Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Mps Criticise Ministry Of Defence Over 'vulnerable' Aircraft Carriers

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/03/mps-criticise-ministry-of-defence-vulnerable-aircraft-carriers

Britain's first new aircraft carriers since the Ark Royal face spiralling costs and have been left vulnerable to attack because of basic mistakes by the Ministry of Defence, according to a critical report by MPs.

The public accounts committee warned that civil servants have little control over plans to build the carriers and their aircraft, which have increased in cost by nearly £2bn since the plans were first approved.

Significant technical problems, including an early warning radar system, could leave the carriers open to attack, MPs said. It follows two U-turns in 2010 and 2012 by successive governments over which aircraft to commission for the carriers.

Margaret Hodge, the committee's chair, said that the U-turns had increased costs and left many unanswered questions.

She said: "When this programme got the green light in 2007 we were supposed to get two aircraft carriers, available from 2016 and 2018, at a cost to the taxpayer of £3.65bn. We are now on course to spend £5.5bn and have no aircraft carrier capability for nearly a decade.

"The committee is still not convinced the MoD has this programme under control. It remains subject to huge technical and commercial risks, with the potential for further uncontrolled growth in costs.

"We are also concerned that, according to current plans, the early warning radar system essential for protecting the carrier will not be available for operation until 2022, two years after the first carrier and aircraft are delivered and initially operated."

At this rate it's going to have been cheaper and easy to have bought a couple of US nuclear carriers which we know fecking work!

Still it's only taxpayer money and it all counts towards GDP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/03/mps-criticise-ministry-of-defence-vulnerable-aircraft-carriers

At this rate it's going to have been cheaper and easy to have bought a couple of US nuclear carriers which we know fecking work!

Still it's only taxpayer money and it all counts towards GDP.

Nearly there already, actually. US military cost a new Nimitz class at $4.5bn, which is £2.9bn, so £5.8bn for two - as we're already spending £5.5bn on two much smaller vessels, any discount for second hand would almost certainly bring them in cheaper!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/03/mps-criticise-ministry-of-defence-vulnerable-aircraft-carriers

At this rate it's going to have been cheaper and easy to have bought a couple of US nuclear carriers which we know fecking work!

Still it's only taxpayer money and it all counts towards GDP.

All carriers are vulnerable...

USNI: Advanced missile poses substantial new threat for U.S. Navy

While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages.

If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

If ASBM's are countered there'll be something else along shortly. Carriers now occupy the same niche that battleships did before WW2. All very impressive in peacetime or when used against inferior foes, less impressive put up against a well-equipped opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If ASBM's are countered there'll be something else along shortly. Carriers now occupy the same niche that battleships did before WW2. All very impressive in peacetime or when used against inferior foes, less impressive put up against a well-equipped opponent.

I think moving towards smaller drone carriers might offer a more practical solution, although any ship is vulnerable to attack.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

All ships are vulnerable to attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think moving towards smaller drone carriers might offer a more practical solution, although any ship is vulnerable to attack.

Yeah, a drone carrier would seem to be a lot more sensible.

Cheaper, pretty much as deadly (if you are primarily using it as a mobile airstrip for bombing missions) and harder to hit because you could make them much smaller and lower profile.

Maybe even some sort of submersible or semi-submersible carrier for drones would be feasible. Have it pop up to launch and land drones and submerge the rest of the time. I could see the entire naval balance of power being shifted by this technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get rid of the annual subvention to Northern Ireland and you could build 2 of these bad boys each and every year.

Given that NI with it's air bases was a sort or carrier. there's some sort of logic in that.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that NI with it's air bases was a sort or carrier. there's some sort of logic in that.:)

I just realised its £5.5 billion the pair.

Get rid of NI and you could have 4 a year. :o

Britannia could rule the wave again instead of supporting Belfast's public sector BTLers and DLA claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, a drone carrier would seem to be a lot more sensible.

Cheaper, pretty much as deadly (if you are primarily using it as a mobile airstrip for bombing missions) and harder to hit because you could make them much smaller and lower profile.

Maybe even some sort of submersible or semi-submersible carrier for drones would be feasible. Have it pop up to launch and land drones and submerge the rest of the time. I could see the entire naval balance of power being shifted by this technology.

It would have to be crewed by fit men and women wearing nothing beneath string vests.

Edited by The Masked Tulip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.