Carrier Aviation = Cheapest

[JFZ90]

Its official...

Prolonged Libya effort unsustainable, warns Navy chief | UK news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/13/prolonged-libya-effort-unsustainable-navy-chief)

First Sea Lord

"It's cheaper to fly an aircraft from an aircraft carrier than from the shore."

This 'sharky' type logic is surely misleading.

I can't see how the overall costs of a carrier based asset vs a land based asset can possibly be cheaper - unless you're not comparing like with like (i.e. ignoring the costs of the ship etc.).

I don't think these kind of statememts are acceptable - carrier aviation is a potentially brilliant capability - but lets not pretend it is cheap.

[Wrathmonk]

My first thought would be "well he would say that". However some interesting soundbites ....

But he insisted that the constant jibes about the loss of the ship and the aircraft were having a "corrosive" effect on navy morale. "There is far too much about what could have been," he said.

But then goes on to say

But he said it was time to move on from the debate. Even though there is a study under way within the MoD about the costs of axeing the Harriers and what it would take to bring them back into service, Stanhope said he did not believe the aircraft would fly again.

He's obviously been catching up on PPRuNe each morning ....;)

[Bismark]

"It's cheaper to fly an aircraft from an aircraft carrier than from the shore."

Even taking into account the cost of the carriers etc (ameliorated over 30+ years, it probably is and the EFFECT (intensity of UK Ops) would be greater too as you can generate far more sorties from fewer aircraft - as the French and US are proving off Libya.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Kind of makes you wonder why we don't have any :confused:

[Backwards PLT]

Of course it is cheaper, that is why every country in the world doesn't bother with these pointless land airfields and just has carriers instead. Oh wait.....

You can bend numbers in lots of ways and use very specific examples, and if you want to have a fast response and happen to fight a country where all the targets are close to (an uncontested) sea but land bases are much further away then a carrier will be quicker responding. Maybe not more capable as you are limited to carrier capable aircraft, or longer on task (but possibly will be). But claiming that, generally speaking, flying aircraft off carriers is cheaper than flying them from land bases is ridiculous.

Anyone throw some figures around for how long a Harrier would take to get on task over Nad Ali from a carrier "somewhere in the Indian Ocean"? 700 miles @M.7 gives 100 minutes (plus the AAR time). Plus how much to support a carrier group in the Indian Ocean? Lies, damn lies and statistics.........
[A deliberate, parochial and biased view to show how you can make sense to a layman but actually have a bollox argument, for those that haven't noticed.]

Don't get me wrong I am a big carrier fan - I think the UK should have 2 full size carriers flying F35C (force mixed with rotary and FW AEW as required), but using flawed arguments to fight the case will only harm it, not help. I also fully agree with the 1SL that all this RN dripping is just becoming corrosive. We/they need to move on and put up a jt fight to ensure that we get the right capability in the future.

[Airborne Aircrew]

There's a whole lot of "hidden" costs in not having carriers. If you need to project power across the world without them you need to be keeping countries "sweet" ad infinitum - hence the outlandish "foreign aid" budgets people whine about all the time. While one understands those expenditures do not entirely cover basing aircraft on the ground there's a chunk of that expenditure that does so it's a bit like insurance - it's very expensive until you need it.

However, if you have serious international ambitions the ability to place, (as the US so brilliantly point out), 4.5 acres of sovereign territory anywhere in the world at short notice is priceless... But don't expect the polis to ever see that...

[Roadster280]

It's cheaper to drive from London to Edinburgh than it is to fly (well on BA anyway). But that doesn't take into account the cost of acquiring the car in the first place.

Then again, neither does it take into account the cost of the 737 that BA use. But that's a different argument. Apples and oranges all over the place.

[Backwards PLT]

But if they get the 737 on a PFI it is virtually free, as we all know, so then.........

[Lonewolf_50]

It is cheaper to have an aircraft carrier, and a few escorts, in that it allows you to have an airbase anywhere in the world if you want one. That doesn't help all that much when dealing with land locked nations or locales (Tibet?) but since about 80 % of the world's population live within 200 miles of a coastline ...

What a carrier can't do is move big metal. (C-17, C-5, C-130, A330 ...) For that you have to have more runway. But, if you are dropping in to visit from the sea anyway, it is cheaper, albeit a bit slower, to bring stuff in a hull anyway. :hmm:

[jamesdevice]

"What a carrier can't do is move big metal. "

really?

C-130 Hercules On An Aircraft Carrier!! - Video (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/648493/c_130_hercules_on_an_aircraft_carrier/#)

[just another jocky]

93.7% of all statistics are made up.:ok:

[Harley Quinn]

Great if all your other assets are below deck ie not available for use, otherwise it's a pile of ploppy and totally irrelevant

[fin1012]

so what about the need to have all the land based IPB enablers along for the ride.....

Also, lets just suppose we had Ocean, an RFA and a couple of escorts. That has to be about 2500+ people.....to deliver a very small number of AH....I'd love to know the actual true cost per flying hour.....:ugh:

This is all about political posturing rather than actual capability

[davejb]

...and it's a damn sight easier to **** up a carrier than a land base. The ideal is to have both, but if you insist on running a budget where you can't, then the carrier is the obvious one to do without.

As for overseas aid keeping people sweet - that's a bit dubious IMO (but only IMO) as when push comes to shove you can't rely on the people you bribed to stay honest.
(Amazingly enough).

[Airborne Aircrew]

As for overseas aid keeping people sweet - that's a bit dubious IMO (but only IMO) as when push comes to shove you can't rely on the people you bribed to stay honest.
(Amazingly enough).

As we have been finding out more frequently in recent years... I dread to think how much "bribe money" has been paid in the last half century that has been ignored when the western powers have asked for "consideration".

The moment you share your survival with another you guarantee the survival of neither.

[Willard Whyte]

"What a carrier can't do is move big metal. "

really?

C-130 Hercules On An Aircraft Carrier!! - Video (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/648493/c_130_hercules_on_an_aircraft_carrier/#)

And we won't even have any of those by the end of the decade.

[Really annoyed]

Not having a fully capable carrier launched aircraft is daft for an island nation. DC has just got to realise that as you walk down the fairway of life you must smell the roses, for you only get to play one round.
As for the SDSR, well, Dave and his mates must realise that by three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.

[Justanopinion]

. Maybe not more capable as you are limited to carrier capable aircraft, or longer on task (but possibly will be)

"Limited" to SuperHornet. Bugger.

[Finnpog]

Being hobbled by only having the F18 E/F also means that you are restricted to only having the G-Growler available to you to choose from as well.
Outrageous!:sad:

I think we would all prefer to have all options available to HM's Armed Forces. Surley the smart move for the future is to ensure that as much of our air armada is CATOBAR capable so that all possible assets can be both air and land based as required.

[ORAC]

ameliorated over 30+ years I'm sure having the Ark Royal back would ameliorate the feelings of the Navy. But they'd still have to amortise the cost....... ;)

[Red Line Entry]

The moment you share your survival with another you guarantee the survival of neither.

I knew that whole NATO idea was a rubbish one...

[Pontius Navigator]

If you need to project power across the world without them you need to be keeping countries "sweet" ad infinitum - hence the outlandish "foreign aid" budgets people whine about all the time.

Carriers, and war canoes in general, are not as independent of friendly shore facilities as you might expect and probably have as much need as do aircraft.

The fleet train needs to be resupplied. Spare parts are often delivered by air. Dockyards are needed for essential repairs. If someone manages to blow a hold in the side of your ship, or you run into a rock, or bend a periscope things can get a bit fraught if there is not friendly state withing reach.

[FODPlod]

Carriers, and war canoes in general, are not as independent of friendly shore facilities as you might expect and probably have as much need as do aircraft.This is about as close to RAF Central disinformation as you can get. Do you seriously believe that the RN hasn't learned by now to take just about everything with it, including RFAs filled with POL, ammo, stores, spares and food plus heavy repair ships and maintainers when it deploys to the far flungs for umpteen months at a time?

[andyy]

Carriers do need support infrastructure for refits etc & they are not as fast to respond as air assets but they are clearly mobile so you don't need so many fixed bases; they can provide logistic support to other units; most importantly they are a C3 platform; it can be re-roled as a Commando Carrier; they have their own self protection & some long range Int gathering equipment; it can carry personnel & equipment for combat, NEO & disaster relief (all at the same time) & yes it can be used for a pretty good cocktail party (diplomatic power). ie the point that seems to be missed continually is that the carrier isn't just an airfield, its an integrated weapons and sensor system that can do a number of roles very effectively. The aircraft it carries can also be delpoyed to a maritime environment & ashore when necessary, whilst the carrier itself could still continue to do one of a number of useful roles even when denuded of its air assets.

Cheapest? I am not a defence economist, but flexible & value for money? I'd say so.

[Schiller]

Two points:

First, as already mentioned, a carrier has with it, not just aircraft, crews and maintainers, but also radar, full command-and-control facilities, fuel, cafeteria catering, hospital, dental surgery, chapel, brothel etc. etc. (OK, so not the last, but you get what I mean). All these should be factored into the cost when debating ground vs seaborne air power.

Secondly, a carrier can do 'graduated response'. If you're going to up the diplomatic ante, flying a squadron of ground-based aircraft into the area with all it's support being flown in (something the RAF do very well), you're also making a pretty powerful statement. A carrier can just appear over the horizon and lurk offshore; "HMS Nonesuch is in the area having just finished major exercises with the Swiss Navy". Yeah, yeah, right. Nobody believes it, of course, but the diplomatic niceties are observed, and those who need to, get the message.

[timzsta]

Andyy hits the nail on the head. RAF Marham is capable of doing only one thing, launching and recovering aircraft. An aircraft carrier offers so much more.

But on this matter the Government will not U-turn. The Admiral needs to fit in or **** off

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Reading all of this now has me wondering how on earth we have managed in the 'Stan for all these years without a carrier.

[timzsta]

Because we built an airfield there because we didn't have a carrier capable and no nearby host nation support!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Because we built an airfield there because we didn't have a carrier capable and no nearby host nation support!

And we managed all that without a carrier........ sort of blows a biggish hole in the "We must have carriers" arguement :ok:

[andyy]

SFF, you could argue that we did it for many years with our Carrier Air Wing, inc the ASac7, & in the mean time the Carrier itself was away doing other things.

No one is aguing that we ONLY need carriers, just that if you are going to have an expeditionary/ interventionist defence & foreign policy then seeing as the vast majority of the worlds population is relatively near the sea then carriers are a better VFM bet than having fixed bases all round the world.

[pmills575]

What happens if a little old submarine decides it don't like a big nasty carrier off it's shore? Big assets like carriers need lots of support and defending, factor in these costs and I bet it doesn't look so good. Still who would want to attack a big friendly carrier, they're invincible aren't they? OOps sorry about Invincible......


pm575

[timzsta]

At least on a Carrier you can close the bar to stop the aircrew getting drunk.

[andyy]

pm575, no one denies that submarines are not a threat but that's why you have ASW, Zig Zag plans, oh, & the ability to ultimately move the "airfield" if necessary. Factor in the fact that not many nations actually have submarines & even fewer can use them effectively and a Carrier remains VFM. Remember,too, that as the RAF so often reminds us all, an airfield can be bombed so are not invulnerable (or were the Port Stanley raids a PR/ political stunt in 1982 after all?)

[The Helpful Stacker]

Carriers can also be bombed, or even hit from over the horizon missles.

Fairly cheap those AShM when compared to a carrier and a runway that is listing significantly to one side is far harder to get back into operation than one (of possibly a number) that have been cratered.

Also there is the small matter of all those aircraft squeezed into a small space rather than dispersed over a large distance on an airfield when that fast, pointy and explosive thingy hits.

Yes the allied air operations showed in Iraq that, given a sufficiant amount of assets, airfields can be knocked out. But as a certain South American country showed not so very long ago, given a small amount of AShM some serious damage can be caused to the opposition, especially to large vessels carrying aircraft.

[sitigeltfel]

I thought Prince Philip was now the Navy boss :p

[Jig Peter]

A snippet on Beebworld on 13/6 mentioned that the French Chief of Naval Forces said recently that the Charles de Gaulle's time on station to help the Libyan campaign will run out at the end of the year. The ship had been "elsewhere" befiore Libya began, and returned as planned to Toulon, where it was to be serviced. From there it was ordered "smartish" to be on hand for the campaign, with its crew and aircraft re-embarked for this unexpected duty.
By December 2011 it will really need the servicing, in which case it will not be available for most (if not all) of 2012 - the Admiral said something like "We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel".
Seems to me that if your politicians want carrier air to be available for any campaign they deem necessary, they've got to have two("One on and one in the wash" as one used to say on kit inspections) - and the campaign can't last for long either (which, clearly, was what "they" expected for this Libyan thing).
New subject:
As far as Prince Philip's new title goes, it sounds more than a bit Gilbert & Sullivan-ish - Lord High Admiral of the Queen's Naveeee. Some more salve for the Battenbergs' honour, perhaps. Historians will know what I'm on about ...

[brakedwell]

There will be no need for Aircraft Carriers when our politicians realise this cash strapped little country is no longer a world power. :ouch:

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Factor in the fact that not many nations actually have submarines

Couple here that may give us pause for thought :p

List of submarine operators - Ask Jeeves Encyclopedia (http://uk.ask.com/wiki/List_of_submarine_operators)

[Lonewolf_50]

jamesdevice, does the Herc catch the 3 wire?

No.

First time I saw that video was about 30 years ago, and it's a great video.

It is irrelevant to the point I was making.

The C-2 won't replace a Herc anytime soon.

[FODPlod]

Reading all of this now has me wondering how on earth we have managed in the 'Stan for all these years without a carrier.The reason the French carrier Charles de Gaulle needs a maintenance period is that she and her air group had been providing CAS for ground forces in AFG (mostly Brits in Helmand) since October 2010, her fifth such mission in nine years. She only had a couple of weeks in Toulon before providing over a quarter of the NATO strike sorties over Libya to date. US Navy carriers have been providing CAS and ISTAR in AFG continuously since 2001.

[pmills575]

NEWTOWN, Conn. | Forecast International’s “The Market for Submarines” analysis projects that 111 submarines worth $106.7 billion will be produced from 2011-2020. The average value of these submarines will be $960 million, an indicator of the growing complexity of the modern submarine and the increasing use of air-independent propulsion, both of which add substantially to the cost of diesel-electric boats.

111 additional in just 9 years! Not too many then to threaten a carrier, one torp and goodbye "moveable airfield" a lot of resource concentrated in a very small space. Now does that sound sensible? Didn't we learn that lesson about dispering your assets. I guess the Navy is totally confident in its ASW assets being 100% effective, logically it seems close to madness!

pm575

[jamesdevice]

wasn't that one of the original motives behind having the three small "Invincibles"? Three lower value targets instead of one high value / high risk target. If you remember the plan was also to augment these in time of war with "Arapahoe" container ships (or tankers) flying Harriers off pre-fab decks
Same logic as suggested the Harrier "Skyhook" trials, with the intention of launching off rails on a frigate, and being recovered by crane, with 2-3 per frigate.
Maybe we should take another look at both these: presumably with newer, more robust gear the Arapahoe concept could be made to work?

[Jimlad1]

"Not having a fully capable carrier launched aircraft is daft for an island nation"

How many island nations operate carriers again? Try none...

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

The reason the French carrier Charles de Gaulle needs a maintenance period is that she and her air group had been providing CAS for ground forces in AFG (mostly Brits in Helmand) since October 2010, her fifth such mission in nine years. She only had a couple of weeks in Toulon before providing over a quarter of the NATO strike sorties over Libya to date. US Navy carriers have been providing CAS and ISTAR in AFG continuously since 2001.

So if we have been in the Stan all these years without our own carriers, being ably assisted by our allies with theirs you have to ask why do we need any of our own at all :confused:

[Easy Street]

Carrier = cheapest? The recent QE2-class price hike of £1bn could pay for 1000 land-based personnel to stay in 5-star comfort at a cost of £100 per night per person for a total of 27.4 years! That's the kind of comparison that would appeal to a Sun reader... arguments about fuel, weapons and on-station time are lost on the public.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Easy:

You're right... But you could eke out 30 years from a well designed and built carrier with all the fuel and "extra" stuff.. ;)

[dat581]

111 additional in just 9 years! Not too many then to threaten a carrier, one torp and goodbye "moveable airfield" a lot of resource concentrated in a very small space. Now does that sound sensible? Didn't we learn that lesson about dispering your assets. I guess the Navy is totally confident in its ASW assets being 100% effective, logically it seems close to madness!

This logic can be quite easily turned on it's head: Excuse me Captain we have a possible sub in the area. Ok launch all anti sub assets and send a few frigates to screen us while we move away from the threat.

Excuse me General / Air Marshal we have a possible sub with tomahawk threat. Ok launch all anti sub assets while we move away from the .... oh bugger.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

This logic can be quite easily turned on it's head: Excuse me Captain we have a possible sub in the area. Ok launch all anti sub assets and send a few frigates to screen us while we move away from the threat.

Excuse me General / Air Marshal we have a possible sub with tomahawk threat. Ok launch all anti sub assets while we move away from the .... oh bugger.

Or you could spin it:

Excuse me Captain we have a possible sub with a tomahawk threat in the vicinity. Don't worry No 1 we are totally immune to any anti shipping missile threats because we can simply move out of the way.....................:rolleyes:

[BEagle]

I don't recall much need for the RN's little carriers and handful of Harriers in GW1....

Or GW2?

I may be wrong though - I often am!

And before the Bearded Bull$hitter's love child wakes up and starts quoting reams of references, I acknowledge that, apart from OP BLACK BUCK, there were no friendly aerodromes capable of supporting offensive operations over the Islas Malvinas in 1982.

[dat581]

Excuse me Captain we have a possible sub with a tomahawk threat in the vicinity. Don't worry No 1 we are totally immune to any anti shipping missile threats because we can simply move out of the way.....................:rolleyes:

If you can move an airfield in the time it takes for a sub to target and fire such a missle I will defer to your logic sir...

[lj101]

GW2 they operated out of Jordan.
Did a fab job during Kosova too from memory.
ooh, yes and Sierra Leone.....


Why all the spitefulness? Fragile ego?

[Willard Whyte]

"Excuse me Captain we have a possible sub with a tomahawk threat in the vicinity."

"What, the USN or RN are going to shoot at us?"

[Wrathmonk]

LJ101

GW2 they operated out of Jordan.

and Kuwait. From a land based airfield in both cases.;)

[Schiller]

Not many countries can operate submarines effectively; still fewer have Tomahawk. But most of our potential enemies have the ability and will to sacrifice their own lives if necessary to attack land targets. Look back at what the VC were able to do in Vietnam, for instance; destroyed 29 aircraft in one night, if I recall correctly. To defend an airbase fully requires a huge protective force; can we afford the manpower needed?

[FODPlod]

So if we have been in the Stan all these years without our own carriers, being ably assisted by our allies with theirs you have to ask why do we need any of our own at all http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gifBecause we can't always rely on others to front up with them, as recently demonstrated by the US Navy's withdrawal from Libya of USS Kearsarge (and its Harrier AV-8B air group) and Uncle Sam's reluctance to throw a CVN and its much larger air group into the fray. Nor can we guarantee HNS and overflight rights wherever the next mess flares up.

Unlike some, I don't see land and sea-based air as being mutually exclusive. After the costly investment in static infrastructure to establish a long-term airbase in AFG, long and complex logistics train through bandit country for heavy stores, ammo, fuel, etc., plus all the force protection entailed, it would be wasteful not to utilise it even if it needs augmenting with carrier-borne air from those nations who can provide it.

However, when the base is no longer needed it will be an expensive dead duck, unlike a fully operational carrier group that could be sent elsewhere at the drop of a hat to poise covertly offshore as a contingency, act as an overt deterrent or engage in fully-fledged combat operations.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

If you can move an airfield in the time it takes for a sub to target and fire such a missle I will defer to your logic sir...

If you can move a carrier to a position that a sub can no longer hit it I will defer to your logic as well Sir :ok:

[engineer(retard)]

Dry dock??

IGMC

[Biggus]

Excuse me Captain we have a possible sub in the area. Ok launch all anti sub assets and send a few frigates to screen us while we move away from the threat.....


I would ask what anti sub assets, and what "few frigates"? Especially given that the cost of the carrier(s) and the F-35s have swallowed up so much of the defence budget that there is now no MPA cover and b*gg*r all ASW assets and frigates (how many Frigates have just been sold off, and how many will be purchased to replace the current Type 23s?)



Let alone the obvious question. How can you move away from the threat - UNLESS YOU ALREADY KNOW WHERE IT IS?? Unless you intend to vacate the entire theatre of operations? A submarine only tends to confirm its location when it puts a couple of torpedos into a high value unit, such as a carrier......

[draken55]

Biggus


Don't agree. HMG chose to hammer the MOD for the mess it got itself into after years of bungled procurement programmes. On top of that HMG also indicated it will in future bill MOD for the Trident replacement. The latter alone will come in at £ 20 Billion plus.

Of course the argument is that we are broke and need to cut our cloth to reduce our National Debt. If that's really the case, how on earth has HMG now found Billions more to lend to the IMF to help other Nations sort out their economies?:confused:

BBC News - UK raises annual payment to IMF by £9bn (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13782929)

[Biggus]

draken55,

I'm not sure what it is I said that you disagree with. If it was that there isn't enough money in the defence budget for carriers, F-35s and to then still be able to provide sufficient capable ASW assets, then you're simply wrong - there just isn't enough money.



The point I made was in reference to the Defence Budget!! Yes, we as a country have enough money for all the toys, if the government of the day elects to spend more on defence and less on education, health, social services, loans to the IMF, etc - but that isn't going to happen as long as any government wants to get elected for more than one term!!!



If you don't believe that reducing our national debt is an issue, I suggest you discuss it with the people of Greece, Ireland, Portugal, etc...... Let alone any credible politician (if you can find one!) in this country. Even Labour consider debt reduction a priority - it is the speed of reduction that they disagree with the current government over, and Darling's plans for reduction were not as different from the current government's as people imagine!

[draken55]

Biggus

You suggested that the demise of LRMPA and the reduction of other capabilities was due to the cost of the new carriers and the F-35 "swallowing up" available funds. I disagreed as I consider that HMG decided it was time to clobber Defence for years of uncontrolled expenditure.

Re the IMF loan. We are increasing our annual contribution by £ 9 Billion, doing so without democratic debate and don't seem to believe the funds are at risk in being loaned to States whose economies are in distress. I don't believe that will go down well with a domestic audience that is being subjected to cuts on the basis that we are heavily in debt. Economists will have some reason but to the Public, how can we afford to lend when we ourselves are still financing current expenditure by borrowing!:confused:

[Biggus]

draken55,

I think we'll have to agree to differ. MOD expenditure (especially procurement) certainly needs tightening up, I don't disagree with you there, but a policy of deliberately "clobbering" MOD while the streets of Wootton Bassett are still regularly being lined, and we have just made an unlimited commitment in Libya, would be a very risky and foolhardy thing for any government to undertake if it wants to stay the right side of public opinion - which they invariably do!

[oldgrubber]

Biggus,
The defence budget you mention is the Navy's slice of a small pie to do with as they see fit. The fact that the carriers had already been "budgeted" for by early retirement of vessels, reduced buy of others etc, was conveniently overlooked by the axe wielder and, it seems, all of the light blue naysayers on this thread/forum. You seem to lump the MPA loss into the Navy's area of responsibility rather too conveniently as well, when the other threads point to the Navy grasping the nettle and possibly coming up with the funds for some sort of replacement. The last time I detached to Kinloss the Nimrods had "Royal Air Force" on the side.
All the arguments against carriers are almost rabid in their assertions that carriers have no place in modern warfare and we couldn't "ping" a submarine with our Merlins if the thing was on the surface with the crew sunbathing. It pains me to say it (as an engineer) but the aircrew acually do know a thing or two about finding submarines, and don't forget where a few of your Nimrod guys came from when we cut back on the MK 6 Seakings, so they must be fairly useful?
None of the carriers supporters say that we don't need airbases, that is always the preferred option IF the airbase is;
1/ close
2/ well protected
3/ easy to supply
4/ has it's own accom (sorry couldn't resist)
5/ permanent after the conflict (preferably)
If not then what we say is, a carrier is a damn useful bit of kit in just about every way you can imagine;
1/ Offence (maritime and land support)
2/ Defence (shipping, home shores, dependencies, etc)
3/ Disaster relief (After recent events, need I say more)
4/ Political persuasion (Its worked before, trust me)

We all know about the shifting of Australia to prove CAP and the dropping of a bomb on the Falklands at "any" cost to prove a point, but that, as they say, is history. The rest of the developed world is apparently looking to bigger, more capable navies, with (not surprisingly) aircraft carriers figuring heavily in that build up. Lets at least give ourselves a chance of protecting our interests and our allies.

Cheers now

[Biggus]

oldgrubber,

I'm not saying we shouldn't be buying carriers! Neither did I imply that in any of my posts. However, I am trying to be realistic about the situation we are in. Two carriers plus 100 odd F-35s is going to consume enough of the defence budget such that other things (RN or not) had to go, including MPA, going from 13 odd SSN down to 6-8, 12 DDG down to 6, 20 odd frigates down to ???.

Neither am I interested in an RN/RAF willy waving contest. I'm sure RN Merlins are very capable of pinging submarines, now try and get them to search a large area 200nm ahead of the task force.....

The RN, and defence in general, has made considerable sacrifices to ensure the procurement of 2 carriers and (eventually) the aircraft to fly off them. I'm not saying that is wrong, but I am concerned that the rest of the defence cupboard is looking pretty bare.

While not "bashing" carriers, I will point out flaws in any pro carrier arguements, just as I will point out any other flaws in any other arguements that I read on pprune - in an attempt to make a useful contribution to the overall discussion taking place!

[draken55]

Biggus

Post SDSR we are now planning for one carrier and a much reduced
F-35 buy so I remain puzzled why you think what we might buy in future has already impacted on current capability.

Had Nimrod been on time and within budget we might still have LRMPA. Had Astute been on time and within budget we might have been able to buy in the numbers first planned. Ditto the Type 45, perhaps even Typhoon and many other big ticket items in the MOD Budget across all the Services.

Many argue that protection of the largest possible Typhoon buy was at least one of the reasons why the RAF gave up LRMPA. Typhoon and the supporting multi billion AAR PFI were considered core to the whole case for having an Independent Air Force, LRMPA was not. Not my view I must stress but a quick read of many posts on PPRUNE circa last October suggests it's the belief of many others.

[oldgrubber]

Biggus,
I'm sorry if you interprated my comments as a suggestion that you were "dark blue bashing", that's not what I meant and I apologise.
You do however seem to still infer that if it wasn't for the money being spent on the carriers, that we could "keep" some of our other toys
"The RN, and defence in general, has made considerable sacrifices to ensure the procurement of 2 carriers and (eventually) the aircraft to fly off them. I'm not saying that is wrong, but I am concerned that the rest of the defence cupboard is looking pretty bare."
The reason we lost a valuable (yes I do agree that long range sub hunting is not the Merlin's forte) capability in the Nimrod was not the carrier's fault, or the cuts that the Navy took to fund it (they were after all NAVY cuts). Look to cost overruns, delivery slippage and political shenanigans, and not least, it was a RAF aircraft.
Having read my comments back, I don't accept that I have accused anyone of "willy waving", but like you, I see so much of it going on on this forum that it does often get in the way of sensible debate.

Cheers now

[just another jocky]

The rest of the developed world is apparently looking to bigger, more capable navies,

What, all of them? :eek:

[oldgrubber]

JaJ,
The list of countries is quite long, but exaggeration to emphasise a point is common practice, even on this forum (sorry, especially on this forum, he he).
However, from memory, without resorting to the interweb.
Got or getting soon.
Carriers:
China
Russia
America
India
France
UK
Brazil (used by Argentina for training)
LPH: (with or without ski ramp)
Spain
UK
Italy
France
Thailand (i think)
Russia
Australia
Japan (the next one planned is an aircraft carrier in all but name)
America
And don't think Argentina would turn down the chance to acquire another conventional flat top if they could.
I've lost interest a bit now but you get the idea!

[DBTW]

Interesting debate with many lists. Talking about the threat of submarines to big ships, can we have a list of all the aircraft carriers sunk by submarines in the last 60 years? There have been quite a few wars in that timescale...

It is worth remembering that all aircraft capable of operating to and from ships are also capable of operating from airfields. The same is not true in reverse. As the carriers seem a key element of the current defence plan for the UK there must be some cost saving associated with buying types which can operate either from ship or shore rather than persisting with some types which are tied to land bases only?

[North Front]

I suspect that this strand will go on an on and on and on.... but I can't resist.

The issue is not that carriers are useful/better than land bases etc etc... if they had no utility then they wouldn't have survived and wouldn't form the backbone of America's power projection capability.

No, the issue is that we are broke and we have to spend our money as effectively as possible. The argument is obfuscated by nonesense claims about Harriers/Ark Royal and inter-service back biting and ill-informed pops at hotel bill etc. but actually comes down the fact that we can't afford a big RAF, big ships or a stupidly oversized army and need to face some hard decisions as to what gives value for money. F35C/QEC would be an awesome capability but "routinely deploy twelve" and the tens rather hundreds that are being bandied round as an eventual buy rather suggest a less than awesome end result. What is the cost per flying hour of Ocean and its escorts/oilers etc for 4 AH64?!!

A true CS capability is worth aiming for and would be entirely coherent with our foreign policy - we won't get it by rubbishing the other services with ill-informed arguments. Our leaders need to get at the government and readdress SDSR.

....oh, and why does a maritime nation need an army that is three times the size of its navy/air force?

[glad rag]

aircrew acually do know a thing or two about finding submarinesNot always is seems and not when it counted either.

Chinese Sub Outfoxes U.S. Fleet :: International News :: Hyscience (http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/11/chinese_sub_out.php)

4 years ago, who do you think has improved their capabilities in that time, the Chinese or yanks??

[glad rag]

Of course the argument is that we are broke and need to cut our cloth to reduce our National Debt. If that's really the case, how on earth has HMG now found Billions more to lend to the IMF to help other Nations sort out their economies?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

BBC News - UK raises annual payment to IMF by £9bn (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13782929)

Indeed, telling that none of the armchair admirals etc can actually answer that one.

"Things" are bad, a lot more than they are letting on.

[Airborne Aircrew]

....oh, and why does a maritime nation need an army that is three times the size of its navy/air force?

Perhaps because, in the end, you rarely win any conflict without having put boots on the ground...

[Modern Elmo]

Said Rear Admiral Bumblower in 1941:

The issue is not that battleships are useful/better than aeroplanes, submarines etc etc... if they had no utility then they wouldn't have survived and wouldn't form the backbone of Britain's power projection capability.

[Capt P U G Wash]

Let’s test this cheaper argument with a few facts

Last year the cost of the UK Carriers to the MoD was about £340M (so approximately £1M per day)

That does not include the cost of the aircraft or the weapons, so that can be discounted from a comparison.

It also does not include the cost of the Harrier base that is still required for home based training (i.e Cottesmore as was). There is no charge for the use of GdC, so that can be discounted also.

It also does not include the cost of the RFA or other support ships – I think we can safely assume that these will cost as least as much as a few Italian hotel rooms and some MT track miles for resupply – I can imagine that it would probably be a lot more.

So assuming that this comparison is simply between the additional cost of the ship, versus the cost of additional hours the maths is as follows:

Marginal costs of a Harrier, Typhoon or Tornado hour (fuel, spares etc) is just under 4k. So, to be cheaper the additional hours flown from land would need to exceed 250 (1M / 4k).

Based on the additional transit of an hour each way per sortie from GdC, that would equate to 125 sorties flown from land per day before it would cost more for land basing.

This of course is theoretical as the Carrier would have to fly 125 sorties a day to provide a fair compariosn,

So the carrier is not so very cheap after all is it?

In fact, if we could fly 30 sorties from the UK per day it would still be cheaper than 30 from the carrier.

[Capt P U G Wash]

And now to scotch the “more responsive” argument.

This argument has been based on a GCAS type deck alert.

Yet the Libyan operation cannot afford to be so slow. The lack of reliable ground based Intelligence or any preplanned land operation means that we have to be totally proactive vice reactive.

A grad rocket launcher can fire its load in a few minutes so the only antidote is to be airborne over the likely threat areas and catch it before it gets into a firing position.

This means pre planned times over the likely areas. So aircraft from GdC launch in sufficient time to take over from a previous sortie, thus providing a 24 hour coverage in concert with others

Anyone who knows carrier operations, knows that a single Carrier could never hope to provide a 24 hour capability (CdG does between 6 and 8 hours a day max).

The big USN carriers (just as will be the case for PoW and QEC) have to carefully orchestrate launches and recoveries, so they are relatively inflexible on their own.

So neither cheaper or more responsive in this theatre – I hope the PM asked 1SL to show his workings as well as just take his b*****ing.

[RODHJ]

Also carriers are susceptable to submarine attack, lets not forget the Belgrano!

[Justanopinion]

This means pre planned times over the likely areas. So aircraft from GdC launch in sufficient time to take over from a previous sortie,

Land based aircraft goes winchester 20 mins after arriving on task, other land based aircraft still 600 miles out. Fail to see how that is more responsive than a carrier based aircraft 20 mins away.

GCAS from Kandahar was aways good to have to fill the gaps as well as the XCAS covering areas. The carrier off Libya could be providing this flexibility.

The big USN carriers (just as will be the case for PoW and QEC) have to carefully orchestrate launches and recoveries, so they are relatively inflexible on their own.

Discuss?

Yes a SINGLE carrier will not do 24 hour ops. Again, there is a need for both the Land and Sea based operations to cover the 24 hours efficiently but lets not pretend a land base as far away as GdC is more responsive than a Carrier can be in this current theatre.

[Capt P U G Wash]

As I tried to explain, it isn’t about response it is about proactive presence. In any event, much of the targeting is now deliberate.
If the scenario was as you described (it isn’t), then theoretically the carrier could feed the fight more quickly (I will grant you that), but an Invincible class arsenal would be empty in matter of days and would have to return to dock to rearm.
And, of course, the carrier fans conveniently forget the same argument in favour of the response time of land based air for Afghanistan, where response from GCAS is far more critical and cost effective.

As the CdG shows, it can only keep up that intensity for short bursts.
And a carrier based aircraft invariably carries a smaller load, especially in the summer heat we are now about to encounter.

Most importantly, the carriers could not deliver any of that without all the land based air support – ISTAR, refuelling and ABC2.

[lj101]

Capt P U G Wash

Allied nations are NOT allowing some foreign weapons to be deployed from their shores though (but i am sure you are aware of this).

[Justanopinion]

an Invincible class arsenal would be empty in matter of days and would have to return to dock to rearm.

RFA solves that one

And, of course, the carrier fans conveniently forget the same argument in favour of the response time of land based air for Afghanistan, where response from GCAS is far more critical and cost effective.


Good job we had Harriers to go there at the end of 2004.

And a carrier based aircraft invariably carries a smaller load, especially in the summer heat we are now about to encounter.


Yes but still provides the flexibility.

Never argued that Carrier power can do it alone, although in this theatre could do it without land based AAR if required - Superhornet as an example buddy tanking, if even needed, and its limitation in load out is landing weight for the Trap.

[Capt P U G Wash]

lj101 and justanopinion,

I thnk we have culminated.

I think we can agree that the Carrier provides additional flexibility for certain scenarios.

But....

It cannot be assumed to be cheaper or more responsive in all, or indeed many, of those scenarios.

..and it will invariably require land based support.

Now all we need to agree on is how much is that additional flexibility worth paying for....

These sweeping statements of "faster, cheaper" have to be questioned and tested more robustly before we commit large proportions of our dwindling Defence budget.

[lj101]

P U G


Ministry of Defence | About Defence | Corporate Publications | Annual Reports (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/AnnualReports/)

09/10 accounts - page 97

No need to shout

[Occasional Aviator]

LJ,

Well yes, but....

The cost quoted for aircraft carriers here is just the cost of operating the ship - not the cost of operating the aircraft. In 09/10, all costs of operating Harrier would have come under the RAF 'Combat Aircraft' heading rather than 'Naval Aircraft'. I don't think these figures have sufficient granularity to make a judgement.

Justanopinion,

although in this theatre could do it without land based AAR if required
is factually accurate, but we are actually refuelling the carrier-based aircraft to get a decent vul time out of them. Buddy refuelling wouldn't deliver anywhere near enough fuel. Actually it seems like we are getting slightly more out of the land-based Rafales than we are out of the carrier-based ones - not just due to the regular 'down-days' and port visits the carrier has, and despite the fact that the land-based Rafales are at one of the most distant bases. Also, to put a misconception to bed, we don't actually launc from a runway or a deck to respond to events on the ground - we react from our airborne assets. Carriers are good for holding the ground alert lines to backfill the programme as they're closer, but don't reduce 'reaction time'.

Before I was in Italy I was in Afghanistan and there are lots of similar misconceptions and overstatements of what carrier air brings there.

FACT 1 - there are parts of the globe where you need a carrier to affect them.
FACT 2 - a carrier is probably one of the best ways to project influence and statemetns about military intent in coastal areas.

BUT

FACT 3 - the Libya operation could just as easily and just as effectively be done without carriers.

[FODPlod]

I support a complementary mix of land and sea-based air but I can't let some statements stand.

Actually it seems like we are getting slightly more out of the land-based Rafales than we are out of the carrier-based ones...

According to reports, a/c from Charles de Gaulle have provided over a quarter of all NATO attacks (link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8556054/We-should-share-aircraft-carrier-say-French.html)). Are you saying that French land-based a/c have provided even more? Where does that leave the UK if the Danes and Norwegians have struck a third of the targets (with only 12% of the aircraft) while Belgium and Canada have also made major contributions (link (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/10/transcript-of-defense-secretary-gatess-speech-on-natos-future/))?



Charles de Gaulle typically launches 35 to 40 sorties per day (link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/15/501364/main20054352.shtml?TB_iframe=true&height=650&width=850)). How many do the similar number of RAF a/c at Gioia in Italy achieve while spending 2-3 hours of each sortie in transit?

- not just due to the regular 'down-days' and port visits the carrier has

What down days and port visits? Charles de Gaulle sailed Toulon on 20 March and has been re-supplied at sea.



Before they were withdrawn, even Kearsarge's Harrier AV-8Bs were flying two sorties per night and making quite an impression (link (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6072569)).

Marginal costs of a Harrier, Typhoon or Tornado hour (fuel, spares etc) is just under 4k. So, to be cheaper the additional hours flown from land would need to exceed 250 (1M / 4k).

Harrier £37k per flying hour. Typhoon £70k and Tornado £35k (link (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101125w0001.htm)).



Doesn't spending two or three hours of every sortie in transit also affect Time On Task as well as the cost of extra fuel, tanker support and airframe usage?

When not required, land-based a/c and their associated personnel will sit at a base in the UK for months on end while awaiting the next call. In the meantime, a carrier will roam the oceans performing defence diplomacy and exercise soft power with its physical presence while supporting maritime interdiction ops and gathering intelligence (especially valuable since the scrapping of MRA4s) or providing humanitarian aid and disaster relief. When necessary, it can move 500 nm per day to provide its services, act as a deterrent, poise unseen over the horizon as a contingency, apply hard power or simply slip away again if no need materialises.

[Occasional Aviator]

I'm not going to go any further into figures for security reasons, but I'll say this:

I don't know where the Telegraph gets its figures from, but I'm getting mine from the ATO stats and combat assessment at the CAOC. You choose who to trust.

Also note that lots of people (and nations) have an interest in spinning stats and picking those numbers that make themselves look good - it isn't a straight comparison when you yourself are quoting sorties flown, attacks and targets hit. You could also measure weapons delivered, successful attacks, targets destroyed, hours flown etc, all of which would give you a subtly different picture. I'm just giving a perspective from my (very well informed) position of what does what on the ATO.

CDG has not flown every day. Sometimes because it was broken, and regularly to rest the crew or carry out maintenance. Six aircraft by two sorties a night out of 200+ (using the figures in DefenseNews) are not 'quite an impression', they're single-figure percentages. I'll give you the point about port visits, must have been thinking of OCEA or Garibaldi.

[FODPlod]

Six aircraft by two sorties a night out of 200+ (using the figures in DefenseNews) are not 'quite an impression', they're single-figure percentages.This is still 6% of the sorties by only 3% of the a/c involved so they were obviously pulling their weight.

The impression I meant was:

On the first night of Odyssey Dawn, four of the Kearsarge's six Harriers took to the skies at 4 a.m. to join other U.S. and allied aircraft halting government forces advancing on rebel-held Benghazi... Covering the 150 miles to Benghazi in about 15 minutes, the pilots saw explosions from attacks on the loyalist military vehicles that were launched by U.S. Air Force F-15s and F-16s already on the scene. The Harriers engaged the middle section of a convoy of about 50 vehicles, including Russian-built T-72 tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery pieces, which were spread along several kilometers of the highway. Dropping six GPU-12 laser-guided bombs, the Harriers destroyed four tanks, one refueling truck and an infantry fighting vehicle.

"We had indications of anti-aircraft radar activity, but were not fired on," Wyrsch said.

At 10 p.m. on March 20, four Harriers took off for a second sortie to locate and attack the remnants of the same convoy, which had been reinforced by new vehicles outside the city of Ajdabiya. Using night-vision goggles, the pilots dropped 12 GPU-12s, destroying mobile artillery and rocket launchers.

Harrier raids were suspended on the third night of operations, when two Ospreys were scrambled to pick up the pilot of an F-15E who had ejected near Benghazi after his fighter jet apparently suffered a mechanical failure. Two Harriers from the Kearsarge arrived on the scene before the Ospreys and flew low over a "suspect" group of armored vehicles... The Ospreys came in at 250 mph and under 1,000 feet of altitude, following laser designation provided by an accompanying Harrier that had a GPS reference. "We were looking at a needle and avoiding populated areas," one pilot said. They landed and retrieved the F-15 pilot.I understand your reasons for being so scornful but this sounds pretty impressive to me.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Apart from pointing out that a carrier can get nearer (you do say that percentage of sorties flown is a meaningless yardstick), and provide a more timely response, I'd say that a deployment of land based aircraft isn't without its logistical problems (AAR tankers and their costs?), even on a friendly airbase.....and a supply tail back to the UK:

Transporting vital equipment for Libya operations (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/TransportingVitalEquipmentForLibyaOperations.htm)

Does CDG still operate SuE as well?

[Capt P U G Wash]

Like Occasional Aviator, I too use the actual classified figures. The newspapers/media are being lazy in using those of individuals who are deliberately obfuscating the truth.

The fact is that the land based French aircraft provide more time over Libya per aircraft than does CdG.

Do not conflate numbers of bombs dropped with effects achieved. The Dual Mode Seeker Brimstone has been instrumental in clearing out the armour/artillery in urban areas. On the same argument, numbers of sorties does not equal effect.

The full quote from the CBS link was:
"On U.S. carriers we trap about 160 aircraft a day at sea, but here it's just 35-40 a day," he said. "Also, on U.S. carriers we're able to launch and trap aircraft at the same time, but because of the shorter size here we need to close the carrier deck for each operation."

The 35-40 will be a maximum number and will include all sorts of sorties not just those that conduct A-G support. The inflexible launch windows and days off will also reduce this number. The down days are at sea.

The costs you quote are the capital costs (based on purchase price) – they are not what are used for in year funding – that is the c4k per flying hour I quoted. If you were to attribute the full cost of the aircraft purchase then your future cost arguments for a JSF equipped QEC would be astronomical.

Sharkey always use the capital charge figures because of the higher cost of Typhoon so early in its life when divided by hours flown to date. He won’t use them when the JSF arrives! Also, he conveniently forgets that the Tornado is cheaper than Harrier.

The time on task would be effected by the transit time (mitigated mostly through AAR), but the Harrier has the shortest endurance of the three.

Your roaming Carrier will have some very dull aircrew on board as they will have had limited opportunity to train at the top end of their skill sets. A USN CAG is at the peak of its powers just as it deploys and then gracefully degrades thereafter – most CAGS would not stay at sea for longer than 6 months because of this.

An empty ship could roam the oceans looking for a fight. However, the aircraft can move 500nm in an hour, rather than a day. Because the poilitical decision to act came so late against Libya (a matter of hours before the first strike) the Carrier would have had to prepare and sail openly many days/weeks before the politicians were ready to commit. Only UK based air strikes gave the political choices needed in this case. Remind me again how long it took Ocean to fly a single AH sortie after it left port?


Of course a land based operation requires logistic support. However, are you honestly saying that a land supplied operation on the European mainland using trucks is more expensive than the running costs of the RFAs?

[Jimlad1]

"Of course a land based operation requires logistic support. However, are you honestly saying that a land supplied operation on the European mainland using trucks is more expensive than the running costs of the RFAs? "

More critically, every time someone mentions the RFA as the magic card in the RN argument, they forget that the RFA has only a finite level of stores onboard before it too needs to go and top up. RFAs are dependent on access to ports too, and we would need an FLS in a friendly country with the RFA for any op over a few days in length.

[FODPlod]

RFAs are dependent on access to ports too, and we would need an FLS in a friendly country with the RFA for any op over a few days in length.If you are going to post such outrageously uninformed statements as this, at least try to provide some supporting evidence.

[Pontius Navigator]

FODPlod, it looks pretty well informed from here. The Fleet train is of finite length and subject to the same financial cuts as the fleet. The only bright spot :( is that fewer escorts will need less support.

[Jimlad1]

"If you are going to post such outrageously uninformed statements as this, at least try to provide some supporting evidence"

Posting on my clear understanding of the number of days munitions that can be carried on a CVS, and the RFA and how long this can be sustained for.

Its a simple fact - During sustained and intensive air operations, then beyond X date (X being classified of course) an RFA will no longer have stocks onboard of certain items and will need to put into port to get some more.

This requires access to fuel depots, an airhead to fly the parts in, ground personnel to move stuff from A-B etc. The RN has always set up FLS to support operations - it ran them from Bari during the 90s, it runs them from Bahrain now to support the Arabian Gulf.

The RFA are superb but they are unfortunately reliant on a shore chain until they develop star trek type transporters - although given the fantasy world that most CVF fanatics live in at present, I'm surprised they've not suggested that idea already...

[jamesdevice]

the title of the thread is "Carrier Aviation = Cheapest"

Surely if you want cheapest, the answer is to take the hull of an ultra-large tanker or bulk carrier, build a number of launch rails over its deck / bows and stuff it full of an updated folding-wing version of the German V1 with automated magazines to load them onto the launch rails.
Modern technology should give you a 100.000 tonne ship with several hundred (thousands even??) cheap standoff missiles capable of 1500 mile range at low-level high subsonic speeds. The ship would be able to stay at sea for months with a crew of around 30. If you launched the missiles in salvoes of around 100 or more you'd overwhelm any defences, especially if you fitted some of the missiles with jamming gear.
Paint the ship to resemble a known merchant vessel and it would become the ultimate Q-ship.
You'd need to update the guidance mechanism to give a decent accuracy, but otherwise the general improvement in materials since the 1940's should give the extra range required

No high cost carrier required, no RFA needed, minimal support crew, and no pilots needed. What a budget save!!!!
Hmmmm.no pilots... I bet no-one here will agree with me

[Jimlad1]

Personally, unlike the above poster, I try not to post when stoned or otherwise under the influence of mind bending drugs... :E

[jamesdevice]

well Number ten wants cost savings, so why not suggest some?
Its no worse than the politicians way of saving money

[Jig Peter]

You're a bit young to remember suggestions around "Falklands" time of container ships being used as Harrier bases, but you must remeber what 100 or so Tomahawks did a few weeks ago off Libya.
Jimlad just combined the two in his reasonable "what-if" post., without"altered satates of mind" to come into question.

PS - If you feel my tone is patronising, I've got half a century of practice over you in responding to "blinkered yooves".

[jamesdevice]

firstly my state of mind only gets altered by alcohol, and you've not got so many years on me as you think.
My post may have been flippant - but the core logic is there. You don't need a nuclear submarine to launch missiles - any old cheap platform will do, the bigger the better. The 20 or so missiles on a sub are pretty much pointless anyway: not enough to achieve anything, and anyway the Tomahwks are too expensive. You need large numbers of cheap missiles launched far enough away that the launch platform isn't vulnerable. And if you can launch enough, then much of the need for a carrier (not all I agree) is gone

[Jig Peter]

APOLOGY

Ecksherly I was talking to Jimlad, after he poured water on your not-so-unreasonable idea.
Note to self: Must remember that I can't remember things for more than a moment ...

[jamesdevice]

Jig Peter
OK, I think confusion all round in that case. My apologies for misunderstanding you!

[glojo]

Remind me again how long it took Ocean to fly a single AH sortie after it left port?Your wish is my command.

In April this year she deployed with other commando carrying warships to take part in both exercise Cougar 11 and Cypriot Lion. As soon as she was asked to deploy to the coast of Libya then she went. Right ship in the right place at the right time.

I guess these threads ALWAYS try to suggest that a carrier would always be in the wrong place at the wrong time simply does not hold water. HMS Ocean was NOT in the wrong 'ocean' She was in the correct sea with perhaps the correct weapons load.

Remind me again how long it took Tornado aircraft to fly from Norfolk to Libya and how many missions were flown by each aircraft from that location.

What would happen if Italy said NO! No RAF aircraft to launch attacks on Libya!

[jamesdevice]

"Right ship in the right place at the right time. "
err, no
that would have been Invincible / Illustrious / Ark Royal with a mix of Harrier / Sea Harrier. Maybe with some recce UAVs on board as well

[Jimlad1]

The reason the idea of sticking V1s on a cargo ship is a non starter is legion. Firstly. the V1 is a remarkably innacurate device, and was prone to technical failure - chucking what was essentially a barely guided drone into an enemy country on the right heading, then hoping it lands somewhere which isnt full of disabled lesbian ethnic minority lesbian schoolgirls who are photogenic for enemy PR, and that it bombs something useful is a vain hope.
The next problem is that you cant turn back the clock - the techniques, machinery and manufacturing stlyes used to make the V1 no longer exist (damn you lack of Jewish slave labour...), and as such we'd need to make it to 21st century standards, which immediately puts the price up. To make it to 21st century standards means updating the design to put things into it that have replaced components etc, and before you know it you've got a brand new and jolly expensive missile on your hands.

As for the Q-Ship - firstly you'd need a major ship with massive alterations to do it, in terms of magazines, safety, fire control, targeting, damage control etc. 30 crew would be enough to stand 3 watches on the bridge and engines and thats it - how do you propose to sustain, support and fight the ship. The second problem is how do you propose to transmit firing orders to the ship to actually let lose its salvo of missiles? Then how does the ship fire and reload them without being fairly obvious to any vessels nearby?

Q-Ships were great in the days before AIS and 24/7 connectivity, wheras now they are a waste of time.

The whole idea is a tremendous waste of resources, and built on an impossible concept which would never actually work. Why not spend money on proper warships rather than something as dangerous to the crew as the enemy...

[glojo]

"Right ship in the right place at the right time. "
err, no
that would have been Invincible / Illustrious / Ark Royal with a mix of Harrier / Sea Harrier. Maybe with some recce UAVs on board as well :ok::=

Not going to bite :ouch:

Ark Royal, plus Phantoms, plus Buccaneers..

Where're my buccaneers?

On your buckin 'ead sir!

Never ever been a fan of those pretendie half hearted so called aircraft carriers. If you play the game then play it properly or not at all... Pussy cats and mousetraps is what pretty girls are made of.

Lets get back to convertible tankers carrying their Guy Fawkes rockets :p:) I could give you details of these fantastic ships but that information is classified :uhoh:

[jamesdevice]

glojo
You;re right - the old Ark would have been better, I was only considering what we still had available, or may be able to regenerate


Jimlad1
just because the major aircraft companies have moved on, it doesn't mean the skills to build a cheap disposable airframe no longer exist. There are any number of engineering companies who have the metal-bending skills required
As for the comments re accuracy - all the hardware required to give decent targetting ability is built into any modern mobile phone. You just have to provide the control interface from it to the missile - which is just a matter of writing the code
As to your other comments. Building a self-loading magazine is a basic engineering problem. Explosion risk? No worse than sitting on a tanker. Probably safer as theres less flammable liquid involved. In fact that would be the only major problem - devising a safe automated fuelling system. But maybe even that could be resolved by using gel fuels.

[Jimlad1]

James - I'm guessing you've never served a day in uniform, and are still a sea cadet or overly keen amateur with no idea what really goes on in HM Forces?

If something was as cheap and as easy as you make it out to be, why dont you think its been done already? There is usually a very long list of very good reasons why things don't get done, which make a lot of sense once you look into it...

[jamesdevice]

guess wrong on all counts

why hasn't it been done? Because the senior staff would lose their status and fleets of shiny toys, and the howls of complaint from the vested interests such as BAE and the MOD would be enormous
Its obviously not a total solution, and would have been useless in an all-out war against the Commies, but if all you want is a low-risk attack force against a country like Libya / Argentina with minimal capability to retaliate then its ideal.


Another reason its not been considered is that too many people in "the establishment" think like you: they've got a molehill in their garden which they call "K2"

[glojo]

Posting on my clear understanding of the number of days munitions that can be carried on a CVS, and the RFA and how long this can be sustained for.

Its a simple fact - During sustained and intensive air operations, then beyond X date (X being classified of course) an RFA will no longer have stocks onboard of certain items and will need to put into port to get some more.

This requires access to fuel depots, an airhead to fly the parts in, ground personnel to move stuff from A-B etc. The RN has always set up FLS to support operations - it ran them from Bari during the 90s, it runs them from Bahrain now to support the Arabian Gulf.

The RFA are superb but they are unfortunately reliant on a shore chain until they develop star trek type transporters - although given the fantasy world that most CVF fanatics live in at present, I'm surprised they've not suggested that idea already..Yup, our 30,000 ton plus Royal fleet Auxillaries will 'very quickly' run out of stores and will need to replenish :uhoh::sad: but whilst they go off station then we can use any other NATO vessel just like as been done for many, many years. It is not a problem.

[Jimlad1]

"vested interests such as BAE and the MOD"

Interesting, so the MOD is a vested interest? I think that demonstrates that you don't know how the system works.

"Another reason its not been considered is that too many people in "the establishment" think like you: they've got a molehill in their garden which they call "K2" "

Nope, its not been considered because its a completely insane idea which meets no staff requirement, would be unbelievably expensive, deliver nothing which can't already be done for far less money and which has no credible military value in the modern world. But apart from that, if you want to convince yourself that the entire military community worldwide is full of vested interests who somehow think that flying a highly unreliable WW2 era rocket which hasnt been manfuctured for 70 years, off a merchant vessel not designed to do anything other than sail from A-B, and then send it into a warzone with no crew, no comms etc, in order to fire an obsolete weapon on a blind trajectory without any idea as to where it may land, then please do so.

"Yup, our 30,000 ton plus Royal fleet Auxillaries will 'very quickly' run out of stores and will need to replenish http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif but whilst they go off station then we can use any other NATO vessel just like as been done for many, many years. It is not a problem. "

I'm not saying its going to happen quickly, but the fact is that to sustain carrier ops, the RN and every other navy going requires a land facility at some point in the chain. Show me any naval campaign in the 20th or 21st century sustained at distance where a shore base was not utilised in some form or another.

More to the point, we only have 3 left of these store ships now, of which only 1 is designed specifically as the carrier AOR. There is no big RFA anymore - we have 5 tankers (2 Rovers, 2 Waves and I believe a Leaf still out there) and 3 store ships to support the entire RN effort worldwide. Only 5 years ago we had 9 tankers (3 Rovers, 2 Waves, 4 Leafs) and 4 store ships, and since then our commitments have increased. Other navies are also running short on supply ships, and there is a much reduced chance of them being available to support purely national ops. I'm not saying that there isn't the chance, but we have to be realistic as to what we can and cant do now.

[jamesdevice]

MOD is very much a vested interest
Vested in maintaining jobs forth the boys, spending money with companies who'll offer nice pleasant landing seats when people retire from the civil service, in spinning out contracts as long as possible so they'll be kept in a job for life, or at least until they can pick up a fat pension and move on to a role in industry

As for "a highly unreliable WW2 era rocket " - I seem to remember that reliability was actually quite high. Using modern engineering techniques and better quality modern materials (which does NOT imply increased cost) then the things would work reliably. As I said before, resolving the targeting issue would be trivial, using commercially available off-the-shelf parts
Your comments about communications are a red herring. Modern comms equipment can be provided as a low-cost containerised bolt-ons i while target info could easily be acquired as of now, by satellite, RPV or boots on ground

[Jimlad1]

So in other words, you have no idea what the MOD is do you?

In the most literal sense of the word, the MOD is the organisation which encompasses the 3 armed services, their reserves and the civil service.

The MOD as an organisation is essentially filling the roles of the strategic HQ which oversees the command and control, and direction of the armed forces, sets out their requirements and priorities and administers them.

The HQ element of the MOD (i.e. Main Building, DE&S etc) is mainly staffed by military officers who are posted in on 2 year tours, often from front line tours and often returning to front line tours. There is a civilian element to support them, but your idea that the MOD is somehow an organisation full of civilians trying to hamstring 'our brave boys' who only exist on the front line is so far from the truth as to be laughable.

Staff requirements are drawn up by military officers, based on their professional understanding of the needs and requirements of their service. The RN has never had a staff requirement to convert a merchant ship to a V1 carrier, and neither has any other armed force in the world. Why are you not getting the hint that its not 'closed thinking' thats preventing this, but that its a really stupid idea with no practical military value at all?

You really must stop believing all you see in the Daily Mail and other places because , its not usually true...

[jamesdevice]

I bet if the MOD told you pigs fly you'd believe them
Anyway I rarely read the Mail - its target audience is blue-rinse Tory madams.
Don't think I quite fit the demograph

As for no staff requirement - history is full of staff requirements that change, get cancelled, don't make sense or are unattainable. Conversely there have been a fair number of weapons which made it into significant service and never had a staff requirement issued. The Tallboy bomb I believe was one...not only was there no staff requirement, there wasn't even a production order for them placed until AFTER they had been used

[Jimlad1]

"I bet if the MOD told you pigs fly you'd believe them"

Of the two of us here its increasingly clear, only one of us has worked in the MOD and worn dark blue uniform. I'll stick with what I know from experience, rather than the stereotypes you desperately wish to cling to thanks.

"As for no staff requirement - history is full of staff requirements that change, get cancelled, don't make sense or are unattainable"

And yet you still cannot show any evidence of one that has come anywhere near meeting your requirement to take a 2nd world war unguided rocket and sticking it on a merchant ship in any military anywhere in the world. How curious...

"Conversely there have been a fair number of weapons which made it into significant service and never had a staff requirement issued."

Care to name some since WW2?

[larssnowpharter]

Harrier

A few words added.

[jamesdevice]

"Care to name some since WW2? "

Well from memory (correct me if I'm wrong - I'm sure you will) AIM-9L for the Falklands
I seem to remember the AEW Sea King didn't arise from a staff target, but was an unsolicted offer.
Then theres a whole host of minor Falklands items which had to be purchased in a rush - often from regimental funds. High leg boots for one (trench foot problems). Bergens that were big enough (remember the film of the paras having to use BLUE bergens because ti was all they could get in a hurry!)

Of course I could go on to mention the numerous staff targets which have resulted in contracts which have turned into absolute disasters, but I'm sure you have them all off by rote

Please don't try to tell me the MOD has a clue what its doing when it comes to staff requirements and contracts

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

James,

Just for a bit of clarity and balance but without going into specifics can you tell me what your military experience is?

[Justanopinion]

The big USN carriers (just as will be the case for PoW and QEC) have to carefully orchestrate launches and recoveries, so they are relatively inflexible on their own.

and then

On U.S. carriers we trap about 160 aircraft a day at sea, but here it's just 35-40 a day," he said. "Also, on U.S. carriers we're able to launch and trap aircraft at the same time,

So the big USN carriers (just as will be the case for PoW and QEC) are not so inflexible.

Buddy refuelling wouldn't deliver anywhere near enough fuel.

No it will not deliver nearly as much fuel as a Tanker however can and is used at the beginning and end of sorties IF required. Also see Belize 1970s.

n Afghanistan and there are lots of similar misconceptions and overstatements of what carrier air brings there.

Bringing the carrier argument to Afghanistan is futile as there is basing in country however they were of use in 2001.

The time on task would be effected by the transit time (mitigated mostly through AAR), but the Harrier has the shortest endurance of the three.


Aaaah the oft used less endurance of the Harrier argument, apart from in Afghanistan where the non tanked sortie lengths of Harrier and Tornado were remarkably similar.

Carriers are not the panacea and land based power will always be required however there is no doubt that we would have had a very valid use for our Harriers and Carriers in this conflict and who is to say it would not have expedited the whole thing.

We have the potential to have two large carriers in the future with a multi role aircraft capable of operating from land and sea. Then we have the ability to operate autonomously anywhere in the world and not be entirely reliant on other nations as we are in Libya. Then when land based air is set up the two can work in unison. Even the sorties from the UK needed overflight rights etc which were by no means guaranteed now were they.

[Capt P U G Wash]

Remind me again how long it took Tornado aircraft to fly from Norfolk to Libya and how many missions were flown by each aircraft from that location.

What would happen if Italy said NO! No RAF aircraft to launch attacks on Libya!

Just under 4 hours from political decision to act. That would also have been the point at which a sea deployment would have been authorised; so, based on Ocean's response time that would be about 3 months!
The UK based Tornados flew a sortie each night flying into Italy on the third day when the targetting switched. They delivered more strikes than the pre-positioned TLAM sub which then had to leave to rearm, and were enforcing the NFZ after 72 hours - Typhoon did the same in 24 hours - not bad for an unresponsive act eh?

If Italy said no I guess we would have to ask another NATO nation. No NATO permissions, I guess that would be the end of the NATO operation then.

[Jimlad1]

"Well from memory (correct me if I'm wrong - I'm sure you will) AIM-9L for the Falklands"

If memory serves correctly, the UK already had AIM9-L in service in 82, however our stocks were attributed to the central front, so we instead got access to US stocks. The weapon was in service.

"I seem to remember the AEW Sea King didn't arise from a staff target, but was an unsolicted offer."

IIRC the Sea King had previously been looked at, and ISTR there was an aspirational target raised at some point, although it may have been shelved to funding.

"Then theres a whole host of minor Falklands items which had to be purchased in a rush - often from regimental funds. High leg boots for one (trench foot problems). Bergens that were big enough (remember the film of the paras having to use BLUE bergens because ti was all they could get in a hurry!)"

So soldiers do what soldiers do best which is to buy kit to suit their needs? Falklands was a classic example of people adapting in an emergency to do something no one ever expected to do. Strangely enough the lessons were learnt and new kit was bought into service.

"Of course I could go on to mention the numerous staff targets which have resulted in contracts which have turned into absolute disasters, but I'm sure you have them all off by rote"

Well perhaps you'd like to name some, as so far you've managed to cite the whole evidence of a unit using blue bergans in a hurry. Not a hugely impressive track record so far.

"Please don't try to tell me the MOD has a clue what its doing when it comes to staff requirements and contracts "

I disagree - things have gone wrong, and no one doubts that. The important thnig to do is to work out WHY things seem to have gone wrong, and then one can look into a litany of confused aspirations, poorly defined requirements, changes in funding profiles, issues with new priorities etc.
However, the MOD has also done a damn good job at responding quickly - take a look at the forces in HERRICK - we've listened to troop requests, UOR kit to meet the massively changing operational environment is constantly coming into service - take a look at footage of troops today vs 2006 and its a totally different army out there. When I deployed on HERRICK I was using kit that no one had even thought of 18 months previously (and I know how fast it can go as I'd previously done the job where I had to help sign off on UOR acquisitions and found myself using kit that I'd helped approve not that long before).

Yes things go wrong, but a hell of a lot goes right as well.

I'd also echo other posters - what is your military experience (if any) as right now you come across as either a cadet, a wannabe or a very old and retired individual who doesnt know how todays forces work.

[lj101]

On 19 March, nineteen French Air Force aircraft entered Libyan airspace to begin reconnaissance missions, and flew over Benghazi to prevent any attacks on the rebel-controlled city.[201] Italian Air Force planes reportedly also began surveillance operations over Libya. In the evening, a French jet carried out the first Coalition airstrike, destroying a government vehicle , and followed up shortly afterward with a second airstrike that destroyed four tanks southwest of Benghazi.[202] US and British naval vessels fired at least 114 Tomahawk cruise missiles at twenty Libyan integrated air and ground defense systems.[203] Three United States B-2 Spirit stealth bombers flew non-stop from the United States to drop forty bombs on a major Libyan airfield, while other US aircraft searched for Libyan ground forces to attack.[204][205] Twenty-five coalition naval vessels, including three US submarines, began operating in the area.[206]

Libyan State TV reported that government forces had shot down a French warplane over Tripoli on 19 March, a claim denied by France.[207]

On 20 March, several Storm Shadow missiles were launched against Libyan targets by British jets.[208] Nineteen U.S. jets also conducted strikes against Libyan government forces. A loyalist convoy south of Benghazi was targeted. At least seventy vehicles were destroyed, and loyalist ground troops sustained multiple casualties.[209] Strikes also took place on the Bab al-Aziziya compound in Tripoli from late 20 March to early 21 March.

P U G

On 17 March, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution to impose a no-fly zone in Libyan airspace - think by that calculation, 4 hours later is not quite true....

[Justanopinion]

That would also have been the point at which a sea deployment would have been authorised

Really?

On 19 March US and British naval vessels fired at least 114 Tomahawk cruise missiles at twenty Libyan integrated air and ground defense systems.

Maybe they weren't authorised. How did the Americans manage to have their carrier on station? Tornado fired more than the 114 TLAM, amazing.

[Capt P U G Wash]

Just,

Sailing a submarine out there quietly under water is one thing; sailing the fleet from harbour is quite another. Political choice and the ability to deny, delay or de-escalate is key. Even if the Ark had been here it would not have been ready or able. Ocean only managed because it was on a pre-planned exercise - lucky guess?

Lj101 - 4 hours from the PM deciding to act, not the passing of the UN resolution.

[FODPlod]

Ever heard of indicators and warnings?

Events in Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan and Egypt kicked off the Arab Spring in late Jan/early Feb and looked like spreading. HMG should have started contingency planning and considered deploying RN assets, including a carrier had one been available. I suggested it in other forums at the time. Earmarked ships and submarines could have stored, sailed and been 'acclimatising' in the Med by mid to late Feb, picking up anything else necessary at Gib or Malta en route.

The PM proposed his No Fly Zone in the House of Commons on 28 Feb (link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8352954/Libya-Cameron-proposes-no-fly-zone-to-protect-Libyan-people-from-attacks-by-Gaddafi-loyalists.html)). UNSCR 1973 wasn't passed until 17 Mar (link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution)). RN assets would already have been in precisely the right place (as was HMS Triumph) to acquire situational awareness and act with maximum effect for NEO or whatever else necessary. Had nothing transpired, RN units could simply have melted away to continue monitoring events in North Africa/the Middle East while continuing to provide valuable intelligence.

[Modern Elmo]

Events in Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan and Egypt kicked off the Arab Spring in late Jan/early Feb and looked like spreading. HMG should have started contingency planning and considered deploying RN assets, including a carrier had one been available.

Contingency planning to do what? Bomb all those places at the same time?

If evil dictators surrender when there's a carrier offshore, why is Kadaffy holding out? The CdG is on the scene, isn't it?


... Earmarked ships and submarines could have stored, sailed and been 'acclimatising' in the Med by mid to late Feb, picking up anything else necessary at Gib or Malta en route.

All the last-minute needs beiing cleverly pre-positioned there. Uh-huh.


... RN assets would already have been in precisely the right place (as was HMS Triumph) to acquire situational awareness and act with maximum effect for NEO or whatever else necessary. [/I}

What maximum effects could RN ships such as Triumph provide? 4.5 inch guns?


Had nothing transpired, RN units could simply have melted away to continue monitoring events in North Africa/the Middle East while continuing to provide valuable intelligence.

What's transpiring now is that units of the RN as well as the Charlie dG. have been bombarding Libya for weeks now, and Kadaffy Duck is still holding out, and thiose other Muslim countries are still going to Hell..

So much for awesome, fearsome naval power.

"Melting away to continue monitoring events in North Africa/the Middle East while continuing to provide valuable intelligence."

If a lucky bomb doesn't get Kadaffy this summer, I expect that political support for the British and French kampf nach Libya ( "nach" -- is that the wrong preposition? ) to melt away, all right. They'll put out some weak cover story like that: "Melting away to continue monitoring events in North Africa/the Middle East ..."

[Modern Elmo]

FACT 2 - a carrier is probably one of the best ways to project influence and statemetns about military intent in coastal areas.

American aircraft carrier fans have been saying junk such as that for sixty years or more.

"Put some of our big carriers offshore! That'll show that tinpot dictator we mean business!"

But it never works. The tinpot dictators are unimpressed, even the smallest, dinky-est little dumps such as Panama or Grenada.

To get the bad boss, tinpot or otherwise, out of power, the USA always ends up having to people on the ground in country in sufficient strength.

... I guess it's ancient history now, but the USAF and USN carrier aviation had been bombing Iraq for years and years before 2003. The bombing didn't make the late Saddam H. retire.

[lj101]

Lj101 - 4 hours from the PM deciding to act, not the passing of the UN resolution.

Not true...You see P U G, some of us were involved in the mission!

[Capt P U G Wash]

you are not the only one!

[FODPlod]

... RN assets would already have been in precisely the right place (as was HMS Triumph) to acquire situational awareness and act with maximum effect for NEO or whatever else necessary. What maximum effects could RN ships such as Triumph provide? 4.5 inch guns?Now I know the poverty of your knowledge and argument, I will treat it accordingly:

In March 2011, she participated in Operation Ellamy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ellamy), firing Tomahawk cruise missiles on 19 March, 20 March and again on 24 March at Libyan air defence targets. Triumph returned to Devonport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMNB_Devonport) on 3 April 2011 flying a Jolly Roger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolly_Roger) adorned with six small Tomahawk axes to indicate the missiles fired by the submarine in the operation.

Triumph has fired several more TLAMs since then.

[Chainkicker]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia article about HMS Triumph
In March 2011, she participated in Operation Ellamy, firing Tomahawk cruise missiles on 19 March, 20 March and again on 24 March at Libyan air defence targets. Triumph returned to Devonport on 3 April 2011 flying a Jolly Roger adorned with six small Tomahawk axes to indicate the missiles fired by the submarine in the operation.

Triumph has fired several more TLAMs since then.

So, correct me if im wrong but what you're saying is, Triumph shot 6 over 6 days and then took a week or so to return to Plymouth to reload?

[Chainkicker]

Tornado fired more than the 114 TLAM, amazing

If you reread PUG's post, he compared the UK contribution (which appears to be 6?) not the overall coalition effort.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

So, correct me if im wrong but what you're saying is, Triumph shot 6 over 6 days and then took a week or so to return to Plymouth to reload?

I cannot wait for the dark blue spin on that one :p

[The Helpful Stacker]

I cannot wait for the dark blue spin on that one

Any idea how many sorties the RAF managed to fly whilst HMS Triumph sailed all the way back to England to reload? Sorties from RAF Marnham or Gioia Del Colle, they all count.

[FODPlod]

So, correct me if im wrong but what you're saying is, Triumph shot 6 over 6 days and then took a week or so to return to Plymouth to reload?Delighted to oblige.

As any well-informed poster would know, Trafalgar could have reloaded at any NATO naval base in the Med. She returned to Plymouth for maintenance and leave after completing her deployment which would mainly have involved stooging off the Libyan coast monitoring shipping activity and gathering INT. She probably had TLAMs to spare but only launched what was ordered. Trafalgar Class SSNs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar_class_submarine) can carry up to 30 TLAMs/torpedoes while the new Astute Class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute_class_submarine) can carry up to 38.

Don't smirk too much. Unlike some forces personnel who spend 16 months out of 20 sitting at their base in the UK (see RAF Harmony Guidelines below) and deploy to places like RAF Club Med in Italy, RN submariners (and other Naval Service personnel (RN including FAA & RM)) deploy on operations for much longer. Indeed, one submarine only recently returned from over 10 months (307 days to be precise) away from home (MoD website link (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/HmsTirelessReturnsFromLengthyDeployment.htm)):39th Armed Forces Pay Review Body Report (2010) (http://www.raf-ff.org.uk/images/library/files/20100310__AFPRB_Report.pdf):
Service Harmony Guidelines comprise:


Royal Navy and Royal Marines – 60 per cent deployed and 40 per cent at base in a 3-year cycle with no more than 660 days away from home over a rolling 3-year period



Army – 6 months on operations in every 30-month period with separated service no more than 415 days away over a rolling 30-month period.



RAF – 4 months on operations in a 20-month period with separated service no more than 280 days over a rolling 24-month period.

[Airborne Aircrew]

But it never works. The tinpot dictators are unimpressed, even the smallest, dinky-est little dumps such as Panama or Grenada.

One could point out that the fact "it never works" is more a reflection on the political "masters" who lack the intestinal fortitude to fully "utilize" the carrier group than on the carrier group itself. After all, when our politicians had some nuts gunboat diplomacy was quite effective.

[Backwards PLT]

FOD, brilliant!!

So the sub could have fired more but chose not to, bit beneath them probably, not proper work for the RN. :D

And what you are saying is that RAF and Army harmony are pretty much the same (1 in 5), also bearing in mind that there aren't many 4 month tours left, most are 6.

The RN delightedly pointing to their harmony guidelines and how tough they get it is equally as good. I naturally assumed that you join the RN to go to sea? Complaining that you do it too much is a bit like the RAF complaining that they are being asked to fly too often.

Also should add (from a post further up) that suggesting that arty can cover the ground attack role was clearly written by someone with no experience of either or a member of the RA! Spraying high explosive around a large area of countryside isn't really what it is about at the moment (and yes I have seen it many times in Afg and yes there is a time and place for arty but it is no way a substitute for Air).

[Justanopinion]

If you reread PUG's post, he compared the UK contribution (which appears to be 6?) not the overall coalition effort.


Thanks for that; he was also pointing out that land based airpower is the only thing that could react quickly enough when clearly sea power, which cannot cover 500 miles in an hour, was able to strike somewhat effectively straight away.

[The Helpful Stacker]

FODPlod - Aren't those of the submarine service compensated for the task which they choose to do?

Everyone has choices, its not as if time spent away from home is a new thing for those in the Silent Service.

[engineer(retard)]

Why do the RN guidelines not include operational service?

[FODPlod]

The RN delightedly pointing to their harmony guidelines and how tough they get it is equally as good. I naturally assumed that you join the RN to go to sea? Complaining that you do it too much is a bit like the RAF complaining that they are being asked to fly too often.I'm not complaining that the RN is doing too much but that the RAF is obviously doing too little in comparison.

Personnel costs make up just over a third (37.5%) of the Defence budget (link (http://www.tgarden.demon.co.uk/writings/articles/2001/ia.htm)). In the context of this thread, the Harmony Guidelines mean that RN personnel (including aircrew and support staff) are demonstrably more productive (and therefore more cost-effective) than RAF personnel because they are able to spend so much more of their time deployed away from base. QED :)

[glad rag]

I'm not complaining that the RN is doing too much but that the RAF is obviously doing too little in comparison.

Here we go again.

[Ron Manager]

Some nonsense being written on both sides of this argument. The sub and those on it make no decisions about when to fire or at what, that is a political decision, so the sub departing after firing a few missiles (the numbers quoted are wrong too!) is irrelevant.
However, the RN are not more productive because they can spend more time away under harmony, that would only be true if the RAF didn't complete defence tasks from their home bases (eg QRA, Air Transport and any other of the myriad tasks that they do without leaving the UK).

[Modern Elmo]

Some of you fellows want the Royal Navy to bring back Q-ships, so why not submarines with deck guns? Something for HMS Triumph to use against Somali pirate boats, don't you see?

Wikipedia says:

In March 2011, she participated in Operation Ellamy, firing Tomahawk cruise missiles on 19 March, 20 March and again on 24 March at Libyan air defence targets. Triumph returned to Devonport on 3 April 2011 flying a Jolly Roger adorned with six small Tomahawk axes to indicate the missiles fired by the submarine in the operation.

Compare to:

AGM-86B/C missiles increase flexibility in target selection. AGM-86B missiles can be air-launched in large numbers by the bomber force. B-52H bombers carry six AGM-86B or AGM-86C missiles on each of two externally mounted pylons and eight internally on a rotary launcher, giving the B-52H a maximum capacity of 20 missiles per aircraft.

Also, I think the P8 will be able to carry at least four, maybe six Tomahawks.

Seriously, I suggest that both the USN and the RN could conduct these neo-colonial gunboat operations much more economically if they used surface launched cruise missiles carried by just about any old surface ship -- or perhaps a new generation RN Q-ship!

Submarine launched cruise missiles are the most expensive variety. Six Tomahawks per round trip = a very weak argument for fission-powered submarines.

[Jimlad1]

"I'm not complaining that the RN is doing too much but that the RAF is obviously doing too little in comparison."

From a personal take, every time Main Building does a remembrance day event, I am always struck that those with the most medals on their chests do appear to be from the RAF.

All three services are incredibly busy, and everyone is working at a pace that would have been considered unlikely even 10 years ago. Engaging in interservice arguments about who works 27 hours a day down t'pit doesnt achieve much, but does go a long way to look incredibly childish, particularly when we consider that regulars and reservists from all 3 services, and the MOD CS, are forward deployed across some deeply unpleasant parts of the globe, and working in arduous and challenging conditions away from home.

[Tourist]

Jimlad

"Engaging in interservice arguments about who works 27 hours a day down t'pit doesnt achieve much, but does go a long way to look incredibly childish"

"From a personal take, every time Main Building does a remembrance day event, I am always struck that those with the most medals on their chests do appear to be from the RAF. "

Yes, it does.

But since we are at it, it's the Royal Marines that always have the most medals, and they are part of the RN.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

THS et al

It would appear that Triumph has returned from a second period (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/submarine-service/fleet-submarines-ssn/trafalgar-class/hms-triumph/news/triumph_home_from_st.htm) of the Libyan coast.

In between Triumph’s two deployments to the Mediterranean, her sister boat HMS Turbulent stood guard off Libya, although she was not required to launch any Tomahawks.

It isn't just TLAM they provide, but valuable ISTAR capabilities.

As for Turbulent, she's doing a ten month deployment (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/submarine-service/fleet-submarines-ssn/trafalgar-class/hms-turbulent/news/turbulent_knuckles_d.htm).

[Capt P U G Wash]

WEBF, perhaps you would care to deal with my post #75, where I tried to keep the thread on track. You could always start another one on the cost of Submarines or the hard working nature of Matelots.