Navy aircraft carrier will be sold after three years - and never carry jets
209 replies, posted
[quote][b]One of the Navy’s new £3 billion aircraft carriers will never carry aircraft and will sail for only three years before being mothballed and possibly sold, ministers will announce on Tuesday.[/b]
The Government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review will also confirm that Britain will not have an effective “carrier strike” capability – a working aircraft carrier equipped with fighter jets – until 2020.
David Cameron had wanted to scrap one of the two carriers, the largest and most expensive vessels in British naval history, but the review found that contracts signed by the previous government meant that doing so would end up costing the taxpayer more than going ahead with both. As a result, the two carriers will enter service, but one will be mothballed as soon as possible
Presenting the review to MPs, the Prime Minister will blame many of its outcomes on Labour, accusing its ministers of leaving a £38 billion black hole in the defence budget and signing contracts for over-priced and unnecessary military equipment. He will also announce:
• The replacement for the Trident nuclear deterrent will be delayed by a year until after the general election scheduled for 2015. He will insist he remains committed to renewing Trident but will say the delay is needed to save £750 million.
• The Army will lose 7,000 soldiers, more than 100 tanks and 200 armoured vehicles. One armoured brigade will be lost and the end of Britain’s 65-year presence in Germany will be signalled.
• The RAF will keep most of its Tornado fighter-bombers but lose at least 5,000 personnel. Two RAF bases will close and be occupied by soldiers returning from Germany.
• The Navy’s fleet of warships will drop from 24 to 19 and it will lose 4,000 personnel. Harrier jump-jets will be scrapped next year but no F35 Joint Strike Fighters will be available to replace them until 2020.
• Special Forces will receive a significant increase in their budget, allowing them to buy sophisticated communications technology and weapons. Recruitment is also likely to rise.
The decision on the new carriers has been at the heart of tense and prolonged Whitehall negotiations over the future of the Armed Forces.
Due to cost almost £6 billion, they were demanded by the Navy but strongly opposed by the Army and by General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff.
The final plan for the carriers was approved by the Cabinet on Monday, at a meeting in which Mr Cameron told ministers that the decisions on the future of the Armed Forces, had been “the hardest thing I have had to deal with” since entering No 10.
On Tuesday, the Prime Minister will outline a timetable under which Britain’s one fully operational aircraft carrier, HMS Ark Royal, is immediately retired. The Navy’s other carrier, HMS Illustrious, will continue to function as a helicopter platform stripped of jets before retiring in 2014.
The first of the new carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, will enter service in 2016, configured to carry helicopters, not jets. The second new carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, will arrive in 2019. At that point, HMS Queen Elizabeth will be put into “extended readiness”, effectively mothballed indefinitely.
Government sources indicated that the Queen Elizabeth was unlikely to return to service after that, and could well be sold to another country to recoup some of the cost of building it. “There are no plans for it after 2019 and it could well be sold. No one wanted the second carrier but we had no choice,” said one source. “No one is pretending this is an ideal situation, but this is what we were left with.”
A senior defence source added: “This is not a perfect set of circumstances. There is no political benefit for us but it is the right thing for the country. It would have been more expensive to cancel than build the aircraft carrier.”
Further angering Navy chiefs, the defence review will confirm that Harrier jump-jets will be abandoned next year but the RAF’s Tornado will be spared to operate in Afghanistan.
Scrapping the Harriers will create a “capability gap” of nine years, with Britain unable to fly fast jets from an aircraft carrier until 2020, when the new JSF enters service.
Government sources tried to play down the significance of the gap, insisting that Britain had agreements allowing RAF jets to fly from overseas bases in most strategically sensitive parts of the world. But insiders admitted that the situation was “far from perfect”.
Until 2020, Britain is likely to rely heavily on allies with a carrier strike capability, most significantly France.
Mr Cameron will meet President Nicolas Sarkozy next month to discuss expanding Anglo-French military co-operation, with naval collaboration at the top of the agenda.
As The Daily Telegraph disclosed in August, one of the new carriers will be redesigned with a catapult to launch aircraft.
That means that Britain will have to pull out of plans to buy a specially-designed short take-off vertical landing model of the JSF.
Abandoning this model could jeopardise jobs at Rolls-Royce, which was helping build it, and antagonise the US, Britain’s partner in developing the aircraft.
However, the catapult system will allow the Prince of Wales to carry French and US aircraft. It also means that the new carrier will be equipped with the conventional form of the JSF, which the Royal Navy believes is more powerful and cost-effective than the jump-jet.
Navy chiefs were said to be extremely unhappy about the decision to axe the Harrier jump-jets, claiming that ministers had “underestimated the risk” from the move.
Sources raised doubt over the lack of carrier strike capability, questioning whether the RAF would be able to secure airbases for its jets if Britain needed to fight abroad.
“I can’t see Oman happy to have Tornados flying from its territory to bomb Iran,” said a source.
[/quote]
For Christ sake England is best known for always having one of the strongest navy and did for many hundreds of years this is utter bullshit this government sucks.
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8072041/Navy-aircraft-carrier-will-be-sold-after-three-years-and-never-carry-jets.html[/url]
[img]http://ports.co.za/images/Queen-Elizabeth-class-aircraftcarrier-RN-20090804.jpg[/img]
Man, it'd be cool to buy that thing and live on it.
This is fucking retarded, at the rate the cuts look to be going if anything fucking happens anywhere in the world we need to get involved in, or worse in our own fucking borders, then we're fucking stuck with our digits firmly inserted in our fucking rectums. Seriously, two R.A.F bases in Scotland, Kinloss and Lossiemouth could be down the pisser by the end of this which means our air superiority capabilities of our own airspace is spread extremely thin, thanks to luechers being on the chopping block as well.
There's been talk of cutting parachute training for the paratroopers as well which just fucking defies logic and will have a big effect on army morale and public relations.
Shit's got all fucked up real fast.
I bet they're gonna sell it to some land-locked country.
In all honesty I would cut money from things like benefits and put more towards the police, army, air force, navy and science.
People with benefits yes they may be disabled and unable to get good work they will still get some but others are sitting there all day on the sofa watching TV doing nothing for the country while we weaken our defences to give money to them!
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;25494448]I bet they're gonna sell it to some land-locked country.[/QUOTE]
Like Liechtenstein.
Except the aircraft carrier is probably bigger than Liechtenstein.
Thats a big "FUCK YOU!" to the people in the Armed forces.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;25494448]I bet they're gonna sell it to some land-locked country.[/QUOTE]
Reminds me of the time I unplugged my wireless mouse.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;25494448]I bet they're gonna sell it to some land-locked country.[/QUOTE]
China will buy it, they've been wanting some new carriers and to get a brand spanking new pretty much unused and in pristine condition british air craft carrier, maybe even with some of the systems still operational would be a fucking gold mine for china.
They should sell it on ebay. I'll put the first bid at $35.96
[QUOTE=bravehat;25494519]China will buy it, they've been wanting some new carriers and to get a brand spanking new pretty much unused and in pristine condition british air craft carrier, maybe even with some of the systems still operational would be a fucking gold mine for china.[/QUOTE]
I don't think they will sell it to China for security reasons. They'll probably sell it to another EU country that they can trust.
They should make everyone in the world pay £1 for a raffle ticket and whoever wins gets to keep the ship as a house.
[QUOTE=iusehax;25494483]In all honesty I would cut money from things like benefits and put more towards the police, army, air force, navy and science.
People with benefits yes they may be disabled and unable to get good work they will still get some but others are sitting there all day on the sofa watching TV doing nothing for the country while we weaken our defences to give money to them![/QUOTE]
Benefits is lovely but there should a set time limit on how long someone can be on benefits (barring shit like extreme depression disabilities and the like) and you are constantly hassled week by week by the job centre til you have a job, and if you don't by the end of the 6 months then all the money stops or is reduced to a trickle.
And this is pretty shit cause I've been thinking bout joining the paratroopers and suddenly prospects are saying I'll just be a trooper, only time I'd get actual parachute training is a month or two before being shipped out, which would suck gratuitous male genitalia.
I'd totally buy it if I had the money.
[QUOTE=Saxon;25494552]I don't think they will sell it to China for security reasons. They'll probably sell it to another EU country that they can trust.[/QUOTE]
With Cameron at the helm, I could honestly see them fucking it up and selling it to china, with some classified gear still in it. I just don't trust cameron, but then again who ever does trust a politician.
Ever since the retirement of the HMS Ark Royal (The Audacious-class one, not the current Invincible-class vessel) the Royal Navy has never had any "real" naval aviation capability. Hell, it's been going downhill ever since those post-Cold War cutbacks and drawdowns.
[QUOTE=bravehat;25494685]With Cameron at the helm, I could honestly see them fucking it up and selling it to china, with some classified gear still in it. I just don't trust cameron, but then again who ever does trust a politician.[/QUOTE]
Spoken like my father 'Never trust a politician they never tell the truth'
Man, I thought the title was referring to one of the Nimitz Class ones.
[QUOTE=iusehax;25494748]Spoken like my father 'Never trust a politician they never tell the truth'[/QUOTE]
The whole MP finances pish has illustrated that fact perfectly, they've got no reason to tell the truth so I see no reason to believe them.
1. Take out enough loans to buy the Carrier
2. Become a pirate
3. Attack, burn and pillage until you have enough money to pay back the loans
4. Retire peacefully on your pimped out Aircraft Carrier, with a bunch of mates, and enjoy an awesome private cruise for the rest of your life. And also the odd spot of pillaging when you're low on funds.
[QUOTE=bravehat;25494416]thanks to luechars being on the chopping block as well.[/QUOTE]
Seriously!?
How fucking retarded
"Hey guys! Lets axe a base that holds the Air Officer for Scotland, is part of the Quick Reaction Alert programme and intercepted 2 Russian bombers this year!"
:doh:
Thepiratebay should buy it :v:
Excellent. Let's have a look at what the Government wants to do our armed forces. Some of this wasn't in the article.
They want to scrap HMS Ark Royal, soon. Leasvng us with ONE aircraft carrier (HMS Illustrious), as HMS Invincible has been decomissioned right now). Reduce our fleet by 5 ships. They want to scrap all of our Harriers. They want to close RAF Lossiemouth, and RAF Kinloss. Reduce the number of personnel in the Army by 7000, tanks by 100 and armoured vehicles by 200. They're looking into canceling an order for new Nimrod aircraft for the RAF. Canceling our presense in Germany. And now this.
If they go ahead and scrap HMS Ark Royal. This country will have ONE aircraft carrier to defend the country (A carrier with NO aircraft if they scrap the Harriers), or overseas territories from attack. And considering Argentina has been trying to claim sovereignty over the Falkland islands again, recently. That could be a possability. The new carriers aren't due to be ready for 9 years. This country would be open to attack for 9 years. And without the likes of the US or our European allies, we probably wouldn't win.
Might aswell hand the Falklands over to the Argies then. At this rate, we wouldn't be able to a damn thing anyway.
[QUOTE=Bad)-(and;25495165]Excellent. Let's have a look at what the Government wants to do our armed forces. Some of this wasn't in the article.
They want to scrap HMS Ark Royal, soon. Leasvng us with ONE aircraft carrier (HMS Illustrious), as HMS Invincible has been decomissioned right now). Reduce our fleet by 5 ships. They want to scrap all of our Harriers. They want to close RAF Lossiemouth, and RAF Kinloss. Reduce the number of personnel in the Army by 7000, tanks by 100 and armoured vehicles by 200. They're looking into canceling an order for new Nimrod aircraft for the RAF. Canceling our presense in Germany. And now this.
If they go ahead and scrap HMS Ark Royal. This country will have ONE aircraft carrier to defend the country, or overseas territories from attack. And considering Argentina has been trying to claim sovereignty over the Falkland islands again, recently. That could be a possability. The new carriers aren't due to be ready for 9 years. This country would be open to attack for 9 years. And without the likes of the US or our European allies, we probably wouldn't win.
Might aswell hand the Falklands over to the Argies then. At this rate, we wouldn't be able to a damn thing anyway.[/QUOTE]
When the government told the Royal Navy to decommission its tiny amphibious force, it was practically a green light for the Argies to invade back in 1982. They might as well have turned it into a coastal defense force.
We Canadians have had shit like this happen before with the Trudeau government in the 1970s. Hopefully your next PM will see the sorry state your military will be by then and will reform it like Reagan did with the post-Vietnam US military.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;25495372]When the government told the Royal Navy to decommission its tiny amphibious force, it was practically a green light for the Argies to invade back in 1982. They might as well have turned it into a coastal defense force.
We Canadians have had shit like this happen before with the Trudeau government in the 1970s. Hopefully your next PM will see the sorry state your military will be by then and will reform it like Reagan did with the post-Vietnam US military.[/QUOTE]
If the aircraft and soldiers based on the islands can't hold off an invading force (And let's face it, they can't. There's only a thousand or so). The [I]only[/I] thing that could possibly stop any attempt at a foreign force taking the islands is our submarine fleet. Specifically HMS Astute.
I can proubly say I didn't vote for Cameron.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;25494448]I bet they're gonna sell it to some land-locked country.[/QUOTE]
You're mixing the English with the Polish
[QUOTE=bravehat;25494641]Benefits is lovely but there should a set time limit on how long someone can be on benefits (barring shit like extreme depression disabilities and the like) and you are constantly hassled week by week by the job centre til you have a job, and if you don't by the end of the 6 months then all the money stops or is reduced to a trickle.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm sure you'll feel the same way when you've spent 6 months unemployed and they're about to cut you off. I have been unemployed for about a year and I have been offered only one job thus far, and it was a two month gig delivering newspapers at 4 AM every morning. Getting a job is not as easy as you may think, when there are no jobs, there are no jobs. The office cannot "hassle" you week by week if there's nothing available.
The US might buy it. Our military gratuitously spends money, and I'm sure we wouldn't mind getting an aircraft carrier without having to build it ourselves.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;25495963]The US might buy it. Our military gratuitously spends money, and I'm sure we wouldn't mind getting an aircraft carrier without having to build it ourselves.[/QUOTE]
But it has godless european style socialism all over it
[quote]There's been talk of cutting parachute training for the paratroopers[/quote]
Wait, what? Do you mean they're just doing away with the paratrooper branch altogether?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.