From Navy Times

 

CV costs could halve U.K. fleet, papers say

By Philip Ewing - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Oct 1, 2007 12:45:34 EDT

 

The expense of adding two new planned aircraft carriers may cost the Royal Navy almost half of the other ships in its fleet, British newspapers reported Sunday.

 

Citing an internal communique leaked from within the U.K. Ministry of Defence, The Times newspaper of London reported that spending on the two new 65,000-ton Queen Elizabeth-class flattops might force the admiralty to decommission five other warships by April 2008, and further cut British warships in the coming decades. London’s The Telegraph newspaper reported that drawdowns and budget cuts could put the Royal Navy on course to field about 50 warships by 2027 — from its current fleet of about 103.

 

According to the Telegraph’s “worst-case scenario,” the Royal Navy would have no minesweepers or patrol ships, cut two amphibious landing ships, and halve its complement of auxiliary and research ships. The only ship class left at present strength would be the navy’s eight destroyers.

 

If, as envisioned, the navy decommissions five ships by April, the U.K. will only have enough of a fleet to carry out “one small-scale operation,” said the MoD document, until around 2014, when the Queen Elizabeth is scheduled to commission.

 

The Royal Navy’s return to big-deck naval aviation — for about the last 30 years, it has sailed smaller Invincible-class carriers with ski-jump bows — is premised on Britain acquiring a fleet of new F-35 Lighting II fighters to replace its current short takeoff/vertical landing-capable Sea Harriers. The U.K. has so few Harriers now that about 80 percent of the time its carriers deploy, they carry no air wings or many fewer aircraft than they could.

It really makes me wonder if the RN truly needs a “return to big deck carrier aviation”. I would think that with all of their legacy interests around the world, real or perceived, would steer them towards having the platforms to; a.) maintain presence, and b.) have the ability to concentrate. Why are they putting all of their proverbial eggs into one or two baskets? Is it all a prestige thing? The F-35 Lighting II’s that they are planning to purchase – are they not the short take-off and vertical landing variant – the B Model I believe?

 

The article mentions that the Invincible-Class they currently have often deploys without aircraft due to a shortage of Harriers. While it seems that replacing the aircraft may be the answer, their carriers are also apparently at the end of their service life.

 

Has the cost of ship development and building gotten to the point that if you are going to build a large warship such as a “general” carrier, you might as well just built a fleet carrier? I suppose that’s a rhetorical question.

 

I’m all for power projection, and the need for sea-basing, but wouldn’t the RN be better served with a handful more V/STOL capable CVL’s?

All good questions, Pete.

 

There will be no "return to big deck naval aviation" for the RN without the appropriate investment.

 

It might go without saying that the RN will only be able to partake in wartime (or OOTW) operations that necessarily involve Coalition efforts.