After the UK has retired of it's Nimrod MPA's the RAF is now looking to keep those skills alive by sending crews abroad to serve on similar platforms.
Is there any Nimrod replacement on the horizon, or are they just training in hope of a better future? If skills are deemed so important that it justifies sending personnal abroad to maintain them, then it seems a little unwise to retire those assets at home in the first place. And one should think that an island nation might have some interest in maritime patrol activities.
Is there any Nimrod replacement on the horizon, or are they just training in hope of a better future? If skills are deemed so important that it justifies sending personnal abroad to maintain them, then it seems a little unwise to retire those assets at home in the first place. And one should think that an island nation might have some interest in maritime patrol activities.
That would be the absolute worst outcome for the UK in general and the RN in particular. All that money spent and invested in infrastructure with nothing to show for it but Global humiliation, before we even get to the fact there are no buyers out there. As has been established already, those nations looking to buy a carrier are also looking to aquire the ability to build their own and not be dependent on another nation. This is yet another scaremongering article written by paople with a vested interest in bad-mouthing the carrier project and I would doubt the figures being bandied around, not least becasue having done even a modicum of research and spoken to some of the more knowledgeable people on the subject, the costs simply couldn't be that high unless we were secretly planning to fit nuclear reactors to the ships for their powerplant! The costs of EMALS and AAG are reasonably well known, so the wildly inaccurate figures being thrown around (from the same people who said the carriers would cost £10billion each not so long ago!) just don't wash.
The carrier project has been proceeding very well since the politicians stopped sticking their noses in and trying to micromanage (everytime they try to make 'savings' it ends up costing even more!), so if only they could be encouraged to go away and bother someone else, the ships would probably come in early and under budget!
The carrier project has been proceeding very well since the politicians stopped sticking their noses in and trying to micromanage (everytime they try to make 'savings' it ends up costing even more!), so if only they could be encouraged to go away and bother someone else, the ships would probably come in early and under budget!
Last edited:
I too don't think it is possible to get much more than the price of steel from selling these ships. They wouldn't fit well in the force planning of any other country, even if that country was interested in getting flattops faster than they could build them themselves. But you can't be confident that these ships will not be interfered with by the Treasury in future years. The history of the project can only be described as horrifying.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
i seriously hope UK scraps the F35 and goes for a naval Typhoon, it will bring much benifits to BAE and the local industry
UK can do much better than this, we can make better than what we get from the Americans but our problem isnt the technology its the politics!!!!
UK can do much better than this, we can make better than what we get from the Americans but our problem isnt the technology its the politics!!!!
Whilst I agree the UK could do a much better job of providing a Naval Strike Fighter, I'm afraid 'SeaPhoon' isn't it. The time to incorporate a carrier requirement into Typhoon was back in the late 80s, it's way too late now. You'd have to design a whole new 'Typhoon shaped' airframe to withstand the riguers of deck operations, adapting the existing airframe and undercarriage is simply unrealistic. You could land it on the deck of a carrier, but it would only leave the deck in a bucket or over the side!
My own personal wish would be to have seen the BAe Replica project proceeded with to a fully operational aircraft, using 'Off the Shelf' engines and avionics to save a small fortune in development costs (this would be the best way for Typhoon to contribute to naval opertaions, donating it's radar/engines/FCS/weapons systems to the new aircraft), so essentially the development of the New NSF (Buccaneer II?) would mainly be confined to perfecting a carrier capably stealthy airframe, and integrating existing components from Typhoon. If we'd started ten years ago the prototypes would be in the air now...
Attachments
-
BAE_replica.JPG -
jca_mdd_ng_bae_01.jpg -
SeaPhoon 1.jpg -
6Fuselagepullcatapault2.jpg -
5Noselegpullcatapault.jpg
Dizasta1
Senior Member
They (UK Govt) has been committing serious blunders in the military contracts and acquisitions. First with the decision to build two carriers, when they couldn't afford to. Then trying to cancel one of the two aircraft carriers and taking a 180 degree turn in their decision by aborting to the cancellation of the aircraft carrier, simply because it would cost more to cancel then to build one! Go figure that one out!
Finally, the UK Govt has out-done itself by deciding to moth-ball one of two constructed aircraft carriers, leaving the Royal Navy with just one to field in active duty.
As everyone knows, acquisitions are based on true active duty numbers, which means the procurement process always includes spares and extra units to be fielded, when active duty units go for repairs, upgrades or maintenance. So when the British aircraft carrier is going to be at port for maintenance, repairs and upgrades, the Royal Navy wouldn't have any carriers at sea, in it's place!!
In so far as the F-35 deal is concerned, the UK Govt has totally lost it's marbles. Britain could easily have had a good carrier-fighter jet, in the shape of the French Rafale. Or better yet, MoD could have kept the Harrier force on active duty, while they decided on carrierborne fighter. Now, it would be at least a decade before the Royal Navy ever operates another aircraft carrier!
As the english say .... "that's brilliant!" ..... unfortunately, brilliantly wrong decisions by the UK Govt!!
Finally, the UK Govt has out-done itself by deciding to moth-ball one of two constructed aircraft carriers, leaving the Royal Navy with just one to field in active duty.
As everyone knows, acquisitions are based on true active duty numbers, which means the procurement process always includes spares and extra units to be fielded, when active duty units go for repairs, upgrades or maintenance. So when the British aircraft carrier is going to be at port for maintenance, repairs and upgrades, the Royal Navy wouldn't have any carriers at sea, in it's place!!
In so far as the F-35 deal is concerned, the UK Govt has totally lost it's marbles. Britain could easily have had a good carrier-fighter jet, in the shape of the French Rafale. Or better yet, MoD could have kept the Harrier force on active duty, while they decided on carrierborne fighter. Now, it would be at least a decade before the Royal Navy ever operates another aircraft carrier!
As the english say .... "that's brilliant!" ..... unfortunately, brilliantly wrong decisions by the UK Govt!!
Ok, Myth-busting time again!
The UK can easily afford both carriers even in these straightened times; the costs have been poorly explained to and understood by the general public and the press in particular. The cost of the CVF programme isn't just about two ships; it also includes the cost or restructuring the ENTIRE UK warshipbuilding industry and the cost of reconstructing Rosyth Dockyard to provide suitable construction facilities for the carriers, as they did not exist anywhere else in the UK... oh that's right, better facilities already existed in Belfast at Harland and Wolfe's yard (including a larger drydock and TWO Goliath cranes, each bigger than the new one at Rosyth). So there's one good example of Political interference driving up the costs unnecessarilly. Remember, no one in Belfast votes Tory or Labour, but in Scotland...
If you want to talk eye watering wastes of defence spending, CVF is so far down the list I'm surprised anyone mentions it. Take Typhoon... £20 BILLION+ for 232 aircraft, only we are only going to keep 107 or so, but we still have to pay for all the others. All that for a plane designed to defend the UK from marauding Soviet Air Force long range bombers... yeah, I remember them from when I was a teenager. The Army has an ongoing project/money pit called FRES (Future Rapid Effects System... no me either). Basically replacement transport for the troops, so APCs and the like. None of the vehicles planned would have any resistance to IEDs or mines, but the 'interim' vehicles aquired for Iraq and Afganistan are, so the requirement has been filled at much lower cost and with more suitable vehicles. FRES is still 'on the cards', even though it is hard to justify anymore. The cost? £18 BILLION. That's the price of at least 8 CVFs (not including Rosyth or the UK shipbuilding industry of course)
And we just gave something like £10 Billion to Greece which we'll never see again (I do recall an old saying about not throwing good money after bad...). I could go on, but suffice to say the CVF project at £6 Billion give or take is 'Loose change' by government standards.
Our problem is our politicians are far below the required standard, whatever their political colour, and most should not be allowed out without parental supervision! They haven't a clue when it comes to Defence and most just regard it as a cash cow to be squeezed whenever their own pet projects need a boost in funding.
The UK can easily afford both carriers even in these straightened times; the costs have been poorly explained to and understood by the general public and the press in particular. The cost of the CVF programme isn't just about two ships; it also includes the cost or restructuring the ENTIRE UK warshipbuilding industry and the cost of reconstructing Rosyth Dockyard to provide suitable construction facilities for the carriers, as they did not exist anywhere else in the UK... oh that's right, better facilities already existed in Belfast at Harland and Wolfe's yard (including a larger drydock and TWO Goliath cranes, each bigger than the new one at Rosyth). So there's one good example of Political interference driving up the costs unnecessarilly. Remember, no one in Belfast votes Tory or Labour, but in Scotland...
If you want to talk eye watering wastes of defence spending, CVF is so far down the list I'm surprised anyone mentions it. Take Typhoon... £20 BILLION+ for 232 aircraft, only we are only going to keep 107 or so, but we still have to pay for all the others. All that for a plane designed to defend the UK from marauding Soviet Air Force long range bombers... yeah, I remember them from when I was a teenager. The Army has an ongoing project/money pit called FRES (Future Rapid Effects System... no me either). Basically replacement transport for the troops, so APCs and the like. None of the vehicles planned would have any resistance to IEDs or mines, but the 'interim' vehicles aquired for Iraq and Afganistan are, so the requirement has been filled at much lower cost and with more suitable vehicles. FRES is still 'on the cards', even though it is hard to justify anymore. The cost? £18 BILLION. That's the price of at least 8 CVFs (not including Rosyth or the UK shipbuilding industry of course)
And we just gave something like £10 Billion to Greece which we'll never see again (I do recall an old saying about not throwing good money after bad...). I could go on, but suffice to say the CVF project at £6 Billion give or take is 'Loose change' by government standards.
Our problem is our politicians are far below the required standard, whatever their political colour, and most should not be allowed out without parental supervision! They haven't a clue when it comes to Defence and most just regard it as a cash cow to be squeezed whenever their own pet projects need a boost in funding.
Last edited: