Nobody said it was exclusively a military issue, because it's not. It's societal and political as well - people are not easy to radicalise unless their environment allows them to be; extreme poverty keeps the recruitment pool filled.

Unfortunately, we must continue to use the military and law enforcement to disrupt the leadership of these organisations, and a well equipped Carrier Air Wing, or two, is just one of the tools for that job. Nobody in their right mind wants a repeat of 9/11.

The carriers really are a monumental waste of time and money, with negative impacts far beyond the decks themselves. The sooner they are junked the better. In the short term I expect the SDSR to propose the laying up of one of them, along with a commitment to a number of F35As. And then it will simply be a matter of time before the other one is quietly pensioned off and the whole sorry saga can be bought to a conclusion.

BVRAAM,
Of course nobody wants another 9/11, but it is naive in the extreme to imagine that it happened out of the blue, and was not connected with prior military activity by the US and her allies.
There is a clear circularity at work here which would suggest that rather than suppressing undesirable behaviour, military intervention tends to amplify it. At the risk of a gross oversimplification, the West have been trying to "sort out" the Middle East with military interventions since the crusades, and the results speak for themselves.
There is a highly coherent argument which can be made to the effect that we should keep our noses out of other peoples business if we want them to keep theirs out of ours. The carriers are unambiguously tools for interfering where we are not welcome. For my own part, I am beginning to question the ideological status quo which has seen the UK as one of a handful of "global policemen", not least as we are simply not tooled up to do the job properly. Despite how impressive it all looks in the customary TV documentary, the carriers look horribly vulnerable against any serious opposition, and a rather expensive way of keeping ourselves in the crosshairs.

As it is the season of Goodwill I shall refrain from the response some posts richly deserve. Instead let me say just a few things:

1. Both carriers are going to be busy next year. HMS Prince of Wales will be doing sea trials and flying trials - both rotary and fixed wing, and Queen Elizabeth will be contributing to national and NATO capabilities - exercises, maybe even operations. Her role goes beyond flying off F-35B on ground attack missions.

2. The future Navy is built around five areas of output, Continuous At Sea Deterrence, Forward Presence, North Atlantic, Carrier Strike, and the Future Commando/Amphibious Force. The latter three are all closely related - lots of submarines and long range aircraft to worry about, trying to threaten NATO's ability to reinforce and resupply by sea.

3. Despite the 'Carrier Strike' label, the RN leadership has always been aware of the need to protect task groups and maritime logistics and will have made this point to Ministers. A carrier based task group may well include amphibious forces or crisis response shipping. Air Defence and Anti Submarine Warfare have always been part of the plan. Carrierborne ASW is not new - and you do need a carrier or something like one to provide enough helicopters for constant long range ASW.

4. Contrary to what some think - I think it is the enemy who is likely to end up seriously dead.

Happy Christmas!

Thank you fanatic. Took you long enough to collect your thoughts. :p
I would not even care to comment on your routine propaganda (Bullets 1,2,3 and 4). I strongly suspect that your motivation here is either personal financial or peripheral involvement in the carrier program? I do not recall if you have ever said so, I call you out to declare your involvement. :)
Beyond that, you seem to have a dedication to the program that goes beyond loyalty to your Nation's possible best interests and its overall Military ability. Tell me, would you rather see a strong RN skimmer fleet or, overall ability of UKMil ? Well, would you? :rolleyes:

BTW, it is commonly, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

OAP

Hold on! This bit is new.... Oh no, it isn't. Helicopter "long range" ASW. Methinks you are confusing the short range use of a helicopter from a boat with, a much more important LONG RANGE capability! :=

OAP

Comon fantiic, you're a troll! ;) I have tracked you from your innocent beginnings, and your poor grammar... ;)

OAP

Why do you think I am a troll? What innocent beginnings are you talking about? I am a naval Reservist, as I was at the start of this thread, which explains my interest. I have not been directly involved with the carriers except in a very peripheral way.

How do surface warships fight submarines (leaving aside other things such as MPA or friendly SSN/SSK)? Yes that is right, with ship based sonars (particularly towed arrays) and with helicopters with dipping sonar. If you want to keep constant coverage around any sort of high value asset or convoy you need a big deck for multiple ASW helicopters. The term 'long range' is used here to mean defending an area as opposed to a single frigate and helicopter on a submarine hunt. It was an ASW expert I spoke to who used it, a PWO(U), so I assume it is accepted terminology.

I will reply to some of your other points when I find some free time. Suffice to say I think that we need carriers, that the carriers provide unique capabilities we need that cannot be provided any other way, that they are value for money, that they are good for our diplomatic status, help secure the Union, and contribute to exports.

By the way I am not sure you should be criticising my grammar. Stones and glass houses...

I disagree. Islam will be Islam regardless - it's what happens when humans have imaginary friends based on what's written in a book; they assume they are acting upon the will of the creator of the universe.

I'd just prefer it wasn't its ugly self on my doorstep. Hence the need for the aforementioned capabilities.

WEBF - Fash ye not! Your credentials are transparently beyond reproach which is more than can be said for some of your trolling critics who have always resented carrier aviation.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and all other service personnel, past and present.

"Disrupt the Radical Islamist Leadership".....what a quaint notion

Yet you let the them preach their hate right in front of you and prosecute anyone who speaks ill of them.

Now what could possibly go wrong using that concept?

That is why I helped to elect our current Prime Minister......

There is a basic error in the mind set "if only we had left them alone, they would leave us alone". As if radical Islam and the Caliphate were post colonial constructs, which, to anyone with a serious knowledge of history, they are not.

Two carriers better than one, Boris is good for you.

Happy new year .... I am happier than I was!

Guess there is some "Colonial impact" in so far as natural age-old Tribal boundaries were over-ridden with new Colonial boundaries super-imposed. Same can be said of Africa where the Tribal layout was, to a fair degree, ignored - with a resulting fallout as typified by Zimbabwe where Political parties are, to a great extent, tribal-based.

Now, as H 'n' H is not the sharpest tool in the box, a genuine question ( & apologies for continuing the Thread creep). Is it not a case that, during the Cold War, we were all too busy with the "Superpower Stand-off"/proxy mini-WW III's and so left the various Dictators in power who, in their own ways, "managed" such extremists for us (ie kept the lid on things for their own benefit and in their own ways). Once the Cold War was over (separate debate that given what Putin is up to), and finding ourselves at a bit of a "loose end," we turned our attention to said Dictators and "meddled" on human rights/oil/WMD/whatever grounds, thereby distracting/eliminating the various "managers" from, erm, managing the extremists for us. Is that part of the issue we see today? As I say, genuine question.

"Suffice to say I think that we need carriers, that the carriers provide unique capabilities we need that cannot be provided any other way, that they are value for money, that they are good for our diplomatic status, help secure the Union, and contribute to exports."

Back on thread - I'd suggest that the last 3 points in your list my be true but a carrier is a damn expensive way of doing it - especially when it leads to the under-funding of other ships and capabilities which are needed today, every day. I can imagine what Fisher would have said to "diplomatic status" - oh! He did........

H & H raises a good question(s).....but finished halfway in the process much like those he mentions without doing so.

The quick answer is easy....he is right.

The harder answer is being able to correctly identify what to disassemble and when the Timeline begins.

I would suggest the origins begin with the European division of ancient lands (as mentioned by others) during Colonial Times and move forward from there.....and end with a dissection of methods used at the nearest end of the process.

When we stuck our latest oar into the mire....we failed to adequately replicate the methods that worked to keep things under control.

Let's ask another question.....exactly when, where, how, and why did we see the rise of radical fundamental Islamism and its associated acts of Terror and Mass Killing.

That is what we are confronting now...today....in our own homelands and shall be doing for the foreseeable future.

Is Putin and his actions the more serious threat than that of Islamic Terrorism or are we placing wrong priorities by the building of the two aircraft carriers and not investing those sums into counter-terror efforts.

We cannot ignore Putin and the Russians....but they are a far more identifiable and conventional foe as compared to the other threat we face.

Developing SaSless' theme, could anyone walk us through how the carriers might be of use against a) Putin, and B) Radical islam?

Asturias56

Do you really think that if the carriers had not be ordered then the politicians would have built more frigates and destroyers?Is there any viable alternative to a carrier if you want to strike targets without needing basing and overflight rights, provide air defence for a naval task group operating a distance from friendly bases, or have enough ASW helicopters to maintain constant ASW defence of a task group and any vessels being escorted?

falcon900

Putin - see below. Radical Islam - if hitting targets is needed, carrier based aircraft can do it.

I did promise to write and explain. This is what I originally wrote on 21 November 2017:

----
As a (part time) Sailor, I am aware that the Royal Navy exists to fight wars, therefore a mobile platform for operating fixed wing and rotary ring aircraft seems very relevant. I am also aware that ships operating in a task group with a carrier both support and are supported by the carrier, and the whole force needs to be able to integrate. I am also aware that when not fighting wars, deterrence and defence diplomacy/engagement are major parts of the reason for having a navy. A carrier (with F-35B and Merlins (both ASW and AEW) sounds ideal for both.

What more relevant capabilities did you have in mind?

Apart from the power projection/strike thing, I think of a task group facing air, submarine, and surface threats - possibly projecting power, putting amphibious forces ashore, clearing mines, or protecting important seaborne logistics. What could be more useful than a carrier with nine (or more) ASW helicopters, fixed wing aircraft than can identify and engage air threats at range and provide targeting information to ships and their weapons, and aircraft to extend the task group's radar horizon?

I often deal with people who could be described as ASW Subject Matter Experts - and they know from experience that a task group needs multiple helicopters for effective ASW (as well as frigates/destroyers with hull mounted sonar, and frigates with towed arrays). Incidentally, they used to think nine was the number of Sea Kings needed for 24/7 dipping.

Similarly, it is very difficult for land based aircraft to defend a task group at any range from a friendly airfield, and carrier based fighters allow to intercept unknown aircraft and engage if necessary at ranges far beyond the missile range of even the most advanced anti air missile. Even ignoring the range, ships cannot visually ID aircraft, protect helicopters from hostile aircraft, or provide the same level of attrition to incoming raids.

My background (academic/work) is in Electronics/Communications Engineering - so I understand the importance of defence in depth, dealing with threats at as long a range as possible, and the limits on shipborne radars and weapons due to mast height and so on. Also in the old days aircraft were unable to cue ship based weapons, something F-35B has proved it can do.

So yes I am talking from both Engineering and Dark Blue perspectives. Additionally my RNR (Communications) role is related to something that requires integration within a task group and not just within a single ship, and is involved in aviation. With a large stable platform, the carrier will enable improved access to Satellite Communications, and with USMC elements embarked certain USN systems, which in time the UK might have access to, with a large increase in bandwidth. As a flagship, she will be able to act as a C4ISTAR (sometimes now called C5ISTAR) for a task group. She was also provide a Role 2 medical facility and a few other things.

My previous RNR role involved maritime force protection - you might have noticed how terrorists have found it very difficult to operate in the maritime environment? The moon howling on here amuses but also exasperates me - 'Somalians' in motor boats firing anti ship missiles, nuclear weapons being carried by canoe, unarmed ships near hostile coastlines being hit by missiles - really? You do know a carrier will not go near a hostile coastline - yes? You also know they task groups can transit long distances without stopping at ports? You also know they are escorted by fully armed frigates/destroyers, and have their own defences against things like the small boat threat?

As a child of the 80s/90s, I was aware of the role played by carriers in the Falklands, during the Cold War, in the Gulf War in 1991, then in both the Adriatic and the Gulf throughout the 90s and past the year 2000. After a land centric 10-15 years I think it is a fair bet the next crisis will not be some landlocked or nearly landlocked, in any case carriers supplied a great number of sorties in support of coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and Syria too.

As a supporter of manufacturing industry and exporting, I am aware that some carrier related technologies such as aircraft lifts and landing aids have been exported, and both of these things are not entirely unrelated to civil products. To give you another example, the QEC is powered by Rolls Royce engines that are derived from civil aerospace engines, and similar to a version used for power applications. They also have all sorts of other things that are related to both naval and commercial marine sectors, and things similar to industrial systems - I am thinking of things like the automated weapon handling system. What better showcase for UK industry?
----

Since then the UK has said the carrier capability will be made available, and the Fire and Ice paper from the Human Security Centre has not only remembered the Cold War role of the Invincible class/Sea Harriers, and Sea Kings, but also the utility of carriers in the NATO context and a definite role for our carriers (with F-35B, ASW Merlins, Crowsnest Merlins, etc) as the heart of a NATO task group. Additionally tensions with Iran have highlighted potential threats to shopping - including air and submarine threats. Iran has invested heavily in small submarines and a deck full of ASW helicopters could be useful.

Diplomatically capital warships contribute to our diplomatic strength and can be used as platforms for international talks and conferences. Politically the fact that it took a variety of yards from around the UK (mostly English ones incidentally) shows that we are better together.

As for exports: The carriers are closely related to our involvement in the F-35 project, where something like 10% of each aircraft is British made. For the B version, the Rolls Royce LiftSytem will make that percentage quite a bit higher.

Whilst we may not be exporting carriers, India has expressed interested in the QEC design, and it will have helped sell the future Type 26 frigate design to Australia and Canada. Some naval aviation technologies are made in Britain and exported - I am thinking of things like landing aids from AGI Ltd and aircraft lifts from MacTag. There are civil applications of these technologies as well. Maybe one of the other F-35B users will be interested in the metal coating we developed for landing areas? I did hear that the US Navy is interested in technology such as the Bedford Array (developed for SRVL) to make old school carrier landings a little safer.

Moreover - the Queen Elizabeth class has all sorts of things which Britain exports for naval, merchant vessel, and industrial use. The list really is as long as your arm and includes things like:

Marine Gas Turbines
Diesel Generators
Engine Controls
Propulsion Motors
Shafting
Steering Gear
Stabilisers
Electrical Generators and distribution
Lighting Equipment
Domestic Facilities
Galley Equipment
Bridge Equipment
Radar
Echo Sounders
Sonar
Navigation Equipment
Communications Equipment
Stores handling equipment
Damage Control and Firefighting Equipment
Safety and Survival Equipment
Small Boats
Deck Equipment
Design and Consultancy
Simulation
Software

WEBF- I appreciate your commitment to the Carriers - you are after all the OP on this thread.

It's not that its carriers bad, other ships good - it's that the UK navy has invested a great deal of money and men into two ships which are very high value assets which require protection and thus cause a double whammy when what the RN is crying out for is more vessels in more places. When resources are limited something has to give and in the RN case this is the number of deployable vessels- I (and a lot of other people) believe the money would have been better spent on more T45's, more Astutes, not selling off so many platforms, actually upgrading the fit on the T45's as planned, and ordering more T26's & 31's. These vessels give us flexibility now and where it is needed - the carriers are a major distraction and their purchase has opened the door to people like Cummings who will do serious damage to the whole armed forces IMHO.

I don't expect you to agree.