Regarding the latest instalment of the “debate” I would say that AFMs mind is made up as to the fate of the existing carriers and their aircraft and the CVFs and JSFs that should replace them.
A more partisan article the magazine has never published,it will do no good to list the reasons why AFM is wrong in its conclusion I can only say this – Do you think it will end when the current carriers and their aircraft are scrapped ? Do you think it will end when the CVFs are cancelled and the JSF likewise ?
The problem is not One service against the other it is the political policy which sees the public as clients for bribery and not as the population of a soverign country.
IF we want to save money then how about we chuck their bribes back at them?
The only sacrosanct areas should be health care and the armed forces all other public monies should be up for reassesment and reassignment.
By: swerve - 11th April 2009 at 21:48
I think he writes some good stuff on other topics, & it’s a pity about his attitude towards naval air. Is he ex-RAF?
Some of the navy lot are equally obsessed. I’ve seen rants from some of them that the RAF should be abolished, & the old pre-1918 army/navy air split re-established – but with the navy having the lions share.
By: EdLaw - 11th April 2009 at 20:40
No, it’s Jon Lake saying that carriers are a waste of money that could be better spent, especially on the RAF.
I seem to remember a few of his other multi-page rants about how carriers are pointless. It is a wonder that they actually keep publishing them! 😮
By: swerve - 11th April 2009 at 20:19
Like Village I’m afraid I’ve not seen the article to which you refer, but, if AFM is writing off the chances of CVF being built then they are somewhat behind the times. …
No, it’s Jon Lake saying that carriers are a waste of money that could be better spent, especially on the RAF.
By: EdLaw - 11th April 2009 at 10:24
The construction of the first vessel has already started and long-lead items contracted out. The absolute last thing that this government is going to do, in the current economic climate, is pull a public investment project the size of CVF that is doing much to stimulate the local economy of the constituencies on the Prime Ministers own doorstep.
On the other hand, the Dunfermline Building Society mess has certainly hurt the constituencies on the PM’s own doorstep!
As for the carriers, and RN shipbuilding in general, I doubt much will change in the next few years, no matter who is in Number 10. The next government is going to be having to cope with the massive budget problems incurred by the current government. As such, even a defence-friendly government (which I am not convinced is plausible) would lack the money to make the major changes needed.
In order to reinvigorate naval shipbuilding, there are several projects that would be needed:
– Order the two carriers, preferably followed by an LHD type (e.g. the Spanish Juan Carlos/Aussie Canberra class) to replace Ocean, since by the time the two CVFs are complete, Ocean will be in need of replacement.
– Place steady orders for surface combattants, e.g. two more Type 45s, followed by batches of C-1s, -2s and -3s. These need to be steady, so the shipyards don’t need to lurch between feast and famine!
– Keep the submarine building program running, with a few more of the Astute ordered, at a steady rate, to be followed by the Vanguard replacements.
– Start a multi-year contract for the MARS project, to give proper stability for the yards. The basic hulls might be built elsewhere, but the fitting out should be done in the UK. A leaf could be taken out of the US Navy’s book, regarding their T-AKE Lewis & Clark class. I do like the T-AKE project, since they are pretty capable ships, especially in concert with the Henry J Kaiser class tankers. It might be possible to have the MARS project follow a similar path, with two complementary designs, hopefully with a good degree of commonality.
By: kev 99 - 11th April 2009 at 09:33
I see what you mean but the problem with MARS is the only industry supported is that of the associated metal bashers inc. MARS can be built cheaply almost anywhere and really, while it would support UK PLC somewhat, we want the ‘stimulus’ to be spread wider than that.
Follow-on T45’s accomplish the latter as they support the tech sector as well as shipbuilding and would come, if ordered about now(ish), in time to get economy-of-scale rewards from the current build run of hulls.
BAE have already stated that the costs of the T45 builds are coming down so hulls 7 & 8 for reasonable money, keeping the work going at BAE Cowes on the radar side, keeping RR building a few more gas turbines etc and keeping countless jocks merrily bashing steel can only be considered a good thing!.
Not going to happen of course….but to my way of thinking its a pretty fair approximation of win-win!!!.
But of course much of the electronics are European which means money leaving the country and then there’s the question of a less favourable exchange rate to contend with, then there’s the cost as well there’s not a lot of money to be had at the moment.
By: StevoJH - 11th April 2009 at 08:10
I think its safe to say the CVF’s are past being cancelled. At least the first of the class. As a matter of fact the construction of both Carriers was purposely dragged out by a couple of years. As to keep more work in the UK……….
As for the T-45 we can only hope to see a couple more. When is number six to be completed??? Maybe by time its finished funds could be found for 7 & 8???:o
It was dragged out because the contract was placed several years after it was originally supposed to be placed, while the in service dates were not changed, The in service dates were moved back to a more reasonable time scale.
By: Arabella-Cox - 11th April 2009 at 04:55
I see what you mean but the problem with MARS is the only industry supported is that of the associated metal bashers inc. MARS can be built cheaply almost anywhere and really, while it would support UK PLC somewhat, we want the ‘stimulus’ to be spread wider than that.
Follow-on T45’s accomplish the latter as they support the tech sector as well as shipbuilding and would come, if ordered about now(ish), in time to get economy-of-scale rewards from the current build run of hulls.
BAE have already stated that the costs of the T45 builds are coming down so hulls 7 & 8 for reasonable money, keeping the work going at BAE Cowes on the radar side, keeping RR building a few more gas turbines etc and keeping countless jocks merrily bashing steel can only be considered a good thing!.
Not going to happen of course….but to my way of thinking its a pretty fair approximation of win-win!!!.
I think its safe to say the CVF’s are past being cancelled. At least the first of the class. As a matter of fact the construction of both Carriers was purposely dragged out by a couple of years. As to keep more work in the UK……….
As for the T-45 we can only hope to see a couple more. When is number six to be completed??? Maybe by time its finished funds could be found for 7 & 8???:o
By: Jonesy - 11th April 2009 at 00:14
I think you’d stand a better chance of persuading them to build a greater number of significantly cheaper ships such as you’d get by starting the MARS programme. They would be cheaper than 2 costly destroyers but would probably take longer to build thereby safeguarding more jobs.
Don’t get me wrong though, I do want more T45s.
I see what you mean but the problem with MARS is the only industry supported is that of the associated metal bashers inc. MARS can be built cheaply almost anywhere and really, while it would support UK PLC somewhat, we want the ‘stimulus’ to be spread wider than that.
Follow-on T45’s accomplish the latter as they support the tech sector as well as shipbuilding and would come, if ordered about now(ish), in time to get economy-of-scale rewards from the current build run of hulls.
BAE have already stated that the costs of the T45 builds are coming down so hulls 7 & 8 for reasonable money, keeping the work going at BAE Cowes on the radar side, keeping RR building a few more gas turbines etc and keeping countless jocks merrily bashing steel can only be considered a good thing!.
Not going to happen of course….but to my way of thinking its a pretty fair approximation of win-win!!!.
By: kev 99 - 10th April 2009 at 23:18
Like Village I’m afraid I’ve not seen the article to which you refer, but, if AFM is writing off the chances of CVF being built then they are somewhat behind the times.
The construction of the first vessel has already started and long-lead items contracted out. The absolute last thing that this government is going to do, in the current economic climate, is pull a public investment project the size of CVF that is doing much to stimulate the local economy of the constituencies on the Prime Ministers own doorstep.
If I were in MoD procurement I’d be banging the doors down in Whitehall pointing out the number of manufacturing jobs we could support and enhance by getting the T45 hulls 7 & 8 put back on the slate!.
I think you’d stand a better chance of persuading them to build a greater number of significantly cheaper ships such as you’d get by starting the MARS programme. They would be cheaper than 2 costly destroyers but would probably take longer to build thereby safeguarding more jobs.
Don’t get me wrong though, I do want more T45s.
By: The Village Idi - 10th April 2009 at 21:54
Ah, if only….
By: Jonesy - 10th April 2009 at 20:11
Like Village I’m afraid I’ve not seen the article to which you refer, but, if AFM is writing off the chances of CVF being built then they are somewhat behind the times.
The construction of the first vessel has already started and long-lead items contracted out. The absolute last thing that this government is going to do, in the current economic climate, is pull a public investment project the size of CVF that is doing much to stimulate the local economy of the constituencies on the Prime Ministers own doorstep.
If I were in MoD procurement I’d be banging the doors down in Whitehall pointing out the number of manufacturing jobs we could support and enhance by getting the T45 hulls 7 & 8 put back on the slate!.
By: Arabella-Cox - 10th April 2009 at 18:36
The CVF’s will be purchased along with the F-35B’s (IMO)……..just the usual politics. Remember, bad news and controversy sell’s newpapers!:eek:
By: The Village Idi - 10th April 2009 at 18:04
What article? By who?
Sign In
April 10, 2009 at 2:37 pm