Subscribe
Notify of
guest
12 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rick

Great Britain is great again!

Grubbie

Cash and manpower sink. Missile magnet.

Iqbal Ahmed

I’ve never served in the forces but….ummm….isn’t an aircraft carrier supposed….erm….(how can I put this diplomatically)….to carry aircraft?
Each carrier can hold 36 planes and four helicopters. The navy is hoping to have 24 F-35s by 2023 and a further 24 by 2025. That’s 6 years before the first British aircraft are able to deploy (and only if the F-35 doesn’t develop more design flaws).
Let’s be extra nice to other countries or we will be found out if conflict arises.

Ian Willis

This is a billion pound folly a diminished post Brexit insular Britain doesn’t need.

Dern

*GASP* Sorry is that you saying that we should spend more money and procure the aircraft faster!?
Any excuse to critise the Navy will do for you it seems XD

Ian

Congratulations Iqbal – you win the most repeated ignorant comment re the carriers

Andy

Helicopters are air craft you know! But you are right we could have had f35 onboard before it was fully commissioned, the crew fully trained and it was ready to support them. Those f35 would not have operational mind as the ship wasn’t ready. A better idea is to get the ship and Crew ready train the pilots on the f35 with us marines on fully operational carriers and buy the latest build / block f35 when the carriers and crew are ready for them.
Oh hang on that’s the existing plan – what was your point??

Ian

Hmm, so, was having a discussion with a former minister (fm) t’other night about defence and the carriers.
Some takeaways worthy of sharing;
1) Cameron, Clegg and Osbourne were absolutely going to scrap the carriers early in the 2010 parliament.
2) Something happened and Cameron changed his mind. Various reasons suggested by fm but none confirmed by Cameron to him;
a) Cost to cancel
b) American pressure
c) Impotence over Libya
3) fm thinks the carriers are white elephants that should be given to gulf states so they can parade them around not us
4) Thinks there won’t be enough money for the F-35s
5) Believes defence is funded well enough – wouldn’t give a penny more until role for carriers is defined
6) Think RN played Govt with the carrier naming so should now be forced to make other choices
7) Every pressure group known to parliament trying to strong arm the Govt pre-budget thinking Govt would cave in, are now surprised it didn’t and being vocal about it (especially defence)
8) There is only one thing which truly unites Tories right now and that is to not to further misstep their way into a GE
Slightly off track but related was his view of Corbyn and McDonnell; Jeremy is actually quite a nice bloke, a naive man but fundamentally all right. McDonnell on the other hand is a full on Marxist thug. A clever, intelligent man who would happily shoot half the people in the room – any room. His nickname ‘Beria’ is fully deserved – the most dangerous man in parliament.
All presented without opinion or comment

4thwatch

The question arises where does the Qnlz or indeed any major capital ship go for dry docking.
That’s a question as old as the hills, so to speak, and one that has expended a considerable amount of angst over the years. The Bismark was heading to St Nazaire in 1941 when she was sunk. The Richelieu had to go to the USA when she had to fit out in 1942 also. The British capital ships had special Dry docks dotted around the globe because then we ruled the world and and still more or less the oceans. Now we have two and a half choices: Rosyth or Belfast or if recommissioned KGV dry dock in Southampton.
Amazing but this last has with typical British abandon and neglect and lack of foresight been allowed to decay.
When built, and it would still accommodate the carriers, it was the largest finest dry dock in the world. If the grade 2 listed pump house is moved and a new cassion installed it could be working again.
More to the point its only a 20 miles or so from HMD Portsmouth.

4thwatch

There are continued disparaging attacks on the expenditure on the carriers. It seems its all down to the psychology and experience of the commentators.
Most surprising there is a defence journal that has also attacked the spend of 6bn on the two Queen Elizabeth class carriers. In part they attack the fact they are not nuclear powered etc. However in the very next article they give a free pass to Australia’s plan to build 12 non-nuclear powered submarines for 40bn! These submarines are costing over 3bn each. Is this crazy or what?

Grubbie

Continued ignoring of the cost of the complete weapons system.6 billion is the price of the big unarmed steel box.Then we have the vast cost of trying to man and maintain them.

4thwatch

Your big bitch is no doubt about the cost of the embarked aircraft and how wrong it is.
Carriers or no carriers we do need 5th generation fighters believe me. These will end up more or less equally in RAF and FAA squadrons and up to a point will be fully interchangable. The advantage being carrier based aircraft can be moved easily from location to location, meaning you need to invest in less landbased airfields and there will be other transport cost savings. Whether the a/c have pilots and support crew on land or afloat they will be roughly the same except you would have to double up if you have multiple airfields.
So when a carrier is in Portsmouth and as always its aircraft are ashore; they are available for home defence.
The other factor you mention are manning costs. However often highlighted is the low manning level of the carriers. When we had 3 Invincibles they had 2100 crew excepting aircrew. Two Queen Elizabeths have about 1400 crew but each have an effectiveness greater than all the Invincibles combined.
i don’t have details of the maintenance costs of the New carriers, but first off you can say they are brand new with modern paint systems, power plants etc. so their static costs are going to be low.