Carrier Aviation = Cheapest
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an Invincible class arsenal would be empty in matter of days and would have to return to dock to rearm.
And, of course, the carrier fans conveniently forget the same argument in favour of the response time of land based air for Afghanistan, where response from GCAS is far more critical and cost effective.
And a carrier based aircraft invariably carries a smaller load, especially in the summer heat we are now about to encounter.
Never argued that Carrier power can do it alone, although in this theatre could do it without land based AAR if required - Superhornet as an example buddy tanking, if even needed, and its limitation in load out is landing weight for the Trap.
Last edited by Justanopinion; 18th Jun 2011 at 21:46.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lj101 and justanopinion,
I thnk we have culminated.
I think we can agree that the Carrier provides additional flexibility for certain scenarios.
But....
It cannot be assumed to be cheaper or more responsive in all, or indeed many, of those scenarios.
..and it will invariably require land based support.
Now all we need to agree on is how much is that additional flexibility worth paying for....
These sweeping statements of "faster, cheaper" have to be questioned and tested more robustly before we commit large proportions of our dwindling Defence budget.
I thnk we have culminated.
I think we can agree that the Carrier provides additional flexibility for certain scenarios.
But....
It cannot be assumed to be cheaper or more responsive in all, or indeed many, of those scenarios.
..and it will invariably require land based support.
Now all we need to agree on is how much is that additional flexibility worth paying for....
These sweeping statements of "faster, cheaper" have to be questioned and tested more robustly before we commit large proportions of our dwindling Defence budget.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P U G
Ministry of Defence | About Defence | Corporate Publications | Annual Reports
09/10 accounts - page 97
No need to shout
Ministry of Defence | About Defence | Corporate Publications | Annual Reports
09/10 accounts - page 97
No need to shout
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ,
Well yes, but....
The cost quoted for aircraft carriers here is just the cost of operating the ship - not the cost of operating the aircraft. In 09/10, all costs of operating Harrier would have come under the RAF 'Combat Aircraft' heading rather than 'Naval Aircraft'. I don't think these figures have sufficient granularity to make a judgement.
Justanopinion,
is factually accurate, but we are actually refuelling the carrier-based aircraft to get a decent vul time out of them. Buddy refuelling wouldn't deliver anywhere near enough fuel. Actually it seems like we are getting slightly more out of the land-based Rafales than we are out of the carrier-based ones - not just due to the regular 'down-days' and port visits the carrier has, and despite the fact that the land-based Rafales are at one of the most distant bases. Also, to put a misconception to bed, we don't actually launc from a runway or a deck to respond to events on the ground - we react from our airborne assets. Carriers are good for holding the ground alert lines to backfill the programme as they're closer, but don't reduce 'reaction time'.
Before I was in Italy I was in Afghanistan and there are lots of similar misconceptions and overstatements of what carrier air brings there.
FACT 1 - there are parts of the globe where you need a carrier to affect them.
FACT 2 - a carrier is probably one of the best ways to project influence and statemetns about military intent in coastal areas.
BUT
FACT 3 - the Libya operation could just as easily and just as effectively be done without carriers.
Well yes, but....
The cost quoted for aircraft carriers here is just the cost of operating the ship - not the cost of operating the aircraft. In 09/10, all costs of operating Harrier would have come under the RAF 'Combat Aircraft' heading rather than 'Naval Aircraft'. I don't think these figures have sufficient granularity to make a judgement.
Justanopinion,
although in this theatre could do it without land based AAR if required
Before I was in Italy I was in Afghanistan and there are lots of similar misconceptions and overstatements of what carrier air brings there.
FACT 1 - there are parts of the globe where you need a carrier to affect them.
FACT 2 - a carrier is probably one of the best ways to project influence and statemetns about military intent in coastal areas.
BUT
FACT 3 - the Libya operation could just as easily and just as effectively be done without carriers.
I support a complementary mix of land and sea-based air but I can't let some statements stand.
Actually it seems like we are getting slightly more out of the land-based Rafales than we are out of the carrier-based ones...
- According to reports, a/c from Charles de Gaulle have provided over a quarter of all NATO attacks (link). Are you saying that French land-based a/c have provided even more? Where does that leave the UK if the Danes and Norwegians have struck a third of the targets (with only 12% of the aircraft) while Belgium and Canada have also made major contributions (link)?
- Charles de Gaulle typically launches 35 to 40 sorties per day (link). How many do the similar number of RAF a/c at Gioia in Italy achieve while spending 2-3 hours of each sortie in transit?
- not just due to the regular 'down-days' and port visits the carrier has
- What down days and port visits? Charles de Gaulle sailed Toulon on 20 March and has been re-supplied at sea.
- Before they were withdrawn, even Kearsarge's Harrier AV-8Bs were flying two sorties per night and making quite an impression (link).
Marginal costs of a Harrier, Typhoon or Tornado hour (fuel, spares etc) is just under 4k. So, to be cheaper the additional hours flown from land would need to exceed 250 (1M / 4k).
- Harrier £37k per flying hour. Typhoon £70k and Tornado £35k (link).
- Doesn't spending two or three hours of every sortie in transit also affect Time On Task as well as the cost of extra fuel, tanker support and airframe usage?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not going to go any further into figures for security reasons, but I'll say this:
I don't know where the Telegraph gets its figures from, but I'm getting mine from the ATO stats and combat assessment at the CAOC. You choose who to trust.
Also note that lots of people (and nations) have an interest in spinning stats and picking those numbers that make themselves look good - it isn't a straight comparison when you yourself are quoting sorties flown, attacks and targets hit. You could also measure weapons delivered, successful attacks, targets destroyed, hours flown etc, all of which would give you a subtly different picture. I'm just giving a perspective from my (very well informed) position of what does what on the ATO.
CDG has not flown every day. Sometimes because it was broken, and regularly to rest the crew or carry out maintenance. Six aircraft by two sorties a night out of 200+ (using the figures in DefenseNews) are not 'quite an impression', they're single-figure percentages. I'll give you the point about port visits, must have been thinking of OCEA or Garibaldi.
I don't know where the Telegraph gets its figures from, but I'm getting mine from the ATO stats and combat assessment at the CAOC. You choose who to trust.
Also note that lots of people (and nations) have an interest in spinning stats and picking those numbers that make themselves look good - it isn't a straight comparison when you yourself are quoting sorties flown, attacks and targets hit. You could also measure weapons delivered, successful attacks, targets destroyed, hours flown etc, all of which would give you a subtly different picture. I'm just giving a perspective from my (very well informed) position of what does what on the ATO.
CDG has not flown every day. Sometimes because it was broken, and regularly to rest the crew or carry out maintenance. Six aircraft by two sorties a night out of 200+ (using the figures in DefenseNews) are not 'quite an impression', they're single-figure percentages. I'll give you the point about port visits, must have been thinking of OCEA or Garibaldi.
Six aircraft by two sorties a night out of 200+ (using the figures in DefenseNews) are not 'quite an impression', they're single-figure percentages.
The impression I meant was:
On the first night of Odyssey Dawn, four of the Kearsarge's six Harriers took to the skies at 4 a.m. to join other U.S. and allied aircraft halting government forces advancing on rebel-held Benghazi... Covering the 150 miles to Benghazi in about 15 minutes, the pilots saw explosions from attacks on the loyalist military vehicles that were launched by U.S. Air Force F-15s and F-16s already on the scene. The Harriers engaged the middle section of a convoy of about 50 vehicles, including Russian-built T-72 tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery pieces, which were spread along several kilometers of the highway. Dropping six GPU-12 laser-guided bombs, the Harriers destroyed four tanks, one refueling truck and an infantry fighting vehicle.
"We had indications of anti-aircraft radar activity, but were not fired on," Wyrsch said.
At 10 p.m. on March 20, four Harriers took off for a second sortie to locate and attack the remnants of the same convoy, which had been reinforced by new vehicles outside the city of Ajdabiya. Using night-vision goggles, the pilots dropped 12 GPU-12s, destroying mobile artillery and rocket launchers.
Harrier raids were suspended on the third night of operations, when two Ospreys were scrambled to pick up the pilot of an F-15E who had ejected near Benghazi after his fighter jet apparently suffered a mechanical failure. Two Harriers from the Kearsarge arrived on the scene before the Ospreys and flew low over a "suspect" group of armored vehicles... The Ospreys came in at 250 mph and under 1,000 feet of altitude, following laser designation provided by an accompanying Harrier that had a GPS reference. "We were looking at a needle and avoiding populated areas," one pilot said. They landed and retrieved the F-15 pilot.
"We had indications of anti-aircraft radar activity, but were not fired on," Wyrsch said.
At 10 p.m. on March 20, four Harriers took off for a second sortie to locate and attack the remnants of the same convoy, which had been reinforced by new vehicles outside the city of Ajdabiya. Using night-vision goggles, the pilots dropped 12 GPU-12s, destroying mobile artillery and rocket launchers.
Harrier raids were suspended on the third night of operations, when two Ospreys were scrambled to pick up the pilot of an F-15E who had ejected near Benghazi after his fighter jet apparently suffered a mechanical failure. Two Harriers from the Kearsarge arrived on the scene before the Ospreys and flew low over a "suspect" group of armored vehicles... The Ospreys came in at 250 mph and under 1,000 feet of altitude, following laser designation provided by an accompanying Harrier that had a GPS reference. "We were looking at a needle and avoiding populated areas," one pilot said. They landed and retrieved the F-15 pilot.
Lies, damed lies, and statistics
Apart from pointing out that a carrier can get nearer (you do say that percentage of sorties flown is a meaningless yardstick), and provide a more timely response, I'd say that a deployment of land based aircraft isn't without its logistical problems (AAR tankers and their costs?), even on a friendly airbase.....and a supply tail back to the UK:
Transporting vital equipment for Libya operations
Does CDG still operate SuE as well?
Transporting vital equipment for Libya operations
Does CDG still operate SuE as well?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like Occasional Aviator, I too use the actual classified figures. The newspapers/media are being lazy in using those of individuals who are deliberately obfuscating the truth.
The fact is that the land based French aircraft provide more time over Libya per aircraft than does CdG.
Do not conflate numbers of bombs dropped with effects achieved. The Dual Mode Seeker Brimstone has been instrumental in clearing out the armour/artillery in urban areas. On the same argument, numbers of sorties does not equal effect.
The full quote from the CBS link was:
"On U.S. carriers we trap about 160 aircraft a day at sea, but here it's just 35-40 a day," he said. "Also, on U.S. carriers we're able to launch and trap aircraft at the same time, but because of the shorter size here we need to close the carrier deck for each operation."
The 35-40 will be a maximum number and will include all sorts of sorties not just those that conduct A-G support. The inflexible launch windows and days off will also reduce this number. The down days are at sea.
The costs you quote are the capital costs (based on purchase price) – they are not what are used for in year funding – that is the c4k per flying hour I quoted. If you were to attribute the full cost of the aircraft purchase then your future cost arguments for a JSF equipped QEC would be astronomical.
Sharkey always use the capital charge figures because of the higher cost of Typhoon so early in its life when divided by hours flown to date. He won’t use them when the JSF arrives! Also, he conveniently forgets that the Tornado is cheaper than Harrier.
The time on task would be effected by the transit time (mitigated mostly through AAR), but the Harrier has the shortest endurance of the three.
Your roaming Carrier will have some very dull aircrew on board as they will have had limited opportunity to train at the top end of their skill sets. A USN CAG is at the peak of its powers just as it deploys and then gracefully degrades thereafter – most CAGS would not stay at sea for longer than 6 months because of this.
An empty ship could roam the oceans looking for a fight. However, the aircraft can move 500nm in an hour, rather than a day. Because the poilitical decision to act came so late against Libya (a matter of hours before the first strike) the Carrier would have had to prepare and sail openly many days/weeks before the politicians were ready to commit. Only UK based air strikes gave the political choices needed in this case. Remind me again how long it took Ocean to fly a single AH sortie after it left port?
Of course a land based operation requires logistic support. However, are you honestly saying that a land supplied operation on the European mainland using trucks is more expensive than the running costs of the RFAs?
The fact is that the land based French aircraft provide more time over Libya per aircraft than does CdG.
Do not conflate numbers of bombs dropped with effects achieved. The Dual Mode Seeker Brimstone has been instrumental in clearing out the armour/artillery in urban areas. On the same argument, numbers of sorties does not equal effect.
The full quote from the CBS link was:
"On U.S. carriers we trap about 160 aircraft a day at sea, but here it's just 35-40 a day," he said. "Also, on U.S. carriers we're able to launch and trap aircraft at the same time, but because of the shorter size here we need to close the carrier deck for each operation."
The 35-40 will be a maximum number and will include all sorts of sorties not just those that conduct A-G support. The inflexible launch windows and days off will also reduce this number. The down days are at sea.
The costs you quote are the capital costs (based on purchase price) – they are not what are used for in year funding – that is the c4k per flying hour I quoted. If you were to attribute the full cost of the aircraft purchase then your future cost arguments for a JSF equipped QEC would be astronomical.
Sharkey always use the capital charge figures because of the higher cost of Typhoon so early in its life when divided by hours flown to date. He won’t use them when the JSF arrives! Also, he conveniently forgets that the Tornado is cheaper than Harrier.
The time on task would be effected by the transit time (mitigated mostly through AAR), but the Harrier has the shortest endurance of the three.
Your roaming Carrier will have some very dull aircrew on board as they will have had limited opportunity to train at the top end of their skill sets. A USN CAG is at the peak of its powers just as it deploys and then gracefully degrades thereafter – most CAGS would not stay at sea for longer than 6 months because of this.
An empty ship could roam the oceans looking for a fight. However, the aircraft can move 500nm in an hour, rather than a day. Because the poilitical decision to act came so late against Libya (a matter of hours before the first strike) the Carrier would have had to prepare and sail openly many days/weeks before the politicians were ready to commit. Only UK based air strikes gave the political choices needed in this case. Remind me again how long it took Ocean to fly a single AH sortie after it left port?
Of course a land based operation requires logistic support. However, are you honestly saying that a land supplied operation on the European mainland using trucks is more expensive than the running costs of the RFAs?
"Of course a land based operation requires logistic support. However, are you honestly saying that a land supplied operation on the European mainland using trucks is more expensive than the running costs of the RFAs? "
More critically, every time someone mentions the RFA as the magic card in the RN argument, they forget that the RFA has only a finite level of stores onboard before it too needs to go and top up. RFAs are dependent on access to ports too, and we would need an FLS in a friendly country with the RFA for any op over a few days in length.
More critically, every time someone mentions the RFA as the magic card in the RN argument, they forget that the RFA has only a finite level of stores onboard before it too needs to go and top up. RFAs are dependent on access to ports too, and we would need an FLS in a friendly country with the RFA for any op over a few days in length.
RFAs are dependent on access to ports too, and we would need an FLS in a friendly country with the RFA for any op over a few days in length.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
FODPlod, it looks pretty well informed from here. The Fleet train is of finite length and subject to the same financial cuts as the fleet. The only bright spot 
is that fewer escorts will need less support.
is that fewer escorts will need less support.
"If you are going to post such outrageously uninformed statements as this, at least try to provide some supporting evidence"
Posting on my clear understanding of the number of days munitions that can be carried on a CVS, and the RFA and how long this can be sustained for.
Its a simple fact - During sustained and intensive air operations, then beyond X date (X being classified of course) an RFA will no longer have stocks onboard of certain items and will need to put into port to get some more.
This requires access to fuel depots, an airhead to fly the parts in, ground personnel to move stuff from A-B etc. The RN has always set up FLS to support operations - it ran them from Bari during the 90s, it runs them from Bahrain now to support the Arabian Gulf.
The RFA are superb but they are unfortunately reliant on a shore chain until they develop star trek type transporters - although given the fantasy world that most CVF fanatics live in at present, I'm surprised they've not suggested that idea already...
Posting on my clear understanding of the number of days munitions that can be carried on a CVS, and the RFA and how long this can be sustained for.
Its a simple fact - During sustained and intensive air operations, then beyond X date (X being classified of course) an RFA will no longer have stocks onboard of certain items and will need to put into port to get some more.
This requires access to fuel depots, an airhead to fly the parts in, ground personnel to move stuff from A-B etc. The RN has always set up FLS to support operations - it ran them from Bari during the 90s, it runs them from Bahrain now to support the Arabian Gulf.
The RFA are superb but they are unfortunately reliant on a shore chain until they develop star trek type transporters - although given the fantasy world that most CVF fanatics live in at present, I'm surprised they've not suggested that idea already...
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the title of the thread is "Carrier Aviation = Cheapest"
Surely if you want cheapest, the answer is to take the hull of an ultra-large tanker or bulk carrier, build a number of launch rails over its deck / bows and stuff it full of an updated folding-wing version of the German V1 with automated magazines to load them onto the launch rails.
Modern technology should give you a 100.000 tonne ship with several hundred (thousands even??) cheap standoff missiles capable of 1500 mile range at low-level high subsonic speeds. The ship would be able to stay at sea for months with a crew of around 30. If you launched the missiles in salvoes of around 100 or more you'd overwhelm any defences, especially if you fitted some of the missiles with jamming gear.
Paint the ship to resemble a known merchant vessel and it would become the ultimate Q-ship.
You'd need to update the guidance mechanism to give a decent accuracy, but otherwise the general improvement in materials since the 1940's should give the extra range required
No high cost carrier required, no RFA needed, minimal support crew, and no pilots needed. What a budget save!!!!
Hmmmm.no pilots... I bet no-one here will agree with me
Surely if you want cheapest, the answer is to take the hull of an ultra-large tanker or bulk carrier, build a number of launch rails over its deck / bows and stuff it full of an updated folding-wing version of the German V1 with automated magazines to load them onto the launch rails.
Modern technology should give you a 100.000 tonne ship with several hundred (thousands even??) cheap standoff missiles capable of 1500 mile range at low-level high subsonic speeds. The ship would be able to stay at sea for months with a crew of around 30. If you launched the missiles in salvoes of around 100 or more you'd overwhelm any defences, especially if you fitted some of the missiles with jamming gear.
Paint the ship to resemble a known merchant vessel and it would become the ultimate Q-ship.
You'd need to update the guidance mechanism to give a decent accuracy, but otherwise the general improvement in materials since the 1940's should give the extra range required
No high cost carrier required, no RFA needed, minimal support crew, and no pilots needed. What a budget save!!!!
Hmmmm.no pilots... I bet no-one here will agree with me
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@:J.Device Esq
You're a bit young to remember suggestions around "Falklands" time of container ships being used as Harrier bases, but you must remeber what 100 or so Tomahawks did a few weeks ago off Libya.
Jimlad just combined the two in his reasonable "what-if" post., without"altered satates of mind" to come into question.
PS - If you feel my tone is patronising, I've got half a century of practice over you in responding to "blinkered yooves".
Jimlad just combined the two in his reasonable "what-if" post., without"altered satates of mind" to come into question.
PS - If you feel my tone is patronising, I've got half a century of practice over you in responding to "blinkered yooves".
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
firstly my state of mind only gets altered by alcohol, and you've not got so many years on me as you think.
My post may have been flippant - but the core logic is there. You don't need a nuclear submarine to launch missiles - any old cheap platform will do, the bigger the better. The 20 or so missiles on a sub are pretty much pointless anyway: not enough to achieve anything, and anyway the Tomahwks are too expensive. You need large numbers of cheap missiles launched far enough away that the launch platform isn't vulnerable. And if you can launch enough, then much of the need for a carrier (not all I agree) is gone
My post may have been flippant - but the core logic is there. You don't need a nuclear submarine to launch missiles - any old cheap platform will do, the bigger the better. The 20 or so missiles on a sub are pretty much pointless anyway: not enough to achieve anything, and anyway the Tomahwks are too expensive. You need large numbers of cheap missiles launched far enough away that the launch platform isn't vulnerable. And if you can launch enough, then much of the need for a carrier (not all I agree) is gone
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APOLOGY
Ecksherly I was talking to Jimlad, after he poured water on your not-so-unreasonable idea.
Note to self: Must remember that I can't remember things for more than a moment ...
Ecksherly I was talking to Jimlad, after he poured water on your not-so-unreasonable idea.
Note to self: Must remember that I can't remember things for more than a moment ...