The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
the concerned
Active Member
With the second carrier being operational that would surely mean that we could expect the next order of JSF's very soon as 48 would not be enough to equip both ships
kev 99
Member
Well the actual quote reads:
“The second carrier will be brought into service. It’s means the Royal Navy will be able deploy a carrier 100 percent of the time,” Cameron said.
I just hope that means what we think it means.
HurricaneDitka
New Member
What's the schedule for PoW IOC? I would have guessed that if QE is to be commissioned in 2017, that PoW would be some good while (years?) after that. Not sure what the F-35 orders vs production line is looking like, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't plenty of time for them to get the aircraft they need in the next 5 or 6 years.
The original schedule was posited around bringing QE into service, then pulling her in for that first post build fix while the crew move to PoW to bring her into service, followed (originally) by PoW going into reserve/extended readiness while QE took on the active carrier duty role. That's what I *think* was intended but there were always hopes the extended readiness bit could be missed out - and she could be available for a warm transfer instead.
The figures I remember were 8/8 years (8 years of availability from 8 years service for a pair of carriers in alternating service as opposed to 5/8 - 5 years availability from 8 with one carrier in extended readiness)
If both are kept up and neither goes into ER, that's a huge boost and it'd then be at least feasible to bring both into operation in a national emergency for instance. Ships in ER frequently get picked over for parts, don't always get looked after etc.
The figures I remember were 8/8 years (8 years of availability from 8 years service for a pair of carriers in alternating service as opposed to 5/8 - 5 years availability from 8 with one carrier in extended readiness)
If both are kept up and neither goes into ER, that's a huge boost and it'd then be at least feasible to bring both into operation in a national emergency for instance. Ships in ER frequently get picked over for parts, don't always get looked after etc.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The other was Canada.
Germany blocks any 2% fixed target because our current government is enforcing a zero-debt budget (surplus, actually, due to higher-than-expected tax intake).
Well, that and our military wouldn't know what to do with an extra well over 20 billion Euro per year. That's three times the current procurement/investment component of the German defense budget.
Well, that and our military wouldn't know what to do with an extra well over 20 billion Euro per year. That's three times the current procurement/investment component of the German defense budget.
Ok, wow. Didn't realize the Germans were spending such a small amount of defense spending (and how efficiently they were spending it), I had assumed it would be a fair bit more than that as they have reasonable capability given German defense posture.
I'm sure the RN could think of where the money could be spent if Germany was interested.
Aaah, but some other militaries could use it.
Germany could, for example, finance a lot of joint EU-cum-NATO Europe support assets: a tanker fleet, transport ships & aircraft, & ISR. The need for this stuff has been shown, with the US having to supply it to support European countries. It shouldn't cost $20 bn a year, but it'd take a goodly slice of it.
It could start by buying out the Russian interest in two Mistral-class LHDs. They're ideal for floating HQs, are equipped to carry hospitals, can do disaster relief, transport - all sorts of stuff, even if nobody on board ever fires a shot.
Throw in a bunch of militarised ro-ro ships (Flensburger has an excellent, well-proven, design) in place of the leased ro-ros - & a few more of them, enough A330 MRTT so that European countries don't need to piggy-back off the USAF, & all the A400M that Germany thinks are surplus to requirements (perhaps reinstating some of the cancelled ones & buying some more AAR kits), & just about everything except underway replenishment of naval ships would be sorted, And why couldn't Germany provide some of that?
Then we get to ISR: the NATO AGS has stumbled on from cut-back to cut-back. SIGINT is a gaping hole, despite there being a perfectly good sensor package (paid for by Germany) available, sized to fit in a big UAV but which could fit on a manned aircraft, e.g. a long-range bizjet. If if really isn't practical to fix EuroHawk, then bite the bullet & find an alternative platform - & more of 'em. And while you're at it, sort out a European alternative to all those Reapers, Herons & the like out there, for a pooled capability. Doesn't have to be German: there are non-German platforms ready & waiting for a bit of investment & an order.
Satellite comms & surveillance - oh, so much that could be done!
the concerned
Active Member
If Scotland votes for independence next week does the Rn have to build a new submarine base or would it be possible to base them in Norfolk US with the other US sub's. IT wouldn't hurt to increase the facilities at Barrow in furness where they are built to base them there plus provide a seriously run down area with some employment injection.
The base is easy, as has been said, Coulport is the question - you'd need a base within about an hour of the sub base but not much closer for separation, ideally, reasonably far from a centre of population as the facility will be loading Trident missiles after the warheads have been fitted and there's a perception of risk from the general populace.
Access to a deep water channel would be a priority also.
Might all be academic. Should Scotland leave the Union, people are suggesting a run on the Pound with significant increases in the cost of borrowing. Remember we are one of the most indebted countries.
We just might not be able to afford it.
We'll see - I suspect there'd be a dip in exchange rates til the vote happens and some decisions get made but that's just because the market hates uncertainty.There'd be a correction afterwards and structurally, as long as our ratios remain the same, there's no reason to feel we'd be any less of a safe bet than before.
Ultimately, we can afford a deterrent if we choose to do so, we're just talking about how much it'd cost if we decided to continue with that facility.
Ultimately, we can afford a deterrent if we choose to do so, we're just talking about how much it'd cost if we decided to continue with that facility.
I'm with everyone else, that isn't going to happen but even under your scenario it wouldn't be Norfolk, they'd be based at Kings Bay, Georgia.
The prospect of independence seems to be scaring off money from Scotland back to England right now so you never know
I also don't think we're any where near the most indebted of countries in terms of GDP/debt fraction for instance. Plus, the defence budget is barely 2% vs the welfare budget (of which Scotland is a slightly larger consumer)
I dunno - we may come out even in this ...
JasonMphil85
Banned Member
Fist Time here
I always thought the Nos would have it but if its a Yes vote...MOD of the rUK must fight hard not to grant Scotland the most essential equipment. The DM reported that Scotland wants HMS Argyll and Sutherland--that's impossible , not become that will further reduce the RN's small frigate fleet, but it will give a "foreign nation" Sonar 2087 (Sutherland has it). No way must those two go.
Other RN assets that must not go are OPVs and Patrol boats. Oh it's tempting that since they are building 3 newones, give them some of the Rivers. No way. Definitely not the minehunters too as they are need in the Gulf and elsewhere.
Royal Marine units will probably be kicked out, meaning they have to rebase them at existing RM facilities in rUK or build some elsewhere. That would be a pain. Scotland may want the 105mm guns--no way since that would spoil both the FF2020 plans for the RM and the Army 2020.
Trident stuff is well known so I'll skip.
Basic, Yes vote=Let Scotland build from scratch then they will crawl back and beg for mercy. No way should the RN/RAF/Army/MOD give anything at all.
I always thought the Nos would have it but if its a Yes vote...MOD of the rUK must fight hard not to grant Scotland the most essential equipment. The DM reported that Scotland wants HMS Argyll and Sutherland--that's impossible , not become that will further reduce the RN's small frigate fleet, but it will give a "foreign nation" Sonar 2087 (Sutherland has it). No way must those two go.
Other RN assets that must not go are OPVs and Patrol boats. Oh it's tempting that since they are building 3 newones, give them some of the Rivers. No way. Definitely not the minehunters too as they are need in the Gulf and elsewhere.
Royal Marine units will probably be kicked out, meaning they have to rebase them at existing RM facilities in rUK or build some elsewhere. That would be a pain. Scotland may want the 105mm guns--no way since that would spoil both the FF2020 plans for the RM and the Army 2020.
Trident stuff is well known so I'll skip.
Basic, Yes vote=Let Scotland build from scratch then they will crawl back and beg for mercy. No way should the RN/RAF/Army/MOD give anything at all.
Deja vu going on, LB02 and LB03 blocks for HMS Prince of Wales have entered the dock and the bulbous bow has been lifted into place too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=OXvH3whLEh4
https://twitter.com/QEClassCarriers/status/511867313113804800/photo/1
Construction of the second carrier should be faster as - by all accounts - the blocks have achieved a greater level of fitting out internally meaning she should spend less time fitting out than HMS Queen Elizabeth.
Quite nice to see QE alongside getting fitted out, the deck will probably be the last part to be finished. Nice side point too, the thermal deck coating the QEC will be using will be supplied by (and was designed by) a UK company.
Great times ahead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=OXvH3whLEh4
https://twitter.com/QEClassCarriers/status/511867313113804800/photo/1
Construction of the second carrier should be faster as - by all accounts - the blocks have achieved a greater level of fitting out internally meaning she should spend less time fitting out than HMS Queen Elizabeth.
Quite nice to see QE alongside getting fitted out, the deck will probably be the last part to be finished. Nice side point too, the thermal deck coating the QEC will be using will be supplied by (and was designed by) a UK company.
Great times ahead.
Several posters have assumed that the UK could base its Trident submarines in the United States should Scotland vote for independence and demand that the subs leave. They are forgetting two important factors that mitigate against any basing of an independent UK nuclear strike force in US harbors.
First. The US and Russia have arms control treaties that limit the number of strike vessels and warheads. Russia would insist that any UK subs based in the US be counted against those treaties and the US, especially Congress, would never agree to that.
Second. No US President or US Congress would allow the UK to base a nuclear strike force on US soil over which the US doesn't maintain control. The US is not going to allow a foreign power, even an ally as close as the UK, to deploy a nuclear strike force from US soil against a UK adversary that has nothing to do with the United States. Is it plausible that the UK would do that? Perhaps not, but no US Congress would allow the eventuality to occur.
I just think that all of this talk about moving the UK's Trident force to the US has just not been thought though.
Last edited by a moderator: