Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVF Construction

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Stryker73
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jun 2010
    • 274

    Nothing much there which are 'facts' in the FT article, just options like all the other articles.

    When Fox talks of cold war relics, he means Tanks & heavy armour. And the troops stationed in Germany awaiting the Soviets. Fox has actually made the point that the RN doesn't have enough of a surface fleet, i'm not sure he's including CVF when he says that but the chances of T45 getting the chop are miniscule (they're hardly cold war either)

    What he's getting at is probably that T26 will not be gold plated and cheap as chips.

    I'm not particularly liking the trade-off statements however, I thought this was going to be a needs based SDSR based on foreign policy rather than bargaining for survival by playing each service off against each other.

    Comment

    • Stryker73
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jun 2010
      • 274

      Yet more emerging from 'un-named sources' in the Times


      "The Royal Air Force and the Navy are locked in a dogfight to save their fast jets after a decision by the National Security Council to scrap either the RAFs Tornado fleet or the Navys Harriers.
      The decision to sharply reduce Britains 215 aircraft fleet was one of several made at an Away Day meeting of the security council on Saturday as part of the Strategic Defence Review. It is expected that the review will cut between 10 and 20 per cent of Britains defence capability.

      It has come down to either Harrier or Tornado, a Ministry of Defence source said, insisting that no decision on which will go has yet been made.
      Another senior source said: The issue is this: one fast jet fleet has to be taken out of service ASAP, full stop.

      Ministers are also expected to consider the long-term storage of tanks and artillery, the closure of several bases, the sale of Ministry of Defence housing assets, and cuts of up to 25,000 servicemen across the three services to recoup billions of pounds by 2015.

      Scrapping the RAFs 132-strong Tornado fleet, seven squadrons, could claw back up to 3 billion. The aircraft, which were designed in the early 1970s, are due to remain in service, with service-life-extension upgrades, until 2025.
      The RAF is understood to be strongly in favour of shelving the much smaller Joint Force Harrier. This includes 36 RAF and Navy Fleet Air Arm Harrier GR9 aircraft, in three frontline squadrons and one training squadron. Scrapping the Harriers would save approximately 1 billion but would leave Britain without any aircraft-carrier-borne capability.

      With the two services battling to retain cherished assets, senior naval sources accuse the RAF of providing misleading data on the success of the Tornado since the aircraft took over from the Harrier in Afghanistan last year. They also claim that the aircraft has been less durable in harsh Afghan conditions, with two Tornados lost to systems failures in the past year.
      We are well versed in the Harrier guys arguments, a senior RAF source said. The feedback we are getting is that the Tornado is performing better than the Harrier did in Afghanistan and this is leaving the Harriers feeling particularly vulnerable.
      The RAF has been keen to claim success for the Tornado in a reconnaissance role in Afghanistan, where it has been fitted with the Raptor surveillance pod. Another well-placed source told The Times that scrapping the Tornado was finding favour with ministers. The RAF is expected to seek to redevelop the Eurofighter Typhoon jet to provide a ground-attack capability from 2015 onwards. This would occupy some of the space left if the Tornado were scrapped.

      However, the final calculation will be swayed by the much larger question of whether Britain continues to build the two Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers that were signed off by the Labour government and are likely to cost 6 billion.

      Buying the carriers means keeping the Harrier, a source said. However, the carriers were not yet safe as the eye-watering costs of the programme became clearer.
      Britain also has an order for 138 American-built Joint Strike Fighters to fly from the new carriers. The order, estimated to be worth 10 billion, is expected to be significantly reduced under the Strategic Defence Review."
      The 2010 version of the crabs moving 'Australia' ?

      Comment

      • nocutstoRAF
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • May 2010
        • 954

        According to Janes the MoD placed a 650,000 contract in 2009 with Converteam UK to continue demonstration of an EMCAT system and carry-out scaling up work to fit an EMCAT system to the CVF's:

        http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jn...0726_1_n.shtml
        If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

        Comment

        • Liger30
          Armed Forces supporter
          • Jul 2010
          • 901

          Originally posted by Stryker73 View Post
          Nothing much there which are 'facts' in the FT article, just options like all the other articles.

          When Fox talks of cold war relics, he means Tanks & heavy armour. And the troops stationed in Germany awaiting the Soviets. Fox has actually made the point that the RN doesn't have enough of a surface fleet, i'm not sure he's including CVF when he says that but the chances of T45 getting the chop are miniscule (they're hardly cold war either)

          What he's getting at is probably that T26 will not be gold plated and cheap as chips.

          I'm not particularly liking the trade-off statements however, I thought this was going to be a needs based SDSR based on foreign policy rather than bargaining for survival by playing each service off against each other.
          You thought that the review was going to be really strategy based...?
          You have far more confidence than me in politics and politicians, then.

          I don't want to sound rude, but unfortunately it was more than obvious from the very start that the Review was going budget(cut)-based, and not really informed by any particular strategy.

          As to the cold war relics, i agree and disagree.
          Troops in Germany are a cold war relic for real, but it is a fact that at the moment bringing them back to the UK would cost money that the MOD does not have, so it is not going to happen tomorrow, but gradually on a quite long term. Besides, the british troops generate 100 millions a year for the economy of Germany, and Berlin will not be that happy to lose that in a moment of economic crisis.

          Tanks and self-propelled artillery are cold war relics... in part. They are likely to bear a bad cut, and it is partially acceptable because right now they aren't needed. But they are still weapons with a future and a relevance, and it is unlikely to see the tank abandoned anytime soon.

          The RN needs more ships. For sure. But even if they say so, i'm willing to bet that the Astutes will only be 6, that MARS will suffer a torturous history of delays before a ship is actually built, and that the frontline force of the navy will drop even lower despite the wise words.

          The Type 45 is no Cold War relic to me. But apparently, it is for Fox. What other ship the RN has been acquiring that fits the accuse of being "too specialized and high-tech"? It was surely an attack on the Daring. Luckily, as i said myself, the Type 45s are at a stage where cutting on them is impossible.

          The Type 26... Your point only reinforces my fear: is UK going to build and use frigates without Harpoons and without missiles, or at the best "fitted for but not with"? The C2 ship always sounded like this, but at least the Type 26, i was hoping, would be a proper ship capable to fight and not a massive, 6000 tons Clyde!

          Carriers and Marines: both are the cornerstone of a deterrent/warfighting force. They are the solid capability the UK has to influence events around the world. They are the only true mean of power projection for the nation. Cut on that, and the UK will be about as influent as Sweden.
          "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

          Comment

          • Liger30
            Armed Forces supporter
            • Jul 2010
            • 901

            Originally posted by Stryker73 View Post
            Yet more emerging from 'un-named sources' in the Times



            The 2010 version of the crabs moving 'Australia' ?
            I always loved the Tornado, but my modest opinion is that, if the choice has to be between keeping alive a carrier force capable to project power abroad and keep a lot of Tornado in the air, i'm definitely for the first option. And i'm hoping that ministers think the same.
            (even if i suspect that their reported interest in getting rid of the Tornado comes just from the baseline saving of 3 billions, compared to the almost laughable saving that would come from scrapping the Harrier force that already has been constantly downsized. The figure of 1 billion saving seems very much inflated. 36 planes due to retire in 2018 can't generate one full third of the saving coming from disposing of a fleet of 130 planes planned to stay in the air to 2025, it is ridiculous, unless every Harrier gets spare parts made of gold)
            "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

            Comment

            • Stryker73
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jun 2010
              • 274

              Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
              I don't want to sound rude, but unfortunately it was more than obvious from the very start that the Review was going budget(cut)-based, and not really informed by any particular strategy.
              No, I don't mean strategy based and then the money found whatever the cost. I meant within the economic limits of the current time but strategically set out rather than a mish mash of give and take of capabilities as suggested by the press. It may well not be the case anyway.


              The Type 45 is no Cold War relic to me. But apparently, it is for Fox.
              I don't think it is, and I don't think you can suggest that's his thinking from the few statements in the media. I think he thinks that 1bn a ship is far too much for the UK to spend on an air destroyer, not that he thinks they're cold war. Fox clearly does not like gold plated.

              They are the solid capability the UK has to influence events around the world. They are the only true mean of power projection for the nation.
              Well, I agree with that but it comes back to what I was saying. What does the British government want. If it wants to retain that capability then horsetrading between the 3 services isn't going to help anyone. They will all just have reduced capability.

              Comment

              • Hawkeye
                Rank 4 Registered User
                • Dec 2009
                • 70

                How frequently do Harriers embark on Ark Royal or Illustrious now? The reason for keeping them surely is to keep pilots up to speed on deck operations while waiting for the F-35B. The Tornado GR4s are for expeditionary warfare so it's crystal ball time to see if they're needed after the *proposed* pull-out from Afghanistan. If that focuses attention on a Typhoon strike role then it may just help with potential export sales which I'm sure would be looked on kindly by the treasurey.

                Comment

                • Witcha
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jun 2010
                  • 1241

                  The loss of amphib capability is an acceptable price actually. Given it's essentially a bunch of island chains(including the Falklands) the UK is more likely to be invaded by sea itself than to do the invading on someone else's shores.

                  Comment

                  • swerve
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jun 2005
                    • 13610

                    Originally posted by Hawkeye View Post
                    ... If that focuses attention on a Typhoon strike role then it may just help with potential export sales which I'm sure would be looked on kindly by the treasurey.
                    Unfortunately, the Treasury has never understood the principle of spending in order to save. If 20 billion of export sales can be won by spending 1 billion on upgrades, the Treasury will balk at spending 1 billion.

                    Consider the traffic camera fiasco. They are very profitable, generating far more revenue in fines than their cost. All the revenue from fines goes to the Treasury. Local councils pay all the cost of installing & operating them, but receive a grant from the Treasury to cover part of the costs. The grant is being cut, to save money. Local councils are doing the obvious, logical thing & putting the cameras into storage, to save money. Obviously, nobody at the Treasury had any idea that such a thing would happen. You see? They just don't get it.
                    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                    Justinian

                    Comment

                    • Liger30
                      Armed Forces supporter
                      • Jul 2010
                      • 901

                      Originally posted by Witcha View Post
                      The loss of amphib capability is an acceptable price actually. Given it's essentially a bunch of island chains(including the Falklands) the UK is more likely to be invaded by sea itself than to do the invading on someone else's shores.
                      Strongly disagree. The marines are actually far more likely to be used than any armored cavalry regiment. If they haven't a beach to storm, they can be used as the best of all Light Infantries, and they have the advantage of being one of the logistically lighter units of the armed forces, relatively easy to deploy and sustain.

                      And then, sincerely, if you have no anphibious capability, what the hell do you build aircraft carriers for...? Projecting power only with a bunch of planes is something that never worked in history. At the end, land forces always have to do the work and hold the ground, and the Marines are the best at "smashing the door down" and set foot on the area you need to reach.

                      Again, the SDR is most likely going to assume that Britain risks no invasions. (Unless perhaps in the Falklands, where that can't be ruled out) Fox keeps saying that Russians won't come, and i guess he's right enough...
                      The UK is far more likely to fight abroad. Africa, Middle-East... not Europe, we all are guessing. It is the least probable scenario.
                      With 70% of the world's capital towns being less than 150 miles away from the sea, you'd lose the capability to land on the coast...?

                      And even if you were right and the risk was to have a few islands invaded... Without anphibious capability means that the invasion is either stopped as it happens... or becomes definitive defeat.
                      Is UK willing to keep garrisons on the various Falklands, SOuth Georgia and so along...? Garrisons numerous and powerful enough to fight off an invasion...?

                      I think it makes immensely more sense to keep the anphibious capability. Besides, ships like the Bay or Albion are the best at a wide variety of roles, included disaster relief. They are flexible like nearly nothing else.
                      It would be a crime to lose them after the RN fought so hard to build such fine capability up.
                      "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                      Comment

                      • Liger30
                        Armed Forces supporter
                        • Jul 2010
                        • 901

                        Originally posted by swerve View Post
                        Unfortunately, the Treasury has never understood the principle of spending in order to save. If 20 billion of export sales can be won by spending 1 billion on upgrades, the Treasury will balk at spending 1 billion.

                        Consider the traffic camera fiasco. They are very profitable, generating far more revenue in fines than their cost. All the revenue from fines goes to the Treasury. Local councils pay all the cost of installing & operating them, but receive a grant from the Treasury to cover part of the costs. The grant is being cut, to save money. Local councils are doing the obvious, logical thing & putting the cameras into storage, to save money. Obviously, nobody at the Treasury had any idea that such a thing would happen. You see? They just don't get it.
                        This is very true, but hopefully ingenerous for once. The RAF has been the most interested of the 4 partner nations in making the Typhoon fully swing role. It already started working to develop an AESA radar for the Typh, and it was the first air force to indipendently start an upgrade program to allow even the TRanche 1 planes to use laser-designators and Paveway bombs.
                        The strike requirement for the Typhoon already exists, and it is being speeded up the integration of the weaponry needed for the role. Within 2015 the Typhoons could easily enough have been seen integrated every kind of weapon up to the Storm Shadow. And undoubtedly the RAF would do it, if Tornado was really to be retired in 5 years.
                        "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                        Comment

                        • Witcha
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jun 2010
                          • 1241

                          Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                          Strongly disagree. The marines are actually far more likely to be used than any armored cavalry regiment. If they haven't a beach to storm, they can be used as the best of all Light Infantries, and they have the advantage of being one of the logistically lighter units of the armed forces, relatively easy to deploy and sustain.

                          And then, sincerely, if you have no anphibious capability, what the hell do you build aircraft carriers for...? Projecting power only with a bunch of planes is something that never worked in history. At the end, land forces always have to do the work and hold the ground, and the Marines are the best at "smashing the door down" and set foot on the area you need to reach.

                          Again, the SDR is most likely going to assume that Britain risks no invasions. (Unless perhaps in the Falklands, where that can't be ruled out) Fox keeps saying that Russians won't come, and i guess he's right enough...
                          The UK is far more likely to fight abroad. Africa, Middle-East... not Europe, we all are guessing. It is the least probable scenario.
                          With 70% of the world's capital towns being less than 150 miles away from the sea, you'd lose the capability to land on the coast...?

                          And even if you were right and the risk was to have a few islands invaded... Without anphibious capability means that the invasion is either stopped as it happens... or becomes definitive defeat.
                          Is UK willing to keep garrisons on the various Falklands, SOuth Georgia and so along...? Garrisons numerous and powerful enough to fight off an invasion...?

                          I think it makes immensely more sense to keep the anphibious capability. Besides, ships like the Bay or Albion are the best at a wide variety of roles, included disaster relief. They are flexible like nearly nothing else.
                          It would be a crime to lose them after the RN fought so hard to build such fine capability up.
                          Because amphibious capability made such a difference in Iraq and Afghanistan? Seriously, the idea of the UK launching a sea-to-land invasion on its own anytime in the forseeable future is ridiculous. If it ever happens it will be a US/NATO-led operation, in which case I doubt HMS Ocean and such would make a huge difference.

                          And the UK already has assets in Falklands big enough to repel any invasion. One thing you folks keep quiet about during defence cuts and brag about everywhere else is that the UK has one of the top 5 armed forces in the world and is seriously overarmed for a country of its size.

                          Comment

                          • Liger30
                            Armed Forces supporter
                            • Jul 2010
                            • 901

                            Originally posted by Witcha View Post
                            Because amphibious capability made such a difference in Iraq and Afghanistan? Seriously, the idea of the UK launching a sea-to-land invasion on its own anytime in the forseeable future is ridiculous. If it ever happens it will be a US/NATO-led operation, in which case I doubt HMS Ocean and such would make a huge difference.

                            And the UK already has assets in Falklands big enough to repel any invasion. One thing you folks keep quiet about during defence cuts and brag about everywhere else is that the UK has one of the top 5 armed forces in the world and is seriously overarmed for a country of its size.
                            Anphibious capability was used by the Royal Marines in Iraq for the capture of the Hal-Faya peninsula. It wasn't an "overlord" sized op, of course, but it was an anphibious ops, with naval gunfire support and everything.
                            In Afghanistan there can be no landing because there's no sea, let's not point to inconsistent facts, and let's remember instead that the first UK troops came from the sea, from the decks of the carriers, and that most of the US air support came from aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean.

                            Your point about having to face no anphibious operations in the future is laughable to say the least. I'd like to know on which facts such an assumption is based. Because, you know, already once the anphibious assault ships of the RN were going off service, and a few months later a "ridiculous" and "never-to-happen" sea-to-land attack was launched in San Carlos waters under heavy air attacks.

                            The fact you'd like to slash the defence budget all over to pay all sorts of other things is not a valid strategic fact for giving up Uk's most valuable assets. Because UK may be small, but has still an international relevance and such globally-spread interests that it needs its force more than any other european nation.
                            "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                            Comment

                            • MadRat
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Aug 2006
                              • 5033

                              Amphibious capability is worthwhile if you want to control 70% of the world's land mass 600 miles from the ocean. Couple that with a powerful navy and you're in contention to control 80% of the earth's surface.
                              Go Huskers!

                              Comment

                              • Liger30
                                Armed Forces supporter
                                • Jul 2010
                                • 901

                                Originally posted by MadRat View Post
                                Amphibious capability is worthwhile if you want to control 70% of the world's land mass 600 miles from the ocean. Couple that with a powerful navy and you're in contention to control 80% of the earth's surface.
                                That's why even Netherlands have marines and landing ships. The thought of UK missing such a capability is laughable, and i'm hoping that no one is stupid enough to seriously consider such a move.
                                "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                Comment

                                • swerve
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jun 2005
                                  • 13610

                                  Originally posted by Witcha View Post
                                  Seriously, the idea of the UK launching a sea-to-land invasion on its own anytime in the forseeable future is ridiculous. If it ever happens it will be a US/NATO-led operation, ...
                                  Exactly what was said 30 years ago, & it's as wrong now as it was then.

                                  The Falklands is NOT the reason for keeping our amphibious capability. It's one reason among many. There are other islands, & other places where we may need to land troops from the sea. Remember Sierra Leone?
                                  Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                  Justinian

                                  Comment

                                  • pjhydro
                                    Rank 4 Registered User
                                    • Apr 2009
                                    • 886

                                    Originally posted by Witcha View Post
                                    Because amphibious capability made such a difference in Iraq and Afghanistan? Seriously, the idea of the UK launching a sea-to-land invasion on its own anytime in the forseeable future is ridiculous. If it ever happens it will be a US/NATO-led operation, in which case I doubt HMS Ocean and such would make a huge difference.

                                    And the UK already has assets in Falklands big enough to repel any invasion. One thing you folks keep quiet about during defence cuts and brag about everywhere else is that the UK has one of the top 5 armed forces in the world and is seriously overarmed for a country of its size.
                                    Over-armed for its size?

                                    We are actually 25th in the league table of armed forces by size, with 240,000 personnel. With the worlds 22nd largest population of 62,041,708That equates to one "soilder" per 2758 persons. Hardly earth shattering.

                                    Compared to the US, where there is a soldier for every 210 citizens (309,826,000 people and 1,473,900 active bods), the UK is positively unarmed.

                                    and just for fun the uk has....569,189 persons per UK warship (including RFA)
                                    160,729 persons per Challenger Tank and if we needed to all rally round then 310 of us would have to share each L85A2....

                                    Comment

                                    • Witcha
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jun 2010
                                      • 1241

                                      Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
                                      Over-armed for its size?

                                      We are actually 25th in the league table of armed forces by size, with 240,000 personnel. With the worlds 22nd largest population of 62,041,708That equates to one "soilder" per 2758 persons. Hardly earth shattering.

                                      Compared to the US, where there is a soldier for every 210 citizens (309,826,000 people and 1,473,900 active bods), the UK is positively unarmed.

                                      and just for fun the uk has....569,189 persons per UK warship (including RFA)
                                      160,729 persons per Challenger Tank and if we needed to all rally round then 310 of us would have to share each L85A2....
                                      Most of that population inhabits small land areas that don't take all that much to protect and haven't been invaded(not counting the Falklands) for over 50 years and are unlikely to be in the forseeable future unless for some reason Russia and China go ape**** on Europe.

                                      Comment

                                      • pjhydro
                                        Rank 4 Registered User
                                        • Apr 2009
                                        • 886

                                        Originally posted by Witcha View Post
                                        Most of that population inhabits small land areas that don't take all that much to protect and haven't been invaded(not counting the Falklands) for over 50 years and are unlikely to be in the forseeable future unless for some reason Russia and China go ape**** on Europe.
                                        Well without wanting to sound like i'm compensating...it ain't that small, you would need more than an army of 100,00 to protect the UK, but I am assuming that the UK is still interested in defending its wider interests.... would be selfish of us to keep such a good army to ourselves now wouldn't it?

                                        Comment

                                        • Liger30
                                          Armed Forces supporter
                                          • Jul 2010
                                          • 901

                                          Originally posted by Witcha View Post
                                          Most of that population inhabits small land areas that don't take all that much to protect and haven't been invaded(not counting the Falklands) for over 50 years and are unlikely to be in the forseeable future unless for some reason Russia and China go ape**** on Europe.
                                          You don't get that the military is not there just to keep "the evil enemy away" but also to protect the interests of the nation abroad? In the globalized world, protectionof citizens and interests abroad has become a vital mission. Let's please grow up from the "invasion" thing and accept the implications of a globalized world where the UK has interests everywhere and is engaged in all sorts of situations.

                                          Besides, the more your armed forces are prepared and strong, the less people will want to mess with you. It's deterrence, which works, in its way, better than even Trident.
                                          It is also work for hundred thousands of serving men, for a whole branch of industry, and generates a massive amount of richness for the nation itself.
                                          "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X