Britain 'May Be Without Fully Operational Aircraft Carrier Until 2030'

Mod Carrier Plan

First Posted: 29/11/11 07:30 GMT Updated: 29/11/11 08:44 GMT   PA

The full costs of scaling back Britain's aircraft carrier programme are still not fully understood by the Government more than a year after the changes were made in the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), a cross-party committee of MPs has said.

The cash savings from the revised plan will only be £600 million and there remained "considerable uncertainty" about the cost of modifying one of the new ships to accommodate a different kind of fighter jet, according to the Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

That would not be known until December 2012, the committee said. It accused the Ministry of Defence (MOD) of focusing on "short-term" affordability in drawing up options for the SDSR to cover a £38 billion black hole in its budget.

Under the SDSR plans set out in October 2010, the construction of the two Queen Elizabeth class carriers ordered by the previous Labour government is going ahead.

However, one of the ships will be mothballed to save costs and the other will be converted to operate a cheaper Joint Strike Fighter, rather than the short take-off, vertical-landing (STOVL) version planned by Labour.

There will be no carrier aircraft capability between 2011 and 2020.

In a report critical of the long-term value for money of the Government's revised carrier programme, the PAC said: "To convert the ship has changed the profile of risks and costs, and the costs are not yet fully understood. The switch from the STOVL variant of the Joint Strike Fighter to the carrier variant has reduced the technical risks associated with the STOVL aircraft.

"But the costs of converting the carrier for the carrier variant aircraft will not be known until December 2012, leaving the project at risk of cost growth and slippage, and there are new technical risks and challenges integrating the new aircraft with the carriers."

Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said there was "a gaping hole" in the Government's credibility on defence.

"Yet again we have a respected body giving a damning assessment of the defence review, which was driven by short-term cash savings, not strategic need, and limits Britain's ability to project power," he said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

The full costs of scaling back Britain's aircraft carrier programme are still not fully understood by the Government more than a year after the changes were made in the Strategic Defence and Security ...
The full costs of scaling back Britain's aircraft carrier programme are still not fully understood by the Government more than a year after the changes were made in the Strategic Defence and Security ...
Filed by Dina Rickman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 122
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
07:27 PM on 01/06/2012
why would anyone want to invade us,they already own most of what we had!
01:17 PM on 11/30/2011
Why do we need carriers? As the underdog of our US masters, we are their land locked aircraft carrier, I am sure they can lend us a floaty one if needed.
Come the next Argentine raid, we could ask France not to sell them missiles and lend us a carrrier for a few weeks, I doubt they would be selling exocets if their carrier was in harms way.
We could always scour the scrap yards for bits to fix up an old Vulcan .
Mind you, the French carrier force seems to keep breaking down.perhaps we could use their boats as spares for ours, alas as the procurement systems of our ally are different the bits do not fit.
Nuke them with one of the missiles leased from the US (we can only use with permission).
Perhaps use a Pakistani bomb? we gave them enough 'aid'to create a missile force we do not have.
Forget it send a couple of squadrons of SBS in a few RIBS, oops the budget for new kit just went to the new Admiral, the one i/c carriers.
majdf18148
I have nothing to declare but my curiosity
10:04 AM on 11/30/2011
We don't need carriers to defend our country. We only need carriers to invade other countries.In this day and age carriers are extremely vulnerable anyway. They are hugely expensive and the plan to have at least one carrier without any aircraft is the same as having nucleur subs without any nucleur weapons....worse than useless. As we decimate our armed forces to levels that are the lowest in modern history why would we need such expensive war machines when there is nothing left within our military structure to use with these ships? The whole saga is appallingly badly thought through. The good thing is that we will soon only just be able to defend our own shores, to even think about invading other countries or interfering in wars that have nothing to do with us will not be militarily possible.
10:59 AM on 11/30/2011
Nonsense, in WW2 we were nearly defeated because our shipping lanes were constantly under attack and were it not for our carrier capability we would have lost that part of the war and then the whole war, e.g. Bismarck was attacked by Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers from the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal. More recently the Falklands (British territory) would have been lost permanently were it not for the two carriers sent to liberate them. As an island nation we cannot afford not to have an effective carrier capability as an integral part of our fleet. For the Tories to have forgotten, or more likely, ignored their primary responsibility which is to defend this nation at any cost is unforgiveable. They will not be getting my vote in the future as a result.
majdf18148
I have nothing to declare but my curiosity
01:52 PM on 11/30/2011
Your argument is self defeating. firstly things have moved on a bit since WW2. Secondly,I made the point that we do not have enough other military capability to support carrier warfare.As things stand we couldn't mount another Falklands invasion. Thirdly it will be nucleur submarine warfare that saves our island in the hugely unlikely event of someone thinking about invading us. So, I was a military planner for some years what's your expertise in this issue?
09:08 AM on 11/30/2011
You have to consider.......where's the enemy? Where is the enemy, or potential enemy before we pay out huge sums for defence. The potential enemy is currently already living with us, so having an aircraft carrier is a complete waste of money. In truth, the country has already been given away without a shot being fired, mostly by the Labour party, so what's the point of a navy, or any other form of defence come to that. It's all part of the big plan, "New World Order" where individual nations and their culture count for nothing. For years, we have been fed the same old rubish, Rule Briannia, Britania Rules the waves, Lord Nelson and England expects. We stopped ruling the waves after WW2 and the sight of a Royal Navy ship at sea is very very rare these days, whereas the US Navy are everywhere. Guess who rules the waves today, we have to accept that.
07:46 AM on 11/30/2011
Would it not have been better to keep the 72 Harriers and the three carriers that we had?? That would have saved millions and would have kept a carrier air fleet up until 2025.
12:50 PM on 11/30/2011
We still have one of those carriers though it doesn't carry fixed-wing, the Illustrious is shown in the picture at the top of this article. Affectionately known amongst matelots as 'Rusty Lusty'.
01:08 PM on 11/30/2011
Thats correct the Illustrious is still there but as a Helicopter ship I think it was said for just 18 Months. But if they had kept the "Ark" and the "Vince" and the fleet of 72 GR9 Harriers that the USMC are going to purchase and use until 2025 because the UK had spent over £1 Million on upgrades on the Harriers we could have had a carrier force all paid for this in the long term would have saved us a fortune. When you look at the F35 that will replace the Harrier its price is rocketing every day.
10:52 PM on 11/29/2011
if we had less Admirals than we had fighting ships would we better off?
10:31 PM on 11/29/2011
If we stop invading other countries, we wont need any.
10:29 PM on 11/29/2011
This could never happen to the US navy as we have more nations to invade...soon. Herr Romney when he is elected will invade Iran and then Syria and who knows maybe on Sept 1, 2013 we invade Poland!!!!!!
11:57 PM on 11/29/2011
Invading Poland was not a good move for Hitler, it seemed to stir up a bit of a spat.
10:13 PM on 11/29/2011
well we had better not have any more incursions into other country's like iraq, libya and god forbid, iran, go and find oil somewhere else.
07:00 PM on 11/29/2011
this bunch of idiots have given the banks 480bn in the last 18 months, do you really think they could give .......... two hoots about the sovereignty of our nation or the defence of it! They're no better than the looters on the streets of London this past summer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ramkshrestha
Welcome to Nepal - the birthplace of Buddha
06:58 PM on 11/29/2011
That's right.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gumpo
06:30 PM on 11/29/2011
So the saving of 600 million is so vital to us, yet we give that amount to Europe every 2 weeks !
Perhaps we ought to speak to our so called " allies " in Europe and ask for an exemption for a couple of weeks so we can afford them, seeing as we are called on every 5 minutes when needed for carrying out the E.Us dirty work !!
If we haven't got any carrier until 2020 why bother building them at all !!
06:19 PM on 11/29/2011
Aircraft Carriers are formidable weapons. What cost freedom ??? The U.S. has 14 operational
The Commonwealth Navies have none. I would suggest that 4 are needed. Escort carriers can be created quickly but would be at a disadvantage in a prolonged engagement.
Name the priority ( security ) and go forward from that decision.
07:03 PM on 11/29/2011
totally agree i also think we dont need them if the e u come to ask us just say know its always the u.k
10:30 PM on 11/29/2011
Yes, the UK needs to join the US in a bigger Navy....there are more nations to invade and war is good for business!
12:02 AM on 11/30/2011
Your goddam right, seen the the cost of a carrier lately.lol
06:07 PM on 11/29/2011
#50m per day to the EU?

we are stooopid.
06:05 PM on 11/29/2011
Well how about converting a leased container ship to one, its long enough ?
I'm sure a landing deck of special tubular alloy construction for lightweight strength could be made.
This would bring work and jobs to our manufacturing sector. Worth a go Prime Minister!
07:05 PM on 11/29/2011
The bridge might be a problem when landing.
08:53 AM on 11/30/2011
Good brakes?
07:00 PM on 11/30/2011
Yes It would be a bit hairy but nothing I haven't already done on short field landing and take off's, collected a few momento's just for memory lane.
I'm sure repositioning the bridge to Starboard side could be achieved, otherwise as someone said, either good brakes, strong nerves, or strong swimmers needed. I had a Wing Commander who ended up on the Sea floor in a harrier, lived to tell the tale, and ended up an Air Vice Marshall. So missing the mark is not always a disaster.

Its GOT to be a whole less costly as a stop gap for 20 years, than coming in well over budget and long overdue under the present system of Defence Procurement.