NAO - Carrier Strike : The 2012 Reversion Decision

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by sunnoficarus, May 9, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Perhaps they could also look at all the crap IT the MoD has lumbered itself with and see if any of that is value for money........
  2. I really do not understand building a bfo aircraft carrier around an aircraft that was still not in operational service.

    This part is also of note
    As a result, the Department estimated that, over the next ten years, the STOVL option would be £1.2 billion cheaper than the carrier variant. This difference halves to £600 million over 30 years.

    You really have to wonder at the MOD ability to purchase large ticket items. 600 million over 30 years is peanuts.
  3. Look deeper, one key issue was US national security concerns. Going for cats and traps meant one carrier and sharing with the French. The cousins were not comfortable with that.
    STVOL means we can afford two carriers and not be reliant on sharing with the French when our one is up on blocks getting an oil change.

    UK political Eurofastasies meets real world reality - reality bites.
    Basically, all this Westminster talk of sharing carriers and planes with the French really never was going to fly in any sense of the word if we wanted to stay best bezzers with the USN.
  4. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    ...which would be fine if the 'Special Relationship' wasn't such a fickle, one-sided one. We have a lovely habit of trying to satisfy everyone and ended up satisfying no-one... but somehow doing ourselves short in the process.
  5. national security concerns, or commercial concerns?

    the '1 carrier with C&T, or 2 carriers with ski ramps' was always predicated on the 'one carrier with C&T' flying F-35C - perhaps the US was concerned that the UK would eventually decide that 2 carriers with F/A-18F (or Rafale!) was better than one carrier with F-35C, or indeed 2 carriers with F-35B, with the resultant damage that would do to the F-35 programme?

    given the fact that the USN cross deck with the French, i'm somewhat sceptical that its a national security problem if we do it....
  6. The F-35C and EMALs would be the state of the USN's art.
    Cross decking for some training hops on this years model is one thing, becoming residents on a carrier and having ongoing access to next years models and technology was obviously an issue for the Americans.
  7. Grumblegrunt

    Grumblegrunt LE Book Reviewer

    we need two carriers anyway for when we have to protect the convoys from french and german subs in the next war.

    which unfortunately is due around 2018 when the EU finally implodes