Future Carrier (Including Costs)

[Squirrel 41]

N_a_B,

Your questions are spot on - what are the capabilities that we want to have worldwide post-HERRICK? The problem is that I've not seen anyone suggesting an answer including the cash to fund it - and until they do, it's all posturing.

However, this isn't exclusively a political problem ! The MoD - civil service and military - need to accept that SDR wasn't funded (as was said at the time if anyone read the small print), and that we're fighting a sizeable conflict in Afghanistan (so much for Dr Reid's "no bullets to be fired" speech) and that winning there at supporting those doing the fighting is the only game in town at the moment - and that without extra cash, some big toys will have to go - reprofiling is expensive and only puts things off.

Not easy. Not nice. But essential.

S41

[Occasional Aviator]

S41 - an excellent synopsis of the policy to capability process and its implications..... guess where I used to work?

WEBF - actually, I was only trolling. But, since you bit:

That strike capability cannot exist in isolation from the rest of the fleet.

is at variance with the briefings given by SRO(CS), who sees CVF as a self-supporting asset that would go where the JFACC needs it rather than operating as part of a carrier battle group, and with the previous 1SLs similar statements. Maybe you have a better source than them?

Think of logistics.

is a dangerous statement for anyone advocating carrier-based over land-based air for expeditionary ops to make. Let's not discuss classified or commercial stuff on here, but I take it you have seen the assessments of how long the carrier could operate an air group for once it is cut off from a supporting airfield? And exactly how was it that the LM support contract was going to get urgent spares to JSF afloat?

Amphibious operations demand at least a measure of air superiority, which means fighters.

And tankers, and AEW, and presumably the ops would also want air ISTAR, AT support etc. Hope there's room for all that on CVF.

an enemy will seek to exploit any weakness, and inflicting attrition on logistic shipping, escorts, minehunters etc could well be an attractive option.

Indeed. And another reason why CVF only gives us a fairly niche capability: the ability to do limited strike ops for a limited period against not too serious an enemy. A great tool to have in your golf bag (see the hideously outdated SDR's now largely discredited concept of 'Focussed Intervention'), but as S41 points out, a tool of fairly narrow utility.

[Squirrel 41]

OA,

"guess where I used to work?"

Not in the central policy planning staff, presumably!

No-one, least of all me, is suggesting that the CVF programme per se is a bad idea. For a conventionally-powered carrier - esp. with CTOL, Dave-C, E-2D, C-2 COD, Merlin, 4 x T45 AAW and 4 x T23 ASW, 1+ x SSN in DS and MARS x lots to replenish this lot - it's seems to the (non-expert) a bl**dy good design. And clever people are working hard to make sure that it works - both as a warship and as a floating airfield.

But the question is that to get to a "let's retake the Falklands", you add 2 x LPD, 3 x Bay class, another 1 x CVF, 2 x SSN, every other escort we've still got, and you hope. A lot! Why? Insufficient numbers of T45s to provide area air defence of anything but the CVF, placing a greater reliance on Dave to provide CAP over a landing fleet, means that the CVF's positioning is compromised and her jets are spending more time defending the group rather than putting "warheads on foreheads" in the words of our colonial cousins.

So I do intrinsically favour CVF as a capability - it could be quite useful. Despite being light blue, I favour Dave-C and six dedicated FAA Sqns to go aboard, with E-2D and C-2A to maximise actual operational capability (and to give FCs a chance to compare quality of RN and RAF inflight catering..... )

And CVF would look v impressive for cocktail parties, which even the light blue have to accept are useful for the FCO (albeit light blue green with envy!); but it is only useful as part of a balanced force of 12-14 x T45s and a total FF/DD force of c 35 - 40 escorts, along with MARS, SSNs and all the rest of that "naval stuff" that means that it can do its job. And at the moment, there isn't the budget to do that.

S41

[Occasional Aviator]

You're right- not the central staff - but presumably you picked up on my key phrases!

I'm pretty much in agreement with everything you say - I just bite too easily when I hear the reactionary "the answer is 2 carriers, now what's the question".

[Not_a_boffin]

OA

"Think of logistics" is also an extremely dangerous statement for anyone advocating land-based air outside the NATO area. If by the reference to supporting airfields you're referring to the CLS policy for JCA you may have a point. However, it's worth remembering that a CLS policy can be changed, a 100% dependence on the goodwill of the nation hosting your EAW cannot - particularly when "potentially" coupled to a long land route from a port to the airbase of choice, which may or may not be vulnerable to a fairly extensive threat spectrum.

Just running a twenty-sortie per day profile requires north of 100 tonnes of F34 per day at the base, excluding that needed for the GSE, MT pool etc. Thats over 5 big road tankers per day, every day, just to run that profile. Plus the wagons bringing the water (and their fuel) and the vittles (and their fuel) and the stuff that goes bang (and their fuel) and the workshops and spares (and their fuel) and the FPE (and their fuel).

Personally, I'd be a bit happier with organic workshops, galleys, RO plants, stores, self-defence and fuel bunkers. None of which can be got at (easily) unless you're in a full spectrum threat environment with tight RoE..........

[Occasional Aviator]

Oh I do agree NaB - there are conceivably situations when a carrier is the only viable option. The situation you describe - running a fighter wing from a completely bare airfield with absolutely no HNS - possibly being one - and in that situation you're not going to be able to do much more than you could from a carrier anyway.

However, let's be realistic - you're not going to fight an air campaign to support any size of land or amphibious op against a half-decent enemy off a carrier alone. That's all I'm saying.

Let's get carriers for power projection, influence, supporting small-scale focussed interventions etc - but don't allow them to be seen as a substitute for proper air forces. Land-based and carrier air are complementary..... Carriers are sometimes the only way of getting air power to a crisis, but will never be as effective or as economical as operating from tarmac.

The think I'm concerned about is that if people continue to peddle the line that carrier air can do everything that land-based air can do and more, better, we'll end up with an unbalanced air force - which is as bad for a nation's standing as an unbalanced navy.

[Not_a_boffin]

It's not just completely bare bases where that applies - I can think of several currently being used where the supply line is utterly dependent on HNS. However, we are in agreement - complementary is the exact word.

Mind I suspect the Foos and certainly the USN might take issue with the description "proper air forces!"

[Navaleye]

Interesting to read in JDW today about the changes planned for the NSW post Herrick.

Regenerating Core Capabilities.

* Long term deployments lasting weeks or months with 10+ jets are to be come much more common.

* Too much skill fade with the current arrangement.

* Unlikely light blue will get enough sea time to get night qualified. So dark blue will do day/night, light blue day only.

* Joint deployment with USMC will continue, leading to a major ex next spring off the US East coast combining NSW and USMC airgroups. They can operate 16 or more Harriers.

* 801 will stand up late next year as part of the NSW, making 4 sqns in total.

An excellent article by Richard Scott and well worth a read. Good to see the navy getting control of its own destiny back as capabilities are ramped up. Its only right to blame the crabs for everything, but things are moving in the right direction.

I also heard at DSeI that 892NAS maybe making a comeback in a few years. This is a rumour network after all

[SL Hardly-Worthitt]

* 801 will stand up late next year as part of the NSW, making 4 sqns in total.

Good news - welcome back to 801 NAS in their own right.

What will the revised structure be......4 x 12 ac squadrons with 2 RAF heavy (RAF OC) and 2 RN heavy (RN CO) was the original plan for 2004 - is parity (iaw the original JFH agreement) to be achieved eventually? If so, this should be welcomed by both services and perhaps stop some of the more crude efforts at the highest level to drive a wedge into this outstanding Joint force. One to watch! H-W

[Occasional Aviator]

Its only right to blame the crabs for everything,

sigh..... another reference to the secret RAF staff devoted to abolishing the FAA...

[ORAC]

FT: Gray and the Christmas cuts

We’ll have more on this soon. But basically Lord Drayson is going to implement all of the recommendations in the Gray review, apart from a (very radical) plan to to outsource management of the £13bn defence equipment and support budget. He wants to implement it all within 6 months. That means a defence review in every parliament, a 10 year capital budget and a big organisational shake-up that is the MoD equivalent of the storming of the Bastille.

Drayson also admits there is already a hole in the budget plans for 2010 (which is the current “planning round”). They will have to decide on programmes to cut or scale back before Christmas. The “long term” decisions will be left for the strategic defence review. Flagging up the cuts is quite bold stuff and will have industry chiefs reaching for their panic pills.

But on what basis will they decide what to cut? The best decision may turn out to be cancelling the carriers. Will lots of small projects, with “uncommitted” money, be slashed just to tide things over till the MoD can reach this decision next year?

[Bag Man]

Late entry

Having returned from 6 months away I was interested to hear that 80% of fixed wing sorties in RC(S) are generated by carrier aviation. Shame we don't have a Brit CV that can contribute - YET!


BM

[Widger]

I am intrigued by this view that Queen Elizabeth will be a "niche" capability. Don't just focus on the warfighting role. QE will not just carry F35, but will have the ability to operate a wide variety of other platforms including Chinook, which for the first time will be able to fit in the hangar and possibly even fit CH53. QE will not only be able to Strike, but can also poise for long periods of time, without HNS. QE will have significant capability in the NEO role and also Military aid to the civil population worldwide. QE will also be able to carry out the task of Defence Diplomacy. Much humour is made of the ubiquitous cocktail party but, importantly, QE will be a hunk of sovereign UK territory that can also be used for peaceful purposes, defence sales and strengthen international ties. QE moored up in a foreign port, will not only be a great run-ashore for the crew but more importantly, quite clearly demonstrates that the UK is still important in the world. Whilst alongside, the crew don't just get pissed and play golf, they also support the local Embassies and Consuls in their work, conduct charity work and strengthen links with friendly nations. I am not slagging off Typhoon, but how many of these tasks can that platform conduct? I choose Typhoon because there is a well known Ppruner who insists on placing the "niche" label firmly on QE.

Queen Elizabeth and POW will not be NICHE by any stretch of the imagination. Even without F35 onboard they will be a powerful statement of UK strength and diplomacy and for those in the know, fulfill a large proportion of DSG and Military tasks.

Have a safe weekend

[Bag Man]

Well said Widger.

But I suspect some light blue will still live in denial.



BM

[Nicholas Howard]

Chinook, which for the first time will be able to fit in the hangar and possibly even fit CH53

Trust me, if you can get a spread Chinook in the hangar then a folded CH53 will go in easily. The only snag might be flight deck strength to cope with the MAUM of the 53K which puts the mighty Wokka to shame.

Nick

[Not_a_boffin]

If only Ocean's deck had been designed with a bit more than Merlin in mind, CH53K would be an (outside) runner for FRC(H)........

[ORAC]

Queen Elizabeth and POW will not be NICHE by any stretch of the imagination.

As long as the UK perceives a need for expeditionary warfare they are core. If that role is dropped, as was "East of Suez" they are surplus to requirements.

Without a role, and the full range and equipment, manpower and support to maintain it, then building floating gin palaces would be a complete waste of funds.

The question therefore becomes, has Iraq and Afghanistan turned the next government against expeditionary warfare in the same way Suez did the government of the 60s?

In which case, will the QE2 class suffer the same fate as CVA01?

[Squirrel 41]

N-a-B, surely "rank outsider" given the cost?

Widger; I'd like to think that I'm not one of the light blue "living in denial" but I can't take your point that CVF is "not niche" seriously. I'm on record on here (probably on this thread as much as anywhere else) in saying that if we had the resources to do it, CVF + Dave-C + E-2D + C-2 + CH-53K / V-22 would be ideal, and highly desirable. But only (i) if we can afford a balanced fleet that goes beyond protecting it, and (ii) if it fits in with our overall capability plans and (iii) is affordable on any realistic future budget.

Simply put, as nice as CVF would be to have, and under specific circumstances it could be vital, these circumstances occurring together - critical UK interests at stake, no HNS, no coalition assets (ie USN CVN / CVBG) - is so rare that CVF's unique capabilities are the very definition of niche. Niche, simply because if any one of these circumstances is not there - then we can do the job better, quicker, cheaper (and unless CVF happens to be in the neighbourhood) - faster with other assets.

And I did read Phoenix Squadron last weekend - and I would claim that this absolutely supports the argument - Ark Royal was in approximately the right area, got a priority warning order from 1SL to "show what carriers can do" and did: a mad dash halfway across the Atlantic pair of Buccs over Belize for 10 mins. All very impressive, and a good read. But a massive effort to do what could have been better achieved by tanking 1 Sqn's Harriers direct to Belize City on day one and leaving them there (as 1417 Flt did until 1993). The difference between this and BLACK BUCK was that the Vulcan could drop bigger bombs from higher up to achieve an effect that the Sea Harriers could not (though presumably Lt Cdr Ward has another view).

So, maybe I qualify in your view as light blue "living in denial". But however cool, interesting and capable, niche is still niche. And currently, we ain't got the dosh for niche.

S41

[Bag Man]

Niche

Squirrel

Mate, you are in denial.

There are statements on this web site saying that we can no longer afford the do Iraq/Afghanistan - therefore we don't need a carrier. This is a flawed (illogical) argument. The logic is that to avoid the costs of another Afg we need to avoid 'invading' countries when we 'help them out'. So, tanking the GRs and then letting them stay there immediately puts us into the invasion category (long drawn-out conflict with problems 'getting out'). Carriers enable us to avoid this situation.

By the way, what on earth are you going to do with your invading Harriers once they have dropped their load? How are you going to get the support staff into the country in the first place? I assume is is by tanking the strategic lift with the strategic tankers. And the strategic lift will need 10 a/c to provide 2, and the tankers will need 10 aircraft to provide 2, and the bombers will need to number 100 to provide 8 ... we have spent the whole defence budget already and I haven't started on T&S for the light-blue flying club.



BM

PS Niche means doing something that nobody else does - not making contingencies for things that might never happen.

[Nicholas Howard]

FRC(H)

Ocean's deck had been designed with a bit more than Merlin in mind, CH53K would be an (outside) runner for FRC(H)

In fact modifying OCE to take CH53/V-22 would have been relatively cheap and simple. Make the lifts a bit bigger, achievable without having to go through any major structural members, and strengthen the deck (some tertiary stiffeners). All of this would have beenmuch simpler and cheaper than making a Chinook fold.

However...

The V-22 was prohibitively expensive and introducing the 53 was never going to happen as it was seen as introducing another type (we were never going to replace the Chinook), something that the mantra (more different types = more expense) would never allow.

So, we are wjere we are...

Nick