I realise this may be a bit obtuse but I found this buried away on an Andrew Neil blog on BBC.
I dont know how much of it is true and I realise that it may end up in another light v dark blue death-match, but I found its comments very thought provoking.
Also, I realise that this is a PILOTS rumour network rather than a political one, but...
Anyway, I'm waffling. Can anyone verify any of this info? Or is it hogwash?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-years of hugely damaging, highly inadequate Labour govt Armed Forces' funding policies- accompanied by misleading public-statements and shameless Labour party self-promotion has likely contributed greatly to this...
The current aircraft carrier design/build programme provides a good example of how badly botched an urgently needed UK military project can become when being run/overseen by senior members of a governing party whose main objective with the project is increasing these member(s) re-election chances, as opposed to the main objective of the project being the nation's best interests:
A cursory examination of the present aircraft carrier programme would indicate to all but the most negatively biased or willfully blind that the Labour govt's absurdly inadequate levels of funding approved for the programme- and apparent direct design-interference- has converted it into
a make-work-project fiasco: a disaster waiting to happen....
The Labour-handicapped design-decisions regarding the planned new carriers are- if the project proceeds- going to result in 2 warships that would barely be suitable to fight a mid-twentieth century type conflict, and certainly not 21st century ones...
The project is accurately described a 'two-nation project'- involving for over 7-years the UK & France:
Porte Avions 2 - Naval Technology
Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF), Royal Navy Future Aircraft Carrier - Naval Technology
Unlike France's plans for its 'French version' (PA2) of these warships- which are being designed and were to-be-constructed simultaneously- the UK's new aircraft carriers:
- won't be fitted with with deck-catapults for fixed-wing aircraft launches;
- won't be nuclear powered;
- won't be capable of carrying or deploying tactical nuclear weapons, such as depth charges, anti-surface-target, anti-ship ordinance, etc;
- won't be fitted with up-to-date 'inner layer' airborne threat defences. (Thanks to Labour's underfunding, the new carriers are to be fitted with a 25-year old 'Phalanx' inner layer defence system, once these Phalanx systems become available for cannibalization from retired/decommissioned RN warships);
- won't be fitted with any 'outer layer' airborne threat defence systems at all.
Ship-launched outer layer airborne threat defences are basic equipment on modern, first world countries' warships such as aircraft carriers.
This, to enable incoming airborne threats to be engaged as far out as possible- 15 to 90 miles or more- rather than the barely 1 mile out that Phalanx and similar inner layer defence systems reach their effective limits at...
Modern anti-ship missiles travel in terminal mode at upwards of 3/4 of a mile per second making 'taking a second shot at the incoming missile- if the first shot misses'- highly likely to not be feasible for warships restricted to using only Phalanx or a similar (machine gun based) inner layer defence system.
Technologically up-to-date warships that have outer layer defence systems, and that miss an incoming airborne threat are able to 'take a second shot' at the threat using either their outer layer defence system again- or their inner layer defence system- or both...
Phalanx and similar inner layer warship defence systems have not been shown in tests or battle records to be effective- as stand alone systems- at countering up-to-date airborne threats such as the widely marketed Russian SS-N-27 "Sizzler" anti-ship missile;
- won't be fitted with any sub-surface threat defensive weapons;
- won't be fitted with 'Cooperative engagement Capability' (CEC) sensors and equipment thereby eliminating the new carriers' potential to have the capacity to jointly- with other Royal Navy/allied countries' warships, aircraft, land-based and other assets- engage threats/targets; and
- won't even be fitted with armour...
Why does this matter??
- Lack of fixed-wing aircraft launch catapults:
Catapults are necessary for Aircraft Carriers to be able to embark, launch & recover a variety of the most versatile & capable types of fixed-wing aircraft, such as
Airborne Early Warning & Control (AWACS) types:
E-2D Hawkeye: The (U.S.) Navy’s New AWACS-
E-2D Hawkeye: The Navy’s New AWACS
The RN's new carriers will be restricted to Harrier type
(short/vertical take off & land ) fixed-wing aircraft & helicopters- that can not duplicate even remotely the function of modern, fixed-wing AWACS...
Without AWACS planes flying high above the respective carrier & its battle group- scanning OVER THE HORIZON for potential threats & theatre data- carriers & their support/escort ships are enormously vulnerable to low-flying (sea-skimming) incoming airborne threats such as supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles & aircraft...
- The UK’s new aircraft carriers won’t be nuclear powered:
meaning these ships- if built- will be unable to generate sufficient power for fitting them with coming on stream/under-development 21st century armaments such as
Directed Energy Weapons (DEWS) & will be significantly range/endurance-limited due to their fossil-fuel engines- & their aircraft- requiring constant refills of fuel from supply ships- particularly problematic if, during a conflict, the carrier's supply ships get sunk....
- UK Royal Navy’s future abilities to deploy tactical/other types of nuclear weapons at risk:
Due to their 'on-the-cheap' design, the RN's planned new aircraft carriers- unlike France's version(s) of these warships- won't be able to stock & use tactical nuclear weapons...
.... Thereby eliminating these ships' usefulness in a legitimate hot-war- a situation that only the very most willfully ignorant/tunnel visioned would say can be ruled out during the projected 30- 50 year operational life of these
"central to the RN's function" warships...
- Current plans for the UK's new aircraft carriers put them, once built, at about 65,000 tonnes vs a projected 75,000 tonnes for the French version(s):
Britain’s New CVF Future Carriers
France Steaming Ahead on PA2/CVF Carrier Project?
- The UK's new aircraft carriers won't have 'outer layer' airborne threat defences and won't be fitted with armour:
ALL first world countries- other than the UK- that have recently built or are planning to build 'pocket sized', medium sized & 'big deck' (supercarrier) aircraft carriers have made sure/are ensuring that their carriers are extensively fitted with armour...
The United States has made an extra effort in this regard in the construction of its undergoing sea-trials
'Nimitz transitional' class supercarrier- the GHW Bush- & in the design work for the next-generation
'G Ford' class supercarriers...
Similarly, the US government has ensured that the US Navy's existing
Nimitz class and
'improved Nimitz class' supercarriers are comprehensively fitted out with cutting-edge technology armour-
Improved Nimitz Class Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier | Military-Today.com :
"... These (US Navy Nimitz class supercarriers) were completed with Kevlar armour over their vital areas and have improved hull protection arrangements..."
"The Kevlar armour has been retrofitted to the earlier carriers, as have many of the advanced systems built into the newer ships..."
Meanwhile
the UK Labour govt has engineered the full deletion of armour from the design of the planned new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy- to save money!!!!
Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF), Royal Navy Future Aircraft Carrier - Naval Technology :
".... A number of protective measures such as side armour and armoured bulkheads proposed by industrial bid teams have been deleted from the design in order to comply with cost limitations...."
The £4billion Airfix Kit: Behind-the-scenes at Britain's biggest warships | Mail Online :
"... Money has also been saved in side armour protection, though (Simon Knight, the project's Platform Design Director) insists this was a strategic* rather than a budgetary issue...
(
*what kind of responsible 'strategy' would support building warships without armour??)
(Simon Knight stated) "'The CVF’s first line of defence is the frigates and the new Type 45 destroyers around us,' he adds....
"'Our only self-defence is close-in weapons systems (IE: 25-year old 'inner layer' Phalanx machine guns- rvl)
and small guns...
"'Instead, what you have on the ship is 36 of the most lethal aircraft ever made.'..."
(... aircraft whose designed-capabilities do not include protecting warships from incoming anti-ship missiles...)
Is the value* of a sunk aircraft carrier or two less than the finanacial cost of properly constructing & competently equipping these warships??
(* in pounds, lives-lost and the UK's diminished national stature on the world stage)
If warship armour and inner layer as well as outer layer airborne threat defences weren't vitally important and necessary for modern aircraft carriers to have, again, why would other first world countries'- such as the US, Japan, S. Korea, France, and even Italy- be investing many, many millions of pounds in armour and airborne threat defences for their navies' aircraft carriers??
The CVN 21
CVN 21 will be armed with the ESSM :
"... (The G Ford class supercarrier) CVN 21 will be armed with the Raytheon Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), which defends against high-speed, highly manoeuvrable anti-ship missiles...."
The UK's half-baked Aircraft Carrier project should, at the minimum be put on hold until the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) is finished its first stage...
As part of the SDR, the carrier project ought to be examined in-depth to at the least determine:
1) What country(s) is the most industrially appropriate and most likely to be constructive in terms of the resulting warships' capabilities, quality and functionality- for the UK in the design and building of its new aircraft carriers- a country with no internationally recognized expertise or world-leadership in building aircraft carriers- like France- or a country like the United States with its nearly half century of peerless aircraft carrier capabilities leadership and world-leading aircraft carrier technologies' development...??
2) should the UK be designing and building its new aircraft carriers in partnership with the US??
3) what is the optimal propulsion method for these warships, and which method of propulsion will- during their 40-50 year operational lives- best serve to enable mission-competence for these warships, their accompanying escorts, and the Royal Navy generally? (nuclear vs conventional?);
4) considering the unpredictability's of international relationships/world events- and looking 40-50 years ahead: should the UK's new carriers be built so that they can accommodate and deploy tactical/other types of nuclear weapons?
5) should the new carriers be constructed with catapult-launch-of-fixed-wing-aircraft capabilities? AND if no- WHY ??
6) should the new carriers be constructed with the sensors, radars and communication suites required for
'Cooperative Engagement Capability' (CEC)??
7) should the new carriers be constructed with
outer layer airborne threat defense system(s)??
8) should the new carriers be constructed with "NEW", technologically up-to-date,
inner layer airborne threat defense system(s)??, rather than being fitted with recycled 25-year old inner layer defense systems that have been cannibalized from scrapped/decommissioned Type-42 Destroyers (as is currently being directed by Labour)??
9) should any new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy have to be fitted with armour??
10) if yes, should the armour fitted be technologically up-to-date and comprehensively applied?
Why should the UK operate aircraft carriers- or any warships other than tiny coastal patrol boats- and especially, why plan to task these vessels with 'world role' missions- if the UK is not going to ensure that they are sufficiently up to date- weapons and defensive systems wise- to perform capably against known-to-exist and expected types of threats??
Immediate govt actions to upgrade the Royal Navy's grievously degenerated, dangerously inadequate capabilities are needed... not more false-logic avoidance of reality...
Without such occurring, voters' confidence levels in whatever party forms govt can only be damaged...
__________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(**lights blue touchpaper and scarpers to safe distance**)