Parliamentary Answers – to 21 August 2011

24 thoughts on “Parliamentary Answers – to 21 August 2011”

1. Lord Jim August 22, 2011 at 2:06 pm

   Well again it seems that plans are for only one of the Queen Elizabeth carriers to be fitted with Cats and Traps to operate the F-35C. The are now refering to this as the “Operational” Carrier so what do we call the other? Are they planning to have the second “Fitted for but not with”, Cats and Traps? This whole programme is making the UK a laughing stock! Without a Guaranteed budget increase of between 2 and 3% year on year after 2015 FF2020 is unaffordable so we might as well bring all our servicemen and women home, convert them all to a paramilitary police force and simply defend the homeland. When are politicians going to realise that defence is as important as Health and Education. They have also forgotten that whilst you can remove a capability overnight it takes decades to regain it. Sometimes I do wish the Service Chiefs would actually speak their minds in the public arena and state what the Armed Services actually need to do the job asked of them and and refuse to carry out operations they are not equipped to do. A SDR is supposed to balance these issues but the current spin that the SDSR laid down the correct equipment levels but how they are used is a Government and MoD decision is a non sensical smoke screen. If only there was a way of challenging the Government on defence resources under the Human Rights Act”, which is the only thing the Government takes notice of these days, maybe we could get things right. Rant over!
2. Think Defence August 22, 2011 at 2:31 pm

   And, we don’t really know what an MRB will actually look like because we are still desperately trying to figure out how to reduce to 80 odd thousand whilst still maintaining the SDSR assumptions, good luck with that one
3. The Mintcake Maker August 22, 2011 at 3:11 pm

   @ Lord Jim

   Just found this article via another forum.

   http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/ministers_reconsider_mothballing_carrier_1_2987052

   Don’t know quite how reliable the local news is in Portsmouth, but if it is to be believed then the left hand isn’t talking to the right (which probably means the source is correct). This also tallies with what BAE officials having been saying over the past couple of days with regards to LB03 being moved, that QE is too far along in the build process to have Cats “n” Traps fitted.

   And so it has been decided, despite what Mr Luff says, and I quote:
   A MoD spokesman confirmed: ‘Our current planning assumption is to convert HMS Prince of Wales in build but no firm decisions will be taken until late 2012.’

   At least there is some silver-linings to this story:

   1. Some Whitehall mandarin has finally realised that there needs to be a minimum of 2 carriers to have 1 available at all times (okay ideal 3 but it just won’t happen).

   2. They can use QE to practice deck handling for the crew, and iron out any problems with propulsion, sea keeping etc before PoW enters service. This means come 2018(?) when PoW is launched they can go straight into working up and practicing Cat “n” Trap operations ready for 2020.

   3. In my honest opinion I can’t see any government realistically leaving themselves open for abuse by not saying that when QE enters her extended readiness/re-fit period, that she won’t be refitted for Cat “n” Trap operations especially if say the Queen is launching QE. It would just be a PR nightmare. (Some of this money could come from the French, who have expressed a wish for access to our carriers whilst CDG is in for repairs and refuelling etc, so they MN can keep its aviators current)

   4. By converting PoW first then QE in-time, this probably means we can end the silly rumour that we are selling 1 of the carriers because for any government to sell QE would just be so unbelievably stupid/silly its untrue (actually on second thoughts HMG’s are usually a stupid bunch of idiots, so it could still happen)

   5. And finally, the RN can at last proudly declare to the world and laugh at the USN because we will have the largest LHA, the world has ever seen, for several years until she is put in extended readiness. (Sorry to our American commentators but I just couldn’t resist that one)
4. repulse August 22, 2011 at 7:05 pm

   I wonder if they will leave the ski ramp on the QE before the refit? Could it allow for some joint F35B carrier training with our US / Italian / Spanish allies?
5. The Mintcake Maker August 22, 2011 at 7:13 pm

   @ Repulse

   I suppose they could leave the ramp on. However I’d also put good money on them not fitting it to save money. Lets face it, if the USMC reccon that their harriers and F-35b’s can take off loaded from an america class LHA which is shorter than QE i dont really see the point in wasting the money on fitting the ramp. But who knows, it is the MOD after all
6. repulse August 22, 2011 at 7:31 pm

   Thanks @MM never knew that… Just a shame that the 2 test F35Bs we are getting will never leave the US, would surely help with the training of the carrier crews. Is there any other (cheap) fixed wing trainer aircraft that could do the same?
7. RW August 22, 2011 at 10:04 pm

   I think there should be some sort of UK version of the goshawk at some point maybe that’s a cheap way to start carrier working

   Also here is obviously the potential for typhoons from tranche 1 to be converted to sea typhoon configuration and then used in STOBAR (with traps only being added at the beginning)

   In fact (if this was an intended route) it would raise the interesting option of two carrier types one doing joint STOBAR & cats traps, and one being fully optimized for cats traps only

   Or one just staying with traps and STOBAR while the full competence of the cats was assessed and matured
8. x August 22, 2011 at 11:02 pm

   I imagine CVF will be in service for 50 years. So who knows what equipment will be fitted in the future?

   You have to appreciate that difficult part is putting the hull in the water.
9. Brian Black August 23, 2011 at 12:40 am

   It’s not only ship availability that is affected by trying to operate a single aircraft carrier. I read a French article recently that said they’re having serious problems training up carrier crewmen due to the operational demands on their only ship.

   It was suggested that if the Libyan campaign dragged on till the end of the year, they would reach a critical point that would see CdG out of operational service throughout 2012.

   The article also highlighted their lack of COD and need to borrow USN Greyhounds.
10. Aussie Johnno August 23, 2011 at 3:10 am

    I will say this from the safety of the other side of the world, but the cost of building those two carriers is literally eating the the Royal Navy and it is painful to watch.
    The current plan of sort of operating one (QE) while completing the other to a different standard (PoW)is utter madness.
    From what I read, the decision has been more or less made to use electromagnetic catapults so you can bet PoW will be late and will have teething problems with its cats. It just goes with the technology!
    My only hope is that you don’t sell QE to the Indians, it wil just increase tension out here. Last thing we need is China and India playing carrier tag in our part of the world.
11. ArmChairCivvy August 23, 2011 at 10:15 am

    Hi Johnno,

    RE “I will say this from the safety of the other side of the world, but the cost of building those two carriers is literally eating the the Royal Navy and it is painful to watch”
    - two thirds of all projected investments to the late 2020′s (throwing in the 7th Astute as that is a drum beat decision, rather than weighing up different priorities)
    - getting to that figure by putting all of the initial cost of F-35s on RN (but none of the life cycle costs, which will up the cost of running FAA hugely, even if only half of it is assigned to the RN)

    I said projected investments, arrived at as minimum to cover the tasks as they stand. The “literally eating” part is still to happen, to balance the books (horrible term, and implies a static view of the world)over the next 15+ years
12. IXION August 24, 2011 at 12:44 am

    BB As I have just posted elswhere, re the perils of one carrier. CDG is in Tuolon, without a sign of life on board, and looking so shagged when I first saw it, I thought it was an old Foch class waiting to be scrapped!

    Holiday reading was an aviation mag.

    I cannot veryfy its figures but by putting 3 articles together it was saying: -

    1 QE carrier with cats and traps only. Total in service cost of program over £10 billion. Probable sale of 1
    2 F35 in increasing trouble with B version very likely for the chop.
    3 Could have had Nimitz class new with full airwing of f18′s for the same money….

    Like I said probably some of the article recycling old news / views, and some of the perils of competative costing of weapons systems apply.

    But the f35 article was illuminating apparantly deep discomfort in US over the increasing cost of the program, within congress, the administration, and USAF even for A and navy for C varients; B versions only friend now USMC and they are now saying they could live with some C class instead!

    Not going to start a new carrier war thread, but Nellie and Dumbo aint out of the woods yet no matter how much steel is cut and wielded and how many items arrive at the gate 2012 will be interresting….

    Nothing I have seen suggests from official sources both ships will have cats and traps, Look how carefully the ministerial replies are worded, He could for example either bring in both ships with cats and traps or not, or cancel them both citing costs overruns or the 35 troubles, despite his assurance of a capability arround 2020 (and that could be 2018 or 2025 both are “arround 2020″)…..
13. Aussie Johnno August 24, 2011 at 5:03 am

    Big question, ArmChairCivvy, is how many F-35′s RAF/RN will eventually buy. I have read a comment which seemed to imply an initial buy of 20 F-35C’s, which is 12 on the deck and 8 ashore for support (4 for training, 1 hot spare and 3 in bits in the hangar). That is one Sqn plus a training flight, and your government has the luxury of making up fast jet numbers by simply keeping more Tranche 1 Typhoons in service. Must be tempting.
    The RAAF out here is still sticking to the line of 100 F-35A but the timescale is drifting right. It looks very likely that the RAAF will be operating a mix of F-35A’s and F-18F’s out to around 2030. A small additional buy of F-18F’s to flesh out 1 and 6 Sqn numbers is being openly discussed driven by F-35 development/cost uncertainty. For sure the same cost/development schedule issues will be on the mind of the Lib/Dems as well. At least you have found the money for the planned additional 14 Chinooks for the RAF.
14. Tubby August 24, 2011 at 8:26 am

    Hi IXION,

    Hope you holiday in Tulon was great…sounds like for the amount of money we have p*ssed up the wall for CVF (and will potentially p*ss up the wall on the world’s most expensive “affordable” bomb truck) we could have re-started from scratch the Harrier production line, incorporated new technology, been able to buy a 100 odd of them, and have built three modern CVS’s to stick them on.
15. IXION August 24, 2011 at 11:02 am

    Tubby

    I had a sly bet that Harrier 3 would happen.

    I had written the money off some time ago but maybe just maybe I will get my money back yet….
16. ArmChairCivvy August 24, 2011 at 11:43 am

    Hi Johnno,

    RE “RAAF will be operating a mix of F-35A’s and F-18F’s out to around 2030. A small additional buy of F-18F’s to flesh out 1 and 6 Sqn numbers”
    - the clever bit was that every other F-18 was bought ready-wired for a Growler conversion. And that only cost 300 k a piece (I forget in which dollars)
    - RAF has no plans for such capability separately, and I wonder how close one can get with “mission pods”
17. Mark August 24, 2011 at 12:57 pm

    It also cause the Aussies spent 4.5b US dollars in 2008 for 24 hornet with 10 years support and that’s rather a lot of money to scrap after 10 yrs as the us navy don’t want to buy them back. Prob they have now is they’re going to spent more money on them to removed obselance all while operating 2 fleets of a/c f35 and hornet as opposed to 1 and if they don’t make the choice next year additional hornets is no longer an option
18. ArmChairCivvy August 24, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    Thx Mark, that should keep the Hornet enthusiasts at bay.

    For Australian circumstances (no carriers) I think the choice was right (they heroically kept the F-111s in service for 24 more years after the USN retired them.
    - the reach was much reduced, but there in an FSTA equivalent in Oz (or did they buy the aircraft outright?)
    - even the stealth strike can benefit from the Growlers (so two! countries in the world will have such?)
19. DominicJ August 24, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    Ixion
    I’m not sure I think thats fair.
    Surely its just a matter or spending?
    You could have ten carriers, all wrecked, if you refused to spend the money upkeep requires.

    AJ
    “I have read a comment which seemed to imply an initial buy of 20 F-35C’s, which is 12 on the deck and 8 ashore for support (4 for training, 1 hot spare and 3 in bits in the hangar).”

    I never liked that arguement for Carrier Air
    Because its unrealistic.
    Carriers are inherantly offensive weapons.

    We might usualy have 12 actives, 4 trainers, 3 in repair and 1 called desperation, but in short order, with money applied, we can have 20 actives.

    We had 31 SeaHarriers during the Falklands, 28 of them made it down south.

    Ok, so 18 F35s in a pinch
20. ArmChairCivvy August 24, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    Aren’t TacTom’s even more so, RE
    “I never liked that arguement for Carrier Air
    Because its unrealistic.
    Carriers are inherantly offensive weapons”
21. IXION August 24, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    DJ

    To a degree that’s my point!

    There is CDG pride of the French navy (the boats that tour the harbour were all bosting, CDG in port come and look Vive la france! and all that. If you ask the french Navy and people they will sing of being the only other force arfter the US to opperate Nuclear powered carriers.

    It is somewhat unerving to look at a Nuclear weapons system stuffed with electrickery of the first water, looking so bad that the whole stern was red with rust, its sides streeked with rust, there was PLYWOOD over what looked like one hatch!There was not a sign of life on it, even the the three dashing types in the RIB obviously on guard duty looked bored.

    It is not just the unit cost of Nellie and Dumbo, they will need to be maintained to a functioning level otherwise they will be (if this is not a contradiction in terms) Rust coloured white elephants.
22. IXION August 24, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    PS also looked arround the French Naval Museum.

    Interresting but very small (Snigger)
    No mention of Trafalgar (Snigger).

    I was reminded of David Mitchells Skit about the sinking the French Fleet at Oran, that since we could, and whilst we were there, and we were English after all, it would have been a shame, not to have done it.

    I felt eirily compelled to have a look round to see if there was any way I could have sunk it! As if as an Englishman it was my duty to try..
23. DominicJ August 24, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    ACC
    Sorry it wasnt that clear,
    Because Carriers are offensive weapons, we control the date of the offence, so can surge unsustainable levels of deployment.

    Pulling the training aircraft for 6 weeks would almost certainly screw up some schedules, but, doing so isnt actualy that big a deal.

    Because Carrier Air, for the UK anyway, isnt a standing deployment, its a warmaking tool, we dont need a standing capability, we need a surge one.

    The Army hass a constantly deployed Brigade or two, the RAF is constantly on the look out for incoming soviet airpower.

    The FAA? Well, frankly, the FAA could require a months notice to get an aircraft and it wouldnt make a jot of difference to the UK’s defence.

    We hit Libya on the 20th of March with Storm Shadow.
    About 30 days after Libya all kicked off.

    My point wasnt carriers are bad because they are tools of aggression, it was that *because* they are tools of agression, they can safely be kept at a relativly low level of availability.
    As in, ok, in 30 days, all aircraft are needed for combat operations, make it so.

    Better example would be Trident, I suppose.
    Trident needs to be ready at all times, carriers, not so much.

    Ixion
    I dont know much about ships, so it may be that I’m wrong, but to my knowledge, most commercial ships dont see dry dock for 4 months a year.
    They are just properly maintained.

    Its not a matter of only 1 ship, its simply a matter of not paying for paint.

    Although as I said, I dont know if you can paint them whilst in the sea, and how long after painting till you can fly off them.
24. Tubby August 24, 2011 at 8:03 pm

    Hi Ixion,

    “I had a sly bet that Harrier 3 would happen.”

    When Boeing presented the Super Hornet international road map at Farnborough last year they had a slide that suggested they had an undisclosed aircraft programme in production (as far as I am aware they have still not revealed what it is) – I secretly hoped this was internally funded Harrier III demonstrator ready to be wheeled out if the F-35B was cancelled.