HAVE YOUR SAY

15 June 2011

Guess we could always lend-lease them back..... and pay 50 times their value!
AW Employee - Yeovil

15 June 2011

WOW,another 'scoop' by the Telegraph and it's regular source of information 'A ministry of Defence insider'

Sad really to see what was once a relatively respected paper printing these sort of stories week after week.

You expect this from the 'Sun' and the 'Mirror',now we are getting to expect it from the 'Torygraph'. Sad.
michael - notts

15 June 2011

Michael, yes sadly the Telegraph is now a joke regarding defence reporting.
Andy - Colchester

15 June 2011

Does anyone remember when Defence correspondents had a former military background??
For those politicians who don't know what thats about ... it's the knock-on effect of miniaturising the Armed Forces!!!!
Norman - UK

16 June 2011

Sham that we got politicians (some jumped up middle aged guy who gots lots of money and no idea and wants to rip the tax payer off)deciding the fate of the British armed forces, why not let the miltary it self choose what it going to cut, or why not just cut all the miltary might as well, there all crazy
Tom - Northampton

16 June 2011

I am old enough to remember when the Telegraph had Desmond Wettern reporting for them on all matters concering the Navy,his reporting was informed and did much to keep the RN in the public eye unlike our present 'sea blind' governments.
Howard - Farnborough,Hants,UK

16 June 2011

i work on the harriers and nothing has been confirmed as of yet
vstol - raf cottesmore

16 June 2011

Selling them to america and then going to buy F35 Joint strike fighter from america. What a joke!!
Adam - Jarrow

16 June 2011

From article: "... As a result of the (Harriers') scrapping, the UK will not have carrier strike capability until the first of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers come into service in 2019..."

In fact, the UK govt and the MoD have not defined in policy or planning documents 'when' (IE: exactly what year) the UK's planned new aircraft carriers are to enter service AND the UK govt and the MoD have not defined by way of purchse agreements or policy decisions when, if at all, fixed-wing aircraft will be purchased/acquired for either or both of the undergoing construction new carriers:

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/strategic-defence-and-security-review-securing-britain-age-uncertainty -
contains links to UK's 2010 SDSR report + links to "Future Force 2020 Fact Sheets" #1- #21...

http://download.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sdsr/factsheet6-royal-navy.pdf (extremely vague)

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Factsheet9-Carrier-Strike.pdf (extremely vague and NOT impressive)

Many reputable reports state that the first of the UK's planned new aircraft carriers will not be commissioned into service and provided with fixed-wing aircraft until 2023 or later:

"Delayed aircraft carrier will lack jets for three years", 14_05-2011:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/13/delayed-aircraft-carrier-lack-jets
----------------

The May 18-2011 House of Commons' Defence Committee hearing testimony indicated a severe inability of the UK MoD and Royal Navy to plan for post 2014 due to the UK Treasury not committing any budget increases 2015- 2020...

At the hearing, testimony also indicated that the MoD is currently planning to NOT re-generate the armed services' capabilities lost* due to last autumn's SDSR-mandated cuts after 2015 because the Treasury has currently committed to provide only flat-growth budgets to the MoD 2015- 2021:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmdfence/uc761-iv/uc76101.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9487000/9487619.stm (video)-
32:48 - 34:50

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9487000/9487619.stm (video)-
46:40- 47:30 ;

The UK Treasury's alleged refusal to commit funding increases to the MoD post 2014 contradicts principles that "Future Force 2020" is predicated on...

'Future Force 2020' is the planning benchmarks connected to the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR)...
--------------------

"Nato's internal strains worsen over Libya",, 15_06-2011:
- ft.com/cms/s/0/d9e40adc-9772-11e0-af13-00144feab49a.html#axzz1PMzkF7mB :

"... Admiral Pierre-François Forissier, head of the French Navy, said the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, now deployed off Libya, would be 'unable to play any operational role in 2012' if it was kept off Libya until the end of the year..."
---------------

UK Aircraft Carrier Fix??:

The UK needs SEVERAL viable, technologically-up-to-date defensive-systems-equipped and aircraft-launch-catapult equipped aircraft carriers (including modern Conventional Take-off and Land fixed-wing aircraft) NOW!!! not in 12 years...

With its stretched defence budget and severe fiscal and trade deficits, the United States govt could welcome prospects of reducing its navy's costs for a decade- by a trusted international partner with a universally esteemed naval history in effect, subsidizing and co-administering a small proportion of the US's international naval presence and duties:

Towards this objective- why couldn't the UK "volunteer" to (at least partially) fund and provide the bulk of the manpower required for the operations of one of the US's newer Nimitz class supercarriers 2011 until 2022 or later???....

If a temporary induction to the Royal Navy of a Nimitz class supercarrier occurred, this would- in the immediate term- enable the RN to re-generate and maintain naval fast-jet capabilities and to practise legitimate 'aircraft carrier battle group' and Amphibious Assault routines pre-2022: when the UK's currently undergoing simultaneous re-design and construction 'big deck' aircraft carriers are due to be completed and the aircraft designed to be deployed off them acquired...

Similarly, manning a Nimitz class supercarrier with a mixed-crew of US and UK service personnel- including experienced US Commanders- could work well and have many productive benefits for both countries...

And following this procedure would only significantly improve US Navy and Royal Navy interoperability and collaboration generally 2011- 2030...

So, why set objectives so low (while self-flagellating the country) and continue aiming for the not-clearly-defined-decade-down-the-road when taking bold but financially careful steps now could have vastly better outcomes both for the country's standing in the world and its long term future??
----------------

The RN's capabilities were badly damaged and degraded under the previous Labour govt...

The incredibly dangerous-to-UK-national-interests' state of affairs that the current coalition govt inherited ought to be being urgently rectified- not amplified!!!
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

17 June 2011

Roderick you must spend all day on the forums searching for snippits of information.

Damn man open your door and take a walk around that stunning city of yours!
James - GB

17 June 2011

Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

Can you stop cutting and pasting the same boring crap on different news items and enter a proper discussion with people?
Rob - Telford

17 June 2011

why are museums & private collectors being denied the opportunity to buy some?
Lee - Kettering

19 June 2011

"why are museums & private collectors being denied the opportunity to buy some?
Lee - Kettering"

i'd love to have a harrier to show off to the neighbours on my front lawn, haha!

Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada.

I agree with everyone else here, give it a rest! The MOD will only be able afford to operate one carrier in the end, never mind several!!
Andy

20 June 2011

I agree with everyone else here, give it a rest! The MOD will only be able afford to operate one carrier in the end, never mind several!!
Andy

Don't know where that comes from. 1 Carrier is worse than useless to be quite frank. It simple means you think you can prepare to act like you have a CVBG but you can't really because you suffer from maintenence loss, refit loss. Numerous other issues.

The MoD letting industries charge them £6 for 60p light bulbs, £102 for £22 bolts, tens of pounds for ashtrays in the old Nimrods that were basically Mr.Kippling holders and Political delays are what has made the carrier expensive.

Short term delay in a build will only ever result in a long term increase in cost by a considerable amount.

Quite frankly Britain CAN afford at least 2 carriers. Britain needs the 2 carriers for a varity of reasons. Still, political, diplomatic and economic ignorance is costing this country high.

I'm finding it increasingly hard to understand how people can't see then need for Power Project and Amphibious capability as well as standard escort and patrol ability from the Royal Navy. Everyone seems oblivious to how much this little tiny Island depends on trade that moves through several destablised area. Or on the needs of other BRITISH nationals throughout the world who don't happen to be on the UK where you can earn £20,000 on benefits.

Quite frankly we need a good wake up call, a slap round the face would do us the world of good in realising that all this "We don't need a military, no one is interested in us" is rubbish. They might not be interested in us but they would be very interested in the North Sea Reserves, the Antartic territories, the potential Oil in the Falklands not to mention the strategic choke points like Gibralter and our bases in Cyprus.

Of course we should just give it all away and pay tribute to other nations in the hope they decide not to cut us off....

Tell you what, people who think that can go away on holiday for 2 weeks, leave your house unlocked and your bank cards on the table. If it's not been stolen, your accounts aren't drained dry and your house isn't a mess then I'll accept you may be right. Untill then I'll believe;
There are bad people in the world who would take everything I have... Some of these bad people are powerful men who are interested in not what I have, but what my country has. To stop these men I need to be able to convince them that I can hit them hard enough I'm not worth their time.
Anthony - Bristol, United KIngdom

21 June 2011

For those that maybe don't understand why we need 2 operational carriers rather than 1, an analogy may be drawn using that common mode of transport - the car.

Most of us have one because it is convenient to use for commuting, shopping and leisure. Those of us with children probably used it on the school run/social taxi etc. Occasionally, maintenance was needed - MoT, service, tyres & exhaust etc. That resulted in a planned trip to a garage to get said maintenance done. However, it resulted in some minor inconvenience as you couldn't use the car during this time. Therefore an alternative solution needed to be found. Public transport is an option in town, less so in rural areas. Very difficult with the weekly shop. Total pain if you lived any distance from work. Unplanned trips were probably impossible to complete. Breakdowns (unplanned maintenance) are a catastrophy, as no work-rounds can be planned.

Now apply those lessons to a major military platform (ship, aircraft, armoured vehicle etc) and if you only have 1 to use, your mission capability is lost while the platform is down for maintenance. More than 1 platform allows (limited) capability to be retained and training in a non-operational environment.
AW Employee - Yeovil

22 June 2011

This government knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. In Defence terms its policies are quite mad.
It does not matter if this story is true, if the Harriers are not flying from an RN carrier with FAA colours then something has gone seriously wrong.
James - Army