Asturias56
Do you really think that if the carriers had not be ordered then the politicians would have built more frigates and destroyers?Is there any viable alternative to a carrier if you want to strike targets without needing basing and overflight rights, provide air defence for a naval task group operating a distance from friendly bases, or have enough ASW helicopters to maintain constant ASW defence of a task group and any vessels being escorted?
falcon900
Putin - see below. Radical Islam - if hitting targets is needed, carrier based aircraft can do it.
I did promise to write and explain. This is what I originally wrote on 21 November 2017:
----
As a (part time) Sailor, I am aware that the Royal Navy exists to fight wars, therefore a mobile platform for operating fixed wing and rotary ring aircraft seems very relevant. I am also aware that ships operating in a task group with a carrier both support and are supported by the carrier, and the whole force needs to be able to integrate. I am also aware that when not fighting wars, deterrence and defence diplomacy/engagement are major parts of the reason for having a navy. A carrier (with F-35B and Merlins (both ASW and AEW) sounds ideal for both.
What more relevant capabilities did you have in mind?
Apart from the power projection/strike thing, I think of a task group facing air, submarine, and surface threats - possibly projecting power, putting amphibious forces ashore, clearing mines, or protecting important seaborne logistics. What could be more useful than a carrier with nine (or more) ASW helicopters, fixed wing aircraft than can identify and engage air threats at range and provide targeting information to ships and their weapons, and aircraft to extend the task group's radar horizon?
I often deal with people who could be described as ASW Subject Matter Experts - and they know from experience that a task group needs multiple helicopters for effective ASW (as well as frigates/destroyers with hull mounted sonar, and frigates with towed arrays). Incidentally, they used to think nine was the number of Sea Kings needed for 24/7 dipping.
Similarly, it is very difficult for land based aircraft to defend a task group at any range from a friendly airfield, and carrier based fighters allow to intercept unknown aircraft and engage if necessary at ranges far beyond the missile range of even the most advanced anti air missile. Even ignoring the range, ships cannot visually ID aircraft, protect helicopters from hostile aircraft, or provide the same level of attrition to incoming raids.
My background (academic/work) is in Electronics/Communications Engineering - so I understand the importance of defence in depth, dealing with threats at as long a range as possible, and the limits on shipborne radars and weapons due to mast height and so on. Also in the old days aircraft were unable to cue ship based weapons, something F-35B has proved it can do.
So yes I am talking from both Engineering and Dark Blue perspectives. Additionally my RNR (Communications) role is related to something that requires integration within a task group and not just within a single ship, and is involved in aviation. With a large stable platform, the carrier will enable improved access to Satellite Communications, and with USMC elements embarked certain USN systems, which in time the UK might have access to, with a large increase in bandwidth. As a flagship, she will be able to act as a C4ISTAR (sometimes now called C5ISTAR) for a task group. She was also provide a Role 2 medical facility and a few other things.
My previous RNR role involved maritime force protection - you might have noticed how terrorists have found it very difficult to operate in the maritime environment? The moon howling on here amuses but also exasperates me - 'Somalians' in motor boats firing anti ship missiles, nuclear weapons being carried by canoe, unarmed ships near hostile coastlines being hit by missiles - really? You do know a carrier will not go near a hostile coastline - yes? You also know they task groups can transit long distances without stopping at ports? You also know they are escorted by fully armed frigates/destroyers, and have their own defences against things like the small boat threat?
As a child of the 80s/90s, I was aware of the role played by carriers in the Falklands, during the Cold War, in the Gulf War in 1991, then in both the Adriatic and the Gulf throughout the 90s and past the year 2000. After a land centric 10-15 years I think it is a fair bet the next crisis will not be some landlocked or nearly landlocked, in any case carriers supplied a great number of sorties in support of coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and Syria too.
As a supporter of manufacturing industry and exporting, I am aware that some carrier related technologies such as aircraft lifts and landing aids have been exported, and both of these things are not entirely unrelated to civil products. To give you another example, the QEC is powered by Rolls Royce engines that are derived from civil aerospace engines, and similar to a version used for power applications. They also have all sorts of other things that are related to both naval and commercial marine sectors, and things similar to industrial systems - I am thinking of things like the automated weapon handling system. What better showcase for UK industry?
----
Since then the UK has said the carrier capability will be made available, and the Fire and Ice paper from the Human Security Centre has not only remembered the Cold War role of the Invincible class/Sea Harriers, and Sea Kings, but also the utility of carriers in the NATO context and a definite role for our carriers (with F-35B, ASW Merlins, Crowsnest Merlins, etc) as the heart of a NATO task group. Additionally tensions with Iran have highlighted potential threats to shopping - including air and submarine threats. Iran has invested heavily in small submarines and a deck full of ASW helicopters could be useful.
Diplomatically capital warships contribute to our diplomatic strength and can be used as platforms for international talks and conferences. Politically the fact that it took a variety of yards from around the UK (mostly English ones incidentally) shows that we are better together.
As for exports: The carriers are closely related to our involvement in the F-35 project, where something like 10% of each aircraft is British made. For the B version, the Rolls Royce LiftSytem will make that percentage quite a bit higher.
Whilst we may not be exporting carriers, India has expressed interested in the QEC design, and it will have helped sell the future Type 26 frigate design to Australia and Canada. Some naval aviation technologies are made in Britain and exported - I am thinking of things like landing aids from AGI Ltd and aircraft lifts from MacTag. There are civil applications of these technologies as well. Maybe one of the other F-35B users will be interested in the metal coating we developed for landing areas? I did hear that the US Navy is interested in technology such as the Bedford Array (developed for SRVL) to make old school carrier landings a little safer.
Moreover - the Queen Elizabeth class has all sorts of things which Britain exports for naval, merchant vessel, and industrial use. The list really is as long as your arm and includes things like:
Marine Gas Turbines
Diesel Generators
Engine Controls
Propulsion Motors
Shafting
Steering Gear
Stabilisers
Electrical Generators and distribution
Lighting Equipment
Domestic Facilities
Galley Equipment
Bridge Equipment
Radar
Echo Sounders
Sonar
Navigation Equipment
Communications Equipment
Stores handling equipment
Damage Control and Firefighting Equipment
Safety and Survival Equipment
Small Boats
Deck Equipment
Design and Consultancy
Simulation
Software