Yes I believe they are to be able to act independantly, also don't forget in an operation where both groups are together that the Amphibious group will need to come closer to shore than the Carrier, that would split the escorts.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
In today's broadsheet newspaper (The Age) the following article was published. While it talks about Australia's naval expansion plans, it relates directly to the discussion on this thread, even claiming that RN CVFs will not go ahead.
Living in a new war order
February 8, 2007
Australia's naval expansion plans carry grave risk at a time of ever more sophisticated weaponry, writes Hugh White.
TONY Blair seems set to cut the Royal Navy in half, while John Howard is planning the biggest peacetime expansion in Australia's naval capability in 100 years. The two men have marched together in the war on terror, but they apparently think very differently about strategic and defence policy. Which one is right? The differences have been highlighted in recent weeks as the British press reported plans to mothball up to 19 of the RN's 44 warships and cancel orders to build two big new aircraft carriers. British fogies of all ages are going apoplectic at the prospect that France will then have a bigger navy than Britain. Nelson stirs in his marble tomb.
The hero of Trafalgar might feel more at home in Australia. Howard's Government is buying two large amphibious ships, each three times the size of the ships they replace, and three air warfare destroyers, which will be the largest, most capable and most expensive warships Australia has bought since the 1950s. They will also entail the most complex and risky shipbuilding project Australia has ever undertaken.
Why the difference between old allies who boast so much of their shared values and traditions? The most obvious reason is that, notwithstanding their close alignment in the war on terror, Blair and Howard see the world very differently. Blair, in a major defence policy speech last month, put it simply: "September 11, 2001 changed everything." For him, apparently, the era when armed forces were built to fight conventional wars is over. In future, he said, Britain's military role will be to fight a global campaign against Islamic extremism.
Blair talked about Africa and the Middle East, but not about Asia, where the growth of China and India, and the transformation of Japan, raise a new set of strategic questions. Not even a word about Russia, whose future relations with Europe seem so uncertain.
Howard, too, is committed to the war on terror, but his commitment is qualified and counterbalanced by two greater concerns: instability in our near neighbourhood, and the risks to the future strategic balance in Asia posed by the rise of China, India and Japan. Australia's defence policy is especially driven by concerns about the future stability of Asia. Even after five years of continuous deployments on stabilisation operations in the Middle East and in our backyard, most of Australia's defence spending still goes to the high-tech air and naval forces that constitute Australia's insurance against the breakdown of stability in the wider Asian region.
The latest demonstration of this has been the Government's surprise, and surprising, decision to shop for 25 new F-18 F Superhornet aircraft at a probable cost of more than $4 billion. That is a clear sign of its determination to sustain Australia's regional air combat and strike superiority even if (or when) the Joint Strike Fighters it has committed to buy arrive late.
Seen this way, the contrast between Britain and Australia looks stark. But when we look a little more closely the differences narrow, and some interesting questions emerge. First, Blair's Government is not so insouciant about the future global strategic balance between powerful states as his speech suggests. Though billed as a headline address on Britain's defence future, it glossed over the biggest and most expensive defence decision by his Government — to replace Britain's ageing nuclear forces with a new generation of warheads, missiles and submarines at a cost of £20 billion ($A51 billion).
No one builds nuclear weapons to deter Osama bin Laden because, as Americans keep reminding us, he cannot be deterred. Britain is updating its nuclear forces because it, too, recognises that the stable international order we now enjoy is not etched in stone, and careful governments need to take a long-term view of how best to protect their interests if the 21st century brings a new era of major power tension or war. Seen this way, Blair's naval cuts reflect not so much a complacent view of global stability as a straightforward decision that nuclear weapons are a more cost-effective way to protect Britain's traditional strategic interests than a big navy.
Of course, the nuclear option is not so readily available to Australia as it is to Britain. But that does not mean we have nothing to learn from the Brits. Howard and his advisers might like to ponder why the British have decided that traditional naval capability, based in traditional frigates, destroyers and aircraft carriers, is no longer a cost-effective choice for high-level conventional conflict.
The answer is painfully plain. Surface ships are large, slow, easy to find and easy to sink. They are also very expensive and carry lots of people. As sensor and weapons systems have improved, warships have become more and more vulnerable. In consequence, warships have been jammed with more and more systems to defend themselves. That has made them more and more expensive, and has kept their crews large.
And all to no avail. Surface ships remain vulnerable. In a conflict against any adversary armed with modern aircraft, anti-ship missiles, sea mines and submarines — and that means almost any medium or large power in Asia — a warship today is not an asset but a liability. This is a problem even for the US Navy. Late last year a Chinese submarine surfaced a few kilometres from a US aircraft carrier — easily close enough to have fired a salvo of torpedoes if they had been at war. Britain's defence planners may have been paying closer attention to all this that Australia's.
So maybe Tony Blair is a better strategic thinker than his speeches make him out to be. And maybe John Howard should get on the phone and have a talk to him about defence planning. The heirs to Horatio Nelson may know more about the future of naval warfare than we do.
Hugh White is a visiting fellow at the Lowy Institute and professor of strategic studies at ANU.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/living-in-a-new-war-order/2007/02/07/1170524162291.html
Living in a new war order
February 8, 2007
Australia's naval expansion plans carry grave risk at a time of ever more sophisticated weaponry, writes Hugh White.
TONY Blair seems set to cut the Royal Navy in half, while John Howard is planning the biggest peacetime expansion in Australia's naval capability in 100 years. The two men have marched together in the war on terror, but they apparently think very differently about strategic and defence policy. Which one is right? The differences have been highlighted in recent weeks as the British press reported plans to mothball up to 19 of the RN's 44 warships and cancel orders to build two big new aircraft carriers. British fogies of all ages are going apoplectic at the prospect that France will then have a bigger navy than Britain. Nelson stirs in his marble tomb.
The hero of Trafalgar might feel more at home in Australia. Howard's Government is buying two large amphibious ships, each three times the size of the ships they replace, and three air warfare destroyers, which will be the largest, most capable and most expensive warships Australia has bought since the 1950s. They will also entail the most complex and risky shipbuilding project Australia has ever undertaken.
Why the difference between old allies who boast so much of their shared values and traditions? The most obvious reason is that, notwithstanding their close alignment in the war on terror, Blair and Howard see the world very differently. Blair, in a major defence policy speech last month, put it simply: "September 11, 2001 changed everything." For him, apparently, the era when armed forces were built to fight conventional wars is over. In future, he said, Britain's military role will be to fight a global campaign against Islamic extremism.
Blair talked about Africa and the Middle East, but not about Asia, where the growth of China and India, and the transformation of Japan, raise a new set of strategic questions. Not even a word about Russia, whose future relations with Europe seem so uncertain.
Howard, too, is committed to the war on terror, but his commitment is qualified and counterbalanced by two greater concerns: instability in our near neighbourhood, and the risks to the future strategic balance in Asia posed by the rise of China, India and Japan. Australia's defence policy is especially driven by concerns about the future stability of Asia. Even after five years of continuous deployments on stabilisation operations in the Middle East and in our backyard, most of Australia's defence spending still goes to the high-tech air and naval forces that constitute Australia's insurance against the breakdown of stability in the wider Asian region.
The latest demonstration of this has been the Government's surprise, and surprising, decision to shop for 25 new F-18 F Superhornet aircraft at a probable cost of more than $4 billion. That is a clear sign of its determination to sustain Australia's regional air combat and strike superiority even if (or when) the Joint Strike Fighters it has committed to buy arrive late.
Seen this way, the contrast between Britain and Australia looks stark. But when we look a little more closely the differences narrow, and some interesting questions emerge. First, Blair's Government is not so insouciant about the future global strategic balance between powerful states as his speech suggests. Though billed as a headline address on Britain's defence future, it glossed over the biggest and most expensive defence decision by his Government — to replace Britain's ageing nuclear forces with a new generation of warheads, missiles and submarines at a cost of £20 billion ($A51 billion).
No one builds nuclear weapons to deter Osama bin Laden because, as Americans keep reminding us, he cannot be deterred. Britain is updating its nuclear forces because it, too, recognises that the stable international order we now enjoy is not etched in stone, and careful governments need to take a long-term view of how best to protect their interests if the 21st century brings a new era of major power tension or war. Seen this way, Blair's naval cuts reflect not so much a complacent view of global stability as a straightforward decision that nuclear weapons are a more cost-effective way to protect Britain's traditional strategic interests than a big navy.
Of course, the nuclear option is not so readily available to Australia as it is to Britain. But that does not mean we have nothing to learn from the Brits. Howard and his advisers might like to ponder why the British have decided that traditional naval capability, based in traditional frigates, destroyers and aircraft carriers, is no longer a cost-effective choice for high-level conventional conflict.
The answer is painfully plain. Surface ships are large, slow, easy to find and easy to sink. They are also very expensive and carry lots of people. As sensor and weapons systems have improved, warships have become more and more vulnerable. In consequence, warships have been jammed with more and more systems to defend themselves. That has made them more and more expensive, and has kept their crews large.
And all to no avail. Surface ships remain vulnerable. In a conflict against any adversary armed with modern aircraft, anti-ship missiles, sea mines and submarines — and that means almost any medium or large power in Asia — a warship today is not an asset but a liability. This is a problem even for the US Navy. Late last year a Chinese submarine surfaced a few kilometres from a US aircraft carrier — easily close enough to have fired a salvo of torpedoes if they had been at war. Britain's defence planners may have been paying closer attention to all this that Australia's.
So maybe Tony Blair is a better strategic thinker than his speeches make him out to be. And maybe John Howard should get on the phone and have a talk to him about defence planning. The heirs to Horatio Nelson may know more about the future of naval warfare than we do.
Hugh White is a visiting fellow at the Lowy Institute and professor of strategic studies at ANU.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/living-in-a-new-war-order/2007/02/07/1170524162291.html
There is a group of defence writers in the Australian media who have continued to argue against the size of the new amphibious ships and the expense of the new air warfare destroyers and JSF purchase. They seem to see 'small as better' and 'cheap is better still' in practically all of Australia's defence issues. They keep talking about the 'trouble plagued Collins class submarines as though it is still the case and seize on any F35 delay or cost increase with apparent glee. They believe that the Oz army doesn't need MBTs and that even if it did need tanks then light tanks would be better. Of course they don't ask the soldiers, sailors and airmen who operate the hardware what they would like to have. Consequently I am not surprised to see one of these seize on British cuts as evidence that Australia is wasting resources by acquiring sophisticated weaponry. It’s also interesting how these people exaggerate things to support their arguments. Look at how he talks about plans to cancel the two carriers almost as though it is a fact that the British Government is planning this. Sorry to my friends across the Tasman but it reminds me a bit about what happened a decade ago in N.Z. when some politicians argued that even a baseline Anzac class frigate was too sophisticated and heavily armed for NZ needs and that the existence of any air combat force (even lightly armed jet trainers for army/navy co-operation was unnecessary.
Let's hope that neither the British nor the Australian governments allow themselves to be swayed by people who seem to be so far removed from the actual needs of our servicemen and women. Britain needs the new carriers along with sufficient escorts and aircraft. Australia needs the large amphibious vessels and capable air warfare destroyers.
Cheers
Last edited:
The carrier project is the RN's number one priority
It seems to me that construction of the two big carriers is the most important project facing the RN for perhaps 40 years. If the program is allowed to fall over now I doubt if Britain will ever have another proper aircraft carrier. Maybe the replacement for Ocean down the track will see a VSTOL capable amphibious ship considered but if the RN can't get its current carrier project over the line when it has come so far I can't see how it could get a carrier purchase up again in the future. I even think that moving to a smaller design would just cause a delay followed by the conclusion that smaller ships would be unable to provide the power projection required, after which they in turn would probably be cancelled. The RN has developed its fixed wing naval air arm through almost a century of hard work and sacrifice. It would be a tragedy to throw away that expertise.
Because of this I think the RN would be right to push aside anything that gets in the way of the carriers. Of course they need a larger number of escorts than currently appears likely and of course the number of F35s projected is less than the desirable number. But extra escorts and aircraft can be added later. Once the carrier project has advanced to the point where cancellation is no longer possible then that, IMO, is the time to put forward convincing arguments for more escorts and more aircraft. It shouldn't be difficult to come up with strong cases for both!
Cheers
It seems to me that construction of the two big carriers is the most important project facing the RN for perhaps 40 years. If the program is allowed to fall over now I doubt if Britain will ever have another proper aircraft carrier. Maybe the replacement for Ocean down the track will see a VSTOL capable amphibious ship considered but if the RN can't get its current carrier project over the line when it has come so far I can't see how it could get a carrier purchase up again in the future. I even think that moving to a smaller design would just cause a delay followed by the conclusion that smaller ships would be unable to provide the power projection required, after which they in turn would probably be cancelled. The RN has developed its fixed wing naval air arm through almost a century of hard work and sacrifice. It would be a tragedy to throw away that expertise.
Because of this I think the RN would be right to push aside anything that gets in the way of the carriers. Of course they need a larger number of escorts than currently appears likely and of course the number of F35s projected is less than the desirable number. But extra escorts and aircraft can be added later. Once the carrier project has advanced to the point where cancellation is no longer possible then that, IMO, is the time to put forward convincing arguments for more escorts and more aircraft. It shouldn't be difficult to come up with strong cases for both!
Cheers
contedicavour
New Member
Well in theory it does make sense that Australia and the UK face different threats closer to home.
However it is amazing to read Australian opinionists claiming that the British budget cuts and priorities are strategically cleverer than the Australian defence buildup
I suggest you strip them of Australian nationality and put them on a cargo ship for Liverpool nfloorl:
cheers
However it is amazing to read Australian opinionists claiming that the British budget cuts and priorities are strategically cleverer than the Australian defence buildup
I suggest you strip them of Australian nationality and put them on a cargo ship for Liverpool nfloorl: cheers
Freedom of speech is cherished in Australia and is something Aussies will defend to the death. There are times however, when uninformed nonsense is written by influential writers in the media, that it is a real pain in the neck! :shudderWell in theory it does make sense that Australia and the UK face different threats closer to home.
However it is amazing to read Australian opinionists claiming that the British budget cuts and priorities are strategically cleverer than the Australian defence buildup
cheers
Cheers
overlander
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #267
Any News Of New Equipment For The British Armed Forces
if you check the official website of british m.o.d. (alias ministry of cuts) you can see that more than 3 months ago they say nothing about new equipment for the armed forces only news about parades, soldiers killed in iraq and afghanistan, etc, nothing more, i think the next news they will publish about british armed forces will be the heavy cuts in the 3 services, nothing of new equipment, the cvf new carriers ????? where are them ???, after 3 years delays in the main gate approval seems to be mission impossible, cuts in the darings, cuts in personnal of the 3 services cuts in orders of typhoons, CUTS IN THE PERSONNAL, cuts in challenger tanks, cuts in armoured vehicles and withdrawal of saxons apc, cuts in orders of jsf, cuts in the escorts numbers and maybe the sweetest cake still is to come, the cancellation of the cvf project. really the 1997 strategic defence review of labour government it was really a STRATEGIC DEFENCE CUTS.
if you check the official website of british m.o.d. (alias ministry of cuts) you can see that more than 3 months ago they say nothing about new equipment for the armed forces only news about parades, soldiers killed in iraq and afghanistan, etc, nothing more, i think the next news they will publish about british armed forces will be the heavy cuts in the 3 services, nothing of new equipment, the cvf new carriers ????? where are them ???, after 3 years delays in the main gate approval seems to be mission impossible, cuts in the darings, cuts in personnal of the 3 services cuts in orders of typhoons, CUTS IN THE PERSONNAL, cuts in challenger tanks, cuts in armoured vehicles and withdrawal of saxons apc, cuts in orders of jsf, cuts in the escorts numbers and maybe the sweetest cake still is to come, the cancellation of the cvf project. really the 1997 strategic defence review of labour government it was really a STRATEGIC DEFENCE CUTS.
Cancelling the EF might be a problem due to the high prices you have to pay when cancelling the multinational contracts.
Maybe the UK government hopes for additional sales which could result in some of their earlier slots being transferred to the new buyer and so stretching the procurement more into the future.
The same they did with Saudi Arabia.
But when cancelling the CVF project you would have no problems finding a reason for cancelling F-35s.
Maybe the UK government hopes for additional sales which could result in some of their earlier slots being transferred to the new buyer and so stretching the procurement more into the future.
The same they did with Saudi Arabia.
But when cancelling the CVF project you would have no problems finding a reason for cancelling F-35s.
The Beedall site suggests that the sticking point is a 300 million differecne between price guarantee, they want 3.5 billion, the Carrier Alliance says it will cost 3.8 billion. Planning incentive schemes seems to be the delay. Lord Drayson announced in early january 07 that rumours of cancelleation were quashed. Speculation now says the Main Gate will come in the spring when Blair and Chirac meet although work on the final design will run until July in any case. French officials suggest commonality of the two navies designs are at 90% so it seems work has gone too far just to be cancelled.
In not sure that the cuts that you claim are all doom and gloom. The RAF will have the most capable fighter that it as owned for decades, the JSF will add new capabilities , even a handfull at sea will improve on the Harrier. BAe systems has projects for stealth UCAV's in research stages.
The fact is new weapons cost a lot more than old weapons so you get less of them but more capability.
Plus we arent really facing major naval threats at present so what is important is that ship yard capability and industrial skills are kept, hence we will keep on building Astutes and a trident replacement. Yards will be turning out surface vessels at a slow but steady rate and with the carriers the offensive punch of the navy will increase.
Amphibious forces declined for decades, the Falklands was fought with rusting assault ships, our current forces are much stronger.
We are getting MR4A Nimrod, Typhoon Batch 2 and prob 3, Future Tanker, A400M, more C17's, ASTOR, Predator and other UAV like capability.
h earmy is changing from heavy armour to lighter roles, it has recently added several billion worth of apache, needs more heavy lift assets etc but has just reorgnised structure.
The Navy is getting T45's, Astute, Landing ships, if and when the carriers are built, new AEW aircraft etc.
We sat on our hands in the 1990's we should have mothballed the anti sub fleet then, binned the Tornado F3 and other cold war assets.
The easy solution to funding would be to pull out of iraq NOW...but Blairs ego wont allow that. A foolish war for a foolish man.
In not sure that the cuts that you claim are all doom and gloom. The RAF will have the most capable fighter that it as owned for decades, the JSF will add new capabilities , even a handfull at sea will improve on the Harrier. BAe systems has projects for stealth UCAV's in research stages.
The fact is new weapons cost a lot more than old weapons so you get less of them but more capability.
Plus we arent really facing major naval threats at present so what is important is that ship yard capability and industrial skills are kept, hence we will keep on building Astutes and a trident replacement. Yards will be turning out surface vessels at a slow but steady rate and with the carriers the offensive punch of the navy will increase.
Amphibious forces declined for decades, the Falklands was fought with rusting assault ships, our current forces are much stronger.
We are getting MR4A Nimrod, Typhoon Batch 2 and prob 3, Future Tanker, A400M, more C17's, ASTOR, Predator and other UAV like capability.
h earmy is changing from heavy armour to lighter roles, it has recently added several billion worth of apache, needs more heavy lift assets etc but has just reorgnised structure.
The Navy is getting T45's, Astute, Landing ships, if and when the carriers are built, new AEW aircraft etc.
We sat on our hands in the 1990's we should have mothballed the anti sub fleet then, binned the Tornado F3 and other cold war assets.
The easy solution to funding would be to pull out of iraq NOW...but Blairs ego wont allow that. A foolish war for a foolish man.
I am appauled by the total lack of thought being put forward by the Labour government, its simiple they want to radically reduce one of the nations greatest assessts so they can fund the war, becauses they are too afraid to make the british public pay for it in some other way. The RN will never recover from this, no government will spend the money, its wrong, and its wrong that the oppostion parties are not making more of an issue of this..
windscorpion
New Member
Yes Dr P, especially strange the lack of political interest and you and i both know that the Navy has a special place in the GBP's heart unmatched by any of the other services. You would think there would be a lot of political capital in this. Very odd.
contedicavour
New Member
The Beedall site suggests that the sticking point is a 300 million differecne between price guarantee, they want 3.5 billion, the Carrier Alliance says it will cost 3.8 billion. Planning incentive schemes seems to be the delay. Lord Drayson announced in early january 07 that rumours of cancelleation were quashed. Speculation now says the Main Gate will come in the spring when Blair and Chirac meet although work on the final design will run until July in any case. French officials suggest commonality of the two navies designs are at 90% so it seems work has gone too far just to be cancelled.
QUOTE]
What will also be key is what the French decide. In theory Chirac could try to make the programme uncancellable before the April/May presidential and congressional elections by committing firmly... but in reality until the day first steel is laid down, a potential socialist government after May could still scuttle the project or force France and the UK to agree on a joint Franco-British CVF.
cheers (nonetheless
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
A Socialist government could do nothing of the sort. They could beg the UK to agree to it, but the very idea is laughable.
there will be no joint ship sharing, ultimatly, its about soverign control. However, the european navies better work harder at working together, because thats the only true strength. It interesting, now europes top navy, seem to be about to drop away because of the cost of war.
contedicavour
New Member
Ok then I'll phrase it differently : would the UK be able to continue on its own to build 2 CVFs if France drops out or insists on a joint ship ?
cheers
Of course, as long as the political will remains. That was the original plan.
The French joined the existing British project as junior partners last year (it wasn't a joint project before that), & have paid about 150mn Euros towards design costs. If they drop out, I believe they don't get their money back.
I just cant see the UK and France sharing a ship and the third french hull wouldnt make the cost any less for the two UK ones unless it was built in a UK yard, which would be highly unlikely as the French have their own yards. Politically I couldnt see the French Govt buying a UK built ship and vice versa, not at the cost of £1.5 billion plus.
It would be unworkable. Could it support F35 and Rafale on the same hull? Rotor AEW or Hawkeye? What electronics would you install? Would deployment mean political consensus? Do we get it for even numbered years, France for odd ones? What country gets the refit work.
Ideally we get two and France gets one, between us we would have a powerful Anglo force of four carriers without complicated crewing. However I would have preferred a navalised eurofighter option of failing that a catapult and F35C/Hawkeye option for the UK that would at least be more flexible with the French ships. To me the STOVL option is shortsighted and might cost more in the longterm.
I dont see a problem with working closely with France in terms of the AEW/UCAV/ASuW craft throughout the life of the carrier.
Perhaps if France bribed us with 50 Rafaels we might share.....ummm.
What aspects of the Rafaele M differ from the land based version? As the french have vast experience with the canard design on a ship, what would the cost be of converting the later batches of typhoon? I know it probably wont happen, but what would the cost be, being as it looks like there will be 232 purchased whether we need that many or not?
It would be unworkable. Could it support F35 and Rafale on the same hull? Rotor AEW or Hawkeye? What electronics would you install? Would deployment mean political consensus? Do we get it for even numbered years, France for odd ones? What country gets the refit work.
Ideally we get two and France gets one, between us we would have a powerful Anglo force of four carriers without complicated crewing. However I would have preferred a navalised eurofighter option of failing that a catapult and F35C/Hawkeye option for the UK that would at least be more flexible with the French ships. To me the STOVL option is shortsighted and might cost more in the longterm.
I dont see a problem with working closely with France in terms of the AEW/UCAV/ASuW craft throughout the life of the carrier.
Perhaps if France bribed us with 50 Rafaels we might share.....ummm.
What aspects of the Rafaele M differ from the land based version? As the french have vast experience with the canard design on a ship, what would the cost be of converting the later batches of typhoon? I know it probably wont happen, but what would the cost be, being as it looks like there will be 232 purchased whether we need that many or not?
Perhaps the debate about two homebuilt 65,000 tonners for £3.8 billion looks overpriced when a Nimitz class 100,000 tonner comes in at $4.5 billion, at the current exchange rate of about 1.90 dollars to the pound that would cost us about £2.3 billion for one. OK one isnt as flexible but it would be bigger, meaner and I would have been a good starting point from which to add a second in the coming decades. It would also "save' the MOD that important £1.5 billion.
Whilst the MOD have mucked about with the design over the last 8 years or so and 'investing' more money in research and studies perhaps we should have just asked our closest ally to build us one. If they give us Trident missiles Im sure a flat top would't be too much to ask for (and the MOD was looking at a fall back plan to buy some old amphibious assualt ships from the USN so the concept of buying off the shelf cant be that shocking). I know we want job security etc but Im sure a deal could be cut. Downgrade some of the high end stuff and see what the cost would be. More interesting still would be how much a US manufacturer would charge to knock out a 65,000 tonne ship? Less than £1.9 billion each for a ship with no armoured bulkheads or deck armour?
Whilst the MOD have mucked about with the design over the last 8 years or so and 'investing' more money in research and studies perhaps we should have just asked our closest ally to build us one. If they give us Trident missiles Im sure a flat top would't be too much to ask for (and the MOD was looking at a fall back plan to buy some old amphibious assualt ships from the USN so the concept of buying off the shelf cant be that shocking). I know we want job security etc but Im sure a deal could be cut. Downgrade some of the high end stuff and see what the cost would be. More interesting still would be how much a US manufacturer would charge to knock out a 65,000 tonne ship? Less than £1.9 billion each for a ship with no armoured bulkheads or deck armour?
So far, it's saved us about £100 million. SO FAR. And we haven't cut any metal yet. That's what the French have paid us (in instalments over the last year) for the assessments, feasibility studies, design work etc. we've already done, to buy into our programme. They're paying their share of the common design & development costs from now on, & AFAIK each side does - and pays for - its own detailed design where requirements differ. The cost of liaision & keeping designs in step as far as possible has, so far, been reported as being small compared to the savings.
If the French drop out now, I believe we keep that money.
I feel that we shall see the british and french fleet converge in structure and strength. 20 major surface combatance each, 2 major carriers each, 6-9 SSN (more for the UK), 5-6 global patrol corvettes each, plus amphibious ability (more units too the UK again).. Ultimatley, the think is its a NATO/EU show or nothing at all...(yes i remember the faklands, but that can/could be handled in a different manner). i am confident both carriers will be constructed for both naives.