The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Grim901

New Member
What exactly was Apache purchased to replace? Could the RM's Lynx AH's be replaced by additional Apache's?
The AH7's were replaced by Apache, but there is still the need for transport that the Apache can't replace. I think some of the RM Lynx roles could go to Apache, they have always said they want to operate them amphibiously.

Most of the Army Lynx's don't really need replacing though as their mission went to the Apache's.
True. In the end though, the 76 AH7's have not been fully replaced because most of the Apaches went into storage with no pilots or parts needed to use them.
 

jaffo4011

New Member
The Indian Navy has arrived in Portsmouth for UK/Indian exercises to test interoperability. This follows on from joint exercises held off India. More evidence of India's desire to spread her wings. A win, win scenario for both Nations, each gets the chance to see how the other works. Added advantage for the RN is they also get the chance to see Russian sourced hardware in action. The Indian Navy will get the chance to test their AsW fit against a UK SSN, the focus of the six day exercise will be AsW warfare.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...e/RoyalNavyWelcomesIndianNavyToPortsmouth.htm

Recent exchanges between the RAF / RM and Indian units bodes well for more future exchanges.
how embarrassing for the uk,that the indian navy are capable of sending their carriers over here carrying true fighter aircraft whereas ours dont even carry fixed wing aircraft most of the time and when they do,they are not even fighter capable with no radar on board.....what a shambles
.
we just dont seem capable of learning from the past....potential falklands conflicts are never far off the radar and i wouldnt expect the u.s to provide air cover in such an event.
 

kev 99

Member
how embarrassing for the uk,that the indian navy are capable of sending their carriers over here carrying true fighter aircraft whereas ours dont even carry fixed wing aircraft most of the time and when they do,they are not even fighter capable with no radar on board.....what a shambles
.
we just dont seem capable of learning from the past....potential falklands conflicts are never far off the radar and i wouldnt expect the u.s to provide air cover in such an event.
What Aircraft carriers are they then? They've only got one and there's no mention of it taking part in this exercise.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
And the one they do have is currently undergoing a refit to keep her functional until the one that's being rebuilt in Russia for them replaces her.
 

eletheimel

New Member
CVF in trouble again

The BBC are reporting that the carriers are a terrifying one billion pounds over-budget. They quote a memo from the lead contractors saying: "This is a very real fight for the programme's survival."

Given the current financial circumstances, I think there's a very real chance the show's over for the project, which would be a disaster, given that the navy's basically reorganised itself around a blue-water expeditionary posture that the carriers form the centrepiece of. What on earth is the RN to do without the carriers it's sacrificed so much for?

I know the carriers have been under threat before, but this time I'm seriously worried. The election's next year, financial crisis, the army screaming for more money, budget black holes galore - and now the carriers over-budget by a billion. Not looking good for the Andrew. Not looking good at all.
 
Last edited:

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Given the current financial circumstances, I think there's a very real chance the show's over for the project
No, there isn't. I'm guessing your panicked message suggests you're looking at this from the outside.

I'll give you a hint as to why CVF is still likely to progress - what was the reason we couldn't get out of Tranche 3 of Eurofighter?
 

eletheimel

New Member
Musashi_kenshin said:
No, there isn't. I'm guessing your panicked message suggests you're looking at this from the outside.
Well, given that the quote was from one of the lead contractors, it appears they share my 'panic.' I presume you are looking at this from more of an inside perspective than they are, though...

Musashi_kenshin said:
I'll give you a hint as to why CVF is still likely to progress - what was the reason we couldn't get out of Tranche 3 of Eurofighter?
Skipping over your condescending tone, I am aware there will be cancellation penalties in the contract and I hope they're steep enough to deter any future politician from doing so. From my outside perspective, though, the fact that the project is a billion over budget already, gives me pause. And makes me wonder.

I'm happy you're so sure the project will go forward, though. I only wish I could share your untrammelled beliefs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kev 99

Member
Skipping over your condescending tone, I am aware there will be cancellation penalties in the contract and I hope they're steep enough to deter any future politician from doing so. From my outside perspective, though, the fact that the project is a billion over budget already, gives me pause. And makes me wonder.
As has been stated the overspend is mostly down to the Governments decision to stretch the contract out so that MOD could spend money on other stuff, at the time many people stated this would end up costing more money in the long run and indeed the MOD did state there would be cost implications in doing this.
 

Palnatoke

Banned Member
Just a thought. What do you think will happen if some public school system or some other public institution overshoot their budget with a billion pounds? Do you think that such a failure would have dire consequvences for the responsible people, all ther way up to the minister?

Anyway UK has to build those carriers and we need france to build one as well. Increase tax if you need to.
 

kev 99

Member
Just a thought. What do you think will happen if some public school system or some other public institution overshoot their budget with a billion pounds? Do you think that such a failure would have dire consequvences for the responsible people, all ther way up to the minister?

Anyway UK has to build those carriers and we need france to build one as well. Increase tax if you need to.
Tax has already been increased, but its only a token measure because it will only affect the top earners. The Conservative party has already stated that it will abolish this more or less as soon as it comes to power (which it almost certainly will). What really needs to happen is for public spending cuts in other departments.

The Minister of Defence that signed the contract for CVF (Des Brown) has been replaced by John Hutton who resigned after around six months and now Bob Ainsworth has the job. With the way Gordon Brown runs the Government and the casual contempt he seems to hold the forces in the Minister of Defence is probably something of a poisoned chalice right now.
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
As has been stated the overspend is mostly down to the Governments decision to stretch the contract out so that MOD could spend money on other stuff, at the time many people stated this would end up costing more money in the long run and indeed the MOD did state there would be cost implications in doing this.
What nice to see in this by annual budget wrangling was the quick reply to the IPPR report by the aerospace and defense organizations.
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
Have they actually made any response?
Yep it was yesterday were they basically called the IPPR report was delusional to expect world problems to go away just because their was a financial crisis all the various different bit of kit was necessary. It was all the Beeb news programs about what necessary they had all the interested parties chating about it it was mostly focused on Trident and its replacement it was mostly the various politician and their view on Nuke replacement 9most interesting was that only one out of 15 talking heads was talking about complete disarmament mostly some were arguing that their was a cheaper method available. that the Aero and Defense organization (not the individual organizations but the all encompassing org i cant remembering exactly what it was called)
 

citizen578

New Member
Have they actually made any response?
UKNDA response:

30 June 2009

IPPR DEFENCE REPORT "BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE"

The new report on Defence & Security by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) is "fundamentally flawed", according to the United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA).

Shared Responsibilities: A National Security Strategy for the UK, published today by the IPPR, advocates substantial further cuts to Britain's already pared-to-the-bone Defence capabilities, including the axing of the aircraft carrier programme and the replacement Trident nuclear deterrent. The report also recommends a move away from Britain's traditional focus on the alliance with the USA, towards a Europe-centred Defence policy.

UKNDA Chief Executive, Cdr John Muxworthy, said: "The IPPR report is fundamentally flawed. It starts from the basic assumption that Britain can no longer afford a full-spectrum Armed Forces cabability and that we should therefore scale back our military, give up on Afghanistan, and cancel a whole tranche of Defence programmes.

"The UKNDA's position is quite different. In our view, what Britain cannot afford to do is risk making the swingeing cuts that the IPPR proposes. If we do, our military will be more thinly stretched and our country more vulnerable to external threats than at any time since WW2. Unlike other areas of Government expenditure, funding for Defence has been continually squeezed for the past two decades, with the result that our Forces are already chronically overstretched. To cut them back further would be the height of folly.

"The IPPR report rightly recognises that there is a gaping 'black hole' in the Defence budget and calls for the Government to undertake a Defence & Security Review, already long overdue (the last review was 11 years ago). But instead of recommending that we increase Defence funding in order to repair the damage done since the 1990s the report's authors seem content to advocate a further shrinking of Britain's military capability, to the point where we would be wholly dependent on Europe for our Defence.

"I am glad that the IPPR has helped to stir up debate on Defence and National Security - but with this report they are barking up the wrong tree. What the IPPR do not seem to have acknowledged is that the UK is, and must remain, a significant global player. We are a major trading nation and, despite the current recession, we are still a leading global economy with worldwide interests to protect, not least our seaborne trade. We must continue to stand alongside America - that is absolutely fundamental. It would be sheer folly to retreat to the role of European bit-player, heavily reliant on France and Germany."

The UKNDA was formed in 2007 to campaign in support of Britain's Armed Forces. Its President is Winston S. Churchill, former MP and war correspondent (and grandson of Britain's wartime Prime Minister). Tri-Service and politically independent, the UKNDA aims to ensure that Britain's fighting men and women are properly trained, equipped, sustained and cared for. The UKNDA calls for an urgent Defence Review, with funding in place to ensure that the nation can match resources to requirements. For details, go to Home - UKNDA - The UK National Defence Association

-Ends
 

kev 99

Member
Cheers, good stuff, although they could probably go into more detail/specifics of why that report was a load of old bumkum.
 

windscorpion

New Member
I found it's list of projects to be cut either contradictory, pointless (as in they wouldn't save any money) and needed more explanation. Seems like a report to generate headlines more than anything. It says something when some of the comments in a BBC "Have Your Say" made more sense than the report.

I did like the stuff about extra special forces though.
 

citizen578

New Member
New medal for HM Forces: Elizabeth Cross

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | History and Honour | Elizabeth Cross honours families of fallen troops

Her Majesty The Queen has given her name to a new form of recognition for the families of British Service personnel killed while serving their country, Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth has announced today, Wednesday 1 July 2009.

I have mixe feeling about this medal. On the one hand it's important to recognise that sacrifices are made not only by the men and women on the front-line, but it's also a departure from the traditions of medal. This is a symbol of terrible loss, not of bravery or achievement, or anything positive. It will be interesting to see how it is perceived by the press and general public... if they even notice.
 

jaffo4011

New Member
why dont we just abandon the trident replacement and instead fit a number of nuclear war heads to some of our cruise missiles fitted to oiur hunter killer subs already?......this would save the cost of developing new ballistic boats whilst maintaining a deterrent capability.i understand our hunter killers are just about as stealthy as the ballistic vessels anyway.

the billions saved would pay for our carriers outright and allow the proper numbers of aircraft to be bought too,...

to save further dosh,i would make the new carriers compatible with catapult type aircraft such as rafale and super hornet and buy them instead!....we might be able to buy a proper aew aircraft to use on them as well then...such the hawk eye instead of relying on lashed together helicopter devices
 
Last edited:
Top