CVF at risk

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
StewartG	CVF at risk	Lead	[-]
Posts: 616 ( 2-May-2009 10:31:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Slightly surprised that no-one other than the Hootsmon picked up on Cameron's passing but specific reference to CVF: http://thescotsman.scotsm...t-to-Scottish.5225510.jp "Yesterday, Mr Cameron said a Tory government would have to review existing defence spending commitments "across the piece" as it battled to bring the public finances under control. He said: "We support things that are in the forward defence programme because we think there is good justification for all of them. "But that doesn't mean in these difficult circumstances that you don't have to look - just as you are looking across government - at all of these things. "Whether … the armed services need … to project power through having a proper navy and carriers; having the best replacement there is for an independent nuclear deterrent - there are reasons for all of these things. But clearly, when you are reviewing spending, you have to review all spending."" I think / hope that by the time Cameron gets in, construction will be too far advanced to cancel QE. But would PoW be safe? I'd also say A400M is toast. Edit: just had a look at Beedall's site and PoW will definitely NOT be safe. I have a bad feeling about this. I can just hear someone saying "well the French manage with one CV" and "couldn't we co-operate better with them?" and, well, Robert is your father's brother. Last Edited By: StewartG 2-May-2009 10:35:56. Edited 1 time.
Graeme65		#1	[-]
Posts: 330 ( 2-May-2009 12:33:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Did anyone else see Newsnight last night. Mark Urban went through a series of programmes discussing defence cuts. The CVF bit was very interesting he said that Navy seem to be willing to do ANYTHING to save the programme, even accepting less capable aircraft than F35 if necessary. I assume this can only mean going F18 and cat and trap. I got the impression that this had come from a source in the MOD. Also building one CVF would seem a very poor way to save. You still have to pay all of the research and design and go through building the expensive first of class so the savings would be very small compared to the capability loss. Also unless they regard laying off workers and paying them to sit on the dole as value for money the pressure to order warships to fill the construction gap would be very real, further reducing the potential for saving. After all if you are going to be building ships to keep the industry going then you might as well build the ones the navy says it needs. On a parallel note does anyone know why carriers are so hated in the UK, they always seem to be high on anyone's list of expensive gold plated projects suitable to be cut, yet are not that expensive compared to most other projects and seem to me to be vastly more flexible and useful than most.
Zen9		#2	[-]
Posts: 4289 ( 2-May-2009 12:40:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The left associate them as the successors to the Battleship and consequently as a tool of Empire. They seem to think that the cost of such things would be better spent on their pet projects at home. None of which are military. But then they also tend to think that if we stay at home, and not get involved, we won't need a military at all. The Newsnight program looked like a media attempt to build a head of steam for canceling Trident and its successor. Kirsty Lang seemed very hostile to the Deterrent.
kev 99a		#3	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 591 ( 2-May-2009 13:24:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Lots of political posturing at the moment, the Tories aren't exactly willing to make too many commitments on any Government departments right now, I'm not particularly worried about CVF.
jock		#4	[-]
Posts: 1110 ( 2-May-2009 15:01:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	HMS Q.E. will happen, it would cost to many jobs along with any hope of Cameron harbours of staging a Scottish recovery ( remember there is only a single Tory M.P. in the Country) A few weeks a go I said on another thread that if a big defence ticket was to go it was that 2nd CVF that was vulnerable and I stand by that, although all fingers crossed HMS P.O.W. is launched. The chances are that a UK election will be next year which will be before construction on CVF has started, I don't believe regardless of the result that HMS QE will be affected, however if a big defence ticket goes it might have to be accepted that one CVF is better than none. As for A400? - As said before nice to have all the toys you want, but the RAF might well just have to make do with C17 &130
Obi Wan Russell		#5	[-]
Posts: 503 ( 2-May-2009 15:33:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The CVF contract is a single contract for two ships. Cancelling one is not an option because it will result in zero savings. Everything being bought for the carriers is being done so sufficient for two ships. The contract price tag isn't just for the ships either, a sizable chunk is for the modernisation of the British Shipbuilding industry, so even if it were possible to cancel one the savings would be less than a quarter of the contract price, and indeed much less once the penalty clauses kick in. IMHO, at this stage cancelling one of the carriers would actually COST money rather than produce any savings. The sub contracts have mostly been awarded, the money mostly spent. The only projects where money can be saved right now are the ones that are still pending, FSTA and A400 are far more at risk than CVF, and would produce much larger savings anyway.
mediadave		#6	[-]
Posts: 15 ( 3-May-2009 01:33:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	For whatever reason the media have definitely fastened onto the carriers as 'a bad thing'. They're never mentioned except as a target for cuts. This is bad, as desperate governments and eager to please oppositions will certainly try and please the media...
perfectgeneral		#7	[-]
Posts: 647 ( 3-May-2009 07:00:08) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	How many Rafales could we get for a CVF (PA 2)? The French will want to build their own aircraft carrier, but if they could choose between building there own or actually selling some Rafales at last which would they go for? Lord Palmerston, "The British Army should be a projectile fired by the Royal Navy".
StevoJH		#8	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 946 ( 3-May-2009 11:49:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	perfectgeneral wrote: How many Rafales could we get for a CVF (PA 2)? The French will want to build their own aircraft carrier, but if they could choose between building there own or actually selling some Rafales at last which would they go for? They could probably use the tax income from the sale of ~72-100 Rafales and invest it in a carrier.
navynick		#9	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 78 ( 3-May-2009 16:27:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	i was recently shot down for saying something along the lines of this thread, CVF is not a done deal, its likely it will go ahead, but not a certainty! I like the comment about the media not mentioning it except in relation to cuts! i wonder what the general view point would be if 'have your say' asked the question about CVF, unfortunately, i feel that the vast majority of the UK public, wouldn't be that interested at all!
StevoJH		#10	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 948 ( 3-May-2009 19:23:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	navynick wrote: i was recently shot down for saying something along the lines of this thread, CVF is not a done deal, its likely it will go ahead, but not a certainty! I like the comment about the media not mentioning it except in relation to cuts! i wonder what the general view point would be if 'have your say' asked the question about CVF, unfortunately, i feel that the vast majority of the UK public, wouldn't be that interested at all! The contracts have been signed, the majority of the orders (for both carriers) have been placed, the carriers will be built since it would probably cost more to cancel them then to just build them at this point.
Zerg	Navy seem to be willing to do ANYTHING to save the programme	#11	[-]
Posts: 22 ( 3-May-2009 20:05:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"Navy seem to be willing to do ANYTHING to save the programme" I suppose its easy to see why they would do anything as with out them (carriers) people will ask well what's the point in the surface fleet. It could go something like this, why do we need amphibious warships if they can't land men anywhere as there will be no sea based air cover? What will the escorts be escorting?.... bye bye Royal Navy... now that's a scary thought.
Graeme65		#12	[-]
Posts: 331 ( 3-May-2009 20:32:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The public seem to be engaged by the failure to properly equip the army with body armour and well protected transport. Big ticket items such as CVF are seen as wasteful when soldiers do without. One way to redress this would be to point out that if the RN had had a CVA01 and Eagle in 1982 rather than Invincible and Hermes then with three squadrons of F4s and Buccaneers and two flights of Gannets (or better still Hawkeye on CVA01) then the loss of life would have been much reduced. In fact there probably wouldn't have been a war as deterrence would likely not have failed. The cost of a CV or two looks much more of a bargain compared to hundreds of dead and all the grieving families that even a small war will cause. It is so true that you don't miss things till they are gone. The other way that may get the value of your own mobile airbase is to imagine a scenario where hostages were held and needed to be rescued. An Entebbe style raid has less risk involved when it is launched from a carrier from over the horizon with plenty of top cover should things go wrong. Describing CVF as a launching platform for the SAS might be somehting that would appeal to the public. It is vexing how unpopular carriers seem to be when they are not that great a relative cost and are so versatile. If they are allowed to be talked down then that would be a major failure of PR on the Navies part.
Anthony58	Richard B's site	#13	[-]
Posts: 2589 ( 3-May-2009 21:26:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	StewartG Richard B has not updated his site for several months, unless I am mistaken.
AndyMed		#14	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 98 ( 4-May-2009 01:19:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I've always said this...but half the time the RN are their own worst enemy. Of course there is a huge case for the UK building an operating large aircraft carriers and everyone on this board understands that. What the RN needs to do is convince the public - then what the politicians and the media think won't matter. The RN needs to invest in a serious PR offensive and make the British people buy into this project. It's not beyond the realms of possibility to do this, the problem is that at the moment the focus is on the Army in Afghan and everytime the RN is mentioned its usually about sailors being taken hostage, or ships / subs crashing, or nuclear safety mishaps, etc., etc. I also think that organisations such as Save the Royal Navy and UKNDA seriously need to up their game, becuase at the moment, they are having little or no effect on public opinion. This is obviously much harder during a recession because naturally people will think about themselves, but it is possible to spin this up and get the British public to take 'ownership' of what is after all, a national project that will benefit this country for the next 50 years.
navynick		#15	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 79 ( 4-May-2009 13:18:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Steve, I am so sorry i did not explain my post clearly and unambiguously. I said 'i was recently shot down for saying something along the lines of this thread, CVF is not a done deal, its likely it will go ahead, but not a certainty! ' what i meant was the CVF will probably go ahead i.e. it will more than likely will go ahead and the RN will get 2 carriers, or there is a less than 100% chance that it will not go ahead in its current understood form. by certainty i meant it is not gauranteed to go ahead, i.e. it is not 100% probabilty that it will go ahead in its current understood form. what the 2 values are in percentage terms i have no idea, i doubt any one does, but i would say that the first element likely, is closer to 100% than the unlikely element. i.e. we are more likely than not to get the CVFs in the current planned form. I have seen and heard of projects getting shelfed just before they entered service, indeed, i remember one ship, (HMS Challenger) in the late 80s early 90s that only spent a few years in service! (can't remember the detail. but some small part of me hopes it was used in a sort of Glomar Explorer capacity while it was in service)
StevoJH		#16	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 949 ( 4-May-2009 16:42:41) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	navynick wrote: Steve, I am so sorry i did not explain my post clearly and unambiguously. I said 'i was recently shot down for saying something along the lines of this thread, CVF is not a done deal, its likely it will go ahead, but not a certainty! ' what i meant was the CVF will probably go ahead i.e. it will more than likely will go ahead and the RN will get 2 carriers, or there is a less than 100% chance that it will not go ahead in its current understood form. by certainty i meant it is not gauranteed to go ahead, i.e. it is not 100% probabilty that it will go ahead in its current understood form. what the 2 values are in percentage terms i have no idea, i doubt any one does, but i would say that the first element likely, is closer to 100% than the unlikely element. i.e. we are more likely than not to get the CVFs in the current planned form. I have seen and heard of projects getting shelfed just before they entered service, indeed, i remember one ship, (HMS Challenger) in the late 80s early 90s that only spent a few years in service! (can't remember the detail. but some small part of me hopes it was used in a sort of Glomar Explorer capacity while it was in service) There is a bit of a difference between selling off a Deep Sea Diving Support vessel after less then 10 years service (commissioned 1984) and canceling an aircraft carrier.
navynick		#17	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 80 ( 4-May-2009 17:05:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	i absolutely agree, all i was suggesting is there is a precedent for cancelling and or early retirement of a capability, whether it be a deep sea diving support vessel or an aircraft carrier. if it hadn't been for the Falklands war, Invincible would have be bought by Australia, if i remember rightly, she wasn't even 5 years old at the time, and that was a major platform.
Graeme65		#18	[-]
Posts: 332 ( 4-May-2009 17:07:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	If this was the US there would already be a series of Falklands fighter pilot cinema and TV movies and the general public would have a much better understanding of naval aviation. Anyone on the board fancy themselves as a script writer! There are plenty of books out there to adapt.
StevoJH		#19	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 951 ( 4-May-2009 17:27:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Graeme65 wrote: If this was the US there would already be a series of Falklands fighter pilot cinema and TV movies and the general public would have a much better understanding of naval aviation. Anyone on the board fancy themselves as a script writer! There are plenty of books out there to adapt. There are plenty of documentaries, i bet you'd find a heap of movies in spanish if you looked hard enough though. @ nick: yeah, we wanted her to replace HMAS Melbourne, unfortunately once Invincible was taken off the table the only available ship for sale was Hermes, which wasnt much newer then Melbourne and needed an even larger crew. Too bad Hermes wasnt transferred temporarily and a fourth Invincible constructed........
MDP78		#20	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 14 ( 6-May-2009 20:48:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Did anyone read the article JSF and Aircaft Carriers by Jon Lake in the May Airforces Monthly? Bascially suggested carriers are a luxury rather than a must have and therefore the government should consider scrapping CVF and JSF (or us buying it at least) as considers retiring the GR9 and CVS early to save cash. Discussed a the odd example used to justify using a carrier but suggested land based air power could do the job just as well if not better than carriers (Sierra Leone being one). The general theme appeared to be that no conflict (except Falklands) where carriers could have been key to the mission UK forces carried out. Although I'd aurgue that as the UK has only had 3 small helicopter carriers with a limited bolt-on air capability it is really difficult to say if things would have been different had CVA01 (or even a smaller ship with less capable planes) been built. Anyone else see the article and any reactions?

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

CVF at risk

CVF at risk

Quick Reply