Britain forced to borrow U.S. jets to fly from our NEW aircraft carriers as cutbacks

[bhramos]

Britain will be forced to borrow U.S. warplanes to fly from the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers because of defence cuts, the Daily Mail can reveal.

The Navy's Harrier Jump Jets - the aircraft that won renown in the Falklands conflict - are to be retired early leaving the two new carriers with no aircraft when they come into service.

Under the plans, the U.S. Marines would be invited to fly from the British carriers in joint operations and the Navy is also examining the prospect of leasing aircraft from the Americans.



Major costs savings are necessary because the Treasury budget for the carriers only covers the costs of building an empty shell - leaving no money for the aircraft to fly from them.

A senior military source said: 'The U.S. Marines have the aircraft. Their aircraft would fly from the British carriers. Or we could borrow some from them.

'The Treasury are happy to pay for the carriers but there's an issue over the cost of the aircraft.'


The carriers are due to enter service in 2014 and 2016 respectively and the remaining Harriers, famous for their ability to take off and land vertically, are currently due to be retired in 2018.

But bringing that date forward, which would save more than £1billion and could happen as early as the end of next year, would leave the Navy with a capability gap that would have to be filled by the Americans before Joint Strike Fighter aircraft become available in 2018.

Rather than 'salami slice' kit from every area, Defence Secretary Liam Fox has decided to give up major capabilities that let Britain fight wars alone, and rely on American support in future conflicts instead.
Renowned: HMS Invincible on its final voyage in 2005. Harrier Jump Jets are due to go out of service by 2018



The RAF is set to abandon its 'spy in the sky' aerial surveillance planes because the U.S. can provide the intelligence material instead. That is likely to mean the cancellation of new Nimrod aircraft.

In order to pay for the new aircraft carriers, which will cost a total of £5.2billion, the Navy is expected to have to sacrifice its amphibious landing capability.

The source added: 'It comes down to a choice between carrier strike capability and amphibious landing - and they're not going to give up the carriers.'

That means the Royal Marines and the Army would have to rely on American assault ships if they wanted to launch a seaborne invasion like the Falklands in future.

'There are going to be some very painful decisions,' the source said.

'But the plan is to sacrifice some capabilities so that we can keep the kit where we really need it.'

Chancellor George Osborne has also asked the Ministry of Defence to find budget savings of between 10 and 20 per cent.

One carrier may be axed to save money but Navy chiefs would rather fight for them both.

But to pay for them, the second may be downgraded to carry helicopters rather than jets. Ministers are also examining whether they can share some costs with the French navy.
Fighter that helped win Falklands War

The British Harrier Jump Jet was the first in the world to be able to take off in a very short distance and land vertically without a runway.

A mainstay of the Fleet Air Arm since 1960, its finest hour was the 1982 conflict to recover the Falklands, when the planes shot down 20 Argentine aircraft without suffering a single loss in return.

The Harrier's primary role is air defence, operating from Royal Navy aircraft carriers. It was instrumental in protecting the Falklands Task Force from serious losses at the hands of the Argentine air force.
Icon: A Sea Harrier performs its famous vertical landing

Icon: A Sea Harrier performs its famous vertical landing

The last Sea Harriers operated by the Fleet Air Arm were withdrawn from service in 2006, leaving Navy and RAF pilots using the GR9 ground attack variant of the aircraft.

There are 45 Harriers left, but the jet is due to go out of of service by 2018 to be replaced by a variant of the U.S.-made Joint Strike Fighter.

UK to borrow US jets to fly from our NEW aircraft carriers as cutbacks bite | Mail Online

What fighters will UK Navy Barrow [Beg] from US????

 

[bhramos]

Some UK member's Comments .........

Perhaps we should be asking India if they could loan us a couple of theirs considering we have given them over the last ten years a total of £1.9 billion via the Department for International Development.
Funny thing is that this is the one thing this Government has not cut.............

Why do you give and ask back????????

 

[hungo]

You should really try to think up your own responses....

Cheers

 

[Tshering22]

UK to borrow US jets to fly from our NEW aircraft carriers as cutbacks bite | Mail Online

What fighters will UK Navy Barrow [Beg] from US????

I think the USMC also fly the Sea Harriers and therefore will start operating off British carriers. The plans to use F-35 go into troubled waters when they announced a delay on its induction.

 

[Rebelkid]

Whats with the whole world suffering so much in the 21st century ? 9/11,terrorists,floods,doomsday predictions,conspiracy theories

 

[JAISWAL]

they must try 2 convince india to buy 2nd carrier so that they may fund a/cs & india will induct 1 more carrier in less time.

 

[Yusuf]

I would wonder why britain would not concentrate on an arm of its forces due to whose power it established its empire around the world. Even today its the powerful US navy that gives it a huge advantage. Really surprising this for me. They may well give up on a bit of its AF and army, but navy is a must. Even india and china are expanding their navy and far better than their other wings of the armed forces,

 

[The Messiah]

All the stolen wealth must be finishing....

 

[bhramos]

All the stolen wealth must be finishing....

But still Indian Kohinoor Diamond is still there on the queens.......thrown.
when will it give back to India......!!!!!!!!

 

[Tshering22]

they must try 2 convince india to buy 2nd carrier so that they may fund a/cs & india will induct 1 more carrier in less time.

No man. We better not. Because right now the plan if to have 3 carriers and that is fine enough with 1 Russian-made and 2 domestic made ones. The British will sell the carriers at 4-5 times the price of what we can make in India. We don't need a 4th carrier as we're not an island country nor are we that powerful economically to waste money on this. We should concentrate more on the development of Vikrant II and IAC-2 which is likely to be nuclear powered starting 2017-18. I think it is about time we started trusting on indigenous platforms than making other countries richer.

Besides, the British doctrine is not to defend but to police around with their NATO allies USA and other countries. So naturally their type of carriers would not be suitable for us. Besides, what are we going to use on that carrier? Certainly not the N-MRCA tender? We better stick to original plan, operate the 45 MiG-29Ks, 6-10 N-Tejas wait for the naval variant of PAKFA that Russia is also considering for its new aircraft carriers (mostly nuclear powered according to RIA Novosti reports), which would come around 2020-22. We shouldn't waste money on foreign fighters and utilize as much domestic as possible. Our foreign imports are still 70% overall and that is very bad considering our status as emerging power. We need to cut it to at least 20% and steadily do so if we want a status of our own.

 

[civfanatic]

Haha, what a funny situation. Britain has declined so much that they have to beg their former colony for defence equipment.

I'm sure the Royal Family still has countless billions in wealth looted from other countries, why don't they put all those gold and diamonds to good use? At this rate Britain is well on its way to becoming 52nd state of America (51st is Canada).

 

[roma]

we should do what the british and americans themselves do - which is to lend them the use of the aircraft carriers - BUT WITH CONDITIONS ATTACHED - and i feel this time around the conditions should be to have access and be part of a joint british-usa-french-india naval force operating from the diego garcia group. The request would be reasonable since usa with it's withdrawal from iraq and afghanistan would nee to rely on indian manpower and navla strenght and is likely to accede to this condition and it now gives inda a right into what really belonged to us all along. (The french would be there as they do own the isle of reunion which should be the next on the list )

 

[LETHALFORCE]

It is Britain's membership in NATO that has sustained them . If UK had to function totally independently their ranking would make their P5 membership questionable. Their declining military strength if a far cry from the glory days of the British Empire.

 

[roma]

I would wonder why britain would not concentrate on an arm of its forces due to whose power it established its empire around the world. Even today its the powerful US navy that gives it a huge advantage. Really surprising this for me. They may well give up on a bit of its AF and army, but navy is a must. Even india and china are expanding their navy and far better than their other wings of the armed forces,

they have been relying on the usa / nato since the WW2 and deep defence cuts have been a routine matter since the mid--sixties including the withdrawal of forces east of suez .IN fact teh navy has been complaining since then but it is a matter largely of culture and also economy . Not unlike what made india and tibet pacifist after they had strong militaries in the past. IT just isnt cool in the public's perception to spend hugely on defence plus the public wants to see far more spent on education or medical facilities than defence and will vote accordingly in teh elections if they feel spending is contrary to their desires eg Winston churchill was removed after he in a sense won teh war for them . IN the same way although britain can afford and has the technology to put a person in space and be part of the space "race" public opinion wont allow their government to do so.

 

[pmaitra]

I would wonder why britain would not concentrate on an arm of its forces due to whose power it established its empire around the world. Even today its the powerful US navy that gives it a huge advantage. Really surprising this for me. They may well give up on a bit of its AF and army, but navy is a must. Even india and china are expanding their navy and far better than their other wings of the armed forces,

If I may add, the following things helped Britain establish a World Empire:

• Navy
• Trade coupled with exploitation of resources.
• Short Magazine Lee-Enfield rifle (popularly called .303 in India, although the later versions of the RFI SMLEs were 7.62mm NATO, not .303)
• The Steam Locomotive
• Divide-And-Conquer political doctrine

I would disagree that the British Army alone created the World Empire. As a matter of fact, a significant chunk of the armed forces of the British Empire were non-English, non-Scottish and non-Irish.

 

[Ray]

If one wants to know how the current British Army thinks on a variety of issues, try this website called ARRSE

ARRSE

Apart from other issues including US 'saving' the UK, there is an interesting thread going on if the latest revelations in Britain about Churchill is denigrating him!

British Army may not have built their Empire, but the ethos they imbibed in their native soldiers did. That ethos still allows India to function as a democracy unlike Pakistan, where their Army has shed the British apolitical ethos and traded it for the Arab variety!

 

[Sri]

What other forums would you recommend Sir? Doesn't have to be U.K. specific!