What's the point in building an aircraft carrier with no jets on it, asks Christopher Booker. 23 Oct 2010 'Ignominious”, “a fiasco’, “barking mad” were just some of the epithets hurled at the Government’s announcement that it is to proceed with building two giant aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy, one of which will have no aircraft to fly off it for years and which may therefore have to be mothballed or even sold. The story behind this debacle is even more bizarre. It goes back to the last days of the Major government, when we entered into discussions with the French as to how we could both save money on defence and fulfil our commitment under the Maastricht Treaty to work towards greater defence integration with our EU partners. In November 1996 defence secretary Michael Portillo signed in Bordeaux a Letter of Intent with France, to set up 24 study groups under the direction of the British and French Chiefs of Naval Staff, one of which covered “Future Aircraft Carrier Development”. In 1998 at St Malo Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac pledged their determination to work together on an EU defence force, leading the following year to the EU adopting its “Helsinki goals”, designed to establish a European Rapid Reaction Force, central to which would be the European Carrier Group. Each EU country would contribute in its own way, but Britain’s chief contribution would be two large carriers. In 2006 it was agreed that these would be built jointly by Britain’s BAE Systems and the French firm Thales, with France contributing £140 million to design costs. But a further twist to the story, as I reported at the time, aided by my colleague Richard North, who expertly follows defence matters on his EU Referendum blog, was that the long-planned project to buy vertical take-off Joint Strike Fighters from America was running into serious difficulties. Their most obvious replacement for the carriers would be French-built Rafales, requiring a quite different carrier design. And so the farce winds towards its end, where our straitened defence budget is completely distorted by our contractual obligation to proceed with the carriers (it would cost more to abandon the project than to carry on). In effect, when built, they will be operated jointly with the French, with French pilots flying French aircraft (the Rafales will cost twice as much as the ships themselves). So little money is left to buy the escorts needed by a carrier group that these will have to be provided by other EU navies, such as those of Spain or Italy. To save any argument as to whether the carriers should fly the White Ensign or the Tricolor, it will be much easier just to fly the EU ring of stars . Thus, after 600 years, will the Royal Navy merge its identity with that of the new EU Navy. Just what purpose this might serve, no one can really explain. So perhaps it will seem quite reasonable, after spending £6 billion on building the carriers, that we should sell one of them off. Indeed, while we are about it, perhaps we should just sell them both off, donating the proceeds to DfID to educate the world on the need to combat climate change.In the future, Her Majesty’s Ships could be flying the ring of stars
Spending review: In the future, Her Majesty’s Ships could be flying the ring of stars
What's the point in building an aircraft carrier with no jets on it, asks Christopher Booker.
Sunday, 24 October 2010
Posts
