I’m certain we will at least get 6 and probably 7 but certainly not 10.

No definitely not unless some unknown pro-defence party appears and becomes the most popular in the country before the election. After reading the defence manifests, or lack of them, from every major party, only one actually makes the kind of commitment to defence that would be needed for 10, and they won’t get in.

You’ll be lucky, the BBC is about as anti war as an organisation gets, they will use dead soldiers families as pawns in their game and do as little as possible to report good news from warzones that have UK troops deployed whilst overplaying all bad news.

A little overstated perhaps. A large part of why so little reporting goes on in Afghanistan is because of the restraints placed on reporters/embeds out there. The MoD has a pretty tight grip on it all to minimise the bad news flowing out to only major events and casualties, so that issues like the helicopter/vehicle shortage, go unnoticed until a large even like the last couple of weeks occur.

However, the BBC and the british media in general wouldn’t really care if they had total access, defence doesn’t make good headlines like mentally ill people in a house for 12 weeks does.

I thought SDR outlined the requirement for 10 although i may be wrong

I might be wrong, I read somewhere that the 97 review initially outlined 12 and that it has been revised downwards ever since to meet budgets.

We will get 7 if were lucky!

If we get less than 7 then serious changes to Naval doctrine will be needed in the upcoming SDR. But Labour have effectively committed to 7, the Tories may try to wriggle out but i’m praying they aren’t quite as stupid as they come across in defence matters.

I’m certain that even with the govt. pinching pennies especially from the RN, we will see 7 orerdered. I’d like to see 8 but they have the excuse that they can’t fit itmin before SSBN work begins.

If it was up to me i’d expand capability at Barrow and order 12 like the SDR said we needed. Create quite a few more jobs too.

Re hi gyus
(sorry for my bad english:p)

The Royal Navy has suffered from years of very dramatic budget cuts (and this cuts probably “continus” in the 2010’s).
It is known that the royal navy would:
– 2 large aircraft carrier
– 12 destroyers
– Around 16/22 frigates
– 10/11 SSN
but the reality is the budget constraint!

being given that the number of F-35 order will probably be revised downwards (150…>…75/80?….even minus ???:() and that the RAF is doing everything to weaken the Royal navy…

Does it not better to have large ships more modular & flexible, because large aircraft carrier….. take only aircraft & helicopters (& eventually troops) …

The LHD is more flexible, they take Aircraft, helicopters, troops……&…..tanks, others military vehicles & amphibious craft:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

For that, I think 2 large LHD would be more effective than 2 aircraft carriers for the royal navy…:rolleyes:

I agree…partially…(technicaly speeking)…but…
In this time of great financial restriction, “optimisation” of ships were very important. Because the big donwards in defense spending expected by british force in the 2010’s.

Build 2 big ships of 60000 tons with the risk of a ships with a partial complement of aircraft (donwards of F-35 order)……(I doubt that ever one of this ships take 30/36 F-35:rolleyes:)…were…nearly…usefullness…

And don’t forget the aircraft capacity of the Spanish (juan carlos) or south korean (Dokhdo) LHD…:rolleyes:

but this is only my opinion:rolleyes:

The point is that one of the few things in the RN not neglected over recent years is the Amphib assault capability. We have all that we need in that department. Now we are trying to re-capitalise on the carrier fleet.

As Swerve said, the RN will have greater flexibility this way. Also you need to factor in the amount of air/amphib we are likely to need. For the Spanish, a few Harriers is likely to be enough in the air department, meaning that space can be given over for tanks etc in the LHD role. But for the RN we’d need more. If we only had LHD’s that would probably entail sending a greater number of ships to do the same job as one CVF and one LHD.

This thread is too optimistic for a thread on the RN.

If I added any further comments it would be too depressing.

There is always MARS to keep them busy. 😉

That has been delayed. And based on what was said when it was, I think that the cheaper alternatives being considered mean that a foreign yard might be used. I heard south Korea being thrown around. It would make for a cheaper ship for sure.

2012 to HMNB Portsmouth delayed, expected 2016
2015 to HMNB Portsmouth delayed, expected 2018

:p

or LPH(R)…

Lol and that replacement is years away yet. Ocean is only 19 years old. Compared to the Invincible class, it is barely out of nappies.

Not since it got canned/delayed? last year, appears to be very much off the map at the moment.

Too true, even though they are in urgent need of replacement. The Tankers were supposed to be out by 2010 by law.