Dreaded vote of confidence in CVF

Oh dear,
If you are not British you may fail to understand just how deadly a vote of confidence is in the armed forces. It is usually the first stage in either cutting back numbers, or else scrapping the programme completely. I believe that this has applied to everything from the TSR2 all the way up to the Nimrod MRA4.

AW - Article

Jensy

So wait, someone initiates a vote of confidence in the armed forces and it's a bad thing? What happens after the vote of confidence is passed?

A vote of confidence implies a few things.

1. There has been an investigation looking at cutting back.

2. Currently, the program in question is still receiving backing.

3. That support will be conditional on the future political and financial landscape (both real and projected), and can change.



A vote of confidence can also serve as a shot across the bows to the builders etc - don't screw up any more or we'll ditch the project (whatever the project is).

Its one of those Britishisms, like queueing and not talking on a train.

In politics it is absolute lethal, it goes from:

"I give x my full support"

"I have the utmost of confidence in x"

and finnally

"I have the utmost confidence that x will suceed in future employment"

The thing is there carriers are in all honesy an absolute extravagence, we do not need anything of that size or aircraft complement, it would make more sense to either go whole hog an operate CTOL aircraft or else to build something more on the scale of the US's Wasp class assault carriers.

Jensy

As Predicted.

CVF Rethink

Thanks to the wonderful people at the Institute for Public Policy Research (far-left think tank which the govt listens to) the CVF project perhaps the only promising major military project left in the UK is now heading for that magical place where the original CV-01, TSR-2, Hawker Siddeley P.1154, and the manned FOAS all ended up.
Their argument is that the types of requirements which face the armed forces do not have a role for these carriers. IMHO however these are ideal for the type of force projection and troop deployment which is likely to be needed well into the next two decades.

Jensy

Yup... I think they are trying to spread the program cost - resulting in a greater overall cost.


In my personal opinion, the trident replacement should be scrapped. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind regarding that.


As for the carriers, well... harder to say, but I still believe the armed forces would be better off using the money elsewhere.

Any cancellation of hte current carriers will, in my opinion, ultimately relegate the United Kingdom to coastal defence.

If you cancelled the carriers today, then in 15 years time you would have no argument for any support vessels, or any significant blue water naval capability. We need the carriers to justify a force projection role, its as simple as that - we would not be able to operate in foreign waters without assistance from a carrier force, which means we would be reliant on the USN or the French.

The carriers are needed at any cost.

I do think we are going for the wrong aircraft however - a navalised Eurofighter or a Rafale purchase with a CATOBAR enabled carrier would be a better purchase.

Which in my opinion is pretty much what the Ministry of Defence should be concerned about.


I've no desire for my taxes to be wasted galavanting around the globe with the Americans on another foolhardly "adventure" into a country where we are not welcome.

Britain has a huge Naval tradition dating back centuries - I for one would welcome my taxes to be used to continue that tradition.

We also have many overseas territories which could become troublesome to defend if we did not have a guaranteed airpower capability without a friendly country within reasonable range to act as a base.

It was a mistake to retire the last proper carrier fleet the Royal Navy had, and it will be a mistake to cancel these.

It also has a lot of other imperialist history.

I wouldn't have any particular desire to hold on to any of it... the traditions of the concentration camp for instance...



The overseas territories add nothing positive to the country, and are crumbling remnants of a time the country would do well to distance itself from.

Every country has a history, and its quite possible to be proud of some of it without ignoring other parts of it.

For example, outlawing international slavery, and tasking the Royal Navy with interdiction of slave ships. That caused a war between the British and the United States...




Far from it, I think we should support our overseas territories as much as we can.

Besides, the citizens of the Falkland Islands would disagree with you.

Having a capable armed forces does not mean you need to be a militant nation.

If they kill thier larger carriers off, then I assume they will pull out from the F-35B as well?

They may get some A's or C's but have them be land based.?

Not a chance - if they don't get the carriers, expect a topup of tranche 3 Eurofighters, but certainly no other F-35 variant.

I think that is the CVF dies then the F35 will die too and the UK will rely on Typhoon.

Regards

reply to post by FredT

---

Correct, of the 130 odd F-35s we are looking to buy, nearly 80 of them would be embarked on these carriers. There is no way they could justify the huge goverment spending on this program for just 50 compromised strike fighters.
THis would of course leave the UK with that 'bomber gap' which Waynos correctly predicted nearly 4 years ago.

Jensy

Edited for some rather fanciful typos.


[edit on 8/7/09 by jensy]

Wow jensy, I'm astonished someone remembers! Its nice to see that some people read my ramblings I'm ot pleased to see that I was right though, naturally, in fact I think its worse than I was saying back then.

as soon as you mentioned the government killing FAOS alarm bells should have rung , there will be a credability as well as capability gap soon - and i can see the US pulling out of not only europe but NATO sooner rather than later.


something is coming , i dont know what or when but the future looks bleak.

reply to post by Harlequin

---

This is why we should work hard to distance ourselves from conti-europe. We need to show the US that we will not be their subordinate in Europe, but rather their equal. A nation which has the will and means to defend itself and to act when foreign interests are endangered.

There is one very promising, but undoubtably unpopular option to ensure the future of not only the UK's defence capability, but also keep it one a reasonable budget. That is to abolish the RAF. The capabilities of the RAF could easily be shared between the RN and Army. It is the only service whose capabilities can be carried out by the other two.

Jensy

Interesting point of view.


Army taking over all land based aviation (apart from maritime patrol) and Navy over all sea based?

Well, I would imagine more the Army taking over support and transport, as well as all land based helicopters. And the RN taking over fixed wing aviation.

Jensy