Navy carriers order backed by MoD
The Ministry of Defence
yesterday gave long-awaited financial approval for the construction of the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers, but the first steel will still not be cut until technical details and the commercial risks of the final design for the 65,000-tonne warships are settled.
Unless work begins by next spring, the threat of hundreds of temporary layoffs on the Clyde yards remains as BAE Systems, the owner of the Govan and Scotstoun yards, struggles to balance its wage bill with a shrinking naval order book.
The two main shipbuilders involved, BAE Systems and VT in Portsmouth, are expected to form a single joint venture company next week which will pave the way for the £4.2bn project to start and safeguard or create up to 10,000 UK jobs in the medium to long term.
Industry and Whitehall sources confirmed separately yesterday that the major barrier to further progress is "design maturity" for Britain's biggest and most powerful surface warships.
The shipbuilders are anxious to avoid the kind of constant post-order specification changes which have plagued most of the UK's major defence procurement deals in recent decades, producing unforeseen delays and sending costs soaring.
The MoD, under increasing pressure from the Treasury, is trying desperately to keep a lid on those costs at a time when its budget is being squeezed by competing military priorities. It has already reshuffled the timing of other strategic projects to free up cash for the carriers.
One source said: "While everyone is celebrating what is undoubtedly good news for Britain's shipbuilding sector and a sign of progress on the contract, timing is now crucial. BAE could probably weather the wage bill strain for a few months, but not indefinitely. If no steel were to be cut until next summer, there would be job implications. VT is in a similar position, although its workforce is smaller.
"It would be like a return to the old 1970s and 1980s shipyard boom-and-bust cycles, when employees were laid off between contracts when the work dried up."
Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy First Minister and MSP for Govan, warned earlier this month that up to 400 jobs were already at risk at Govan and Scotstoun because of delays.
She said: "Even if the contract was signed immediately, and that seems unlikely, work would not begin until July next year at the earliest and that would mean redundancies in the interim as the last work on the final Type 45 destroyer runs out and a gap develops."
HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are due to enter service in 2014 and 2016 respectively, although many senior naval officers have doubts these dates can met.
Each carrier will take four to five years to build and then face sea trials before being accepted by the Navy.
The warships will be built in modular sections in VT's Portsmouth yard and the BAE Systems facilities in Barrow-in-Furness and Glasgow before final assembly at Babcock's Rosyth construction basin.
Defence Secretary Des Browne told MPs in a written statement yesterday the MoD had now completed the financial, commercial and management arrangements necessary for the project to go ahead.
First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Sir Jonathon Band said: "These ships with their aircraft will transform the UK's defence capabilities when they enter service."
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Im no really here, but over there on 11:11pm Tue 20 May 08
I wonder if Labour at Westminster will continue to punish Scotland.
I wonder if Labour at Westminster will continue to punish Scotland.
Posted by: Alkie, NYC on 11:58pm Tue 20 May 08
Why waste money on these junior war weapons when the USA could destroy them all in a single shot?
The current British Navy wouldn't even be able to stand against America's Navy 60 years ago.
Alcohol has destroyed your society.
Why waste money on these junior war weapons when the USA could destroy them all in a single shot?
The current British Navy wouldn't even be able to stand against America's Navy 60 years ago.
Alcohol has destroyed your society.
Posted by: Colin B, Bearsden on 12:07am Wed 21 May 08
This is the umpeenth time Labour have announced this order and still no contract signed/work commencing-they are playing with people's lives. Civil serpents keep interfering in the spec but this suits Des and Gordy and Darling. Its time someone showed some leadership- the revolutionary HMS Dreadnought was built in less than year in 1906!
Labour have cut the fleet preferring to spend the money on social workers- Swan Hunter have closed.
Alkie - what mince you write
This is the umpeenth time Labour have announced this order and still no contract signed/work commencing-they are playing with people's lives. Civil serpents keep interfering in the spec but this suits Des and Gordy and Darling. Its time someone showed some leadership- the revolutionary HMS Dreadnought was built in less than year in 1906!
Labour have cut the fleet preferring to spend the money on social workers- Swan Hunter have closed.
Alkie - what mince you write
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 12:19am Wed 21 May 08
More comment censorship on Scottish Politics stories as Scottish Labour and it's lackie The Herald continues it's attempt to blackout free comment.
Douglas Fraser was on newsnicht tonight, maybe he can give us an answer rather than the gufawing at the SFT, can't remember Dougie worrying so much about the millions wasted on PFI.
More comment censorship on Scottish Politics stories as Scottish Labour and it's lackie The Herald continues it's attempt to blackout free comment.
Douglas Fraser was on newsnicht tonight, maybe he can give us an answer rather than the gufawing at the SFT, can't remember Dougie worrying so much about the millions wasted on PFI.
Posted by: Ramsay, Hamburg on 1:01am Wed 21 May 08
Strange though it may seem to regular readers of The Herald, there is something missing from this article. If you care to turn to the article on this subject that appears in Le Figaro (http://www.lefigaro
.fr/international/20
08/05/20/01003-20080
520ARTFIG00014-londr
es-va-commander-deux
-porte-avions.php), you will discover that the British government's decision concerning these aircraft carriers is somewhat controversial in France.
Whyever might that be? What can it possibly have to do with the French? Well, it seems that in order to make this announcement at this time the British government has abruptly broken off what have been protracted negotiations with the French government on a possible partnership with France which depended on a still-awaited decision by the French president on the future of the second French aircraft carrier.
So a question of timing has intervened to cause the UK government to leave its French allies in the lurch, thus causing something of a storm of anti-Anglo-Saxon vilification of the usual Gallic variety. It is suggested that Albion has proved itself to be perfidious yet again, that the British are, as de Gaulle characterized them, purely pragmatic and uninterested in being good Europeans.
What has propelled the UK government into conducting itself in such a politically insensitive way towards an important EU partner? Why have the interests of Mr Brown's constituents and those of Scottish and other shipbuilding workers been accorded a higher priority than relations with France and poor Mr Sarkozy's defence problems? Why such an extreme course of action?
Desperate situations call forth desperate remedies. Labour is afraid of losing the next UK general election and is taking steps to tackle the independence-referen
dum threat. In these circumstances, it seems, the ever-pragmatic UK government takes the view that improved relations with Scotland are worth a deterioration in relations with a major partner such as France. Desperate times indeed.
One wonders what other "Union dividends" are being lined up and at what cost.
Strange though it may seem to regular readers of The Herald, there is something missing from this article. If you care to turn to the article on this subject that appears in Le Figaro (http://www.lefigaro
.fr/international/20
08/05/20/01003-20080
520ARTFIG00014-londr
es-va-commander-deux
-porte-avions.php), you will discover that the British government's decision concerning these aircraft carriers is somewhat controversial in France.
Whyever might that be? What can it possibly have to do with the French? Well, it seems that in order to make this announcement at this time the British government has abruptly broken off what have been protracted negotiations with the French government on a possible partnership with France which depended on a still-awaited decision by the French president on the future of the second French aircraft carrier.
So a question of timing has intervened to cause the UK government to leave its French allies in the lurch, thus causing something of a storm of anti-Anglo-Saxon vilification of the usual Gallic variety. It is suggested that Albion has proved itself to be perfidious yet again, that the British are, as de Gaulle characterized them, purely pragmatic and uninterested in being good Europeans.
What has propelled the UK government into conducting itself in such a politically insensitive way towards an important EU partner? Why have the interests of Mr Brown's constituents and those of Scottish and other shipbuilding workers been accorded a higher priority than relations with France and poor Mr Sarkozy's defence problems? Why such an extreme course of action?
Desperate situations call forth desperate remedies. Labour is afraid of losing the next UK general election and is taking steps to tackle the independence-referen
dum threat. In these circumstances, it seems, the ever-pragmatic UK government takes the view that improved relations with Scotland are worth a deterioration in relations with a major partner such as France. Desperate times indeed.
One wonders what other "Union dividends" are being lined up and at what cost.
Posted by: Roderick Louis, Vancouver, B.C., Canada on 7:34am Wed 21 May 08
[bold][italic]"UK SHOULD BE BUILDING ITS NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS WITH THE USA- THE US BUILDS THE MOST ADVANCED AND CAPABLE TYPES"[/italic][/bold]
Where the above article says: [italic]"'First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Sir Jonathon Band said: "[bold]These ships with their aircraft will transform the UK's defence capabilities when they enter service.'"[/italic][/bold] ... it implies that the RN's new carriers will have 'their own' aircraft- they will not....
Similar to the situation since 2005 with the RN's 2 (really 3*) present 'pocket carriers' the recently approved 2 new 'big
deck' aircraft carriers are to be built [bold]WITHOUT THEIR OWN AIRCRAFT, and will have to 'share' with the RAF.[/bold] (Each of these carriers is intended to have 40 'Harrier type' aircraft + helicopters, etc.)
- the 2 'big deck' carriers will be unable to fill the roles of the RN's 3* present carriers (if these 3 carriers were being used as intended->> they are not->>
* HMS Invincible is effectively out-of-service permanently... maybe to condition onlookers to a [italic]"2 carrier[/italic] RN"??)
Keeping the RN's new aircraft carriers' build costs down (by only 1/4 equipping them/not providing them with 'their own' aircraft, etc) avoids the embarrassment-by-Lab
our of being accused of financial incompetence...
[bold]The USA is presently redesigning its 'Nimitz Class' 'supercarriers'.[/bold]
The resulting products will ALL be equipped with state of the art defenses, including extensive anti-missile defense systems- types of systems the RN's planned new carriers are not planned to have.
[bold]The USA is also in the middle of redesigning its 'medium-sized' (LHD-class) aircraft carriers.[/bold]
There are approximately 1 dozen of the current (44,000 tonnes models- which are each 2 times the size of the RN's present 20,000 tonne 'pocket' carriers) deployed around the world- supported by other US Navy warships/submarines- in Naval Strike Groups. They use Harriers and the same aircraft that RN carriers utilize.
The US's new 'medium sized' aircraft carriers are projected to each cost 1/3 of the UK's planned new carriers (maybe due to volume
savings?)... so why isn't the UK participating in this project??
The situation since 2005 with the RN's (3) present 'pocket carriers': there are so few carrier-compatible fixed-wing aircraft available, that these carriers are having to be on active duty without fixed-wing aircraft like Harriers:
http://www.newbernsj
.com/news/british_35
707___article.html/a
merican_ship.html
http://navy-matters.
beedall.com/
...[italic] "(a huge) problem is finding aircraft for the new carriers to operate. Currently the Royal Navy simply does not (have) regular access to UK operated fast jet (fixed-wing) aircraft to operate from its designated high readiness strike carrier, HMS Illustrious."
... "Disastrously the Sea Harrier FA.2 is now long gone and the sole operational naval air squadron (800 NAS) re-equipped with the Harrier GR.7/9 is about to deploy (again) to Afghanistan, providing land-based close air support to NATO forces there."
... "In order to maintain some level of experience in the operation of fixed wing aircraft, HMS Illustrious recently operated 14 American (US Marine Corps) AV-8B Harriers for an exercise and will soon embark Spanish Navy Harrier’s for another. "
... "Although the MOD has tried to put a positive spin on these deployments, the underlying desperation is impossible to hide."
... "Looking to the future, the RN’s plans to buy 60 Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA) dedicated to carrier operations have long been history, subsumed in to the RAF...."[/italic]
Would a reasonably (or even a moderately) budgetarily competent company pay for the partial construction of a modest-sized house (read: aircraft carrier), IE walls and roof up, but without wiring, doors or plumbing (read: aircraft)... & before the company has 'found the money' to pay for the modest-sized house's wiring, doors & plumbing- financially commit the company to building another house (read: new 'big deck' carriers) 3 times as big as the modest-sized one... and then when they realize money is short... take steps to in effect 'block' money being found in the company budget to pay for wiring, doors & plumbing to be installed in either of the 2 houses??????
[bold]So, why would any govt commit to spend £4 billion building new 'glitzy' aircraft carriers if not going to do it properly?'[/bold]
1 possibility is 'for public relations' purposes & to mislead 'for votes'; another is due to gross incompetence!!
Having vital-to-force-proje
ction ships (the 2 new 'big deck' Aircraft Carriers) co-built with France (as is planned)- a country without expertise in this field- rather than with a country which has decades of unequaled leadership in aircraft carrier technologies- the USA- is plainly illogical, ill-advised, & will result in, comparatively, 3rd-rate carriers with:
- 20-year-old technologies;
- severe deficiencies in versatility & upgrade-ability; &
- not capable of operating Directed Energy Weapons (DEW's) for use against 21st century threats- such as super-sonic anti-ship cruise missiles.
Even worse, unlike the UK versions, France's new "big deck" aircraft carriers will be constructed with catapult-launch-of-a
ircraft capability, [bold]from a "flat deck".[/bold]
French versions won't rely on ski-jump decks to launch aircraft like the UK's planned (& its present 'pocket') carriers...
Compared to the UK's, France's new carriers will be:
- far more capable;
- able to deploy a much broader variety of aircraft, such as electronic countermeasure (ECM) & unmanned fighter aircraft; & in a business where 'size does matter'...
- 10,000 tonnes heavier than the UK's (65k vs 75k).
http://www.defensein
dustrydaily.com/brit
ain-studies-ways-to-
reduce-cvf-future-ca
rrier-program-costs-
01028/
http://www.defensein
dustrydaily.com/desi
gn-preparations-cont
inue-for-britains-ne
w-cvf-future-carrier
-updated-01630/
http://www.defensein
dustrydaily.com/fran
ce-steaming-ahead-on
-pa2cvf-carrier-proj
ect-01621/
Possibly worse than this- if that is possible- is Labour's current proposal to 'replace' the Royal Navy's [bold]3 aircraft carriers with 2[/bold] (via the ill advised UK/French carrier project).
For most of the last 4 decades, RN fleet/aircraft carrier rotation protocol has mandated having at least 3 fixed-wing carriers.
This assumed 2 of 3 carriers on 'active' duty at any given time, recognizing that at least 1 of the 3 would be on refit/repairs/mainte
nance at any given time.
Squadrons of support/escort ships were- although not always at sea with them- 'planned & designated around' aircraft carriers: IE 3 'groups' of supply/Destroyer/Fri
gate/submarine types 'assigned' to individual carriers.
Planners will have to assume that 1 of the 2 new 'planned' carriers will be in maintenance/refit/re
pairs at any given time... leaving just 1 aircraft carrier for the defense of the nation/its assets, and for assigning to overseas/Nato/expedi
tionary duties...
Whether the RN's new carriers are 110,000 tonne US Navy type super-carriers or just 4 tonne rafts- if there is an attempt to have these "2 carriers" fit and fill the role of "3 carriers", it will invite disaster and make the nation's military look like that of a banana republic.
Shrink the number of aircraft carriers from 3 to 2, & by default the RN fleet-size will be obliged to shrink proportionately.
How can this be responsible or 'better' than even the present situation??
The nearly 50 Royal Navy ships (many prematurely) sold, decommissioned & scrapped during the last 10-years- without-
replacements being built- has already shrunk the RN to barely 2/3 of its size when Labour was elected in 1997...
[bold]Following 2006 the Royal Navy has had less surface escort ships than the French navy- this state of affairs has not existed since the 1600's.[/bold]
Due to its comparatively enormous cost and the project's huge capacity- through job creation- to 'distract' the average voter, the UK/French aircraft carrier project if it goes ahead, will function as a false excuse for the UK govt to:
- decommission and/or sell-off-prematurely what much of what remains of the RN's best ships;
- not replace existing classes of Frigates/Destroyers/
support ships and the like.
Its been well known for over a decade that providing "anti-air" defenses for the RN’s non-front-line ships such as supply
vessels, minesweepers & the like- let alone for its present ‘pocket’ aircraft carriers or any future “big deck” ones- CAN NOT BE DONE by any of the RN’s dangerously outdated, Type-42 Destroyers or by its Type-22 & Type-23 Frigates.
http://www.bloomberg
.com/apps/news?pid=2
0601087&sid=akO7Y_OR
w538&refer=home
http://www.bharat-ra
kshak.com/NAVY/Klub.
html
http://www.uscpf.org
/html/events/2005/tr
anscript.html
http://www.globalsec
urity.org/military/w
orld/europe/type42.h
tm
In September-2007, HMS Ocean- the RN's, only dedicated helicopter carrier- was taken out-of-service for over 1 year for un-planned repairs:
http://www.mod.uk/De
fenceInternet/Defenc
eNews/EquipmentAndLo
gistics/HmsOceanInLi
neForMajorRefit.htm
leaving the RN’s with just about zero air cover…. in an emergency/unexpected urgent situation….
[bold]SOLUTIONS??:[/bold]
A quick-fix to the RN's Aircraft Carrier & out-of-date ships problems could be the USA 'lend/leasing to the UK' (2 or) 3 of their recently commissioned &/or nearing commissioning medium sized aircraft carriers (L-HD's) along with their armaments, aircraft & related logistical equipment, etc.
(it would also be a way of the US paying-back the UK for its W.O.T. support):
- USS Makin Island (LHD 8) (nearing commissioning);
- USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) commissioned June 2001;
These ships:
- weigh-in at about double the tonnage of the RN's 2.5 decade-old, past-service-life Invincible Class carriers;
- deploy the same types of fixed-wing aircraft as RN carriers, but have 2X the aircraft carrying & sortie capacity;
- have far more versatile capabilities; &
- are out fitted with very recent technology radars & anti-missile/anti-su
bmarine warfare systems.
LHD's would be far more appropriate for deployment by the UK to the Persian Gulf instead of (as is planned) the highly vulnerable-to-21st-
century-anti-ship-we
apons HMS Illustrious & her assigned anti-air 'cover': a Type-42 Destroyer & Type-23 Frigate:
http://www.globalsec
urity.org/military/w
orld/europe/type42.h
tm
Money saved by lend/lease of the above US ships to the RN could be put towards the expedited construction of ALL of the 12 "FULLY EQUIPPED" Type-45 Destroyers promised by Labour in the late 1990’s, instead of the 4* stripped-down versions** that
'may' be constructed for the RN...
(* Apparently, 6 Type-45's are to be built, with 2 of these being sold to Saudi Arabia.)
(** http://www.theregist
er.co.uk/2007/11/27/
hms_diamond_launches
_ouch_ouch/
http://www.globalsec
urity.org/military/w
orld/europe/type45.h
tm)
Similarly, the RN's egregiously vulnerable Type-22 & older-model Type-23 Frigates could be replaced cost-effectively & expeditiously by "anti-submarine specialty" & "land attack/expeditionary
-support specialty" multi-purpose/multi-
mission variants of the Type-45 being quickly designed & built...
As part of a 'longer term' fix for the RN's carrier problems, instead of continuing with the misguided UK/French aircraft carrier project, the UK ought to 'call in a favour' from the USA & invite itself to be part of the USA's project designing & building the US Navy's medium sized aircraft carrier (LHD class) successor: the "LHA-6 class".
Projected to displace 51,000-60,000 tonnes, LHA-6's will be leaders of their type, regarding:
- offensive capacities;
- anti-missile & anti-submarine defenses;
- abilities to set aside sections as hospital ships; &
- abilities to function as battle-space data command centre's.
Also, LHA-6's MAY BE NUCLEAR POWERED, (dramatically lowering greenhouse gases) & to accommodate new high-energy need
equipment & weapons like Directed Energy Weapon's (DEW'S).
DEW's are thought by many experts to be the only type of ship-defense weapon likely to be able to counter 21st century naval
threats like the widely marketed Russian SS-N-27 "Sizzler" missile.
http://www.defensein
dustrydaily.com/usa-
broadening-conservat
ion-focus-to-weapons
-systems-02186/#more
http://www.bloomberg
.com/apps/news?pid=2
0601087&sid=akO7Y_OR
w538&refer=home
http://www.bharat-ra
kshak.com/NAVY/Klub.
html
http://www.uscpf.org
/html/events/2005/tr
anscript.html
In many important ways, the Royal Navy is the 'face of the nation' overseas.
Run down, aged faces don't cultivate much positive respect, let alone interest.
If the UK is putting its newest, best & most bragged about warships to sea barely 1/4 equipped (Type-45 Destroyers), will this not make the UK a laughing stalk among major-power nations, as well as damaging potential trade relationships with countries looking to buy defense and related goods??
Won't this be counterproductive to the UK's international profile in terms of its technological and manufacturing capacities?
If newly produced ships/ planned new ones, such as Type-45 Destroyers; the recently approved-for-buildin
g 2 'big deck'
aircraft carriers; or MVD's (Type-22 & Type-23 Frigate replacements) are being commissioned without vital hardware and basic
weapons/equipment that their designers intended for them to be out fitted with->>>> what sort of message does this send to
those the UK wants to trade with, or countries that the UK may have to be militarily adverse to, down the road???
There is no reason why the United Kingdom can not lead the world in terms of the capabilities and technologies of its armed forces' ships and equipment, as well as the skills & professionalism of its service personnel.
But this won't happen if world beating British-designs of ships, weapons & related products are in effect, 'thrown on the dust bin' and replaced unnecessarily with drastically- and dangerously- reduced-in-quality/s
cope designs, and if far too few of the respective British designed ships/weapons/produc
ts are made... such as with the Type-45.
UK/French projects are not all inadvisable... but if this type of approach is going to result in technologically deficient, inferior products- & less of them - compared to easily facilitatable alternatives- particularly in an area that directly affects national security, questions need to be asked why is it being used!!
UK/US partnerships & projects have reaped enormous benefits for both countries in the past....
A UK/US approach to Aircraft Carrier utilization, design & construction could restore & significantly enhance the Royal Navy's capacities years before UK 'W.O.T.' commitments end & as much as 3/4 of a decade ahead of the misguided UK/French carrier project's 1st ships are delivered.. at 1/2 to 3/5 the cost, and would, if done right, free up funding for expedited production of competently fitted-out Type-45's in sufficient numbers to 'legitimately' replace the Royal Navy's not-fit-for-service in-the-21st-century Type-42 Destroyers, and its rapidly reaching useless-status Type-22 and 23 Frigates...
_________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, B.C, Canada,
ceo@patientempowerme
ntsociety.com
"UK SHOULD BE BUILDING ITS NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS WITH THE USA- THE US BUILDS THE MOST ADVANCED AND CAPABLE TYPES"
Where the above article says:
"'First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Sir Jonathon Band said: "These ships with their aircraft will transform the UK's defence capabilities when they enter service.'" ... it implies that the RN's new carriers will have 'their own' aircraft- they will not....
Similar to the situation since 2005 with the RN's 2 (really 3*) present 'pocket carriers' the recently approved 2 new 'big
deck' aircraft carriers are to be built
WITHOUT THEIR OWN AIRCRAFT, and will have to 'share' with the RAF. (Each of these carriers is intended to have 40 'Harrier type' aircraft + helicopters, etc.)
- the 2 'big deck' carriers will be unable to fill the roles of the RN's 3* present carriers (if these 3 carriers were being used as intended->> they are not->>
* HMS Invincible is effectively out-of-service permanently... maybe to condition onlookers to a
"2 carrier RN"??)
Keeping the RN's new aircraft carriers' build costs down (by only 1/4 equipping them/not providing them with 'their own' aircraft, etc) avoids the embarrassment-by-Lab
our of being accused of financial incompetence...
The USA is presently redesigning its 'Nimitz Class' 'supercarriers'.
The resulting products will ALL be equipped with state of the art defenses, including extensive anti-missile defense systems- types of systems the RN's planned new carriers are not planned to have.
The USA is also in the middle of redesigning its 'medium-sized' (LHD-class) aircraft carriers.
There are approximately 1 dozen of the current (44,000 tonnes models- which are each 2 times the size of the RN's present 20,000 tonne 'pocket' carriers) deployed around the world- supported by other US Navy warships/submarines- in Naval Strike Groups. They use Harriers and the same aircraft that RN carriers utilize.
The US's new 'medium sized' aircraft carriers are projected to each cost 1/3 of the UK's planned new carriers (maybe due to volume
savings?)... so why isn't the UK participating in this project??
The situation since 2005 with the RN's (3) present 'pocket carriers': there are so few carrier-compatible fixed-wing aircraft available, that these carriers are having to be on active duty without fixed-wing aircraft like Harriers:
http://www.newbernsj
.com/news/british_35
707___article.html/a
merican_ship.html
http://navy-matters.
beedall.com/
...
"(a huge) problem is finding aircraft for the new carriers to operate. Currently the Royal Navy simply does not (have) regular access to UK operated fast jet (fixed-wing) aircraft to operate from its designated high readiness strike carrier, HMS Illustrious."
... "Disastrously the Sea Harrier FA.2 is now long gone and the sole operational naval air squadron (800 NAS) re-equipped with the Harrier GR.7/9 is about to deploy (again) to Afghanistan, providing land-based close air support to NATO forces there."
... "In order to maintain some level of experience in the operation of fixed wing aircraft, HMS Illustrious recently operated 14 American (US Marine Corps) AV-8B Harriers for an exercise and will soon embark Spanish Navy Harrier’s for another. "
... "Although the MOD has tried to put a positive spin on these deployments, the underlying desperation is impossible to hide."
... "Looking to the future, the RN’s plans to buy 60 Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA) dedicated to carrier operations have long been history, subsumed in to the RAF...."
Would a reasonably (or even a moderately) budgetarily competent company pay for the partial construction of a modest-sized house (read: aircraft carrier), IE walls and roof up, but without wiring, doors or plumbing (read: aircraft)... & before the company has 'found the money' to pay for the modest-sized house's wiring, doors & plumbing- financially commit the company to building another house (read: new 'big deck' carriers) 3 times as big as the modest-sized one... and then when they realize money is short... take steps to in effect 'block' money being found in the company budget to pay for wiring, doors & plumbing to be installed in either of the 2 houses??????
So, why would any govt commit to spend £4 billion building new 'glitzy' aircraft carriers if not going to do it properly?'
1 possibility is 'for public relations' purposes & to mislead 'for votes'; another is due to gross incompetence!!
Having vital-to-force-proje
ction ships (the 2 new 'big deck' Aircraft Carriers) co-built with France (as is planned)- a country without expertise in this field- rather than with a country which has decades of unequaled leadership in aircraft carrier technologies- the USA- is plainly illogical, ill-advised, & will result in, comparatively, 3rd-rate carriers with:
- 20-year-old technologies;
- severe deficiencies in versatility & upgrade-ability; &
- not capable of operating Directed Energy Weapons (DEW's) for use against 21st century threats- such as super-sonic anti-ship cruise missiles.
Even worse, unlike the UK versions, France's new "big deck" aircraft carriers will be constructed with catapult-launch-of-a
ircraft capability,
from a "flat deck".
French versions won't rely on ski-jump decks to launch aircraft like the UK's planned (& its present 'pocket') carriers...
Compared to the UK's, France's new carriers will be:
- far more capable;
- able to deploy a much broader variety of aircraft, such as electronic countermeasure (ECM) & unmanned fighter aircraft; & in a business where 'size does matter'...
- 10,000 tonnes heavier than the UK's (65k vs 75k).
http://www.defensein
dustrydaily.com/brit
ain-studies-ways-to-
reduce-cvf-future-ca
rrier-program-costs-
01028/
http://www.defensein
dustrydaily.com/desi
gn-preparations-cont
inue-for-britains-ne
w-cvf-future-carrier
-updated-01630/
http://www.defensein
dustrydaily.com/fran
ce-steaming-ahead-on
-pa2cvf-carrier-proj
ect-01621/
Possibly worse than this- if that is possible- is Labour's current proposal to 'replace' the Royal Navy's
3 aircraft carriers with 2 (via the ill advised UK/French carrier project).
For most of the last 4 decades, RN fleet/aircraft carrier rotation protocol has mandated having at least 3 fixed-wing carriers.
This assumed 2 of 3 carriers on 'active' duty at any given time, recognizing that at least 1 of the 3 would be on refit/repairs/mainte
nance at any given time.
Squadrons of support/escort ships were- although not always at sea with them- 'planned & designated around' aircraft carriers: IE 3 'groups' of supply/Destroyer/Fri
gate/submarine types 'assigned' to individual carriers.
Planners will have to assume that 1 of the 2 new 'planned' carriers will be in maintenance/refit/re
pairs at any given time... leaving just 1 aircraft carrier for the defense of the nation/its assets, and for assigning to overseas/Nato/expedi
tionary duties...
Whether the RN's new carriers are 110,000 tonne US Navy type super-carriers or just 4 tonne rafts- if there is an attempt to have these "2 carriers" fit and fill the role of "3 carriers", it will invite disaster and make the nation's military look like that of a banana republic.
Shrink the number of aircraft carriers from 3 to 2, & by default the RN fleet-size will be obliged to shrink proportionately.
How can this be responsible or 'better' than even the present situation??
The nearly 50 Royal Navy ships (many prematurely) sold, decommissioned & scrapped during the last 10-years- without-
replacements being built- has already shrunk the RN to barely 2/3 of its size when Labour was elected in 1997...
Following 2006 the Royal Navy has had less surface escort ships than the French navy- this state of affairs has not existed since the 1600's.
Due to its comparatively enormous cost and the project's huge capacity- through job creation- to 'distract' the average voter, the UK/French aircraft carrier project if it goes ahead, will function as a false excuse for the UK govt to:
- decommission and/or sell-off-prematurely what much of what remains of the RN's best ships;
- not replace existing classes of Frigates/Destroyers/
support ships and the like.
Its been well known for over a decade that providing "anti-air" defenses for the RN’s non-front-line ships such as supply
vessels, minesweepers & the like- let alone for its present ‘pocket’ aircraft carriers or any future “big deck” ones- CAN NOT BE DONE by any of the RN’s dangerously outdated, Type-42 Destroyers or by its Type-22 & Type-23 Frigates.
http://www.bloomberg
.com/apps/news?pid=2
0601087&sid=akO7Y_OR
w538&refer=home
http://www.bharat-ra
kshak.com/NAVY/Klub.
html
http://www.uscpf.org
/html/events/2005/tr
anscript.html
http://www.globalsec
urity.org/military/w
orld/europe/type42.h
tm
In September-2007, HMS Ocean- the RN's, only dedicated helicopter carrier- was taken out-of-service for over 1 year for un-planned repairs:
http://www.mod.uk/De
fenceInternet/Defenc
eNews/EquipmentAndLo
gistics/HmsOceanInLi
neForMajorRefit.htm
leaving the RN’s with just about zero air cover…. in an emergency/unexpected urgent situation….
SOLUTIONS??:
A quick-fix to the RN's Aircraft Carrier & out-of-date ships problems could be the USA 'lend/leasing to the UK' (2 or) 3 of their recently commissioned &/or nearing commissioning medium sized aircraft carriers (L-HD's) along with their armaments, aircraft & related logistical equipment, etc.
(it would also be a way of the US paying-back the UK for its W.O.T. support):
- USS Makin Island (LHD 8) (nearing commissioning);
- USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) commissioned June 2001;
These ships:
- weigh-in at about double the tonnage of the RN's 2.5 decade-old, past-service-life Invincible Class carriers;
- deploy the same types of fixed-wing aircraft as RN carriers, but have 2X the aircraft carrying & sortie capacity;
- have far more versatile capabilities; &
- are out fitted with very recent technology radars & anti-missile/anti-su
bmarine warfare systems.
LHD's would be far more appropriate for deployment by the UK to the Persian Gulf instead of (as is planned) the highly vulnerable-to-21st-
century-anti-ship-we
apons HMS Illustrious & her assigned anti-air 'cover': a Type-42 Destroyer & Type-23 Frigate:
http://www.globalsec
urity.org/military/w
orld/europe/type42.h
tm
Money saved by lend/lease of the above US ships to the RN could be put towards the expedited construction of ALL of the 12 "FULLY EQUIPPED" Type-45 Destroyers promised by Labour in the late 1990’s, instead of the 4* stripped-down versions** that
'may' be constructed for the RN...
(* Apparently, 6 Type-45's are to be built, with 2 of these being sold to Saudi Arabia.)
(** http://www.theregist
er.co.uk/2007/11/27/
hms_diamond_launches
_ouch_ouch/
http://www.globalsec
urity.org/military/w
orld/europe/type45.h
tm)
Similarly, the RN's egregiously vulnerable Type-22 & older-model Type-23 Frigates could be replaced cost-effectively & expeditiously by "anti-submarine specialty" & "land attack/expeditionary
-support specialty" multi-purpose/multi-
mission variants of the Type-45 being quickly designed & built...
As part of a 'longer term' fix for the RN's carrier problems, instead of continuing with the misguided UK/French aircraft carrier project, the UK ought to 'call in a favour' from the USA & invite itself to be part of the USA's project designing & building the US Navy's medium sized aircraft carrier (LHD class) successor: the "LHA-6 class".
Projected to displace 51,000-60,000 tonnes, LHA-6's will be leaders of their type, regarding:
- offensive capacities;
- anti-missile & anti-submarine defenses;
- abilities to set aside sections as hospital ships; &
- abilities to function as battle-space data command centre's.
Also, LHA-6's MAY BE NUCLEAR POWERED, (dramatically lowering greenhouse gases) & to accommodate new high-energy need
equipment & weapons like Directed Energy Weapon's (DEW'S).
DEW's are thought by many experts to be the only type of ship-defense weapon likely to be able to counter 21st century naval
threats like the widely marketed Russian SS-N-27 "Sizzler" missile.
http://www.defensein
dustrydaily.com/usa-
broadening-conservat
ion-focus-to-weapons
-systems-02186/#more
http://www.bloomberg
.com/apps/news?pid=2
0601087&sid=akO7Y_OR
w538&refer=home
http://www.bharat-ra
kshak.com/NAVY/Klub.
html
http://www.uscpf.org
/html/events/2005/tr
anscript.html
In many important ways, the Royal Navy is the 'face of the nation' overseas.
Run down, aged faces don't cultivate much positive respect, let alone interest.
If the UK is putting its newest, best & most bragged about warships to sea barely 1/4 equipped (Type-45 Destroyers), will this not make the UK a laughing stalk among major-power nations, as well as damaging potential trade relationships with countries looking to buy defense and related goods??
Won't this be counterproductive to the UK's international profile in terms of its technological and manufacturing capacities?
If newly produced ships/ planned new ones, such as Type-45 Destroyers; the recently approved-for-buildin
g 2 'big deck'
aircraft carriers; or MVD's (Type-22 & Type-23 Frigate replacements) are being commissioned without vital hardware and basic
weapons/equipment that their designers intended for them to be out fitted with->>>> what sort of message does this send to
those the UK wants to trade with, or countries that the UK may have to be militarily adverse to, down the road???
There is no reason why the United Kingdom can not lead the world in terms of the capabilities and technologies of its armed forces' ships and equipment, as well as the skills & professionalism of its service personnel.
But this won't happen if world beating British-designs of ships, weapons & related products are in effect, 'thrown on the dust bin' and replaced unnecessarily with drastically- and dangerously- reduced-in-quality/s
cope designs, and if far too few of the respective British designed ships/weapons/produc
ts are made... such as with the Type-45.
UK/French projects are not all inadvisable... but if this type of approach is going to result in technologically deficient, inferior products- & less of them - compared to easily facilitatable alternatives- particularly in an area that directly affects national security, questions need to be asked why is it being used!!
UK/US partnerships & projects have reaped enormous benefits for both countries in the past....
A UK/US approach to Aircraft Carrier utilization, design & construction could restore & significantly enhance the Royal Navy's capacities years before UK 'W.O.T.' commitments end & as much as 3/4 of a decade ahead of the misguided UK/French carrier project's 1st ships are delivered.. at 1/2 to 3/5 the cost, and would, if done right, free up funding for expedited production of competently fitted-out Type-45's in sufficient numbers to 'legitimately' replace the Royal Navy's not-fit-for-service in-the-21st-century Type-42 Destroyers, and its rapidly reaching useless-status Type-22 and 23 Frigates...
_________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, B.C, Canada,
ceo@patientempowerme
ntsociety.com
Posted by: Roderick Louis on 7:53am Wed 21 May 08
An addittional note... [bold]the UK govt -with BAE Systems and VT- ought to be working with South Korea's govt and their shipbuilder "Hyundai"[/bold] and looking at ways that the 'planned' new aircraft carriers for the RN (and for the French navy) could still be built- but with the UK's two sold on- under strict conditions- to the ambitious south Koreans.
South Korea is presently facilitating an extensive expansion and warship replacement programme of its navy... perhaps to stay ahead of Japan, which is, to a lesser extent, doing the same thing....
Australia, similar to South Korea and Japan, is redeveloping and expanding its 'Royal Australian Navy'... and is looking at the feasability of aquiring an aircraft carrier or two... to go with its new Destroyers and Frigates...
Why couldn't the UK sell several of its new-model (planned) aircraft carriers to countries like Australia and/or South korea??
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, B.C, Canada,
ceo@patientempowerme
ntsociety.com
An addittional note...
the UK govt -with BAE Systems and VT- ought to be working with South Korea's govt and their shipbuilder "Hyundai" and looking at ways that the 'planned' new aircraft carriers for the RN (and for the French navy) could still be built- but with the UK's two sold on- under strict conditions- to the ambitious south Koreans.
South Korea is presently facilitating an extensive expansion and warship replacement programme of its navy... perhaps to stay ahead of Japan, which is, to a lesser extent, doing the same thing....
Australia, similar to South Korea and Japan, is redeveloping and expanding its 'Royal Australian Navy'... and is looking at the feasability of aquiring an aircraft carrier or two... to go with its new Destroyers and Frigates...
Why couldn't the UK sell several of its new-model (planned) aircraft carriers to countries like Australia and/or South korea??
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, B.C, Canada,
ceo@patientempowerme
ntsociety.com
Posted by: Roderick Louis, Vancouver, B.C., Canada on 7:54am Wed 21 May 08
An addittional note... [bold]the UK govt -with BAE Systems and VT- ought to be working with South Korea's govt and their shipbuilder "Hyundai"[/bold] and looking at ways that the 'planned' new aircraft carriers for the RN (and for the French navy) could still be built- but with the UK's two sold on- under strict conditions- to the ambitious south Koreans.
South Korea is presently facilitating an extensive expansion and warship replacement programme of its navy... perhaps to stay ahead of Japan, which is, to a lesser extent, doing the same thing....
Australia, similar to South Korea and Japan, is redeveloping and expanding its 'Royal Australian Navy'... and is looking at the feasability of aquiring an aircraft carrier or two... to go with its new Destroyers and Frigates...
Why couldn't the UK sell several of its new-model (planned) aircraft carriers to countries like Australia and/or South korea??
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, B.C, Canada,
ceo@patientempowerme
ntsociety.com
An addittional note...
the UK govt -with BAE Systems and VT- ought to be working with South Korea's govt and their shipbuilder "Hyundai" and looking at ways that the 'planned' new aircraft carriers for the RN (and for the French navy) could still be built- but with the UK's two sold on- under strict conditions- to the ambitious south Koreans.
South Korea is presently facilitating an extensive expansion and warship replacement programme of its navy... perhaps to stay ahead of Japan, which is, to a lesser extent, doing the same thing....
Australia, similar to South Korea and Japan, is redeveloping and expanding its 'Royal Australian Navy'... and is looking at the feasability of aquiring an aircraft carrier or two... to go with its new Destroyers and Frigates...
Why couldn't the UK sell several of its new-model (planned) aircraft carriers to countries like Australia and/or South korea??
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, B.C, Canada,
ceo@patientempowerme
ntsociety.com
Posted by: spagan, heisker, scotland on 8:48am Wed 21 May 08
Adapted from the Mash:
[quote][italic][bold]HUGE DOME TO BE PLACED OVER MIDDLE EAST
A MASSIVE silver dome should be placed over the Middle East until all the explosions stop, the UN proposed last night.
Following predictions that the region would soon be rife with nuclear weeapons, UN chief Ban-Ki Moon unveiled plans for a huge dome approxomately 2500 miles across.
The dome would be built in Rosyth dockyard and towed by supertankers into the Mediterranean. It would then be heaved into place until it covered Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, Syria, and much of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran.
Outlining his new peace plan, Mr Moon said: "Once the dome is in place we expect about 12 to 18 months of constant explosions, followed by silence.
"We will then lift up the edge of the dome and have a peek to see if there are any heavily armed psycopaths still alive.
"If so we'll just chuck in a few Glasgow Rangers fans, slam the dome back down and wait for the inevitable."
If the plan is successful Mr Moon said the dome could be melted down and made into napkin holders or placed over the United States until they learn how to stop invading other people's countries.[/bold][/italic] [/quote]
Slainte Mhor
Adapted from the Mash:
HUGE DOME TO BE PLACED OVER MIDDLE EAST
A MASSIVE silver dome should be placed over the Middle East until all the explosions stop, the UN proposed last night.
Following predictions that the region would soon be rife with nuclear weeapons, UN chief Ban-Ki Moon unveiled plans for a huge dome approxomately 2500 miles across.
The dome would be built in Rosyth dockyard and towed by supertankers into the Mediterranean. It would then be heaved into place until it covered Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, Syria, and much of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran.
Outlining his new peace plan, Mr Moon said: "Once the dome is in place we expect about 12 to 18 months of constant explosions, followed by silence.
"We will then lift up the edge of the dome and have a peek to see if there are any heavily armed psycopaths still alive.
"If so we'll just chuck in a few Glasgow Rangers fans, slam the dome back down and wait for the inevitable."
If the plan is successful Mr Moon said the dome could be melted down and made into napkin holders or placed over the United States until they learn how to stop invading other people's countries.
Slainte Mhor
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 9:13am Wed 21 May 08
The only possible reasons I can find for these carriers is that the UK can blindly follow the Americans into their colonial wars of agression and Westmidden can wlly wave it's machismo to the world. We have no more need of them than we have for Polaris subs. Scrap them now before we reduce this country to penury, or worse.
[quote]Why waste money on these junior war weapons when the USA could destroy them all in a single shot?
The current British Navy wouldn't even be able to stand against America's Navy 60 years ago.
Alcohol has destroyed your society.[/quote]
Alkie, who cares what you think, America is a failed state and is going down the tubes and hopefully will take your ignorance and stupidity with it.
The only possible reasons I can find for these carriers is that the UK can blindly follow the Americans into their colonial wars of agression and Westmidden can wlly wave it's machismo to the world. We have no more need of them than we have for Polaris subs. Scrap them now before we reduce this country to penury, or worse.
Why waste money on these junior war weapons when the USA could destroy them all in a single shot?
The current British Navy wouldn't even be able to stand against America's Navy 60 years ago.
Alcohol has destroyed your society.
Alkie, who cares what you think, America is a failed state and is going down the tubes and hopefully will take your ignorance and stupidity with it.
Posted by: None of the Above, The Kingdom on 10:10am Wed 21 May 08
There is no British shipbuilding industry to protect, there is no British shipping industry to protect.
The only reason that these ships are being proposed is to go and blow the crap out of some poor foreign johnny.
These ships are 30 years too late and why can't Britain spend billions on upgrading it infrastructure and educating it's sons and daughters.
The Empire died at the end of the First World War and it is time to get over it.
There is no British shipbuilding industry to protect, there is no British shipping industry to protect.
The only reason that these ships are being proposed is to go and blow the crap out of some poor foreign johnny.
These ships are 30 years too late and why can't Britain spend billions on upgrading it infrastructure and educating it's sons and daughters.
The Empire died at the end of the First World War and it is time to get over it.
Posted by: martin, edinburgh on 11:15am Wed 21 May 08
hear ye, hear ye, pay heedance to the voice of martin
France: France has been told to get knotted because of feet-dragging
Planes: The planes to be used are the JSF built in partnership with the US. The ability of the planes on these aircraft carriers defines the carrier's power, egnine speed, deck type etc are all secondary
Comments: there should be a 250 word limit on comments. if you can't get your point across in that space get knotted, I'm not reading all your sh*te.
hear ye, hear ye, pay heedance to the voice of martin
France: France has been told to get knotted because of feet-dragging
Planes: The planes to be used are the JSF built in partnership with the US. The ability of the planes on these aircraft carriers defines the carrier's power, egnine speed, deck type etc are all secondary
Comments: there should be a 250 word limit on comments. if you can't get your point across in that space get knotted, I'm not reading all your sh*te.
Posted by: realist, Scotland on 11:32am Wed 21 May 08
The guy from Vancouver has the longest post ever and more Urls than AM2. God bless America what he doesn't point out is that we have a saying for the US Navy "all the gear and no idea". During the recent JMC exercise it was conclusively proven that the worlds most advanced ASW platform is a type 23 frigate with 2087 sonar. the US are world leaders in carrier technology and force projection but nowhere near as good as the RN at ASW/Minewarfare and submarine warfare.
The guy from Vancouver has the longest post ever and more Urls than AM2. God bless America what he doesn't point out is that we have a saying for the US Navy "all the gear and no idea". During the recent JMC exercise it was conclusively proven that the worlds most advanced ASW platform is a type 23 frigate with 2087 sonar. the US are world leaders in carrier technology and force projection but nowhere near as good as the RN at ASW/Minewarfare and submarine warfare.
Posted by: Macthickey, Irvine on 11:51am Wed 21 May 08
Is this the last waltz for 'Browns Save the Union'. Throwing money at ancient designs and creating another band of Class Admirals?
Britains Financial troubles are Old Empire Wish Thinking. The state
of our pensioners in comparison to the European losers is an affront
to a Tory Government never mind a so called Labour Government.
Do something about the High Energy costs before we all freeze to death the coming winter.
Is this the last waltz for 'Browns Save the Union'. Throwing money at ancient designs and creating another band of Class Admirals?
Britains Financial troubles are Old Empire Wish Thinking. The state
of our pensioners in comparison to the European losers is an affront
to a Tory Government never mind a so called Labour Government.
Do something about the High Energy costs before we all freeze to death the coming winter.
Posted by: Buckpool Loon, Cheshire on 1:21pm Wed 21 May 08
Vancouver: In an ideal world we could collaborate and do deals with America. But experience has shown collaborating with America is akin to asking the IMF for a loan. You'll get the loan but the price you'll pay demands a ransome of body and soul.
But there again, in a truly ideal world we wouldn't need to worry about producing all this technological crap, and we could use all the brainpower released to help feed the world and extend the quota of happiness in it.
Just a thought for sense to take precedence over gizmo's
Vancouver: In an ideal world we could collaborate and do deals with America. But experience has shown collaborating with America is akin to asking the IMF for a loan. You'll get the loan but the price you'll pay demands a ransome of body and soul.
But there again, in a truly ideal world we wouldn't need to worry about producing all this technological crap, and we could use all the brainpower released to help feed the world and extend the quota of happiness in it.
Just a thought for sense to take precedence over gizmo's
Posted by: JBlackley, Florida on 1:50pm Wed 21 May 08
In Maggie Thatcher's day we used to get a penny of off income tax every election year (followed by tuppence added to income tax the year after). In this era we get promises of "jobs tomorrow" to help quell a restless electorate.
I think I preferred Maggie's approach.
In Maggie Thatcher's day we used to get a penny of off income tax every election year (followed by tuppence added to income tax the year after). In this era we get promises of "jobs tomorrow" to help quell a restless electorate.
I think I preferred Maggie's approach.
Posted by: Roderick Louis, Vancouver, B.C., Canada on 7:44am Thu 22 May 08
[bold]"realist":[/bold]
Type-23's may well be as proficient as you say in dealing with subsurface threats, [bold]but they have zero competencies against up-to-date airborne threats-[/bold] like the SS-N-27 "sizzler" anti-ship missile.
Contradicting planners' specifications, the R.N.'s under construction new Type-45 Destroyers- with their world beating anti-air warfare
capabilities- are not being equipped with 2087 A.S.W. capabilities...
Similarly irresponsibly, Type-45's are not being equipped to deal with sea-surface based or land-based 'threats/targets'.
(http://www.theregis
ter.co.uk/2007/11/27
/hms_diamond_launche
s_ouch_ouch/
http://www.globalsec
urity.org/military/w
orld/europe/type45.h
tm )
Modern 'first-world' nations' warships need to be able to deal with threats/targets in all 4 spheres of battle- sub-surface, sea-surface, land-based and airborne.
None of the R.N.'s in-service warships (aircraft carriers, Type 23 Frigates and Type-42 Destroyers) have this vital capability.
http://www.globalsec
urity.org/military/w
orld/europe/type42.h
tm
(ALL of the US Navy's Destroyers produced since the early 1990's have these capabilities, as do South Korea's, Japan's and even Australia's recently produced/under construction Destroyers/Frigates.
...
The US Navy's new generation of medium sized aircraft carriers as well as their new generation of 'super carriers' will.)
Type-45's maximum radius of protection from airborne threats that could be afforded to other ships is purported to be about 5 or 6 miles from the respective Type-45....
Squadrons and fleets on missions almost never remain this close to each other for tactical and logistical purposes.... so the handful of
Type-45's being built for the R.N. (see my comment above) will not be capable of providing anti-air cover for the whole R.N....
What happens when a Type-45 is faced with a sub surface threat and there is no Type-23 very nearby to 'protect it'??
What happens when a Type-23 is faced with an airborne threat and there is no Type-45 close-by to 'protect it'??
Answer: they'd be in trouble........
Sufficient numbers of Type-45's need to be built... not 4 or 6 or even 8, but enough to 'replace' ALL of the Type-23's and Type-42's presently in-service.... and enough to carry out extra duties perhaps escorting UK or other nations' aircraft carriers.... or providing cover for ships (like carriers/sub's) inserting commando's to land-based targets... and ALL Type-45's built need to be "fully equipped" and capable of dealing at least moderately competently with ALL 4 spheres of naval battle...
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, B.C. Canada,
ceo@patientempowerme
ntsociety.com
"realist":
Type-23's may well be as proficient as you say in dealing with subsurface threats,
but they have zero competencies against up-to-date airborne threats- like the SS-N-27 "sizzler" anti-ship missile.
Contradicting planners' specifications, the R.N.'s under construction new Type-45 Destroyers- with their world beating anti-air warfare
capabilities- are not being equipped with 2087 A.S.W. capabilities...
Similarly irresponsibly, Type-45's are not being equipped to deal with sea-surface based or land-based 'threats/targets'.
(http://www.theregis
ter.co.uk/2007/11/27
/hms_diamond_launche
s_ouch_ouch/
http://www.globalsec
urity.org/military/w
orld/europe/type45.h
tm )
Modern 'first-world' nations' warships need to be able to deal with threats/targets in all 4 spheres of battle- sub-surface, sea-surface, land-based and airborne.
None of the R.N.'s in-service warships (aircraft carriers, Type 23 Frigates and Type-42 Destroyers) have this vital capability.
http://www.globalsec
urity.org/military/w
orld/europe/type42.h
tm
(ALL of the US Navy's Destroyers produced since the early 1990's have these capabilities, as do South Korea's, Japan's and even Australia's recently produced/under construction Destroyers/Frigates.
...
The US Navy's new generation of medium sized aircraft carriers as well as their new generation of 'super carriers' will.)
Type-45's maximum radius of protection from airborne threats that could be afforded to other ships is purported to be about 5 or 6 miles from the respective Type-45....
Squadrons and fleets on missions almost never remain this close to each other for tactical and logistical purposes.... so the handful of
Type-45's being built for the R.N. (see my comment above) will not be capable of providing anti-air cover for the whole R.N....
What happens when a Type-45 is faced with a sub surface threat and there is no Type-23 very nearby to 'protect it'??
What happens when a Type-23 is faced with an airborne threat and there is no Type-45 close-by to 'protect it'??
Answer: they'd be in trouble........
Sufficient numbers of Type-45's need to be built... not 4 or 6 or even 8, but enough to 'replace' ALL of the Type-23's and Type-42's presently in-service.... and enough to carry out extra duties perhaps escorting UK or other nations' aircraft carriers.... or providing cover for ships (like carriers/sub's) inserting commando's to land-based targets... and ALL Type-45's built need to be "fully equipped" and capable of dealing at least moderately competently with ALL 4 spheres of naval battle...
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, B.C. Canada,
ceo@patientempowerme
ntsociety.com
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 8:27am Thu 22 May 08
[quote]Posted by: Roderick Louis, Vancouver, B.C., Canada on 7:44am today[/quote]
The only reason that Britain needs even half of what you suggest is to do America's bidding as Imperial Auxilliaries. As a small insignificant country on the western seaboard of Europe, all Britain really needs is a small navy sufficient for defence and protection. We are no longer an imperial power that needs to project it political will or protect it's sea lanes from foreign competition.
Spending billions of pounds to acquire weapons to fight in America's imperial wars is a waste of time, money and lives. It could all be better invested in education, industry, health and homes.
Put Scotland First!
Posted by: Roderick Louis, Vancouver, B.C., Canada on 7:44am today
The only reason that Britain needs even half of what you suggest is to do America's bidding as Imperial Auxilliaries. As a small insignificant country on the western seaboard of Europe, all Britain really needs is a small navy sufficient for defence and protection. We are no longer an imperial power that needs to project it political will or protect it's sea lanes from foreign competition.
Spending billions of pounds to acquire weapons to fight in America's imperial wars is a waste of time, money and lives. It could all be better invested in education, industry, health and homes.
Put Scotland First!
Posted by: Roderick Louis, Vancouver, B.C., Canada on 11:02am Thu 22 May 08
[bold][italic]"all Britain really needs is a small navy sufficient for defence and protection..."[/italic][/bold]
is all that the positions I've put forward re the Royal Navy's equipment needs would enable...
A 25 or 35 warship navy is 'small' when compared to the past navies of many nations, and to today’s 300-ship US Navy...
Part of protecting the UK's interests rests with its armed forces being able to project 'the appearance' of overwhelming competence and capabilities- albeit for their small size- to potential adversaries...
If the UK's armed forces are not only small, but outdated and not-up-to-current-mi
ssion-demands, countries that otherwise would not initiate conflict- will do so.
Considering the pivotal, central position that the UK still plays in the world- in terms of its leading role membership on financial/trade, legal and political bodies- the result of hostile countries initiating conflict with the UK can and likely would have world roiling negative effects....
So why tempt fate....
The UK ought to be taking every step that is reasonably possible in order to retain the competence and capabilities of its armed forces... and to maintain its ‘world-leading technological advantages over possible adversaries….
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada,
ceo@patientempowerme
ntsociety.com
"all Britain really needs is a small navy sufficient for defence and protection..."
is all that the positions I've put forward re the Royal Navy's equipment needs would enable...
A 25 or 35 warship navy is 'small' when compared to the past navies of many nations, and to today’s 300-ship US Navy...
Part of protecting the UK's interests rests with its armed forces being able to project 'the appearance' of overwhelming competence and capabilities- albeit for their small size- to potential adversaries...
If the UK's armed forces are not only small, but outdated and not-up-to-current-mi
ssion-demands, countries that otherwise would not initiate conflict- will do so.
Considering the pivotal, central position that the UK still plays in the world- in terms of its leading role membership on financial/trade, legal and political bodies- the result of hostile countries initiating conflict with the UK can and likely would have world roiling negative effects....
So why tempt fate....
The UK ought to be taking every step that is reasonably possible in order to retain the competence and capabilities of its armed forces... and to maintain its ‘world-leading technological advantages over possible adversaries….
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada,
ceo@patientempowerme
ntsociety.com
Posted by: Roderick Louis, Vancouver, B.C., Canada on 11:03am Thu 22 May 08
[bold][italic]"all Britain really needs is a small navy sufficient for defence and protection..."[/italic][/bold]
is all that the positions I've put forward re the Royal Navy's equipment needs would enable...
A 25 or 35 warship navy is 'small' when compared to the past navies of many nations, and to today’s 300-ship US Navy...
Part of protecting the UK's interests rests with its armed forces being able to project 'the appearance' of overwhelming competence and capabilities- albeit for their small size- to potential adversaries...
If the UK's armed forces are not only small, but outdated and not-up-to-current-mi
ssion-demands, countries that otherwise would not initiate conflict- will do so.
Considering the pivotal, central position that the UK still plays in the world- in terms of its leading role membership on financial/trade, legal and political bodies- the result of hostile countries initiating conflict with the UK can and likely would have world roiling negative effects....
So why tempt fate....
The UK ought to be taking every step that is reasonably possible in order to retain the competence and capabilities of its armed forces... and to maintain its ‘world-leading technological advantages over possible adversaries….
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada,
ceo@patientempowerme
ntsociety.com
"all Britain really needs is a small navy sufficient for defence and protection..."
is all that the positions I've put forward re the Royal Navy's equipment needs would enable...
A 25 or 35 warship navy is 'small' when compared to the past navies of many nations, and to today’s 300-ship US Navy...
Part of protecting the UK's interests rests with its armed forces being able to project 'the appearance' of overwhelming competence and capabilities- albeit for their small size- to potential adversaries...
If the UK's armed forces are not only small, but outdated and not-up-to-current-mi
ssion-demands, countries that otherwise would not initiate conflict- will do so.
Considering the pivotal, central position that the UK still plays in the world- in terms of its leading role membership on financial/trade, legal and political
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (21)
