OK carrier blokes! This is why we don't need 'em!
Thread Starter
OK carrier blokes! This is why we don't need 'em!
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?
“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?
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??
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??
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Suspicion breeds confidence
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.
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.
Last edited by Navaleye; 22nd Jul 2004 at 10:49.
Caveat
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.
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....
But......
Sea Harrier scrapped.
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....
Suspicion breeds confidence
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.
roles, with the RN/RM acting in much the same role as a US amphibious assault group. Just my2c.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hants
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Suspicion breeds confidence
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
Doria
Thread Starter
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Thread Starter
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
"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.
Suspicion breeds confidence
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.
Last edited by Navaleye; 23rd Jul 2004 at 12:36.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.