Read the forum code of contact
By: 26th August 2006 at 12:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-My feeling is we will see the two CVF hulls, but whether there will be enough destroyers/frigates and F35's left in the program for the hulls to be of any value is another question.
By: 26th August 2006 at 13:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Sadly, Turbinia is right, there will be two large CVF hulls (which I am strongly in favour of), but very few ships to actually escort them! It is looking like there may only be 6 Type 45, 12 frigates, and 6 Astutes, which is simply not enough. On the other hand, once the carriers are bought, hopefully more escorts will be bought, though not if the current budget remains (i.e. if Gordon Brown moves next door).
By: 26th August 2006 at 16:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-My feeling is we will see the two CVF hulls, but whether there will be enough destroyers/frigates and F35's left in the program for the hulls to be of any value is another question.
Not ot mention that the CVF's equipment fit will likely be somewhat sparse. I can see a very liberal use of the phrase 'fitted for but not with' when the CVF is finally launched.
By: 26th August 2006 at 17:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-On the other hand, it is perhaps better to get a 60,000 ton carrier fitted 'for but not with', than to get a 40,000 ton one with a full set of systems. It would be my hope that by the time the carriers are launched, they will get a full suite of CIWS (Millenium gun or Goalkeeper perhaps) and missiles (RAM and perhaps Aster 15).
By: 26th August 2006 at 18:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-On the other hand, it is perhaps better to get a 60,000 ton carrier fitted 'for but not with', than to get a 40,000 ton one with a full set of systems. It would be my hope that by the time the carriers are launched, they will get a full suite of CIWS (Millenium gun or Goalkeeper perhaps) and missiles (RAM and perhaps Aster 15).
You can hope until you are blue in the face but it aint gonna happen.
By: 26th August 2006 at 18:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-AND RAF crews flying off them........not a very good state of affairs.
By: 27th August 2006 at 01:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It didnt work in the 20s and 30s (RAF flying from RN carriers) You'd think that lesson would have been learned waaaaayy back then!
By: 27th August 2006 at 05:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Unfortunately dear chap, the military and politicians rarely bother to trouble themselves with history, hence they are doomed to repeat it.
Unicorn
By: 27th August 2006 at 06:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-"I am lost here? Would a CVF escort of 1-2 T 45's with 2-3 Frigates plus a 1-2 Submarines (Astute?) be typical for a RN Carrier Battle Group?"
Scooter, that would be fine if the only thing you were going to be doing was just those 2 CVF BGs, and 2 LSD/Bay-class RFA amphib groups with one T-45 & 2 Frigates each!
Unfortunately, that leaves nothing for any other duties at all... and the RN currently uses as many Destroyers/Frigates for single-ship anti-piracy/show-the-flag/disaster-relief missions as it does for escorting CVS Illustrious/Ark Royal, LPH Ocean, LSD Albion/Bulwark, LSL, etc.
Unless something changes, either in procurement numbers or in reducing UK commitments/presence world-wide, there simply won't be enough escorts to go around after ~2015!
By: 27th August 2006 at 17:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-AND RAF crews flying off them........not a very good state of affairs.
What made them decide to do it like that?
By: 27th August 2006 at 19:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The main problem I have is that main gate should of been long ago! What we have instead is constant avoidance by the MOD by pointless studies and reviews which waste money and only serves to pull the wool over the public eye's.
The simple fact is the Treasury (led by Gordon Brown) doesn't want to spend the money required for main gate but the government (led by Blair) doesn't want the embarrassment of cancellation. It's basically a battle between the Brownites and the Blairerites. It's easier for the Treasury to drip feed funding to keep it alive then to cause a storm and kill the project. This will all come to a head when Blair is replaced probably by Brown. There are plenty of left wing Brown allies who would be happy to see Britains armed forces cut down to a bare minimum self defence force.
It's the navy and British industry that will loose out, at this rate a time will come when British industry will not be able to shoulder new orders. The best we can hope for on the carrier front is an order for the first hull probably with far greater French input along the lines of the French providing some or more of the major hull sections.
By: 27th August 2006 at 22:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I have always thought that the CVF design was too ambitious for the UK's resources. I think fantasy overpowered reality with the decision makers on this program.
Posts: 210
By: FAR - 26th August 2006 at 11:23
Does anyone have any up to date news on CVF developments? I undestand that the UK MoD were planning to sign on the dotted line at the end of the year, is this still planned?