"Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier"

[Ouroboros]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6888962.ece

Some details:

HMS Prince of Wales will be used as an amphibious commando ship, with only helicopters on board instead of JSF aircraft.

JSF order cut to 50 planes

The RAF, which had been due to replace its Tornado aircraft with the JSF, will now equip all its frontline squadrons with Eurofighter aircraft instead.

And the Pièce de résistance:

The move will leave the navy without a carrier when the Queen Elizabeth goes into refit, leaving open the possibility that it might have to borrow one from the French navy. In a meeting with Brown last year, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, had suggested that refits of French and British aircraft carriers should be co-ordinated.

[Fmk.6john]

The JSF is the biggest waste of time and money in the history of aviation..............end of!.

JB.

[ferny]

Only 1 carrier ! its a joke! Nice to know that as island we can defend our selves !

[GrahamS]

Mmmm - I can see both carriers being cancelled along with the JSF which is looking more and more like a (fat) white elephant.

As somebody said in the letters why have aircraft that are STOVL on a carrier that is capable of launching proper aircraft? Why not have conventional aircraft instead or a smaller carrier?

Graham

[xffw45343tg]

Hmm. Wonder how many slow, outdated, unstealthy, radarless, really rather useless Harriers you can buy for the cost of an F-35B? Obviously they'd be no good for the kind of military ambitions an F-35 operator might have, but they've seemed kinda useful in recent months.

But I'm biased and not clever enough to understand how a project could get so over-budget in the first place.

(Edited to fix appalling grammar and typos)

Edited October 26, 2009 by Kirk

[spitfire]

No problem, the French Navy can protect us !

Cheers

Den

[JohnT]

Heard Sir Christopher Meyer on BBC Radio 4 Start The week this am on way into work and he said something which made more sense than most things re what we do usually and pertiment to this abject nonsense.

I was driving and therefor only half paying attention but I think the gist of what he was saying was that we need to identify what our national interests are. Once we have done that we should then put policy and hardware into place to prosecute those interests. What we tend to do is leave the various Government Depts, Foreign Office, MOD etc to do their own thing far too much and as a result we fail in our prepartion and planning.

Sounded about right and would explain this fiasco over the carriers, JSF, as well as Trident, Eurofighter Typhoon - need I go on?

On a previous post I said I wondered if only two carriers were enough and were not three the minimum for force credibility? But one ! What about the need for 2 decks to have an alternate landing deck if one goes down? Or do we only go along with our European allies and share with France? Too bad if they veto our Foreign Policy a la Iraq and leave their carrier in port. (ok bad choice of example but you see where I am coming from!!!)

One is a waste of money as it normally can't do the job on its own without a divert land base or other countries carrier in anything like a real war situation or so I would have thought.

[sonofjim]

whole thing stinks dont it i'm with you

but lets not get political on here folks

jim

[CockneyCol]

I now understand that standard orders to all service personnel and civillians are as follows - When under attack from an enemy force either a) roll over and put your arms and legs in the air so your tummy can be tickled or firmly grasp your ankles and wave your posterior in the air, undergarments are optional!

I can hear Nelson and Churchill et al spinning at 10,000 RPM

Cheers

Col'

[Enzo the Magnificent]

The RAF, which had been due to replace its Tornado aircraft with the JSF, will now equip all its frontline squadrons with Eurofighter aircraft instead.

But hasn't the planned acquisition of Typhoons already been cut drastically?

I also question the wisdom of replacing a two-seater aicraft, where each crewmember has a well defined and seperate role, with a single-seater where the pilot would have to carry out both roles at once. Wasn't unduly high cockpit workload a major factor in the Jaguar's high accident rate?

[philbean]

Should have gone for the Rafaele-M - but then the press would have had a field day. "Britain buys french planes shock horror !!!"

As for the carriers.. typical British farce.

We still want to be GREAT Britain with the best navy in the world. Well guess what - hardware costs money! You either spend a small fortune and get the best kit.. or you accept we can't afford it and scale back the forces, and stop being the USA's little brother.

[Matt Roberts]

Ok one of the recent mags over here (Air Int'l or AFM) had a statement that the F-35B had been dropped and the F-35C was replacing it in the FAA.

Any truth to that?

[emlra]

But hasn't the planned acquisition of Typhoons already been cut drastically?

I also question the wisdom of replacing a two-seater aicraft, where each crewmember has a well defined and seperate role, with a single-seater where the pilot would have to carry out both roles at once. Wasn't unduly high cockpit workload a major factor in the Jaguar's high accident rate?

Eurofighter was originally intended to be fitted with GUNS.

HMG in their wisdom said 'No....guns are old hat.....missiles is the in thing!' so they were re-designed to have no guns, the control systems and forward fuselage were redesign in accordance with the edict.....and production began.

We couldn't afford to pay for all that were needed ( too much being paid out on 'benefits' etc)......so the order was shortened.......The Middle East got the balance of production while we were re-filling the 'piggy bank'.

GB then decides we need the Typhoon as a ground attack fighter......fit guns!

Redesign (at huge cost necessary ......guess which bits are back on the drawing board!) delays and the '*anking crisis' ensued....and where are we now?

Flying clapped out overworked TSR2 / F11/ Phantom replacements.

Scrapping all our Naval fighters because they have also been 'run into the ground'.

Our spare 'through deck Cruiser'(sic) is mothballed for spares to keep tother two in the Gulf.

The Army has Tonka toys instead of good cross country vehicles.......(There is no truth in the rumour that the Pinzgauers are so reliable that the gearboxes are fitted using Velcro and the new Lightweight Radio kit breaks the chassis!)

Pongos are having to puchase their own 'fit for purpose kit from Milletts!

And we have the cheek to call it a Defence POLICY!

Ha!

And the politicos are all the same no matter which side of the Shed they sit on!

Bitter and twisted, me?

Probably, but honest!

Rex

(expecting to be 'moderated!')

Sorry.

Edited October 26, 2009 by emlra

[Dave Fleming]

Eurofighter was originally intended to be fitted with GUNS.

HMG in their wisdom said 'No....guns are old hat.....missiles is the in thing!' so they were re-designed to have no guns, the control systems and forward fuselage were redesign in accordance with the edict.....and production began.

We couldn't afford to pay for all that were needed ( too much being paid out on 'benefits' etc)......so the order was shortened.......The Middle East got the balance of production while we were re-filling the 'piggy bank'.

GB then decides we need the Typhoon as a ground attack fighter......fit guns!

Redesign (at huge cost necessary ......guess which bits are back on the drawing board!) delays and the '*anking crisis' ensued....and where are we now?

The guns were never removed from the RAF Eurofighters - the plan to replace them with ballast failed when it was realised only a piece of 27mm Mauser shaped ballast would work without major software re-write. So the guns were to be fitted, but not used (and no ammo bought). When the gun was needed, it was relatively siimple to bring it back online (THe cynical may think that it was originally only offered as a sacrfifice with the knowledge that it wasn't practical......)

[Julien]

Sad,

but this does not surprise me.

Julien

[PHIL B]

I have changed my signature to reflect the MoD's decision making approach...

[PHREAK]

A voice from the inside says that the bean counters are desperately looking for a way to give the second carrier the chop along with that fangled US V/STOL contraption.

We simply haven't got the funds to buy them....leave alone pay for all of our pensions!

[XV107]

I'm starting to worry about Michael Smith, who used to write some good stuff, but who now seems to be developing a habit of producing utter guff on a regular basis -possibly thanks to slack editing and crass headline generation.

His headline says that the second carrier has been cancelled - but wait! - we get Prince of Wales as a very large LPH according to the article text.

Which means that the second carrier hasn't been cancelled - the key point is the reduction in the JSF buy, which will mean that it is only possible to put one air wing to sea at any one time, rather than the theoretical surge capability of putting two carriers with 36-strong air wings to sea at any point.

The article doesn't address the point that if the F-35 enjoys the sort of production run envisaged, it should be possible to buy a few more when the economy picks up, which could then place a second air wing in the frame.

The 'borrow a French carrier' angle is one which has been around for some time, and is, in fact, a case of having a shared vessel. The French could equally say that they were being forced to borrow a British carrier if they took the same line. The idea is that by phasing the refits for the Queen Elizabeth and the Charles de Gaulle in a sensible fashion, a third hull could be made available to whichever navy has a carrier in refit at the time; on other occasions, the carrier would be kept at a reasonable degree of readiness (by whom is never clear), so that if the French needed to sally forth with a two carrier task force they could, and the same would apply to us. The deal would be that neither nation would be able to veto the other from using the 'spare' carrier (if it were free). Clearly, there are some pretty obvious complications, but the idea that we'd have to go chapeau dans la main to the French to beg for one of their decks isn't what's on the cards if [a big if] the plan comes to pass - and there's no guarantee that it will, since French views on the affordability of a CVF of their own haven't been firmed up.

Cynics might suggest that this is a PR piece from Dark Blue proponents, attempting to get sympathy for a cut which - unless the deck is somehow made impossible for a VSTOL jet to use while still accessible to a helicopter (up to and including a Chinook in size) - isn't actually a ship-building cut, but a bid to sow the idea that the RAF won't get its hands on the F-35.

The alternative cynic's view is that this is a softening up effort which will see the FAA quietly hand over the fast jet angle of carrier aviation to the light blue, on condition that the F-35 squadrons will contain a respectable number of RN chaps (as per Joint Force Harrier), and justified on the basis that the RN alone cannot afford to operate a small fleet of fast jets - but, hey! - at least it has two carriers, even if it is necessary to refer to the second as a 'Large LPH' in polite company to disguise the fact that it can operate VSTOL jets...

There has to be some doubt, in truth, whether the FAA could generate the numbers to put a full 36-strong JSF force aboard a carrier anyway (I have heard too many non-aviating RN officers express the view that the idea of the FAA being able to produce an air wing for one carrier let alone two is 'fanciful'/'impractical'/ 'an interesting idea'/'fantasy' to attribute this to just RAF black propaganda as some claim).

As for the Typhoon, I think the article is getting at the notion that an idea has been floated - and nothing more than this - that the savings realised by having a two-type fast jet fleet might justify buying the full 232 Typhoons (or even a few more than that), and retiring the GR4 force/Harrier force [depending upon which variant of the idea the person you're talking to has heard] much earlier than planned.

In essence, this idea would see something like ten or twelve Typhoon squadrons in the front line by about 2016 - a front line strength, minus the OCU and OEU - of between 120 and 140 aircraft, plus a small number of GR4s/Harriers (dependent upon which is kept) which would run on until a number of F-35s (about four squadrons' worth with a strength of 9 or 10 aircraft each) enter service in the 2018-2020 timeframe.

But getting back to the article, there are a number of aspects of it which don't support the headline, and other bits which are not entirely accurate - and it isn't breaking any confidences to make that point...

[Geoff_B]

The articles speculation is a little bit iffy in places as the CVF's were always likely to run as per Lusty & Ark with only one acting as Carrier with the other as LPH. The configuring of PoW to LPH only doesnt quite make sense as likely to be completed to same state as OE but with possibly a less comprehensive comms and radar systems. However if QE ever scheduled for refit then surely PoW would recieve a minor reift in advance to enable her to operate as STOVL carrier during the QE refit.

The only way bringing the French CdG carrier into play is if QE is completed as CTOL carrier and the F-35C is ordered in favour of the F-35B !!!!.

Considering the F-35B is due to start its STOVL flight program this quarter, and the fact the RAF cheifs have been so willing to scrap Harrier to safeguard their precious Typhoons then its possible the Times have actually got wind of an MOD proposal to go CTOL with FAA F-35C (or even Rafale/SuperBug !!) should the F-35B prove to be a lemon. Then it would be unlikely that we could afford to complete both carriers as full CTOL versions with Catapults and Arrestor gear along with the training of two crews.

The key factor is that both carriers are to be completed; equipment and aircraft can always be aquired and fitted at a later date should funding and requirement exist.

Geoff

[Rob M.]

As one of my lecturers once pointed out - Steel is cheap. Build them big enough and you can refit them later.

Cheers,

Rob M.

[XV107]

Geoff, the RAF 'scrap the Harrier' line wasn't taken to protect Typhoon, although there has been some spin to that effect.

The easiest way to achieve cost savings was to cut a fleet of aircraft, possibly with a base closure as well to realise even bigger savings.

The three aircraft fleets vulnerable to being canned were the F3, the Harrier and the GR4. The latter, as the backbone of the RAF's FJ effort was never going to be binned straight away, not least because the decision to slow down Typhoon deliveries meant that the RAF was already a squadron short of AD aircraft, and the delay in reforming 6 Sqn exacerbated this. We could, in theory, have deployed XI(F) as the replacement for the Harrier, but the Treasury insisted that the aircraft replacing the Harriers in theatre needed to be there for about three years for reasons of maximum cost effectiveness. On top of that, the money to integrate Paveway IV and possibly Brimstone to give Typhoon maximum flexibility in the AG role wasn't forthcoming. The end result was that it made most sense to deploy the GR4 as the Harrier replacement in AFG, therefore the GR4 was pretty much saved from the chop.

This left the Harrier and the F3. Despite the fact that drawing down the F3 force early means (thanks to the slowing of deliveries of Typhoon to accommodate the Saudi order) that we will be even shorter of AD squadrons - we are deemed to need a minimum of five to maintain sovereignty of UK airspace. We have three - the fact that removing the Harrier would turn the CVS into an LPH and was badly received by the RN (not aided by the last CAS's bizarre decision to go down in a blaze of inter-service rivalry onto which he'd thrown petrol) meant that the F3 was the force to get the bullet.

The Treasury did at least have the sense to accept that getting rid of the entire fleet in one go before 6 Sqn had stood up would be folly, although some cynics suggest that the fear of getting a bad press ('UK left Vulnerable Thanks to Brown's Air Force Cuts' style headlines - as the realisation that we'd gone down to an AD strength last seen in the 1920s dawned in the media) may have more to do with this than any reasoned analysis of defence requirements...

[Seahawk]

only[/b] two carriers were enough and were not three the minimum for force credibility? But one ! What about the need for 2 decks to have an alternate landing deck if one goes down? Or do we only go along with our European allies and share with France? Too bad if they veto our Foreign Policy a la Iraq and leave their carrier in port. (ok bad choice of example but you see where I am coming from!!!)

One is a waste of money as it normally can't do the job on its own without a divert land base or other countries carrier in anything like a real war situation or so I would have thought.

Not long ago an admiral said either this country funds the defence equipment programme properly or it accepts having an international presence on a par with Belgium's. The Government has obviously decided. Mind you there are lots of very good thing about Belgium: good beer, good chocolate and comfortable trains that run on time: maybe we shall be able to console ourselves with them.

Nick

[Geoff_B]

On Defence-Aerospace.com there was a short reply from the MOD in response to the Weekends articles in the Press, the MOD spokesperson saying whilst its true some serious reappraisal of the defence spending is required as a result of the current economic situation and the continuing need to support our forces in Afghanistan, the Minister remains 100% behine the Aircraft Carriers program.

The Webeditor added a personal note to the post to highlight that whilst they had reassured the carrier build, they made no comment at all with regard to the JSF program!!!!!!

[JohnT]

On Defence-Aerospace.com there was a short reply from the MOD in response to the Weekends articles in the Press, the MOD spokesperson saying whilst its true some serious reappraisal of the defence spending is required as a result of the current economic situation and the continuing need to support our forces in Afghanistan, the Minister remains 100% behine the Aircraft Carriers program.

The Webeditor added a personal note to the post to highlight that whilst they had reassured the carrier build, they made no comment at all with regard to the JSF program!!!!!!

Isn't that what the Football Club Chairman says about the Manager the day before he gets sacked?

[kspriss]

..if this is a return to PROPER naval Aviation with catapults and arrester systems, why ARE we bothering with the STOVL route?..buy some proper (and probably cheaper) aircraft, ditch the f-35 totally and get on with it!!

steve