Defence chiefs have last-minute doubts about £4bn carriers

#3
The steel is ordered, the ships are needed. What's to debate this late in the game?
Compared to other projects our glorious managment in Whitehall have instigated the carriers seem pretty good value to my uneducated eyes
 
#5
The last-gasp canvassing of opinion from senior officers of all three Armed Forces working at the MoD also reflects concern, particularly in the RAF, over threatened cuts in other equipment procurement programmes to help to pay for the carriers. There is increasing speculation that the RAF’s Super Lynx helicopter project and the third phase of the Eurofighter/ Typhoon programme may have to be scrapped.
Hmmm....there are actually (at least) 3 separate issues wrapped up in this typically lazy piece of journalism, but let's ignore that in pursuit of something a little easier.

Is the RAF really getting its knickers in a twist over this...? Won't this..errr...affect the putative JCA requirement (50/50 and all that?) I would also suggest that RAF procurement is looking pretty good right now, certainly in terms of its capital projects.

And if we gaff off CVF, doesn't that effectively say that all our doctrine is flawed, needs a re-write and we should abandon any pretensions of preparing for 'a war' whilst actually fighting 'the war'? Interestingly, the US are about to sack the whole concept of EBO...

I'm not in the least bit surprised that it's Tim G-C leading on this either.
 
#6
I think we are going to need carriers in the future and all the support/protection ships (+aircraft) they require. Unless of course we choose to just have international events thrust upon us with no say in the matter.

The human population is growing massively, all at the expense of the planetary resources we have come to depend upon. There is "trouble ahead". We in the UK can accept that and plan or just continue to stagger along.

What do we want for our future?

There is another way. We could try to become a country that is self reliant and not in need of imports. In that case we would just need a capable defense force without the ability to project power.
 
#7
VCDS has a reputation as a blue sky thinker - its entirely possible that he was looking at this issue in a wider context. We don't know what the letter actually said, the context in which it was sent or how many other letters were sent on similar projects elsewhere.
 
#8
jim30 said:
VCDS has a reputation as a blue sky thinker - its entirely possible that he was looking at this issue in a wider context. We don't know what the letter actually said, the context in which it was sent or how many other letters were sent on similar projects elsewhere.
Well said Jim.
 
#9
When you consider the "international" situations that are arising in the world today, the need for a good carrier group is a must for any international force today, indeed in the world today when the Yanks send there carrier groups to off shore waters its as good as 100 bombs anywhere in any troubled capital, just having that kind of assest5 of anyones coast is a big BIG detterent today, build em i say, i mean how much did each Trident sub cost?? and there almost obsolete today yer.....
 
#11
Dingdangly said:
When you consider the "international" situations that are arising in the world today, the need for a good carrier group is a must for any international force today, indeed in the world today when the Yanks send there carrier groups to off shore waters its as good as 100 bombs anywhere in any troubled capital, just having that kind of assest5 of anyones coast is a big BIG detterent today, build em i say, i mean how much did each Trident sub cost?? and there almost obsolete today yer.....
Yes - the fact that we have boats that can only be detected by a handful of navies in the world and who have the ability to kill hundreds of thousands in one go demonstrates that we are now at the level of the Senegalese Navy... :roll:
 
#12
The question is why we're not building three or four?

Two Carriers: £8bn

Two week sporting event in London: £9.3 Bn
 
#13
I think the carriers are important......together with submarines armed with tomahawk missiles and amphibious assault ships they are what we need . ........as long as they get plenty of F35's to fly off them!

We don't need anymore Eurofighters or T45's and the loss of the Lynx will save us alot of cash - better spent on more Chinooks.
 
#15
trackbasher said:
I think the carriers are important......together with submarines armed with tomahawk missiles and amphibious assault ships they are what we need . ........as long as they get plenty of F35's to fly off them!

We don't need anymore Eurofighters or T45's and the loss of the Lynx will save us alot of cash - better spent on more Chinooks.
Hmm, hadn't thought about this before but what exactly is Future Lynx any good for?
Doesn't a big complex military helicopter cost much the same to operate as a small complex military one?
 
#16
jagman said:
The steel is ordered, the ships are needed. What's to debate this late in the game?
Compared to other projects our glorious managment in Whitehall have instigated the carriers seem pretty good value to my uneducated eyes
Uneducated..yes..hmm...well if the steel is ordered then fine crack on. We'll worry about the recurring costs, through life support and air component later then shall we?

Frankly I would put the bar and a padlock on main gate for this turkey of a programme...
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
EX_STAB said:
The question is why we're not building three or four?

Two Carriers: £8bn

Two week sporting event in London: £9.3 Bn
Two carriers £4bn actually (unless you are including all the gucci aircraft as well). I like your idea of spending £8bn a lot better though.
 
#18
EX_STAB said:
The question is why we're not building three or four?

Two Carriers: £8bn

Two week sporting event in London: £9.3 Bn
You missed out the welfare bill for one month : £12bn

Got to lift all those chavs out of poverty you know.
 
#19
It isn't the current Chiefs who should be worried, it is the young thrusters working their way through Staff College etc who should be worried, because the chickens won't come home to roost for 10-20 years, and it is they who will have to cope with a tiny Defence Budget and the costs of running these leviathans! And that will be the time at which all these new-fangled PFI projects will be coming up for renewal, too!

Litotes

Leviathan: Not a bad word for Saturday afternoon, eh?
 
#20
Is it just me who thinks we'd be better off spending that type of money on something like four ocean and four invincible class ships rather than two gold plated bomb magnets - and spend anything left over on some new Sea harriers?
 

Latest Threads