QUESTION ON ARK ROYAL ?

[Mervyn Mitton]

I heard on the news today the British Government is considering scrapping our main Carrier - Ark Royal. Also, another new one will be finished but, not outfitted. I think this is criminal - our Navy and armed forces must be kept to strength.

However, I don't recall ever seeing a picture of Ark Royal - perhaps someone could post and also give us some details of the ship ?

Many of the members who visit this sub-forum are ex-Navy - what do you think of these cut-backs ?

[IrishGunner]

Well, this is quite interesting for the second largest Navy in NATO. Ark Royal is the Flagship is she not? Would that mean Illustrious becomes the Flagship - but she's older than Ark Royal. The Queen doesn't want to outfit her namesake - wasn't the next carrier to be named Queen Elizabeth?

With no carriers that means Britannia's waves will be ruled by a destroyer or frigate? I'm not Navy, but this is indeed a telling story. Economics have succeeded where the naval treaties of the first half of the 20th century failed. The US on the other hand still has 12 carriers.

Edited October 19, 2010 by IrishGunner

[hucks216]

Not only Ark Royal but all the Harriers are being scrapped with immediate effect so the Royal Navy will not have a strike capability (or any fleet air defence capability) until 2020. HMS Queen Elizabeth is due in service in 2016 but fitted only for helicopters and when HMS Prince Of Wales comes into service in 2019/20 she will be fitted for aircraft and Queen Elizabeth will be mothballed and possibly sold after just 3 or 4 years service. And 4 frigates are to be taken out of service in the next 10 years bringing the Destroyer/Frigate figure down to just 19 in service. If I lived in the Falklands I would be very worried for the next 10 years. It doesn't matter which party is in government, the Navy has always been the easiest target and usually comes out of the Defence shake-up worse then the other forces. Meanwhile the UK donates £1 Billion to India per year as foreign aid while that country builds 2 aircraft carriers and buys the MiGs to go on them, not to mention their other fleet building projects.

Edited October 19, 2010 by hucks216

[hucks216]

And further to my last - with the scraping of the Harrier what is going to happen to all the Fleet Air Arm fixed wing engineers, armourers etc and pilots? If those trades fall into the bracket for the 5,000 that are being made unemployed where is the experience going to come from in 10 years time, especially at the Senior Rate (NCO) level?

And it isn't just the Ark - all 4 Type 22 frigates are going, Illustrious or Ocean are possibles to be mothballed, either Bulwark or Albion are to be mothballed and so is one of the RFA Bay class landing ships.

And if no other wars flare up in the meantime, come 2015 the Army will have no major overseas commitments apart from approx 1000 troops down the Falklands while the Navy will still be expected to maintain standing patrols in the Falklands, Med, Indian Ocean, Gulf, Falklands & West Indies which is stretching the fleet now let alone with fewer ships in a few years time.

Edited October 19, 2010 by hucks216

[IrishGunner]

However, I don't recall ever seeing a picture of Ark Royal - perhaps someone could post and also give us some details of the ship ?

Mervyn: here's a video announcing the cut of the Ark Royal with footage of her...

HMS Queen Elizabeth is due in service in 2016 but fitted only for helicopters and when HMS Prince Of Wales comes into service in 2019/20 she will be fitted for aircraft and Queen Elizabeth will be mothballed and possibly sold after just 3 or 4 years service.

hucks: Interesting that the news video above also mentions that it will be a decade until the new British carriers are ready and that the cost of continuing the project is LESS than scrapping the projects. Given the deep cuts in the British defence budget - makes one wonder if it were cheaper to scrap the HMS QE than continue, would Whitehall scrap instead. Are they continuing only because it's cheaper than halting the project or because they believe in the value of carriers? I have my concern that its former rather than the latter.

Here's a video about the future HMS QE - will she be commissioned in 10 years time - what do you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFh-W9n8Xqg&feature=related

Hope you don't mind a gunner and a Yank jumping in here - but as both a soldier and an American, cuts like this by a major ally are disconcerting.

Edited October 20, 2010 by IrishGunner

[hucks216]

I have no doubt that if it were cheaper to cancel the carriers then at least one of them, and possibly both, would be cancelled. But I also think if that had of happened they would of still scraped Ark Royal and her Harriers, after all if you have no carriers in the future what is the point in having them now? There is no doubt that these Defence cuts were budget driven rather than an attempt to make the Forces a more efficient fighting force. And it didn't help that the previous Labour government decided to slow down the building of the new carriers to save money in the very short term which in actual fact pushed the cost up by £650m in the long term.

[Mervyn Mitton]

I think everyone is entitled to comment on actions which so drastically weaken the West's defence capabilities. Personally, I blame the two party Govt. - always makes things weaker - but better not comment on politics - however, just let me say I hate politicians ! They always think of themselves first.

What makes me really 'sick' - is that hucks has mentioned we are still giving India a billion pounds every year - for what ? Their economy is booming. ( stg. 1,000,000,000 !!!) We also give a fortune in aid (read Swiss bank a/c's) to many other Countries - including Zimbabwe. Cut this back and we can afford to defend ourselves - why should we have to rely on our friends in the US ?

[hucks216]

The problem with relying on other countries is that it is assuming too much - what happens if a cause that the UK supports isn't one that fits in with an Allies agenda? Completely hypothetical - for the past few years the Spanish Navy have been operating their Harrier wing from one of our carriers (which is true), but what would happen if the Falklands conflict flared up again and we asked Spain for support with regards to embarking their Harrier wing on Illustrious? Would a Hispanic country in Europe help the UK in a conflict against another Hispanic country or remain neutral?

During the Argentina sabre ratling last year the current US President was less than luke warm in his support for the UK's stand over the Islands, and Uruguay are also supporting Argentina. Now that the UK is drilling for oil off the Falklands coastline tensions are growing not subsiding and it wouldn't matter if the British Army was a million strong, without a Carrier Strike Force and a Fleet to transport them there and protect them from air attack / support their operations ashore it would be impossible to retake the Islands.

[Jim Maclean]

I'm no great defender of defence cuts, our "current" war is in a landlocked country. Apart from stand off launches of missiles what use is the RN in such a war? As to the Falklands it would only take one Type 45 down there, I can't imagine the Argie Air Force getting past that even if they all flew at the same time.

We cannot rely on any of our "allies" if we get embroiled in another Falklands episode. We go rushing to the aid of the US whose Pres at the time said something like "if you're not with us, you're against us". Can we expect support .

[hucks216]

Apart from stand off launches of missiles what use is the RN in such a war? As to the Falklands it would only take one Type 45 down there, I can't imagine the Argie Air Force getting past that even if they all flew at the same time.

We cannot rely on any of our "allies" if we get embroiled in another Falklands episode. We go rushing to the aid of the US whose Pres at the time said something like "if you're not with us, you're against us". Can we expect support .

For your first point, 1 in 10 of the UK forces in Afghanistan are Royal Navy personnel, not bad for a country with no coastline. And the majority of US fast jet air ops over that country are from the aircraft carrier sitting in the Indian Ocean .As things stand the UK has just a handful of fast jets operating there. Have an aircraft carrier sitting in the Indian Ocean and you can have 40 or 50 strike aircraft available (refering to the future carriers).

As for the Type 45, it doesn't matter how good the ship is or isn't, it can only take on a limited number of aircraft due to the size of its silo (which can not be reloaded at sea) and shooting in salvoes - and that is not including the possibility of the system not working when it is most wanted as happened to Seawolf during the Falklands Conflict in 1982, and 28 years later Sea Wolf still has defects - no system, no matter how good, works 100% of the time and Sea Viper has yet to be tested in anything but good weather.

Edited October 29, 2010 by hucks216