HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped

[comiso90]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593

The Royal Navy's flagship, the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, is to be scrapped early as part of the government's defence review, the BBC has learned.

The move is part of the price paid by the Royal Navy for the decision to go ahead with two new aircraft carriers.

The Ark Royal - launched in 1985 - will be decommissioned almost immediately, rather than in 2014 as planned.
Continue reading the main story
The Spending Review: Making It Clear

* What is the Spending Review?
* Cuts watch
* What would you do?
* Housing budget 'to be cut by 50%'

On Tuesday David Cameron will unveil details of the first strategic defence and security review in 12 years.

It is expected to see big spending cuts for the armed forces.

Chancellor George Osborne signalled on Sunday that the construction of two new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, would go ahead, when he told the BBC it would cost more to cancel the projects than proceed with them.

The BBC has also learned that at least one of the new carriers will be redesigned so that it can deploy normal fighter aircraft that do not need a Harrier-style vertical lift capability.
Emerging threats

The new design would allow American and French joint strike fighters to land on the new carrier.

Mr Cameron is preparing to unveil details of cuts to the armed forces at 1530 BST on Tuesday, when he announces details of the first large-scale defence review since 1998.

It is being published in two phases. The first, on Monday, revealed the government's new national security strategy - which sets out the strategic thinking behind the review.
Continue reading the main story
HMS ARK ROYAL

* Is 211 metres long
* Has a maximum beam of 36m
* Has a draft of 8.4m
* Displaces 20,000 tonnes
* Full complement of 682 sailors
* Can carry an additional 668 aircrew and Royal Marines

It ranked attacks on computer networks as one of the biggest emerging threats to the UK, alongside terrorism and a flu pandemic.

Downing Street said Mr Cameron had spoken to US President Barack Obama on Monday evening about the review.

A Downing Street spokesman said: "The prime minister said that the UK would remain a first-rate military power and a robust ally of the United States, we would be reforming our defence and security capabilities for the challenges of the 21st Century [and] we remained committed to meeting our responsibilities in Nato and would continue to work closely with the US on the full range of current security priorities."

The review is intended to decide the future shape and size of the armed forces but there have been criticisms it has been rushed and driven by the need to cut spending.

The Army is expected to have to cut personnel and lose some tanks and heavy artillery - seen as weapons of the Cold War.
'Rushed process'

It is thought the navy's new ships will have fewer new aircraft and the overall size of its fleet will be reduced.

And the Joint RAF/Fleet Air Arm Harrier force may face the axe, while some squadrons of RAF Tornado jets could be saved instead - although some air force bases will close.
Continue reading the main story
Spending review branding

A special BBC News season examining the approaching cuts to public sector spending

* Spending Review: Making It Clear

The Army may have to cut up to 7,000 or so personnel over the next five years, while the MoD itself could face substantial cuts to its civilian staff.

Sources say £750m will be saved over four years on the Trident nuclear deterrent missile system but it is not yet clear how those savings will be made.

Meanwhile, the BBC has learned that BAE Systems fears thousands of jobs could go if there are cuts to the Eurofighter programme or joint strike fighters and in Scotland there are concerns two of its RAF bases - Kinloss and Lossiemouth - could close.

But the Financial Times reports that Mr Cameron will also say spending will double on alleviating poverty in areas of conflict - such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia - to £4bn by 2015, while funding to other states like Russia and China will be reduced.

The strategic defence review is intended to look at the threats likely to be faced in the future. Defence Secretary Liam Fox has previously said it would "make a clean break from the military and political mindset of Cold War politics".

But the government has been accused of rushing the process. The last strategic defence review in 1998 took over a year while this one has been carried out in five months.

And it has been undertaken at the same time as the Spending Review - due to be published on Wednesday - which is expected to see huge cuts to departmental spending across Whitehall.

A leaked letter from Defence Secretary Liam Fox last month showed he was concerned the defence review was looking more like a "super comprehensive spending review" than a proper strategic defence review and warned the prime minister against "draconian cuts" at a time of war.

Do you agree with plans to scrap HMS Ark Royal? Are you a member of the armed forces? Send us your comments using the form below.

 

[tail end charlie]

The whole thing is bizzarre. It seems that we are doing away with huge tracts of our armed forces to buy two big carriers in the future. Having seen successive governments go on a military adventure for political ends in the past decades I dread to think what they will do with those two carriers.

I dont know about keeping the Ark Royal because the harriers are at the end of their shelf life anyway but this "review" is incoherant. To buy the carriers they are doing away with smaller fleet vessels like mine sweepers destroyers and frigates, wernt carriers lost in WWII to mines and torpedoes?

I am not in the services or ex military but I want to see my country defended, I dont want to see my countrymen used as pawns for the agrandisment of a new Tony Blair who laughably is raking in the cash as a "peace envoy".

I agreed in principle with the Falklands conflict but since Thatcher every Prime Minister who wanted votes sent in the forces somewhere hoping for the "political dividend" she got, it could end in disaster.

 

[Lucky13]

Been listening and reading about the in and outs about the two super carrier, their build or not to to build.....I surely hope that it won't be TSR-2 all over again!

 

[tail end charlie]

I had to laugh about the Nimrod, I have been hearing about Nimrod since I was a boy, funnily I saw one last weekend at Elvington next to a Victor. It had the engines running but I dont know whether it flew.

 

[CharlesBronson]

I just noticed the british had an an "Ark Royal" In inventory, the last I knew was that one with Phantoms. Was decomissioned in 1978 I think.

 

[tail end charlie]

I just noticed the british had an an "Ark Royal" In inventory, the last I knew was that one with Phantoms. Was decomissioned in 1978 I think.

CB

There have been 5 Ark Royals since 1587 4 carried aircraft and the other faced the Spanish Armada (but didnt have any aircraft aboard). It seems to be a modern tradition of having a carrier named Ark Royal. It beats the hell out of Prince of Wales the proposed name for one of the two new ones, who names a war ship after an organic pig farmer?

 

[Glider]

There was no choice but to buy the two new aircraft carriers if ony for financial reasons. The Labour Government had set the contracts up so that it was more expensive to cancel them than to build them. By the way, you get one guess as to where the vessels are to be built, yes, you got it, in labour marginal seats.

 

[jamierd]

shouldnt we just be calling them carriers as we wont have any aircraft to put on them

 

[Glider]

When the current Illustrious Class carriers were ordered they were known as Through Deck Cruisers as they were only supposed to carry helicopters.

 

[BombTaxi]

The demise of the Illustrious class through deck cruisers is no bad thing - they are really too small for any kind of force projection role and as Glider points out, were never intended to be used as carriers anyway, rather being designed as ASW helicopter platforms to defend USN CVN battlegroups during the Cold War.

However, the two new carriers will prove to be an epic waste of time and money. With Harrier scrapped and JSF yet to arrive, it is quite likely that the new CVs will go to sea carrying only helos... exactly as the Illustrious class were originally intended to In the end, the building of the CVs is down to both the RN and the Tory part of the govt wanting to project it's manhood on the international stage - just like Trident.I doubt the new CVs will see much, if any combat, unless we manage to have some kind of second Falklands War. At least in that case, they will have proved more useful than the new Trident boats will

 

[The Basket]

There has been plenty of talk about whether the UK can defend The Falklands against another Argentine invasion.

Can we defend the islands with these cuts? Maybe...but unless there is plans for invasion then why plan based on this? It's like building up a navy to defend against Vikings. Past history.

 

[BombTaxi]

I was being facetious - although I wouldn't be surprised if Falklands Pt. 2 kicked off in the next five years. Both Argentina and the UK are in fairly dire straits, and both have govts who might think a foreign adventure was a good distraction from pressing issues like cuts and unemployment. And Cameron's penchant for emulating and exceeding the Iron Lady might lead him to try his hand at a ratings-boosting colonial war too. My real point was, however, that unless there is another Falklnads war, I struggle to see what use the two new carriers will be. Surely the money would have been better spent on better policing at home, as terrorism is still comnsidered to be the #1 threat and carriers will be no use combating it?

 

[The Basket]

wasnt directly at you fella...just the media in general.

Those defence cuts are eye watering though. Real chilling.

What about scrapping the Harrier...we invented the thing...

I wonder if there was a review of defence or a review of spending?...coz it seems to me that the defence of our country is not as good as it was a few days ago.

 

[stona]

shouldnt we just be calling them carriers as we wont have any aircraft to put on them

No,we should be calling them white elephants.They fit that definition perfectly,very expensive to own and not capable of any useful work.
Steve

 

[comiso90]

I think Britain's proposed super carriers make sense for 2 reasons:

1. They are unlikely to be risked w/o American military and political support/cooperation

2. In the event they are used w/o US involvement, it would be in actions against people living in jungles, caves, tents or driving technicals overflowing with RPG wielding thugs. No risk to the carriers.

Britain will be like Germany in WW2: "The pocket battleships are too valuable to loose so lets keep them out of harms way". The carriers will be relegated to power projection and blowing up camels. If there ever is a significant threat to the carriers, the USN will probably be in the fray as well.

and yes... power projection and blowing up camels are important.

But, what other scenarios may a British super carrier be helpful:
Presence in the Straits of Hormuz
Support for Hostilities with Korea
War with Iran
Support for Israel

also super carrier not needed but helpful in:
Pirate Hunting
Punitive strikes against rouge nations
UN Missions
relief missions
Impressing men on the high seas to serve as sailors on their ships

If Britain adds two carriers, it's almost the same as the US adding 2 carriers.






.

 

[tail end charlie]

The carriers are carriers for US aircraft which could not be used without US permission like Trident, if America elects another idiot like Bush and we have another sycophant like Blair we have two carriiers full of servicemen and women being led by the nose into another exercise in stupidity like Afghanistan

 

[renrich]

It is offensive to me to hear a non citizen call our former president an idiot. Please keep your uninformed political opinions about US leaders to yourself and I will give you the same courtesy.

 

[tail end charlie]

It is offensive to me to hear a non citizen call our former president an idiot. Please keep your uninformed political opinions about US leaders to yourself and I will give you the same courtesy.

George Bush is now an historical figure, feel free to be as offended by my post as I was by the previous post.

quote
If Britain adds two carriers, it's almost the same as the US adding 2 carriers.
unquote

If American citizens can state that about British carriers then I can express my opinion about the person who makes the decisions on those British carriers/servicemen. America is the self appointed world policeman and leader of NATO, as such it decides military policy. Since the leader of America is deciding operations which cost British lives due to treaty obligations, I (as a British citizen) am entitled to call the man who makes an idiotic decision an idiot. Bush decided to invade Iraq to finish what his father didnt, more like a Norman monarch than a modern democratically elected president.

Bush is now just a citizen of the USA, if you look up "idiot" in a dictionary and then look up "Bushisms" on the internet then form an opionion, every person I have come across concludes "idiot" including me. If criticism of historical figures is not allowed then maybe everyone should extend the same to Hitler Stalin Mussolini and Hirohito, Bush was after all responsible for invading Iraq and Afghanistan when the perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudis.

There was a time when the President of the United States of America was a respected man throughout the world. The words of Lincoln, Jefferson, Roosevelt, Kennedy and many others still rank in the greatest works of English oratory. George Bush Jnr dragged the office of President to an unimaginable low and was a laughing stock throughout the world. You may not like that and actually neither do I, but do not resort to elevating the guy to the status of the Pope.

 

[CharlesBronson]

There have been 5 Ark Royals since 1587 4 carried aircraft and the other faced the Spanish Armada (but didnt have any aircraft aboard). It seems to be a modern tradition of having a carrier named Ark Royal. It beats the hell out of Prince of Wales the proposed name for one of the two new ones, who names a war ship after an organic pig farmer?

Thanks for the info. Organic pig farmer ? , that I think is not that bad if we mention his dobious taste at the time to choose a mistress.

There has been plenty of talk about whether the UK can defend The Falklands against another Argentine invasion.

Can we defend the islands with these cuts? Maybe...but unless there is plans for invasion then why plan based on this? It's like building up a navy to defend against Vikings. Past history.

Dont worry, there has been defense cuts in this side too, we dont have a carrier at all. The french Clemenceau was offered in 1999 at a bargain price of 24 millons but the faggots of the Goverment didnt bought it.

 

[renrich]

tec, At one time there was a political section on this forum which became so inflammatory that the mods sensibly did away with it. Consequently, I hesitate to even comment further about your opinions.

When the attack on the Twin Towers took place, the whole world was shocked but the government and population of the US was absolutely transformed. It is impossible to recreate the feelings and attitude which suddenly were predominant in the US. The attack that Al Qaeda planned and executed on 9-11 was incredibly more complex and effective than the intelligence community of the US and it's leaders thought was possible and the possibilities for more attacks even more devestating had to be considered. The leaders of the US and, apparently, The UK, had to operate, at that point, considering all worst case scenarios. Intelligence estimates indicated that there were WMDs in Iraq and, of course, Al Qaeda was operating out of Afghanistan. The President of the US, as well as the vast majority of Congress on both sides of the aisle and, it seems, the PM of Great Britain, felt that, in order to discharge their duties as leaders of their country they had to move forward with the plans which ultimately were executed. They actually had little, if any, choice. They did not know whether the enemy had the capability of mounting another attack as well planned and executed as 9-11 and perhaps with nukes but they felt that they had to operate as if they did.

As time went by, with no more attacks as effective as 9-11 taking place and few if any WMDs being found in Iraq, people's memories grew dim, politics took over and the opposition began to attempt to demonise George Bush and Tony Blair. In the US, the opposition tactics succeeded and because of the long drawn out operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and then the economic situation, George Bush's approval numbers which had been sky high, went down steeply. That is the way politics works and his successor is encountering somewhat the same situation. His approval numbers are down because his policies, of necessity, in Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty much the same as Bush's and the economy, which practically speaking, the President can only impact slightly, is not recovering as fast as it is deemed necessary by the media and the voter.

President Lincoln was highly unpopular among the media and many voters in the Union during the War Between the States because of that bloody and extended war. Take a look at some of the political cartoons of that day. His reelection in 1864 was not a foregone conclusion and only in retrospect has his reputation been enlarged to the point it is today. The reputation of George Bush may very well be different when his impact on history is viewed 50 or 100 years from now.

If one's political beliefs and agenda prevent one from being objective and seeing the reality of a situation, which is not uncommon, then we have an impasse. And, after all, most people have opinions which are often freely expressed and they are worth exactly what are paid for them.