"Crunch may hit Carrier Contract"

[mel]

So the Government have wkered all the money bailing out the banks and buying votes, they've now got none left and it looks like they'll have to scrap or atleast delay the building HMS's Queen Elizabeth & The Prince of Wales, but don't worry the 10,000 jobs in all corners of the country didn't really matter anyway, nor did the next 30 years of defence policy, but 2.5% off of VAT and free sky tv for all is what's important

[MK4 Slowride]

WEll we might not have any way of protecting our shores but at least the chavs will get a new computer.

[Dunk76]

Despite my imperialistic tub-thumping beliefs, nobody has adequately explained exactly why we need two bloody great carriers.

The sooner we stop playing World PCSO to the American's World Police the better. Especially given the period of isolationism I think the US is about to embark upon.

ETA - I'd rather the money was held back and spent on things like Nimrod replacement, decent amounts of ammunition, body armour etc.

Edited by Dunk76 on Monday 24th November 17:50

[s3fella]

We've been getting invaded every day for the last 12 years under these twerps, they just come across in the tunnel we built for them, then we give them houses and money for their 19 children.

[johnfm]

Dunk76 said:

Despite my imperialistic tub-thumping beliefs, nobody has adequately explained exactly why we need two bloody great carriers.

The sooner we stop playing World PCSO to the American's World Police the better. Especially given the period of isolationism I think the US is about to embark upon.

We may not need the carriers, but it is one of the few things left that we can actually make. There is so little manufacturing left, I cannot see why they would want to shut more manufacturing down. We should be making a few for the Saudis, Chines or anyone who wants carriers adn ships etc - we need some foreign cash to flow in

[Dunk76]

johnfm said:

We may not need the carriers, but it is one of the few things left that we can actually make. There is so little manufacturing left, I cannot see why they would want to shut more manufacturing down. We should be making a few for the Saudis, Chines or anyone who wants carriers adn ships etc - we need some foreign cash to flow in

It is my opinion that Government funded/backed contracts are absolutely the best way to ensure that never happens. Look at the Challenger II - reckoned to be the best MBT in the business. Total users outside of the UK? One? Why? Chieftain engine debacle.

[rhinochopig]

Personally I don't think we do need them militarily. However, their point, much like the Astute Class SSN, is a capability maintenance exercise, i.e. if we don't build them, if we ever need to in the future there will be no one left with the skills to do so.

I to would rather the money be spent on more applicable materiel, despite working in this sector. However, the funding is typically not transferable.

[ninja-lewis]

Dunk76 said:

Despite my imperialistic tub-thumping beliefs, nobody has adequately explained exactly why we need two bloody great carriers.

The sooner we stop playing World PCSO to the American's World Police the better. Especially given the period of isolationism I think the US is about to embark upon.

ETA - I'd rather the money was held back and spent on things like Nimrod replacement, decent amounts of ammunition, body armour etc.

Edited by Dunk76 on Monday 24th November 17:50

Most of our defence policy is based towards expeditionary operations. How can the Navy mount an expeditionary operation without air cover? (someone remind the RAF that moving Australia doesn't count) The fleet requires an organic air defence otherwise it is limited to coastal waters - the RAF don't have the resources to mount 24/7 CAP over the fleet and defend the home country and support the land forces.

It shouldn't be a case of carriers or nimrod, body armour etc. The government has to accept that the forces have been and are continued to be engaged in two medium intensity conflicts for the past 5-7 years and fund them accordingly. Instead they give them a peacetime budget and continually try to push the Defence budget down so they can spend more on education and the NHS. Do you really think Gordon would let the MoD keep the Carrier funds and use them in other areas?

[anonymous-user]

Is there still a problem with this new carrier and the deck loading for the F35?

FWIW I think we should merge all three services into one rapid deployment force with land sea and air capability like the USMC.

[Skywalker]

el stovey said:

Is there still a problem with this new carrier and the deck loading for the F35?

FWIW I think we should merge all three services into one rapid deployment force with land sea and air capability like the USMC.

Hoo Rah!

[rich1231]

These were to protect our South Atlantic Oil interests.

[S7Paul]

rhinochopig said:

the Astute Class SSN, is a capability maintenance exercise

I would have said that Astute is a bit more than a capability maintenance exercise. The Trafalgar Class boats won't go on forever, and do need to be replaced. Bear in mind that both Trafalgar and (especially) Astute boats are capable of far more than just firing torpedoes. The Navy are adamant that they need 7 Astutes to meet their operational needs, and with any luck the Treasury will make the funding available (the signs have been positive to date).

The Carriers, however, are a different matter. If JSF turns out to be hopelessly late (or just hopeless), we'll end up having to put geriatric Harriers on the shiny new carriers - the very aircraft that doesn't need a full-size carrier from which to operate.

[tank slapper]

S7Paul said:

the very aircraft that doesn't need a full-size carrier from which to operate.

Perhaps, but 20 Harriers are a whole lot better than 4, or whatever the current ships take.

[rhinochopig]

S7Paul said:

rhinochopig said:

the Astute Class SSN, is a capability maintenance exercise

I would have said that Astute is a bit more than a capability maintenance exercise. The Trafalgar Class boats won't go on forever, and do need to be replaced. Bear in mind that both Trafalgar and (especially) Astute boats are capable of far more than just firing torpedoes. The Navy are adamant that they need 7 Astutes to meet their operational needs, and with any luck the Treasury will make the funding available (the signs have been positive to date).

The Carriers, however, are a different matter. If JSF turns out to be hopelessly late (or just hopeless), we'll end up having to put geriatric Harriers on the shiny new carriers - the very aircraft that doesn't need a full-size carrier from which to operate.

The thing with Astute though is that it is effectively a cold war design. Its origins lie in the Traf Batch2 project, which was for an advanced hunter killer to counter the threats of the advancing Russian sub design - All Ti Hulls, top speeds of 45knts etc.

I agree that Traf will need to be replaced, but if you look at what Astute is likely to be used for, then you have to ask the question do you need nuclear? It's big, heavy, noisier than electric so is immediately disadvantaged for a lot of roles. The only advantages that a nuke boat has over a conventional boat is that it's an AIPS design, so it's endurance submerged is far better and the size allows it to carry more TLAMs.

That said, the US concept for taking older SSBNs and making them into TLAM launch platforms/SF bases of operation makes for more sense than using a huge HK for this role - Astute is almost the same size as the old Polaris boats.

Personally I would have gone a conventional programme for the HK role and brought a Vanguard replacement programme forward.

Doing this however, would have seriously affected those companies that maintain a design capability for nuclear boats, which is why I think the decision was more a capability maintenance exercise. That said Astute will be a superb bit of kit.