Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

CVF

Old 8th Mar 2008, 21:02
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 1,041
Received 13 Likes on 5 Posts
Violet Club,
Given your handle I wasn't expecting that reply!

Your arguement has much merit; nuclear tipped TLAM-N from SSN, S-Shadow from Land or Sea Based air are both plausible options. A few small problems though.

1. SSBNs, like carriers, are political viagra at the top table (ie UN). Few politicians like giving up any form of power..

2. IIRC the Trident boat replacement is as much to do with maintaining Submarine production in this country as it is with maintaining the deterrent. If new SSBNs were not built, there would be a huge gap between SSN classes. We could just build more, more useful, SSNs though..

3. TLAM-N / S-Shadow might be vulnerable to a sophisticated IADS in the future; a potential enemy would have to invest mega-bucks for Ballistic Missile defence.

4. The boats are home-ported in Scotland....
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2008, 21:07
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Violet Club,

I have heard no compelling evidence against a cheaper deterrent - Rust's flight demonstrated (if proof were needed) that Moscow's impenetrable air defences and ABM defences were largely imaginary - and I can conceive of no realistic scenario in which a cheaper deterrent, based on SLCM and ALCM (Storm Shadow based if need be) would not be adequate, and would not be more genuinely AUTONOMOUS and INDEPENDENT. That ought to give all of those who dream of the UK going it alone a really major hard-on, and if we put some of it on ships and subs, the cockers-P merchants will be happy.

Not a Boffin,

I apologise for using a statistic which you don't like. I don't know how else to express the fact that since the end of the Cold War, the RAF's frontline combat strength has fallen to something closer to one third of its former size, while the RN is still more than half its former size.

As to the RN being smaller than the RAF in personnel terms, I should think so too. We're living in the age of air power!

And thus far, HNS has not been the stumbling block that the carrier adherents want to believe, and if it ever is, then the op is probably politically unsustainable anyway!
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2008, 22:28
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,808
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
Well, excuse me for being tedious , but I think links to the Sea Jet and Future Carrier threads would be appropriate. I was going to post news of the steel order on the latter.

And thus far, HNS has not been the stumbling block that the carrier adherents want to believe, and if it ever is, then the op is probably politically unsustainable anyway!

Now what was the reason the USAF F111s had to take such a long route and refuel so many times for the strikes against Libya in 1986? Unlike the aircraft from the Sixth Fleet carriers.

Perhaps agreeing to disagree would be a good idea, however, you may find this interesting, even though it is only up to 2000.

We actually had 49 frigates/destroyers in 1990, now we have 25. Other types of units have been similarly cut. Part of this is the change from being primarily an ASW force to an expeditionary force, which is why carriers are so important.

Violet Club/Evalu8tor

The US binned all their nuclear Tomahawks, so we would have to develop a new warhead from scratch. Do you really think that would save money? Likewise an air launched cruise missile - not to mention the issue of whether or not the RAF would need dedicated aircraft (and support infrastructure). Even if it was just a tactical type weapon as the WE177 replacement was intended to be it might be a very expensive way of saving money. What aircraft did you have in mind by the way?

Some have suggested a SSN/SSBN hybrid, with a few missile tubes, that can use the tubes for TLAM, UUVs etc when not undertaking the deterrent role.
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2008, 23:00
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Absolutely not a dedicated platform - the problem with the Trident replacement options was that it was assumed that we'd need some huge fleet of dedicated Airbus types and two brand new airfields.

All you need is a small, relatively simple physics package that could form the basis of a warhead for cruise missiles, a Storm Shadow derivative, and even a free fall bomb. Remember, the aim is independent NATIONALLY owned, autonomous deterrence - not wiping Moscow off the map using a weapon which ties us into US decision making and targeting.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2008, 00:07
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Jacko,

I agree with many of your sentiments and I can see where you are coming from when you talk about the carriers not being what we should be spending our limited defence £s on with other pressing priorities out there (SH, R1 replacement, FJ sqns etc etc).

The CVF is undoubtedly a fantastic capability and one we should ideally have but as you suggest it may be a luxury that we could do without as it would mean HM Forces could then afford more of the basics; ie what I have mentioned above.

However, that is where IMHO your argument against CVF falls apart....

Its like this mate - if the carriers are cancelled, tomorrow or in 6 years time, HM Forces sure aint getting a nice big check for £3.5 billion for more of what we need. OH NO, that money will be FUC**NG GONE!

So lets just happily and gratefully accept our two (hopefully!) new big shiny carriers and be grateful for them and use em as best we can rather than get nothing at all....?! What do you reckon?!

Sense1
sense1 is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2008, 01:18
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
It's certainly true that there is not much percentage in cancelling the carriers except as part of a proper review of commitments and the capabilities required to meet those commitments.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2008, 09:48
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Now what was the reason the USAF F111s had to take such a long route and refuel so many times for the strikes against Libya in 1986? Unlike the aircraft from the Sixth Fleet carriers.
WEBF,
Incorrect. HNS was not an issue during El Dorado Canyon because the HN authorised use of its air bases. Overflight was denied by France but, regardless of routing, land based aircraft still reached their targets, provided the primary Combat Support assets (AWACS, RJ, KC-135, KC-10) for the op, and provided the primary BDA (SR-71). You could argue about the efficiencies of refuelling such extended range ops but land base provided similar numbers of aircraft over the targets as 3 CBGs did.

As ever, land and maritime is complimentary and each has advantages over the other. So stop willy waving.

Meanwhile...

I concur with VC’s views on replacing the SSBNs completely. In reality the primary drivers for replacing Trident are to maintain our place at the UNSC P5 and to retain parity with France.

Ballistic missiles are undoubtedly the most survivable method of maintaining a nuclear deterrent at a time when proliferation is snowballing. However, I think a credible deterrent could be maintained by far cheaper methods from extant platforms (SSN/DDG/manned air). WEBF again misses the point in that the UK has developed its own warheads for the current bomber fleet so his cost argument is irrelevant.

I'd also suggest that we are heading for one god almighty political problem with our SSBNs. Scotland will sadly be independent within 15 years imho and certainly within the lifetime of any Trident replacement (if not our current bombers!). An independent Scotland will then make Faslane unviable and have promised as much. So what do we do? Fork out yet more cash for support facilities in England? This is one example where HNS will be an enormous factor.

In a perfect world I'd like to see us retain an SSBN fleet. But I agree totally with VC that they cannot be justified in the future for the cost and Scottish independence aspects alone. Retain nukes definitely. But stick them on nuclear armed sub-surface, surface or air launched cruise missiles which could be developed (potentially jointly with France) far more cheaply. Those same platforms could then be employed far more flexibly on other conventional tasks when required.

Although a moot point because of the defence threats when Trident was procured (note that I believe that buying our current SSBN capability was justified), imagine how much more flexible the UK military would be today if, instead we'd have placed our nuclear deterrent on SSNs or a sqn or 2 of B-1Bs? A much larger more flexible RN, an RAF who had maintained a manned bomber force with all the advantages offered by such assets over Afghanistan today.

If we must keep SSBNs, a large proportion of the costs should come from the Treasury NOT the Defence Budget to properly acknowledge the political agenda. Failure to do so will imho be the end of the RN and a significant impediment to the other 2 services fighting efficiency.

Regards,
MM

Last edited by Magic Mushroom; 9th Mar 2008 at 10:00.
Magic Mushroom is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2008, 10:00
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just quickly:

Jacko - FE@R is the old AE (in broad terms) - so, you did get my point - with less than 100 FJ FE@R (I'm not going to go into defence planning assumptions on unclas means), and this small number INCLUDING JSF, the impact of tying jets to ships is enormous.

MM (and others) - actually I don't buy the argument about nukes and UNSC. Somehow I feel it will be difficult for the UN to word their press release: "The UK was today thrown off the Security Council for COMPLYING WITH our own non-proliferation treaty. It is replaced by North Korea, who now have their own nuclear weapons. France, who has broken the treaty by replacing their strategic deterrent, will, of course remain a member of the permanent 5......."

Thoughts?
Occasional Aviator is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2008, 10:03
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MM (and others) - actually I don't buy the argument about nukes and UNSC. Somehow I feel it will be difficult for the UN to word their press release: "The UK was today thrown off the Security Council for COMPLYING WITH our own non-proliferation treaty. France, who has broken the treaty by replacing their strategic deterrent, will, of course remain a member of the permanent 5......."
OA,

I'm not sure I understand your argument old chap (although I am a thick git). My belief is that retaining nukes is seen by HMG as one way of retaining political influence on the international stage, and therefore a seat on the P5.

Regards,
MM
Magic Mushroom is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2008, 10:30
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I take your point - it may be me being thick.

Your belief is that it is seen by HMG as retaining influence and therefore a seat on the P5. I probably agree with you that they see it that way, but I think they're wrong!

It's always a pleasure doing business with you!
Occasional Aviator is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2008, 10:53
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Your belief is that it is seen by HMG as retaining influence and therefore a seat on the P5. I probably agree with you that they see it that way, but I think they're wrong!
Concur. I think it is a bit of a hangover from when the nuclear club was more exclusive and an independant UK deterrent bought us influence with the US. I suspect the main driver is that HMG wish to retain approximate military parity with France. Some may argue that this is also a factor with CVF.

Anyway, I'm off for a pint before the storm arrives!!!

Regards,
MM
Magic Mushroom is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2008, 11:02
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 1,041
Received 13 Likes on 5 Posts
I think the arguement is coming round, again, to the impossibility of having single-role, niche, systems in the modern fiscal climate. Just imagine how useful an RAF detachment of B1s from our base at Diego Garcia would be right now?

The irony is, this "one platform, many roles" mantra actually plays strongly in the arguement for CVF. There are the obvious roles of CAS, OCA, DCA and SEAD, but also, with some imagination, Strike (nuclear armed S-S / Free Fall), LitM, SF Support, NEO, disaster relief etc etc.

So, sorted! Bin the T boats (or do as the USN has done and convert them to SSGN/SF roles), buy the carriers (and a flexible airgroup - not just F35) and ask the US if we can buy some s/h Bones, or get involved now in the future bomber programme. If that cost us some Typhoons, so be it, but an air platform with stategic reach (and nuke-capable in extremis) would give the RAF a proper strategic role again.
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2008, 18:05
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
yep, that would be my 'ideal world' solution too... Although see earlier about how we couldn't pay for anything by buying fewer Typhoon!

Just a few posts ago Jacko was berated for suggesting that cancelling CVF might realise savings - and we haven't even signed a contract for that yet! When will people realise that the Typhoon money is spent, gone, finished! It's like going on about SHAR......
Occasional Aviator is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2008, 18:24
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 513
Received 156 Likes on 83 Posts
Jacko

It wasn't the statistic, just the idea that RN frontline strength is only measured in surface ships. Dark blue work in more than one environment mate ! And as it's the information age (or so we are constantly told) we should all be outnumbered by programmers....oh hang on a minute, we are!

I don't for one minute think that the RAF, Army or RN should be cut any further - a quick look over how the force structure has fallen even in the last eight years is salutary and god knows the new tankers and relief for the K-force are badly needed. However, when all the services are cut further, remember it is not for the carrier (or Astute, Typhoon, A400M, Astor or FRES) it is because the charlatans in 10 & 11 (aided and abetted by some awful PUS) have deliberately made the forces operate way beyond their funded means. If you really wanted to get some money back in the budget, try binning DII!(£6Bn and rising).
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2008, 20:30
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
It wasn't the statistic, just the idea that RN frontline strength is only measured in surface ships.

It's a crude indicator. Believe it or not, RAF frontline strength is not measured in FJ squadrons either!

I don't for one minute think that the RAF, Army or RN should be cut any further.

No sensible person does. But however hard you jam your fingers in your ears and shout "Lah Lah Lah", that is exactly what is going to happen - especially if we have to find the cash to pay for two CVF (£6 Bn or so) and JSF (At least as much again, and currently estimated at £10 Bn).

CVF may have some multi-role versatility, but it remains a slow and very costly way of deploying very modest packets of "CAS, OCA, DCA and SEAD".

Cancel both and there is at least £15 Bn of unspent money potentially available for all of the other stuff that we need.

Typhoon Tranche 3 won't free up anything like that sort of money. There may be scope for saving money by cancelling air systems - I don't know what proportion of Nimrod MRA4 cost has been spent or irrevocably allocated, and perhaps FOAS/FCAC might free up some money if cancelled.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2008, 20:44
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Jacko,

You and I will never agree (we are both equally biased) but I find it intriguing that you never seem to include the "cost " of supporting deployed air forces. What does it cost (in terms of strat and tac air transport, shipping etc) to deploy 36 multi-role jets for, say, 20 days high intensity warfighting? Particulalry if they have to move DOBs before the fighting starts. And have we ever done so? Regrettably I am too far removed from the Service to know these things.
Bismark is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2008, 21:09
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 1,041
Received 13 Likes on 5 Posts
Jacko,
Carriers may be slow and costly but are possibly the only force projector available. HNS for Sierra Leone was a bit lacking for tactical FJs and RW wasn't it? Don't underestimate the "force for good" bit about NEOs and Disaster relief - CVF would provide a superb asset and do much for the UK's standing. In addition, a 36 ac wing of JSF is quite a considerable amount of "punch" if required, and a lot easier to maintain on a boat than in a dusty airfield. As Bismark suggests, at least the CBG takes all it needs with them and is not reliant on an already over-stretched AT fleet for resupply.

OA, I'm very well aware that most of the Typhoon money is spent. In addition, European sensitivities would preclude us from trying to barter for less. My take is, get T3 for all the flash toys then flog a load of T1/T2 jets to recoup some capital costs, and save on whole life costs for a couple of Sqns.

Then try and get back into the bomber business properly...
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2008, 21:26
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
HNS for Sierra Leone?

Yes you'd have needed a boat for the helicopters to operate from.

And there was no HNS for FJs, of course.

Apart from the Squadron of Jags (sorry) sitting on the Azores all ready to fly into Dakar, which could have got there first.....?

Instead, they waited for the carrier and its Harriers which were then limited to 1,000-lb bombs (too indiscriminate to use), and whose inability to strafe meant that their most effective weapon was "Noise!"

A carrier is a good (if expensive and slow) way of deploying a wing of 36 JSF, and of supporting and sustaining a paltry number of sorties for the five days required......
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2008, 22:24
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
evalu8or,

Apologies. I would love the RAF to get back into the bomber business properly. However, re Sierra Leone and HNS, as well as the Jags, don't forget that when the RN got there after turning left at Gib (lucky they were so close!), there were already Chinooks in theatre, having flown from the UK for the Op.
Occasional Aviator is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2008, 22:41
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A carrier is a good (if expensive and slow) way of deploying a wing of 36 JSF, and of supporting and sustaining a paltry number of sorties for the five days required......
Jacko,

I am not sure it is that expensive and slow....how long does it take to build up a DOB to full operating capacity and be able to generate sorties at the same rate as the CVF? Chance are that the CVF will already be in theatre (or within 500 miles say) and well before any approval for HNS is given for a 36 a/c DOB.

I am not saying either is better, but CVF will give the government a day 1 capability, at a high sortie generation rate regardless of HNS, whereas it could take weeks to build up to a 36 a/c DOB especially if strat/tac air is also supporting a land force build up at the same time. CVF gives the government options, whilst the politics continues, and clearly TB/GB understood/understand that.
Bismark is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.