The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Palnatoke]

Grim

The answer is both simple as well as complex.

The workers has to get a new trade or work their honorable trade in branches that are not directly competeing with the rest of the world on salary - that could f.ex. be production of high value goods or things that requires a high degree of know-how or production that can't be moved.

How you do that is complex.

Personally I have no doubt that the economical succes of scandinavien countries the last 20 years, have exactly to do with that type of socity's strength in helping workers to adapt to a changing economy. Though that is perhaps a political view.

 

[kev 99]

Grim

The answer is both simple as well as complex.

The workers has to get a new trade or work their honorable trade in branches that are not directly competeing with the rest of the world on salary - that could f.ex. be production of high value goods or things that requires a high degree of know-how or production that can't be moved.

How you do that is complex.

Personally I have no doubt that the economical succes of scandinavien countries the last 20 years, have exactly to do with that type of socity's strength in helping workers to adapt to a changing economy. Though that is perhaps a political view.

Easier said than done, what you are suggesting requires that the collapsed manufacturing industries are replaced with something else, what happens when they are not replaced? the population has no new industries to move into and the entire area turns into a benefits funded sink hole.

There are still sink holes in Britain that have never really recovered from the collapse of manufacturing, coal mining and steel industries during the early 80s, they have council estates where there are entire families with generations of members that have lived most of their life on benefits.

Britain may have moved over to a service economy but the majority of these jobs were located in Southern England and not everyone can up sticks and move to follow the work, and if you did there would not be enough jobs for them, so what you have are towns and cities that do not have work for much of the population.

Then what happens when the service sector jobs get outsourced to another country? many financial services and utilities companies are now outsourcing their call centres to India, soon you're going to end up in a situation where there are not enough low paid jobs for the population and as a result large proportions live of benefits.

We now have a situation where the Government are funding training schemes for the jobless, who will be qualified for jobs that do not exist.

Of course there are substantial Government failings at work here, but you can't outsource all of your low value jobs without creating a large population dependent on benefits.

As Grim said this is where the theoretical economics start to fall apart.

 

[Palnatoke]

Kev 99

I am not saying it's easy. But it can be done!
Take a look at Denmark, we have lost all or nearly all low value jobs indangered by foreign competion. One cheif reason is that the effective minimum hour wage for unskilled labour is in excess of 11 euros - then imagine how much a skilled labour demands...

Dispite that, before the financial crisis the unemployment was less than 2% and now it's still less than 4%.

As you mention, re-education, and up-qualification of the unemployed are important. And so is social services and unemployment benefits large enough to keep the familly afloat, in comparatively, decent circumstances (you don't want the unemployment problem to spill into the next generation!!!). Also, which I think is a clear error in the UK, it's important that the state makes sure that wealth is re-distributed regionally. If a region is taking a hit and gets lots of unemployed, the regional budget (county/state what ever it's called) is going to take a substantial hit(loss of tax income as well as more unemployment benefits) then the public schools and healthcare get underfunded, the ressourcefull then moves away with their income etc. a downward spiral hard to break. So it's make or break that the national-state is willing to divert significant funds into the troubled region, making sure that the public services are as good as everywhere else. You need good schools, not in the rich areas, but in the poor areas.

And can we compete with the chineese? OFCOURSE, we can, we have huge comparative advantages in our much higher developed socities - we just have to select a battleground where we can utilize our advantages, but repeating the same simple work function again and again for 30 years is not something we have advantages in: We have to get used to the idea that we will have to learn all life and change jobs many times.

 

[kev 99]

These things are only possible if the political will is there, the present government talk a good game regarding social justice but when it comes to jobs backed the financial services sector, the previous one didn't really care much about the poor, generally the working class didn't vote Tory.

The benefits system in the UK is a big hindrance to getting people back into work, there are too many loopholes that are easily exploited and not enough incentives for people to look for low paid jobs, if they have multiple children it can often pay better to stay on benefits, it also presents a safety net which allow people to be irresponsible by having children they can't afford to support. The next government is going to have to take a long look at the benefit system and make some politically tough choices, and quite possibly force people to look for work.

Urban regeneration schemes have a very poor record of success in the UK, simply put there is no substitute for having most of a population in work, if you take out large industries from an area chances are the local economy will fall down and it can take decades to fix.

I still don't see much to replace low value manufacturing jobs though, not every former factory worker has the means to become a highly skilled worker and there doesn't seem to be enough low skilled ones to go around, then again the Government could do more.................

 

[Padfoot]

Some real progress on the carriers


http://www.thisisnorthdevon.co.uk/bu...l/article.html

Appledore Queen Elizabeth Class Carrier shipyard project ¦ This is North Devon

Steel bow for huge warship due to leave Appledore
Thursday, August 20, 2009, 07:00

Comment on this story

THE first parts of Appledore Shipyard's contribution towards the biggest warship ever built on the British Isles are due to leave North Devon tomorrow.

The Appledore team is working on the steel bow sections for one of the largest shipbuilding projects ever placed by the Ministry of Defence.

Its £50 million contract is to build sections of two new Royal Navy aircraft carriers - titled the Queen Elizabeth Class Carrier project.

Eleven fabricated units weighing between 20 and 36 tonnes each will leave Appledore tomorrow evening bound for Rosyth.

Specialist barge transporters will be drafted in to make the three day journey to Scotland.

It will then take a further two days to get them off the barge and on to the dockside before they are taken to a holding area and then integrated with the rest of the project.

The parts leaving tomorrow are the first of some 20 shipments for each of the two vessels.

Shipbuilding director Andy Hamilton previously told the Journal that the Queen Elizabeth class contract had secured a future for the Appledore workforce.

It had enabled them to hire apprentices and build a substantial workforce which he said would contribute towards Appledore's shipbuilding heritage.

 

[PeterCrisp]

I know this is a little early to be thinking about but as the Carriers can only carry at most 70 F35 and the UK has ordered over 100 will they be swapping them about during the lifetime of service or will the same aircraft remain in storage waiting for use?
I ask this because of the talk of trying to extend the service life of the Eurofighter and because I have a feeling it's going to be a long wait for a replacement to even get considered. How long could the UK stretch the life of the F35 and is it possible to take measures at the start of an aircraft's life to extend that life or does that just add huge cost?

 

[swerve]

I know this is a little early to be thinking about but as the Carriers can only carry at most 70 F35 and the UK has ordered over 100 will they be swapping them about during the lifetime of service or will the same aircraft remain in storage waiting for use?

Much of the time only one carrier will have an air group embarked, & it won't be the full 36. But the problem isn't what to do with spare F-35s, but whether we'll have enough. They aren't only for carrier use. The RAF want to keep the majority for land-based use. And then you have to factor in training & operational conversion units . . .

Even if we get the 138 which are supposedly required, I don't think we'll have enough to support two carrier air groups, & we may not get that.

BTW, we haven't ordered over 100. I think we've ordered 3. We have a stated requirement for 138 - but we haven't actually ordered most of them them. Nor has anyone else, AFAIK.

 

[funtz]

Are there any UCAV projects for the new carriers?

 

[Padfoot]

Are there any UCAV projects for the new carriers?

I believe that the thinking is that they will be Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle carriers at some point in their 50 year lifespan.

This link has information on one of the UK's UCAV projects.

Taranis Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) Demonstrator - Air Force Technology

 

[riksavage]

Are there any UCAV projects for the new carriers?

Over the next decade we will witness a steep rise in the use of UAV's and UCAV's. After all what's not to like:

1. Long endurance

2. Potentially cheaper - no crew life support systems required

3. Duty of care - don't need to worry about downed crews, SAR ,or propaganda victory parades involving captured crews

4. Much higher deck take off and landing speeds (no crew G-Force constraints)

5. High weapons load

The UK/US Government are conducting joint studies under the Churchill programme looking at the impact of future UCAV/UAV technologies. The next Boeing dedicated carrier aircraft is being designed as a manned and unmanned platform. BAE will also be looking at a marinised Turanis.

 

[Sea Toby]

Much of the time only one carrier will have an air group embarked, & it won't be the full 36. But the problem isn't what to do with spare F-35s, but whether we'll have enough. They aren't only for carrier use. The RAF want to keep the majority for land-based use. And then you have to factor in training & operational conversion units . . .

Even if we get the 138 which are supposedly required, I don't think we'll have enough to support two carrier air groups, & we may not get that.

BTW, we haven't ordered over 100. I think we've ordered 3. We have a stated requirement for 138 - but we haven't actually ordered most of them them. Nor has anyone else, AFAIK.

Usually during peacetime there will only be one active deployed carrier. With 138 F-35B Lightning IIs, there should be enough for several squadrons for the RAF which will be basing aircraft on the CVFs. In a wartime situation another squadron would most likely be added to the active deployed carrier. I believe the RAF/RN are planning on six squadrons plus their training and conversion units.

If there is a wartime situation when both carriers would be deployed, four to six of the six squadrons could be deployed. Then again, a CVF can be deployed as a LPH amphibious ship as well, and with an allied force a second active CVF would most likely be deployed as a LPH... Thus reducing the demand for more F-35Bs for a second active CVF.....

When it comes to expeditionary warfare LPHs are in more demand than a CVF, especially when sea lifting the British army when with an allied force which has other carriers....

 

[kev 99]

That of course depends upon the MOD buying the stated 138, there are many people that think that this figure is looking pretty unlikely.

 

[harryriedl]

That of course depends upon the MOD buying the stated 138, there are many people that think that this figure is looking pretty unlikely.

I image the FAA would move heaven and earth to get the numbers like the RN has for the carriers. In fact its a bit easier for the justification for the aircraft now the carriers are being built.
Im sure the RAF would chip in

 

[kev 99]

I image the FAA would move heaven and earth to get the numbers like the RN has for the carriers. In fact its a bit easier for the justification for the aircraft now the carriers are being built.
Im sure the RAF would chip in

I agree fully, I just have grave doubts about the political will to properly fund the armed forces, we've been engaged in 2 war zones for years now and the MOD budget is going deeper and deeper down the toilet, the RAF and RN keep getting smaller..............

 

[harryriedl]

I agree fully, I just have grave doubts about the political will to properly fund the armed forces, we've been engaged in 2 war zones for years now and the MOD budget is going deeper and deeper down the toilet, the RAF and RN keep getting smaller..............

its one now but point remains the same. But Afganistan dose have the side effect of keeping the mil in headlines which dose make it politialy more difficult to reduse programs.

Problems is im always an optimist but lets wait and see

 

[Grim901]

its one now but point remains the same. But Afganistan dose have the side effect of keeping the mil in headlines which dose make it politialy more difficult to reduse programs.

Problems is im always an optimist but lets wait and see

Not necessarily a good thing. With all the half baked attempts by journalists to start analysing a military and procurement system they've never even paid attention to before, they are likely to ask why we are paying for ships and planes that won't help "our boys" in Helmand. That is as deep as their analysis will go, they won't even address the issue that we should be doing both.

 

[kev 99]

Not necessarily a good thing. With all the half baked attempts by journalists to start analysing a military and procurement system they've never even paid attention to before, they are likely to ask why we are paying for ships and planes that won't help "our boys" in Helmand. That is as deep as their analysis will go, they won't even address the issue that we should be doing both.

Exactly, I've been waiting a long time to see an article in the mainstream press that addressed both equipment shortages in Afganistan AND the general budget being starved of cash with the UK armed forces being constantly downsized as a result.

 

[harryriedl]

Exactly, I've been waiting a long time to see an article in the mainstream press that addressed both equipment shortages in Afganistan AND the general budget being starved of cash with the UK armed forces being constantly downsized as a result.

true especialy the ex mil columist who come with their own bias I.E the times habit to bring ex mil figures to bash the navy.

Kev I think you'll be waiting a very long time for that kind of coverage

 

[kev 99]

true especialy the ex mil columist who come with their own bias I.E the times habit to bring ex mil figures to bash the navy.

Kev I think you'll be waiting a very long time for that kind of coverage

No argument there, the media in this country are, for the most part, a waste of space.

 

[riksavage]

Usually during peacetime there will only be one active deployed carrier. With 138 F-35B Lightning IIs, there should be enough for several squadrons for the RAF which will be basing aircraft on the CVFs. In a wartime situation another squadron would most likely be added to the active deployed carrier. I believe the RAF/RN are planning on six squadrons plus their training and conversion units.

If there is a wartime situation when both carriers would be deployed, four to six of the six squadrons could be deployed. Then again, a CVF can be deployed as a LPH amphibious ship as well, and with an allied force a second active CVF would most likely be deployed as a LPH... Thus reducing the demand for more F-35Bs for a second active CVF.....

When it comes to expeditionary warfare LPHs are in more demand than a CVF, especially when sea lifting the British army when with an allied force which has other carriers....

From day one the carriers have been designed as tri-service assets, so in war time I would expect to see F35B's, Apache (UK variant designed with folding blades), Chinook, Merlin and possibly UCAV's stationed aboard. After all the lifts are big enough. The UK now operates six hellfire capable Reapers based out of Creech, I wonder whether these could be adapted to fly from the carriers (folding wings would need to be incorporated)? I'm convinced the deck is long enough to facilitate landings / take-off. They could still be flown remotely from Creech or the UK providing long endurance surveillance / offensive strike in a littoral environment.