OK carrier blokes! This is why we don't need 'em!

[Jackonicko]

According to the review:

“The full spectrum of capabilities is not required for large scale operations, as the most demanding operations could only conceivably be undertaken alongside the US, either as a NATO operation or a US led coalition, where we have choices as to what to contribute.

“....... the most complex large scale operations will only be conducted as part of a USled coalition. Our primary goal is to maximise our ability to influence at all levels the planning, execution and management of the operation and its aftermath, in support of our wider security policy objectives. Our force structure at large scale should
therefore focus on those capabilities which add real weight to the
campaign and hence the UK’s ability to influence its outcome. The most
important capabilities are those which contribute to:
- initial theatre entry and shaping operations;
- intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance;
- precision attack of strategic targets;
- joint land and air offensive operations; and
- post-conflict stabilisation.”

Now it's acknowledged that we will contribute carriers, but if we don't need the full spectrum of capabilities, why keep the one that's least often useful, most expensive, and hardest to justify except in an autonomous national context?

[Archimedes]

So they can be cut in the next review?

Although I'm sure that there'll be replies pointing out that initial theatre entry and shaping operations and precision attack of strategic targets can be carried out from the decks of a carrier. Who owns the JSFs that do this, though, would be an interesting one. Are we heading for a 'Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force' again??

[Pontius Navigator]

But we need the carriers to justify the SSN is DS and the surface escorts.

[althenick]

Jackonico,

We need carriers for the next falklands conflict or any conflict where the Crabs don't have access to a runway! Simple as that!

Mr Healy and the Airships got that one wrong in 1966.

BTW Why do we need Trident? That seems to be untouchable?

[Navaleye]

Actually, we need more carriers with an airwing more closely aligned to that of USMC airgroups. The RN has always admired the sheet clout that a USMC amphibious operation has and has been looking to emualte this capability for some time. Ocean with Apache, Albion and Bulwark and the other new amphibious ships coming downsteam. With CVF and quantum leap that this brings in littoral air warfare with both long and close range air support, we are much closer to the US in capability and ethos. This is what the govt want.

The reason that the MoD has changed its focus to maritime operations is the speed and flexibility it offers and no need to upset the locals with requests for host nation support.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Without the assets to provide air and naval superiority of the landing area then amphibious operations are a no go. Same with mines.

But......

Sea Harrier scrapped. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152)
Frigates/Destroyers (protection for ATG and naval gunfire) cut back severely.
Submarines (more protecton, Special Ops platforms and ISR) cut by nearly a third.
Mine Counter Measures Vessels - also cut back.

The Blair Government plans on all future conflicts being on our terms, against an enemy with no will to fight and lacking things such as aircraft or submarines....

[Navaleye]

JunglyAEO, I think the distinction between short and long range air power had blurred somewhat in the age of "expeditionary warfare" (haven't we had one before?). I would expect a CVF to fulfill both long and short range
roles, with the RN/RM acting in much the same role as a US amphibious assault group. Just my2c.

[fawkes]

Our political lords and masters (sorry elected representatives) are spineless cowards. The major advantage of a carrier is not the comparativedly limited teeth, but that you can send it to chug about in international waters while you are dithering or negotiating with nearby nations for use of their airfields. I think that the doctrine wallahs call this "poise"

Like the completely unusable and costly instant sunshine alluded to earlier it is something that buys a seat in the stalls. This is why new Labour has conveniently forgotten about it's previous stance on unilateral disarmamment...

Configured with a decent rotary wing complement also rather useful for NEOs when diplomacy fails and you cannot get permission to use a nearby airfield...

Even the Italians are building a new carrier, due in service in 2007.

[Navaleye]

The Italian ship reminds me of a poor man's Wasp. Not on a par with CVF IMHO. The big difference is that it is actually under contruction as we speak.

Doria (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/num/)

[Jackonicko]

1) We're never going to do a major op without the Yanks. Like it or not, that's the decision.

2) For that reason we don't need to do everything. They will always be there.

3) We haven't had to use our carriers (that's HAD TO) since 1982. Even if we were going to do autonomous stuff, a carrier wouldn't always (or even often) be required.

4) A UK Carrier has never been top of the US shopping list of assets to request in coalition ops. They often want our recce, Elint, tankers, etc., and they'd want our SEAD if we had any. If we want influence and power, we need to have the capabilities that our potential coalition wants. And they have enough carriers of their own.... and access to French, Spanish, Italian, etc.

5) The assets they want are also those that we would have to use EVERY time if we did do anything autonomously.

6) Therefore spending money on carriers seems a poor choice when money is so tight.

[Miss Kay Gridley]

Please excuse me for being a little dumb here, but the main point of having an armed force is to protect Great Britain's assets at home and abroad?

For some odd reason I wouldn't trust the great US of A to go out of their way to help us if we did have another Falklands. For that reason alone personally I believe that we should have a fully formed navy, not one missing crittical assets like a carrier. How many times do we have to learn the lessons?

[Jackonicko]

Miss KG,

What you think - and what I think - is irrelevant. Your elected Government has decided that we cannot afford to have forces capable of large scale autonomous operations. If there's another Falklands we either do it with allies, or roll over and take it.

Whether you or I do or don't trust the Yanks is irrelevant. We won't do anything without them.

“The full spectrum of capabilities is not required for large scale operations, as the most demanding operations could only conceivably be undertaken alongside the US, either as a NATO operation or a US led coalition, where we have choices as to what to contribute.

“....... the most complex large scale operations will only be conducted as part of a USled coalition. Our primary goal is to maximise our ability to influence at all levels the planning, execution and management of the operation and its aftermath, in support of our wider security policy objectives. Our force structure at large scale should
therefore focus on those capabilities which add real weight to the
campaign and hence the UK’s ability to influence its outcome. The most
important capabilities are those which contribute to:
- initial theatre entry and shaping operations;
- intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance;
- precision attack of strategic targets;
- joint land and air offensive operations; and
- post-conflict stabilisation.”

That being so, surely it makes sense to concentrate our resources on the assets we need most urgently, that we use most often, and that our allies prize most highly.

And that is not carriers.

[Miss Kay Gridley]

I'd have to disagree. Whether they have the correct resources or not our elected government is going to send then to do the job. At least if we keep our armed forces balanced they stand a slight hope of defending themselves, with the best chance of succeeding.

[Jackonicko]

Miss KG,

You don't seem to be answering the fundamental question.

Our elected Government has decided that we cannot afford to have forces capable of large scale autonomous operations. They have decided that we WILL NOT do large scale ops without the Yanks. That being the case surely it makes sense to concentrate our resources on the assets we need most urgently, that we use most often, and that our allies prize most highly?

To say "We need carriers because I wouldn't trust the great US of A to go out of their way to help us if we did have another Falklands" (and therefore we need fully formed, fully-equipped, totally balanced forces, which have every capability and which are capable of autonomous operation) ignores two things.

1) We cannot afford to maintain every capability, and have to make tough choices.

2) We do not need to maintain every capability because we will never do large scale autonomous ops again.

[althenick]

Jacko,

You obviously didn't see/attend the press conference with Buff and Sir Michael Walker - He said that the cuts were made in other areas so that they COULD react autoniously if required.

- initial theatre entry and shaping operations;
- intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance;
- precision attack of strategic targets;
- joint land and air offensive operations; and

Agree with all of this but your aircraft are damn all use sitting on the tarmac in the UK for the want of Host nation support or a carrier. Arguably some of these capabilities can be met by Tomahawk/ UAV etc but they are not as flexible as a carrier. Which BTW if the Naval Architects on CVF get it right, could also have these ships operating as LPH/Hospital/troop ships they do not have to be consigned to one job.

[Jackonicko]

Saw it, heard it, read the transcript, bought the T-shirt.

"He said that the cuts were made in other areas so that they COULD react autonomously if required."

Not for MAJOR ops. The autonomous capability will be VERY limited.

There will be times when the lack of a carrier would make even a minor/medium autonomous op a non-starter (though there has not been such an op since 1982!).

The lack of adequate SH, tankers, SEAD, recce would ALWAYS make autonomous ops a non starter, and would make us a less attractive ally in coalition ops.

[Navaleye]

Jacko, as our forces decline in numbers ALL ops become major ops. CVF with JCA and the T45s gives is the ability to provide high intensity operations where and when we need it. A large CV has a huge deterrent value to a would be enemy. See 1982 when we did not have one. We need fewer legacy platforms and more modern 21st Century kit.

[John Farley]

I may be missing something here, but where does it say that small scale autonomous ops (which I presume the UK would still like to be able to carry out) will never benefit from all three services being present?

I also feel that autonomous in this sense has connotations that other nations may well prohibit overflights of our military at that time.

In which case asking the Navy to drive a boat to the area as an operating base for your soldiers and airmen will be the only possible course of action.

The way I see it having no boat equates to always needing somebody elses permission (help) to do anything outside the UK.

If that is what people want, then fine. No boat needed.

[Pontius Navigator]

When asked specifically if we could do a Falklands I believe the prince of darkness said we could.

This time around we have SLCM that could attack willy nilly within days. We have tankers that could take a GR4 sqn within easy range. Our AD fighters have sufficient legs, even if the crew bladders don't, to lend a hand.

We don't need the Canberra or QE2 we could use the QM2 instead.

I would not expect another FI, but then we didn't expect the first either, but we do have legs and global reach. Better in fact than 22 years ago.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Land based Air Defence of an amphibious operation thousands of miles away - with only three air defence sqaudrons?

Really?

[Magoodotcom]

But would the QM2 really be available to support the next Falklands, now that Cunard is US owned an all...? :\

Magoo :ok:

[Bing]

But would the QM2 really be available to support the next Falklands, now that Cunard is US owned an all...?

I think if it's on the UK shipping register Cunard don't have much of a choice, mind you they could probably take it off pretty sharpish if they didn't want it going to a war zone!

[Tarnished]

Seems to me like this is ripe for PFI. Maybe we could rent or reserve some deck space on Ike or Reagan, put up traffic cones and a sign that says "reserved do not park here - Brits on their way"? Or maybe we could use this floating kingdom ship with the runway on the top, sure the accomodation would be well above the 4 to a room lark the Navy types are used to. Insist that all British registered container ships (are there any?) carry those big rolls of runway repair matting to be thrown over the top of the boxes. Time for some lateral thinking.:ok:

[West Coast]

Jacko posted:
1) We're never going to do a major op without the Yanks. Like it or not, that's the decision.

2) For that reason we don't need to do everything. They will always be there


Jacko
Could you elucidate us, perhaps just me perhaps as to the paradigm shift that has occurred between 1982 and today that make you embrace bullet point one. Juxtapose that against another Malvinas type action. Perhaps Zimbabwe might be a better and more relevant situations. Both of those go beyond the issue of carriers and speak to an independent, sustained capability. I cant see the US heading to Africa to save a bunch of expat farmers. If however they do, it would be in a supporting role to a regional authority or colonial tied nation, with a commensurate force level of support operations


Its one thing to say your simply not going to have capabilities in an area due to the bottom line and accept that your ass in gonna hang out somewhat. I believe its another to simply say we are quite assured we are hitching our wagon to the guy with all the toys and he will be there in our time of need.

[Impiger]

The proponents of the Carrier often make much of shore based air's realiance on HNS. Yet the Maritime Commander of the UKMARFOR during TELIC said he couldn't have conducted operations without the considerable HNS he received from Kuwait. I suspect that HNS is just as much a critical factor to maritime ops as it is to air.

The other myth that could do with dispelling is on overflight. Just because you launch at sea in international waters doesn't mean you can ignore overflight requirements - unless your potential enemy has a coastline of course. Overflight also applies to cruise missiles/TLAM!

Is there any hard evidence, say in the last 15 years, that air operations have been impossible because of the lack of HNS either for basing or overflight - I suspect this is a specious argument which is unsupported by the facts.

The new CV(F)s will be a very nice string to our bow but lets not delude ourselves into believing they are essential - useful, flexible but expensive and still requiring considerable back-up from larger, shore-based, fixed wing platforms before they can deploy the full panoply of air power even during early entry operations.

[Navaleye]

Pontius,

Are you suggesting that we could mount offensive air ops against the FI from Ascension? I'm not sure our air-to-air refuelling capability is any better now than it was in 82. i.e. same number of VC10s but no Victors.

I'm far from convinced that we could support two full squadrons in the air over that distance or anywhere close.

[Occasional Aviator]

I'm with Pontius on this one. Seems to me that a carrier is great if it happens to be nearby (ie you can maintain 6 or 7 carrier battle groups around the world like the yanks). Otherwise it seems to be projecting air power at fast walking pace.

Perhaps in a future op we could launch the aircraft from UK and let the carrier catch up, like Sierra Leone, Mozambique etc. As regards Host Nation Support, sea power needs it too. Which Royal Marines do you think were better prepared for Afghanistan, the ones that were floating around in the Indian Ocean for weeks before the ships were refused permission to dock at Karachi and then had to sail back to Seeb to be inserted by AIR, or the ones who were live firing at Barry Budden only a few days before they FLEW out?

[West Coast]

Your point is taken however..

Having your Marines off the coast of a potential adversary does more to influence a situation than having them sitting back in the UK. That said, I don't know the answer to your question.

[Jackonicko]

In Afghanistan, having Ronseal-type Special Forces troops, loadsa tankers and Canberra PR9s to contribute gave us influence. None of our allies were begging us to send a CVS or two.....

[Navaleye]

None of our allies were begging us to send a CVS or two.....

Quite right, the CVS is far too small for modern day needs, this is why the Govt wants CVF. No one is pretending the two are in same league.