Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Clyde aircraft carriers delayed

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 11 December 2008
The Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers are likely to enter service one or two years later than expected following a review of spending, Defence Secretary John Hutton announced today.
Work on the £4 billion project was due to begin next spring, with the vessels entering service in 2014 and 2016, but Mr Hutton said today it was being brought more closely in line with the introduction of the Joint Combat Aircraft which they will carry.

In a written statement to the House of Commons, Mr Hutton also said that £70 million will be spent on upgrading 12 Lynx Mark 9 helicopters with new engines, with the first of the aircraft to be available at the end of next year.

The changes will allow the helicopters to operate effectively all year round in the heat and high altitudes of Afghanistan, freeing up other aircraft for different tasks, said Mr Hutton.

Coupled with a previously-announced upgrade to the Chinook Mark 3, plans for additional Apache attack craft and the transfer of Merlins when they complete their mission in Iraq next year, the improvements to the Lynx will deliver "a significant increase in helicopter capacity" to military commanders in Afghanistan, said Mr Hutton.

The aircraft carriers HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will be the biggest and most powerful surface warships ever constructed for the Royal Navy.

They received the long-awaited green light in May from Mr Hutton's predecessor as defence secretary Des Browne.

Their construction and assembly at shipyards in Portsmouth, Barrow-in-Furness, Glasgow and Rosyth is expected to create or sustain 10,000 jobs across the UK.

The strike force for the two new carriers will be drawn from a new fleet of 150 Joint Combat Aircraft being constructed under a £1.3 billion deal with US aerospace manufacturers Lockheed Martin.

The first of the new supersonic planes is due to come into service in 2012, replacing the Navy's Sea Harrier FA2 and the RAF's Harrier GR7.
Mr Hutton today 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.

"We are in close consultation with the Aircraft Carrier Alliance on how this might best be done. Construction is already under way and will continue. The programme will still provide stability for the core shipyard workforce, including 10,000 UK jobs."

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 11 December 2008 2:49 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Shipbuilding
 
1

John Cameron,

St Andrews 11/12/2008 15:18:40
This is terrible news with ZANU Labour about to plan its next war to save the universe. This was, of course, to be a two ocean war so that the Deal Leader could dish Phony Tony. Our opponents will be announced later but it are expected to be Sweden and Togo.
2

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 11/12/2008 15:32:34
WTF? were are my comments?
3

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 11/12/2008 15:36:38
This smells more fishy than a two week old herring.
4

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 11/12/2008 15:51:26
I'll put this on the record again SM753 who would as you say the "Cowardly" Scots hide behind and use to defend us "Scots" and again I take it you are not a Scot.
5

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 11/12/2008 15:54:06
John @ 1, one of the reasons that the RN will have problems is that there isn't a surface fleet of sufficient size and strength to support the carriers.
6

Nevsky,

Moscow 11/12/2008 15:58:24
All Scottish Labour voters in what is left of the construction and the engineering industry TAKE NOTE. You are an expendable drain on public resources.

£500 billion to the Banks is no problem of course!
7

Nevsky,

Moscow 11/12/2008 16:02:51
5 Tormod#

Problems in what context? It is high time the UK stopped trying to match the US and others as being a superpower, we ain't.

Perhaps if we stopped backing the US our defence budget would reduce, let's face it Germany is twice the size but has no pretensions that it can match the superpowers.

Britain...the Canary in the military Goldmine!

We don't have the funds and should concentrate on coastal defence against those terrorists in Iceland!
8

Nevsky,

Moscow 11/12/2008 16:04:06
Let's face it the last time the UK Navy was in combat the Iranian navy captured hostages..laugh ..oh lol!
9

Embra Don,

11/12/2008 16:05:02
Apparently we need the carriers to "Project Power". When Geoff Hoon was announcing orders for ships in 2003 he used the term "Project coercion". That will be different from state terrorism then.
As we have a "nuclear deterrent" Saddam had (or as it turned out did not have) weapons of mass destruction. We have spin doctors, others are dangerous liars.
10

Embra Don,

11/12/2008 16:07:23
I believe the RN has 40 odd commodores, 80 odd admirals and 20 odd surface ships. Can anyone see scope for savings?
11

Nevsky,

Moscow 11/12/2008 16:08:01
9 Embra#

The point is if you have 1 nuke or 1000 it doesn't matter. If a strike is initiated the deterrent has not worked and everyone is a gonner anyway.

Complete and utter waste of money! Anyone have any idea how much Iraq and Afgahnistan has cost yet?

I'm guessing a banker or two!
12

Nevsky,

Moscow 11/12/2008 16:09:33
10 Emra#

80 Admirals! Hooharr and 2 have seen combat..great value for money!
13

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 11/12/2008 16:09:50
I take that as part of the divorce deal with england SCOTLAND will get one of those carriers. That makes this great expense all worth while then. We could use it as a spare soccer pitch in our bid to hold the European championSHIPS in 2016. They will be built by then, won't they????????
14

Embra Don,

11/12/2008 16:10:14
# 10
No double entendre was intended in the term "odd" when applied to Admirals
15

Darien,

Panama 11/12/2008 16:12:07
This is simply a political bribe to the voters, many of whom have not quite yet figured things out (hence Glenrothes result). NewLab union dividend and a' that p**sh. Yet the engines will be built in Germany, the navigation systems in Norway, and the marine evacuation systems are ordered from Australia - all the union members are to do is bolt the thing together and they'll screw that up for sure, and like the French, there will probably only ever be one carrier built. And even that won't work properly. Useless piece of junk anyway - each ship costing the same as a new Forth Road Bridge! Still, Gordon Brownshirt's gonna need toys like this if he and his Rule Brittannia comrades are to continue "saving the world". Build 20 hospitals and 100 schools? Naw, lets build 2 aircaft carriers instead!?!?
16

Embra Don,

11/12/2008 16:12:36
#11 Nevsky
Probably a whole wunch of bankers
17

Embra Don,

11/12/2008 16:18:08
These carriers will be the "biggest ships ever built for the Royal Navy" at 65,000T.
Strange that the US carrier which visited a few years ago and other big ships like the QE2 and Queen Mary couldn't get under the Forth Bridge. Presumably one of the Admirals will have checked that out though. Pretty big version of Robinson Crusoe's canoe.
18

Libertarian!,

11/12/2008 16:23:18
Surely money spent on these ships is only good money down the plug hole with the daily rapid advance of modern technology. Would it be from a merely prestige view point for such a small island as the UK to indulge in such senseless waste off tax payers cash. During the last war, with the early advent of the long rage bomber it was pretty obvious very early on that the Battlecruiser and the Battleship were now obselete and were reduced to merely sitting ducks in any engagement, yet, were used right up to near the end off the war with such an unecessary tragic loss of life.
I speak from experience, as I served as a Royal Marine aboard a well known Battlecruiser, and later served aboard a Battleship while waiting to be demmobbed in 1946, the one Prince Philip had served aboard, earlier on in the war.
Within a very short space of time they were all sent to the "knackers yard" to be scrapped, mostly in Scotland,
19

Darien,

Panama 11/12/2008 16:23:54
If this was about job creation/protection:

2 x carriers = £4bn = 10,000 jobs

20 hospitals + 100 schools = £4bn = 100,000+ jobs

Its not about jobs.
20

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 11/12/2008 16:27:00
Hi Nevsky,

The problems would be actually having the naval hardware to complete a carrier battle group.

The amount of money spent on the RN surface fleet does not support this because of the amount and type of surface ships required to protect the carrier.

The example he used was the type 45 destroyer which is a very capable AAW platform however due to the MOD norm it does not have any real anti-missle or surface / submarine weaponary

The term used is fitted for not with.

I was having a discussion with SM753 about this, he wrote that there would be enough, I wrote the opposite and that the UK government should not put folk in harms way without the proper tools as it will end in disaster.

He then stated that scots nats are cowards and an independent Scotland would rely on other nations for protection.

I asked him what countries and then the forum got pulled and reset I don't know why maybe it's because I asked if he was a Scot.
21

Western Gael,

11/12/2008 16:28:22
Turmod –
Good observation. By my count the RN might have six frigates and (possibly) a single Falklands War era destroyer deployed. In fact, the vessel maintaining British naval “presence” in the Falklands is civilian, under contract. I also believe the comment attributed to Mr. Hutton today, that the carrier program was being brought more closely in line with the introduction of the Joint Combat Aircraft, is absolutely disingenuous. The real villain (if indeed one supports the carrier project) is the enormous amount of borrowing that Labour is using to throw money at the current economic malaise, in a vain hope to cure the illness before the next election must be called.
22

Mercian,

UK 11/12/2008 16:33:26
#9 Embra Don

Carriers do of course project power, but such weapons have proven to be an invaluable practical asset in defending sovereignty in the Falklands.

Nuclear weapons are almost entirely about projecting power, yet we always hear every other argument for having the things except that one.

All these weapons keep the UK maintaining it's status as a significant world power...

23

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 11/12/2008 16:35:25
Cheers Western a good template is to look at a US carrier battle group and ask yourself does the RN have the capability?

Type 45 for AAW

type 22 for Surface

type 23 for Sub

Trafalgar class attack sub.

How many of these ships could be put to sea as part of a carrier battle group.

What about other operations?

How many ships in refit?

As for the airwing I see the plan is to use the sea-king as the AEW nothing concrete for a replacement the MOD trying to do things on the cheap as usual.

It's like the scene from Yes Minister, we con only defend ourselves in the soviets attack us on the 2nd tuesday in may.

If you want to have this hardware you have to pay the price.
24

ricky40,

11/12/2008 16:39:18
14 embra don

Nothing to do with the old saw about a Vice-Admiral's vice being a Rear-Admiral's rear. i don't understand it either.
25

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 11/12/2008 16:41:59
Nevsky take a look at the US navy's carrier defence the Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke class, against the type 45,23,22.

Compare the ships, I don't think that the RN has the capacity.

Naval warfare is expensive always has been always will, I don't think a lot of folk have gotten over the end of empire yet!
26

Western Gael,

11/12/2008 16:56:20
Turmod --

A US carrier battle group would likely two CVNs (aircraft carriers, 80+ aircraft each), a anti-air screen of four Ticonderoga-class cruisers, four to six Burke-class ASW destroyers, and eight (or so) Perry-class screening frigates, plus a supporting cast of sustainment vessels. That appears to be more than the the entire RN to me.
27

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 11/12/2008 17:07:45
Aye SM753 the Aster would do really well against a sea skimming missile so do you still say that the 45's will have a CIWS of phalanx?

Right a Lynx with a Sea skua and Stingray, how long does it take to arm the Lynx SM753 what if they have both a sub and surface attack what do they do? how long will they have to react?

So how many of the surface fleet will be used as part of the carrier groups?

How many ships does this leave the RN left to use?

Right the F35 will protect the fleet using what as AEW the sea-king or the future as yet unknown AEW platform?

You do know that naval doctrine says that you use two desks on operation for obvious reasons, does the RN have enough surface ships for two carrier battle groups?

No you said Scots not the SNP were cowards and I asked what countries we would rely upon for protection, surely you must know?

Again you said an independent Scotland and Scots not the SNP and finally are you a Scot yes or no?
28

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 11/12/2008 17:13:55
SM @ 28 You well fine know the reason that a carrier destroyer squadron is a layered system to protect the carrier and that is there function so there weapons systems are integrated and designed for that purpose.

If the RN want a carrier group they would require the same layered systems otherwise the carrier is in peril because of the gaps in defense.

If you look at the current weapons systems of the surface fleet, they are lacking in this layered approach they have been built to cost not function and therefore would make the carrier a prime target and easier to destroy than should be the case.
29

Western Gael,

11/12/2008 17:14:01
Turmod --
My error of omission -- add at least two SSN fast attack boats to the order of battle.

SM753 --
Respectfully, sir, pay more attention before you pull that lanyard again. At no point did I describe any of the weapons capabilities of the CVN/Cruisers/Destroyers/Frigates in the battle group. The purpose of the battle group also is irrelevant -- what was offered was information on its order of battle. Now, with your permission, I'll have the bos'n pipe me over the side.
30

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 11/12/2008 17:20:11
Unless of course SM753 you can tell me what future engagements the RN will have for instance, what if things turn nasty with Russia, could a RN CBG survive and defeat an attack of the russian navy?

Surely if you are going to deploy these platforms you should also give them the tools to protect themselves?

Could it protect itself from Sunburn SSM?
31

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 11/12/2008 17:27:50
Here's a scenario SM753 a squadron of widespread Bear foxtrots at about 250-300 miles switch on there surface radar and paint the CBG a combined attack from oscars, slava, kiev cruisers and Backfire bombers fire off 250 sea skimming cruise missles against the CBG, would it survive and be able to fight back?

Does it have the firepower to stop and fight back would you put your child on the CBG confident of there chances?
32

Western Gael,

11/12/2008 17:54:59
Turmod and SM --

Time, Gentlemen, please!

Whilst this debate about weaponeering and orders of battle is entertaining, there is one point left out of the dialogue. Even with its 250+ ship Naval Order of Battle, and doctrine of fighting “two and one-half” wars simultaneously, for the US Navy the elephant in the corner is the small diesel electric attack submarine, operating on the battery, in littoral or coastal waters through which ships, both military and civilian, must use for quick transit. Third generation boats of that class are on the ways in many “disinterested” countries and will soon be as numerous as penny candy. Small powers see this class of vessel as the great equalizer in their own theaters of operation. For all seafaring nations with significant navies and power projection doctrines, this development has set the cat amongst the pigeons.

Now, take this on board, go back to your corners, and come out swinging.
33

BIG EYE,

Paisley 11/12/2008 18:09:06
Surely some mistake?

Was this announcement not planned for before the Glenrothes By Election?

Suckers!
34

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 11/12/2008 18:23:22
In a classic press release, according to the MoD: "the carriers will be built at a slower pace but will not be delayed"?

How can the workforce on the Clyde and at Rosyth possibly be reassured by this contradiction in terms!

It is another example of a declining nation living a pretence that it is still a major world power when it really cannot afford these two capital ships, especially with a looming depression.
35

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 11/12/2008 19:40:17
#22 Mercurian

"All these weapons keep the UK maintaining it's status as a significant world power.."

The significant World Power that supports its military might on less than 4% of the Worlds economic output. Oh, Very Powerful Indeed.

These Carriers are (where) never going to be built.

The Government announces the go ahead when they realize they will have a by-election in Glenrothes.

After Labour holds the seat, they announce a delay.

Next it will be a further delay because what little money they have is being eaten up by Trident II.

Then complete cancellation, "as our strategic imperatives have changed".
36

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 11/12/2008 20:13:07
Never overestimate the intelligence of your average Labour voter, especially in Glenrothes. Numpties leading numpties. The idea was I recall that capital projects like this were to be brought forward and of course Rosyth is not all that far away.

What a crock.
37

Ewan M,

11/12/2008 20:17:40
#43 and #44 may I remind you a vote for the SNP would close done the Scottish defence industry or has Alex Salmond found more oil in his back garden to pay for that as well!
38

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 11/12/2008 20:30:36
Aircraft carriers are instruments of aggression, not defence. Their sole purpose is to allow aircraft to get within striking range.

Only supporters of aggressive countries would try to defend the expenditure.
39

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 11/12/2008 20:42:09
re 46. Only supporters of the aggression of aggressive countries would support the very existence of the said carriers.
40

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 11/12/2008 20:44:01
Weapons of mast destruction?
41

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 11/12/2008 20:58:53
#45 Ewan M

An independent Scotland would recognize that it is a small country in the North East Atlantic and would have a defense policy that reflected that.

The UK on the other hand is still under the misguided belief that it is a World Power.

It isn't, and hasn't been for a very long time.

The Royal Navy has a proud history, and was once the most powerful navy in the world.

This made sense when you also had the worlds largest overseas empire.

What are these expensive toys supposed to be protecting.

Gibraltor? Bermuda? Ascension Island? The Falklands? The Channel Islands?

In a modern Europe where defense is a collective endevour and defense procurement rules require that countries open the tendering process to all EU members, Scotlands defense industry will just have to learn to compete rather than trying to get business based on political patronage.
42

The Strategist,

11/12/2008 23:53:06
This is both interesting and illuminating :

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/11/hutton_defence_kit_announcement/

43

Jimmy Le Pie,

12/12/2008 00:06:54
There isn't the industrial capacity or the money left to build these carriers.

All industrial capacity is being used to print more money.

These things take time!!!!!!
44

Vaward,

12/12/2008 02:26:09

# 15 Darien,

A Rolls-Royce Marine Trent 30 marine gas turbines will power the QE class carriers. Roll Royce plc does employ 4000 people in Germany, but the MT30 isn't constructed there. Sperry marine UK will supply the navigation systems.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.