Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: New aircraft carriers will make us 'laughing stock'
YelliChink    11/8/2010 12:27:10 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8116396/New-aircraft-carriers-will-make-us-laughing-stock.html From not London Daily Mail The deputy chairman of the company building the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers has said the programme is a "disaster" that will make Britain "a laughing stock". Andrew Gilligan Published: 7:30AM GMT 08 Nov 2010 Following last month's defence review, one carrier will only operate for three years and will never carry aircraft. The second will not carry planes until at least 2020. The Harrier jump-jet is being scrapped next year and the new carrier aircraft will be the F35 built by BAE and Lockheed Martin. But the F35 will not be ready until 2020, and plans for a jump-jet version have been scrapped – meaning an electric catapult to launch the aircraft will have to be developed at extra cost. ==================== What is that sound coming out of Nelson's tomb?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Factfinder    RAF Doing the Dirty   11/15/2010 4:08:28 PM
He is quite right. The so-called Defence Review was hijacked by the RAF. The Chief of Defence Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, was a former Tornado pilot, and he and his light blue colleagues have been covertly plotting for some time.
 
Specifically, late in 2009 the RAF withdrew the more flexible, less expensive (and more accurate) Harrier from front line service in Afghanistan and replaced it with Tornado. Thus they could argue, when asked, that the Tornado must be retained because of the Afghan war, whereas the Harrier could be ditched. Stirrup stayed in his job ostensibly to oversee the Defence Review, but in reality to protect the fast jets so beloved by the RAF, but so irrelevant to British defence needs. ( Can anyone remember when an RAF fighter actually engaged anything similar? I do not include Harrier in the fast jet category, of course, and more to the point, unless we decide to attempt to re-capture those rebellious colonies in America, can anyone foresee a situation when British fast jets will be needed?) What Britain needs is a reliable close air support aircraft, not a left-over from the Cold War, and in the Harrier we still have such an aircraft, which has the added bonus of carrier capability.
 
Unfortunately, Cameron knows little and cares less about Defence policy, as he demonstrated firstly by mixing up Tornado and Typhoon at a meeting with RAF crews, and secondly by touting the preposterous idea that we and the French would somehow 'share' carrier capability. Put simply he appears to have taken advice from the wrong people. Asking Stirrup for guidance on the Defence Review would be like Churchill asking Bomber Harris for advice on naval strategy.
 
Sadly, the RAF have never really forgiven the Navy for the Falklands. When Thatcher asked the then head of the RAF what could be done, he basically shrugged his shoulders and said that RAF fast jets could not get there. When the Navy promised to put together a Task Force within 48 hours, the RAF were made to look foolish, and such people do not like to be made to look foolish!
 
Stirrup has  managed to bring about the RAFs dream scenario, not only keeping their Tornados and Typhoons, but getting rid of the RNs fixed wing capability. That this is detrimental to British defence needs is, from the viewpoint of senior RAF commanders, irrelevant. Non-British readers may think what I am saying is extreme and intelligent people do not behave in this manner, but then again non-British readers may not be aware of the very real and historic hatred the RAF have always felt for the RN. For the more historically minded among you, look at the systematic way the RAF set about destroying naval aviation between the wars, when they were unwisely given control of it.
 
In conclusion, unless Cameron has the guts to listen to the cacophony of informed voices telling him of the imbecility of the decisions made, British will end up a laughing-stock in defence terms, but more importantly will be incapable of conducting an independent defence policy, As we all know, politicians do not like admitting their errors, so I fear the prospects are bleak.
 
Never mind, when Ark Royal and the remaining Harriers are decommissioned, perhaps they could be sold to a foreign power.
 
Argentina perhaps?? 
 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       12/7/2010 7:48:28 PM

link

From not London Daily Mail

The deputy chairman of the company building the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers has said the programme is a "disaster" that will make Britain "a laughing stock".

Andrew Gilligan
Published: 7:30AM GMT 08 Nov 2010

Following last month's defence review, one carrier will only operate for three years and will never carry aircraft. The second will not carry planes until at least 2020.

The Harrier jump-jet is being scrapped next year and the new carrier aircraft will be the F35 built by BAE and Lockheed Martin. But the F35 will not be ready until 2020, and plans for a jump-jet version have been scrapped ? meaning an electric catapult to launch the aircraft will have to be developed at extra cost.

====================

What is that sound coming out of Nelson's tomb?

Choice quote:


"Lord Hesketh said a far quicker and cheaper solution was to adapt the RAF's existing Typhoons for work at sea. But he said this was less remunerative for BAE than buying dozens of new F35s."

Oh really? And the prime contractor and design lead for the Tiffies is...yup, BAE - darn, another wonderful conspiracy theory shot to shit on contact with real life.BAE has something like a 10% workshare in F35's and everything to play for in keeping the production line for the Typhoon alive and spitting out cabs on a line they own and on a project they have I believe almost 40% workshare.

Then there's the  *horror* of adapting the Tiffy to carrier life (in over a hundred years of aviation history, there are barely three aircraft that have moved from land to sea without being a monumental disaster.)

There's nothing quick or cheap about converting the Typhoon to RN use and even if it were magically able to happen, the F35 is a full generation ahead - so I think Lord Hesketh isn't on the mark here.Add to the suggestion that the F35C won't be available til 2020 in which case they're actually due in 2015 in USN service..well..

I'll totally concede that the current government have made some questionable decisions tho :) Personally, I'd rather send my naval aviators aloft in a solid fifth generation aircraft. I'd rather they'd kept Harrier alive in the meantime but since they've screwed up every other major decision so far, no surprise there.


Ian

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       12/7/2010 8:16:51 PM


I'll totally concede that the current government have made some questionable decisions tho :) Personally, I'd rather send my naval aviators aloft in a solid fifth generation aircraft. I'd rather they'd kept Harrier alive in the meantime but since they've screwed up every other major decision so far, no surprise there.
Ian

 

Although I think the problem of the UK runs deeper than budget cuts, the more obvious solution is to buy Shornet or AV-8B+ for RN use. At least they can negotiate to save some jobs in the UK.
 
Otherwise, what else RN can acquire? Rafale?
 
Quote    Reply

myhandlewontfi       12/8/2010 8:06:12 PM
I think the british carriers are smaller than the ones rafales operate from normally. wouldnt that be quite a problem.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       12/8/2010 11:09:53 PM

I think the british carriers are smaller than the ones rafales operate from normally. wouldnt that be quite a problem.

Dude, the HMS Queen Elizabeth under construction is almost 30,000t heavier than Charles De Gaulle when empty.
 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       12/9/2010 6:16:06 PM





I'll totally concede that the current government have made some questionable decisions tho :) Personally, I'd rather send my naval aviators aloft in a solid fifth generation aircraft. I'd rather they'd kept Harrier alive in the meantime but since they've screwed up every other major decision so far, no surprise there.


Ian



 




Although I think the problem of the UK runs deeper than budget cuts, the more obvious solution is to buy Shornet or AV-8B+ for RN use. At least they can negotiate to save some jobs in the UK.

 

Otherwise, what else RN can acquire? Rafale?


Why would we buy any aircraft a full generation *behind* the one we have a workshare in? We're stuck with the decision to move to CATOBAR, which for the QE class means either install steam generators or additional electrical generators - both of which are budgeted for in the original  design of the QE's. We're looking to go EMALS  as opposed to EMCATS so our future seems bound to the USN's. Safe bet there, they'll make it work *somehow* because of course, there is no plan B. 

Buying SH would have made sense if, say, five years ago, we'd gone CATOBAR using steam. We didn't, so the ISD for F35 is so closely coincident with EMALS it's not worth worrying about. Rafale, ditto.I find it odd that the article suggests that this cost is being spent on development when in fact we're letting the US do all that horrid stuff
 
Saving jobs in the UK? We have a 10% workshare in a multinational program comprising over 2000 jets. Dude, it don't get no better'n that!  

The article cited is junk (I re-read it and it talks about converting *existing* Tiffies!)

As is, of a pile of bad things, us ending up with one active carrier with a wing of 12 5th generation fighters and the capacity to surge them to 36 in 2010 doesn't seem as bad as say, cancelling them both.   Laughing stock? Cite the article in a French newspaper referring to the CDG as a "lemon" and you might have a point. 

We're not doing as well as I'd like but it's not like we'd tendered for a fleet of 2,000 tonne cheap surface combatants with a bunch of working mission modules and ended up with a pile of expensive 3,000 surface combatants with some duff mission modules, is it? That sort of thing could really f*ck up your plans to keep hull numbers high, couldn't it?

There's bag of reasons you could poke fun at the UK right now on defence but almost every country trying to do defence has it's own hidden or barely hidden disaster story or three. Run the numbers on EFV and it'll stop you laughing out loud at our decision to kill the MPA program. Or think back to Palladin, then NLOS, either of which would have paid for a carrier for us. I'm not mentioning FRES :innocent whistle: 

Government is mode three spending, they spend someone else's money on people they've never heard of. Never going to go wrong, is it?

Ian
 


 
 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       12/9/2010 6:18:53 PM

I think the british carriers are smaller than the ones rafales operate from normally. wouldnt that be quite a problem.

The current Invincible class are 23,000 tonnes but the incoming QE's are 65,000 tonnes so no issues there at all. Bags of room - they could launch Rafales, or anything else smaller than a B1 all day long.

Ian

 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics