Obi Wan Russellhello all, first time poster here. I’ve long been interested in aircraft carrier design & development and the absence of ski-jumps on the US navy’s tawara & wasp class amphibious assault ships has always mystified me. I know that the ships were designed as amphibious assault boats and not aircraft carriers, but with the decision to regularly deploy AV-8Bs, it seems like it’d be a no-brainer to add some ramps on the ships to get the maximum effectiveness out of those harriers. To the best of my knowledge, the US navy is the only navy in the world that regularly operates STOVL aircraft from large flat-decked ships without ski-jumps. Why? A ski-jump would take up some deck space, but I imagine they could figure out a way to work around it. It can’t be a cost issue because well, ski-jumps are relatively inexpensive & low-tech compared to the catapults found on CATOBAR flat-tops. And if it’s an issue of not being able to retrofit ski-jumps, then at the very least the new America class LHAs, ships that will allegedly be optimized for better air operations, should be designed with jumps. Why wouldn’t the marines want to get the most out of their F-35Bs?
The only reason I can think of is some political non-sense of the navy not wanting to prove the effectiveness of a smaller STOVL carrier format that could threaten future funding for their highly desired supercarriers. If that’s the case, it still seems an awful waste to limit the full potential of those ships and their aircraft.
Your second paragraph pretty much nailed it. Here’s the view from the actual pilots as regards ski jumps:
Marines experience Brit style on ‘Lusty’
By Vago Muradian – Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Aug 8, 2007 5:41:53 EDT
ABOARD THE HMS ILLUSTRIOUS — What’s the definition of heaven if you’re a Marine Harrier pilot? Why, spending two weeks on one of Britain’s aircraft carriers, of course.
“What’s not to like? The flying’s awesome, the food and quarters are great, and you can get a drink at the end of the day,” said Maj. Stephan “Poppy” Bradicich, the executive officer of Marine Attack Squadron 542 who helped plan the unprecedented embarkation of 16 Harriers and 200 Marines aboard HMS Illustrious, known as “Lusty” to its crew.
ABOARD THE HMS ILLUSTRIOUS
The largest-ever embark of Marine personnel and aircraft aboard a foreign warship July 15-31 was part of Joint Task Force Exercise Operation Bold Step 07-02 that included the Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower strike groups, to prepare Truman for its upcoming deployment.
The accommodations and food drew high marks from the Marines. They enjoyed everything from curry night to such traditional Royal Navy dishes as “hammy eggy cheesy” — toast layered with shredded ham, an egg and covered with melted cheese — and kippered herrings along with eggs, bacon and beans for breakfast, or haggis and bashed neeps — mashed turnips — for dinner. The ship even features “Chips at Six” — fresh french fries served in the bar before dinner.
Other pluses? A roomy, teak quarterdeck aft to take a quiet break or take in a sunset, beautifully varnished wooden ladders and generous carpeting — which are stripped when the ship goes into battle — and Internet connectivity that works every time.
But one of the most satisfying things is that the ship is a strike carrier where Harriers, not helicopters, are the priority.
“This is the Royal Navy’s A team, and they live and breathe strike,” said Col. Eric “Beans” Van Camp, the commanding officer of Marine Aircraft Group 14, who also commanded the U.S. air group aboard Illustrious. “On a gator, the Harriers are secondary to the amphibious and helicopter mission.”
Then there is the piece de resistance, the 20-foot-long blond oak bar that is the centerpiece of a spacious lounge, part of the wardroom annex where off-duty officers can draw a pint, dram, cocktail, coffee or tea and reflect on the day and prepare for tomorrow.
“Everyone’s working really hard, but it’s also OK to relax afterward with a beer, within the rules we live by,” Van Camp said. “The challenge is maintaining that balance between mission and safety.”
If you’re flying the next day, you’re not drinking, nor are you staying up late, Bradicich said as he sipped a soft drink.
“It’s a great tool that we don’t have,” Bradicich said. “On our ships, there’s no place where you can really unwind, get to know your shipmates on a personal level, and solve disagreements. Our view is that if you have free time, you should be doing something other than hanging around. Here, everyone works just as hard, but they also know how to unwind. It’s a huge philosophical difference.”
That philosophical difference manifests in the relaxed atmosphere aboard the ship, including the relationship between officers and ratings — British for enlisted personnel.
Case in point? Expect a cheery “good morning” as you make your way down the passage or an offer for help if you look lost. And in a welcome relief for the American contingent, the 1MC system doesn’t crackle with announcements 24 hours a day, and the officers don’t carry radios to contact one another or the captain.
“When you have a third of the ship asleep at any given time, it doesn’t make much sense to be waking them by blaring unnecessary announcements every few minutes,” one British officer said.
In fact, the only announcement is from the operations center that details the day’s plan and tests important alarms. The only other time you hear the loudspeaker is when there’s a problem, such as a fire or engineering casualty.
And why don’t the officers carry radios like their American counterparts? “What the bloody hell do you need a radio for?” the British officer asked. “You know the plan, what the captain’s intentions and expectations are. As an officer, your job is to lead, and if you need to talk to the captain all the time, then you’re not doing your job or letting him do his.”
Another philosophical difference is that the British are open to ideas that to Americans seem goofy, but work, such as the 12-degree ramp at the bow of the ship that dramatically improves Harrier operations. Senior U.S. naval officers over the decades have vetoed the idea, saying they don’t like how it looks and that it takes up three helicopter landing spots. British and Marine officers say only one deck spot is lost to the “ski jump.”
To a man, Marine pilots want the ramps installed on their ships to improve operational flexibility and safety.
“We’re all in love with the ski ramp because when you come off that ramp, you’re flying,” Bradicich said. “From our ships, if you’re fully loaded, you need 750 feet, and even then you’ve got some sink once you clear the deck. Here, you can do the same thing in 450 feet and you’re climbing.”
But the ramp is intimidating at first sight, pilots said.
“I expected it to be violent, but when you take off, it’s almost a non-event,” said Maj. Grant “Postal” Pennington, a pilot with VMA-513 at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz. “Up you go, and you’re climbing. It’s a great experience.”
Equally important is the ship that’s bolted to the ramp, pilots said.
“Some of our younger guys who haven’t flown from our ships yet are in for a big surprise when they do,” Bradicich said. “This is probably the best ship you could possibly fly a Harrier from. It’s not very big, but it’s really stable, no roll, just a little pitch, not like the flat-bottom gators that roll so much. You’ve got the island moving 30 feet in each direction when you’re trying to land. That tends to get your attention.”
The combination of ski ramp, stability and dedicated crew contributed to a breakneck operational pace. The Marines proudly logged a ship record 79 takeoffs and landings in one day.
“These guys are great. We’ve qualed 28 guys in three days, most with eight landings and takeoffs, so even though we said that we were going to crawl, walk, run, our pace has been tremendous, even with different procedures,” Pennington said. “We like to approach the ship at 45 degrees and hit one of the spots, but they approach from dead astern, come to a hover abeam, slide over, then drop down to the deck. It’s different, but you get the hang of it.”
The only downside? “The thought that we’re going to have to get off,” Bradicich said.
A ROYAL NAVY WELCOME
To welcome the Marines aboard, the ship’s company invited their American guests to an evening of traditional Royal Navy tomfoolery, Horse Racing Night. Outlandish costumes were encouraged, and the event, held in the ship’s hangar deck July 21 because of choppy weather, was hosted by an Elvis impersonator in full polyester regalia as the ship’s band played.
The next day, an athletic competition was held on Illustrious’ flight deck, pitting the Royal Navy against the Marine Corps in six events: rowing; weightlifting; tractor pull; the standard Royal Navy physical fitness, or “beep,” test; shuttle run with two 40-pound sandbag weights; and a tug of war.
To the Marines’ chagrin, the Brits won all the events except for weightlifting.
In a more military contest, the Marine aircraft dropped dummy bombs and fired 20mm rounds against a target towed by Illustrious that produces a geyser of water and serves as an aim point.
Sailors expressed confidence that the Marines wouldn’t hit the target, and despite several close calls — including a mock bomb attack by one of the youngest pilots, 1st Lt. Douglas “Rosie” Rosenstock — that lifted it out of the water, the target escaped unscathed.
Obi Wan RussellA couple of points/questions.
Had Victorious been recomissioned & HM Government forcing scrapping of the ‘big carriers’ would it not have been better to keep Vicky & Hermes as they would’ve been cheeper to run. There is a photo in Richard Johnstone-Brydens book ‘HMS Ark Royal IV’ of the P1127 landing dated Feb 7 but no year, so presume it was before her feb’67 refit. Eagle trialed Phantoms in ’68 & Harrier GR1’s March 70. Ark flew Phantoms 70+ & trialed Harrier GR1’s May’71 & GR3’s October ’75. Could Navy not try & go for 12 SHARS + 14 GR1’s as a replacement for Sea Vixens & buccaneers plus AEW, HAS etc? SHAR development sped up due to need? Could Victorious & Hermes have been projected to operate such an air group? Then designing a purpose built bird farms of 30- 35,000 tons sort of a cross between Victorious & Invincible, for commisioning 1980+?
The Healy axe was never about running costs, because the reality proves no savings were made by cancellation. The difference in running costs between Eagle/Ark and Hermes/Victorious wasn’t that great, certainly not enough to make any difference. In the 60s the RN had five CVs and two LPHs, in order to maintain one CV and one LPH in the Far east, and one CV in the Atlantic/Med at all times. This force level needed five carriers because it had been realised in the 50s that all the carriers would need lengthy reconstructions during the next decade to remain viable for faster and heavier jets entering service. Hence the retention of Centaur as a CV instead of the expected conversion to LPH. Of the aircraft intended to eqip the 70s FAA, the Buccaneers had alreay been bought and were mostly in service, while the Phantoms were bought anyway as well. The plan was to replace the five existing CVs with three CVAs, whilst the two LPHs (and one of the CVs, as well as the three Tiger class CLs or CLHs if their refits went ahead) with three ‘Escort Cruisers’ which evolved into the Invincibles. In 1960’s prices, the three CVAs were estimated to cost around £100million each, whereas the Invincibles were estimated originally at around £60million each in early 70s prices. At no point prior to the 66 axe was anyone considering less than a three carrier force, Healy said so himself. The plan was to upgrade both Ark and Eagle for Phantoms to operate alongside CVA-01 until her two sister could be built. CVA-01 was to replace Victorious in 72, CVA-02 to replace Ark Royal by 76-78 and CVA-03 Eagle by 84. Hermes was to remain a CV until the mid 70s at least, to help cover for any teething problems with the new ships at the very least. Albion could have continued at least as long as Bulwark, and was only paid off because there was only enough money for two LPHs, and Hermes was a newer ship.
The Harrier first went to sea (as the P1127) in 63 as stated above, but didn’t enter service as a combat aircraft until 1969, and took some time to prove itself as more than just a gimmick. Given a choice between a force of Phantoms and Buccaneers, and a force of Harriers, in the late 60s or early 70s it would have been no contest. The Harrier’s advantages were far outweighed by the combat capability of the former aircraft (twice as fast, twice the range, twice the bombload). Also, if a large Harrier air group is to be considered for carriers the size of Hermes and Victorious, remember they could embark much larger numbers due to the Harrier’s small size. Hermes could accomodate about thirty Harriers in addition to a sqn of helos for example. Mixing the FRS1 with the GR1 would be unecessary also, as the FRS1 was derived from the GR3 and was an improvement on it. An all FRS1 air group would be a better idea as the aircraft are swing role, and can carry out the strike mission as well as the GR model. A single aircraft type allows better stadardisation for maintenance and training. The Shar wasn’t ordered until 1975 and first flew in 78, with the first frontline sqn commissioned in 1980. Victorious would have gone by 78 at the latest, so a replacement carrie program would have been required anyway.
Obi Wan RussellThe standard RN Helo carrier sqn in the 60s would have been six Whirlwinds (later Wessex HAS1/3) plus two whirlwinds for SAR/plane guard. The normal Gannet flight would have had four AEW3s and one COD4, though on Centaur and Hermes the photos of the ships at procedure alpha (entering/leaving port with crew lining the deck and the air group displayed) usually only show three AEW3s and one COD4. all the RN air groups varied in size due to the differing sizes and capacities of the carriers in service, the ideal being those embarked in Eagle and Ark Royal. So, Ideally the aim was for 12 Fighters for air defence/ secondary attack capability (Sea Vixens, later Phantoms), 14 Strike aircraft (10 bombers, two tankers and two recce Buccaneers), six ASW Helos to maintain a round the clock screen, four AEW Gannets and one Carrier Onboard Delivery Gannet. The smaller carriers had the same range of aircraft, but reduced numbers, Centaur being the smallest was the only one to give up her strike sqn. She was only kept on through the 60s to make up numbers as it had been anticipated that there would be one carrier undergoing a major rebuild at any given time for the decade (Eagle 1959-64, Hermes 1964-66, Ark Royal 1967-1970). In fact during the period 1959-1961 Both Ark and Eagle were in dockyard hands, so Albion’s Commando Carrier conversion was delayed by a year so that she could make a deployment to the far east as a fixed wing carrier, retaining an air group of Sea Hawks, Sea Venoms, Gannet ASW, Whirlwind ASW/SAR and Skyraider AEW due to her hydraulic catapults.
Victorious first commission post reconstruction was the only one to feature a ‘transitional’ air group, from fifties vintage aircraft to the new generation. Instead of a Sea Hawk sqn she embarked the first sqn of Scimitars (803NAS), alongside sqn of Sea Venoms, one of Whirlwinds and a flight of Skyraiders. No ASW Gannet sqn was included. From 1960 onwards, Victorious air group was compositionally the same as Hermes, but usually with a few moe aircraft due to her larger capacity (eg Hermes had six Buccs, Victorious had eight, though their fighter sqns were about the same size).
Obi Wan RussellHi – where did you get your info for Centaur’s airgroup from? I’ve trawled the web and only found 2 sources thus far:
http://www.btinternet.com/~a.c.walton/navy/rn-cv3.html
http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=228
Whilst they differ slightly on helo complement, they seem to agree that Centaur mounted 9 Sea Vixen + 8 Scimitar, and when the Scimitars were withdrawn they were not replaced.
Also, any info on Vic’s airgroups from the Scimitar era onwards would be much appreciated, have seen even less for that (just harpoon).
Primarily from Neil McCart’s book on HMS Centaur, plus a few other refence books. I believe Nieil got his info from the RN and from ex crew members. I’d regard those sources as more reliable than most online sources (ie people who were there). Hermes operated 9 Sea Vixens for most of the sixties alongside 8 Scimitars, then post 66 she swapped the scimitars for 6 Buccaneers (she had a bigger hangar deck courtesy of the deck edge lift and more deck parking space than Centaur). Having re checked my sources, Centaur is listed as operating 8 Sea Vixens and 8 Scimitars from 1960-62, thereafter 12 Sea Vixens. Photos of the period seem to confirm these numbers. Hermes appears to have increased her fighter complement to 11 aircraft by 1970, though the extra aircraft may have been just for trials/ excercises. I’ll have a dig around for info on Victorious’ air group.
Obi Wan RussellI have always believed Varyags Boilers and Turbines were fitted before launching (as with any other steam powered ship), simply because there would have been no reason not to fit them at the time. That doesn’t mean they are INSTALLED by any means. If you have ever been in the engine rooms of a steam turbine powered warship, it’s difficult to move for all the pipeworks and plumbing. It’s all this pipe work and other components that I believe were not installed in the Ukraine, allowing the builders to claim she was without propulsion. Technically, the boilers and Turbines would have just been deadweight until they were plumbed in. It’s possible they were wrecked in situ by the builders, but I doubt it. It’s a matter of semantics really as to the original contract with the Ukrainian builders. A bit like the way Warship CO’s could deny they had Nuclear weapons on board, because although they did, they were dismantled until needed, so what they had were the components for nuclear weapons, not Nuclear weapons themselves! (until they have been assembled, they are not considered to be weapons). Similarly, until Varyags Boilers and engines have been fully installed and connected up, they aren’t anything more than ballast.
Obi Wan RussellBoth the Italian and Spanish navies operate fleets of around 15 AV-8Bs and this is sufficient for them to operate a small squadron of around 8 aircraft off their carriers’ decks – so this is a feasible number for an IOC for the Navy. We could draw heavily on the US for training aswell. I’d suggest retiring a squadron of RAF/RN Harriers ASAP, in order to rotate the airframes and keep that type in service for as long as possible, eventually to be replaced in a follow-on F35B order.
Actually, the plan is the opposite. 801NAS is due to stand up next year and future deployments aboard the carriers are scheduled to be with 10+ aircraft. 8 aircraft is fine for carriers like Principe de Asturias or Garibaldi, perhaps even Cavour, but the CVFs will look empty with just eight aircraft on deck. The Spanish and Italian Navies have for a long time only operated a single carrier each as well, but this is changing. Italy now has two carriers, which alternate but share a single air group. That is goint to put a strain on the pilots and ground crew, ideally it should be one air group per carrier so that when the carrier is in refit, the air group can recuperate, rest, train and prepare. Spain will soon have two flat tops in service as well, but only one sqn of Harriers. Careful planning will be needed to avoid straining the aircrew.
Obi Wan RussellWonder if they’re going to take the whole island apart now? would this be the best way to access necessary spaces to install propulsion systems?
If you go downwards through the island you hit fresh air then water. The island is sponsoned out over the side of the ship, if you wanted to access the mahinery spaces, it makes a lot more sense to go through the hangar deck and go straight down. This means any installation work on her machinery spaces can be done out of sight (underneath the flight deck, with equipment brought in through the deck edge lift openings). The island may look large in it’s original form, but it’s ‘footprint’ isn’t unreasonable. Certainly, a more modern design of Island suitable for whatever radars and sensors the PLAN intend to fit would be a better idea than simply adapting the existing superstructure, hence the removal of the existing island. If they were going to scrap the ship they wouldn’t be doing it in an expensive drydock. She would have been towed to a beach somewhere or a quayside near to a steel works. Drydocks are expensive to rent…
Obi Wan RussellI didnt think anything decent happened in Bristol! I thought it was all done on guernsey!
All that defense stuff! Isnt bristol a bit useless? It only houses a few small defense firms.
Ok
So what is the total score for SSBNs then?
Have we given up on the idea of having massive aircraft carriers that can be sitting ducks hmm I was about to say enemies but I am sure the yanks will sink em soon as they can.. friendly fire and all that you know..
Funny how people think a carrier which CAN move and defend itself is a sitting duck, yet a landlocked airbase which cannot move (unless it’s built on a geological fault!) is a smarter bet. At least a carrier makes an enemy work a bit to locate it, and then makes them run the gauntlet of layered air defence (or the ASW screen if the threat is a sub). How many airbases (which cost an OBSCENE amount of money to build) have been handed over to hostile nations without a shot being fired in the last century? The Soviets apparently really enjoyed the facilities at Cam Rahn Bay in Vietnam, constructed for the the USAF. A lot of former RAF bases are now in the hands of nations which, if not hostile now, have been in the past and could easily be again. By contrast, how many carriers have changed hands in such manner? How many have been lost to enemy action since WW2?
Obi Wan RussellIf the CVA-01 project had not been cancelled, then a Navalised variant of Tornado would likely have been developed from the start as a replacement for the FAA’s Phantoms and Buccaneers as well as the RAF’s ones. Of course in this scenario, more Phantoms and Buccs would have been aquired in the first place as the RAF wouldn’t have the option of stealing the RNs ones, so the overall fleet of aircraft needing replacement would be larger as well. The CVAs were designed to operate 36 jets (18 Phantoms and 18 Buccs) plus four AEW and six ASW Helo (sound familiar? CVF!) so there would be a requirement for three air groups plus HQ/OCU sqn and attrition spares. So we are looking at a minimum buy of 80+ ADV(N) and 80+IDS(N). Had Tornado been designed from the outset for Naval operations, it would have been a better aircraft IMHO, as it would have been more rugged in construction as the Phantom and Buccaneer had been. On the other hand if you just fitted the Tornado avionics to the Phantom and Buccaneer airframes, you get a better aircraft then the Tornado anyway… and that’s the opinion of the pilots who flew them!
Obi Wan RussellHow about these?
Obi Wan RussellHoushou normally written as Hosho in english, I wasn’t sure which one you were referring to at first. IJN tactics in WW2 were deeply flawed, such as their failure to institute a proper convoy system to protect their supply lines and adequate ASW forces. They had the ships, aircraft and weapons to do much better than they did in the Pacific war, it seems their leadership was often the reason things went badly.
I also think too many are hung up on what Japan did 70 years ago as reason for Japan not to be a full player on the world stage. Modern Japan is nothing like Imperial Japan. Nobody thinks Japan is planning to invade anyone else now or in the next thirty years or more, so what’s the problem with them possessing aviation capable ships?
Obi Wan RussellI think it would be wiser to get rid of that old carrier and buy some additional air refueling tankers.. Its cheaper and makes more flexible (read quicker) alerts possible during out of area Ops.
Its not only a carrier which sucks up the budget rather quick but you also need an escort and support fleet to keep it going.
I disagree. Just because you can fly strike aircraft halfway around the world with AAR doesn’t mean you should. The pilots end up being in the cockpit for 20+ hours, taking stimulants to stay awake. The USAF tried that in the Gulf war, and found the incidence of friendly fire increasing because the pilots were tired. Far better to base the pilots closer to the area of action on a carrier where they can fly much shorter duration missions and be more productive, flying two or three missions in a day with proper rest in between. As for fleet escorts, Brazil already has them. They’re called frigates and destroyers and they will need replacement in due course anyway. Also, AAR tankers just aren’t sexy!:D If you seriously think the Navy will give up it’s carrier and strike aircraft to fund some converted airliners for the Air Force, you need to WUASC;)
Obi Wan Russellthank god for penalty clauses.
The only way it seems to keep a british government doing what they said they would do!.
Im all for the A400M cancellation. Buy more C-130’s and C-17s
Leave the euro fighter and carriers alone.
I know though knowing our policitians they will scrap the JSF deal and say we can make do with Harriers. Or only buy 30.
Agreed for the most part, though on the last point, keeping the Harriers running isn’t a viable option, after 2018 they will start running out of fatigue life, which has already been extended as far as practically possible. The F-35s don’t have to be ordered all in one go though, and this is a program that will be spread over many years. An initial purchase of up to 60 aircraft will give an initial operational capability (30 is too few to be of practical value, not enough for one carrier air group let alone an OCU or attrtion reserve) and then more batches can be ordered later, as the production lines will be open well into the 2020s. During the transition period from Harrier to F-35, they will be operated side by side for s few years, with the FAA scheduled to recieve them first. This should free up a large number of Harrier airframes for the RAF, so they can pick and choose the best airframes from a larger pool to eke out the fatigue life of the remaining aircraft.
Obi Wan RussellMcTaggart Scott, who made the British Steam Catapults in the 50s and 60s, may not have manufactured a whole catapult since then, but they have been supplying parts for the up keep and maintenance of those in service ever since. A dwindling market to be sure, but they still have the capability for such large jobs. They also make aircraft lifts and arrestor gear as well as many other items necessary for an aircraft carrier. A veritable one stop shop for carrier construction! Whilst the largest catapults they made were the two 199ft BS5s for Eagle and Ark Royal’s wasit positions, they were also planning to supply the 250ft BS6s for the CVA-01. The plans for these probably still exist, and as these were effectively scaled up from the BS5 design one can assume there would have been no particular problems with them in service. These cats would be direct competitors for US catapults such as the C13 if there was a burgeoning worldwide market (not seeing it myself, but just in case). Steam catapults are not high tech, nor are they a closely guarded secret as some seem to think. Many nations Navies have experience of operating and maintaining them (Argentina, Brazil, India, Holland, Australia, Canada, as well as the US and the UK) and the expertise of their former engineers is available for a reasonable price I’d imagine. If a nation like Russia or China was serious about Steam Catapults, it wouldn’t be difficult to hire a few ‘experts’ for a modest sum to help out with their projects…
Obi Wan RussellIndeed this is good news! Something like £700 million has been contracted out now! Hopefully with each section delivered and each multi million contract placed it will weaken the position of the naive “Lets cancel the carrier brigade”! It never fails to amaze me how pundits in this country will argue the cancellation of projects when the money is SPENT! For example Nimrod MRA4 still gets calls for cancellation despite the fact that the money has been spent and its nearly ready to enter service!
Also I wish the term “Cold war relic” would be banished from the press as it paints a false picture to the public. Its only used by fans and pundits of each service to bash procurement projects of the other services.
I think the term “Cold war relic” should be replaced with “Retaining the ability to fight a hot war against a moderate enemy”!
Well said that man! I second the motion! Also I wish nay sayers would get their facts straight when suggesting the CVFs are the most expensive defence program around and thus cancellation would cure all the ills of defence funding. The cost of the CVFs doesn’t even come close to some of the RAF’s programs (the aforementioned MRA4 for example, Typhoon Tranche 3 etc), so the really big savings would have to come from elsewhere anyway. Right now, I believe cancelling the CVFs would mean ZERO savings when penalty clauses are factored in. Also the small matter of the decimation of the Shipbuilding industry, as there is nothing else on the horizon to fill the order books. FSC is still years away from being ready to order. I think the current buch of reprobates in government have begun to realise that there are votes in defence after all. Certainly there are no votes to be gained by defence cuts. The public, because of the government’s disasterous handling of the wars in Iraq and the ‘Stan now equate defence spending, or rather the lack of it, with dead soldiers and job losses. Cuts will not go down well with the electorate, and I’m sure behind the scenes somebody will have told them that there is nothing left to cut realistically. The fat went in the 80s, muscle in the 90s and we have been cutting into bone for the last decade. Time for some body building instead, good for jobs, the economy and whoever is in power when it happens!
Sign In
