It has been reported that BAE Systems is offering its Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier design to the Indian Navy.
Australian Defence first reported here that, speaking at the 2019 Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace (LIMA) exhibition last week, a BAE Systems representative confirmed that the company is offering its Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier design to the Indian Navy.
The Indian Government is understood to have a requirement for a carrier in the 65,000 tonne range, similar to HMS Queen Elizabeth, to be known as the INS Vishal.
BAE Systems said:
“BAE Systems is pleased to have begun discussions with India about the potential for basing development of the second Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-2) project on the Queen Elizabeth class design,” the representative said.
“The design is adaptable to offer either ski-jump or catapult launch and can be modified to meet Indian Navy and local industry requirements.”
“The UK carrier design has now been proven at sea and is a near match to the Indian Navy’s requirement for a 65,000-tonne carrier with Integrated Full Electric Propulsion (IFEP), that could be constructed under the country’s ‘Make in India’ programme,” the representative said.
As we reported here, Indian Navy officials recently visited BAE Systems’ shipyard at Rosyth, near Edinburgh. Indian Admiral Lanba was given a tour of HMS Queen Elizabeth and an insight into how the Royal Navy worked with key industrial partners to develop the aircraft carrier and her sister ship HMS Prince of Wales.
Great! Let’s hope India goes for it. Ideally even for us to build it for them.
No likely to be licensed to be built in India with privso of no secrets being shared out, e.g., Russia, China, etc – whether that’s just all the design (would expect highly doubtful due to the world class Radar) or the basic shell design and they add their own aviation systems (take off / landing) and sensitive systems, e.g., Radar, missile technology, etc.
At alternative would be for the UK to build the shell of the carrier and for India to finish off the completion.
Interesting to see whether India could get a sale through other Partners like French carrier replacement programme (Rumored for 2020) or if America having gutted out sensitive parts of USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) sell this on for India to retro fit it with their own toppings and systems.
I’ll bet the Indians will fit a point defence missile system if they go for it! Typical MoD penny-pinching! Sorry all – had to vent!
And the Indians don’t have T45 Destroyers or F35 with Meteor. That’s why we don’t fit missiles.
The US has far superior capabilities than we do in terms of carrier escort and they also operate the F-35. Yet, each and everyone of their carriers has a layered self-defence suite including point defence missiles….. aren’t we missing something????
I think it would be hard to argue that you’re wrong. We are definitely missing something, if not more than one thing.
The French decided upon SAMs on their carrier too I can’t see the problem of a couple of sky sabre type launchers being fitted its not like a full VLS system is needed
Come on, it’s budgetary constraints all the way. All the spin about always being escorted is just for the masses. The USN has many more times a fleet than us but every USN carrier & LPH has 2 SAM systems fitted, ESSM & RAM.
Even if we were able to deploy a QE with 4 or more escorts, in a real war, assuming everything wasn’t nuked, enemy subs, ships & aircraft could whittle away that protection, maybe quicker than we think. That’s why we ought to have at least a SAM system on our precious, highly manned & expensive carriers.
If we assume we’re always much more advanced & better equipped than our opponents, we’ll be far more easily caught out when war begins & we discover the kit we wrote off is far more effective than we thought. That’s head in the sand, a HMG/MOD speciality.
We took the Sea Dart system off the Invincible class, to extend the flight deck for more aircraft, and a larger ammunition store. The RN trusts the 1 billion £ destroyer to do it’s job. And the huge investment in Aster missiles/Sampson radar.
Then we did away with the Invincible class altogether.
The problem is that the self defence argument doesn’t hold up. If a carrier needs ESSM and RAM, then it also needs a Mk41 or Sylver VLS with SM-2, SM-6 and maybe even SM-3 or their equivalents, if you can’t trust escorts to do their job.
If ESSM and RAM are needed for leakers then what about all the other missiles that “might get by” the groups dedicated AAW defences in a sea skimming and ballistic missile saturation attack? As for a last ship standing scenario, if all your escorts are gone then ESSM and RAM aren’t going to save you.
And then just for good measure what about ASW? Given the periscope shots of carriers we’ve all seen then clearly the carrier needs ASROC and ship launched torpedoes too. Or maybe it needs better trained escorts and dedicated quiet sub hunters like T23 and T26 instead.
Clearly said make in india
“The design is adaptable to offer either ski-jump or catapult launch.”
Where have we heard that before? I’m going to be livid if the Indians end up with a catapult-equipped version of HMS Queen Elizabeth.
And with superior self-defence and attack capabilities, SMH.
Ideally they should take off this and any sensitive radar systems and information on it.. India needing to put its own or buy from elsewhere.
Says in the story to base their design on our design. Wont be the same. There will be lots of ITAR stuff removed from design
Dan – nothings impossible,it just depends how deep ones pockets are,it was just unfortunate that in 2010 the UK Govt found the quoted costs too much to take on in the post – financial crash environment.
The reason we don’t have catapults is because within 10 years they will be obsolete with the development of EMALs. Your brand new carrier will be pretty pointless with a system used since final days of WW2 when every other major power (China, America etc) will all be building EMAL carriers. We didn’t go for EMALs despite the Americans offering to pay for the conversion as it would of meant QE’s initial life would of been tied up alongside some American testing facility sending plane sized carts into the sea from her flight deck. Look at the new Gerald R Ford. Going to be a decent amount of time before it is fully operational as the tech is untested. You don’t hear about her initial deployment to the south china sea as they can’t even foresee an initial operational capability. So we went for tried and tested ski-jump as it meant a stop gap until the carriers mid-life refit where EMALs, once tried and tested could be fitted. Cost was also a factor. Cats and traps would of likely increased cost and delay of QE program, very inconvenient when all your carriers have been prematurely decommissioned. So therefore, if India opts for cats and traps, the capability still wont be better as QE operates F-35B, even VTOL version is better than any migs the Indians have. Realistically its a downgrade. I’m confident that at least QE will be fitted with EMALs in her mid life refit as keeping PoW more geared towards amphibious operations may be favourable.
Correct.
A lot of gibberish is said on here that just rabbits on about how much more zillion billions we should spend and how brilliant the Indians are than us. If they want steam catapult they would need a ship capable of generating it… a nuclear powered one… and without enough steam they need EMALs and that is years away and even then how reliable will it be. And how will the Indians operate a carrier that big. That will take years to learn.
Well said Trevor. To many fantasy fleeters on this site, with zero realism about cost, or actual operational need.
Good observation. I do wonder though how QEC/PoW ramp/SRVL+F35B ops will compare to CATOBAR carrier ops based on F-18 Super Hornet/Rafale, or F35C, or a mix of both. There’s a broad assumption that F35B carrier based ops are compromised versus alternatives, I’m not so sure. I also wish people would take onboard that we aren’t in some p$#%ing competition with the US, the French or the Indians for that matter, because they aren’t ever likely to be our adversaries.
As experience and tactics develop we may find that very little is given up with F35B carrier ops in terms of effectiveness. For example, current load and range stats quoted for F35B are presumably based on VTOL, how will those change with ramp/SRVL? I presume future at sea trials will be evaluating this exhaustively. I seem to recall also seeing it suggested that SRVL might enable operations in worse sea states than CATOBAR? Perhaps most practically, the simplicity of ramp launch with no catapult engagement or jet blast deflector deployment, along with the slow speed and relative safety of SRVL recovery simplifies deck ops and may produce a much higher launch and recovery rate than generally assumed. Finally, in the event the deck actually takes damage in some conflict then VTOL aircraft can still be launched and recovered.
If I’m correct then there may not even be a need/justification for a mid-life conversion to EMALS/angled deck.
The QE Class was designed around the concept of the number of sorties can be generated instead of just simple numbers of aircraft that can be carried, that’s where the number of 36 F35s has come from, 36 can generate the same number of sorties that 50 F18s from a Nimitz class can generate, hence why the Americans are very keen on us having these vessels, they see them as carriers 11 and 12 to help cover there own fleet, and gaps in there own carrier deployment program. Now if course it will be some time before we see 36 British F35s deployed, but even 24 is still an incredible capability to take to sea, and put them wherever we need them. We haven’t deployed 24 fast jets of a single type since 2003 OP Telic with the Tornado GR4, So to put 24 5th generation, all aspect stealth,supersonic VSTOL fighters to sea is and an incredible capability.
I’m sorry there’s no way the QE class with 36 F35s can generate the same sortie rate as a Nimitz or Ford with 50 F/A18s (unless Ford’s EMALS is down…again!). Nimitz is peacetime can support 120 sorties a day and can surge to 270 at a time of war.
I also think the emphasis ACA/BAES/RN place on the QE class being built around sortie rate rather than airframe numbers is misleading as it implies that never before has sortie rate been considered by aircraft carrier manufacturers or their customers, something Newport News and the USN might take issue with. The size of the Nimitz class is based on the ability to hold a certain number of aircraft which will enable the carrier battle group to maintain a certain number of sorties at a time of war. Sortie rate has always been at the heart of the design of carriers. Why the QE class stands out in relation to this is because it’s the first time carrier manufacturers have stressed the sortie rate over airframe numbers, which they are doing merely to deflect attention from the reality that the QE class will be very large ships with very few aircraft on them.
Nimitz has 4 catapults to launch aircraft from, two in the bow so completely separate from landing ops thanks to the angled flight deck. It can therefore launch two aircraft for every one off the QE’s ramp, while simultaneously recovering a third aircraft. (Can the QE launch and recover aircraft at the same time with the rolling landing approach? I haven’t read anything about it.)
Furthermore, Nimitz is larger and has the potential to carry more aircraft than the QE class, which enables a higher sortie rate. The F/A18 is also a less complicated aircraft and has a higher serviceability rate alongside its cheaper maintenance costs (hence why the USN are continuing to buy new airframes to operate alongside their F35Cs).
In the real world, given budget constraints on the numbers of F35B airframes purchased by the MoD and pilot training time that will dictate how many UK F35 pilots keep their currency, the serviceability and airframe availability of the F35, not to mention the UK’s dirth of munitions, that 72 daily sortie rate is a readily deployable unprovable marketing factoid that is seldom challenged but quickly picked up on. The powers-that-be (the ACA/BAES, MoD and RN) trotted it out early on when they did the maths and realised they were only ever going to manage 12 airframes at sea and needed something to take the attention away from having undersized air groups for the ship class’s size.
That said, the STOVL design of the QE class was still the right option, given the UK’s carrier development programme is on a different timeframe to the USN’s and therefore choosing an EMALS design at the point of maingate would have caused catastrophic delays and cost overruns, which in turn could have easily killed off the carrier programme entirely.
A steam catapult design again would have questions over a suitable powerplant, as nuclear would have been exorbitantly expensive and a COSAG arrangement would have been reintroducing out of date technology that no one in the RN today has any knowledge of. A COGES design would similarly be a leap into the unknown and it would need a great deal of testing to discover whether the exhaust of the gas turbines would reliably produce enough steam to maintain a high tempo of operations in a hostile environment. The STOVL design was tried and tested, crews were familiar it and also allowed the RN to operate Joint Force Harrier airframes from the time of the QE’s original scheduled entry into service (2012) should there be any delay to the JSF project.
Likewise, while the F35B doesn’t have the same range and payload capacity or flexibility as the F35A and F35C, it is more than enough for the operations the RN will conduct, and offers a massive leap in capability for British naval aviation. Even Crowsnest, for all the limitations of the helicopter airframe will offer much greater performance than the old Gannet fleet.
And for once you can’t fault the MoD on the F35 procurement: rather than trying to go it alone or custom rebuild 50 yr old knackered airframes, they took the sensible option of jumping in with the Americans on their next big fastjet procurement. Normally speaking, this is the sort of thing everyone would cry out for but the MoD would instead blindly give a load of cash to BAES to not build something. Unfortunately, the one time the MoD do the right thing, it’s on a project that has been beset by a vast array of problems. However, the good news with that is there’s so much US political capital (as well as financial) invested in it they will make it work, whereas if we were doing it alone it would’ve been canned years ago.
There is space on the QEC to fit cats and traps if the money becomes available.
The biggest error was not going for cats and traps and the F18 but it was a treasury dominated decision to go the F35B route on cost grounds LMAO .
Tom was not only th huge expense issue but would have further delayed in service date by two years!!
Why would we buy an inferior aircraft? The F18 is good, but the F35 is in a different league altogether. Plus every single rear fuselage of every F35 built, is built in the UK, that’s over 3000 aircraft.
Exactly we wouldn’t have been a full part of the world’s biggest fighter program if we had done that and then spent more money on foreign aircraft as reverse compensation gif such a decision. Sometimes apparent political decisions are by far the better solution especially as some sir arms are replacing their F18s with F35s.
Itll be gold wont it, bright yellow gold!!!
INS Amritsar ?
Too soon.
The ship will be christened INS Vishal
And the Indians don’t have T45 Destroyers or F35 with Meteor. That’s why we don’t fit missiles.
Why? What does it matter how the aircraft takes off and lands? The F35B will bring a huge capability, there are many advantages to not using cats and traps. Cost, training requirements, maintenance act.
Having cats and traps would have given the RN a wider choice of aircraft. STOVL committed us to the F35B. What would have happened if the F35 had turned out to be unviable? But this is just raking over old arguments – my earlier point was that it would be bloody typical if the Indians end up with what we could have had.
But it still doesn’t make any difference, because we are still operating a far superior aircraft, regardless of how it takes off and lands. The F35C has identical capability to the F35B , just has slightly longer range. If we went for the F18 or Rafael, we would have an inferior aircraft, and we wouldn’t be part of the worlds largest defence program.
The F35B is a inferior aircraft, it lacks payload and range .
It is fine for the USMC because there ships operate close inshore but it is not the right plane for a strike carrier .
We have no means to refuel it , it has limited payload capabilities and a short air frame life.
Short airframe life?? 6 x paveway 4 plus 4 x air to air missiles a poor payload?? Exactly the same as what the F35C can carry. do you get your facts from the Sunday sport
The F-35c payload is 8,160kg compared to the F-35b’s 6,803kg.
F-35c range on internal fuel is 1,400nm compared to the F-35b’s 900nm
F-35c can take more g limits.
Let’s not pretend that because it’s on our carriers it’s the best, it’s no way near the right aircraft for proper carrier strike. It was designed for the US Marines and would get shot out the sky if our carrier went up against a Chinese, French or US carrier.
Sole survivor, you are talking utter garbage. Have you actually read anything about the F35, and its huge success is Red Flags act, or are you just one of its haters? And to say it would get shot out of the sky by a French or Chinese carrier, is, well, frankly the facts of a child, I don’t even know why I am even replying to that comment.
Robert Blay, yes I have, i have read extensively about the F-35, aviation magazines and forums and I still come to the same conclusion. I certainly would not rely on red flag, the ROE are never released, and you honestly think the US would risk a bad showing for the most expensive defence program in history with customers waiting around the world.
I look at history and capabilities, many times in history as an aircraft better on paper come in and been handed it’s arse by more nimble and agile fighters.
It’s all hypothetical of course because i would back our carrier battle group against the French because of other assets, but talking a strict air-to-air role i would back the Rafale and J-15 against the F-35b. They are both more suited to air-to-air combat in nearly every department. Also having turboprop AWACS instead of an AEW pod under a Merlin would make more of a difference than you think.
The F-35b is more suited to the strike role.
You said “If we went for the F18 or Rafale, we would have an inferior aircraft”
Inferior in what way? speed? no, payload? no, agility? no, range? no. They F-35b is only superior in avionics and radar stealth, and as air-to-air combat shifts from radar to IRST for its primary sensor in air-to-air combat to counter enemy stealth capability, it will soon lose that advantage.
The Rafale, F-18, Typhoon etc are constantly evolving and becoming more and more capable, the F-35 is not replacing a single one of them, they will compliment them, with either being more suited in their primary roles.
I would take an F35 in air to air any day rather than an F18 or Rafael. It’s all aspect stealth and avionics are everything in combat. And it is still very agile, as for speed ect mach 1.6 with a full internal payload and fuel is pretty dam good. A fully loaded F18 or Rafael certainly cant do 1.6 fully loaded. Have a read what RAF pilots are saying about it. Its a complete game changer in every way, the 2019 RAF Review magazine has a very informative article about what the F35 can do, and how it’s capabilities will transform our air combat doctrine.
Actually sole survivor is correct the F35 was designed as a command and control aircraft seeking targets for other aircraft for the us that means the f18 its payload is smaller it’s range is shorter I personally would have preferred to see cats and traps with carrier adapted typhoons we would have had air to air refuelling capability hell I’d have have kept a few harriers for asw duties
David, the F35B has a combat radius of 750 nm on internal fuel, or about the same as a Tornado GR4 with external tanks, so pretty good really. It’s all aspect stealth, helmet mounted display, ASRAAM, Meteor, IRST will make it pretty dam deadly in air 2 air, plus it probably has the worlds best radar,and certainly the best networked/ situational awareness.
In theory a third QE ship should be an improvement just as next years F1 car should be the best? The Catapult equipped version will be longer (10 Meters) (due to the bow and stern overhangs), hence, look more elegant. Could an improved QE have an extra midship section too? Hmn.
What does HMG and the MoD get out of this, if anything?
I usually get free Onion Bhaji’s.
Queen Elizabeth class was designed by Thales, not BAE.
BAE will need to hit hard and strike it now with getting a signature on the line before a competitor or as scenario described above happens.!!!
Hopefully the BAE design is mature enough to leave any competitors in the dust.
I wonder if Thales/whoever ones them now still have certain IP that could make things difficult.
Even if the hulls are built in India it would still be a huge boost to UK industry for manufacturing key components.
I’m confused who owns the IP on the QE design, didn’t Thales/BMT’s design beat BAE’s.
I am thinking the same thing they were fundamentally a Thales design maybe they were given a large fee to give up rights the the design. Indeed I guess the MOD would have expected that for precisely this scenario I would say. But they may still be due a cut out of such exports I guess.
If Corbyn and co get into power the Indians won’t have to worry about building. They’ll be able to buy Q E and P O W at a knock down price, probably with their escorts aa a throw in free gift.
Ace’s mind is out of this world and so is Corbyn’s. Do you honestly believe that if he get’s in to power the first target for the money he needs for nationalisation and returning to the sixties won’t come from defence . The Labour party is one thing. I have voted Labour myself in the past. He is a long established Marxist disarmer and his deputy is n’t much different.
What policy in the last elections manifesto would you describe as Marxist Geoffrey?
Do Germans live in the sixties? The most efficiently run rail networks in the world are public owned. The general public are in favour of nationalisation of rail and some utilities.
Every penny needed for everything was worked out without cutting the defence budget, it was a fully costed manifesto.
I certainly don’t agree with Corbyn on everything, I voted Labour before and Labour will be there after him, but I’m glad I have the sense not to listen to the media and be hoodwinked into thinking that if he became PM, like magic overnight our entire political system would be changed so that we now have a dictator in charge who doesn’t have to put any policy to parliament to go through. He will also tear up the manifesto that got him there, turn nearly all the Labour membership and general public against him, he will abandoned every domestic policy that he has campaigned for his whole life to turn all his energy into disarming Britain.
Answer me this Geoffrey, if the Labour leadership is so intent on selling all our gear and disarming, why then, with Corbyn at the wheel, is it official Labour Party policy to spend billions renewing trident?
He’s hardly sympathetic to to HM Armed Forces though is he? I can see further (deep) cuts and a total reluctance to use force in almost any situation. His track record isn’t good and he surrounds himself with people who think the same
Sole Survivor…answers…
I didn’t say Labour was Marxist. I said J C was and as leader he presumably will take the lead on policy.
German trains?? No cuts to defence. Have you been reading about German defence spending over the last twenty years?
It is the Labour manifesto that I’m worried about. Do you believe we can spend an estimated £500 billion without dramatically cutting back somewhere else or are you happy to pick up the tax bill for nationalisation.
J C had three shadow defence secretaries resign over his views on defence and this the man who decide we could buy the Successor subs but but not to put Trident on them.
As for me being hood winked by the media unlike yourself…well…
Corbyn is a unilateralist he has only bent to any idea of replacing Trident under Union pressure to get their support as leader. That may or may not change in power, indeed I could t he could bring himself to vote for it and most activists would support him.
Railways, I was against privatisation however as the French show do it right and often be it private or publicly owned it can work and re nationalising the railways would not solve the fundamental problems of the railway system as it stands, would cost money better spent elsewhere and would hand a stranglehold to unions who have consistently used tactics reminiscent of the 70s to block progress that will add further costs to its running moving forward that will equally prevent much needed technical innovations being introduced increasingly vital to a modern 21st century rail system. Oh and lest we forget the bulk of the rail system is already nationalised In the form of the tracks and infrastructure which is billions in debt and increasing with no sign of a turn round. So no it’s a distraction not a panacea.
Sole, the right thing to do with the railways is to automate them. And before you say this is not possible, it is. I worked overseas and travelled every day on a driverless trains and the service was amazing on time to the minute every day. Incidentally I never felt safer. Unfortunately Labour are in the hands of the unions and would never remove the driver and make the leaps in technology that the country truly needs, They discussed at their conference taxing robots. Unbelievable that you’d want to tax productivity improvements or equipment that can make workers jobs safer.
Are you dim and or naive or what?
What bit of being a communist and anti West and pro IRA and anti jewish and pro terrorist do you miss in all that?
Expat, yeah good points about automation with trains, although we are not anywhere near that yet, and even then would you still not want someone on the train that can take over if the automation fails. I think I would.
And I’m not sure you’re getting the point really, currently 90% of profits from rail companies go to shareholders, I would much prefer a vital public service to be non profit, affordable fares and every penny going back into the service constantly improving and into r&d.
Some public services should be ran by the government, it happens all over the world and can be very successful.
It’s like the selling of Royal Mail, they sold it then days after it was floated on stock exchange and worth billions more than what they sold it for, the Royal Mail surely wasn’t losing us money, it was sold to make a quick buck. They have been selling off the family silver for decades, and running services into the ground before they sell to make it look like it needs it.
“They discussed at their conference taxing robots. Unbelievable that you’d want to tax productivity improvements or equipment that can make workers jobs safer.”
But it’s right to have those sort of discussions, in fifty years when everything is made by robots, driverless cars everywhere and the human element has been more less entirely taken away, then who pays tax? How do you earn your money? Countries are already talking about what to do, I think there was a region in Norway that trialled a universal income, given to everyone.
There are big changes in the world in the future that no one has answers to yet, I think it’s good it’s getting discussed.
“Oh and lest we forget the bulk of the rail system is already nationalised In the form of the tracks and infrastructure which is billions in debt and increasing with no sign of a turn round.”
That’s because it’s the biggest investment in the rail network since Victorian times, crossrail is British engineering at its best one of the largest engineering programs in Europe. remember we tried to privatise the rail network and it went bust and into administration, then we had to renationalise it in 2002.
No one should ever take a party manifesto at face value again. They are proven Liars.
And if they said they would take every voter out for a hotdog and beer, would you believe that too?
Daniele I share your concerns, but they are only slightly more of a concern than if anyone else was to come in after May, the Defence budget has a black hole in it that needs sorting, and the most likely option is cuts there is no other way around it.
Julian no he’s not in the sense he’s practically a pacifist so he’s hardly going to rearm and increase anything, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron all oversaw cuts, some very deep cuts.
Another thing that I can throw in as well is that he is a Labour leader, the unions would not allow him to get away with anything drastic that will cost jobs and livelihoods, and it’s the Labour Party, the Labour Party have taken us to war and spent trillions on equipment while in office, not every labour MP is like the leadership, a defence budget that had drastic cuts that was going against the advice of the defence select committee would have to get through Parliament. And like I have said before Corbyn is not the Labour Party, it’s not a dictatorship, he’s as much the Labour Party as T May is the Conservative party.
I do think you’re bang on about taking action, I’m sure not a single missile would be fired his whole term in office. That I could actually quite easily live with as not one missile in the previous five years has been worth it IMO, but if he got in office, and it’s a big if, and even attempted to sell off ships and make drastic cuts I will be cancelling my membership immediately and telling them why, as I know thousands more would, and you can hold me to that on here.
Sadly that would have no effect whatsoever far more would be signing up to support such moves. As for MPs holding him to account I remember with a chill the operations of militant back in the eighties they were tharted in the way you mention but their bastard child Momentum are a lot more savvy and with thier puppet in office they will indeed already are persuing a campaign of deselection which this time won’t be thwarted, Labour Party structures are too different now to do so. The Labour Party will effectively become a Marxist orientated party in all but name that won’t countenance opposition in its ranks. Watson knows this and is attempting to hold the line and establish a Dort of underground opposition but can’t play his hand or will be crushed as a party traitor. If things play out as things presently are only in-fighting, aggro between the puppet leader, his colleagues and the empowered activists leading to self destruction and likely potential dissolutioned voters eventually will end their little destructive reign. Another 5 to 10 years hiatus to recover from it however is the last thing this Country needs. In that environment Defence will be the first to suffer.
Yes sole hoodwinked by the media ,we are misled by the BBC yet you seem believe the dribble that comes out of the kremlin lol!!!
Sorry Sole, you have not sold him at all.
“the unions would not allow him to get away with anything drastic that will cost jobs and livelihoods,”
What Unions? What unions oversee defence? If Scotland goes the ship workers are all Scottish, we build few of our own armoured vehicles now, and we still produce the F35 whether we buy it or not. Corbyn has already mentioned switching defence workers to other jobs I think I read?
“a defence budget that had drastic cuts that was going against the advice of the defence select committee would have to get through Parliament.”
When did the SDSR 98, 2006, 2010, 2015 go through Parliament? I don’t recall a vote on cuts, they are unilaterally imposed by the government at the time through the NSC.
” I will be cancelling my membership immediately and telling them why, as I know thousands more would, and you can hold me to that on here.”
All far, far too late by then!
My main concerns with Corbyn and his “acolytes” ( H would be proud! ) is that, in my view, many people of the left constantly show a distaste for Great Britain to be anything but a small little Island in Europe. Being a P5 member, G8 member, medium military power, and a country who is somebody actually seems to offend them. Some posters here display the same disease. All because we once had an empire, they see a wish for the same, which is nonsense.
My wife walked out of a union rep training course she went on after the tutor, who sounded like a typical example, started spewing off against the Tories, and said he saw Britain as “Britain” not “Great Britain” Why the issue with that term? Obviously it got under his skin.
I saw Corbyn interviewed on the telly a few years ago, he actually used the term in reply to a question ” we are a rather small country” in response to a question about world events.
It’s in his mindset. The UK is small in one area, geographical size. Nothing else. Fact. The left hate it!
Another concern. The impact on our status in the UKUSA Agreement, known to most as 5 eyes. How will the USA react to this man as the Prime Minister, and the sharing of information? How does that affect the Intelligence services? Which he has a history of finding distasteful.
I have a copy of a Duncan Campbell expose of the Intelligence community way back in the early 80’s in the New Statesmen. ( For those unaware Campbell is a left wing journalist, and a brilliant one at that with many exposes of the UK’s defence and security apparatus. ) In it is a piece about an unknown MP called Jeremy Corbyn asking questions in parliament about a new MI5 computer index and surveillance! Even then he was anti state, why else ask such a question about an organisation such as the Security Service trying to protect this country against soviet spies? His partner and reported lover at the time, Diane Abbott, was quoted as saying then something along the lines of “a victory against the British State is a victory for us all” And this woman may be our future Home Secretary?? God help us.
“I do think you’re bang on about taking action, I’m sure not a single missile would be fired his whole term in office. That I could actually quite easily live with as not one missile in the previous five years has been worth it IMO”
As you know, some areas on foreign policy that you comment on I am in agreement, like the ongoing witch hunt over Russia. I also can see that US foreign policy is instantly reflected in our own stance to align with them, which is not always right. I supported some interventions in the past and now see they were a mistake, and as you know I can see the hypocricy of the west concerning the Middle East, Syria, Israel, and other areas.
It is not so much the lack of intervention, I could live with that and our forces could probably do with a breather for a few years. My concern is he would willingly hamstring the forces preventing them from conducting offensive oversees operations full stop, then and in the future, resulting in the no doubt resignation of most of the senior officers and crisis. No bombers. No offensive missiles, no armoured vehicles, no military capability of anything other than purely defensive in nature. Neil Kinnook proposed the same once in the 80’s wanting to turn our Tornado GR1’s into interceptors!
To be fair Japan do this and are defensive orientated and they still maintain a large military, but they are not a P5 member and do not have the wide cultural and military links this nation has or the responsibilities that go with it.
Finally. Falkland Islands. Gibraltar. Cyprus. No oversees interventions could mean no need for these. Would he give them away on a plate?Never mind the image it would show the world of withdrawal, my concern is the direct impact on the intelligence community in losing these places.
I think the difference between the Tories and this version of Labour is the Tories, defence wise, for all their cuts, understand and support Britain’s place in the world as a P5 member and, with that status, the responsibilities that come with it, such as intervention, for right or wrong, and maintaining strong intelligence services, the nuclear deterrent, special forces, and high end kit that can be used with allies should war come. To me this man and his acolytes, McDonnell, Abbot, Thornbury, have an ideology of being against the state throughout their career and just wish to withdraw from the world, irreparably changing Great Britain’s position in it.
As for immigration. We know where he stands on that. Something the nation had repeatedly indicated needs to reduce! That wish would be ignored and we will have the same old issues as now, only greater, and civil war on our doorstep. To be fair the Tories are no better either, but I feel under Corbyn the situation would be worse.
Cheers. Interested in your response, as always.
Daniele I am not really trying to “sell him” all I am saying is I don’t think it will be as bad as people make out, I only commented originally because Geoffrey said our two carriers would be sold at a knock down price and our escorts thrown in for free.
“What Unions? What unions oversee defence?”
Unite represents thousands of workers in the defence industry and is labours main union backer, from Mccluskey himself
“Unite will fight – without reservation, without equivocation, without hesitation – to defend every last job of our members in the defence industry”
“When did the SDSR 98, 2006, 2010, 2015 go through Parliament? I don’t recall a vote on cuts”
They go through parliament after they have won the election Daniele, where defence always has a few pages in their manifestos, in 2010 the Cons and Lib Dem’s both said they wanted to cut 10% of the defence budget or cut the overspend of £38b from the MOD. A commitment on what percentage of gdp will be spent on defence is part of every parties manifesto.
And I agree with most of what you say after that tbh, I also hate those types of people, my worst at the moment is a guardian journalist called Afua Hirsch who wants to tear down Nelsons Column because his view was not the same as some latte liberal in the 21st century.
But they don’t represent the majority of Labour supporters, like I said I genuinely don’t believe there will be a national crisis and a firesale of defence equiptment. I always find that when people do become PM things they have said in the past or beliefs they have go out the window when they realise the responsibility they now have.
Anyway I’m fed up of talking about Corbyn he is not the Labour Party.
Spyinthesky militant were far left, momentum are left wing, there is a difference, in the same way there is a difference between UKIP and BNP right wing and far right, militant had a bastard child, they are called the socialist party and are still going.
From Theresa Mays policy chief
“The worrying truth is that Momentum is actually a middle-class movement exploiting the alienation now felt by university graduates, the public sector, remainers and metropolitan voters.”
Momentum are not some far left communists infiltrating the Labour Party, the right wing media have seen “comparisons” with what militant did and called it that, and centre left/centre right Labour MP’s scared of deselection and not wanting the party to go down that route are also calling it that to try discredit it.
Anyway have a good weekend lads ?
I bet if Chris H is reading he is dying to comment ?
Geoffrey
“J C had three shadow defence secretaries resign over his views on defence”
Maria Eagle was moved to culture secretary before resigning to force a leadership contest.
Emily Thornberry was moved to shadow foreign secretary and is a Corbyn ally.
Clive Lewis was moved to business and energy and is a Corbyn ally.
Now Griffith is the current shadow defence secretary.
On the basis of that this debate between me and you is over, you have just completely made that up because it supports your argument.
Not a single shadow defence secretary has resigned under Corbyn because of his views on defence.
Not only that it’s completely gone over your head about “German trains”
O K …Discussion over. if, God forbid , he gets in, I’ll see what you think a couple of years later.
Yet it remains a fact that Call me Dave and Boy George cut more defence than anybody. Spreadsheet Phil is carrying on in the same glorious tradition.
They’re the ones that need shooting.
Not true Ron5 I have posted all these figures before, at least twice, if you fancy looking back through here but rather you than me.
I don’t think Labour will go below 2%, but they will cut capabilities. UK defence will be more about foreign aid and peace keeping. We’ll probably get more ships, heavy lift and rotary wing but at the expense of fast jets and strike capabilities.
Yep, called it when the Indian Navy Admirals came to visit her in Portsmouth last month. Strong hopes the Indians will choose BAE
In my opinion the ship, if accepted by India, should be built in Britain as part of the contract, it would help British business, fill in some time over at the Rosyth docks until the Dreadnoughts need their post-shakedown cruise maintenance. And would mean that the Russians and Chinese can’t get their little hands on the design and build.
We should certainly build the ‘super blocks’ and then ship them over to India for final assembly. That would give India the time to sort out a latger building dock, as the one at Cochin where INS Vikrant was recently built was barely big enough for her and she is a lot smaller…
Dreadnoughts will be coming no where near Rosyth. All nuclear maintenance capability was moved to Devonport on a purely political basis in tge early 90s.
‘ should be built in Britain as part of the contract ‘
Won’t happen and never will. India’s “make in India” policy essentially forbids them from accepting anything less than a license deal. Best we can hope for is a huge load of cash for BAE, some good soft power increase and business for British firms supplying systems and engineering onboard
The Indians wouldn’t select the design if we insisted it be built here. Part of their long term strategy is to develop their military ship building capacity so they simply wouldn’t go for any foreign built design.
Well now that we have established that our government cannot negotiate for toffee, I fully expect that India will get everything they want and the UK will simply be left with a feeling of gratitude and.
Sometimes I wish that we played hardball. There are very few countries capable of manufacturing aircraft carriers, I would rather we insisted on building it here, but with some form of Indian oversight, so they can potentially build a second one in India.
Wouldn’t it be built using UK foreign aid?
ROFL
LOL 🙂 …But REALLY.. SERIOUSLY???— Well, Why don’t you read this: https://dfidnews.blog.gov.uk/2018/12/27/uk-aid-to-india-uk-no-longer-gives-any-money-to-indian-government/Join the discussion…
Join the discussionhttps://dfidnews.blog.gov.uk/2018/12/27/uk-aid-to-india-uk-no-longer-gives-any-money-to-indian-government/…
India would not countenance such a plan if Apple can’t get around it I can’t see Bae managing it. I believe the concept is enshrined in their law and a red line that so t be moved.
The question is then, is the Vikrant design duff or are things go well with the Vikrant that instead of building another they want to go bigger?
Hands up who wants to see a Mig 29 taking off from QE or PoW in trials……….
Not really sure about this one:
1) it would only go through if it was built in India, so no british jobs, tax revenues etc.
2) I would imagine HMG own the ip but would a small amount of cash be worth:
A) giving full details of our most potent none nuclear strategic asset to a country that is not really a close friend.
B)is likely to pass on information to potential enemies or could end up in an alliance with our likely enemies.
We need to remember that the fact our opponents in the falklands war had an intimate understanding of sea dart did likely cost lives.
Nothing wrong with building stuff at home and selling it, as long is it’s not giving away the secrets of your strongest weapons. The only time you should do that if it’s with an ally your are so intimate with you could not ever think of going to war and have total trust.
Remember the US would not sell some of their kit even to us. That I think is sensible.
Building India a generic carrier based on the QE hull at home ( without the details or clever bits) would be ok as benefits and risks are balanced otherwise nope…….
1) it would only go through if it was built in India, so no british jobs, tax revenues etc.
I would like to think if they where built it would be some form of joint venture between BAE and an Indian shipyard. I doubt the UK government would give away all of the IP for the RR engines and power management systems etc. UK industry would still benefit hugely if this deal went through.
Manufacturing the hulls themselves is not the most complex aspect of these ships.
As a proven 21st century design this makes excellent sense for India, built along the same contract parameters as the T26 selection for Australia & Canada, no doubt. Yes, they’d wish it to be cats/traps from the outset but this could conceivably benefit the UK as the exact requirements – and any associated issues – of adapting QE/POW in the future will be pretty much understood at the practical level.
‘Course, the Treasury’s view will be just let them have one of our two, if they’re given half a chance, and bugger the embarassment and lack of high-tech export kudos.
We should get HMS Hermes back if they choose BAE as a gift to our great nation…. 5hen we might have one carrier for the nation to visit…
It’s both a risk and an opportunity. The risk comes from India’s close defence relationships with Russia. The opportunity comes from taking steps to loosening that connection, especially if (as it should be) the QEC design proves to be a massive step change from their current Russian based carriers.
UK GOv needs to make this a first step in improving the security and defence ties with India, rather than an outlier. Small, cautious steps to be sure but steps nonetheless.
Give it enough time the MOD will end up selling HMS POW to India, we can barely muster the resources for one aircraft carrier – let alone two.
Good thinking sell it for 13 Billion, build 3 more for six Billion and donate the profit to the NHS. Perhaps the Americans would like to replace their Wasp class. The opportunities are endless.
Hoping someone can enlighten me… Who actually owns the overall design licences for the Queen Elizabeth Class? HM Government? BAE systems? Aircraft Carrier Alliance? or someone else?
Similarly with the Type 26 being exported to Canada and Australia, who sees the revenue?
M@
M@ – pick from any company or companies from the Aircraft Carrier Alliance id guess.
The winning design from the initial competition was from the Thales group, so I’d guess that the actual IP is with Thales or BMT, but the fact that BAES are marketing the design to the Indians implies they either hold the IP or are authorised to conduct marketing as part of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance
Red alert! TH is back!
“English Carrier”
Here we go again…. let the arguments begin. Get ready for the contentious statements designed to rile people up. Oh dear.
I would love to meet all these people who don’t want the second carrier. I don’t really know anyone who knows anything about the military and what we have. The fact we have one would surprise many! Most people seem to have no knowledge and zero opinion unfortunately.
? Please explain
Me? Talking about the general public’s lack of interest in our military
Sorry no that was mainly aimed at Danielle. You are correct about the public although they do expect sub-consciously that the military will be there when needed. They will also expect any task force to be led by aircraft carriers and wow betide any politician or civil servant who has neglected their duty.
Hi Mark.
You have obviously not been reading UKDJ for very long.
Carry on reading whenever TH posts and see what impression you form. Or, read back a years worth and see the posts, the arguments, the reaction, the deflection, the avoidance, the sly comments designed to irritate, the inflammatory comments, the loathing for English “imperialism” the desire to disarm. A Troll.
All are entitled to their opinion of course but it is like a vegan going on a website for carnivores. What is the point except to troll.
This is a website for UK defence matters populated by those with the best interests of our armed forces and nations world standing at heart.
Those not interested should either go elsewhere or expect the reaction they get.
But do not take my word for it, go back and look.
The RN and the UK would be better off if we sold both the carriers to the Indians now and used the money to bolster the RN with extra ships and extra manpower.
Slightly embarrassing for the UK but we would soon get over it.
I don’t agree, I’m sorry.
Your argument lacks detail. Why? What type of ships? Desired strategy? It’s a bit vague to say the least.
Fat Dave – say both Carriers were sold for £3 billion each,without estimating through life running costs and Air Wings etc,you could say buy 6 more T45’s,or 4 more Astutes or even 4 more Type 26’s,when you consider the potency and flexibility of a Carrier wuld you be prepared to swap ?.
Dave, what threat is out there that makes a carrier more vulnerable than any other surface ship?
The two main threats I see at present are anti-ship type missiles be they high flying fast ones or low flying and stealthy. Having an air group gives more chance of spotting both of these than not having that air group. Shooting down the latter is easier for a fighter above the missile.
The other main threat is from submarines, the main weapons for fighting subs, other subs and helicopters. In a sustained operation the carriers superior aviation facilities are likely to give improved helicopter availability compared to those on a frigate or destroyer.
What is a blue water navy for?
For me it means the capability to close a sea to an adversary ( Carrier aviation and SSN ) Power project ( Carrier aviation and SSN ) and protect sea lanes ( Carrier aviation )
Even in a humanitarian role the helicopter group is considerable.
I don’t need to describe the soft power aspects.
Carriers, SSN, the amphibious ships, and the RFA are the corner stones of our naval forces around which all else should be built IMO.
God’s alive. First the type 26. Now QE class, would be excellent if the ship is ordered especially if 1 built in UK and another 2 or 3 in India. India is struggling, they need carrier power to face down China and it’s growing presence in the Indian Ocean but their Russian bought carriers have proven rubbish and their indigenous carrier design is not as good as the QE and is running late and over budget
All R+D though funded by HMG. When will UK taxpayers see some benefit for this. Any chance we can get a price drop on the type 26 so we can get more than 8 by any chance?
Nope thought not…
So Mig29s, ski jump, traps and no cats?
Or EMCAT resurrection and a route for cats and traps refit for QE?
Ironic if India got QE class carriers with Rafale.
Is this the same India that’s collaborating with Russia to produce a hyper-sonic missile which threatens us so much? I wouldn’t sell anything to these call centre nuisance callers for a hundred billion pounds let alone how much we are getting from this.
I don’t know, go away for a night and I miss all the fun. (Chicken Phall was great )
Hands off our Carriers, they are an absolute bargain, Keep them, use them to make a difference you never know what the future will bring. We all should be very proud.
We should be actively trying to Sell the Design just like the Type 26’s.
I Love India and wish we had a closer relationship. If they do go with a QE class then Good on them. Let’s start something good here.
I consider the risk to the Russians in selling their tech to the Indians on at least a par with any risk of our doing the same. It’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that we could already know, or may well know if a future requirement dictated, quite a bit about the missile, do you not think, Jonny?
As an aside, on the F1 front, I’m concerned that we no longer design the power units!
Looks like I’m wrong on the F1 front, happily. Mercedes is evidently IImor Engineering Ltd, a company I thought had left F1 years ago. Better I keep to something less contentious, like politics, maybe.
The Mercedes chassis and engine is all British. British Design, engineering and manufacture. Mercedes buy into British talent and get thier name put on the car and since rules were changed for anthems, the German one is played instead of the British one. I’m sure if this was the other way around, the German anthem would still be played. The British are brilliant, but stupid.
The one that’s being built in Scotland, supporting thousands of Scottish jobs.
Ha ha. It has to be better than the Russian stuff which gave them food poisoning.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/whatever-you-do-dont-buy-your-aircraft-carrier-from-russia-e0f6707cb4ee
Given all the concerns that RN ships must be built in the UK to maintain domestic capabilities and security. The outcry that production must leave the Clyde if Scotland we’re to leave the union. I must admit it’s perplexing how they square the need for security and selling the state of the art design to a foreign power already known to have dealings with sensitive nations. The resilience, endurance, performance, radar signature, sonar signature, layout are all surely of strategic value. They would all be gifted outside our control if the ships are sold outside NATO. Given India would certainly wish to build it domestically, we are in effect handing over the blue prints. Official Secrets act, surely….