'Aircraft' carriers

[Verbal]

Genius George Osborne has decided that it is a good idea to build new aircraft carriers, but not to buy the aircraft to fly from them.

 

In the spirit of helpfulness – and in an act of charity to this dimwit – can we offer some solutions? If they still have those ramps for short take-off, I’d suggest giving the Marines skateboards for rapid disembarkation into enemy waters.

 

Other than that, I’m out. I can’t think of anything that can rescue this decision from its imbecility.

[JackFrost]

Genius George Osborne has decided that it is a good idea to build new aircraft carriers, but not to buy the aircraft to fly from them.

 

In the spirit of helpfulness – and in an act of charity to this dimwit – can we offer some solutions? If they still have those ramps for short take-off, I’d suggest giving the Marines skateboards for rapid disembarkation into enemy waters.

 

Other than that, I’m out. I can’t think of anything that can rescue this decision from its imbecility.

 

It was actually Gordon Brown and Alan Johnson who originally bought them, only for the Tories to discover we can't afford to put anything on them.

 

It will also cost £5.7 billion to cancel just one of the aircraft carrier contracts

Edited 17 October, 2010 by JackFrost

[sperm_john]

Errr ...if we should need said carriers to have said aircraft in a hurry ...we could produce them, whereas producing carriers quickly is a different story... think about it

[Verbal]

It was actually Gordon Brown and Alan Johnson who originally bought them, only for the Tories to discover we can't afford to put anything on them.

 

It will also cost £5.7 billion to cancel just one of the aircraft carrier contracts

 

Does that figure not give you a moment's pause? £5.7 billion?! And how come Alan Johnson got involved? In his remit as Education Secretary perhaps?

[Johnny Bognor]

Genius George Osborne has decided that it is a good idea to build new aircraft carriers, but not to buy the aircraft to fly from them.

 

In the spirit of helpfulness – and in an act of charity to this dimwit – can we offer some solutions? If they still have those ramps for short take-off, I’d suggest giving the Marines skateboards for rapid disembarkation into enemy waters.

 

Other than that, I’m out. I can’t think of anything that can rescue this decision from its imbecility.

 

 

I too was horrified at the above when I first read about it in 2009 (a year before the tories has been elected and GO appointed chancellor)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23710801-defence-cuts-to-leave-aircraft-carriers-without-any-planes.do

 

The question you need to ask is which dimwit signed the contract for the carriers?

Which imbecile negotiated the contract so that it costs more to cancel them than it does to finish them?

Could it be the same genius that thought he had abolished boom and bust?

 

I doubt you will criticise Brown and Co for this decision? (as it is it OK for them to make such a catastrophic mistake)

 

Anyway, since the New Old Labour party is clearly in favour of the carriers (http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/saveourcarriers), despite being a decision made by imbeciles (as you put it), you are not singing off the party songsheet

Edited 17 October, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Weston Super Saint]

Not to mention the seven other ships/submarines that are needed to create the task force for EACH aircraft carrier, to allow them to get where they need to be without being sunk! Who's gonna pay for them, and the personnel that are needed to man them?

 

These aircraft carriers could be the most expensive, shiny models in the history of the British navy

[Verbal]

I too was horrified at the above when I first read about it in 2009 (a year before the tories has been elected and GO appointed chancellor)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23710801-defence-cuts-to-leave-aircraft-carriers-without-any-planes.do

 

The question you need to ask is which dimwit signed the contract for the carriers?

Which imbecile negotiated the contract so that it costs more to cancel them than it does to finish them?

Could it be the same genius that thought he had abolished boom and bust?

 

I doubt you will criticise Brown and Co for this decision? (as it is it OK for them to make such a catastrophic mistake)

 

Anyway, since the New Old Labour party is clearly in favour of the carriers (http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/saveourcarriers), despite being a decision made by imbeciles (as you put it), you are not singing off the party songsheet

 

You doubt I will criticise Brown, et al? Why? I'm not a Labour supporter. How odd that you would think so.

 

In any case, one critical issue here is how a contract can be signed that is the equivalent of what Hollywood calls 'pay or play'. Defence procurement civil servants are, it seems a law unto themselves, and happily stuff politicians of either or any persuasion with whatever they wish - so that any decision to do other than they say ends up in the kind of absurdity we now have.

 

So no, I don't think Brown was responsible for the absurd contracts. Are you seriously saying you do? Have you never watched Yes, Minister?

 

As for Osborne, he's ended up looking utterly foolish with this, and it hardly reflects well on us as a military power, does it? It also indicates a kind of political paralysis - an inability to take the kind of decision that delivers either one thing or the other.

[JackFrost]

You doubt I will criticise Brown, et al? Why? I'm not a Labour supporter. How odd that you would think so.

 

In any case, one critical issue here is how a contract can be signed that is the equivalent of what Hollywood calls 'pay or play'. Defence procurement civil servants are, it seems a law unto themselves, and happily stuff politicians of either or any persuasion with whatever they wish - so that any decision to do other than they say ends up in the kind of absurdity we now have.

 

So no, I don't think Brown was responsible for the absurd contracts. Are you seriously saying you do? Have you never watched Yes, Minister?

 

As for Osborne, he's ended up looking utterly foolish with this, and it hardly reflects well on us as a military power, does it? It also indicates a kind of political paralysis - an inability to take the kind of decision that delivers either one thing or the other.

 

He also looked utterly foolish when he went to the IMF, being the chancellor in charge of the country which has the biggest deficit in the G8 and one of, if not THE biggest in Europe.

 

Oh hang on a minute. .

[Verbal]

He also looked utterly foolish when he went to the IMF, being the chancellor in charge of the country which has the biggest deficit in the G8 and one of, if not THE biggest in Europe.

 

Oh hang on a minute. .

 

This isn't PMQ, you know. Why on earth should I or anyone else who has no political affiliation be interested in your attempt to deflect from the substance of the criticism. In the sentence you highlighted, you completely ignored the important bit. Who cares whether a politician looks foolish? It's just a statement of fact.

[Johnny Bognor]

You doubt I will criticise Brown, et al? Why? I'm not a Labour supporter. How odd that you would think so.

 

In any case, one critical issue here is how a contract can be signed that is the equivalent of what Hollywood calls 'pay or play'. Defence procurement civil servants are, it seems a law unto themselves, and happily stuff politicians of either or any persuasion with whatever they wish - so that any decision to do other than they say ends up in the kind of absurdity we now have.

 

So no, I don't think Brown was responsible for the absurd contracts. Are you seriously saying you do? Have you never watched Yes, Minister?

 

As for Osborne, he's ended up looking utterly foolish with this, and it hardly reflects well on us as a military power, does it? It also indicates a kind of political paralysis - an inability to take the kind of decision that delivers either one thing or the other.

 

I don't think GO has any choice. If cancelling costs more than allowing it to go through, then it would be stupid to cancel because at the end of the day the idea of cuts is to save money. On the bright side, it will help employment prospects in Brown's constituency. Did I just say that? Could it be that Labour ordered 2 aircraft carriers to buy votes in the former prime ministers constituency? You wouldn't even get that on Yes, Minister. Hmm, does make you think.

 

I don't see how GO looks foolish on this as his hands are tied. This definately has the hallmarks of the old New Labour party, whilst the New Old Labour party are still in favour of the carriers. I am not a big GO fan by the way (Ken Carke for me any day) especially when he managed to look foolish over child benefits (yes, I agree with the concept that rich people shouldn't get benefit, but the execution/implementation was poor IMO).

[moonraker]

Whilst I understand the questioning of the contract the real question is whether we need the carriers or indeed what should our armed forces look like. GO and his mates have not undertaken anything like a STRATEGIC Defence Review, all his decisions are driven by cost cutting. The previous Government had decided that the carriers were required, in placing orders for long lead items (the most costly elements of the project) the suppliers needed a degree of certainty that the contracts would be honoured or that they would be compensated for the significant investment they have made to fulfil the orders. This is normal commercial practice when you are placing multi million pound contracts the supplier cannot be expected to take all of the risk. It is worth noting that the UK's ability to design and build complex warships rests on this project, if we loose the skills, and believe me we are very close, then all future RN ships will be designed and built overseas, anyone for a German MEKO or French FREMM.

[Johnny Bognor]

Whilst I understand the questioning of the contract the real question is whether we need the carriers or indeed what should our armed forces look like. GO and his mates have not undertaken anything like a STRATEGIC Defence Review, all his decisions are driven by cost cutting. The previous Government had decided that the carriers were required, in placing orders for long lead items (the most costly elements of the project) the suppliers needed a degree of certainty that the contracts would be honoured or that they would be compensated for the significant investment they have made to fulfil the orders. This is normal commercial practice when you are placing multi million pound contracts the supplier cannot be expected to take all of the risk. It is worth noting that the UK's ability to design and build complex warships rests on this project, if we loose the skills, and believe me we are very close, then all future RN ships will be designed and built overseas, anyone for a German MEKO or French FREMM.

 

In the last SDR in 1998, Clown and Co were going to have another one before 2010, but they knew what was coming, bottled it and this is yet another poisened challice to be handed over to someone else to sort out.

[Verbal]

I don't think GO has any choice. If cancelling costs more than allowing it to go through, then it would be stupid to cancel because at the end of the day the idea of cuts is to save money. On the bright side, it will help employment prospects in Brown's constituency. Did I just say that? Could it be that Labour ordered 2 aircraft carriers to buy votes in the former prime ministers constituency? You wouldn't even get that on Yes, Minister. Hmm, does make you think.

 

I don't see how GO looks foolish on this as his hands are tied. This definately has the hallmarks of the old New Labour party, whilst the New Old Labour party are still in favour of the carriers. I am not a big GO fan by the way (Ken Carke for me any day) especially when he managed to look foolish over child benefits (yes, I agree with the concept that rich people shouldn't get benefit, but the execution/implementation was poor IMO).

 

I think you're missing the bigger picture. How did Osborne reach his conclusion? Was it merely that chopping the carriers would cost more than building them? Leaving the gargantuan cost aside, you're going to end up with two empty carriers for an unspecified time. Surely if you decide to build the carriers, for whatever reason, you also have to take the decision to put some planes on them. That not only means looking to make savings elsewhere in the defence budget, but having a clear idea of how it all fits together as a defence strategy. But there's no sign of a defence strategic review informing any of this.

[Johnny Bognor]

I think you're missing the bigger picture. How did Osborne reach his conclusion? Was it merely that chopping the carriers would cost more than building them? Leaving the gargantuan cost aside, you're going to end up with two empty carriers for an unspecified time. Surely if you decide to build the carriers, for whatever reason, you also have to take the decision to put some planes on them.

 

But he didn't make the decision to start buiding them, they are aready underway and have been for quite some time. The decision to build them without planes was taken by Old New Labour (interestingly the New Old Labour party are still in favour). Therefore if it is cheaper to keep going, then they should keep going. GO is bang on the money here.

 

As for a strategic defence review, why were the carriers ordered by Old New Labour without hoding their own review? Could it be to provide employment in Gordon's constituency and therefore have nothing to do with defence? Gordon was supposed to hold an SDR before 2010, but totally bottled it. I suppose at the end of the day, that's what you get when a party of bottlers are in charge (They bottled the SDR and they bottled the election).

Edited 18 October, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[dune]

Verbal correct me if i'm wrong, but it's more likely that you are dimwit than George Osbourne.

[trousers]

I think you're missing the bigger picture. How did Osborne reach his conclusion? Was it merely that chopping the carriers would cost more than building them? Leaving the gargantuan cost aside, you're going to end up with two empty carriers for an unspecified time. Surely if you decide to build the carriers, for whatever reason, you also have to take the decision to put some planes on them. That not only means looking to make savings elsewhere in the defence budget, but having a clear idea of how it all fits together as a defence strategy. But there's no sign of a defence strategic review informing any of this.

 

How long does it take to build an aircraft carrier compared to the aircraft one places on it?

 

(serious question. If, say, it takes 10 years to build the carrier but only 5 to build the aircraft then maybe we buy the aircraft a bit later when the money situation is better?)

[dune]

How long does it take to build an aircraft carrier compared to the aircraft one places on it?

 

(serious question. If, say, it takes 10 years to build the carrier but only 5 to build the aircraft then maybe we buy the aircraft a bit later when the money situation is better?)

 

Make no mistake, the cuts will weaken the fleet (and that is bad because I still hark for days when the royal navy ruled the waves and no-one gave us any **** because they knew we'd blast the **** out of them and kick their asses) but at least we have a Conservative governemt that like me has imperialist yearnings, so if the Argies everinvade the flklands you can rest assured we would take them back and nothing would ever stop that. We would find a way and we would be victorious.

[Joensuu]

I guess, if it costs too much to cancel the order, we can always sell them once they are delivered, and hope to claw back some of the wasted cash that way.

[dune]

The way to go is to thrash out an alliance with France that includes joint responses to threats to either countries overseas posessions. If such an agreement was in place it's doubtful the Argies would ever invade the falklands so I would expect the agreement would never need to be honoured.

[SFKA South Woodford]

The way to go is to thrash out an alliance with France that includes joint responses to threats to either countries overseas posessions. If such an agreement was in place it's doubtful the Argies would ever invade the falklands so I would expect the agreement would never need to be honoured.

 

Oh it's our long time allies the french to the rescue then eh?

 

Who do you think sold the Super Etendard's and Exocets which attacked and sank our ships off of the Falkands to the Argies?

 

Can you imagine the rows we'd have with them over where and when the fleet would be deployed, it would probably result in them never leaving port.

[dune]

Oh it's our long time allies the french to the rescue then eh?

 

Who do you think sold the Super Etendard's and Exocets which attacked and sank our ships off of the Falkands to the Argies?

 

Can you imagine the rows we'd have with them over where and when the fleet would be deployed, it would probably result in them never leaving port.

 

Edit, soz, g0otta not be a cvnt.

Edited 18 October, 2010 by dune

[badgerx16]

The way to go is to thrash out an alliance with France that includes joint responses to threats to either countries overseas posessions. If such an agreement was in place it's doubtful the Argies would ever invade the falklands so I would expect the agreement would never need to be honoured.

The Argies used French planes to fire French exocet missiles at the Royal Navy. They are our traditional, historic enemy, going back to 1066; Agincourt, Cressey, Poitiers, were all fought against the French; Marlborough fought with German allies, against the French; all through the 18th century the Royal Navy was tangling with, ( you've guessed it ), the French; Clive of India & general Wolfe fought the French; Wellington..... well you get the picture.

Let's face it, we took most of India and North America from the damned French, so they're hardly going to back us in a dispute over territoriality.

Edited 18 October, 2010 by badgerx16

[Verbal]

So now the the Tories have conceded that the carriers will NEVER carry jets - at least according to the Torygraph. Unless you count the French planes that will be allowed to land on them.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8072041/Navy-aircraft-carrier-will-be-sold-after-three-years-and-never-carry-jets.html

Edited 19 October, 2010 by Verbal

[moonraker]

Well now we have visabilty of the "not so strategisc defence review" it is obvious it is a total shambles, Aircraft Carriers with no Aircraft, reductions in persoannel at a time of greatest overstretch, it is typical indiscriminate Tory slash and burn, it is totally incoherrent! Only purpose was cost cutting nothing to do with need aka Thatcher and Knott, that time the Argies saved our defence capabilty, when will we learn the tories are not and never have been friends of the armed forces!!!

[ribbo]

The Argies used French planes to fire French exocet missiles at the Royal Navy.

 

to be fair, an argie taskforce did consist of an ex HMS Aircraft carrier and some Type 42 Destroyers built in UK, but i see your point we shouldnt share with france as we're an island nation, cant believe we bought everything on credit under labour

[buctootim]

Well now we have visabilty of the "not so strategisc defence review" it is obvious it is a total shambles, Aircraft Carriers with no Aircraft, reductions in persoannel at a time of greatest overstretch, it is typical indiscriminate Tory slash and burn, it is totally incoherrent! Only purpose was cost cutting nothing to do with need aka Thatcher and Knott, that time the Argies saved our defence capabilty, when will we learn the tories are not and never have been friends of the armed forces!!!

 

Not only that, but we will have two large aircraft carriers (no planes) and only 17 other surface ships, barely enough to defend the sitting ducks. The Navy should be renamed the UK non flying aircraft carrier defence force because it wont have the resources for anything else.

[Dimond Geezer]

to be fair, an argie taskforce did consist of an ex HMS Aircraft carrier and some Type 42 Destroyers built in UK, but i see your point we shouldnt share with france as we're an island nation, cant believe we bought everything on credit under labour

 

Just to complete the picture, The Belgrano was US built, originally known as the USS Pheonix & survived the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. She was sold to the Argies in the early '50s.

[badgerx16]

Not only that, but we will have two large aircraft carriers (no planes) and only 17 other surface ships, barely enough to defend the sitting ducks. The Navy should be renamed the UK non flying aircraft carrier defence force because it wont have the resources for anything else.

Puts us on a par with the Eyeties, but then they still have carrier borne strike planes.

[buctootim]

Just to complete the picture, The Belgrano was US built, originally known as the USS Pheonix & survived the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. She was sold to the Argies in the early '50s.

 

And the Belgrano was equipped with British Sea Cat AA missiles according to Wiki.

[lumuah]

We will hand the Malvinas over to the Argies as soon as there is a hint that they will invade again (which everything points to), because the government will weaken us so much that there is no way we could fight back. It'll be the biggest defeat since Iraq (If you disagree with that comment, watch 'Secret Iraq' on the BBC iplayer.)

 

Morale is already pretty low in the armed forces; Pay freezes for the next two years, and then jobs at risk, knowing if you go to war you'll probably lose, poor/worn out kit, no political backing, pensions are probably going to get cut, etc...

 

While I know most people may say that 'i've had a pay freeze' or 'my job is at risk' the big difference is nobody is relying on you to maybe fight (and die) for your country. If you don't feel valued by your country - which in general the armed forces don't feel they are - then your morale is going to take a big hit. Morale has always been a big factor of why our armed forces have been so good in the past.

 

We were lucky the last time the Falklands kicked off. If we hadn't had American sidewinder missiles our Harriers would have struggled. We no longer have a fleet air arm air-to-air capability, so we would be entirely dependant on the Typhoons that are land based. One bomb on the runway, or a daring commando raid (already signs that the Argies HAVE been landing Special Forces onto the Falklands) could remove our air defences. So what are we left with - the Type 45 destroyer. One of the most advanced air defence destroyers in the world we are told.... except it has no missiles yet. And the 42's are too old and the remaining ones will probably be retired early as well. The type 23 frigates have a defensive anti aircraft capability, but it is no use for air defence of a task group, as thats not the type 23's role.

[bridge too far]

This question arises from my ignorance and is not politically motivated or spun.

 

Why do we need to keep possession of the Falklands?

[tony13579]

Oil

[alpine_saint]

Prince of Wales is to be re-designe with catapaults and arrestor wires to take the F35A instead of F35B, and to allow operation of French and US aircraft in the meantime. I reckon Queen Elizabeth will either be operated/sold to the French or the same thing will happen here too, despite what is said today.

 

We could get F-18 Super Hornets from the US in the meantime, whether new or reconditioned.

 

There are options for sticking aircraft on the carriers from 2016. The real shocker for me is the 6-year capability gap the decision to scrap Ark Royal and the Harriers will bring.

 

An open invitation to Argentina in the Falklands if every I've seen one.

 

I hope the Labour party are proud....

[Thedelldays]

i find it mental that in the name of homeland security we sell off large chunks of the navy...seeing as we are an island nation etc..

 

at least no more subs are being scrapped (yet)

[buctootim]

This question arises from my ignorance and is not politically motivated or spun.

 

Why do we need to keep possession of the Falklands?

 

Because it gives us 200,000 sq miles of exclusive territorial waters we wouldnt otherwise have, and when we have dug up everything worth having on land the oceans will be the next Californian gold rush for resources, including but not only oil. China is already starting.

[bridge too far]

i find it mental that in the name of homeland security we sell off large chunks of the navy...seeing as we are an island nation etc..

 

at least no more subs are being scrapped (yet)

 

Aren't those in the know saying there's more risk from cyber terrorism? I can't see how ships can deal with such a threat as that.

 

Why do we have so many more armed forces personnel than other countries of comparible size, such as, say, Sweden or the Netherlands?

[buctootim]

Why do we have so many more armed forces personnel than other countries of comparible size, such as, say, Sweden or the Netherlands?

 

What the 9million population Sweden and the 16 million population Netherlands. That kind of comparable country to the 60 million UK?

[swannymere]

One of the carrriers will be sold to India according to a mate in the navy, its been a rumour for the last year or so.

[badgerx16]

 

I hope the Labour party are proud....

If I am not mistaken, Liam Fox, David Cameron, and George Osborne made this decision. There were other options, they, and they alone, chose this one.

[Thedelldays]

How long does it take to build an aircraft carrier compared to the aircraft one places on it?

 

(serious question. If, say, it takes 10 years to build the carrier but only 5 to build the aircraft then maybe we buy the aircraft a bit later when the money situation is better?)

 

its not so much about building the aircraft (in numbers) but recruiting, training and retaining top class fighter pilots to operate them

[badgerx16]

Aren't those in the know saying there's more risk from cyber terrorism? I can't see how ships can deal with such a threat as that.

 

Why do we have so many more armed forces personnel than other countries of comparible size, such as, say, Sweden or the Netherlands?

 

It's all about 'force projection' and 'showing the flag'. The comparable countries would be France, ( slightly larger population, probably now a larger navy ), Italy, ( similar population and now a similar sized navy ), or Germany, ( I think the RN will still be bigger than the DM, just ).

[Thedelldays]

One of the carrriers will be sold to India according to a mate in the navy, its been a rumour for the last year or so.

 

common knowledge...we will sell it for £1 no doubt

[moonraker]

Prince of Wales is to be re-designe with catapaults and arrestor wires to take the F35A instead of F35B, and to allow operation of French and US aircraft in the meantime. I reckon Queen Elizabeth will either be operated/sold to the French or the same thing will happen here too, despite what is said today.

 

We could get F-18 Super Hornets from the US in the meantime, whether new or reconditioned.

 

There are options for sticking aircraft on the carriers from 2016. The real shocker for me is the 6-year capability gap the decision to scrap Ark Royal and the Harriers will bring.

 

An open invitation to Argentina in the Falklands if every I've seen one.

 

I hope the Labour party are proud....

 

Have I missed something, this is a Tory decision, they had choices and have got it wrong again, as above ala Thatcher and Knott.

[moonraker]

One of the carrriers will be sold to India according to a mate in the navy, its been a rumour for the last year or so.

 

Mates in the navy rarely know what Whitehall is thinking they are far removed form that world. Whilst it may happen it is not currently a serious option, I have worked at both ends .

[Sheaf Saint]

Stupid question perhaps, but would it not be possible to utilise the existing Sea Harrier fleet on these carriers or do they need to be retired before then?

[buctootim]

common knowledge...we will sell it for £1 no doubt

 

Probably dressed up nicer than that. They buy carrier for £3billion. Some time later in totally separate circumstances, UK lobbies for Indian access to markets in EU, and UK announces package of overseas aid and investment by British companies.

[Thedelldays]

Stupid question perhaps, but would it not be possible to utilise the existing Sea Harrier fleet on these carriers or do they need to be retired before then?

 

there are no sea harriers

[Sheaf Saint]

there are no sea harriers

 

What are we using at the moment then?

[bridge too far]

What the 9million population Sweden and the 16 million population Netherlands. That kind of comparable country to the 60 million UK?

 

No, I was talking geographic size, since those are the borders that need defending. Although I think most of our operations are offensive rather than defensive.

[Thedelldays]

What are we using at the moment then?

 

RAF Harriers...they are more Ground attack not air defence....

RN Sea harriers used to provide a task force (and landing parties) with air defence.......that capablility has been lost for a few years now