Future Carrier (Including Costs)

[oldnotbold]

The Royal Navy, has, repeatedly, pointed out how vital Carrier Air is to RN, UK Armed Forces and UK. It is very sad some people, including some in the the other services, do not understand this. However it does not make it less true: The Queen Elizabeth class Aircraft Carriers are vital to future British Defence. Vital to the RN, Vital to the the British Armed Forces and vital to UK security.

[hulahoop7]

"India is a large expanding country with a population of over a billion, a GDP expected to overtake that of the UK between 2020-25. It also has a neighbour, China, with whom it shares a land border and waters which China is increasingly claiming as it own - and a known programme to build up a carrier force to challenge the dominance of the USN in the region.

In simple terms, India has a maritime threat where their possession of a carrier force is both logical, and increasingly affordable. The UK has no such enemy and an economy going in the opposite direction."

So much BS here. No. It's actually about where the UK chooses to put it's money. i.e. even in these desperate times the UK still parachutes in hundreds of millions in aid to India, even though they can afford to build up their own carrier force, and we can't.

In the good times defence got a raw deal while Labour p*ssed money away on other departments. Now things have turned sour, defence is mean't to take an equal share of the pain? Defence should be right at the top of the list of departmental priorities and protected. A country with the UKs resources should easily be able to maintain 2 carriers, and the current amphib fleet.

If things do get hot in the Indian ocean, do you not think that this might be of strategic interest to the UK?

[Hedgeporker]

If things do get hot in the Indian ocean, do you not think that this might be of strategic interest to the UK?

They're probably outsourcing it to India like much else. Oh, and we have to give them aid or else people will think we're just giving them a bung.

[ORAC]

If things do get hot in the Indian ocean, do you not think that this might be of strategic interest to the UK?

No. We don't have the global reach to provide any significant military input ; or the remaining political influence to have any impact.

The only ability the possession of a single CBG would give us would be to provide a token presence on the coat tails of the USN. Something we can do just as well with a couple of frigates.

The carriers are just a penis substitute for a navy unable to accept and live with the dininuation of it's status as a world ranking force to one of just one of many minor world navies.

[hulahoop7]

So it's not a strategic interest? Or the UK can't afford to protect it's key strategic interests?

We clearly have the money if we prioritise correctly, so what is your point?

The problem is that people like you are running this review. God help us.

[oldgrubber]

just a bad idea for us then?

Australia 2x Navantia type

India 1x carrier(ex Hermes) 1x carrier( ex Russian)2x Carrier 40,000 tonne
Japan 2x Hyuga and getting 2x 24,000 ton carrier (22DDH)
Russia 1x Carrier and getting 4X Mistral and 5 or 6X 60,000 carrier planned
China 1x varyag (ex Russian) 2x 50-60,000 ton Carrier poss more
France 1x Carrier 3x mistral class getting poss 1X QE type
South Africa 2X Mistral type poss 3 (humanitarian ?)
South Korea 2x Dokdo class with 2 more larger (20,000 + ton) versions due
Spain 1x principe and 1x Juan Carlos
Italy Garibaldi and Cavour(28,000 tons)
Malaysia Want 3X Dokdo class
Thailand 1x Principe size
Brazil 1x carrier 32,800 ton (major navy build up) want 1x Mistral type
Indonesia 1x LPH Mistral size
Turkey want 1x Dokdo type
USA Loads of Carriers, LPH and LPD ships



Dokdo 14,300 tons empty 18,800 full
Mistral 16,500 tonnes empty 21,300 full
Hyuga 13,950 tons empty 18,000 full
Navantia 25,790 tons full

Yeh, lets just paint what we've got left red and white and call it the Coastguard Service. After all no one else thinks big "totemic" ships are a good idea do they?
And of course it didn't take any extra "assets" to get ONE Vulcan to the Falklands to bomb the taxy way, did it?

Cheers

[ORAC]

So it's not a strategic interest? Or the UK can't afford to protect it's key strategic interests? We clearly have the money if we prioritise correctly, so what is your point?

The Indian Ocean? what about the Gulf, the Straits of Malacca, Gibraltar and Hormuz? You seriously think we have the cover all those areas? No, we don't. And we didn't back in the late 60s when we pulled out from east of Suez and changed our defence strategy to concentrate on just NATO and the North Atlantic as the Empire was broken up.

If we couldn't afford it then when we spent over 6% of GDP on defence, we can't now when it's down to the European average of 2-3%.

And if you think that any government, let alone one already asking for 25-30% cuts in most areas, is going to increase the budget rather than cut it, then you are sadly deluded.

[Hedgeporker]

Australia 2x Navantia type

India 1x carrier(ex Hermes) 1x carrier( ex Russian)2x Carrier 40,000 tonne
Japan 2x Hyuga and getting 2x 24,000 ton carrier (22DDH)
Russia 1x Carrier and getting 4X Mistral and 5 or 6X 60,000 carrier planned
China 1x varyag (ex Russian) 2x 50-60,000 ton Carrier poss more
France 1x Carrier 3x mistral class getting poss 1X QE type
South Africa 2X Mistral type poss 3 (humanitarian ?)
South Korea 2x Dokdo class with 2 more larger (20,000 + ton) versions due
Spain 1x principe and 1x Juan Carlos
Italy Garibaldi and Cavour(28,000 tons)
Malaysia Want 3X Dokdo class
Thailand 1x Principe size
Brazil 1x carrier 32,800 ton (major navy build up) want 1x Mistral type
Indonesia 1x LPH Mistral size
Turkey want 1x Dokdo type
USA Loads of Carriers, LPH and LPD ships

All of which can be sunk in short order by our nonpareil submarine service . . .

. . . but only if the carriers cannot launch ASW top-cover for them and theirs because their aircraft are grounded by . . .

. . . carrier borne fast air.

[hulahoop7]

"we pulled out from east of Suez and changed our defence strategy to concentrate on just NATO and the North Atlantic as the Empire wasbroken up."

We stated that the UK would, but events changed that. The RN has been going EoS (fighting wars) plenty times since then. Strategic interest forced our hand. How many ships do we have there right now? Why are they there?

There are some people like you who want to turn this country into Belgium. I'm not one of them. The UK has always looked outward and traded globally. It needs forces to match this strategic outlook.

[The Helpful Stacker]

oldgrubber,

Dokdo and Mistral classes are amphibious assault ships. Whilst you could carry out limited STOVL operations off them surely they'd be limited by,

- Size of the vessel and ability to stow aircraft/spares below deck

- Having STOVL aircraft to fly off them.

Some of the other types you mention are also being designed with STOVL operations in mind.

Some quite high ranking ex-RN types are calling on the government to withdrawl from the F35B program (one in the eye for the RAF eh?) and buy the F18F with cat/trap type carriers instead. Now considering that its quite possible that if the UK pulled out of the F35B program it would be finished what would al these other nations then do?

Could it be that if the 'cheap' option disappeared then so too would their aspirationsto have carriers?

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by hulahoop7

[INDENT]"India . . . has a neighbour, China, with whom it shares a land border and waters which China is increasingly claiming as it own -

Is China claiming the Indian Ocean?

India probably has a threat rather nearer home for which its carriers would be more suited.

[Not_a_boffin]

Mr Davis seems to recognise the need for organic air with his reference to looking again at small STOVL carriers. Unfortunately, he appears to be of the school that believes these things would be cheaper because they are smaller. This is simply nonsense. By the time a new STOVL design had been produced (which btw is utterly dependent on a certain rather expensive aircraft) the resulting price would be at least that required for the current QEC ships. It would also be around 10 years from now, by which time the CVS would be long gone. The reason the QEC price tag is what it is, is the endless prevarication and failure to commit, partly through inter-service p1ssing contests and largely through the in-year DEL cap being applied in a way that makes shaving with a chainsaw look sensible. Had the original budget been uplifted from the original "concept" line of £2.7Bn set in 1998, to the £3.4Bn required when the requirement was balanced in ~2001-2, then the impact would not be what it is perceived to be now. It's worth remembering that the army is currently upgrading the FV432 (yes the 1960s APC which is of course being widely used on Herrick!) in a programme worth £100m.

The "balanced" naval force Mr Davis refers to is also a fallacy. DD/FF on their own (however capable) are only valid if backed by a credible naval force. There's a reason the Italian and Spanish navies developed their own carrier capabilities over the last forty years and why the Indians, Thai's and many other Asian nations are keen to develop their own. That reason is that naval forces in a threat envionment need the ability to provide air cover as well as strike and land-based air has been proven unable to do so economically.

What is the in-area threat faced by NATO at present? Does it justify any DD/FF? Or Strike aircraft, armour infantry etc?

[Biggus]

When I first joined the RAF there were 50,000 odd Russian tanks scattered throughout the Warsaw Pact, all facing west, and 8,000 NATO tanks to oppose them. The threat, of a physical invasion of the West, seemed very real - as described in a series of Tom Clancy type novels.


However, I'm now older, and perhaps wiser. I would suggest that anyone should visit some of our worse inner city areas, whether it be London, Manchester, Birmingham or Glasgow. Look around some of the sink estates, at the litter, filth, graffitti and general level of vandalism and depravation. Then ask yourself what country would want to physically invade us and take over the running of that lot, and why for goodness sake....

Wars are often fought in the pursuit of resources. However, as a country Britain has few natural resources left, our oil wealth is about to be expended, mineral wealth is minimal (some unmined coal) and agriculture wise we don't produce enough to feed ourselves. We deal in insurance and burgers, with minimal remaining industrial capacity. Once again, who would want to take over that lot (in terms of a physical invasion).

All of which is not to say that various parties throughout the world might want to "hurt us" - largely on the basis of our (perceived?) historic track record towards various countries/religions/ideologies.

Are our armed forces in future going to be used mainly to ensure we are capable of imposing our beliefs/morals/political systems on various parts of the world - rather than being scaled to protect our nation from realistic threats?

And I've only had one glass of wine so far tonight......

[ORAC]

Your "balanced navy", oldnotbold....

IIRC, in an post on this forum about 5 years ago*, I warned pursuit of the carrier force would totally destroy the balance of the navy. Madness.....

Torygraph: Navy to reduce to smallest size ever to save carriers

The Navy is set to be reduced to the smallest size in its history after admirals yesterday offered drastic reductions in the fleet in order to save two new aircraft carriers from defence cuts.

Under the plans, the number of warships would be cut by almost half to just 25, with frigates, destroyers, submarines, minesweepers and all amphibious craft scrapped. Even if built, the new carriers could sail without any British aircraft to fly from them after admirals "mortgaged everything" to persuade ministers not to abandon the £5.2 billion programme. The ships could also be delayed for years and redesigned to save money, defence sources have disclosed.......

It is understood that the Navy has offered to slim down to as few as 12 surface ships, leaving it with six Type 45 destroyers and six Type 23 frigates. In addition, its submarine fleet would reduce to seven Astute hunter-killers plus the four Trident nuclear deterrent boats. With the two carriers, this would reduce the fleet by half from its current total of 42 ships.

"If we want the two carriers it means we have to mortgage everything and by that I mean reducing the fleet by almost a half," said a senior Navy source. Navy analysts warned that the cuts would mean Britain reducing its fleet to the size of the Italian navy and almost half the size of the French.......

Navy sources have said that the reduction would mean Britain would find it "extremely difficult" to protect sea lanes on which 90 per cent of the country's trade relies.

It would also have to drop either anti-piracy patrols in the Middle East, protecting oil platforms in the Gulf or counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean........

* 2002 in fact...

[oldnotbold]

Strategic Defence & Security Review: ‘Soldiers or Ships?’ is the wrong question

Accounting soldiers against ships is strategically illiterate and very dangerous to British interests.
Dr. Andrew Gordon

"The first thing General Richards (if he has been correctly reported in the press) could benefit from realising is that, owing to our being an island, Britain’s Army and Navy have had a symbiotic relationship for centuries, and that the Army can go nowhere without permissive maritime conditions. The Army is both a benefit and a beneficiary of seapower, and has not fought a campaign since 1746 that did not depend on it (and, even then, Cumberland’s army was resupplied by coastal shipping). Every British regimental battle-honour contains the silent suffix ‘…and the Navy got us there’; and further reductions to Britain’s overstretched fleet may mean that the Army will soon find itself undeployable. The only way in which cutting the Fleet to save soldier-numbers would make sense is if all the British Army’s future errands were on the USA’s behalf. If that is the generals’ assumption, Parliament, the public and the Falkland islanders ought to be told now. "

Strategic Defence & Security Review: ?Soldiers or Ships?? is the wrong question | Dr. Andrew Gordon | Critical Reaction

[oldnotbold]

The Type 42 Destroyers must go soon, Carriers or no Carriers, same is true of HMS Ocean. They should keep the remaining Type 22 Frigates, but I have grave doubts that they will, again with or without the Carriers.

The question, beyond, perhaps, a few small MCM ships, comes down to the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers or, again perhaps, one or two Amphibious ships. The QE's, the largest Aircraft Carriers in the world, outside the USN, are obviously more important assets than one or two Amphibious ships, which could, in any case be mothballed against need.

[Archimedes]

Every British regimental battle-honour contains the silent suffix ‘…and the Navy got us there’

Er.... Arnhem??

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Good point; resounding success.

[etartar]

The Full Monty

As a new addition to this forum but a long time naval aviation fan and participant in all three sectors (military - industry - political) I have to say that just about everyone in the UK must be smoking pot. The two super carriers and air wings plus all the associated "stuff" and "people" will easily take 50 billion pounds over the next decade if the "full Monty" gets approved and funded. The example being set by the American shipbuilding and aerospace firms with the CV-2000, LHA(R), DD(X), and the F-35 Programs must make all sane players in this fantasy head for the highest window to jump out of or heavily invest in some Naval Rum. What are you all thinking? Now if we also take a loot at three things - (1) how the wars in Afghanistan and beyond are going, (2) what are the new "threat" (Red & Grey) threats coming down the pike in anti-ship missiles, integrated SAM/AAA complexes, cyber-to-EW challenges, and high-tech fighter aviation, and finally (3) what are the requirements needed to deal with a nuclear Iran and North Korea with all of their associated scenarios... Not a field of mental pleasantries unfortunately while in fact with a "full Monty" all-in approach the UK comes out no better then Guatemala for the simple reason - the UK is broke and the US is hemorrhaging at a rate of 50 billion dollars a year trying to fight 100 or so al Qaeda in Afghanistan and tens of thousands radical Muslims around the peripherals who just want an opportunity to bleed the latest big power who is trying to change the way of the Region. Nice work - just about every major defence program is over budget by at least 50% and extended in schedule to IOC by a decade - in both the US and the UK - what a record, and what a testament to the competency of those in charge.... "PONZI Scheme" may be the new identifier of all these efforts - nothing else fits.

[Archimedes]

Forgive me if I misunderstand your point, GBZ, but...

Success isn't a pre-requisite to battle honours being awarded...

My pedantic point (which I shall make to the author of the otherwise excellent article over coffee later this morning in a suitably bantering fashion) is that saying 'every' battle honour could, and probably will be used by some as a device by which to attack the whole thrust of the article:

'Clearly a naval historian, basic errors like claiming that the RN somehow was essential to Arnhem. Really! Doesn't understand the land... special pleading... Might have been true in the 19th Century, but not now....' And so on.

And there is a danger that simply (re)posting articles in toto in what looks dangerously like a 'see, this proves the point!' manner, without any form of critical analysis, or observation on the content by the person posting it can become a little wearisome, no matter how useful/interesting the linked to content is (no offence to oldnotbold) - which in turn leads to the danger of the piece being picked apart with one small flaw in detail being employed to attack the argument.