The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
According to Janes (I think) the final one has just arrived, all slowly drip-fed under the radar via UOR. One confirmed crashed, that leaves five operated from Creech, unless a replacement was bought? I wil try and dig out the article.6? I thought we only had 2 (bought 3 but 1 crashed and destroyed)?
Last year, the RAF said it was buying 4, the 4th being a replacement for the lost one.
RAF - News by Date
I found this in Hansard - 29 Sep 2008
Lords Hansard text for 29 Sep 200829 Sep 2008 (pt 0024)
RAF - News by Date
I found this in Hansard - 29 Sep 2008
Lords Hansard text for 29 Sep 200829 Sep 2008 (pt 0024)
But no indication of dates. Subsequent parliamentary answers have stated that the number in use is withheld for reasons of operational security.
Sounds like Dark Blue is trying to get hold of as many fast jets as possible it would be nice to have 4 wings of fast jets. Reminds me when i spoke to a watch officer of Lusty who thought that the RN would have the majority of the F35's
kev 99
Member
I feel that 4 Fast jet squadrons would almost certainly mean the end of the joint force structure, if that were the case we may as well bite the bullet and go CATOBAR.
I still prefer STOVL just because you can use multiple platforms such as the LPH(R) replacement and its manpower smaller and easier for carrier quals agree you might as well get rid of joint structure. I still think sorite rate is more important than range (the F35B still has the range of a classic Hornet) plus now wouldn't be the best time to go CATOBAR not until EMALS has proven itself. The hassle of Steam would be worth it even with four fast jet squadrons
kev 99
Member
If I'm honest I don't have a huge problem with STOVL range wise, people seem to forget it will still be a massive improvement on the Harrier, my main gripes are on; internal payload and that would go away if we bought JDAMs instead of Paveway 4s, and AEW. Actually AEW is mostly the reason I'd prefer CATOBAR.
Last edited:
Found somewhere else (but foolishly didn't keep the link - doh!) that you're right, we are making the numbers up to 5, supposedly by the end of this year, though nothing on how many of them are now operational.
spsun100001
New Member
Tories announce threat to carriers
...a quote from the Shadow Chancellor in the Times where he suggests that the RN's carriers, the A400m and the Typhoon would be three projects where savings could be made.
Tories pinpoint three defence projects for cuts in 'snap Budget' - Times Online
After 12 years of a Labour government that has been one of the most unfriendly administrations to defence in modern history the main idea the Tories have is to be even more hostile. Still, it will help them in their promise to guarantee the overses aid budget which is important as we wouldn't want important recipients of our aid such as India to be unable to afford their aircraft carrier, nuclear submarine and new jet fighter programme.
In terms of the 3 areas, Typhoon is at the source of most of our procurement problems IMHO. A country surrounded geographically by its allies does not need £20 billion of tactical fighers. This year the contribution of Typhoon to UK defence has been two interceptions of Russian LRMP aircraft nearing UK airspace. However, the government have already scaled back numbers through foreign sales and a reduced tranche 3 buy so it is hard to see what extra the Tories could save bar some operating cost savings by mothballing more of the aircraft. The versions we will be left with are largely the early ones with rudimentary air to surface capability that have little relevance to our or anyone else's defence needs so I doubt there would be much of a market if we tried to flog more off.
Transport aircraft are essential. I'm not really bothered whether it's the A400M, more C130's or more C117's. We should buy whichever is more value but we do need them and just cancelling the A400m will leave us short.
As to the carriers, well, the Navy has sacrificed just about everything to get them and now it seems they might not arrive. I don't know how tight the contracts are but it wouldn't suprise me if the Tories tried to reduce the buy to one rather than none with contractors going along with that as being a better alternative than both being cancelled.
So, more fantastic news. It looks like the Tories won't give us the carriers and transport aircraft we need and might mothball more of the tactical limited capability fighters that we have blown most of the last decades defence procurement budget on.
If it wasn't so serious I'd be laughing.
...a quote from the Shadow Chancellor in the Times where he suggests that the RN's carriers, the A400m and the Typhoon would be three projects where savings could be made.
Tories pinpoint three defence projects for cuts in 'snap Budget' - Times Online
After 12 years of a Labour government that has been one of the most unfriendly administrations to defence in modern history the main idea the Tories have is to be even more hostile. Still, it will help them in their promise to guarantee the overses aid budget which is important as we wouldn't want important recipients of our aid such as India to be unable to afford their aircraft carrier, nuclear submarine and new jet fighter programme.
In terms of the 3 areas, Typhoon is at the source of most of our procurement problems IMHO. A country surrounded geographically by its allies does not need £20 billion of tactical fighers. This year the contribution of Typhoon to UK defence has been two interceptions of Russian LRMP aircraft nearing UK airspace. However, the government have already scaled back numbers through foreign sales and a reduced tranche 3 buy so it is hard to see what extra the Tories could save bar some operating cost savings by mothballing more of the aircraft. The versions we will be left with are largely the early ones with rudimentary air to surface capability that have little relevance to our or anyone else's defence needs so I doubt there would be much of a market if we tried to flog more off.
Transport aircraft are essential. I'm not really bothered whether it's the A400M, more C130's or more C117's. We should buy whichever is more value but we do need them and just cancelling the A400m will leave us short.
As to the carriers, well, the Navy has sacrificed just about everything to get them and now it seems they might not arrive. I don't know how tight the contracts are but it wouldn't suprise me if the Tories tried to reduce the buy to one rather than none with contractors going along with that as being a better alternative than both being cancelled.
So, more fantastic news. It looks like the Tories won't give us the carriers and transport aircraft we need and might mothball more of the tactical limited capability fighters that we have blown most of the last decades defence procurement budget on.
If it wasn't so serious I'd be laughing.
overlander
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,752
Like usually british politicians fighting to scrap the armed forces whether conservative or labour, I think that the future conservative government will build only 1 carrier this is more and more clear..
im sure it just talk the carriers are far two gone for any cancellation and Osborn is just posturing. The only one which could be easily broken out of would be A400 transport because the others have had too much spent on them hell the first blocks are already being mated on the CVFs.
overlander
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,754
Really labour have cut the navy in numbers but at least have mproved the global capability with amphibious shipping and the carriers but god help the Royal Navy if conservatives win the elections, it,s curious than in Britain the conservatives are more against military spending than labour, in reverse in my country Spain conservatives as in most countries spend more in defence than the left parties, I hope that at least the 2 carriers are built and adequately equiped, they are very important for British and european defence, if the conservatives cut the project they will make a bad service to biritish and european defence and they will be responsible to leave Britain without an adequate global deployment capability.
spsun100001
New Member
Hear what you say Ken but unfortunately what they do after they are in power is usually far worse than what they say they will do before getting elected.
It's clear there's no votes in defence but there is perceived to be votes in health and overseas aid so the money will go where the votes are not where it is needed.
anyway its just an investigation in to cancellation costs reamber defense is more important to Tory rank and file because this will not be popular among the old tory base.
This is not the first time Osborne as mention defense as a target
The following is an exert from the above mentioned news article involving Mr. Osbourne-
"He cited the three defence projects when asked to identify specific savings for a Budget, although he added: “There are some things we do not know. I do not know the details of some of the major defence projects which have been the subject of speculation in the newspapers. I simply do not know what the break clauses are in the Eurofighter programme or the A400M or the aircraft carriers. We do have those limitations.” "
The only thing he has really admitted to is that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Opposition parties do not have access to sensitive government data. So fairly typical newspaper article- no real news but the journalists ( & opposition MP's) are getting paid to do something so they'll just write nonsense and call it news.
With the current governmental economic backdrop, I could well believe defence procurement is going to take a hammering, but far less expensive not to get involved in new contracts in the first place ( trident replacement, more Astutes, FSC, plus a whole myriad of smaller procurements, etc) than to try cancelling ones your contractually committed to, and which are currently being built by a voting-casting workforce.
"He cited the three defence projects when asked to identify specific savings for a Budget, although he added: “There are some things we do not know. I do not know the details of some of the major defence projects which have been the subject of speculation in the newspapers. I simply do not know what the break clauses are in the Eurofighter programme or the A400M or the aircraft carriers. We do have those limitations.” "
The only thing he has really admitted to is that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Opposition parties do not have access to sensitive government data. So fairly typical newspaper article- no real news but the journalists ( & opposition MP's) are getting paid to do something so they'll just write nonsense and call it news.
With the current governmental economic backdrop, I could well believe defence procurement is going to take a hammering, but far less expensive not to get involved in new contracts in the first place ( trident replacement, more Astutes, FSC, plus a whole myriad of smaller procurements, etc) than to try cancelling ones your contractually committed to, and which are currently being built by a voting-casting workforce.
Even A400M has had 25% of the money spent, & if we cancelled it, we'd have to spend the money on other transport aircraft, which (unlike the A400M) would be entirely imported. At least the A400M has a large proportion of it made here.
Mmm..
I'd LOVE to be a fly on the wall on the next shadow cabinet meeting when they discuss this buffoon's comments !
He obviously has his head inserted in some orifice or cavity of his body, or possibly he lives in cloud-cuckoo-cuckoo land.
If 'breaking' any of these contracts was easy, do you not think that Labour would have had a go at the 3rd Tranche of euro fighter ? After all they've been looking at it for the last 5 - 7 years...
Yes, I'm not denying that the UK Govt have manged to 'delay' some of the purchases, & helped off-set the costs by selling some to the middle-east, but the contract was pretty much 'air-tight', because of the European alliance that is Eurofighter Consortium made it that way, with heavily stacked penalty clauses for pulling out or canceling.
You can bet your bottom dollar, that CVF & A400M are similar, after all BAE SYSTEMS didn't get to be 2nd or 3rd Largest defence contractor on the planet by writing contracts with large holes & gaps, or without serious penalty clauses built in.
Isn't that why CVF is being 's t r e t c h e d' over a longer build period, rather than being out-right canceled ??
Personally, I'd go to a gambling establishment & try to see what odds the bookmakers would give you on CVF being canceled.
I think he'd chase you from his store front with a broom, for being so silly....:dunce
SA
I'd LOVE to be a fly on the wall on the next shadow cabinet meeting when they discuss this buffoon's comments !
He obviously has his head inserted in some orifice or cavity of his body, or possibly he lives in cloud-cuckoo-cuckoo land.
If 'breaking' any of these contracts was easy, do you not think that Labour would have had a go at the 3rd Tranche of euro fighter ? After all they've been looking at it for the last 5 - 7 years...
Yes, I'm not denying that the UK Govt have manged to 'delay' some of the purchases, & helped off-set the costs by selling some to the middle-east, but the contract was pretty much 'air-tight', because of the European alliance that is Eurofighter Consortium made it that way, with heavily stacked penalty clauses for pulling out or canceling.
You can bet your bottom dollar, that CVF & A400M are similar, after all BAE SYSTEMS didn't get to be 2nd or 3rd Largest defence contractor on the planet by writing contracts with large holes & gaps, or without serious penalty clauses built in.
Isn't that why CVF is being 's t r e t c h e d' over a longer build period, rather than being out-right canceled ??
Personally, I'd go to a gambling establishment & try to see what odds the bookmakers would give you on CVF being canceled.
I think he'd chase you from his store front with a broom, for being so silly....:dunce
SA