Stryker73Well the Guardian report has the possibility of PoW being replaced by frigates in the shipyards but the PoW construction actually being put back to later in the decade when funding would be more favourable along with the airgroup to outfit it !
The Guardian also thinks each CVF was due to have a 69 strong airwing. :rolleyes:
Stryker73Posted on the CVF construction thread.
Def. Sec Liam Fox talks about reports of cancelling one of the two carriers
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Defence-Secretary-Liam-Fox-Refuses-To-Deny-Job-Losses-At-The-Ministry-Of-Defence/Article/201010115751805
The RN getting PoW is still a possibility imo, particularly now reports are coming in from lots of different newspaper sources all reporting the same thing – that the MoD will get one of the most favourable budget settlements as Fox seems to be winning his battle with the Treasury over the harshness of the cuts imposed.
Stryker73The HM Forces site is written by contributors and this one has clearly seen the interview given by the Prime Minister to Andrew Marr on Sunday and written it up as fact.
Why don’t you hear it from the Defence Secretarys own mouth last night when asked about his interpretation of whats happening with the 2nd carrier
Stryker73The FT is reporting that…
‘Defence is likely to emerge with one of the most favourable budget settlements in Whitehall after the Treasury softened its demands for cuts in response to Liam Fox’s concerns over the potential damage to the armed forces.’
To see the full story youll need to google ‘Fox outflanks Treasury on defence budget’
Believe it when I see it!
Stryker73Surely RN is only going to need a few extra ships like HMS Clyde (effectively a patrol ship) and they are going to end up with needing to generate something else to keep the yards working until Type 26 starts to be build later this decade? This is why when they mentioned light frigates I thought they were referring to designs based on the Frigate 2000 design which could do the low end C2 role.
EDIT: I was also imagining that you could use a Frigate 2000 to patrol in low threat areas and fill the same role as the La Fayette does for France.
Possibly, it’s all supposition on our part anyway as we don’t know the extent of the cuts yet.
one of the London papers is saying the SDR is going to be brought forward to Oct 18th rather than 22d, so exactly 2 weeks to find out. I’m sure there will be more doom and gloom in the media before then.
Stryker73I second Stryker’s point – if you are going to lose a lot of frigates now, and have to pay to complete PoW or penalties, then you are going to save money, especially in the long run, if Carrier Alliance agree to use the penalties owed them to build something else. The upfront costs are the same, the long term costs of replacing the frigates are reduced and you are likely cutting 40 – 50 crew from each frigate replaced with a light frigate.
I presume when they refer to light frigates they mean something like the Malaysian Lekiu but scaled up with integrated electric propulsion, improved aviation facilities and the capacity to carry marines and RIB’s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lekiu_class_frigate
I believe the light-frigates wouldn’t be as high end as that – possibly a Clyde and that’s it. They wouldn’t replace the current frigates but do the constabulary work that frees up warfighting platforms.
Stryker73if the second hull is not “cancelled” but replaced with “alternative platforms” to give industry the workshare contracted for there’s no saving. What’s the point of building “something else” and save nothing?????
Because you would still save by buying light frigates (and I assume they mean HMS Clyde style light frigates) to negate heavy penalty clauses.
You could buy 15 for less than a billion.
The other point is Cameron on TV did make a play about the constrabulary roles of the RN in anti-drug running and anti-piracy, something the RN has been ridiculously sending large amphibs to do.
So you save money and get something you believe is needed in service.
Stryker73Neither China or Russia have the ability to take out a CVF in a matter of ‘minutes’ unless the UK was stupid enough to park it off their coast.
And hardly beyond Britains means, the defence budget is a third of what it was 30 years ago. Britain chooses to spend is money elsewhere so it would be better to say ‘beyond what Britain is currently prepared to spend on defence’.
The Guardian is reporting that following the leaked letter Cameron will limit the cuts on defence to below 10%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/03/fox-cameron-defence-cuts-budget
One option being considered is to build one carrier, and offset penalty clauses on the 2nd by offering work on light-frigates.
Stryker73couldn’t see the srticle but the sunday times today had a website headline of “MOD Chiefs only want one carrier” what’s the betting that no source is named?
It’s Jock Strap himself, apparently he thinks ‘carriers were only really being bought for use in a world war, but even then a power such as China or Russia could take them out within minutes.’
Aside from the fact that everything said is total nonsense it sounds like what he thinks was written by someone else with an agenda.
I wonder what the view is in the Navy at the moment? Can’t be happy that the only voices at the top table in the NSC are Army & RAF
Stryker73It’s important to understand that the Sunday Times story about ‘extended readiness’ is nothing more than supposition at this stage and will be one of many options on the table. The Times is notoriously ropey on defence matters.
Also, remember that the shipyards have a contract that ensures them work whatever HM Government want them to build.
To me the ‘extended readiness/mothballing’ of a new ship would make no sense as if you’ve paid for it already then the expense of manning it, and of F35’s does not really kick in until after the current spending round.
Stryker73More from the media today, on TV Cameron mentioned the carriers saying that one of them was at an advanced stage of being built and said that the previous government hadn’t even decided what type of aircraft to put on them. He mentioned the RN still needed to consider piracy in the Gulf and drug running in the caribbean.
A brief synopsis of the Sunday Times (incase I get scolded by a mod again! 😉 )
* Military planners are urging the PM to scrap at least 1 of the 2 carriers.
* It turns out Liam Fox may be against the carriers after all, as the missing part of one of the leaked letters suggests Fox had said the weight of military opinion was that the carriers were too expensive and would distort Britain’s strategic interests.
*At the NSC meeting last Thursday the options on the table were to build both carriers, scrap both or take one and place it into “extended readiness”
Stryker73Cameron ‘My radical plan for Britains Armed Forces’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/8038973/David-Cameron-My-radical-plan-for-Britains-armed-forces.html
Nothing at all of substance to indicate the headline really, except we’ll apparently get more chinooks. So more chinooks on top of the order for more chinooks that will be ready after we pull out of dodge!
he pledged that Britain’s Armed Forces would be given “everything that they need” to fight the Taliban.
The PM does recognise this review is supposed to look beyond 2015 and with wider scope than Afghanistan doesn’t he? :rolleyes:
Stryker73Look likes the carriers might be safe – though there is no guarantee that the rest of the RN will be cut as a consequence as George Osborne has said today:
“He told the Telegraph: ‘We are going to have a bunch of kit that makes us extremely well prepared to fight the Russians on the north German plain. That’s not a war we are likely to face.’
The chancellor said there was little the coalition could do about the situation.
‘We are bound into contracts and that’s just a fact of life,’ he said.”
Not necessarily, that points more to Eurofighter tranche 3b. Though, George probably thinks carriers are cold war!
The choice for CVF will come down to if the government think it is worth paying out £2bn+ in contract clauses to save less than a billion and get nothing in return for it. The joint-Scottish submission where they state that each cancellation will cost their economy £3bn will hopefully be taken into account – I hope Mr Salmond has his facts right rather than doing the usual and plucking a random figure out of thin air.
You’re right though, the RN will probably get cuts either way even without CVF but the price unless there is a change of heart by Cameron is going to be all amphibs and half the surface fleet. Is it worth it?
The RN are being locked into 2 scenarios:
1. They get CVF and have a very top heavy navy and will sit it out until fiscally better times and then *hope* to get more surface fleet numbers.
2, The don’t get CVF, take a smaller hit and just accept the banking crisis came at the wrong time and fates conspired against them. Protect what they have, and hope to get some form of F35 capable platform down the line.
Stryker73A few points,
The UK was not ready to hit anyone hard in 1938 and Chamberlain knew it.
And on todays SDSR, I think a couple of pertinent points need to be understood Liger.
1. A fair percentage of the UK population are utterly sick of their politicans getting their country embroiled in ‘wars of choice’
2. A record defecit of £155bn is the biggest threat facing the UK today. You simply cannot be militarily strong with a weak economic position. As a UK citizen I accept that defence needs to play its part in cutting costs.
Stryker73More on Vince Cables support.
‘Liam Fox gets cabinet support in aircraft carrier budget fight’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/01/liam-fox-vince-cable
Sign In
