New carrier 'not fully capable' until 2030

HAVE YOUR SAY

29 November 2011

1) Reverse the retirement of the Harriers and Ark Royal and Illustrious NOW. Make cuts to the RAF Tornado fleet to pay for it.

2) Cancel the F35 for the UK NOW before we are burdened with anymore liability for this stricken US led project and navalise the Typhoon - as Lord Hesketh recommended when he stepped down. He stated the naval Typhoon option would be cheaper, more capable and give greater benefits for UK plc. He was right. If the Indians select the Typhoon next month - the MOD should seriously start negotiating to start a joint program navalising the Typhoon with India (as they did with the Harrier 40 years ago). That way we may even have Typhoons flying off RN carriers in 2020, just about the time the old Ark Royal and Illustrious are being pensioned off after four decades of proud service.

Simples
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

29 November 2011

Graham,
Please don't bite !
michael - notts

29 November 2011

@ Martin Bayliss

1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Harriers have been sold/given away almost, to the USMC. Ark Royal has already been de-commissioned to the point that like her former consort, 'Invincible' when held 'in long term reserve' she could not be viably restored to service and will no doubt follow her sister to the scrapyard before much longer. The fate of these assets was sealed with the SDSR over a year ago and we have to accept there is no possibility now of reversing the process however much we would like to.

2. Having sold 72 Harriers for less than the cost of a single F35 and having been held to contract, the UK's first F35-B has been 'rolled out' this month, despite the fact the UK will not operate this variant
other than in a trials/familiarisation role (allegedly!)pending delivery of the F35C. Now the news according to other reports, suggests that the UK may have just six F35C by 2020, rising to 12 by 2023!! In other words about a third of one carrier's potential operating strength and with no mention of the RAF's share of the new aircraft! By 2023 the Tornado must surely be long overdue for retirement and long after Illustrious, scheduled for withdrawal in 2014, will have followed her sisters to the scrapyard. The capability gap is glaringly obvious and it would seem some interim solution is urgently needed, whether this might take the form of an 'off the shelf' type or your proposed 'navalised' Typhoon variant is another question.

In the case of the Typhoon, not least the question of whether it would be possible to modify it for carrier operations and if the builders-consortium would invest in its development, a decision unlikely to be undertaken with much urgency based on the history of the aircraft's already protracted development.

These factors aside, the Indian Navy's 'Vikrant' class carriers, will at least in the case of the first of class 'Vikrant' be considerably smaller than the QE Class, closer in fact to the French 'Charles de Gaulle' and potentially set to enter service well in advance of either QE Class ship, thereby their need to select a suitable aircraft must be pressing and several contenders, many of which are already available are under consideration. The second vessel INS Vishal is projected to more closely resemble the QE Class in terms of size and operational capability, but may also precede them into service. In short it would seem likely that the Indian Navy may be compelled to adopt an 'interim solution' while potential contenders, still under development or merely under consideration progress to a proven operational state. Perhaps an enviable situation as far as the RN is concerned(?)
Hereman - Wirral, England

29 November 2011

"Until our new carrier capability comes into service, we can utilise our extensive basing and over-flight rights to project decisive air power, as we showed during the Libya campaign." but at what cost?????
H Nelson - Portsmouth

29 November 2011

My point re taking funding from the Tornado to fund a navalised Typhoon (BAE have undertaken numerous studies and concluded in STOBAR form it is perfectly feasible) implies that the RAF loose permanently a significant proportion of its strike assets.

When money is tight (as always - but particularly now) it makes sense that the most economic way to project power in the form of combat aircraft is from carriers - since carrier aircraft can fly from land as well it seems logical to me to have the UK's global strike assets carrier based, with the RAF performing UK air defence and global logistics - troop transport and AAR.

Obviously the RAF are not going to like this - but the alternative are short range land based strike aircraft that require expensive AAR to get them anywhere near where they are needed and/or friendly neighbouring countries to fly from - something that will increasingly become difficulty to guarantee unless the MOD intend to resurrect the Empire!

Additionally - right now I can think of no better way to kick start the UK's manufacturing base and boost the economy than building the two QE carriers without delay - both with CATS (steam to start with and EMALS later) and a full complement of naval Typhoons on each (hence an order for 150 off from BAE - which would be far more affordable than 150 F35s).

The RAF should only have strike aircraft in the form of large strategic (i.e. long range) bombers (a range of 2000+ miles with weaponry). That kind of aircraft outside the USA no longer exists - so short range carrier capable aircraft are the logical choice for a cash strapped nation that still wishes to play a significant role on the world stage.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

29 November 2011

Martin I'm sure I'm not alone in totally agreeing with you. There is a problem here of real leadership in the RN and the MoD. If this debacle carries on the RAF will get their way and the RN will be nothing more then a coast guard with a handfull of atomic subs for the occassional PR related missile strike. The UK will become incapable of defending itself abroad and the RAF will be become like the Swiss: Monday to Friday 9-5.
It is time the likes of The First Sea Lord stood down and were replaced by someone with the guts to stand up and stop this nonsense. The UK can easily afford to run two carrier groups on a one out, one in basis. What it cannot afford is the huge number of self interested senior rank RAF officers (apparently the same number as the whole USAF!). The Tornados should have been massively sliced and the Harriers kept but that chance has gone now(the night before the SDSR was announced Cameron was apparently sold it by some senior officers I can only guess which uniforms they were wearing).
The RN should be actively seeking to buy two carriers worth of EMALS with the Super Hornet and E-2d's. This will not happen until the senior RAF officers "One Airforce" club and their mates in the MoD are stopped from retiring into BAe and its various subsidiaries and interest groups.
The Mobile Global RAF does not work. They don't even have strategic bombers this time round like they had in the 60's.
To delay the carriers further is to sign their death warrant as the MoD will declare we don't need them.
Where is the First Sea Lord? He should be jumping up and down shouting we do need them, we need them now?
Alistair - UK

29 November 2011

Do our politicians and Air Marshalls not realise that basing and overflight rights!? ... (agreements) can be withdrawn at the drop of a hat???
(addendum to my comment on F35 EMALS launch)
Norman - UK

29 November 2011

michael - notts

Nah, your right I won't!
Graham - High Wycombe

29 November 2011

Until the leaders of the various political parties have an understanding of what the armed forces actually have to do with what equipment they have, then MoD will continue to be stripped to the bone.

It is my understanding that only 1 serving MP has had any full-time service experience. This shortage of practical experience is totally inadequate preparation for any budding Defence Secretary, who is then wholly dependent upon service advisors who have their own agenda.
AW Employee - Yeovil

29 November 2011

Alistair - UK


Agree - the RN should be far more militant in fighting their corner.

The problem is that the small US equipped RAF and the British Army fit in with the US poodle strategic doctrine for the UK. So many senior civil servants, officers and politicians have based their careers on this pathetic paradigm that the true UK national interest never gets a look in. What a pity we don't have a prime minister who has got there by his own volition and a will of his own (people such as David Davis, Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine, John Major even -a much underrated individual, Margaret Thatcher etc) to face down the career transatlanticist's in the UK military establishment.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

29 November 2011

Thank you Admirals, and persons in management and power who have totally neglected the needs of UK plc.
Services have been involved in squabbling like children, people who thought they understood have been confused.
The "Fleet" has been sacrificed at the alter of CVF.
I really do not know what we should do. My gut feeling is get out of the project, but I appreaciate it is to late.

We will see further cuts in the surface fleet, Type 26 will become a monster absorbing whatever is left over, rather than allowing us to get vessels that can address the war we "Are" fighting (Drugs & fisheries and policing of our territorial waters, (But it seems the RN does not want to do that))
Finally the replacement for Trident, which I had been against will come along and use the last of everyone elses budget (Army & RAF). I say I was against as I did not want our conventional forces to be decimated due to it...
Looks to me as though we will end up with a Nuclear tripwire.... I despair...
Degradable - UK

29 November 2011

Alistair-UK,
Perhaps before posting you should have read 1SL's statement on RN manpower and the manning of CVF,which is obviously an attempt by him to sway politicians to stop the huge cuts in RN manpower.The most senior serving officer in the RN is very much constrained in what he can actually say,being that it is accepted that they should not be involved in the political aspect (as much as we may disagree with this).
I'm afraid that your post shows a rather poor grasp of of the military/political relationship, and an even worse grasp of current defence matters especialy in regards to the RN.
You have though sensibly aligned yourself with someone of the same ilk.
michael - notts

29 November 2011

Another thoroughly depressing article about the CVF's. I'm not surprised really, this whole thing has the hallmarks of a cock up bigger than anything previously thought of, imagined etc.

While I admire the notion of supporting UK PLC in building lots of naval Typhoons, the sad fact remains that the work would go to that monolith of UK defence manufacturing, BAE Systems.

These are the guys that cannot, ever, deliver on time and on budget, and far too comfortable with certain 'close' relationships within UK Gov to worry about doing their job right. Their record recently is a shocker.

With my heads in the clouds, a navalised Grippen for the next 15-20 years would do fine (around 50 units) until the F-35 finally gets running. Its a cracking platform, nice and cheap. And Saab are a class outfit, far better than the shower running, working, for BAE.

But with my heads firmly attached, we all know how this is going to turn out dont we?
Anon - Abroad

29 November 2011

From article: "... the Commons Public Accounts Committee estimated that full carrier strike capability would not be restored (to the UK) until a decade after the carrier enters service..."

"Full carrier strike capability" requires that a country- in this case the the UK- has a navy possessing the resources to deploy at least 1, fully equipped, fixed-wing aircraft aircraft carrier 'battle group' (or similar squadron-type group of vessels) 365 days per year...

As the Public Accounts Committee noted- due to unavoidable logistical realities, 1 aircraft carrier can not provide 365 days per year availability...

So, as things are currently planned, the UK WILL NOT EVER regain legitimate, functional carrier strike capability...
--------------------

How does this fiasco on steroids make the UK appear to her potential and existing adversaries and to parties that would do the UK and/or her overseas assets harm??

Projecting 'confidence' is a basic rule of economics and international trade....

The same applies for international diplomacy: what does the United Kingdom's aircraft carrier controversies project to overseas observers??
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

29 November 2011

well what can you say really! this is without doubt the most useless planning exercises by any ministry of defence let alone mps too.why are we served by these people surely something this bad should see some mps sacked for comtempt for the british public! would the americans sit on something this bad? i wanna see a public enquiry that includes the labour people who orderd this ships too! what a complete mistake this looks it really stinks of stupidity and lack of intelligence by all those involed lets question these people make them responsilble for this awful mess and not pc brigade under the carpet its a discrace i wanna see those who orderd this charged with waisting public money and lying to the british people knowing this was a mess even before they started building these ships ! you just gotta think how bad does this really make us look to the world? what a complete sad day for this special nation charge the idiots please they disgust us the british people
steve wood - rawcliffe bridge

29 November 2011

I said as a joke back in 1998 or 99, this would probably end in tears. I actually thought it would be a great success, until doubts about the size of the ships came into question. Anyone can tell you that the bigger ship is more effective and effecient. That was the first sign.
Val - Britain

29 November 2011

".."The government's record on defence is poor and it seems that there is no talent within the coalition.." Period.
What an unmitigated disaster they are!
Stephen Barraclough - Huddersfield

29 November 2011

if we wasnt giving away 6 billion in foreign aid half of the uk forces problems wouldnt be problems.we should get both carriers compleated and lease some jets of the usa till the jsf are complete.in this time and era we just might need them sooner than later.
ian potter - st.helens/uk

29 November 2011

Anon - Abroad

I'm not going to comment on the CVF and it's lack of airgroup... no point anymore... Britain is going to resort to "We will nuke you"... kind of like "We will tell mum replies young children try that never work out when the bully calls your bluff".... except in this case if he doesn't call your bluff it's nuclear armagedon.

On the note of the Grippen it is a very respectable aircraft... capable of STOL, good budget, decent sensor outfit, modern tech and a good payload and preformance.

Very much capable of delivering the "meat and potatoes"
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

29 November 2011

@ Martin Bayliss, navalised Typhoon is not going to happen. Let it go my man.
Why would other countries want to risk waiting for something which no doubt will end up more costly & overdue when there are already dedicated and cheaper alternatives such as the Super Hornet & the Rafale.
Chris W - Essex

29 November 2011

We lost an entire Naval Base & Naval Air Station on Portland for what? Bring the "through deck cruisers" or "mini flatops" out of mothballs, get the Sea Harriers back online with Lynx & the Merlins & bin this new carrier gash! Back this up with FAA BAE Hawks flown by land based Naval agresser sqn's to back the RAF, bin the Typhoons & revamp the Tornado's, Jaguars if possible & RAF Harriers. Reason why? We dont need stuff thats to technical coz "you cant bomb someone back to the stoneage if they already live there". We need this capability back NOW not in 15 to 20 years whilst we have to rely on europe! PS bring back National Service too for the good of the country.
LT - Weymouth

30 November 2011

What does the UK expect? That you can commission a carrier and the military capabilities it provides at a drop of a hat?

Only a complete idiot would expect that.

As a result of the pathetic 2010 SDSR driven by a pathetic UK government and MoD it was always expected that carrier capabilities would not be regenerated much later than 2020 when PoW will be ready.

"Until our new carrier capability comes into service, we can utilise our extensive basing and over-flight rights to project decisive air power, as we showed during the Libya campaign."
- Hmm, anyone else notice how the GR4's from Italy did not carry cruise missiles?
- As Pakistan has done recently, transport (or over flight) agreements can be withdrawn.
- If people think the RAF can do full spectrum warfare by it self, anywhere in the world they are delirious
- Read Sharky Ward's report into Libya at his website. It makes for interesting reading with figures.
- The main argument for carrier options in Libya are that it would be cheaper and efficient in comparison to land based options. This is not to say the RAF did not do an okay job; but the lessons need to be learnt. (The IFR naval mag lists these as well).

I still say the excellent BAE Hawk (or successor) would be ideal for a carrier operations in the same fashion as the T45 Goshawk in USN service. It could even provide CAS efficiently while the F-35C can be used as top cover. Of course there has been no steps by the MoD or government to investigate this possibility.

Also T45 units 7 & 8 were cancelled to make way for the T26 programme. Of course these two units are not represented in the projected build numbers for this much delayed (and needed) programme. If one looks at the sum of the original 16 T23's, 4 T22 Batch III's, with the 6 originally cancelled T45's; that 26 T26 vessels would be a welcome result - in a mix of ASW, ASuW-AAW versions.
- This won't happen of course, and the UK is very much weaker as a result.

I wouldn't go down the Gripen path, since this doesn't not benefit the UK military industry, though I believe BAE are involved. Multi-national projects are not worth the end result in loosing the domestic ability to provide indigenous solutions.

A Naval Typhoon is very much unlikely, as is the FA-18 unless the F-35 seriously derails.

Shaun - Ex-RNZN

30 November 2011

I can't help but think that building smaller carriers at say 45,000 tons and building them at one yard would have been a better long term solution for the UK - smaller, more affordable, probably most likely to be able to operate the pair instead of the insane idea of building one ( a very expensive one) to act as a training platform for another. It troubles me that these vessels are now tying up what seems to be all our shipbuilding capacity (excluding submarines) to the detriment of other areas of the fleet due for replacement. You look at the minesweeper fleet and of course the frigate fleet (type 23) and then you look at the debacle over Type 45 and you have to wonder why we went down this particular route for super carriers. Both Type 23 and the Sweeper fleet will be seriously old by the time PW and QE take to the water.
Michael - Hertfordshire

30 November 2011

Degradable - UK

The huge national debt is the real cause of the shrinking RN fleet rather than the CVF program or the RAF.

In fact as the CVF will be around for some decades I would say that it will strengthen the case for expanding the fleet when we are not restricted by such a huge national deficit which hopefully should be around 2020 when it should be between 50 and 60 percent of GDP. Once we are not straddled by our present level of debt a case can be made that you need auxiliaries, escort vessels and SSN's to protect and supply it.
Graham - High Wycombe

30 November 2011

Cancell the f35cs andlets navalize both the Typhoon and the Tornado gr4s
Stewart MUIR - Coventry west midlands

01 December 2011

The real disaster is not that it could be 2030 before the PoW has a full air wing rather the disaster is that one of the carriers QE is not to be fitted with cat and trap as things stand and so will only ever be used for training until PoW arrives. This is the real scandal.
Graham - High Wycombe

01 December 2011

This country need to pull its self together its hard to beleve that we had the largest navy and Empire in the world, i also cant beleve that we have no current air cover for the Royal Navy, its madness that 3rd world countries are building or buying super carriers as well as aircraft of the shelf from America for Billions an we are still commited to giving the millions of pounds of aid. Get these Great carrier built give them trained crews give them the best aircraft with the best pilots and also give them the best support fleet that are built to last 50 years and let them sail to all parts of the world reminding people around the world that Britain can still hold its own like we always have. and like the last comments please keep Ark Royal in service give her back here Harriers and keep Harriers on Illustrious with her still having her ski jump you can fly Helicopters from any RFA ship in the event of war as was the case during the Faklands war why cant this country learn from its past conflicts. also get a move on with the Type 45 Destroyers we sould be proud of building the most advanced ships in the world.
Mike - Southport Great Britain

01 December 2011

This country need to pull its self together its hard to beleve that we had the largest navy and Empire in the world, i also cant beleve that we have no current air cover for the Royal Navy, its madness that 3rd world countries are building or buying super carriers as well as aircraft of the shelf from America for Billions an we are still commited to giving the millions of pounds of aid. Get these Great carrier built give them trained crews give them the best aircraft with the best pilots and also give them the best support fleet that are built to last 50 years and let them sail to all parts of the world reminding people around the world that Britain can still hold its own like we always have. and like the last comments please keep Ark Royal in service give her back here Harriers and keep Harriers on Illustrious with her still having her ski jump you can fly Helicopters from any RFA ship in the event of war as was the case during the Faklands war why cant this country learn from its past conflicts. also get a move on with the Type 45 Destroyers we sould be proud of building the most advanced ships in the world.
Mike - Southport Great Britain

01 December 2011

Michael,
I did read it, all of it, several times actually. The facts remain 1SL is standing by as the fleet and FAA around him is wiped out. All that he has done is to tell the government that the RN can't manage and therefore they should have their assets cut to size. Bye bye carriers (sold no doubt for half the price of a Typhoon) and hello two more cut down Oceans. No power projection other than AAC Apaches the new Wildcats and maybe some STOL UCAV.
Nicholas Soames (Churchill's grandson in case you didn't know) said it during a debate in the Commons a couple of years ago.
1SL is giving the mandarins and the jealous RAF and any other antis all the ammo they need. He could of course stand up and take hold of the project and bring it into service ahead of schedule with real kit rather then maybe up to 12 F35c (as mentioned today by the current defence secretary in the same breath as the bull about the over flying rights for the mobile global RAF mk2).
He should be taking charge, he is clearly not.
So... I'm afraid that your post shows a rather poor grasp of the military/political relationship, and an even worse grasp of current defence matters especially in regards to the RN.

Alistair - UK

02 December 2011

Having read today's news that Russia has just supplied Syria with supersonic anti ship cruise missiles it only highlights the need to give the QE carriers improved defences. The current CIWS being fitted would unlikely defeat these missiles I believe we must install Sea Viper on them, the Aster missile can defeat an incoming missile at speeds of up to Mach 3.5 these missiles will travel at Mach 2.5 and are 3000Kg each so unless we want our carriers to have to operate so far away from shore we will have to improve their indigenous self defence capability.

Graham - High Wycombe

02 December 2011

Stewart MUIR - Coventry west midlands
"Cancell the f35cs andlets navalize both the Typhoon and the Tornado gr4s"

As John MacEnroe used to say "You cannot be serious!" Have you any idea how much time & effort it would take to navalise the Typhoon & Tornado? Save shedloads of both and buy the F/A-18E/F off the shelf if you don't want F-35. At least you will get a Gen 4 aircraft capable of carrying the latest weapons and sensors. GR4 is a late 1960s design in a 1980s airframe. Typhoon is an excellent aircraft but way too expensive.
AW Employee - Yeovil

02 December 2011

Graham - High Wycombe

"Having read today's news that Russia has just supplied Syria with supersonic anti ship cruise missiles it only highlights the need to give the QE carriers improved defences. The current CIWS being fitted would unlikely defeat these missiles I believe we must install Sea Viper on them, the Aster missile can defeat an incoming missile at speeds of up to Mach 3.5 these missiles will travel at Mach 2.5 and are 3000Kg each so unless we want our carriers to have to operate so far away from shore we will have to improve their indigenous self defence capability."

Fitting Sea Viper to QE class is a nice idea, but the space requirement for a decent number of rounds is prohibitive. Far better to use 2 T45s as goalkeeper (as in original proposal), supplemented by T26 (also with Sea Viper) to achieve true battlegroup coverage. Current CIWS is very capable and provided a minimum of 4 units are installed, QE will be fine. Remember, you do not need to destroy an incoming missile, only deflect it enough to miss its intended target.
AW Employee - Yeovil

02 December 2011

Graham
Are you really suggesting we change the design again !!!!!!!!
Carriers carry aircraft. Escorts dare I say it escort and the aircraft provide CAP and strike.
We do not need to respond to each individual weapon someone else has got, (We could deploy rubber duck for the one you mention)
But we do need to get the carriers in the water and working.
No we take them to sea in a multinational force, with 1 type 45 and Astute from UK, and Arleigh and a Dutch/German/French escort and we have defence in depth.

Degradable - UK

02 December 2011

Alistair,
If as you state you have read 1SL's statement a few times,then it is obvious that you have a difficulty interpreting what was said, It would appear that the nuances of political speak is above your head.
Surprisingly yes,I did know that Soames was Churchills grandson.
Unfortunately he has failed miserably to measure up to this heritage. His claim to fame in Parliament being his sexist and utterly vulgar attitude towards the female members.
You are also completely wrong in stating CVF will be sold off,as time will tell,and I sincerely hope you are around to witness them at sea.
Finaly,what I assume to be your attempt at a riposte,would have been better appreciated if a bit more original thought had gone into it.
michael - notts

02 December 2011

Michael-Notts,
I am well aware, as I am sure a great many others are in Adm.Stanhope's desire to walk a tightrope. My opinion is he is failing to identify when others are actively cutting that rope at either end as he is bouncing along in the middle.
He is wasting his time and influence complaining that he hasn't the manpower. He will have 29,000 people to hand so that is not going to work. (A very rough calculation shows that even if the whole of the RN fleet was at sea on one day that would still leave well over 10,000 ashore, depending totally on what's left of that fleet by the time the ships come into service.)
He is over playing his hand, the mandarins will know the figures and they will tell their political bosses who don't understand anything about service life or needs and seem to care even less for any of it.
I believe that all he has done is to play into the hands of the anti-carrier lobby. He has given them the ammo they need to argue for cuts to the project on the basis that "even the First Sea Lord now states he cannot support it".
He should be leading from the front and loudly proclaiming the carriers advantages and why we need both of them as soon as possible. He has failed to do so. Instead he has chosen to go public with a moaning session that has not even caused a ripple in the general media. Sadly it will not be missed by those seeking to undermine this project and stop the RN from re-acquiring a real global power projection capability.
He is failing to get anything other than a negative message across.
Nothing about what he said was particularly delicate or subtle. It was actually very straight forward it's message is simple, have another read.
The words you refer to are all yours old chap, though spell checked first. If they upset you that much then you've learnt a lesson there. Here's hoping Stanhope will too.
Alistair - UK

05 December 2011

UK SHOULD SELL THEIR 2 UNDERGOING-CONSTRUCTION 'BIG DECK' AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND DESIGN & BUILD BIGGER, BETTER, MORE IMPRESSIVE ONES->>> AIMING FOR THE EXPORT MARKET!!

The UK's highly controversial* 'big deck' aircraft carrier project ought to be sped up to as fast as industrial capabilities safely allow... with BOTH planned carriers- when completed- fully fitted out (with sensors, communications, weapons and and ship self-defence systems, etc) in such a fashion so as to MAKE BOTH SHIPS ATTRACTIVE FOR SALES INTERNATIONALLY & TO IMPRESS POTENTIAL PURCHASERS OF UK-BUILT NAVAL & HIGH-TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS...

First choice for sales of the UK's undergoing construction aircraft carriers ought to go to France...

France's existing carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, is immovably scheduled for an 18 month to 2-year-long comprehensive overhaul, refit and nuclear reactor re-fuelling starting in 2014 or 2015...

The UK's first of class currently undergoing construction big deck carriers could (with a little political will and long-term vision) be fully finished construction, fitting out, sea trials and equipping with fixed-wing aircraft (France's domestically built models, if required) by 2014 at the latest- rather than the now planned 2018, meeting France's (and the UK's***) needs to maintain a continuous naval strike capability and, for once, would enable British industrial capabilities- AND EXPORT POTENTIAL- to obtain positive reviews on the world stage....

If the UK sells its 2 undergoing construction aircraft carriers, what about the Royal Navy and the UK's stated objectives of having indigenous naval strike capabilities??

Start again from a clean slate... and expeditiously design another, bigger, better, cheaper to operate big deck aircraft carrier model- preferably nuclear powered**...and plan to have the first of these vessels completed construction & sea trials in a reasonable time-frame: by no later than 2020...
---------------------------

* November 29-2011: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1012/carrier_strike_supplementary.aspx or
November 29-2011: http://www.nao.org.uk//idoc.ashx?docId=3c5bcca2-33d5-429d-9e6b-b5d8238d9ac9&version=-1 (PDF- opens in new window)
November 23-2011: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpubacc/1427/142702.htm

** enabling the operation of energy-hungry advanced, high capability sensors and new ship self defence weapons systems such as Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs)...

*** This since the Charles de Gaulle is purportedly being 'shared' with the UK from 2010-2021 due to agreements between the UK & France signed last year & since the UK decided late last year to scrap/decommission 2 of its 3 fixed-wing aircraft aircraft carriers while removing the fixed-wing aircraft capabilities of its 3rd carrier- reducing her to a helicopter carrier:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11670247 :

"...The UK and France have also agreed to keep at least one aircraft carrier at sea between them at any one time.... Each will be able to use the other's carrier..."

"Anglo-French Declaration on Defence and Security Cooperation"
http://www.caef.org.uk/d121military.html
--------------------

The UK's planned new- highly problemmed, 5 years behind schedule- big deck aircraft carriers were designed by 1/3-France-govt-owned Thales:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2706727.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3063621.stm
----------------------

For a balanced, accurate critique of the UK Public Accounts Committee's November 23- 2011 aircraft carrier project report- and its many serious errors and omissions- go to:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/29/new_uk_carrier_reports/
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

05 December 2011

'Cancel the f35cs and lets navalize both the Typhoon and the Tornado gr4s
Stewart MUIR - Coventry west midlands'

Agree with cancelling the F35, but think new build Buccaneers would be better than navalised Tornados. Actually settling for 150 off STOBAR Typhoons would be adequate.

The Buccaneer was naval to start with, was/is a far superior aircraft to the Tornado (range, payload, & performance). Early in the Tornado's career it is well documented the RAF wanted to show it off and fly it to Cyprus from the UK to give a show of force to Beirut, and guess what, because of the Tornados short range they used a Buccaneer as a buddy tanker. Apparently the Tornado needed several prods with the Brick [which got all the way without refueling] to get to Cyprus. And to boot the Tornado could not keep up with the Buccaneer at low level without reheat - thus guzzling more fuel.

New build Buccaneers with upgraded digital avionics and engine control would again give the UK the world's best low level strike aircraft - with a naval capability from the start and a 2000+ range with full weapons load.

I understand the CAA has cleared a private operator to fly one Buccaneer, but it has never flown in civilian hands since permission was granted. May I suggest that when the QE carriers are built and floating around with no aircraft to fly off them we give a contract to this UK contractor to operate the one remaining Buccaneer off the new carriers to give the RN valuable experience in operating aircraft at sea – which by then will only be a memory for the FAA.

Instead we will/may get 12 F35 sometime in the future - which the RAF will commandeer until both RN carriers are sold/scrapped.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

05 December 2011

Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

Yeah we should chuck £10 billion down the drain. Then reinvest another £5-10 billion designing and building net aircraft carriers.

As well as that we have to take into account yet more time to build the sodding things as we start from scratch.

Of course this is not including the skills in building nuclear reactors for a carrier as well as the design implications that would have.

That is NOT an option. The UK doesn't have the money, the man power to do a lot of what you suggest.

Nor does it want to, the UK is not the USA and we should not attempt to copy them because what works for other nations will not work for us.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

05 December 2011

Martin Bayliss - Stroud

"New Build Buccaneers" what a lovely idea. Sod it why not re-introduce the TSR-2 into service. What a lovely world you live in because it really would be so easy to get new build Buc's into service, I know lets just open an aircraft factory and build an old aircraft. . . .

Agreed the Brick was a superb aircraft in its day, so advanced with the way it bled hot engine exhaust over the wings to reduce buffeting at low level, but come on what you are advocating is fairytale at best, it would cost more than the F35 project
Rob - Telford

05 December 2011

Another example of the US and UK standing side by side not only as military allies, but.... allies in military cost overruns. Why is it India seems to be the only country able to build military equipment at a reasonable cost.

Hey UK at least you know your no the only country to waste untold billions on cost overruns and political sniping that is raping our joint forces of the equipment they need.
dteer - usa

05 December 2011

If the United Kingdom loses its global presence, her ability to retain central representation on the world's most powerful, influential and vital international military, economic, diplomatic, research, legal and human rights bodies will be irreparably damaged.

A UK without its own aircraft carrier equipped* blue water, global power-projecting navy would be a country without legitimate global presence... and because of her centuries-long history being a naval superpower and world leader in naval technology- would become an object of contempt & ridicule world-wide...

* deployable 365 days per year

The costs of developing a new, bigger, better and cheaper-to-operate (+ nuclear powered) 'big deck' aircraft carrier model- AIMED AT THE EXPORT MARKET- would be an accounting 'rounding error' in terms of magnitude compared to the vast sums currently being proposed be spent on constructing a "several-hundred-mile-long exhibition" for German/France rail transport engineering expertise IN THE UK**,

** the proposed high-speed rail line between London and the north of England...
-------------

The UK can continue its history of projecting confidence world-wide and attempting the impressive and news media worthy, or it can allow itself to be reduced to a has-been country, bereft of ambition & with its long-term economic strategies all reliant on foreign companies and countries' good-will....
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

06 December 2011

The pool of MPs represent the dross of our country. Sadly they are those unfit for other purpose. Most have no training in any industrial capacity. Few are trained in financial control and virtually none have a scientific or military knowledge base. This is the current scandal of our national leadership and a major cause of our national decline.
J Steel - Lymington

06 December 2011

While it may be necessary to draw attention to the shortcomings of the CVF program, I believe far more emphasis should be placed on getting the job done and fast. A can do attitude is required.
But if we are discussing negatives, there should be an enquiry into who funds and runs the RAF's ongoing negative spin on the carriers and all things Navy. I cant think of one occasion when the RAF ever made a positive comment on Naval Operations, and that includes the Falklands.
More to the point is the negative impact of reducing the Navy to a mere shadow of what is required for a nation with significant overseas interests and a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
Lets face it, who is going to take us seriously if we are to rely on 30 year old Tornado's struggling to reach their target 1000+ miles away on each sortie?
I sometimes think we would be better off with 70 year old Fairey Swordfish!
J Steel - Lymington

06 December 2011

J Steel - Lymington

YES! Excuse the flamboyent nature of the reply but this is totally right! Everyone seems to be focusing on the reasons we can't do things. While being mindful of the negatives is important focusing on them to the detrement of the country is not good.

I'm afraid I am going to bring up tellinghowitis here. His arguments that we will not see a change in defence spending, will not see the targets for the FSC/Type26/Global combat Ship met and other such opinions all seem to be made from a more pesimistic/less expectant view that others here.

Yet ultimately we can do all those things, it is just convincing the public NOT the politicians that is the important part. Once we convince the public to lean on the politicans with a CAN DO attitude towards the RN then things WILL change.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

10 December 2011

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8526289&c=AME&s=AIR

If the UK got its act together, ordering batches of aircraft like the above link could provide some protection with price creep in the future.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

11 December 2011

Anthony

I'm afraid I'm going to have to reply to this, Anthony. Have you ever thought that my opinions are more realistic and more representative of what is actually happening? I hope for the best but, based on past experience of what has happened to UK defence over the last 40 or so years, have learned to expect the worst.

I think that your hopes for the future of the RN are, unfortunately, somewhat wide of the mark. What I am trying to do is promote realisation of what our limitations are and the importance of planning realistically within these constraints. We are not China or India, so continually comparing ourselves to them is pointless. The reason that we are in the current mess is because we have failed to plan realistically in recent decades. What is the point of continuing down the same destructive path and pretending that everything will come together at some point in the future? The old adage "to fail to plan is to plan to fail" can certainly be applied to defence. So, despite the aside, I stand by my comments and intend to continue "telling it how it is".
TellingItHowItIs - West Yorkshire

13 December 2011

TellingItHowItIs - West Yorkshire

But you aren't. We have one of the largest defence budgets in the world despite having a relatively small portion of it assigned to GDP. Cleaning up the politics, defence industry and confusion that follows procurement would make a huge amount of change. One only needs to look at the end cost of the Type 45 when we built 6 because of delays and the end cost of building 12 even with the rise in costs that can occur during procurement. In the end political delays meant instead of getting 12 for 12 we got 6 but still at the cost of 12.

Another example is the Eurofighter, the reduction in orders pushes up the cost per unit and so while the politicans can claim "we are saving money" they actually aren't. It COSTS money.

Finally the fact remains that we have some very unique requirements as a country. Not least of all our total dependence on resources East of Suez. It is for those reasons that carriers and the ability to project at least 1 CBG at all times is not up for discussion UNLESS we are willing to be held completely at the mercy of whoever decides to exert any influence in those regions at all.

We have an NHS that unless you are dying will make you wait 6 months to start looking at an injury that could stall your career. Go private and for less than £100 it will be sorted in 4 weeks. We have a benefits system that won't give you job seekers even though you are entitled to it but has given whole generations of families money for doing nothing. The problem in the UK stems primarily from the poor management of the organisation of large bodies. Be it the benefits system, the NHS or the MoD. Proper planning and efficiency in these organisations would see the money go a lot further.

So returning to the defence budget, the UK even in a recesion has the ability to provide the military with capable and flexible armed forces. While that might not include 6 QE carriers it can certainly include both the High end forces to deter and retaliate to future events and the low end forces to ensure the day to day security of the nation. What stops that is the political pandering of government, the poor management of projects by the MoD, defence industry and the confused requests by the services because they must constantly fight among each other to get what they need.

The UK has real issues with getting value for money which is why it lacks capacity to back up the capability of these platforms.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

05 January 2012

for god sake get on with we need both carriers for years to come all this talk from mp who cannot run a bus
r roper - york

24 January 2012

Can't help thinking Sea Gripen has a lot going for it, commercially anyway. I read somewhere it could take off from Illustrious, a package which might interest Brazil. And it could be flown from HMS Queen Elizabeth a lot earlier than 2020, a short term face saving option until F-35C on Prince of Wales. Also QE class plus Sea Gripen would be an option for Spain and Italy if F-35B did get dropped. Tempting to wonder if Hammond gave away the Harriers to the US as quid pro quo for a clean field for Sea Gripen sales, which with the EJ-200 engine would have a lot of UK content.
Paul Padley - Shrivenham