Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[justboatonic]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593

The Royal Navy's flagship, the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, is to be scrapped early as part of the government's defence review, the BBC has learned.

The move is part of the price paid by the Royal Navy for the decision to go ahead with two new aircraft carriers.

Launched in 1985, the Ark Royal will be decommissioned almost immediately, four years earlier than planned.

[DARLEK1]

Dunno what they are on about, the bit about the JSF at the bottom has always been the case as far as I know, BUT WHY? Scrap a newer ship than Illustrious? What the heck are these cretins smoking? I would love some right now!

 Paul...

[adam_goodin]

Just when I thought this country couldn't sink any lower!! The Ark, seriously...im baffled by the complete lack in common sense with these lunatics! Nuts honestly.

[justboatonic]

Dunno what they are on about, the bit about the JSF at the bottom has always been the case as far as I know, BUT WHY? Scrap a newer ship than Illustrious? What the heck are these cretins smoking? I would love some right now!

 Paul...

One of the 2 new carriers will be modified for French jets that arent VTOL. So I guess that means catapult launch instead of a ski jump? Earlier reports suggested Invincible would be used as 'spares' for the Ark and Illustrious. Is the Ark coming up for a refit so savings on that cost too?

[Colin Bishop]

Cretins is right Paul, haven't they just spent a fortune on refitting her? That just leaves Illustrious as Invincible is just being cannibalised for spares.

The problem with this Government is that none of them have any experience, all wet behind the ears. Mind you, the last one wasn't any better.

Colin

[DARLEK1]

It sounds like miss information, out of the two new ones at the moment, one may possibly be built as a helicopter carrier while the other one being a full blown carrier with a "MAG launch" catapult rail, this has  always been the case, plus a ski ramp. Invincible has been the Illustrious's and Ark's source of spares for quite some time.

 Paul...

[justboatonic]

Dont worry, it gets worse!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8072041/Navy-aircraft-carrier-will-be-sold-after-three-years-and-never-carry-jets.html


One of the Navy’s new £3 billion aircraft carriers will never carry aircraft and will sail for only three years before being mothballed and possibly sold, ministers will announce on Tuesday.

Ah well. I didnt vote for them 

[DARLEK1]

I just can't beleive they will be this stupid!

 Bring on the revolution, this is just foolish, I don't think we will even qualify to be a member of NATO soon, the Americans are warning them, if they carry on, we will have nothing left at all  and the door will be open for foreign invasion militarily very soon.

 Paul...

[gingyer]

I think we will not know the truth until tomorrow
but I would be looking to bin the JSF and build the carriers with navalised Typhoons
it would keep british jobs for the Typhoons and they are cheaper than the JSF and more capable
and as for building the carrier then selling it did they not intend to do the same with Invincible?

[DARLEK1]

Untill the Falklands happened, then what? THEY realised they didn't have enough ships, even towed some of them down there THAT WERE DUE TO BE SCRAPPED as they couldn't sail under their own power, just for gunnery with generators lashed to the decks for electricity power etc.

 OH YEAH! We had twice at least as many ships back then!

 Paul...

[sailorboy61]

And since when did logic have anything to do with government policy??

[gingyer]

That was what I thought Paul
So hopefully we will get the 2nd carrier

[pugwash]

In the last few weeks I saw an announcement that MoD(N) were happy to take FA18 as an alternative to JSF
as they could buy two for the price of one and lets face it the 18 is a brilliant aircraft - just needs Catapult gear etc
That could be one of their better decisions but they may nbot get the chance to get any yet.
Geoff

[DARLEK1]

The Americans are in the same sort of position as us regarding aircraft, the FA18 is approaching being obselete itself, they need a new airdraft, which leaves only two types at the moment that will work on one of these ships, either a navalised Typhoon, or the French Rafeyell, or however you spell it. What was wrong with harriers for "CAP" patrol etc, is beyond me, they have just binned the most versatile jet in the world, these people are just STUPID MORONS!

 Paul...

[Colin Bishop]

Hmm, I think there is some smoke and mirrors going on here.

The Navy will do almost anything to get these two ships as it is the only chance they will ever have in the foreseeable future. Remember the cancellation of CVA01 in 1966? (Well I do anyway!)

Once they are afloat, reasons will be found to hang onto them and to make them as versatile as possible.They don't have to operate strike jets, they are massive weapons platforms which can be used for all sorts of purposes just as the Invincible class were originally designed as helicopter carriers but ended up with a Harrier strike role. These two ships are designed to be in service for 40 years like the US carriers and their size enables them to be adapted to meet evolving threats.  Restocking the frigate force at a later date will not pose insuperable problems when the politicians realise that they have allowed the Navy to become too small.

The problem with politicians and ignorant people who don't know any history is that they can only think short term. During the 1930s Britain was engaged in various 'brushfire'wars such as insurgency in the Middle East which was not dissimilar to the Afganistan situation. The real threat was Nazi Germany and Japan and the cuts between the wars very nearly left this country open to invasion anhd defeat. When the chips are down you cannot rely upon your 'allies'. America has never been quick to support European democracy when it comes to open conflict and France will always pursue her own interests to the exclusion of anything else.

The threat of conventional warfare in the next few years is fairly remote but after that all bets are off. There are any number of pressures which could result in conflict. There will be competition for global resources as the Russian efforts to establish sovereignty over the mineral rights around the North Pole have already demonstrated. Global warming, if it happens, will mean that nations with temperate climates such as the UK will be envied and under a degree of threat. The lessons of history are clear, if you are not able to defend yourself you will be crushed. The end of the Cold War has not necessarily made uis safer as many people think, the nature of the threat has just changed, that’s all. History shows that major international crises can blow up out of almost nowhere and that will not change either.

I saw a report recently that said we don’t need aircraft carriers to protect our interests as the RAF would always be able to obtain base and overflying rights from nearby countries. Just what planet are these people on?

Colin

[pugwash]

Sorry Paul my mistake should have given its full title fa18E or F is certainly not obselete only started coming into service
1999. Got at least 25-30 yr life span they state.
Geoff

[DARLEK1]

Yeah, it's fly by wire, just another version, newer airframe, same aircraft, out of date mate. A mate of mine on the Ragen, says, the USN are not too happy about no new aircraft comming along, they are not even designing anything new according to what I hear.

 Paul...

[pugwash]

Well put Colin, yes I remember the CVA01 project - the ship I am presently building was scrapped as a result
- no Carrier so no need for a Radar picket destroyer - the Americans have proved just how useful their carrier
force is - how else can they get aircraft to where they areneeded quickly without them
Geoff

[tigertiger]

The Americans are in the same sort of position as us regarding aircraft, the FA18 is approaching being obselete itself...

Perhaps not obsolete, but too long in the tooth for US military needs. A common practice is to carry on manufacturing (jobs) and sell them to 3rd world powers (soon to be UK).

With my politically cynical head on.
Perhaps we are really moving towards an EU combined forces military commitment. This could be the same strategy achieved using the same strategy as we saw with the Post Office.
15 years ago everyone was outraged by the idea of selling off the Royal Mail, 'a sell off too far'. Since then it has been run down so much, and services have become so bad, that many people have said it is time for the PO sell off and/or an end to their protected status. I think most of us use DHL etc now.

Today the idea of an EU combined service is outrageous. However, in 15 years time when Britain no longer has an effective military capability we will perhaps accept the notion.

Sad reality.
At the end of the day, UK must cut spending drastically. The alternative is that we end up going bankrupt, and have to go to the IMF. Then the IMF will be making the decisions based on economic criteria, and in their interests more than UK's.

[hmsantrim]

 Hi Guys.
            Although we are aware that the politicians have looked at the figures and told us what is going to be cut next year and what they can`t afford.  Funny thing though have we not heard anything about money that goes out of the country being cut all the millions they call overseas development aid or less money being paid to the EU mandarins. If we can`t afford things why should they get cash.

 I would like to see some of the politicians develop a spine and get half the foreigners out the country which would cut the benefit bill considerably.  I heard on the news recently that one of the English cities told the govt that they had no spare housing capacity left for asylum seekers.  I am not uncharitable or homophobic but as we are going to have a few years in the economic red I think its time we shut the door and looked after our own.

   You can see on the news the yanks are having it just a bad as us. They have reported a 25% drop in giving to charities which for the U.S.  is unheard of. 

                                                 frank..                   

[derekwarner]

Goodness........I have walked on the hallowed deck....& engine rooms of this vessel.......... ....with respect .....Derek

[tigertiger]

Personally, I tend to agree with your sentiments Frank.
Sadly, there is not much chance of any of that happening.
 

[Circlip]

Simple answers from so many accountants. Cuts in various areas are OK until it affects one directly. "Close the gates"? Super idea, but since we've been bludgeoned into being a "Multicultural society", money would still pour out of the country.

 Perhaps this is the price for vast stretches of the Atlas being red in the not too distant past? How many ships do we really need to protect the British Isles? and more importantly who is going to pay?

  Regards  Ian.

[Bryan Young]

Having been "involved" on deployments with all 3 of our "Through Deck Cruisers" ( as they were initially designated!), I have to say that the most unreliable of the 3 was always the "Ark". Something or other to do with massive vibration from the back end. Perhaps that's why she's to be scrapped, no-one is willing to buy the thing.

Darlek:-  I must have missed something here. Please tell me which ships had to be towed to the Falklands as they were incapable of going under their own power. The only ship that I know of that wasn't originally going to the Falkalands was either "Tidespring" or "Tidepool" (I forget which), that was en-route to her new Chilean owners with a reduced crew aboard. She was halted, fully manned up and went on to be a valuable asset during that conflict. HMG finally realised her worth, and she continued in RFA service for a number of years post 1982.

Pugwash:- Geoff, yes the USN Carrier force is formidable. But each carrier force covers an awful lot of ocean with her outlying (and close in) escorts and fleet train. Plus having a lurking submarine to hand. Sending one of our new thingies to sea without proper escorts and supply train is a recipe for disaster. But then again, perhaps they will be limited to patrolling around the UK coastline and so be able to re-fuel and buy some fresh veg/meat etc as they pass local ports. I don't imagine for one miute that the RN is very happy about having to rely on the RAF for protection! BY.

[Bowwave]

It’s incredibly shortsighted on the part of the treasury department that forced the axing of the Ark Royal at this time. Having said that  and contrary to opinion  the Navy are divided on the cost allocation and air group provision  for the  new CVFs  as  the budget has already eaten into  any prospect of  replacement in the near future  of  the Type 23s  or other smaller warships.  Having a carrier force   for power projection is great if you have the will and the way with all to deploy such large assets, if you can not do either it then becomes a liability.  There are many within the RN that see the replacement for the type 23s as the top priority. As we still rely largely on sea borne trade the object is to protect that vital link. Frigates and large ocean going corvettes  are  seen by many as  more useful to that end than large fleet carriers.  That's not to say carriers are of no value, yes they are if you can provide   all the vessels necessary to protect and supply the core asset your big carrier.  In the number crunching game that means you need to replace or provide for a replacement  for  many of the aging RFA vessels within the next 10 years or default on the ability to deploy your carrier task group as and when it is required.  Presently the MOD are engaged in a convoluted   refurbishment program  of  many of the older RFA ship. The plain fact is the MOD are unable or unwilling to  replace ship for ship of our aging RFA fleet the most vital component for warships  at sea. The whole concept   of procurement and modernization is to provide a balance naval force. The  issue of carrier replacement has been badly thought through as they say there has been little joined up thought when the design work started 10 years ago. Even when the first carrier is completed the lightly hood is there will remain a delay in embarking a suitable air group.
The plain truth is it's not  about carriers or frigates  or any other vessel it's about a Navy that does the job efficiently  and cost effectively  and  taking a long hard look as to what  is required to defend the UK and its seaborne trade.  If the carriers are needed so be it  but not at the expense of  every other type of ship.
Bowwave