Row over plans to spend a fortune on two aircraft carriers

#2
The two carriers were only brought by the government to keep the admiralty quiet while the fleet is dispanded. I Have strong doubts that there was ever any real intention to buy them.

Ski.
 
#3
An aircraft carrier of that size represents an asset that needs a very considerable support group to protect it?

IIRC the American Stike Groups for big carriers have destroyer squadron, guided missile cruisers/destroyers and the odd attack submarine or two stooging about plus oilers/supply ships.

Where do they come from then? Or is that part of the cunning plan?
 
#4
The CVF concept is really as case of eyes bigger than tummy...the MOD hasn't got the appetite for this. Operating a carrier group requires a level of commitment and a human resources effort alone which makes the current arms plot look shabby. Where will all of these naval aviators come from? Or ground-crews, or ship crews or ships?

Delusional at best, criminal at worst - this project is a complete nightmare.
 

pdf27

Old-Salt
#5
The £100bn figure is the total operating costs (IIRC including buying and operating all the aircraft) for the entire lifetime of the carrier - probably 50 years.
 
#7
Well a USN CSG currently consists something like this:

1 x CVN - 3,000 crew
1 x Air Wing - 2,500
1 x CG - 400
2-3 x DDG - 350 each
1 x SSN - 130
1 x AOE - 2-300

So total manning requirements in the region of 7,000

The current strength of the RN, excluding RM, is about 30,000.
 
#8
The RNLI need all the help they can get and if Gordy, Des and Tony thinks its a good idea then I am alright with that.


Total and utter head fcuk these people!!
 
#9
£100bn is a bit far fetched even for Big and Expensive Systems.

The simple truth is you can't have a military on the cheap.

Of course if this government actually cracked down on the amount of money wasted in the NHS and Social Welfare, then the government could afford it.

However, that wouldn't be very popular with the dregs of society that are bleeding UK PLC dry on welfare...
 
#10
Taz_786 said:
This article is being a bit disingenuous about it costing £100bn.
Also says crew size is 3000+ each. Quick check of Google says only 1800 bunks being planned, with 300 of them unused even with a full air group. (Although most Arrsers's would say this is due to sailor boys sharing beds anyway :wink: ) http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-17.htm

Also misses the point that the aircraft can be based ashore.

Nice piece of biased piss poor reporting.
 
#11
AndyPipkin said:
Well a USN CSG currently consists something like this:

1 x CVN - 3,000 crew
1 x Air Wing - 2,500
1 x CG - 400
2-3 x DDG - 350 each
1 x SSN - 130
1 x AOE - 2-300

So total manning requirements in the region of 7,000

The current strength of the RN, excluding RM, is about 30,000.
That would be a full battle group facing a naval threat. RN carrier would operate with one or two escorts and a support ship at a guess. Or on her own when on important jollies to Hong Kong / Bermuda / USA and the like.
 
#12
I beleive that the RN should ideally have 3 carriers, if one is in dry dock or gets sunk, at least you have got the flexibility provided by another 2 carriers.
I also beleive they should be the catapult version, giving greater flexibility in aircraft types, and providing compatability with the USN.

100 billion spent over 50 years does not seem, to much to me, for the surface fleets major offensive assets.
Although it seems very odd that this government is cutting back on the rest of the Fleet, whilst still planning for 2 new carriers.

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2226
 
#13
Also says crew size is 3000+ each. Quick check of Google says only 1800 bunks being planned,
Yes, but the RN crews hot bunk and work shifts. there may be 1800 beds but the potential is for 3600 crew.
 
#14
just a thought. is this story a plant by the labour party? Is it the first salvo in their justification for NOT buying the carriers? Build up public resentment at the cost, or at the very least apathy, then cancel the program. The goverment has already renaged on promises to the admiralty to buy 8 type 45s (now only 6 being bought). So another couple of boats to cancel and they will have 'sunk' the RN with barely a whisper from the Royal Navy.

On a good note. My shares in Al Milliners PLC are at an all time high.

Ski.
 
#15
Speedy said:
Also says crew size is 3000+ each. Quick check of Google says only 1800 bunks being planned,
Yes, but the RN crews hot bunk and work shifts. there may be 1800 beds but the potential is for 3600 crew.

RN surface ship crews don't hot bunk. In an emergency, yes, so could anyone. Food and water would be in short supply though, can't nip to the local market for resupply.

Not sure if they still do on the black turd underwater thingies that glow in the dark.

Automation means half the crew needed. CVF are around twice the size of the Invicible class, so the crew size will remain the same at about 1500.
 
#16
Speedy said:
Yes, but the RN crews hot bunk and work shifts. there may be 1800 beds but the potential is for 3600 crew.
Surface vessels do not hot bunk.

Get your facts right-you're almost as accurate as the original story! :D
 
#17
BADAJOZ said:
I beleive that the RN should ideally have 3 carriers, if one is in dry dock or gets sunk, at least you have got the flexibility provided by another 2 carriers.
I also beleive they should be the catapult version, giving greater flexibility in aircraft types, and providing compatability with the USN.

100 billion spent over 50 years does not seem, to much to me, for the surface fleets major offensive assets.
Although it seems very odd that this government is cutting back on the rest of the Fleet, whilst still planning for 2 new carriers.

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2226
Not enough crew for three, just enough for one at sea and the other working up at a guess. IIRC the harrier force is going down to 4 squadrons (2xRN + 2xRAF) of 9 planes each, giving 36 fighters - just enough to fill one CVF. Chuck in ASW and AEW and some transport and ground attack helos, then enough to fill two (just). As long as the enemy are kind enough to time it right in between refits and 'extended rediness' periods.
 
#18
AndyPipkin said:
Well a USN CSG currently consists something like this:

1 x CVN - 3,000 crew
1 x Air Wing - 2,500
1 x CG - 400
2-3 x DDG - 350 each
1 x SSN - 130
1 x AOE - 2-300

So total manning requirements in the region of 7,000

The current strength of the RN, excluding RM, is about 30,000.
HMS Ark Royal, the last real carrier, had a crew complement of 2,700 when the air wing were deployed on board. Despite being smaller than the American carriers and having less catapaults was capable of getting aircraft in the air faster than the larger American carriers.
Carriers are an essential item for the UK forces, think back 25 years, with a proper carrier and the types of aircraft that can be deployed, the losses we had in the South Atlantic would probably have been much lower.
It was decided by those that make the decisions that Airborne Early Warning was unnecessary resulting in the losses of men and equipment that nearly resulted in a failure to take the Islands. AEW would have detected the incoming aircraft as they left Argentinian airspace and tracked them all the way in. Interception of the argy aircraft before arrival at the Islands would have made a huge difference to all concerned.
 
#19
We really do need these ships despite the cost, size & politics. If we don't get them then the UK will be signalling that its getting out of high end warfighting for good and that as a country its stepping down from the top table. Now that really would affect the future all three services significantly. :(
 
#20
Scottish_retard said:
Speedy said:
Also says crew size is 3000+ each. Quick check of Google says only 1800 bunks being planned,
Yes, but the RN crews hot bunk and work shifts. there may be 1800 beds but the potential is for 3600 crew.

RN surface ship crews don't hot bunk. In an emergency, yes, so could anyone. Food and water would be in short supply though, can't nip to the local market for resupply.

Not sure if they still do on the black turd underwater thingies that glow in the dark.

Automation means half the crew needed. CVF are around twice the size of the Invicible class, so the crew size will remain the same at about 1500.[/quote]

Or alternatively they've underestimated crew size either by acciden or on purpose to keep headline operating costs down.
 

Latest Threads

Top