Why is the Aircraft Carrier been launched today in Rosyth today without even been fitted out and not fully operational before at least 2018? Then you have all the embarrassed Tories there who cut defence budgets since being in power.
Why is the Aircraft Carrier been launched today in Rosyth today without even been fitted out and not fully operational before at least 2018? Then you have all the embarrassed Tories there who cut defence budgets since being in power.
Why is the Aircraft Carrier been launched today in Rosyth today without even been fitted out and not fully operational before at least 2018? Then you have all the embarrassed Tories there who cut defence budgets since being in power.
She will not be fully operational for a few years, might enter service in 2017/18 but unlikely to have any jets till 2020/21. Only have helicopters till then
She will not be fully operational for a few years, might enter service in 2017/18 but unlikely to have any jets till 2020/21. Only have helicopters till then
There will be ongoing f35 trials from around 2018/19, once we get delivery. These jets aren't even ready yet unfortunately. I just hope the second carrier is commissioned but money is tight as per usual. Maybe the ruskies encroachment into the Ukraine will force our governments hand (likely to be Labours). It will be interesting to see if Labour can find the money for it next year.
There will be ongoing f35 trials from around 2018/19, once we get delivery. These jets aren't even ready yet unfortunately. I just hope the second carrier is commissioned but money is tight as per usual. Maybe the ruskies encroachment into the Ukraine will force our governments hand (likely to be Labours). It will be interesting to see if Labour can find the money for it next year.
Do you think they should?
Yes which ever party is in power should commission the prince of wales Aircraft Carrier
The Prince of Wales will hopefully be kept and maintained in reserve/extended readiness and rotated in service with the QE.
Quite frankly, who's going to buy a £3bn, 65,000t helicopter carrier? Unless they redesign (again!) with cat/traps (more ££'s) it can't take any other jet and the only other nations flying F35B will be the US and Italy, both of whom are well covered for carriers. Unless we can do a swap deal the the US Marines for a squadron of V22's, we'll need to find a way to accommodate both in the fleet.
There will be ongoing f35 trials from around 2018/19, once we get delivery. These jets aren't even ready yet unfortunately. I just hope the second carrier is commissioned but money is tight as per usual. Maybe the ruskies encroachment into the Ukraine will force our governments hand (likely to be Labours). It will be interesting to see if Labour can find the money for it next year.
Do you think they should?
No sign of that. We now have Finland, all the Baltic States, Sweden, Norway, the Czechs, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania all increasing their defence budgets . Greece never really did cut much despite having the EU's biggest economic problems. Meanwhile, the freeloader block of Germany, Holland, Switzerland and Austria are still cutting. Austria now has no airforce at weekends. Germany cut one of its few remaining armoured units as the Russians massed north of Kiev, The Brits, French, Spanish and Italians seem to have moved from the group that were keeping up capability till 2010 into the fireloaders camp with all 4 continuing cuts, or developing new ones, while theRussians were deploying, and the Middle East has fallen apart.
Any sane goverrnment is going to retain the second carrier to keep one operational. As its looking as if its going to be the replacement for the helicopter carrier too, its now more defensible again.
The problem is that there's only going to be a 1/3rd replacement for the Tornado and Harrier force so there probably won't ever be the planned 36 F35Bs to fill the ship, it can't operate allied fighters apart from US or Italian F35Bs. , as they saved money by making it only suitable for the F35B , the F35B won't have a full weapons outfit until the mid 2020s,and there's too few Merlin helicopters to fill every deck space. There's also, reportedly, too few supply ships to keep it at sea for as longa s you would want, and you would need too much time to get 3, or ideally 4, of the 6 Type 45 destroyers, and a couple of SSN, assembled, to protect it from any substantial threat. The RN also now has too few people in peacetime, let alone to man two carriers in a major Falklands like war.
Ironically as the ship awaits its aircraft, the Spanish have just announced they will be staying with the Harrier until the late 2020s on their carrier, and the US Marines will be running Harriers on, using our aircraft as spares, until 2030. A spectacular case of us throwing an already bought capability and expertise away for a decade to save trivial amounts of money.
Its a great capability though - well produced - allowing for the additional costs from government dithering. . It just needs a properly resourced airforce ,with enough strike fighters and MPA, and a navy with enough men, ships, submarines and helicopters, around it, to operate safely.
The problem is that there's only going to be a 1/3rd replacement for the Tornado and Harrier force so there probably won't ever be planned 36 F35Bs to fill the ship, it can't operate allied fighters, as they saved money by making it only suitable for the F35B , the F35B won't have a full weapons outfit until the mid 2020s
Old fashioned thinking. The F-35 sucks and is looking suckier by the day. It's just been grounded again due to yet another engine fire. Which is a bad thing to have happen on a single-engined aircraft.
There's also reportedly too few supply ships to keep it at sea, and you would need too much time to get 3, or ideally 4 of the 6 Type 45 destroyers, and a couple of SSN, assembled, to protect it from any substantial threat. The RN also now has too few people in peacetime, let alone to man two carriers in a major Falklands like war.
Again that's old fashioned thinking. In our brave new world we're not meant to act independently so the carriers would deploy with a battle group made up of other EU and NATO members. In the absence of any major threat, the Navy can do patrolling and general maritime duties with it's destroyers and frigates. Oh, and the Astutes, they're very cool.
It just needs a properly resourced airforce ,with enough strike fighters and MPA, and a navy with enough men, ships, submarines and helicopters, around it, to operate safely.
Or you stop throwing good money after bad and fill it with these-
Why is the Aircraft Carrier been launched today in Rosyth today without even been fitted out and not fully operational before at least 2018? Then you have all the embarrassed Tories there who cut defence budgets since being in power.
Because that's what always happens when a ship is built. Fitting out always happens after a launch.
No sign of that. We now have Finland, all the Baltic States, Sweden, Norway, the Czechs, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania all increasing their defence budgets . Greece never really did cut much despite having the EU's biggest economic problems. Meanwhile, the freeloader block of Germany, Holland, Switzerland and Austria are still cutting. Austria now has no airforce at weekends. Germany cut one of its few remaining armoured units as the Russians massed north of Kiev, The Brits, French, Spanish and Italians seem to have moved from the group that were keeping up capability till 2010 into the fireloaders camp with all 4 continuing cuts, or developing new ones, while theRussians were deploying, and the Middle East has fallen apart.
That's what annoys America so much, American taxpayers paying to defend European citizens, while they enjoy their welfare state.
Newsnight got a load of Britain's youth together and presented them with a table divided in to different spending areas. On top were stacks of coins representing the governments income. They were then asked as a group to put the coins where they thought it should be spent.
It will probably not come as much of a surprise that they put most on welfare and education and practically nothing on defence, which they said they didn't see the point of, or something like that.
They were only built because Gordon Brown wanted to create jobs in Scottish Labour constituencies.
We might as well have two, with nuclear power and catapults. If we can't afford them then why bother?
They will be the most capable aircraft carriers of any European nation and the F35b are very advanced planes.
The carriers can be used to operate and support a wide range of helicopters and Royal Marines and be used for disaster relief.
And while they are being assembled in Scotland they have been built throughout the United Kingdom.
Old fashioned thinking. The F-35 sucks and is looking suckier by the day. It's just been grounded again due to yet another engine fire. Which is a bad thing to have happen on a single-engined aircraft.
Again that's old fashioned thinking. In our brave new world we're not meant to act independently so the carriers would deploy with a battle group made up of other EU and NATO members. In the absence of any major threat, the Navy can do patrolling and general maritime duties with it's destroyers and frigates. Oh, and the Astutes, they're very cool.
Or you stop throwing good money after bad and fill it with these-
F35 is fine if you want a limited stealth, limited payload in stealth mode, limited air to air capability, light weight, fighter , and want to rely on a single engine flying over water, and want what started as a cheap single seat fighter weighing in at 30 tons and costing £180 million for early production aircraft. . But it will do most jobs after a fashion - eventually. The problem is a carrier with 12 won't be able to defend itself , and do much to attack anyone at the same time - the problem in the Falklands campaign.
Its not only that we would need allies to operate with. You need allies who will turn up. You then need allies who will turn up with the right capability at the right time. The reality is that the US is already short of escorts for its capital units, and US destroyer and cruiser numbers are coming down. Europe doesn't have many capable air defence assets either, and those the Italian and French Navy has , are tied to escorting their own carriers.
Unmanned aircraft are fine if the communications links work, if there are no more capable manned fighters around to shoot them down, and flight speed doesn't matter. Great for hitting heavily defended limited targets with a few small bombs, great for dealing with the odd pick up on a road. Unproven against a large scale threat, and probably doomed in air to air combat?.
They were only built because Gordon Brown wanted to create jobs in Scottish Labour constituencies.
We might as well have two, with nuclear power and catapults. If we can't afford them then why bother?
They were ordered because the Labour 1998 defence review saw a need to be able to project power globally - which had been recently proved by the invasion of Kuwait and massacres in Bosnia. That was probably the best conducted defence review we have ever had - one of the very few not to be an exercise in justifying cuts, or making small changes, or adopting US strategic thinking five years late. . That review looked at potential threats,and what was needed to respond, and drew on the historical evidence. The problem is that the money was continualy cut thereafter. So we now have 50-60% of what we then reckoned we needed for smaller threats. Thats bizarre when the Middle East exploded soon afterwards, the terrorist threat emerged fully on 911, and is still growing, Russia is rearming and becoming more assertive, and there's a big arms race going in on from Greece to Japan . All of those states are prioritising interstate conflict, and conventional and/or nuclear threats - while we focus on terrorists.
The carriers might well have been fought by Brown , and then cut by him- but for the jobs in Scotland. We also might have ended up with only one - if government hadn't demanded a lower unit cost and been told they could only have that in return for buying two under one contract. That was the price of getting the lower price on one, and the builders sensibly wrote the contracts accordingly . The contract, in turn, was however, a useful argument to have when the pressure inevitably came to cut even more corners - by having a part time carrier force with only one carrier.
F35 is fine if you want a limited stealth, limited payload in stealth mode, limited air to air capability, light weight, want to rely on a single engine flying over water, and want what started as a cheap single seat fighter weighing in at 30 tons and costing £180 million for early production aircraft. . But it will do most jobs after a fashion - eventually. The problem is a carrier with 12 won't be able to defend itself , and do much to attack anyone at the same time - the problem in the Falklands campaign.
Its not only that we would need allies to operate with. You need allies who will turn up. You then need allies who will turn up with the right capability at the right time. The reality is that the US is already short of escorts for its capital units, and US destroyer and cruiser numbers are coming down. Europe doesn't have many capable air defence assets either, and those the Italian and French Navy has , are tied to escorting their own carriers.
Unmanned aircraft are fine if the communications links work, if there are no more capable manned fighters around to shoot them down, and flight speed doesn't matter. Great for hitting heavily defended limited targets, great for dealing with the odd pick up on a road. Unproven against a large scale threat, and probably doomed in air to air combat?.
Unmaned aircraft may never replace piloted aircraft for core duties. In 20 years the technology may exist to create a superior UAV but without the ability for AI decision making and targeting they will never compete. Thats something thats politically unthinkable.
The F35 has been a nightmare. The MOD waste money but the United States are on other level.
My view is they will keep both carriers and rotate them in service. Ships on extended readyness don't cost that much to maintain and it would get around having periods with no carrier at all.
The navy can support one carrier group, but not two so having two at sea would be pointless anyway. Though people do seem to overestimate the size of the carrier support. You would be talking 2xtype 45s 3xtype 23s and 1 submarine to put it on par with a traditional United States carrier group.
Comments
Erm, sea trials? You know they have those right?
There's no point in fitting it out before launching and initial sea trials. You have to make sure it doesn't leak first.
She will not be fully operational for a few years, might enter service in 2017/18 but unlikely to have any jets till 2020/21. Only have helicopters till then
There will be ongoing f35 trials from around 2018/19, once we get delivery. These jets aren't even ready yet unfortunately. I just hope the second carrier is commissioned but money is tight as per usual. Maybe the ruskies encroachment into the Ukraine will force our governments hand (likely to be Labours). It will be interesting to see if Labour can find the money for it next year.
Do you think they should?
And to make room to start building the second one. The if Scotland becomes independent, to close the shipyards.
Yes which ever party is in power should commission the prince of wales Aircraft Carrier
Quite frankly, who's going to buy a £3bn, 65,000t helicopter carrier? Unless they redesign (again!) with cat/traps (more ££'s) it can't take any other jet and the only other nations flying F35B will be the US and Italy, both of whom are well covered for carriers. Unless we can do a swap deal the the US Marines for a squadron of V22's, we'll need to find a way to accommodate both in the fleet.
The Queen should have abseiled down the side with the bottle.
Bit of a waste of a good bottle of whisky. Should have used some Irn Bru instead.
Was hoping to see her smash the bottle on the ship, bit disappointed really:(
No sign of that. We now have Finland, all the Baltic States, Sweden, Norway, the Czechs, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania all increasing their defence budgets . Greece never really did cut much despite having the EU's biggest economic problems. Meanwhile, the freeloader block of Germany, Holland, Switzerland and Austria are still cutting. Austria now has no airforce at weekends. Germany cut one of its few remaining armoured units as the Russians massed north of Kiev, The Brits, French, Spanish and Italians seem to have moved from the group that were keeping up capability till 2010 into the fireloaders camp with all 4 continuing cuts, or developing new ones, while theRussians were deploying, and the Middle East has fallen apart.
Any sane goverrnment is going to retain the second carrier to keep one operational. As its looking as if its going to be the replacement for the helicopter carrier too, its now more defensible again.
The problem is that there's only going to be a 1/3rd replacement for the Tornado and Harrier force so there probably won't ever be the planned 36 F35Bs to fill the ship, it can't operate allied fighters apart from US or Italian F35Bs. , as they saved money by making it only suitable for the F35B , the F35B won't have a full weapons outfit until the mid 2020s,and there's too few Merlin helicopters to fill every deck space. There's also, reportedly, too few supply ships to keep it at sea for as longa s you would want, and you would need too much time to get 3, or ideally 4, of the 6 Type 45 destroyers, and a couple of SSN, assembled, to protect it from any substantial threat. The RN also now has too few people in peacetime, let alone to man two carriers in a major Falklands like war.
Ironically as the ship awaits its aircraft, the Spanish have just announced they will be staying with the Harrier until the late 2020s on their carrier, and the US Marines will be running Harriers on, using our aircraft as spares, until 2030. A spectacular case of us throwing an already bought capability and expertise away for a decade to save trivial amounts of money.
Its a great capability though - well produced - allowing for the additional costs from government dithering. . It just needs a properly resourced airforce ,with enough strike fighters and MPA, and a navy with enough men, ships, submarines and helicopters, around it, to operate safely.
Old fashioned thinking. The F-35 sucks and is looking suckier by the day. It's just been grounded again due to yet another engine fire. Which is a bad thing to have happen on a single-engined aircraft.
Again that's old fashioned thinking. In our brave new world we're not meant to act independently so the carriers would deploy with a battle group made up of other EU and NATO members. In the absence of any major threat, the Navy can do patrolling and general maritime duties with it's destroyers and frigates. Oh, and the Astutes, they're very cool.
Or you stop throwing good money after bad and fill it with these-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Taranis
They were only built because Gordon Brown wanted to create jobs in Scottish Labour constituencies.
We might as well have two, with nuclear power and catapults. If we can't afford them then why bother?
Because that's what always happens when a ship is built. Fitting out always happens after a launch.
That's what annoys America so much, American taxpayers paying to defend European citizens, while they enjoy their welfare state.
Newsnight got a load of Britain's youth together and presented them with a table divided in to different spending areas. On top were stacks of coins representing the governments income. They were then asked as a group to put the coins where they thought it should be spent.
It will probably not come as much of a surprise that they put most on welfare and education and practically nothing on defence, which they said they didn't see the point of, or something like that.
Another good reason not to let 16 year olds vote.
He was there looking very proud with his ninety two year old dad who served in the navy.
He does know that he doesn't get to keep them if their not finished before independence doesn't he?
They will be the most capable aircraft carriers of any European nation and the F35b are very advanced planes.
The carriers can be used to operate and support a wide range of helicopters and Royal Marines and be used for disaster relief.
And while they are being assembled in Scotland they have been built throughout the United Kingdom.
F35 is fine if you want a limited stealth, limited payload in stealth mode, limited air to air capability, light weight, fighter , and want to rely on a single engine flying over water, and want what started as a cheap single seat fighter weighing in at 30 tons and costing £180 million for early production aircraft. . But it will do most jobs after a fashion - eventually. The problem is a carrier with 12 won't be able to defend itself , and do much to attack anyone at the same time - the problem in the Falklands campaign.
Its not only that we would need allies to operate with. You need allies who will turn up. You then need allies who will turn up with the right capability at the right time. The reality is that the US is already short of escorts for its capital units, and US destroyer and cruiser numbers are coming down. Europe doesn't have many capable air defence assets either, and those the Italian and French Navy has , are tied to escorting their own carriers.
Unmanned aircraft are fine if the communications links work, if there are no more capable manned fighters around to shoot them down, and flight speed doesn't matter. Great for hitting heavily defended limited targets with a few small bombs, great for dealing with the odd pick up on a road. Unproven against a large scale threat, and probably doomed in air to air combat?.
They were ordered because the Labour 1998 defence review saw a need to be able to project power globally - which had been recently proved by the invasion of Kuwait and massacres in Bosnia. That was probably the best conducted defence review we have ever had - one of the very few not to be an exercise in justifying cuts, or making small changes, or adopting US strategic thinking five years late. . That review looked at potential threats,and what was needed to respond, and drew on the historical evidence. The problem is that the money was continualy cut thereafter. So we now have 50-60% of what we then reckoned we needed for smaller threats. Thats bizarre when the Middle East exploded soon afterwards, the terrorist threat emerged fully on 911, and is still growing, Russia is rearming and becoming more assertive, and there's a big arms race going in on from Greece to Japan . All of those states are prioritising interstate conflict, and conventional and/or nuclear threats - while we focus on terrorists.
The carriers might well have been fought by Brown , and then cut by him- but for the jobs in Scotland. We also might have ended up with only one - if government hadn't demanded a lower unit cost and been told they could only have that in return for buying two under one contract. That was the price of getting the lower price on one, and the builders sensibly wrote the contracts accordingly . The contract, in turn, was however, a useful argument to have when the pressure inevitably came to cut even more corners - by having a part time carrier force with only one carrier.
Expensive..what exactly cost 5 billion..... but cool....
Unmaned aircraft may never replace piloted aircraft for core duties. In 20 years the technology may exist to create a superior UAV but without the ability for AI decision making and targeting they will never compete. Thats something thats politically unthinkable.
The F35 has been a nightmare. The MOD waste money but the United States are on other level.
My view is they will keep both carriers and rotate them in service. Ships on extended readyness don't cost that much to maintain and it would get around having periods with no carrier at all.
The navy can support one carrier group, but not two so having two at sea would be pointless anyway. Though people do seem to overestimate the size of the carrier support. You would be talking 2xtype 45s 3xtype 23s and 1 submarine to put it on par with a traditional United States carrier group.