CVF
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 50
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wader2
Victorious managed 1941-1968 or 47 years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victorious_(R38)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Tell that to the team on Invincible in GW2 operating day and night sorties of 4 GR7 and 4 FA2s.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell that to the team on Invincible in GW2 operating day and night sorties of 4 GR7 and 4 FA2s. A balanced strike package. Invincible was contributing to the US carrier effort, but could have operated in support of UK ground forces independently.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omnipotent
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do enjoy the circular fashion of threads on this forum, and I think that this is one that will be about for many years to come.
The requirement for CVF is certainly in the realms of crystal ball-work, however the USN carry out significant operations from their carriers into present theatres (mainly due to their organic tankers) and the ability to project such power without host nation support is the pinnacle of flexible air power. Typhoon will no doubt become a useful asset to the UK's arsenal, with some decent investment to rectify the poor design faults or rather to create a swing role aircraft from a pure AD platform...but it is not suited as a true swing role aircraft and JSF will outshine it in every department (depending on which variant we choose of course!). I agree with some points that if we canned both programmes we could fund an array of present tense assets that are crying out for cash, but when we have the opportunity to gain something which allows global reach and dynamic implementation, then why don't we have a bit of faith in the future. I have been around the military for many years, and have seen some poor procurement choices, but in times of cash shortages I have had direct experience of procuring the BEST equipment, off the shelf (rather than ten times the price from BAE, for example) and it being used as it was designed, and furthering the UK's reputation as being the best at what it does. That gives me hope.
The requirement for CVF is certainly in the realms of crystal ball-work, however the USN carry out significant operations from their carriers into present theatres (mainly due to their organic tankers) and the ability to project such power without host nation support is the pinnacle of flexible air power. Typhoon will no doubt become a useful asset to the UK's arsenal, with some decent investment to rectify the poor design faults or rather to create a swing role aircraft from a pure AD platform...but it is not suited as a true swing role aircraft and JSF will outshine it in every department (depending on which variant we choose of course!). I agree with some points that if we canned both programmes we could fund an array of present tense assets that are crying out for cash, but when we have the opportunity to gain something which allows global reach and dynamic implementation, then why don't we have a bit of faith in the future. I have been around the military for many years, and have seen some poor procurement choices, but in times of cash shortages I have had direct experience of procuring the BEST equipment, off the shelf (rather than ten times the price from BAE, for example) and it being used as it was designed, and furthering the UK's reputation as being the best at what it does. That gives me hope.
Widger, your observation about Typhoon's obsolescence must be either
1) A Wah
2) A slightly unfortunate example to use when suggesting that JN is engaging in the art of communication via his rectum
3) Evidence that you are Lewis Page and I can claim my five pounds...
Now I disagree with JN (I will confess to having said in print that if the UK is serious about expeditionary ops it requires CVF), in that if spending on quangos were to be reduced by just 5% and reallocated to defence - which would have no implications for the NHS, education, transport or anything else other than the well-remunerated quango members - we would be able to afford both CVF and Tranche 3 without any difficulty.
Quangos received £24.1 billion in 1997, and the Iron Chancellor promised "a bonfire of the quangos and greater democracy" and a reduction in spending to more sensible levels - before, over the course of the next ten years increasing spending upon these undemocratic and unnecessary bodies by £100 billion.
However, that notwithstanding, the idea that Typhoon will be made obsolete by JCA is, I fear, somewhat far-fetched - particularly if one CVF is in refit/dock and the other several thousand miles away from a crisis and multi-role aircraft are needed fairly smartly.We need both Typhoon and CVF, and arguing about which capability to cut gives comfort only to the Treasury and a variety of barely-accountable governance bodies. And lesser enemies of the realm...
1) A Wah
2) A slightly unfortunate example to use when suggesting that JN is engaging in the art of communication via his rectum
3) Evidence that you are Lewis Page and I can claim my five pounds...
Now I disagree with JN (I will confess to having said in print that if the UK is serious about expeditionary ops it requires CVF), in that if spending on quangos were to be reduced by just 5% and reallocated to defence - which would have no implications for the NHS, education, transport or anything else other than the well-remunerated quango members - we would be able to afford both CVF and Tranche 3 without any difficulty.
Quangos received £24.1 billion in 1997, and the Iron Chancellor promised "a bonfire of the quangos and greater democracy" and a reduction in spending to more sensible levels - before, over the course of the next ten years increasing spending upon these undemocratic and unnecessary bodies by £100 billion.
However, that notwithstanding, the idea that Typhoon will be made obsolete by JCA is, I fear, somewhat far-fetched - particularly if one CVF is in refit/dock and the other several thousand miles away from a crisis and multi-role aircraft are needed fairly smartly.We need both Typhoon and CVF, and arguing about which capability to cut gives comfort only to the Treasury and a variety of barely-accountable governance bodies. And lesser enemies of the realm...
Even if we need JSF, for FCAC, we don't necessarily NEED a carrier. Most of the allies who participate in coalition ops don't bring carriers to the party, and are able to make a worthwhile contribution. Nor are carriers necessary for autonomous ops.
Carriers are an exceptionally expensive way of delivering relatively modest effect, and they are vulnerable, slow to deploy, and require massive and expensive support.
In the real world - the world in which we cannot afford every club for the golf bag - I'd rather rely on the Spams in the distant eventuality that we need carrier air, and instead make sure we have our own autonomous SIGINT, our own, 'bought and paid for' tankers, lots of SH, a proper Canberra replacement, SEAD capability, low collateral damage weapons, sufficient AD aircraft and lots of deployable FJs. As well as proper kit for our troops on the ground, radios that work, appropriate vehicles, etc.
We need every Typhoon we've ordered, and (in any case) very little (if any) money would be saved by cancelling Tranche 3, since most of the cash is spent, and penalty payments would take care of most of the rest. And I suspect that if we were going to flush MRA4 to save money, we should have done it a decade ago.
I'd agree with you that the Reds, and Scampton are indefensible, and that they should probably go, along with Victory and all that historic Portsmouth stuff, at least one of the naval bases, Dartmouth, the Household division, the King's Troop, RHA.
And the RN is responsible for some of the budgetary pressure. The Admirals were told Trident replacement or carriers, and they're pushing for both, when neither are strictly necessary. We could and should have a cheaper deterrent - even if it remains submarine launched. The Moscow criteria is no longer valid, nuclear SLCMs would be more than adequate.
As to the money wasted on Nimwacs - that was spent decades ago - it's like blaming the CVA01 cancellation fees, or the last refit to HMS Rodney.
Whereas there is a great deal of real saving (money that hasn't already been pissed away) to be had if we deep six the CVF and JCA now.
Carriers are an exceptionally expensive way of delivering relatively modest effect, and they are vulnerable, slow to deploy, and require massive and expensive support.
In the real world - the world in which we cannot afford every club for the golf bag - I'd rather rely on the Spams in the distant eventuality that we need carrier air, and instead make sure we have our own autonomous SIGINT, our own, 'bought and paid for' tankers, lots of SH, a proper Canberra replacement, SEAD capability, low collateral damage weapons, sufficient AD aircraft and lots of deployable FJs. As well as proper kit for our troops on the ground, radios that work, appropriate vehicles, etc.
We need every Typhoon we've ordered, and (in any case) very little (if any) money would be saved by cancelling Tranche 3, since most of the cash is spent, and penalty payments would take care of most of the rest. And I suspect that if we were going to flush MRA4 to save money, we should have done it a decade ago.
I'd agree with you that the Reds, and Scampton are indefensible, and that they should probably go, along with Victory and all that historic Portsmouth stuff, at least one of the naval bases, Dartmouth, the Household division, the King's Troop, RHA.
And the RN is responsible for some of the budgetary pressure. The Admirals were told Trident replacement or carriers, and they're pushing for both, when neither are strictly necessary. We could and should have a cheaper deterrent - even if it remains submarine launched. The Moscow criteria is no longer valid, nuclear SLCMs would be more than adequate.
As to the money wasted on Nimwacs - that was spent decades ago - it's like blaming the CVA01 cancellation fees, or the last refit to HMS Rodney.
Whereas there is a great deal of real saving (money that hasn't already been pissed away) to be had if we deep six the CVF and JCA now.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh FFS children!
It is fair to say that carriers have not been essential to any of our ops since 1982. People can bang on about HNS but this has not been a show stopper in practice. However, carriers have been exceptionally useful in many ops and particularly during the Balkans where carrier assets sometimes allowed air to be maintained over B-H when all the Italian bases were red.
Either that is a big wah Navaleye or you need to get your facts straight. No fixed wing operated off the CVS during GW2. It was used purely in the LPH role for the Cdo Bde insertion on Al Faw via Chinooks and SK4 with Lynx and ASaC support. The FA2s did not fly in the op although RAF GR7s flew CAS/interdiction from a, err, 'friendly' nation.
The use of the CVS in this role is probably a useful microcosm of how we've used our carrier assets since 82. The assets could easily have been disembarked to a shore location and the op staged from there. However, having the CVS was exceptionally useful and prevented a complex and time consuming logs move ashore. In addition, the ability of a carrier to move rapidly (or as rapidly as a boat can
) from a position elsewhere can mask our intentions better than a move ashore which would have taken several days. A CVF would have been even more useful in this role and would probably have had the capacity to maintain fixed wing ops as well.
Incorrect. The USN's organic carriers do very little other than offer an ability to top up one or 2 assets within a few hundred miles of mother. They are certainly unable to 'project' any meaningfully sized package. Even when the USN had a decent organic tanker in the shape of the KA-3D Whale that capability was limited. As their AAR moved onto the KA-6D, S-3B and now the FA-18E, the organic tanker has slowly become even more limited. Therefore, even USN CVNs rely almost exclusively on land based AAR (as well as ISTAR etc) support from the USAF and RAF. Even in the early days of Afghanistan, US carrier assets regularly employed land based FOBs to turn in another, err, 'friendly' nation.
Before all you carrier dudes start screaming 'biased crab', let me offer some balance. The Falklands is often used by both sides to justify/question carriers. Those for mention the use of carriers in the initial war whilst those against point out the fact we now have MPA. However, look at it from the Argies perspective. MPA is arguably our CoG down there. So what happens if they do an 'Op MIKADO' and manage to stick 2 x C-130 (or an 'airliner full of 'relatives on a pilgrimage to the Argie war graves' that are actually SF) onto the runway? Without a runway they could reinforce via surface means, clear the runway and set up shop again. Without a carrier we could do very little about it. However, with CVF en route they'd know we could still come down and kick them out. That's undoubtedly an unlikely scenario today, but will it be over the next 30-50 years? Most importantly, it illustrates the point that everyone should be recognising namely:
LAND BASED AND MARITIME AIR POWER IS COMPLEMENTARY FFS!!!!!!!
In summary, land based and maritime air power each have their pros and cons. I don't think carriers are essential and those who describe CVF as being the 'cornerstone' of UK defence for the next 50 years are imho exaggerating. Is it ‘highly desirable’ enough a capability to push through? Personally, I think so and I think CVF/JCA will offer an exceptionally versatile and flexible capability that we need and should be funded.
My worry however is that the RN have prostituted their future on CVF and the SSBNs and that the latter in particular will compromise their wider conventional capabilities.
Now, everyone stop arguing or they’ll be no pudding for any of you…
Regards,
MM
It is fair to say that carriers have not been essential to any of our ops since 1982. People can bang on about HNS but this has not been a show stopper in practice. However, carriers have been exceptionally useful in many ops and particularly during the Balkans where carrier assets sometimes allowed air to be maintained over B-H when all the Italian bases were red.
Tell that to the team on Invincible in GW2 operating day and night sorties of 4 GR7 and 4 FA2s.
The use of the CVS in this role is probably a useful microcosm of how we've used our carrier assets since 82. The assets could easily have been disembarked to a shore location and the op staged from there. However, having the CVS was exceptionally useful and prevented a complex and time consuming logs move ashore. In addition, the ability of a carrier to move rapidly (or as rapidly as a boat can
) from a position elsewhere can mask our intentions better than a move ashore which would have taken several days. A CVF would have been even more useful in this role and would probably have had the capacity to maintain fixed wing ops as well.
...however the USN carry out significant operations from their carriers into present theatres (mainly due to their organic tankers) and the ability to project such power without host nation support is the pinnacle of flexible air power.
Before all you carrier dudes start screaming 'biased crab', let me offer some balance. The Falklands is often used by both sides to justify/question carriers. Those for mention the use of carriers in the initial war whilst those against point out the fact we now have MPA. However, look at it from the Argies perspective. MPA is arguably our CoG down there. So what happens if they do an 'Op MIKADO' and manage to stick 2 x C-130 (or an 'airliner full of 'relatives on a pilgrimage to the Argie war graves' that are actually SF) onto the runway? Without a runway they could reinforce via surface means, clear the runway and set up shop again. Without a carrier we could do very little about it. However, with CVF en route they'd know we could still come down and kick them out. That's undoubtedly an unlikely scenario today, but will it be over the next 30-50 years? Most importantly, it illustrates the point that everyone should be recognising namely:
LAND BASED AND MARITIME AIR POWER IS COMPLEMENTARY FFS!!!!!!!
In summary, land based and maritime air power each have their pros and cons. I don't think carriers are essential and those who describe CVF as being the 'cornerstone' of UK defence for the next 50 years are imho exaggerating. Is it ‘highly desirable’ enough a capability to push through? Personally, I think so and I think CVF/JCA will offer an exceptionally versatile and flexible capability that we need and should be funded.
My worry however is that the RN have prostituted their future on CVF and the SSBNs and that the latter in particular will compromise their wider conventional capabilities.
Now, everyone stop arguing or they’ll be no pudding for any of you…
Regards,
MM
Well put MM.One point worth adding re the bombers. I doubt very much that the Admirals were told "Trident or Carriers not both" as Jacko suggests. The deterrent is a Joint National asset, NOT a naval one. The fact that it is predominantly dark blue merely reflects the chosen delivery method. It most certainly doesn't do much for RN force structure (I can't think of more than three or so units contingent on the deterrent and not all of them are dark blue) and having to support that force from the naval budget does the RN no favours at all.People have debated the future deterrent to death, but if you're going to use an unmanned delivery system, then cruise is too limited in range and vulnerable. Given Ivans recent behaviour, you'd think a ballistic system was worth hanging on to just in case.Having had the naval budget decimated by Trident in the 80s, one might have thought "the Admirals" would have been keen to avoid a repeat......
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 80
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MarkD, you are right, brain fade or dyscalculia.
Navaleye, I agree the Viraat is still going strong but it should be self-evident that the Royal Navy did not operate it for 50 years!
Ditto Sunk at Narvik, you are of course right the that world's largest Navy is operating incredibly old ships, just the Royal Navy does not have such a track record with ironclads.
Also, given the number of flat tops they are able to afford the maintenance down time. With old vessels where we have two or three off we really only have the capability and resources to operate one.
We have been throwing modern destroyers away before the paint has dried. We dispensed with a complete submarine arm in short order. It wholly optimistic that political will to maintain 2 CVF over 50 years will endure.
A_A, dont tell me about the Ark. Watched the Queen Mum drive passed our house after she was launched. Not only was she on the slips for so long but they kept redesigning her. Workers would leave work Friday, on mOnday they would make their way back on board, up ladders, down companionways, descend into the bowels and arrive at a solid bulkhead where Friday there had been a hatch way.
Recently, an ex-Ark PO told me how he opened one hatch to find the compartment flooded. It was flooded for 5 decks down. All comparments below the water line were all shut down and damage control had to give permission every time someone needed to go below.
50 years, great idea and I would love to see it happen but I doubt it. I certainly hope they outlast me.
Navaleye, I agree the Viraat is still going strong but it should be self-evident that the Royal Navy did not operate it for 50 years!
Ditto Sunk at Narvik, you are of course right the that world's largest Navy is operating incredibly old ships, just the Royal Navy does not have such a track record with ironclads.
Also, given the number of flat tops they are able to afford the maintenance down time. With old vessels where we have two or three off we really only have the capability and resources to operate one.
We have been throwing modern destroyers away before the paint has dried. We dispensed with a complete submarine arm in short order. It wholly optimistic that political will to maintain 2 CVF over 50 years will endure.
A_A, dont tell me about the Ark. Watched the Queen Mum drive passed our house after she was launched. Not only was she on the slips for so long but they kept redesigning her. Workers would leave work Friday, on mOnday they would make their way back on board, up ladders, down companionways, descend into the bowels and arrive at a solid bulkhead where Friday there had been a hatch way.
Recently, an ex-Ark PO told me how he opened one hatch to find the compartment flooded. It was flooded for 5 decks down. All comparments below the water line were all shut down and damage control had to give permission every time someone needed to go below.
50 years, great idea and I would love to see it happen but I doubt it. I certainly hope they outlast me.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 80
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure Archimedes can confirm or deny that statement.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Either that is a big wah Navaleye or you need to get your facts straight. No fixed wing operated off the CVS during GW2. It was used purely in the LPH role for the Cdo Bde insertion on Al Faw via Chinooks and SK4 with Lynx and ASaC support. The FA2s did not fly in the op although RAF GR7s flew CAS/interdiction from a, err, 'friendly' nation.
"The requirement was a day and night mission over Iraq every 24 hours, with Invincible contributing to each mission four FA2s for force protection and four GR7s for interdiction. However, the desire to maximise the UK contribution to the coalition effort, as well as the degree of training and integration required, resulted in more than double that rate of flying."
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Inner Planets
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
That was Op BOLTON in about 98-99, NOT GW2! In GW2 CVS operated only rotary assets and didn't even deploy with the Harriers.
That was Op BOLTON in about 98-99, NOT GW2! In GW2 CVS operated only rotary assets and didn't even deploy with the Harriers.
Last edited by Boldface; 6th Mar 2008 at 13:14.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, now. Lets not let the truth ruin a good story of how indispensible SHar was...
Oh no hang on a minute, it couldn't even manage RS15 to cover QRA(I) north at the time when we all deployed...
Oh no hang on a minute, it couldn't even manage RS15 to cover QRA(I) north at the time when we all deployed...
Suspicion breeds confidence
The tail end of Operation Bolton, but Ops over Iraq none the less.
From the same source.
On 25th January, Invincible was teaming north through the Strait of Hormuz escorted by Coventry. Shortly thereafter both FA2s and GR7s flew their first night sorties over Iraq, helping enforce Southern Watch alongside aircraft from Nimitz and George Washington...
...Each Anglo-US "package" consisted of up to 30 aircraft."
From the same source.
On 25th January, Invincible was teaming north through the Strait of Hormuz escorted by Coventry. Shortly thereafter both FA2s and GR7s flew their first night sorties over Iraq, helping enforce Southern Watch alongside aircraft from Nimitz and George Washington...
...Each Anglo-US "package" consisted of up to 30 aircraft."
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but Navaleye your whole point was that this was an example of our carriers being needed post 1982.
So
a. Your example was inaccurate.
b. They weren't needed, just as the GR1/4, F3, GR7 and Jaguar (for Northern Watch) contributions weren't needed. I'll not say the same for the ISTAR and tanker contributions.
c. Your impression that even in Op BOLTON/RESINATE the aircraft from CVS operated as an independant integrated balanced package shows how little you understand about COMAO Ops.
By all means defend CVF, I've yet to be wholeheartedly convinced one way or another, but try to use fact rather than dits to support your argument and please admit when you've got it woefully wrong.
So
a. Your example was inaccurate.
b. They weren't needed, just as the GR1/4, F3, GR7 and Jaguar (for Northern Watch) contributions weren't needed. I'll not say the same for the ISTAR and tanker contributions.
c. Your impression that even in Op BOLTON/RESINATE the aircraft from CVS operated as an independant integrated balanced package shows how little you understand about COMAO Ops.
By all means defend CVF, I've yet to be wholeheartedly convinced one way or another, but try to use fact rather than dits to support your argument and please admit when you've got it woefully wrong.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 56
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, Mixed emotions on all of this, but for my two-penneth I have to say that £100Bn to buy-off North-East Labour voters would have bought a heck of a lot of kit, for a long time.