Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Hard to see the money going to be available for long distance cruises when everyone agrees the Army will need massive investment in the light of Ukraine.
Except that the investment for Percy will primarily be Capex - and targetted in specific areas (AD, EW, ISTAR and indirect fires), whereas the (relatively small) amount of money needed for things like CSG21 comes out of the Resource budget.
All very interesting WEBF, but as all of this concerns events of 40 (yes FORTY) years ago surely your post should be in "Aviation History and Nostalgia?"
Presumably the military budget planners will want to take those lessons into full account, which argues against any sudden spending binge..
Why do people think the Army needs a big investment? The Russian threat was clearly overestimated. Also, the innovations apparent from the Ukraine war are forcing serious reappraisals of existing doctrines.
Presumably the military budget planners will want to take those lessons into full account, which argues against any sudden spending binge..
Presumably the military budget planners will want to take those lessons into full account, which argues against any sudden spending binge..
However you are correct in suggesting any splurge to recreate BAOR should be resisted until lessons digested.
On June 28th General Sir Patrick Sanders, who earlier that month had become chief of the general staff, addressed the Royal United Services Institute (rusi), a think-tank in London. “This is our 1937 moment,” he said, pointing to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. “From now the army will have a singular focus—to mobilise to meet today’s threat and thereby prevent war in Europe.” The process will be known as Operation mobilise.
General Sanders now promises “ruthless prioritisation”, on the assumption that the army would have to fight along nato’s eastern front, or on the alliance’s northern or southern flanks in the Arctic and Mediterranean. Some missions will be pruned. “I think the idea that the army is going to the Pacific to fight the Chinese is now off the table completely,” says William F. Owen, an expert who has advised the army and edits Military Strategy Magazine"
General Sanders now promises “ruthless prioritisation”, on the assumption that the army would have to fight along nato’s eastern front, or on the alliance’s northern or southern flanks in the Arctic and Mediterranean. Some missions will be pruned. “I think the idea that the army is going to the Pacific to fight the Chinese is now off the table completely,” says William F. Owen, an expert who has advised the army and edits Military Strategy Magazine"
Thread Starter
Has the principle of defence in depth changed then? Do the aircraft not work with the warships in a task group any more? Is the principle of wearing down the enemy before your vulnerable assets are on the scene not make sense any more?
Originally Posted by Widger
He also needs to be careful of infringing copyright laws
I believe limited extracts come under the term 'fair use' (or is it 'fair dealing'?), and they might be considered advertisements for the works quoted. I have acknowledged the authors.
Originally Posted by Asturias56
General Sanders now promises “ruthless prioritisation”, on the assumption that the army would have to fight along nato’s eastern front, or on the alliance’s northern or southern flanks in the Arctic and Mediterranean.
Northern and Southern flanks eh? Sounds like the sort of thing discussed in that paper from the Human Security Centre: Fire and Ice - A New Maritime Strategy for NATO's Northern Flank
On page 39: Despite delays, budget overruns and questions over their strategic purpose, Britain’s programme to procure a pair of 65,000 Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers is now well advanced, with the first vessel now deep into sea trials and the second expected to be delivered to the Royal Navy in 2019.
During the closing decade of the Cold War, the Royal Navy would have deployed a task group of ASW vessels led by one or two Invincible class light aircraft carriers to the GIUK-Gap to support efforts to halt Soviet submarines from transiting into the North Atlantic. Carrying Sea King ASW helicopters and Sea Harrier combat aircraft, these ships would have arrived ahead of the main US-led Carrier Striking Force to hold the line, and subsequently acted to defend the wider fleet as it advanced north.
In contrast to the Invincible class, the Queen Elizabeth class were designed with expeditionary operations in mind. As such, it was intended that they would focus on the delivery of fixed-wing offensive air power rather than ASW operations.
With the return of the Russian threat, some have questioned whether these are the correct ships for the current era. But for the Royal Navy, the Queen Elizabeth class carriers are an avenue to make a major contribution to the NATO’s deterrence and defence force on its northern maritime flank, and present a number of significant advantages over their predecessors. Most notably, the air group they will carry – for wartime open-ocean operations expected to be around 24 F-35Bs and fourteen Merlin HM Mk2s helicopters for ASW and airborne early warning and control – will be far more potent than that previously available. Thus, the security of the North Atlantic SLOC could be quickly supported by a Royal Navy carrier group near the GIUK-Gap in a more robust and survivable manner during either a crisis or early in a conflict than was the case during the Cold War. Such an effort would also help mitigate the practical problem of the US now having fewer carriers and a focus on the Pacific and the Middle East, given that these issues extend the time it would take to bring US assets into theatre.
Possible Russian actions such as interdicting NATO's lines of communications, and NATO responses (such as deploying a UK led ASW (and AAW?) group centred around one of our carriers), are mentioned from page 54.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 2nd Aug 2022 at 20:24. Reason: Ease of reading
I don't think General Sanders is thinking of a big boost for RN funding WEBF
The Army will point at Ukraine and point out they don't seem to need a navy to stop the Russian hordes
The Army will point at Ukraine and point out they don't seem to need a navy to stop the Russian hordes
On June 28th General Sir Patrick Sanders, who earlier that month had become chief of the general staff, addressed the Royal United Services Institute (rusi), a think-tank in London. “This is our 1937 moment,” he said, pointing to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. “From now the army will have a singular focus—to mobilise to meet today’s threat and thereby prevent war in Europe.” The process will be known as Operation mobilise.
General Sanders now promises “ruthless prioritisation”, on the assumption that the army would have to fight along nato’s eastern front, or on the alliance’s northern or southern flanks in the Arctic and Mediterranean. Some missions will be pruned. “I think the idea that the army is going to the Pacific to fight the Chinese is now off the table completely,” says William F. Owen, an expert who has advised the army and edits Military Strategy Magazine"
General Sanders now promises “ruthless prioritisation”, on the assumption that the army would have to fight along nato’s eastern front, or on the alliance’s northern or southern flanks in the Arctic and Mediterranean. Some missions will be pruned. “I think the idea that the army is going to the Pacific to fight the Chinese is now off the table completely,” says William F. Owen, an expert who has advised the army and edits Military Strategy Magazine"
1. CGS states that the Army (as opposed to defence) will have a singular focus - which is good. It's about time they did. Time will tell whether cap badges and regional commands can resist this.
2. I don't think I've ever heard anyone (rational) suggest that the Army would be off to fight the yellow peril.
This may well be the Army's chance to get it's ordure in a single piece of hosiery. Something the Navy did some years ago, not least with the culling of NCHQ posts and the fuhrer order that availability was to be properly prioritised.
I don't think General Sanders is thinking of a big boost for RN funding WEBF
The Army will point at Ukraine and point out they don't seem to need a navy to stop the Russian hordes
The Army will point at Ukraine and point out they don't seem to need a navy to stop the Russian hordes
So pleased that someone with a fair bit of knowledge, not just opinionated ignorance, has set the record straight in the Telegraph. Lt Page has never been the best of sources.
Whitehall mandarins did not cripple Britain’s aircraft carriers – here’s why we got it right
Whitehall mandarins did not cripple Britain’s aircraft carriers – here’s why we got it right
A secret cabal of shadowy mandarins conspiring to subvert the state. The armed forces deliberately hobbled by the enemies of the people, and the whole plot to emasculate Britain’s new aircraft carriers lent a satanic edge by the ring of 13 plotters devilling in the dark. I was interested to read the report by Mr Lewis Page, but I believe it owes more to John Buchan and the 39 Steps than to Jason Bourne or James Bond. Let me lift the veil on the workings of government a little and tell you my first hand account...
Article is firewalled
For the Telegraph website once the page has loaded right click anywhere and select 'View Page Source' (this will vary by browser but works in Chrome). You'll get a new tab which shows the code that makes the page, a surprisingly small portion of which will be the article, I find it's easiest to copy that bit into Word to read.
Suspicion breeds confidence
No one disagrees that we could do with a bigger army. A 100k standing army is desirable IHMO. The question is how to fund it? Well, the answer is to cut the civil service. A cull of 30,000 of these work shy wasters gets you 30,000 more grunts. The maths work out differently for the other services but the principle applies
No one disagrees that we could do with a bigger army. A 100k standing army is desirable IHMO. The question is how to fund it? Well, the answer is to cut the civil service. A cull of 30,000 of these work shy wasters gets you 30,000 more grunts. The maths work out differently for the other services but the principle applies
The people who believe that sort of thing are also first in the queue to suggest we need more teachers, more health workers, more police, more people at the DVLA, more people at the passport office, more people in the Border Force
"Something Must Be Done!" is the cry - but they also believe in cutting numbers and keeping the salaries to a minimum - and then wonder why nothing works very well in the public sector.
"Something Must Be Done!" is the cry - but they also believe in cutting numbers and keeping the salaries to a minimum - and then wonder why nothing works very well in the public sector.
Thread Starter
First Sea Lord's speech to the Council on Geostrategy - Royal Navy
So today I want to lay out some of the factors I think are germane to this analysis: I’ll cover the impact of the conflict in Ukraine, how this affects our strategy, and the need to look at the wider picture. My underlying message is this: focussing solely on the Russian bear risks missing the tiger. The conflict in Ukraine offers a number of lessons for us: the first shows the interconnectedness across the global commons. Rising fuel prices, shortages of food staples and raw materials are all, in part, traceable to Russia’s illegal invasion. By trying to choke Ukraine’s access to the sea, Russia is restricting the Ukrainians’ ability to trade and exercise their rights of free and open access. The world is being held ransom to a maritime blockade. It is that stark.
The world has woken up to the risks that Russia’s invasion poses. NATO has a new energy and cohesiveness about it, and most of us agree that it sure was not in Putin’s long term strategy to persuade neutral nations Finland and Sweden to apply to join.
As the Chief of Defence Staff said over the weekend, Russia represents a near and present danger to us, and to which we must respond. So as we in the western militaries move to ensure we can deter further aggression along the border of eastern Europe, Putin has, through his actions, created a new Iron Curtain from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
But – and to use a nautical analogy – we must take care to scan our binoculars across the whole horizon. The risk of focussing solely on Russia is that you miss the long term strategic challenge posed by China.
You will have heard the thoughtful speech put forward by my colleague General Patrick Sanders where he sets out the Army’s need for a fundamental change in how they think and structure themselves. An Army prepared for a prolonged fight in Europe. It is a profound moment for them.
As for Vlad The Terrible and his circle of barbarians: US and Nato are Russia’s main naval threats, Vladimir Putin says
Vladimir Putin has cast the US and Nato as its biggest naval enemies and called for an expanded presence in the disputed Arctic region as he outlined a new doctrine for the country’s navy.
The Russian president laid out plans to project itself as a “great maritime power” with orders to increase activities around Svalbard, a strategically important Norwegian archipelago close to the North Pole, during a speech to mark Russia’s Navy Day in St Petersburg.
A 55-page document signed by the president said Washington’s “strategic objective to dominate the world’s oceans” as well as Nato expansion were the key threats to Russian national security.
Mr Putin said the Russian navy was “able to respond with lightning speed to anyone who decides to encroach on our sovereignty and freedom”.
Thread Starter
Looking through old things I found a magazine called Firepower that had the wrong end of the stick regarding the role of the carrier:
It an ideal world, there would be nothing but strike aircraft....
The US Navy planners did not agree - and planned to increased the long range air defence capabilities of the carrier, with a new long range weapon to replace the AIM-54 Phoenix and a desire to fit this (and AMRAAM) not only to the Tomcat but also the Hornet and Intruder. These excerpts are from Norman Friedman's Fighters Over the Fleet - Naval Air Defence from Biplanes to the Cold War:
Meanwhile, the ASW capabilities of the carrier group were improving with the S-3B Viking and the replacement of the SH-3 Sea King with the radar equipped SH-60, and the capabilities against surface combatants were not neglected. This article by a former US Navy S-3 Viking Sensor Operator may interest you.
As we made our way up the North American east coast with the amphibious strike group, we were joined by a Canadian Task Force off of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Then, just south of Iceland, we were further reinforced by the primary NATO ASW Strike Force under command of the British on board the “Harrier-carrier” HMS Illustrious (R06).Over the next few days, we fought an opposed penetration of the GIUK Gap, simulating NATO’s failure to anticipate Soviet preparation for a war. Ideally, our forces would already be in the Norwegian fjords before the deployment of the Red Banner Northern and Baltic Fleets….ideally.
With the addition of some of our escorts with towed sonar arrays and the full Canadian task force, the NATO ASW Strike Force set about clearing the waters between Greenland, Iceland, the Faroe and Shetland Islands. The Ticonderoga class cruisers worked with our E-2s and Tomcats to defend against the various Soviet Naval Aviation threats that opposed us...
The author goes on to describe the use of airborne radar to keep hostile submarines down, and then an exercise in which the simulated long range anti ship missiles that represented the enemy threat were cued by a helicopter....
History did not end with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Geography and Physics are largely unchanged. Peer competition has returned with a bang, and the issues of protecting sea lines of communication and having amphibious capabilities as responses to aggression are back on the agenda. The current events in Ukraine illustrate the increasing tension and divide between the liberal democracies of the West (not defined by Geography as much as value) and the authoritarian regimes of Russia and China, and their allies such as Iran and North Korea. As noted by the First Sea Lord not so long ago, international interdependency has been highlighted.
It an ideal world, there would be nothing but strike aircraft....
The US Navy planners did not agree - and planned to increased the long range air defence capabilities of the carrier, with a new long range weapon to replace the AIM-54 Phoenix and a desire to fit this (and AMRAAM) not only to the Tomcat but also the Hornet and Intruder. These excerpts are from Norman Friedman's Fighters Over the Fleet - Naval Air Defence from Biplanes to the Cold War:
Meanwhile, the ASW capabilities of the carrier group were improving with the S-3B Viking and the replacement of the SH-3 Sea King with the radar equipped SH-60, and the capabilities against surface combatants were not neglected. This article by a former US Navy S-3 Viking Sensor Operator may interest you.
As we made our way up the North American east coast with the amphibious strike group, we were joined by a Canadian Task Force off of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Then, just south of Iceland, we were further reinforced by the primary NATO ASW Strike Force under command of the British on board the “Harrier-carrier” HMS Illustrious (R06).Over the next few days, we fought an opposed penetration of the GIUK Gap, simulating NATO’s failure to anticipate Soviet preparation for a war. Ideally, our forces would already be in the Norwegian fjords before the deployment of the Red Banner Northern and Baltic Fleets….ideally.
With the addition of some of our escorts with towed sonar arrays and the full Canadian task force, the NATO ASW Strike Force set about clearing the waters between Greenland, Iceland, the Faroe and Shetland Islands. The Ticonderoga class cruisers worked with our E-2s and Tomcats to defend against the various Soviet Naval Aviation threats that opposed us...
The author goes on to describe the use of airborne radar to keep hostile submarines down, and then an exercise in which the simulated long range anti ship missiles that represented the enemy threat were cued by a helicopter....
History did not end with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Geography and Physics are largely unchanged. Peer competition has returned with a bang, and the issues of protecting sea lines of communication and having amphibious capabilities as responses to aggression are back on the agenda. The current events in Ukraine illustrate the increasing tension and divide between the liberal democracies of the West (not defined by Geography as much as value) and the authoritarian regimes of Russia and China, and their allies such as Iran and North Korea. As noted by the First Sea Lord not so long ago, international interdependency has been highlighted.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 15th Aug 2022 at 15:15.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
I guess SRVL is on the menu: Second British carrier heading to U.S. for F-35 trials (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)