Carriers and a Meldrew moment

[uk 75]

Watching Admiral West on the BBC Daily Politics today blaming the Carrier woes on the
present Government's Defence Review made me utter the famous Meldrew phrase "I don't believe it".

West represents the same Royal Navy who conned the country into stumping up for two massive carriers
without catapults to operate either elderly airframe Harriers or a US British industry technical jamboree called
STOVL F35 which was a disaster waiting to happen.

The same West then joined a Government which disposed of the Sea Harriers leaving us with three ancient
and unreliable helicopter cruisers and an occasional deployment of RAF ground attack Harriers. Oh yes and the
two massive carriers are being built in guess where, yes of course Scotland!

If George Osborne had the cahones, both of these white elephants would have been cancelled and the directors of
British Aerospace sorry Fleece the Taxpayers r us told to sue and be damned. The savings could then have been used to
develop a Royal Navy surface and submarine fleet with modern ships relevant to a European medium size power on its uppers.

 

[Thorvic]

Ralph your so far off course with that discussion its unbeliveable

Firstly back when it was first realised that the CVS & harriers would need replacement the gov't of the day would have baulked at the RN daring to suggest a proper carrier with proper aircraft. The RAF would veto any conventional carrier aircraft as it would have been seen as a direct threat to their Typhoon program. Thats why the RN had to settle with Harrier replacement and the STOVL carrier design as it was the only one the RAF would support, otherwise the RAF & Army would have vetoed anything more. The orginal idea was a larger CVS design capable of operating 40-50 Harrier types to make up for the serious shortcomings of the CVS design with its poor hanger design. Then the last govt realised that the STOVL design may only have another 25 yrs of service so any ships built would need to have another replacement program instigated by about 2020 (the thinking in 1998) so rather than having that outlay again they stipulated a 50yr lifespan and the ability to switch to a conventional CATOBAR design later in life. Plus at this time we had seen the Lockheed X-35 fly and the hype was this would be ready in the next 10 years as a supersonic capable and affordable STOVL aircraft.

As for the gutter press bull touted by some Tories about the BAE deal, it might be wise to remember how British Shipbuilding had been seriously let down by the last government, the Type 45 program was costed for 12 ships and then number cut back to just 6 ships, the FSC -Future Surface Combatant as a Type 23 follow on was left in the loop of project defination phase, cancellation and relaunch every few years with no sign of even a final design, the MARS program got as far as the tenders submitted before cancellation and the Astute program put on hold. All with the promise of the Carrier order to keep them dangling, then to make matters worse the same govt then forced the ship yards to merge together into a single entity before it would place the order. Considering the crap they had to go for to get the orders and retain their skilled labour its not surprising they made the contract cast iron as flakey goverment orders for warships had virtually crippled the ship builders over the previous decade, and they weren't going to left like in the lurch again. In fact the Carrier order is not that cast iron, the contract to form the ACA was for gauranteed work for the next 15 years, a carrier could ave been canned but equivilant ships would ave to be ordered as an alternative plus compensation for the lead items procurred for the fittings for both carriers. Becuase there were no other ships available to order the current mob had to go with both carriers and drag them out till the Type 26 design is ready and the funding avialble to order them.

Geoff

 

[Grey Havoc]

And given the current crowd of [CENSORED], the Type 26 may never even get out of the design office.

 

[uk 75]

Geoff your account of why the rn and british shipbuilders did what they did is right. BUT it does not alter the fact that in 2010 we already had no shipborne fighter as opposed to light ground attack aircraft. The new carriers and their aircraft were planned against an outlook of economic growth. Today we are in a very different place with no hardware in sight. I still do not believe it!