CVF Construction

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 13,434

Do you think we should just do without any large ships for carrying fixed wing aircraft &/or helicopters to sea, or get something other than CVF to do it? If the latter, then it'd probably be more expensive than carrying on with CVF, as the carriers & associated infrastructure have mostly been paid for now - as has been said here, repeatedly.
Profile picture for user Jonesy

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 4,875

I've never seen the virtues in the CVF. Time to let it go.
You dont see the virtue, for a nation with numerous overseas defence commitments, in having forward deployable airpower independent of local base-in considerations equipped with its own, organic, defence and logistics infrastructure?.

Member for

10 years 1 month

Posts: 517

You dont see the virtue, for a nation with numerous overseas defence commitments, in having forward deployable airpower independent of local base-in considerations equipped with its own, organic, defence and logistics infrastructure?.
Which ones are worth the tens of billions of pounds cost of the carriers and aircraft and operating costs? Can the UK afford this kind of expenditure these days?

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 3,614

Well, the UK can afford to give out £8billion per year in foreign aid. You give £38 million a year to China... each year you will give about £1billion in aid to India, a nuclear-armed power and one of the fastest-growing economies in the world... a nation which launched an un-manned probe to the moon in 2008*, has formally established a manned space program of its own**, and which is building its own aircraft carriers and has bought one from Russia at nearly the cost of one CVF. Now you tell me the UK can't afford its own carriers? Perhaps you wish to sub-contract the defense of the UK to India... after all, the UK is paying for much of India's Navy. * http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3240/early-end-to-indias-moon-mission ** http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8483787.stm
Profile picture for user Jonesy

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 4,875

Which ones are worth the tens of billions of pounds cost of the carriers and aircraft and operating costs? Can the UK afford this kind of expenditure these days?
You seem to have a vague understanding of the word 'commitment' there Flanker. It doesn't matter what 'worth' they have if we have committed to a defence agreement in good faith. To back out of those agreements would cost us far more, showing bad faith to allies, than the amount to keep a duty aircraft carrier operational. Besides CVF is designed, like the T45's, to be a lot more economical than its predecessors. The guideline was to have 2 CVF's running on the same budget as the 3 CVS's. We have managed to deploy the CVS's quite ably for more than two decades so the CVF shouldn't be an issue. Dont be so quick to believe the media rubbish!
Profile picture for user nocutstoRAF

Member for

9 years 5 months

Posts: 956

You seem to have a vague understanding of the word 'commitment' there Flanker. It doesn't matter what 'worth' they have if we have committed to a defence agreement in good faith. To back out of those agreements would cost us far more, showing bad faith to allies, than the amount to keep a duty aircraft carrier operational. Besides CVF is designed, like the T45's, to be a lot more economical than its predecessors. The guideline was to have 2 CVF's running on the same budget as the 3 CVS's. We have managed to deploy the CVS's quite ably for more than two decades so the CVF shouldn't be an issue. Dont be so quick to believe the media rubbish!
It terms of monetary value surely the cost would be higher if we cancelled the CVF's (and presumably did not purchase F-35's) as we need to be able to meet our NATO commitments and in the longer term this would have been more than covered by a maritime expeditionary force cantered around our CVF’s and amphibious lift and if you move away from that then you need to massively expand the army and the heavy lift capacity of the RAF and deploy a continental style army (to be fair I stolen this line of thinking from recent RUSI papers www.rusi.org). Unless the idea is to pull out of NATO and become like Switzerland (i.e. neutral) which only makes sense if we give up our nuclear deterrent, any overseas territories, pull out of the EC, end our involvement in the Commonwealth and generally ignore the world.
Profile picture for user Jonesy

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 4,875

Unless the idea is to pull out of NATO and become like Switzerland (i.e. neutral) which only makes sense if we give up our nuclear deterrent, any overseas territories, pull out of the EC, end our involvement in the Commonwealth and generally ignore the world.
Many do advocate just that - we cant afford defence so scrap the lot of it because we'll never be invaded and, even if we do, well....we've always won in the past and the US will be there to call on. Pure Guardian-reader logic. The truth of the matter is that, if we behave like this, the global community sees the UK as a nation unwilling to meet its commitments, acting in bad faith towards its friends and allies and cutting off those who depend on it for their safety. Would you do business with a person who you saw as willing to back out on their friends and partners and willfully leave people in the lurch?. Personally I wouldn't. That scales up to the national level too. Its a widely accepted fact that meeting our obligations over the Falklands brought real, tangible, benefits to Britain. We were seen as a people willing to make the highest sacrifices to keep our word. Those who would oppose us were taught something of our resolve and those who had agreements with us felt safer in those relations and more disposed to enhance them. When we have an annual surplus, in the bloated Social Security budget, of about £8bn in unclaimed benefits then, yes, we can afford those commitments as the price of abrogating them will, indirectly, be far higher.
Profile picture for user nocutstoRAF

Member for

9 years 5 months

Posts: 956

Many do advocate just that - we cant afford defence so scrap the lot of it because we'll never be invaded and, even if we do, well....we've always won in the past and the US will be there to call on. Pure Guardian-reader logic. The truth of the matter is that, if we behave like this, the global community sees the UK as a nation unwilling to meet its commitments, acting in bad faith towards its friends and allies and cutting off those who depend on it for their safety. Would you do business with a person who you saw as willing to back out on their friends and partners and willfully leave people in the lurch?. Personally I wouldn't. That scales up to the national level too. Its a widely accepted fact that meeting our obligations over the Falklands brought real, tangible, benefits to Britain. We were seen as a people willing to make the highest sacrifices to keep our word. Those who would oppose us were taught something of our resolve and those who had agreements with us felt safer in those relations and more disposed to enhance them. When we have an annual surplus, in the bloated Social Security budget, of about £8bn in unclaimed benefits then, yes, we can afford those commitments as the price of abrogating them will, indirectly, be far higher.
I totally agree with the sentiment that if we reduced our armed forces by a large amount that we would be seen as breaking our moral compact with NATO, the EC (under the Lisbon Treaty), the Commonwealth and our overseas dependencies. By the way I am just left of centre when it comes to economic policies, but I firmly step to the right when comes to defence (I want a guaranteed ring fence defence budget equal to 2% GDP, and combat operations to be cover out of a central reserve not the defence budget) and I find the argument of turning UK into a self defence force is flawed as we are not equipped to be a self defence force and we would need to spend a lot in the next decade to have the right force mix while no longer enjoying the protection of NATO

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 272

we cant afford defence so scrap the lot of it
Which is of course the biggest fallacy going. We could afford a much larger military but we choose as a country to spend our revenue elsewhere. I think most of those types are Guardianistas still not over post imperial guilt 30 years after most of the country have moved on!
The truth of the matter is that, if we behave like this, the global community sees the UK as a nation unwilling to meet its commitments, acting in bad faith towards its friends and allies and cutting off those who depend on it for their safety. Would you do business with a person who you saw as willing to back out on their friends and partners and willfully leave people in the lurch?. Personally I wouldn't.
Not only that, there will be plenty of countries worldwide willing to step into our place to take over those responsibilities.

Member for

11 years 9 months

Posts: 334

I don't think the amount we spend is the problem we have a rather large defence budget, it's how the MOD spends the money that is the problem and how the current procurement process works. [EDIT] Being constantly at war on a peace time budget probably doesn't help.

Member for

13 years 10 months

Posts: 1,039

The fact that they found Oil in the Falklands last month is another factor that they will need to consider when they do their strategic review in terms of vessels in service. There could potentially be many hundreds of Billions of tax revenue sitting down there and as we all know it is a sensitive issue in South America.

Member for

10 years 4 months

Posts: 698

You dont see the virtue, for a nation with numerous overseas defence commitments, in having forward deployable airpower independent of local base-in considerations equipped with its own, organic, defence and logistics infrastructure?.
All I can see is an enormous national deficit (brought about by a banking crisis) and an MoD that just can't get a handle on defence costs (brought about by incompetance within the department). Too many projects are delivered late and grossly over budget, too many projects are intended to serve a concept of British power which can't be justified by the wealth of the nation. I think it's time for Britain to understand that its days as a World Power are over, that these 'numerous overseas defence commitments' are a complete waste of time, taxpayers money, and the lives of British service men and women. The defence budget should be cut and cut and cut. A better way of 'fighting' for Britain found, a better way of fighting Al Qaida should be found and the armed services brought back from Afghanistan. Sorry if this offends as I'm sure it will ... Regards

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 272

I think it's time for Britain to understand that its days as a World Power are over
I love people who get patronising like that, you'll be telling us Elvis is dead next right? :eek: Defence spending is little more than 2% of GDP therefore the UK can obviously afford it.
Profile picture for user Jonesy

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 4,875

All I can see is an enormous national deficit (brought about by a banking crisis) and an MoD that just can't get a handle on defence costs (brought about by incompetance within the department).
Of course you do. That is simple and easily quantifiable. What you dont see, because you aren't interested in looking, is what comes from the investment in defence. You dont see with many thousands of UK jobs supported by the defence spend, you dont see Britains retention of key high-tech skills in its manufacturing base because of its defence industry, you dont see the reassurance given to friends and allies of British forces on the ground stood shoulder-to-shoulder with them. Most importantly you dont see the impact, on Britain, of the course of action you are proposing. You dont comprehend that when we give up our ability to influence world events, even on the modest scale we now enjoy, we lose our voice in those events. At a time when globalisation has driven international communication and engagement to new heights you are proposing we withdraw from our position in that world and adopt the policy of the isolationist?. All to save a few billion here and there....money that the Social Security budget wastes every month?. The problem here isnt with the budget....the problem here is with the amount that goes on that you don't see.
too many projects are intended to serve a concept of British power which can't be justified by the wealth of the nation.
Lets stop this absurd notion that we cant afford a military right now. Look at the defence budget as a porportion of GDP. Then look at the Social Security budget. Compare and contrast.
I think it's time for Britain to understand that its days as a World Power are over, that these 'numerous overseas defence commitments' are a complete waste of time, taxpayers money, and the lives of British service men and women.
...and you appear to be someone else who has only a very vague grasp on what the word 'commitment' means!.

Member for

10 years 4 months

Posts: 698

Of course you do. That is simple and easily quantifiable. What you dont see, because you aren't interested in looking, is what comes from the investment in defence. You dont see with many thousands of UK jobs supported by the defence spend, you dont see Britains retention of key high-tech skills in its manufacturing base because of its defence industry, you dont see the reassurance given to friends and allies of British forces on the ground stood shoulder-to-shoulder with them. Most importantly you dont see the impact, on Britain, of the course of action you are proposing. You dont comprehend that when we give up our ability to influence world events, even on the modest scale we now enjoy, we lose our voice in those events. At a time when globalisation has driven international communication and engagement to new heights you are proposing we withdraw from our position in that world and adopt the policy of the isolationist?. All to save a few billion here and there....money that the Social Security budget wastes every month?. The problem here isnt with the budget....the problem here is with the amount that goes on that you don't see. Lets stop this absurd notion that we cant afford a military right now. Look at the defence budget as a porportion of GDP. Then look at the Social Security budget. Compare and contrast. ...and you appear to be someone else who has only a very vague grasp on what the word 'commitment' means!.
There is little point in arguing with an out-an-out militarist, but ... it is of the greatest regret to me that successive governments have cut and cut again R&D budgets for potential non-military projects which would have brought immense benefits to UK PLC but it has happened under both blue and pink parties and we have to live with it. I'd rather not live with it having spent a life-time in high tech industry as an engineering designer but there you are. Brian Cox is right, absolutely right, in his wish for research budgets to be increased rather than slashed but you can guarantee that slashing the already small research budgets is what will occur with great effect to the future prosperity of the UK, and greater affects on future social services budgets. The social services budget is needed to support people you are not as fortunate as you and I. Unless the industrial base of the UK expands and, what is more, expands where there are massive pockets of institutionalised unemployment I don't see how the social service budget can be decreased without causing immense hardship to people who are already on, and below, the poverty line. It is my belief that the defence of the UK is not, absolutely not, best served by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, those wars do not need, and have not needed, aircraft carriers. It doesn't seem to me to be isolationist to say this, not at all, rather it is to say that Britain should not export violence to the rest of the world, and we would be better off, in every sense, if we didn't export violence. If it comes to us, then respond, but don't export it. The British armed forces are suffering dreadful casualties because of policies by successive governments and the 'by jingo' attitudes of people like you. We need, in a very uncertain world, the armed forces and they need to be properly equipped, but what we British and the British armed forces need are sensible attitudes towards defence, not the foolish policies which are current. Regards
Profile picture for user Jonesy

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 4,875

..but ... it is of the greatest regret to me that successive governments have cut and cut again R&D budgets for potential non-military projects which would have brought immense benefits to UK PLC
Why is the government responsible for stumping up seed money for private industry to get rich off?. If they think they can develop a merchantable product let them pay for their own R&D!. In your concept of endless government sponsored research budgets taxpayers money is poured down the holes on the 'iffy' projects that may not see a return. No one benefits from those. The commercially viable products are self supporting and dont need the taxpayer money poured into them.
The social services budget is needed to support people you are not as fortunate as you and I. Unless the industrial base of the UK expands and, what is more, expands where there are massive pockets of institutionalised unemployment I don't see how the social service budget can be decreased without causing immense hardship to people who are already on, and below, the poverty line.
Stuff and nonsense. I had to move 200 miles away from my home and friends and extended family in order to pursue my career. I freely expect to have to move again. I do this, moving my family, because I dont expect/demand someone to come along and plonk a job on my doorstep for me!. The social security budget can be decreased by snapping people out of this indolent excuse-making view where they DO expect to sit back and have opportunities gift-wrapped for them.
It is my belief that the defence of the UK is not, absolutely not, best served by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As you say, you don't see a lot, the simple fact is that militant Islam needs challenging militarily as well as in softer terms. Its a damnsight better having that fight in someone elses cities rather than ours. This is an irrlevence though as we are talking about aircraft carriers value to a nation with distant security commitments.
It doesn't seem to me to be isolationist to say this, not at all, rather it is to say that Britain should not export violence to the rest of the world, and we would be better off, in every sense, if we didn't export violence. If it comes to us, then respond, but don't export it.
IF VIOLENCE COMES TO US???. Do you know what you are saying there?. We dont want violence coming to us at all!!!. Our governments first and overriding responsibility is the security and safety of the UK populace - how many British civillians do you think represents a necessary level of sacrifice before we are entitled to act I wonder?. Christ man do you think this is marquis of queensbury rules or something?. Put down your bloody Guardian long enough to look around the world!. Wake up!.
The British armed forces are suffering dreadful casualties because of policies by successive governments and the 'by jingo' attitudes of people like you.
....and left to you and your myopic breed of wishful-thinkers it would be British cities and British civillians that take the casualties. Think about that.
We need, in a very uncertain world, the armed forces and they need to be properly equipped, but what we British and the British armed forces need are sensible attitudes towards defence, not the foolish policies which are current.
We need the ability to apply coercive force abroad in support of our foreign policy. The credible threat of force underpins all diplomacy....if you haven't realised that yet you are deeper into your Guardian than is healthy. Conventional deterrence is no different to nuclear deterrence - it relies on the availability and efficacy of a level of force, overwhelming and assured in nature, to make an opponent see the benefit in peaceful conflict resolution. Any way you slice it the aircraft carrier is a CRUCIAL component in that conventional deterrence.

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 1,240

The CVFs will apparently be able to carry upto 60 aircraft each. Is the exact specification of the airgroup decided yet? How many of those 60 will be fixed-wing(F-35B) for instance?

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 1,142

The CVFs will apparently be able to carry upto 60 aircraft each. Is the exact specification of the airgroup decided yet? How many of those 60 will be fixed-wing(F-35B) for instance?
Odd. I'd heard it was 40. You got a source? And from that 40 it's meant to be (at full war load) 36 F35's and 4 helos. Orion, what are you even doing in this thread. Take your discussion somewhere else, you'll only find "out and out militarists" from the dark ages who don't understand the world of sunshine and lollipops in here.

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 1,240

Odd. I'd heard it was 40. You got a source? And from that 40 it's meant to be (at full war load) 36 F35's and 4 helos.
http://www.helium.com/items/1442066-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carriers-of-the-royal-navy Among various other news sources available via googling. Thanks for the clarification. For a 65000t vessel it seems to be an 'inefficient' design by the traditional Western standards(1000t = 1 aircraft?).