998 Strategic Defence Review (SDR) rather than the paltry six ordered to date - not to say we don't need some smaller ships better suited for coastal and inshore operations too. This quote from the RN website puts things into perspective:

The replacement for the Type 42 Destroyer will be the Type 45, the first of which is due to enter service with the Royal Navy in 2007. Equipped with the world beating Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS), the prime role for the Type 45 destroyer will be Anti-Air Warfare. In concert with the Future Aircraft Carrier, the Type 45 will provide the backbone of the Royal Navy's air defences protecting UK national and allied/coalition forces against enemy aircraft and missiles. The Type 45 will be capable of conducting world wide expeditionary operations ranging from humanitarian assistance, defence diplomacy in times of peace and tension, to war, in climates ranging from the tropics to Atlantic winters.

The ability to operate aircraft is expected to remain an essential component of most operations - be they deterrent, hostilities, peace-keeping or major humanitarian efforts. The ability to put combat aircraft, or support helicopters, into the air over international waters or inland during operations without support from a host nation is likely to be a key factor in our success. Thus the Royal Navy intends to replace its three aircraft carriers with two new, larger carriers.
First the injection of £24m for Headley Court and now this. Nothing like being on the ropes to concentrate a government's mind on real priorities, is there?
 
#20
So we all accept that sustained and significant increases in defence funding are not a realistic proposition yet we persist, criminally in my opinion, of funding ever more complex and expensive defence acquisition major projects but let training, welfare, maintenance, stores and other stuff go to the dogs.

All the old Generals, Air Marshalls and Admirals come out of the woodwork moaning about the state of affairs but they seem happy to carry on with the 'we must have the (insert big and expensive project here)' but then meekly let the really important stuff wither on the vine
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top