| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| First Sea Lord: Iraq and Afghanistan have delayed new aircraft carriers |
| 2009-02-16 |
| Inevitable. The First Sea Lord appeared to contradict John Hutton, the Defence Secretary, who has suggested the carriers are being delayed for other reasons. The carriers were originally due to enter service in 2012 and 2015, but following a financial shortfall in the defence budget, the Ministry of Defence reviewed its major equipment programmes and delayed the carriers by one or two years each. Soon to be three or four years each, then ... cancelled. Mr Hutton told MPs in December that delaying the carriers could help align their delivery with the arrival of new fighter aircraft He said: "We have concluded that there is scope for bringing more closely into line the introduction of the joint combat aircraft and the aircraft carrier. This is likely to mean delaying the in service date of the new carriers by one to two years." But the First Sea Lord told the BBC that the delay was "nothing to do with the fighters at all". Instead, he claimed the decision was simply a question of money. "It is well-known that our budget is under pressure. Why is it under pressure? Because we're both having to finance the campaigns we're running in, but also invest in the future," he said. Asked about the delay, he said: "It comes down to you know a setting of priorities. I mean importantly the programme is going ahead, but slightly more slowly to allow investment in today's things." IOW - Billions to bail out Labour Party allies, not one pence more for defence. Liam Fox, the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, said: "The Navy has been conned and our national security compromised, all because of the economic wreckage that Gordon Brown has brought to the country. Our defence policy is now governed by the Treasury, and not our national security." The Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month that Mr Hutton has been forced to call in an Army general to act as a "marriage counsellor" to resolve a bitter dispute between the heads of the Royal Navy and RAF over the future of the Harrier jump jet. Adml Band admitted "robust" talks were under way, but denied threatening to resign. |
| Posted by:mrp |
| #4 I thought the headline meant that Iraq and Afghanistan have delayed constrction of their aircraft carriers. Yuk yuk. Aircraft carriers are just huge targets, anyway. The age of supersonic cruise missiles has been here for a while, and we just haven't had a shooting war to prove it yet. |
| Posted by: gromky 2009-02-16 23:57 |
| #3 I'm not surprised in the least. A fleet carrier makes no sense for Britain, and makes no sense for a simple reason: Britain is no longer a major naval power. Britain is down to under 60 major combatant ships and plans to cut that further for no better reason than the money is lacking. Ships are deployed without anti-air missiles. Ships are kept home more and more. When asked, Britain now responds to the request for ships with one, generally a frigate, to show the flag. A modern fleet carrier task force would require several escort ships and a submarine to ensure proper protection. Britain doesn't have the ships to spare. I simply can't imagine putting the QE or the PoW in open waters with an inadequate escort; the price to be paid would be catastrophic. Because of that the fleet carriers would spend more time at home than at sea. Frankly it would be better for Britain to admit that it is now, at best, a 2nd-rate naval power. It then would ask what sort of navy it both needs and can afford. That navy would best be centered on frigates to patrol the region (North Sea and northern Atlantic), submarines to interdict an enemy, and, if really needed for power projection, a light carrier (aka Hermes or Ark Royal) with helicopters, VSTOL aircraft like the Harrier, and (as technology improves) naval UAVs. But a fleet carrier? It's an unaffordable bauble. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-02-16 15:22 |
| #2 I would have thought that pouring N times the GDP down the black hole of the insolvent banks was a more immediate cause for belt tightening. |
| Posted by: Cynicism Inc 2009-02-16 14:49 |
| #1 Answer: get rid of the millions of 3rd World scum back tn their place of origon. I would bet the UK mossie Social Security costs, if eliminated, would bring forward a Carrier completion date...Nah, too many moral issues there. |
| Posted by: rhodesiafever 2009-02-16 14:30 |