Originally Posted by
mahogany bob
Any chance of getting off the rather boring subject of - why the spares took so long - and get back to the rather vital topics of.
. should the carrier be the other side of the world when tensions in Europe are so high ? - according to some we are AT WAR !
and should we concentrate on EUROPE / home defence rather than WORLDWIDE operations ?
. Are carriers too vulnerable in a real war ?
. Does the RN really enjoy having carriers to the detriment of other assets ?
Should the carrier be the other side of the World? Perhaps not, but the deployment was announced years ago, and cancelling it would nor have been a good look, and the first exercises were NATO exercises. However HMS
Queen Elizabeth is still NATO roled - supposedly:
Royal Navy hands over command of NATO’s new Atlantic force after laying down the battleplan
The pace does not relent for the Strike Force staff, however, as they assume other NATO duties, leading the multi-national Allied Reaction Force (Maritime), with UK carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth as its command ship/floating headquarters...
Should we concentre on Europe/Home Defence? Yes! The integrated review under Ben Wallace put the Euro-Atlantic first, as did the recent review, also the
Maritime Operating Concept lists
Homeland and Operational Advantage in the North Atlantic is the first of the Navy's outputs - and the carriers are part of that.
Are the carriers too vulnerable in a real war? Are ships full of supplies vulnerable? Are amphibious forces vulnerable? A carrier is a far harder target than them, and will often protect them.
Does the RN enjoy having carriers to the detriment...? There are two points here. Firstly the carriers are not responsible for other warships getting prematurely axed, replacements being delayed, or personnel numbers being cut. Trying to find saving within defence to fund other things is, and with the carriers the idiot Cameron wanted to cut more frigates in 2010.
The other point is how do frigates and destroyers do what a carrier does?
The carrier puts fighters in close proximity to the assets or area to be defended without needing an excessive number of aircraft, and Geography, Mathematics, and Physics show that attacking aircraft carrying anti ship missiles are best dealt with using fighters to kill the archers, not the arrows. Airborne radar can see far beyond the radar horizon of shipborne ones and can detect low altitude targets at range, and fighters provide the means for interception and visual identification beyond the horizon, and engagement far beyond the range of shipborne missile systems.
Constant ASW helicopter operations are best supported by a large deck with multiple helicopters, as collocating them simplifies coordination, communications, and maintenance and support. Physics also shows that modern long range sonars fitted to ASW warships need to be used in conjunction with dipping sonar to achieve their potential - and vice versa. As with all such detection systems (radar/sonar/optical) there is trade off between range and resolution. The long range sonar provides long range detection, and the dipping sonar provides pinpoint accuracy.
From elsewhere:
The Aircraft Carrier and Sea Control (carriers needed in the Atlantic and elsewhere for Air Defence and ASW - due to Maths/Physics/Geography)
Originally Posted by
Biggus
mb,
If people cross read this thread with the F-35 thread (as I'm sure you have), they will see that the discussion on UK carriers, necessity, where deployed, etc, should also take into account the poor state of the UK F-35 fleet.
While not wishing to denigrate the rotary wing contribution, the main purpose of the carriers is to deploy F-35s. A fleet now exposed as having insufficient groundcrew, poor spares support, poor availability and limited pilot experience (7.5 hours a month - carrier currency?).
We've gone to considerable cost and effort to get these carriers, only to find their main offensive weapon system lacks both numbers, efficiency and probably effectiveness.
The slow build up and other issues regarding the F-35B fleet are very disappointing. I think that rotary wing operations were very much part of the QEC's purpose right from the start, and hopefully 'offensive weapon system' also means 'can defend other assets'. Semantics I know, but language shapes the debate.
At the risk of being facetious thank God that we opted for F-35B and STOVL carriers, without the training burden to arrested landings.
Originally Posted by
Biggus
I expect 15 years of support, from the manufacturer, is available.
Whether the MOD has paid for a reasonable support package might well be a very different matter - and according to the NAO report the answer appears to be no.
Spares? We don't need no spares - MOD
Originally Posted by
BEagle
85 years ago, Sqn Ldr Douglas Bader famously signalled HQ12 Gp and Fighter Command as follows:
Originally Posted by
BEagle
Maybe something similar should be fired off to Their Airships regarding F-35B spares?
Making good the spares shortfall across land, sea, and air would do a lot for our readiness and ability to deter. It would be a boost to suppliers who who be critical in time of crisis, and an easy win for politicians.
Give us the spares, and we will finish the job.
Originally Posted by
ex-fast-jets
Never mind F-35B spares - what about carrier spares?
Saw 50% of our carrier fleet in Portsmouth last week - Queen Elizabeth. It looked non-operational to me.
No doubt WEBF will have a lengthy reason for its being there.
She is waiting for a refit period in Rosyth and is at low readiness, and still acting as a NATO command platform - see the link near to top of this post.