Future Carrier (Including Costs)
I see what many forecast has come to pass - a Royal Navy with half its surface destroyers and frigates ships in repair/upgrade (list in today's "Times") and the QE "dehumidifying" leaving 9 serious vessels available world-wide
The list (table) mentioned in #5526 is in this Times article:-
US ‘offered help in strait days before Stena Impero was seized’
US ‘offered help in strait days before Stena Impero was seized’
really depressing I thought
Didn't Nelson always say he could never have enough frigates?
Didn't Nelson always say he could never have enough frigates?
Thread Starter
Yes but Nelson did not live in an age of submarines, aircraft, guided missiles..... Ships were simpler then,sailors needed less training, and were less likely to walk for disruption to family life!
The management of news from HMS Queen Elizabeth has been terrible. In an information has been dreadful, but she was been shipshape enough for a families day and to be moved in port:
I believe most of the FOST objectives had been met - fire fighting and damage control exercises, casualty drills, machinery and steering breakdown drills, boat operations, a lot of rotary wing flying with Merlin HM2, Merlin HC4, Chinooks, and Apache, gunnery serials against both waterborne and airborne threats, and controlling fighters.
The management of news from HMS Queen Elizabeth has been terrible. In an information has been dreadful, but she was been shipshape enough for a families day and to be moved in port:
I believe most of the FOST objectives had been met - fire fighting and damage control exercises, casualty drills, machinery and steering breakdown drills, boat operations, a lot of rotary wing flying with Merlin HM2, Merlin HC4, Chinooks, and Apache, gunnery serials against both waterborne and airborne threats, and controlling fighters.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The carriers strike me as the Defence equvalent to HS2.
You literally couldnt think of a worse, more catastrophic state of affairs, for what once was a Navy that ruled the waves.
- Somebody, for all the wrong reasons, decides its a good idea to build two massive Carriers
- Defence budget gets cut but the Carriers have gone too far to cancel
- The carriers are built but there's nothing for them to do, no-on to man them and we cant afford to use them
- The decision to buy the carriers has far reaching implications, meaning we've bought the least capable and most expensive version of the F35
- The carriers are expensive to maintain and unreliable, spening more time in port than at sea
- The second carrier will only make a bad situation worse
- Meanwhile what's left of the RN stumbles on, starved of manpower and funds
You literally couldnt think of a worse, more catastrophic state of affairs, for what once was a Navy that ruled the waves.
The word "cobblers" springs to mind but it's clear that you have already made up your mind.
WEBF,
.. Ships were simpler then, sailors needed less training, and were less likely to walk for disruption to family life!
Oh come on! I think that they were FAR more likely to 'walk" seeing as they had to be press ganged in the first place!
.. Ships were simpler then, sailors needed less training, and were less likely to walk for disruption to family life!
Oh come on! I think that they were FAR more likely to 'walk" seeing as they had to be press ganged in the first place!
Thread Starter
Untrue - the role of the press gang has been hugely exaggerated. Even in the days of sail most men were volunteers - of course life ashore in those day or aboard a merchant ship was not much fun. The exact phrase I was going to use was "log onto JPA and opt for six (or is it seven?) clicks to freedom."
Originally Posted by andrewn
The carriers strike me as the Defence equvalent to HS2.
<snip>
You literally couldnt think of a worse, more catastrophic state of affairs, for what once was a Navy that ruled the waves.
<snip>
You literally couldnt think of a worse, more catastrophic state of affairs, for what once was a Navy that ruled the waves.
Originally Posted by Dominic Cummings
...aircraft carriers are no longer safe from cheap missiles. I started making these arguments in 2004 when it was already clear that the UK Ministry of Defence carrier project was a disaster. Since then it has been a multi-billion pound case study in Whitehall incompetence, the MoD’s appalling ‘planning’ system and corrupt procurement, and Westminster’s systemic inability to think about complex long-term issues. Talking to someone at the MoD last year they said that in NATO wargames the UK carriers immediately bug out for the edge of the game to avoid being sunk. Of course they do. Carriers cannot be deployed against top tier forces because of the vast and increasing asymmetry between their cost and vulnerability to cheap sinking.
Last edited by Easy Street; 3rd Aug 2019 at 19:13.
Easy Street,
I've got bad news for you, Sam. The PM's senior adviser is exercising firm control of the agenda across Whitehall and has the same view of the carriers as andrewn:
He really, really is not.
I've got bad news for you, Sam. The PM's senior adviser is exercising firm control of the agenda across Whitehall and has the same view of the carriers as andrewn:
He really, really is not.
Easy Street,
I've got bad news for you, Sam. The PM's senior adviser is exercising firm control of the agenda across Whitehall and has the same view of the carriers as andrewn:
He really, really is not.
I've got bad news for you, Sam. The PM's senior adviser is exercising firm control of the agenda across Whitehall and has the same view of the carriers as andrewn:
He really, really is not.
Edit: 'an Army of 82000' and the Strike Brigade concept are other recent examples of policy being made in No10 without MOD's endorsement.
Last edited by Easy Street; 3rd Aug 2019 at 21:15.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Street,
I've got bad news for you, Sam. The PM's senior adviser is exercising firm control of the agenda across Whitehall and has the same view of the carriers as andrewn:
He really, really is not.
I've got bad news for you, Sam. The PM's senior adviser is exercising firm control of the agenda across Whitehall and has the same view of the carriers as andrewn:
He really, really is not.
weemonkey,
Yep.
Yep.
EasyStreet,
That takes absolutely no account of how and by whom Special Advisers are employed and paid, to whom they report, and how Government works.
Steve Baker did not want a repeat of his last Ministerial post and was open about that. He did not want to be a junior minister in a department that he saw as being usurped by Michael Gove and his 7 days a week Brexit committee meetings. The rush of announcements, or rather the list of emotional claims to be positive, are simply because the PM wants to leave when he campaigned to leave, 31st Oct, and has about 90 days to do it, all without seeming to weaken his hard line "do or die" leave goal as he knows that would result in him being engulfed in a Brexit Party revival that would be terminal for the Tories.
That takes absolutely no account of how and by whom Special Advisers are employed and paid, to whom they report, and how Government works.
Steve Baker did not want a repeat of his last Ministerial post and was open about that. He did not want to be a junior minister in a department that he saw as being usurped by Michael Gove and his 7 days a week Brexit committee meetings. The rush of announcements, or rather the list of emotional claims to be positive, are simply because the PM wants to leave when he campaigned to leave, 31st Oct, and has about 90 days to do it, all without seeming to weaken his hard line "do or die" leave goal as he knows that would result in him being engulfed in a Brexit Party revival that would be terminal for the Tories.
pr00ne,
Where there's Gove, there's Cummings. At least that's what the civil servants I know say! There's clearly a centralising focus because of 31 October, but if the Government survives beyond that date we should expect a similar way of doing business to pervade the annual routine. That's why I think Cummings's views on defence matters are interesting. Does anyone know if the PM has any?!
Where there's Gove, there's Cummings. At least that's what the civil servants I know say! There's clearly a centralising focus because of 31 October, but if the Government survives beyond that date we should expect a similar way of doing business to pervade the annual routine. That's why I think Cummings's views on defence matters are interesting. Does anyone know if the PM has any?!
Thread Starter
Easy Street
Perhaps Mr Cummings forgot to tell the US Navy and the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy these things? Now why is it the nation that produces DF-21 is building carriers? Why was it that NATO asked for the UK to commit a carrier to the NATO Response Force? Something to do with task group operations?
Thousands of souls aboard? Where? Perhaps a bit more attention detail?
Surely Col Boyd's work related (primarily) to aircraft fighting each other within visual range? Some hardcore disciples wanted the F-16 to have neither radar nor missiles!
Also you forget:
1. A carrier is not the only high value unit in a task group. There might well be amphibious forces, or important RFAs, or crisis response shipping. What is the best way to protect them from aircraft with anti ship missiles, that they can fire from beyond the range of any ship based surface to air missile? How do you protect them from submarines most effectively?
Perhaps this page from the USS Dwight D Eisenhower Strike Group might be informative?
2. Once upon a time I was planned that the Royal Navy's main role in NATO would be to provide ASW. Large 'through deck cruisers' were intended to carry multiple ASW Sea Kings. Then of course there was a need to counter the Soviet Bear maritime patrol aircraft, and there was a conveniently sized V/STOL aircraft that could be navalised.
Just think about this - when HMS Hermes operated Sea Harrier FRS1, Harrier GR3, Sea King HAS 2 and a few Sea King HC4 in the South Atlantic in 1982, she launched and recovered jets in some pretty nasty weather. If she had still been operating Sea Vixens and Buccaneers - or a replacement (small) CTOL jet, could she have achieved this? Could the RAF have provided rapid reinforcement without a V/STOL aircraft?
weemonkey
Errr.... Not sure what you mean!
pr00ne
I wonder what great parliamentarians from the past like Churchill or Attlee would have thought of all these special advisers?
Perhaps Mr Cummings forgot to tell the US Navy and the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy these things? Now why is it the nation that produces DF-21 is building carriers? Why was it that NATO asked for the UK to commit a carrier to the NATO Response Force? Something to do with task group operations?
Thousands of souls aboard? Where? Perhaps a bit more attention detail?
Surely Col Boyd's work related (primarily) to aircraft fighting each other within visual range? Some hardcore disciples wanted the F-16 to have neither radar nor missiles!
Also you forget:
1. A carrier is not the only high value unit in a task group. There might well be amphibious forces, or important RFAs, or crisis response shipping. What is the best way to protect them from aircraft with anti ship missiles, that they can fire from beyond the range of any ship based surface to air missile? How do you protect them from submarines most effectively?
Perhaps this page from the USS Dwight D Eisenhower Strike Group might be informative?
2. Once upon a time I was planned that the Royal Navy's main role in NATO would be to provide ASW. Large 'through deck cruisers' were intended to carry multiple ASW Sea Kings. Then of course there was a need to counter the Soviet Bear maritime patrol aircraft, and there was a conveniently sized V/STOL aircraft that could be navalised.
Just think about this - when HMS Hermes operated Sea Harrier FRS1, Harrier GR3, Sea King HAS 2 and a few Sea King HC4 in the South Atlantic in 1982, she launched and recovered jets in some pretty nasty weather. If she had still been operating Sea Vixens and Buccaneers - or a replacement (small) CTOL jet, could she have achieved this? Could the RAF have provided rapid reinforcement without a V/STOL aircraft?
weemonkey
Errr.... Not sure what you mean!
pr00ne
I wonder what great parliamentarians from the past like Churchill or Attlee would have thought of all these special advisers?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 8th Aug 2019 at 20:32.
Just think about this - when HMS Hermes operated Sea Harrier FRS1, Harrier GR3, Sea King HAS 2 and a few Sea King HC4 in the South Atlantic in 1982, she launched and recovered jets in some pretty nasty weather. If she had still been operating Sea Vixens and Buccaneers - or a replacement (small) CTOL jet, could she have achieved this? Could the RAF have provided rapid reinforcement without a V/STOL aircraft?
Originally Posted by WEBF
Perhaps Mr Cummings forgot to tell the US Navy and the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy these things?
Originally Posted by WEBF
Now why is it the nation that produces DF-21 is building carriers?
Why was it that NATO asked for the UK to commit a carrier to the NATO Response Force? Something to do with task group operations?
Thousands of souls aboard? Where? Perhaps a bit more attention detail?
Originally Posted by WEBF
Surely Col Boyd's work related (primarily) to aircraft fighting each other within visual range? Some hardcore disciples wanted the F-16 to have neither radar nor missiles!
Originally Posted by WEBF
1. A carrier is not the only high value unit in a task group. There might well be amphibious forces, or important RFAs, or crisis response shipping. What is the best way do protect them from aircraft with anti ship missiles, that they can fire from beyond the range of any ship based surface to air missile?
Originally Posted by WEBF
How do you protect them from submarines most effectively?
Perhaps this page from the USS Dwight D Eisenhower Strike Group might be informative?
Perhaps this page from the USS Dwight D Eisenhower Strike Group might be informative?
Last edited by Easy Street; 4th Aug 2019 at 08:49.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Webf, this whole thread is 278 pages of you espousing why carriers are the answer to the Nations defence woes. But it doesnt matter how many articles you dredge up or how many VADMs or 1SLs you quote, it doesnt make you any more right...
The carriers were and are a vanity project to protect Scottish Labour votes, nothing more, nothing less.
They are junk and will both be gone in 10 years time.
The carriers were and are a vanity project to protect Scottish Labour votes, nothing more, nothing less.
They are junk and will both be gone in 10 years time.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Webf, this whole thread is 278 pages of you espousing why carriers are the answer to the Nations defence woes. But it doesnt matter how many articles you dredge up or how many VADMs or 1SLs you quote, it doesnt make you any more right...
The carriers were and are a vanity project to protect Scottish Labour votes, nothing more, nothing less.
They are junk and will both be gone in 10 years time.
The carriers were and are a vanity project to protect Scottish Labour votes, nothing more, nothing less.
They are junk and will both be gone in 10 years time.