Skip to comments.Navy's £10bn new aircraft carriers could face the axe because of cash shortfalls
Posted on 07/07/2011 8:07:05 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Navy's £10bn new aircraft carriers could face the axe because of cash shortfalls
By Ian Drury
The Royal Navys new aircraft carriers could be axed because of cash shortfalls, a damning report warns today.
Britains spending watchdog said the 65,000-tonne floating fortresses were vulnerable unless ministers boosted defence spending.
The National Audit Office expressed deep concerns over the future of the warships which have already been delayed until 2020 to save money.
The NAO warned that the cost of the carriers could spiral to over £10billion more than twice the original bill.
Cash fears: An artist's impression shows what the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales would look like, but there are concerns they could now be scrapped
It said that changes to the carrier programme in the Coalitions Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) had created significant levels of operational, technical, cost and schedule uncertainty.
The NAO also flagged up problems with leaving the Royal Navy without a fully-functioning aircraft carrier. The Government has axed HMS Ark Royal, its last remaining aircraft carrier.
It is the first time since HMS Argus entered service in 1918 that Britain has been without one.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
How long before the UK Navy is back to 3 sailing ships?
If 0bama could get away with it, he’d sell the US Navy to China. I’d bet money on that.
After the cutbacks in their military, I’m surprised to learn the Brits even had plans for two new carriers.
Many of those cuts were to protect these carriers.
And ours are far bigger and more capable.
They have another problem besides budget.
Got to agree....10 billion new carriers would crowd the big blue pond.
Maybe if they just bought 4 of em.....
Text in article made me write such....
Better the money be spent on social programs for Muslims.
Does anybody know why US carriers do not have ramp decks...like we see in this UK carrier? Looks like a better design to me.
That’s a lot of money to toss into mothballs...
The US approach called CATOBAR - catapult take off but arrested recovery (which uses steam catapults to launch the aircraft) is much better than the 'ramp' version that is being used here. Catapults enable heavier (read more capable) aircraft to take off, and to take off with heavier loads (read more missiles and fuel). The drawback for catapult systems is they are more expensive designs (which is why only the US and France have built CATOBAR carriers ...Brazil also has one, but it was also built by the French), however in terms of capability it is a better design. All other nations that currently have aircraft carriers (apart from the US, French and Brazilians) all have STOBAR and/or STOVL carriers (e.g. the Russian STOBAR carriers, and the British/Spanish/Indian/Italian/Thai STOVL carriers). The STOBAR have a ramp system for take off, but land using wires (which means the Russians - and the Chinese and Indians soon, who have both purchased former Russian STOBAR carriers) tend to use larger aircraft (like the Sukhoi SU-33 and the MiG-29N); while for STOVL (where the planes take off with using a ramp, but land by hovering and landing vertically) the only plane that can currently do that is the Harrier (which is not as capable as planes like the F-18s or the Su-33) ...although once the F-35B comes into active service (if it comes into active service since it has been having some issues), then there will finally be a STOVL capable aircraft that is also extremely capable compared to CATOBAR/STOBAR aircraft.
That is the rough and dusty version. Hopefully someone comes along to give you a better description.
“I don’t think OUR carriers cost the $13bil the article indicates it will cost Britain.”
And to think that we could have built 60 of them (or more, with volume discounts), just spending the “stimulus” money.
That would have been REAL JOBS, for REAL MEN.
And in any case, the single biggest reason for the cost overrun is the teething problems with the US built planes they are going to be fitted with.