The Ark to be scrapped

Discussion in 'Postwar' started by Peter Clare, Oct 19, 2010.

  1. Peter Clare

    Peter Clare Very Senior Member

    BBC News - Defence review: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped

    The Royal Navy's flagship, the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, is to be scrapped early as part of the government's defence review.
    The UK's Harrier jump jets will be axed, the money saved going towards the cost of two new aircraft carriers.

    It means that, until at least 2019, Britain will not have the ability to launch fighter jets at sea.

    Will Argentina try to reclaim the Falklands again? Don't think we could do much about it if they did. The islanders must be feeling very vulnerable on hearing this news.
     
  2. 17thDYRCH

    17thDYRCH Senior Member

    Peter

    Is the article factual? Is it correct in stating the the RN's surface fleet will be cut from 24 to 19 ships?
    I was under the impression that the Royal Navy had far more vessels within the fleet.

    These cuts do represent a sad day for the British military.
     
  3. Swiper

    Swiper Resident Sospan

    Argentina's military is woefully equipped and can't really take us on - even without the Ark Royal. Seems like a massive waste axing a 25 year old ship though.

    The question really is - why is the army also losing '100 tanks and heavy guns', why are we cutting the key knifes edge of our forces? Well... they believe cyber attack and terrorism to be major risks. I see Sigs/Int personnel getting larger budgets and more personnel - whilst the Infantry et al get cut beyond anything useful.

    Most worrying? These are the sort of cuts that meant if the shit hits the fan we'll have a learning curve/re-equipping scale so steep it will be like 1939 all over again. Our forebares paid in unwarranted blood for that - and we have simply not learned the lesson.

    Also BAE Systems/insert rant about breaking it up here...
     
  4. Gibbo

    Gibbo Senior Member

    I think that the cut from 24 to 19 ships is in aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates. It might also include amphibious warfare ships, but it doesn't include minesweepers or submarines.
     
  5. Smudger Jnr

    Smudger Jnr Our Man in Berlin

    BBC News - Defence review: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped

    The Royal Navy's flagship, the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, is to be scrapped early as part of the government's defence review.
    The UK's Harrier jump jets will be axed, the money saved going towards the cost of two new aircraft carriers.

    It means that, until at least 2019, Britain will not have the ability to launch fighter jets at sea.

    Will Argentina try to reclaim the Falklands again? Don't think we could do much about it if they did. The islanders must be feeling very vulnerable on hearing this news.

    I saw on teletext that several South American countries have camplained that the UK has been testing/firing missiles on the Falklands.
    Perhaps this was designed to dissuade another invasion.

    Still a very sad day that the Harrier Jump Jets are being cancelled.

    Our only strike plane with a capability of take off and landing without an airstrip.

    Regards
    Tom
     
  6. slaphead

    slaphead very occasional visitor

    The other laughable (cryable) bit if the papers are correct is that HMS Queen Elizabeth will never be used. She will have her sea trials and then be mothballed for three years and then sold (alegedly)

    The RAF will have a shed load of very fast jets and no increase in transport ability so that leaves two options for airlifting the Army.
    Hold on very tight to the wings of the Tornados, or go by Ryan Air... cos lets face it, the MOD are not going to pay British Airways prices to Kabul!

    Why are the Harriers being scrapped? Now ok, the Harriers cost a lot of money to keep in the air but they cost bugger all if mothballed. SORN them and keep the pilots type hours up because as Swiper says otherwise the (re)learning curve will become a learning cliff.
     
  7. Peter Clare

    Peter Clare Very Senior Member

  8. slaphead

    slaphead very occasional visitor

  9. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    Its not a good sign to see armies being cut back in this way. Very reminiscent of the 1930s alright.
     
  10. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    The question really is - why is the army also losing '100 tanks and heavy guns'


    When I was in Iraq (By the way we had more tanks in Kuwait/Iraq for the war than the Americans-Not many people know that) the main use of the Challenger 2 from what I saw was to use three of them for VCP's. There was no manned Iraqi armour left after the aircraft and helicopters had finished. At £4,217,000 each (Wiki) thats a rather expensive road block.
     
  11. China Hand

    China Hand No Longer A Forum Member

    For information...

    The National Security Strategy document, published yesterday, is here

    http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191639.pdf?CID=PDF&PLA=furl&CRE=nationalsecuritystrategy

    The Strategic Defence and Security Review, published today, is here

    http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf

    Both lengthy (around 40 pages and 75 pages) but worth a look for the detail (still reading them myself).

    As (a) a TA soldier in the 1980s (b) a defence journalist in the 1980s and (c) a MoD civilian press officer in the early 1990s, the parliamentary and media debate all sounds horribly familiar - I recall the 1991 post-Cold War 'Options for Changes' announcements well !
     
    James S likes this.
  12. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    From Bovington's Friendface feed.
    Not entirely sure that a Museum director should step, even lightly, into a current political arena, but it's an interesting little piece, perhaps worth sharing.
    Basically, I think he might really like tanks.

    Wonder if they're looking forward to getting a few more chunks of modern kit to display...:

    The Tank Museum Strategic Defence Review 2010:

    Museum Curator David Willey shares his thoughts on the future of the tank from an historical perspective. This in light of the government's decision to reduce the British Army’s fleet of Challenger 2’s by 40%, leaving it with fewer MBT’s than many of its NATO allies…

    "The news may yet prove to be another example of a premature obituary for the tank.

    Many people forget that the tank was a British invention designed to save lives by ending the stalemate of trench warfare on the World War One battlefield.

    It’s demise has been predicted on numerous occasions. At the end of the First World War, tanks were returned to Bovington in Dorset to be cut up for scrap metal. `We would never need them again, as we would never have a war like that again` was the pervasive thinking.

    However at the end of World War Two, when tank warfare came to maturity, it was demonstrated that the single infantryman could single headedly knock out a 50 tonne tank if armed with a bazooka. This led to further suggestions that the age of the tank was over.

    In the 1980’s, it was the Soviet attack helicopter that frightened the west into thinking the tank would be consigned to history. The attack helicopter has the capability to stand off from the battlefield and destroy tank targets, but there is nothing in the military arm that is capable of taking and holding ground like the tank.

    On top of this, the tank has a power and symbolic value that has been recognised and utilised time after time in last century; by Nazi Germany, by the Soviets in Czechoslovakia, by the Chinese in Tiananmen Square, and so on.

    The assumption that tanks are less likely to be used by the British Army in the future is understandably influenced by recent operations in the peace enforcement role. Although, we should remember that the Challenger 2 played a vital role in the invasion of Iraq less than 10 years ago. How might we conduct such operations in the future?

    Military planners of other nations have not drawn the same conclusions on the future of the tank. North Korea, Russia, India and China are all building new generations of tanks, and ex-cold war vehicles of considerable capacity and number are being sold to governments all around the world.

    History therefore should bring a note of caution to those that question the viability of the tank in future conflicts. This British invention has an adaptability and survivability that has already confounded the pundits."
     
  13. arkrite

    arkrite Senior Member

    I would have thought that perhaps India would have an interest in the Ark Royal. Lots of mileage in the ship and it could go as a job lot with a few Harriers. Something else to place on the UK For Sale table ?
     
  14. China Hand

    China Hand No Longer A Forum Member

    From Bovington's Friendface feed.
    Not entirely sure that a Museum director should step, even lightly, into a current political arena, but it's an interesting little piece, perhaps worth sharing.
    Basically, I think he might really like tanks.

    Wonder if they're looking forward to getting a few more chunks of modern kit to display...:

    Well, one would expect Bovington to have a certain bias :) but actually what the SDSR document says about MBTs is (at p25)

    "...reduce our holdings of Challenger 2 main battle tanks by around 40%. This is consistent with our assessment of likely adversaries and future types of conflict. However, the tank will continue to provide a unique capability inroles from escorting convoys in high-threat IED environments, deterring belligerents, through to warfighting alongside international partners..."

    and (at p35)

    "...preserving the ability to reconstitute our levels of military capability in areas which are currently low priority, such as heavy armour – tanks – should international circumstances change. This means both holding in reserve certain sorts of equipment not needed for current operations and – importantly – maintaining core levels of training and experience among our personnel. This would provide us with the potential for expansion in the future..."

    This does not specifically say what they actually do with the "surplus" vehicles - this might still up for decision - although the reference to "holding in reserve certain types of equipment" might imply mothballing some/all rather than selling/scrapping them.

    I am also a little doubtful that he should be emphasising that "the tank has a power and symbolic value that has been recognised and utilised time after time in last century ; by Nazi Germany, by the Soviets in Czechoslovakia, by the Chinese in Tiananmen Square..." - I know what he means, but it's hardly what we expect the UK to do with Challenger 2s (one hopes) ! :unsure:
     
  15. Auditman

    Auditman Senior Member

    Perhaps politicians should be made to read sites like this and learn from history. If our sea lanes are threatened we're going to do a lot with 19 Frigates as a global player. If we have a conlict with hostile states (Iran springs to mind as a not impossible scenario) will we send our aircraftless aircraft carrier into the gulf and fly kites with broadband links so our Royal Corps of Computer Hackers can defeat the enemy hordes (just download a virus into their tanks' Engine Management Systems.It can be done I've seen it in the movies.)

    The 1930s Bombs v butter argument is OK to a point but without some bombs someone can steal your butter, they did last time.
     
  16. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

  17. Theobob

    Theobob Senior Member

    Matbe our glorious investment bankers should stump up for a couple of ships,and a handful of planes,god knows they have enough of our money!!!!
    Tories banged on and on about lack of investment in forces from Labour.
    A sellout?
     
  18. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

  19. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    Why are they scrapping the Ark when Illustrious is older?
    Has it been refitted with more modren kit?
     
  20. James S

    James S Very Senior Member

    It would not surprise me to find that the politicians are going to send troops into a war zone under an air umbrella provided by Airfix kits.

    William Haig has said that GB is still a major modern military power, I wonder what gives him this idea ?

    I will read the links from CH tomorrow , from what I have heard it all sounds rather depressing more spin than substance. :mad:
     

Share This Page