-
Welcome to the E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial RAF Rumour Network.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Navy to build super carriers
- Thread starter Minor
- Start date
G
grumpyoldb
Guest
Of course they're not necessary, but it's ok to to spend the money on them, whilst this country struggles for stuff we do need. What's new.
Just dust off your water wings.
mad_collie
The Other Mods Made Me Do It
- 4,273
- 0
- 36
All you harrier boys, look at your 2 future postings.
DT_Xtremez_42:
DT_Xtremez_42:What do you think, or are you just "stimulating debate"
grumpyoldb said:
Drivel, you might want to read the SDR under the section heading "Power Projection" to get just an inkling as to why they are necessary given the other changes made to our force structure, without them the whole force structure is somewhat f*cked!
yes we do need another couple of floating runways, but hey JSF is "the platform of choice for the gravy". The RAF JSF's are going to be based in sweaty sock land so it's not a harrier's problem, more like a ex-tornado problem. good luck! Harrier boys will be back in the field.DT_Xtremez_31: if there is any left in 2012-2020!
DT_Xtremez_31: if there is any left in 2012-2020!More drivel, does anyone actually READ?
The reporter is referring to cuts in the number of T45 which have been reduced by 50% from the original "requirement" and also to the overall lack of defence funding which has led, and probably will lead to more procurement cutbacks. Think about this, what happens to the RAF's requirement for JCA if the carriers don't go ahead. read your own Air Power Projection documents if you don't feel that JCA is an important part of the air force's own "strategy"
Defence spending is at an all time low, we do not have the kit to most effectively support current operations; these are f*ck ups of enormous proportion that are clearly being swept under the carpet and joe public couldn't give a flying feck because the marauding hoards aren't interrupting their viewing of big brother. However, for servicemen to be so short sighted, knowing what they know about our current ops beggars belief. We need more money for current AND future potential threats. Slagging off the carriers because they will not support current ops in Afghanistan or whatever is naive, suggesting that paying for the carriers will somehow damage the RAF or Army is just an innocence beyond belief! The carriers are a joint capability platform, if you don't understand that then you are probably just another cold war warrior.
JCA is important, as are carriers. I never said they weren't. Its a balancing act at the minute as to what we can afford and my comment referred to that.
My quote was from the article, right beneath the comment of cutting T45 from 8 to 6.
The article stated that the RAF and Army are expecting cuts, if you think the 2 are are not related, then you do not understand how the forces have initially a joint budget.
Of course it will affect everyone, spending that much money from the defence budget is bound to.
I personally think it will be fantastic to have proper sized carriers once again, projecting a serious amount of power rather than our current tin tubs.
Obviously they will spend the majority of their time sailing around war torn African countries and the Middle East oil producing areas!
D
DrunkenMonki
Guest
Well, I think we'll just keep cutting back on programs for the time being. Then we'll suddenly find ourselves in a proper war with China or North Korea or some other place and realise that, yes, 10 years ago we really should have bought the kit we might need in the future, rather than just the kit we need now.
I agree in the short term we need choppers and good quality patrol vehicles, but who knows what is around the corner? Talk to veterans of the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) who fought in France in 1940. The previous 10 years of cuts led to them being outgunned, outflown and outmanouvered, only by a miracle did we not lose most of the full time standing army at Dunkirk!
Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.
I agree in the short term we need choppers and good quality patrol vehicles, but who knows what is around the corner? Talk to veterans of the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) who fought in France in 1940. The previous 10 years of cuts led to them being outgunned, outflown and outmanouvered, only by a miracle did we not lose most of the full time standing army at Dunkirk!
Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.
I wonder which of us actually understands how the Armed Forces are budgeted? Google Skynet, see if you can work out how it was paid for, look into FRES, work out how the costs ever got beyond the £16Bn mark, Eurofighter........................ need I go on?
There is no budget from which each of the services bid for a set amount, that's again naive. Services bid for the equipment, operating costs, pay, pensions (yes pensions) etc that they need so that they can meet the aims and purpose of the SDR and current military doctrine (not current or future ops as should be the case, contingency funds are used by government to pay for ops that fall outside the SDR which is why there's feck all left in them and hence why a private company ended up funding skynet: a system that didn't really fall into the SDR but is an operational requirement) From that pool of money - the Defence Budget, the money is distributed but they don't start argueing over it, it's allocated as per the agreed bids. If this didn't happen then how could they possibly predict the budget for next year and the year after? The defence Budget is what it is because the carriers are factored into it! Taking the carriers away takes the money away. Of course the money could be spent elsewhere, but the bid for them was justified on defence requirement grounds, stopping the carriers now would not free up billions of pounds to spend on other things in fact it would start another Strategic Defence Review by necessity.
I don't understand why you are going off on one?
I simply commented on what I read in the link. I'm not an expert in the procurement and budget areas, whereas you obviously are.
I hang my head in shame and will endeavour to sign myself up to all the short courses I can so I can have your understanding on the subject.
DT_Xtremez_15:
I don't deny the need for carriers, or any other equipment for that matter.
You almost contradict yourself there in the way that is written.
But there is a ballpark budget, surely, otherwise how would they know what they could realistically bid for?
I'm not baiting you, I'm commenting with what I know about the subject.DT_Xtremez_31:
I simply commented on what I read in the link. I'm not an expert in the procurement and budget areas, whereas you obviously are.
I hang my head in shame and will endeavour to sign myself up to all the short courses I can so I can have your understanding on the subject.
DT_Xtremez_15:Knid of what I said.
I don't deny the need for carriers, or any other equipment for that matter.
You almost contradict yourself there in the way that is written.
But there is a ballpark budget, surely, otherwise how would they know what they could realistically bid for?
I'm not baiting you, I'm commenting with what I know about the subject.
DT_Xtremez_31:OK, it's like this.
Take one service, the RN look at the SDR from that they decide how they are going to meet the policy and strategy that fell from the review. They look at a whole host of things but we will focus on kit. They decided that they needed 2 aircraft carriers (and some other stuff) they justify why that kit is needed to meet the nations needs. All of the armed forces do the same at the same time, none of them know or care how much money is available, this is about need.
Treasury sit down, criticlly analyse what is "needed" to meet strategic defence requirement, dismiss minor things like armoured cars because they don't think they are necessary (I'm being flippant) once they have pinned down what is needed they see how much is available, realise there simply isn't enough and start to dismiss things that actually are needed because they don't really understand the military but more importantly they know what money is available and whittle the "need" down to "necessity"
The defence budget has now been decided and some is distributed as per the succesfully justified bids, some is retained for distribution when required. If a procurement project is later cancelled the money returns to the treasury and has to be re-justified for another project, if the project is shelved the money cannot necessarily be accrued into the next financial year subject to NAO rules on accruel (50% of the contract completed etc etc) and will have to be re-bid and re-justified in the new bidding round.
So, nobody gets a big pot, or even a share of the big pot. The money is paid out at project milestones as forecast in the bidding process and agreed on completion, the total costs of the military are not included in the £30 odd billion defence budget because they are continually dipping into the nations reserves in the form of contingency funds (often borrowing) because they can only fund, in the "budget", what was forecast as necessary and other things keep cropping up that were never budgeted for- like armoured cars.
All of this is public money, every penny must be justified, not to General Blogs or AVM Soandso but it must be accountable to the nation. The problem with that is it is bureaucratic and the process often overtakes the need, sadly.
Oh and by the way Mr Masher, I'm not having a go or getting flashed up. I'm sat in my office trying to put a project bid together and write a contract for another bid for which I was successful, thankfully nothing to do with MoD or defence, this is just a diversion when I need to disentangle myself from the detailDT_Xtremez_30:
Take one service, the RN look at the SDR from that they decide how they are going to meet the policy and strategy that fell from the review. They look at a whole host of things but we will focus on kit. They decided that they needed 2 aircraft carriers (and some other stuff) they justify why that kit is needed to meet the nations needs. All of the armed forces do the same at the same time, none of them know or care how much money is available, this is about need.
Treasury sit down, criticlly analyse what is "needed" to meet strategic defence requirement, dismiss minor things like armoured cars because they don't think they are necessary (I'm being flippant) once they have pinned down what is needed they see how much is available, realise there simply isn't enough and start to dismiss things that actually are needed because they don't really understand the military but more importantly they know what money is available and whittle the "need" down to "necessity"
The defence budget has now been decided and some is distributed as per the succesfully justified bids, some is retained for distribution when required. If a procurement project is later cancelled the money returns to the treasury and has to be re-justified for another project, if the project is shelved the money cannot necessarily be accrued into the next financial year subject to NAO rules on accruel (50% of the contract completed etc etc) and will have to be re-bid and re-justified in the new bidding round.
So, nobody gets a big pot, or even a share of the big pot. The money is paid out at project milestones as forecast in the bidding process and agreed on completion, the total costs of the military are not included in the £30 odd billion defence budget because they are continually dipping into the nations reserves in the form of contingency funds (often borrowing) because they can only fund, in the "budget", what was forecast as necessary and other things keep cropping up that were never budgeted for- like armoured cars.
All of this is public money, every penny must be justified, not to General Blogs or AVM Soandso but it must be accountable to the nation. The problem with that is it is bureaucratic and the process often overtakes the need, sadly.
Oh and by the way Mr Masher, I'm not having a go or getting flashed up. I'm sat in my office trying to put a project bid together and write a contract for another bid for which I was successful, thankfully nothing to do with MoD or defence, this is just a diversion when I need to disentangle myself from the detail
DT_Xtremez_30:
Last edited:
B
billy bollox
Guest
Spot on.......thinking outside the box (sorry!!)
If we wait then it costs more money when we think it may def be needed. With the way things are, no Middle east country would put us up soon, especially when on last nights Beeb at 10 the big US war chiefs were going on about 3rd fronts and Iran!!!
The Battle of Britain was only just won on a twist of fate in the Nazi way of offence against Britain (ie cities, not airfields). Due to lack of forward thinking in the early 30's, war production all but ceased whereas the enemy quadrupled and then some. We relaxed on spending after cold war and now look at us...lack of decent kit.
Boys and girls, procurement takes time. We aren't fortune tellers but we can prepare. These carriers aren't the only expendature by the govt on MOD, there are many more.
So, Shugster has a very valid and correct point.
"Flexibility is the key to air power!!"
DT_Xtremez_44:8:15fromOdium
Sergeant
- 490
- 0
- 0
The government needs to remember that "Freedom isn't Free". They have just thrown £200 billion down that great black hole which is the city, only for city bosses to award themselves £13 billion in bonuses, that would quite comfortably pay for the carriers and the extra helicopters we need, with a little over to refurbish all the accommodation.
We need a bigger Navy, a bigger Army and a bigger Air Force - end of. It is now up to the government (any government / any party) to pay for it, and prioritise accordingly. Any party that doesn't make provision for this isn't fit to govern.
We need a bigger Navy, a bigger Army and a bigger Air Force - end of. It is now up to the government (any government / any party) to pay for it, and prioritise accordingly. Any party that doesn't make provision for this isn't fit to govern.
D
DE Scumbag
Guest
Only the gonvernment doesn't pay for it. We do. The tax payer, and that expenditure as chiefy has already mentioned has to be bid for years in advance, and justified. The Treasury then decide on whether Defence get the money it has bid for, or indeed that money is better spent in Education or Health. Big boys decisions, made on forecasts.
One point though Chiefy, my understanding is that conflict prevention funding is also money bid for and allocated within the Defence Budget, and is not external, this is the money used for operations like the Stan and Iraq. Sudden war etc can be funded by an allocation of further funding though.
You're right, sorry if that wasn't clear I was trying to simplify, anything that can be forecast ie: is expected, will be bid for. I only talked about procurement and obviously if we are in Afghanistan and we know we will be there next year and roughly how much that will cost it will be in the budget. However operational costs are forecast and budgeted on a different lifecycle and timeline than procurement and also managed in a different way.
- 1,459
- 185
- 63
I agree with all the original sentiments with regards funding. BUT we do need these Aircraft Carriers even if it means that the Navy is responsible for training and responsible for the JCA aircraft with no RAF involvement. Obviously this would change the RAFs role with the Eurofighter to concentrate more on Air Defence and Air Transport but this would be a necessary transition in the future.
I know the USA is a far bigger country but their Carrier Battle groups do instill a sense of fear especially to land locked countries that think they are safe. In Gulf War II the greatest mass of Coalition Air Power was from the Sea. Our problems may be establishing actual Battle groups to protect the Carriers themselves.
We may have to compromise and have 1 carrier instead of 2 but the Government seems to want to make this project work no matter what.
My main worry is that we are faced with another "Eurofighter 30 year later scenario" burning up more and more funds that we really do not have which causes the troops on the Ground and in the Air at the front to be neglected.
I know the USA is a far bigger country but their Carrier Battle groups do instill a sense of fear especially to land locked countries that think they are safe. In Gulf War II the greatest mass of Coalition Air Power was from the Sea. Our problems may be establishing actual Battle groups to protect the Carriers themselves.
We may have to compromise and have 1 carrier instead of 2 but the Government seems to want to make this project work no matter what.
My main worry is that we are faced with another "Eurofighter 30 year later scenario" burning up more and more funds that we really do not have which causes the troops on the Ground and in the Air at the front to be neglected.