Sea Jet
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
UK has global interests and commitments
Please list those where a local or an adjacent national airfield is not available. Please define the proposed external threat that could be quelled by a single CVS plus escorts without any collateral ground based EW, AEW, AAR, Recce or C2 support. Justify the cost of maintaining a naval force capable of defeating the supposed threat through the next 40 years against the opposition's possible equipment purchases, including air and surface launched missiles.
Please list those where a local or an adjacent national airfield is not available. Please define the proposed external threat that could be quelled by a single CVS plus escorts without any collateral ground based EW, AEW, AAR, Recce or C2 support. Justify the cost of maintaining a naval force capable of defeating the supposed threat through the next 40 years against the opposition's possible equipment purchases, including air and surface launched missiles.
Last edited by ORAC; 5th Sep 2004 at 09:48.
Your crystal ball? Our national interests are not that huge nowadays, WEBF. The number of possible threat nations where HNS would not be available (but where a carrier would still be able to operate without nearby shore based support) is a VERY short list. The kind of contingency that necesitates using a carrier is very very rare and very very unlikely, yet you want the UK to spend billions on preparing for such a contingency. Expecting you to justify such disproportionate expense is not unreasonable.
ORAC makes a sensible, reasonable point, and trying to wriggle out of making a proper answer by being flippant is below par.
"What if our national interests are threatened but no other nation is directly involved?"
Call in favours from allies. If that doesn't work then use Tomahawk. Use Storm Shadow from MRA4. Use GR4/Harrier GR7 from an adjacent nation.
If none of that works, then accept (AS YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS) that we cannot do everything.
"We really can't expect the US to hold our hand every time."
We probably can, you know. And if not them then our EU partners. And if not, then accept (AS YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS) that we cannot do everything.
ORAC makes a sensible, reasonable point, and trying to wriggle out of making a proper answer by being flippant is below par.
"What if our national interests are threatened but no other nation is directly involved?"
Call in favours from allies. If that doesn't work then use Tomahawk. Use Storm Shadow from MRA4. Use GR4/Harrier GR7 from an adjacent nation.
If none of that works, then accept (AS YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS) that we cannot do everything.
"We really can't expect the US to hold our hand every time."
We probably can, you know. And if not them then our EU partners. And if not, then accept (AS YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS) that we cannot do everything.
Suspicion breeds confidence
With respect Jacko and Orac, you are both missing the point. Carriers and the FAA don't replace the RAF and landbases, they supplement them. In fact they supplement each other. The US, France, Russia, Brazil, Spain and Italy certainly think so. The CVS are too small, that is why they are being replaced with CVF, which in defence terms hould be considered a joint asset. In fact that is how they will be operated. The Navy does the driving and some of the flying, joined where appropriate by the RAF and maybe the AAC.
When you ask a country for HNS, particularly if its poor as most of them are in trouble spots, there is always a price to pay, financially or politically. With a carrier, there's no price to pay. That's why the Americans like them and why we want them. Think forwards not backwards.
When you ask a country for HNS, particularly if its poor as most of them are in trouble spots, there is always a price to pay, financially or politically. With a carrier, there's no price to pay. That's why the Americans like them and why we want them. Think forwards not backwards.
Sorry but I wasn't being flippant, I had to go off and that was the only quick response I could come up with.
Most nations in the world have coasts. Most have aircraft, many with anti ship capabilities. Many have regimes that are potentially hostile to the UK - for all sorts of reasons. Many have neighbours that would be unwilling to assist the UK.
Therefore it could happen. Some scenarios:
1. If during an operation like our involvement in Sierra Leone, one of the neighbouring governments had been on the rebels side, or at least was violently opposed to the presence of UK forces, they may have sought to use a few aircraft to harass or attack our ships, or more likely, our helicopters.
Oddly enough, the recent paper on defence (cuts) includes an African Scenario.
2. I refer to the following scenario which I first put on page 16 of this thread...
It is possible, is it not, that a scenario could arise where a certain regime (lets refer to them as nation X) decides that it wants to attack UK interests (either to gain "street cred" with its supporters or other regimes, or for other reasons) by attacking or harassing UK merchant shipping. For the moment lets make a number of assumptions.....
a. Nation X is somewhere in Africa, Asia or the Middle East, geography means that they are no established friendly air bases that could be easily used.
b. Nation X has Nations Y and Z as its neighbours, but they do not want to get involved in X's argument with the UK.
c. Nation X does not wish to interfere with US flagged vessels so as not to provoke Washington.
d. Nation X has a small Navy, and a small to medium sized air force with MiGs (various types) and helicopters. Some of these aircraft can fire air launched anti ship missiles (a capability that many nations have with Russia and China exporting missiles).
X harasses UK registered shipping to prevent it going through a certain area, and harasses vessels with missile boats etc. To defend UK vessels, HM Government decides to deploy frigates and destroyers, together with supporting RFAs, to area. X then says British warships will be attacked. An assessment of X's air strength concludes that X has the ability to project air power over the area of interest, and could overwhelm or evade ship based defences. Can we still deploy? Imagine the disaster if things go wrong....
If on the other hand, a CVS can be dispatched along with Sea Harriers, the defence of the UK forces in hugely improved and we can deploy our warships to protect our (civilian) shipping. Better still, the existence of this capability may well act as a deterrent and prevent the scenario from ever occurring. By providing this sort of force protection the Sea Harrier acts as a force multiplier and greatly enhances the capability of our naval forces. It also allows us to deal with the situation without escalating things by using offensive weapons.
Contrary to popular belief, the number of UK registered merchant vessels has increased in the last few years, and continues to rise. This link gives more info on the Navy's responsibility to protect shipping. At least the first few paragraphs do.
3. The Falklands. Again. The reduction on frigate and destroyer numbers, means, according to CINCFLEET, that at least two routine tasks will have to be abandoned. It seems likely that Atlantic Patrol Task - South will be done away with. Other reductions, in Tornado F3 and Infantry numbers may mean the entire Falklands garrison my be withdrawn. With continuing political problems in Argentina, the Malvinas may look like an attractive option for a desperate leadership. If the Falklands were worth defending in WWI and WWII and fighting over in 1982, they are worth protecting now.
And some multi national scenarios:
4. A CVS full of Harrier GR9s is involved in operations alongside several US carrier groups. The CVS is some distance away from the US carriers. The enemy wishes to damage or sink a carrier or other large vessel for the political capital. Do they attack the US carriers, defended by many escorts, and Super Hornets with AMRAAM etc, or our little carrier, with only a few escorting ships and no fighters?
5. An amphibious operation like the one just practised of the US coast. Given the limited size or our present carriers, a few strike aircraft will not be much of a contribution, being able to put x thousand troops ashore with their weapons, supplies, vehicles and helicopters, with minimal support from US forces, probably would.
The 1998 Strategic Defence Review recognised the importance of carriers. So WHY CAN'T YOU AS YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS?
Most nations in the world have coasts. Most have aircraft, many with anti ship capabilities. Many have regimes that are potentially hostile to the UK - for all sorts of reasons. Many have neighbours that would be unwilling to assist the UK.
Therefore it could happen. Some scenarios:
1. If during an operation like our involvement in Sierra Leone, one of the neighbouring governments had been on the rebels side, or at least was violently opposed to the presence of UK forces, they may have sought to use a few aircraft to harass or attack our ships, or more likely, our helicopters.
Oddly enough, the recent paper on defence (cuts) includes an African Scenario.
2. I refer to the following scenario which I first put on page 16 of this thread...
It is possible, is it not, that a scenario could arise where a certain regime (lets refer to them as nation X) decides that it wants to attack UK interests (either to gain "street cred" with its supporters or other regimes, or for other reasons) by attacking or harassing UK merchant shipping. For the moment lets make a number of assumptions.....
a. Nation X is somewhere in Africa, Asia or the Middle East, geography means that they are no established friendly air bases that could be easily used.
b. Nation X has Nations Y and Z as its neighbours, but they do not want to get involved in X's argument with the UK.
c. Nation X does not wish to interfere with US flagged vessels so as not to provoke Washington.
d. Nation X has a small Navy, and a small to medium sized air force with MiGs (various types) and helicopters. Some of these aircraft can fire air launched anti ship missiles (a capability that many nations have with Russia and China exporting missiles).
X harasses UK registered shipping to prevent it going through a certain area, and harasses vessels with missile boats etc. To defend UK vessels, HM Government decides to deploy frigates and destroyers, together with supporting RFAs, to area. X then says British warships will be attacked. An assessment of X's air strength concludes that X has the ability to project air power over the area of interest, and could overwhelm or evade ship based defences. Can we still deploy? Imagine the disaster if things go wrong....
If on the other hand, a CVS can be dispatched along with Sea Harriers, the defence of the UK forces in hugely improved and we can deploy our warships to protect our (civilian) shipping. Better still, the existence of this capability may well act as a deterrent and prevent the scenario from ever occurring. By providing this sort of force protection the Sea Harrier acts as a force multiplier and greatly enhances the capability of our naval forces. It also allows us to deal with the situation without escalating things by using offensive weapons.
Contrary to popular belief, the number of UK registered merchant vessels has increased in the last few years, and continues to rise. This link gives more info on the Navy's responsibility to protect shipping. At least the first few paragraphs do.
3. The Falklands. Again. The reduction on frigate and destroyer numbers, means, according to CINCFLEET, that at least two routine tasks will have to be abandoned. It seems likely that Atlantic Patrol Task - South will be done away with. Other reductions, in Tornado F3 and Infantry numbers may mean the entire Falklands garrison my be withdrawn. With continuing political problems in Argentina, the Malvinas may look like an attractive option for a desperate leadership. If the Falklands were worth defending in WWI and WWII and fighting over in 1982, they are worth protecting now.
And some multi national scenarios:
4. A CVS full of Harrier GR9s is involved in operations alongside several US carrier groups. The CVS is some distance away from the US carriers. The enemy wishes to damage or sink a carrier or other large vessel for the political capital. Do they attack the US carriers, defended by many escorts, and Super Hornets with AMRAAM etc, or our little carrier, with only a few escorting ships and no fighters?
5. An amphibious operation like the one just practised of the US coast. Given the limited size or our present carriers, a few strike aircraft will not be much of a contribution, being able to put x thousand troops ashore with their weapons, supplies, vehicles and helicopters, with minimal support from US forces, probably would.
The 1998 Strategic Defence Review recognised the importance of carriers. So WHY CAN'T YOU AS YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS?
38 pages and 560 odd replies of hot air. Some very valid points I'm sure. However, as I said on about page 15 (and I am a fan of the Sea Harrier) - ACCEPT IT BOYS - IT IS GOING - nothing that can be said on here will reverse that.
In the meantime the senior naval neddy has signed away about 20% of his frigates and destroyers NOW in return for a promise from that nice Mr Brown that he will actually get his new carriers (which will only take a little over 10 years to build and haven't been started yet!!). Smart move? Time will tell - but I think not.
As for the fact that the fleet lacks organic air defence now, yes it does. Is that a good thing, probably not. But that is life as we know it today boys. Live with it and manage the situation as best you can. Lobby your MP as much as you want, but it will not change, so stop whinging about it. Lack of the right kit always results in loss of life, tragic as that is - e,.g body armour in the gulf, number of NBC suits available in the gulf, AEW cover in the Falklands, maybe zero-zero bangseats in Canberras (not wanting to pre-judge the case - hearts go out to all concerned with that one) - people in the military all know what they haven't got that they need to make their job safer or even survivable. Who knows WEBF, if you had actually got into the navy you might have found some lack of everyday essential items to rabbit on about (sailors refusing to go to sea in unsafe submarines??).
Politicians will always spend the bare minimum on defence. It is the boys and girls who elect to defend their country that have to live with the consequences of that decision. I am lucky, on most days I am still proud to be one of them!
In the meantime the senior naval neddy has signed away about 20% of his frigates and destroyers NOW in return for a promise from that nice Mr Brown that he will actually get his new carriers (which will only take a little over 10 years to build and haven't been started yet!!). Smart move? Time will tell - but I think not.
As for the fact that the fleet lacks organic air defence now, yes it does. Is that a good thing, probably not. But that is life as we know it today boys. Live with it and manage the situation as best you can. Lobby your MP as much as you want, but it will not change, so stop whinging about it. Lack of the right kit always results in loss of life, tragic as that is - e,.g body armour in the gulf, number of NBC suits available in the gulf, AEW cover in the Falklands, maybe zero-zero bangseats in Canberras (not wanting to pre-judge the case - hearts go out to all concerned with that one) - people in the military all know what they haven't got that they need to make their job safer or even survivable. Who knows WEBF, if you had actually got into the navy you might have found some lack of everyday essential items to rabbit on about (sailors refusing to go to sea in unsafe submarines??).
Politicians will always spend the bare minimum on defence. It is the boys and girls who elect to defend their country that have to live with the consequences of that decision. I am lucky, on most days I am still proud to be one of them!
"Many have neighbours that would be unwilling to assist the UK."
Which?
Don't give us Nation X, Y and Z. (And OK, you've distracted me. Why wouldn't the US, Spain, Italy or France help with nation X in your scenario? What nation X doesn't have a neighbour or near neighbour that we couldn't use? What nation X without neighbours who would support UK AD aircraft could we operate against without needing land based AAR, ISTAR, etc.) No more what ifs, - real world examples only.
Your first real world example was Sierra Leone. Jags were already on Ascension, ready to deploy forward to Senegal. Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire were also available.
Your second real world example was the Falklands. There's an airfield there now, y'know, with AD aircraft based. No need for a carrier to defend the islands now!
Your scenarios 4) and 5). The US contribution (or the French, or the Spanish, or the Italian) would be to provide the required AD, if we couldn't provide it using land based assets operating from adjacent nations.
Which?
Don't give us Nation X, Y and Z. (And OK, you've distracted me. Why wouldn't the US, Spain, Italy or France help with nation X in your scenario? What nation X doesn't have a neighbour or near neighbour that we couldn't use? What nation X without neighbours who would support UK AD aircraft could we operate against without needing land based AAR, ISTAR, etc.) No more what ifs, - real world examples only.
Your first real world example was Sierra Leone. Jags were already on Ascension, ready to deploy forward to Senegal. Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire were also available.
Your second real world example was the Falklands. There's an airfield there now, y'know, with AD aircraft based. No need for a carrier to defend the islands now!
Your scenarios 4) and 5). The US contribution (or the French, or the Spanish, or the Italian) would be to provide the required AD, if we couldn't provide it using land based assets operating from adjacent nations.
As Donald Rumsfield said: There are known unknowns, and there are unknown unknowns........
Why wouldn't the US, Spain, Italy or France help with nation X in your scenario?
Why wouldn't they help in 1982? Just because they support us politically and on the diplomatic front doesn't mean that they will always be willing to commit front line forces.
Back to my scenarios.
1. Jags may have been in the area at the time. but would they have had the same psychological impact as several big grey ships off the Sierra Leone coast? The two flat tops (Illustrious and Ocean, together with a couple of frigates also provided helicopters, logistics, medical support and possible naval gunfire support from the frigates. Even if Jags had been sent, we probably would have sent either a CVS or LPH.
More to the point, if there had been an air threat, perhaps to our helicopters, would the Jaguar or Harrier GR7 have been able to adequately deal with it?
It is very possible that the next few years will see other UK involvements in Africa, possibly for peacekeeping, peace support or other low intensity stuff. The Darfur part of Sudan. A possible civil war in Nigeria. Trouble in the Horn of Africa. The major conflict in central Africa, which the EU (including Britain) are trying to bring to and end, that involves five or six different countries. All these scenarios could see our forces being attacked or harassed by air.
2. Attacks on shipping. Apart from the nations listed above, any of Magube's ilk looking for a fight might see to target British shipping. Sudan might seek to do it to punish us for any involvement in Darfur. Surely you wouldn't want to base aircraft in the Kingdom of Saud? A carrier in the Red Sea instead perhaps? An increasingly belligrent Iran might try attacking shipping to test western mettle. Remember the tanker wars of the 1980s? Being able to protect shipping with aircraft with UK markings could be priceless diplomatically.
Before you state land based aircraft could do it - what about the (disgraceful) reductions in RAF fighter numbers? Would there be enough aircraft to spare (particularly if they are commited to other tasks or places).
3. The Falklands. I pondered about what would happen if the Falklands protection force was withdrawn due to cuts and/or overstretch. In any case, if the Argies did start rattling the sabre, what better reply that to send a CVS based force to carry out exercises in the South Atlantic. Defence diplomacy again.
As I have asked before, is it more sensible to base capabilities on known threats (hoping we never get caught unawares) or on known vulnerabilties?
As for multi national operations, what if UK forces are operating several hundred miles away from the nearest (allied) carrier, but less than 100 miles from an enemy airbase, complete with MiGs (and possibly anti ship missiles)?
PS One of the conclusions of the report on Operation Telic was that Host Nattion Support cannot be taken for granted.
Why wouldn't the US, Spain, Italy or France help with nation X in your scenario?
Why wouldn't they help in 1982? Just because they support us politically and on the diplomatic front doesn't mean that they will always be willing to commit front line forces.
Back to my scenarios.
1. Jags may have been in the area at the time. but would they have had the same psychological impact as several big grey ships off the Sierra Leone coast? The two flat tops (Illustrious and Ocean, together with a couple of frigates also provided helicopters, logistics, medical support and possible naval gunfire support from the frigates. Even if Jags had been sent, we probably would have sent either a CVS or LPH.
More to the point, if there had been an air threat, perhaps to our helicopters, would the Jaguar or Harrier GR7 have been able to adequately deal with it?
It is very possible that the next few years will see other UK involvements in Africa, possibly for peacekeeping, peace support or other low intensity stuff. The Darfur part of Sudan. A possible civil war in Nigeria. Trouble in the Horn of Africa. The major conflict in central Africa, which the EU (including Britain) are trying to bring to and end, that involves five or six different countries. All these scenarios could see our forces being attacked or harassed by air.
2. Attacks on shipping. Apart from the nations listed above, any of Magube's ilk looking for a fight might see to target British shipping. Sudan might seek to do it to punish us for any involvement in Darfur. Surely you wouldn't want to base aircraft in the Kingdom of Saud? A carrier in the Red Sea instead perhaps? An increasingly belligrent Iran might try attacking shipping to test western mettle. Remember the tanker wars of the 1980s? Being able to protect shipping with aircraft with UK markings could be priceless diplomatically.
Before you state land based aircraft could do it - what about the (disgraceful) reductions in RAF fighter numbers? Would there be enough aircraft to spare (particularly if they are commited to other tasks or places).
3. The Falklands. I pondered about what would happen if the Falklands protection force was withdrawn due to cuts and/or overstretch. In any case, if the Argies did start rattling the sabre, what better reply that to send a CVS based force to carry out exercises in the South Atlantic. Defence diplomacy again.
As I have asked before, is it more sensible to base capabilities on known threats (hoping we never get caught unawares) or on known vulnerabilties?
As for multi national operations, what if UK forces are operating several hundred miles away from the nearest (allied) carrier, but less than 100 miles from an enemy airbase, complete with MiGs (and possibly anti ship missiles)?
PS One of the conclusions of the report on Operation Telic was that Host Nattion Support cannot be taken for granted.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
..today's enemy is tomorrows friend and vici verci. Also some nations (Particulary Islamic ones) tend to blow tepid when dealing with their nieghbours. The point is you dont really know who are going to be our enemies tomorrow any more than the government. What if the Military in Argentina took hold of power tomorrow and retook the Manlvinas/Falklands? Can you gaurantee that wouldn't happen?? I think not. And if you do then please inform Mr Blair and his crew.
I think its been mentioned before but balance is the key here.
... as for CVF well (Gonna make a few enemies here) If The STOVL F35 survives then I dont think we need it. we should be looking at 2 large LPH's Capable of operating a decent sized Airgroup if required.
..today's enemy is tomorrows friend and vici verci. Also some nations (Particulary Islamic ones) tend to blow tepid when dealing with their nieghbours. The point is you dont really know who are going to be our enemies tomorrow any more than the government. What if the Military in Argentina took hold of power tomorrow and retook the Manlvinas/Falklands? Can you gaurantee that wouldn't happen?? I think not. And if you do then please inform Mr Blair and his crew.
I think its been mentioned before but balance is the key here.
... as for CVF well (Gonna make a few enemies here) If The STOVL F35 survives then I dont think we need it. we should be looking at 2 large LPH's Capable of operating a decent sized Airgroup if required.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Althenic,
I believe the idea of taking a couple of old Tarawas as an alternative to CVF was put to bed during the defence review (of course things can change!). I do believe you are right we need something along these lines to replace Ocean around 2015. The Tarawas are steam propelled and manpower intensive. I don't think they would fit the bill.
A new LPH or two capable of operating F35Bs would be a welcome addition.
The USN was operating 20+ AV8Bs of an LPH in GW2. They are capable platforms and much more useful than a CVS.
I believe the idea of taking a couple of old Tarawas as an alternative to CVF was put to bed during the defence review (of course things can change!). I do believe you are right we need something along these lines to replace Ocean around 2015. The Tarawas are steam propelled and manpower intensive. I don't think they would fit the bill.
A new LPH or two capable of operating F35Bs would be a welcome addition.
The USN was operating 20+ AV8Bs of an LPH in GW2. They are capable platforms and much more useful than a CVS.
Last edited by Navaleye; 6th Sep 2004 at 13:34.
Two interesting(?) links
What Vice Admiral Tod Said
Perhaps this one is of more interest:
Multipurpose Naval Platforms
Note what the Multipurpose Major Combatant Vessel (MMCV) section says........apart from the Well Deck it sounds similar to a CVS.
Perhaps this one is of more interest:
Multipurpose Naval Platforms
Note what the Multipurpose Major Combatant Vessel (MMCV) section says........apart from the Well Deck it sounds similar to a CVS.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Good post. Vice Admiral Tod if a true professional and made a lot of excellent points, let me highlight one.
Now, I pay a lot of attention to what Vice Admiral Tod says and almost none to the out of date, ill-informed journalistic drivel I've read on this subject of late.
How else could you get the capability to the place that you want it, that is the question. You cannot rely always on host nation support, it frequently comes it always takes time to set up host nations support and certainly in the Gulf we were very lucky we did get host nation support but what a long time it took to be able to build up that capability. What you've got in the aircraft carrier is the capability already there. You can put in the right mix of aeroplanes it maybe in today's terms the Harrier GR7's from the air force and the FA2s from the Navy. You can put in Chinooks. You can put in helicopters of all different types. You can put in with our amphibious shipping. You can put in soldiers you can put in tanks and warriors that we have been hearing about today. That is a huge capability which is mobile and deployable. Yes, of course it is vulnerable and here you have got to take a risk is it actually worth deploying that capability for the returns that you are likely to get from it? And it is all as all war is a matter of risk so don't think of it as investment in something that will go to the bottom its not its investment in success its investment in capability..
Last edited by Navaleye; 8th Sep 2004 at 09:29.
You need a more open mind, Navaleye.
I'm not surprised that you should 'pay a lot of attention to what Vice Admiral Tod says' or indeed to what anybody says who agrees so neatly with your own narrow, fixed, impractical and outdated ideas.
I'm equally unsurprised by your patronising and ignorant dismissal of anyone who disagrees with you as spouting 'journalistic drivel'.
When you keep harping back to the Falklands as the great example of the carrier's utility, and when you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the argument today is about cost effectiveness and affordability, and not about absolute capability per se, however, it strikes me that you're the one who is out of date. You certainly seem painfully ill-informed as to the budgetary realities and limitations of the post Cold War environment.
If anyone who punctures your balloon, and attempts to point out that we simply cannot afford to do everything is guilty of 'spouting drivel' in your book it says more about your ostrich like tendencies than it does about them.
I'm not surprised that you should 'pay a lot of attention to what Vice Admiral Tod says' or indeed to what anybody says who agrees so neatly with your own narrow, fixed, impractical and outdated ideas.
I'm equally unsurprised by your patronising and ignorant dismissal of anyone who disagrees with you as spouting 'journalistic drivel'.
When you keep harping back to the Falklands as the great example of the carrier's utility, and when you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the argument today is about cost effectiveness and affordability, and not about absolute capability per se, however, it strikes me that you're the one who is out of date. You certainly seem painfully ill-informed as to the budgetary realities and limitations of the post Cold War environment.
If anyone who punctures your balloon, and attempts to point out that we simply cannot afford to do everything is guilty of 'spouting drivel' in your book it says more about your ostrich like tendencies than it does about them.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Jacko,
With respect, I can't remember when I last mentioned the Falklands and secondly, I do have an open mind on this subject and if you read VA Tod's comments you will see why it is so important to maintain flexibility in approach to the threats that face us or could potentially face us.
Air power is vital - we all agree on that. Your argument is that usable airbases can crop up anywhere in the world where and when we want them is pure fantasy. No one else but you seems to believe it. The answer is to have your own which you can park within 500nm of an enemy coast and hit him anytime you want from the direction you want. They are cost effective, flexible and punch beyond their weight by virtue of the surprise factor.
Lets look at some examples:
Pearl Harbour
Taranto
Coral Sea
A large chunk of the Korean and Vietnam wars
Has it sunk in yet? These are complimentary capabilities. the lessons of 1966 have been learned - even by the bunch of retards we have in govt now.
Respectfully yours,
Navaleye
With respect, I can't remember when I last mentioned the Falklands and secondly, I do have an open mind on this subject and if you read VA Tod's comments you will see why it is so important to maintain flexibility in approach to the threats that face us or could potentially face us.
Air power is vital - we all agree on that. Your argument is that usable airbases can crop up anywhere in the world where and when we want them is pure fantasy. No one else but you seems to believe it. The answer is to have your own which you can park within 500nm of an enemy coast and hit him anytime you want from the direction you want. They are cost effective, flexible and punch beyond their weight by virtue of the surprise factor.
Lets look at some examples:
Pearl Harbour
Taranto
Coral Sea
A large chunk of the Korean and Vietnam wars
Has it sunk in yet? These are complimentary capabilities. the lessons of 1966 have been learned - even by the bunch of retards we have in govt now.
Respectfully yours,
Navaleye
Last edited by Navaleye; 8th Sep 2004 at 21:52.
Navaleye,
There will be times when HNS will not be available. In an ideal world you'd want carriers to 'cover that gap' - though carriers themselves will often require the same or similar 'consent' from neighbouring nations.
But when the entire Defence Budget is at breaking point, buying CVF and JSF is tantamount to spending money on a gold plated sand-wedge and scrapping every iron above No.6, and every wood in the golf bag in order to do so.
'With respect' the cost of CVF (and JSF), the huge manpower and support assets they require and the modest sortie total they can generate means that while they may be flexible, powerful and versatile, one thing they are not is cost-effective.
And apart from the Falklands, there have been no occasions when 'only a carrier would do', and where my 'fantastical bases' have not, in fact, been available. You say that "my argument that usable airbases can crop up anywhere in the world where and when we want them is pure fantasy." I don't pretend that that would always be the case, only that the occasions when bases will not be available (and when US/French/Italian/Spanish coalition support is also not available) are so rare as to make a UK carrier an expensive luxury. It's pretty persuasive that such bases have always cropped up, every time we have needed them, except during Corporate. We haven't even been put in the position of being unable to do something without coalition carrier support, had ours been unavailable.
You may think that regardless of cost, Britain should retain the capability to mount a Falklands type operation anywhere in the world, and that it should be able to do so autonomously. I do have some sympathy with that point of view. Indeed my own baseline would be the ability to do another Granby as well. I would probably vote for a party who embraced such a view as policy. But if that is your point of view, then you must be prepared to pay for it, and our Government is not prepared to do so. Nor is there much prospect that any Government will propose the kind of tax rises (or the diversion of funding from social programmes) that would be required in order to fund that kind of force structure.
If the aim is to provide the most useful, versatile, and cost effective forces to support coalition operations, on a more limited budget, then spending on carriers will too severely limit and constrain spending on more useful, more frequently required and more versatile assets.
There will be times when HNS will not be available. In an ideal world you'd want carriers to 'cover that gap' - though carriers themselves will often require the same or similar 'consent' from neighbouring nations.
But when the entire Defence Budget is at breaking point, buying CVF and JSF is tantamount to spending money on a gold plated sand-wedge and scrapping every iron above No.6, and every wood in the golf bag in order to do so.
'With respect' the cost of CVF (and JSF), the huge manpower and support assets they require and the modest sortie total they can generate means that while they may be flexible, powerful and versatile, one thing they are not is cost-effective.
And apart from the Falklands, there have been no occasions when 'only a carrier would do', and where my 'fantastical bases' have not, in fact, been available. You say that "my argument that usable airbases can crop up anywhere in the world where and when we want them is pure fantasy." I don't pretend that that would always be the case, only that the occasions when bases will not be available (and when US/French/Italian/Spanish coalition support is also not available) are so rare as to make a UK carrier an expensive luxury. It's pretty persuasive that such bases have always cropped up, every time we have needed them, except during Corporate. We haven't even been put in the position of being unable to do something without coalition carrier support, had ours been unavailable.
You may think that regardless of cost, Britain should retain the capability to mount a Falklands type operation anywhere in the world, and that it should be able to do so autonomously. I do have some sympathy with that point of view. Indeed my own baseline would be the ability to do another Granby as well. I would probably vote for a party who embraced such a view as policy. But if that is your point of view, then you must be prepared to pay for it, and our Government is not prepared to do so. Nor is there much prospect that any Government will propose the kind of tax rises (or the diversion of funding from social programmes) that would be required in order to fund that kind of force structure.
If the aim is to provide the most useful, versatile, and cost effective forces to support coalition operations, on a more limited budget, then spending on carriers will too severely limit and constrain spending on more useful, more frequently required and more versatile assets.
But what about the problem of providing timely support to naval forces at sea - particularly in littoral situations where the enemy air bases are much closer than friendly ones?
Surely better for a naval task group to provide its own air defence (or at least a major part of it) rather than to rely exclusively on ever smaller numbers of land based aircraft?
Perhaps the reason so many up and coming Navies (eg Italy, or spain) seek to acquire carriers and carrier based fighters (with BVR capabilities as well) is because of this modern focus on llittoral operations? That and the lessons of 1982 - which EVERY Navy in the World studied.
Surely better for a naval task group to provide its own air defence (or at least a major part of it) rather than to rely exclusively on ever smaller numbers of land based aircraft?
Perhaps the reason so many up and coming Navies (eg Italy, or spain) seek to acquire carriers and carrier based fighters (with BVR capabilities as well) is because of this modern focus on llittoral operations? That and the lessons of 1982 - which EVERY Navy in the World studied.
It's still not affordable, WEBF. You have to cut some other capability to pay for it. And the candidates for such cuts are all more useful, more often.
It's not easy, it's not perfect, but it's an easier, better hit to take than the alternatives.
It's not easy, it's not perfect, but it's an easier, better hit to take than the alternatives.
But is cheaper than losing a LPD full of troops, or Ocean whe she's full of helicopters, or one of the new Ro-Ro ships carrying a large percentage of our dwindling number of armoured vehicles? Or even weapons or other stores for a detachment of RAF aircraft somewhere.........
Suspicion breeds confidence
Costs
The recent white paper has made the cuts that make these new capabilities affordable. The RN has lost 6 ships, the RAF several squadrons. I don't like them like most folks here, but they put enough slack in the budget to pay for Typhoon, CVF and F35.
Click here for a link to an interesting article on MASC : MASC
I have put this link in for three reasons. Firstly it is of interest in its own right, and connected to carrier issues. Secondly it has been mentioned before on this thread. Thirdly, it (and also the Sea King ASaC7 of today) is a good example. It extends the range of a task force/group's sensors by virtue of altitude and mobility, and at the same time is still an organic naval asset - with the advantages that brings.
In the last few years, the UK has spent a large amount of time, effort and money to increase the ability we have to operate in the littoral, and particularly to conduct ampbious operations. Our Amphibious Forces have been updated and upgraded, with a new LPH, two new LPD(R)s, new RFA LSD(A)s to carry more troops and equipment in amphibious operations, new landing craft with greater capacity and extended range, new Ro Ro vessels and various other things.
Look at this page from the RN website.
Their usefulness derives mainly from their ability to concentrate a balanced force at a chosen point on a coastline or to deter aggression by providing a potent independent UK presence off shore in an area of regional tension.
Note the inclusion of the word "independent".
Use of force in this way would preclude the use of offensive weapons. But to be credible such a task group would need the ability to protect itself from air/missile attack (and other threats as well of course).
Thus the premature retirement of the Sea Harrier considerably reduces the usefulness of our amphibious forces as a tool of UK policy. The savings should been seen in the light of the hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of Pounds spent of amphibious things.
I have put this link in for three reasons. Firstly it is of interest in its own right, and connected to carrier issues. Secondly it has been mentioned before on this thread. Thirdly, it (and also the Sea King ASaC7 of today) is a good example. It extends the range of a task force/group's sensors by virtue of altitude and mobility, and at the same time is still an organic naval asset - with the advantages that brings.
In the last few years, the UK has spent a large amount of time, effort and money to increase the ability we have to operate in the littoral, and particularly to conduct ampbious operations. Our Amphibious Forces have been updated and upgraded, with a new LPH, two new LPD(R)s, new RFA LSD(A)s to carry more troops and equipment in amphibious operations, new landing craft with greater capacity and extended range, new Ro Ro vessels and various other things.
Look at this page from the RN website.
Their usefulness derives mainly from their ability to concentrate a balanced force at a chosen point on a coastline or to deter aggression by providing a potent independent UK presence off shore in an area of regional tension.
Note the inclusion of the word "independent".
Use of force in this way would preclude the use of offensive weapons. But to be credible such a task group would need the ability to protect itself from air/missile attack (and other threats as well of course).
Thus the premature retirement of the Sea Harrier considerably reduces the usefulness of our amphibious forces as a tool of UK policy. The savings should been seen in the light of the hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of Pounds spent of amphibious things.