Jacko

Time to agree to disagree. "Believe it or not, the cost, vulnerability, limited combat power, slow deployability, and other drawbacks of carriers are self evident common sense"

I would say that carriers bring their own logistics with them (including air and surface defence) and for a given CAG (say 50) devote no more constant effort to "base defence" than an equivalent EAW. The only difference is that whenever we have deployed GR1/GR4/GR7 in the last twenty years, we have been lucky in that someone else has provided compliant HNS (including AD and ground defence where there has been a threat) and provided it for free. Could you argue for disestablishment of the RAF Regt? No - because when we do find ourselves in an area with a ground threat, guess what - we need them and badly. Could we argue that a land-based DCA capability is no longer required "because we'll never operate anywhere without the US?" Of course not.

What carriers do allow is relative freedom of action. What would we do with a wing of Typhoon on HNS if either the bomb dump was locked or the tap to the fuel farm turned off because the owners had had a sense of humour failure? Not happened yet, but actually more likely than sinking a carrier IMHO.

also
 

.. and lets make no bones about it.. a carrier is (like an SSBN) a message to others that you are a big boy and shouldn't be messed with. A CV can, in one 6 month cruise, sit itself off any number of countries coasts and give a timely and clear indication of the UK's foreign policy intentions. Although it is easy to mock, it can also park itself in a good few friendly foreign ports and give huge encouragement to useful powers to stick with us if times are tough. This is something that a wing of Typhoons, however good, (and I believe that we need them) would never be able to accomplish - and this is without even considering the practical application of its firepower. It is perhaps worth considering the impact the Russian’s have had whilst cruising their carrier around the North Atlantic and Med.

It is worn out to keep referring to the Falklands, but many refer to loss of life in our current battles and point to equipment shortages. Our insubstantial CV based airpower probably saved more lives in the 1982 battle than we have lost in Iraq and Stan combined. Further, if the CVA project had survived the 1960’s cuts, whom here really believes that the junta would have decided to launch an invasion at all? So that is 225 UK service lives lost because the UK government wouldn’t / couldn’t fund proper CVs in the 1960s. Now set that against the cost of Mount Pleasant, the 4 jets it supports and the thousands of troops stationed to protect it. Was it really worth cutting those big CVs?

As the Falklands is worn I’ll give another ‘what if’ as an example. It’s on record that Blair asked the chiefs about UK intervention in Zimbabwe. Perhaps, if the UK hadn’t got drawn into Iraq this might have been seriously considered. The situation could have turned very nasty for the white farmers. Blair’s hand could have been forced. It is not hard to believe that Zimbabwe’s neighbours wouldn’t have been keen on supporting another white invasion of the African continent… and why would the Americans wish to get involved rescuing British citizens? The UK had the potential to launch an amphibious assault, but would you want troops moving in country without air support? Just one example, and there are a disproportionately large number of them due to our peculiar history.

Many point to the short legs of the Dave B, but I understand that it might well stack up quite favourably when compared to F18’s … you, know the ones the USN used in Afghanistan. Not to mention the fact that a huge proportion of the world’s population lives within a short distance of the sea – as we all now know the desert is such a miserable place to be.

I note in the papers today that the Tories are considering upping health spending by 2% of GDP if they take power. 2%!! That’s we probably be equal to the defence budget by that point!! It’s time that we stop squabbling amongst ourselves and aim to get a fair share for all UK forces too.

Err, me! The decision to invade was taken because the Argies wanted to rapidly divert attention from a rapidly deteriorating internal situation and the fact that they thought we didn't want to fight. The decision to sell the Endurance influenced the decision to invade. The fact we lacked a conventional carrier force was irrelevant. Otherwise they'd have waited another year until we'd flogged Invincible to the Aussies.

Those'll be the FA-18s that FOB'd regularly in Pakistan then!!:rolleyes:

Sunk at Narvik, I agree with all of your points but let me clarify myself. Of course we can never predict what the future holds but in the planned sevice life of the QE carriers (50 years?) it is possible to make some educated guesses. It is unlikely that Britain will face another large scale scenario in which it must recover/defend its sovereign territory while acting alone, other than a repeat of 1982 (which leads back to my earlier point.) I guess there is Gibraltar, St Helena..the Pitcairn Islands (pop 40) but given geography and politics it is highly unlikely that these will be an issue.

So for good or bad, the real cornerstone of our defence and guarantor against a serious international threat is not a new aircraft carrier but the continual support of the USA, until (if ever) Britain and its closest neighbours are able to form a cohesive capability of their own.

This being said, I still support the construction of CVF for several reasons. They show that we are willing to take a lead internationally and so ease the burden on the American political establishment and (more importantly) their tax payers so that it seems that there really is some give and take in the Atlantic Alliance. The continued goodwill of these people is, as I said earlier, very important to Britain. Another reason is that the carriers (along with the French carriers) build up a European capability that has not existed for decades and given the politcal will means that we might be able to come out from under the NATO security blanket and take care of our own defence issues if in the future our relationship with the Americans is different.

You also mentioned the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and generally I agree but again they can be meshed in with what I have already said. Are these wars really about securing our interests in these countries or are they about ensuring the continued goodwill of the American people? A second point I have to make on this involves a bit of asymetrical thinking and perhaps is too much of a push to be believable, but I'll say it anyway because it's on my mind. Over the last 60 years it has been Northern Irish nationalists who have posed the real terrorist threat to Britain. The IRA were given moral, political (and some say financial) support from elements of American society. With Britain now the most vigorous supporter of the US 'war on terror,' a staunch ally when many others have failed, who can say that this hasn't/won't have far reaching consequenies for the Northern Irish situation. I think it was Jerry Adams who said something along the lines of "The 9/11 attacks have set back 'progressive freedom movements' by 50 years." My translation would be "Sh%t, how can we justify ourselves to the Americans now."

Anyway that is my attempt at logical thought but I understand that logic only works if you are in a position of knowing all the facts..which I'm not.

But why do we want to play with the big boy and tell others that we mean business? The Germans seem quite happy. Many countries have or are building carriers but how many are viable?

An SSN can probably take them on when it choses; even the USN found that out in the China Sea :(

If you have one deck in commission you are stuffed if you lose it. We had vital redundancy in '82. With only one deck to start with where would be have been?

We need more or none. We need to decide exactly where we want to play rather than defence diplomacy on the hoof (or boots).


Hat, coat, brolly

Pontius, not sure if you were replying to me but I don't think I agree with the all or nothing approach. Clearly Britain can't afford everything that everyone thinks we might need in any given situation. But at the same time the nothing approach doesn't ring true either. Even Germany that you mentioned, with its hang ups about the past, has a military.

I'm not suggesting that Britain presents itself as some jingoistic, great power wanna be. There is a middle ground in which we can contribute our modest capabilites with those of our friends so that we can deal with our shared defence issues. With Britain's geographic location it makes sense that we contibute in one area while others contribute in different areas.

The politicos think that international stability and the free flow of trade are essential to the well being of our countries. So is it right or even desirable that we rely on America to guarantee our security? Are there issues that concern us that one day might not be of interest to the American tax payer?

Hence the hat, coat, and in a moment black tie and DJ,

but now an aircraft carrier or blue water navy.

Wouldn't argue with that but that is not our approach. We have a strategic deterrent, we have a bomber force and a fighter force and a maritime, and a helicopter and a tranbsport force etc etc. In fact we have the entire package with very few capability gaps and only a couple of holidays.

Others contribute. Maybe but more a question of augment what we have not provide a capabilty that we don't have, apart from the US.

You could say is it right that Europe or Africa or South America or Asia rely on the US. If the trade routes to Asia were cut the Chinese manufacturers would lose their markets. If oil was cut the Middle east would lose its revenue streams.

Cash in kind from the Middle East based on oil is like income tax. We are paid from income tax, we are taxed, we pay ourselves from income tax.

A bomber force? Where the **** have we been hiding that???

We have Tactical FJ aviation; a few Storm Shadows a bomber force doesn't make!!

We have a pitifully small maritime force (and about to get much smaller with MRA4) we have, comparitively, small AT & SH forces that are being flogged to pieces with empty promises of "jam tomorrow". To make matters worse, we've retired the PR9 without a conceivable replacement and look like we're going to accept Rivet Joints in lieu of R1s.

On the positive side? Sentinel, some UAVs (really only panic bought because the RAF was sh1t scared of the Army & Navy cornering the UAV market), some other tactical recce assets and 6 second hand helos. Note, NO replacements for the combat losses suffered by the AT, SH and, arguably, maritime fleets. In short, yes we do have a tick list of capabilites. However, many of them are wafer thin and unviable for any protracted campaign that is likely to see platform attrition.

CVF? An absolute cornerstone of defence policy. These will be more than just big ships. Power projection is not just about doing underhand deals for HNS, it can also be about a visible, or non-visible, threat from International Waters / Skies. We've abandoned a bomber force with strategic reach. CVF provides the ability to use Tac FJ Avn in a strat /sub-strat role. Equally, these ships could be massively potent with a TAG comprising FW/RW assets and a RM Cdo (a la USMC, but on a much bigger platform). Since the Govt is too scared to hold a full Review prior to the next election, backing carriers as a true "purple" enabler is a very good way of backing lots of horses simultaneously.

One deck is a liability, particularly for the continuation of Ops; however with V/STOL does come the option to lilypad to other vessels in extremis (ie flight deck accident),in addition, the design philosophy of the ship and the nature of the Air Wing would enable CVF to keep going under circumstances that would stop Ops on a "Cat & trap" deck. Bluntly, we cannot afford three hulls, and with Typhoon hogging the FJ budget, we cannot afford enough F35s to deploy two CAGs concurrently.

And as for carrier vulnerability? How hard is it to precision target an airfield thanks to Google earth?

Evalu8tor,

I was making a statement somewhat tongue in cheek :) although the entire Tornado, Harrier and Typhoon (?) forces would still have a significant bomb truck capability.

My point was that it might be better to buy a tub of cheaper margarine and spead it thickly over a slice of toast than use less best butter on the whole loaf.

Hoe many MRA4 would it take to prosecute a diesel sub to destruction? It took the Shack force over 3 days as I recall to force one to the surface.

Whilst am MPA may pin a diesel to the sea bed, allowing surface forces to open out to a safe distance, that is only valid in blue water. In brown water the diesel is doing its job even if it is being pinned down my ASW forces as destruction is always going to be difficult unless you can pin him down for days.

But surely you would never need or want operate a carrier in real brown water? In any case, Merlin is intended to be part of the air group.

The order last month for steel and other goodies (mentioned here on the RN website) is worthy of note. Another step in the right direction.

As is this PPRuNe thread which recycles old arguments. :ugh::ugh::ugh::{

CVF is also mentioned in this PDF document from DE&S. This preview also mentions the docking and refit of HMS Ocean, a "sort of" carrier.

Now, we're ordering some aircraft lifts. See this from the RN website.

A contract for the manufacture of aircraft lifts for the Royal Navy’s two new 65,000 tonne carriers was announced today by Defence Minister Baroness Ann Taylor.

The £13M contract, awarded to MacTaggart Scott of Loanhead, Scotland, means MoD orders for equipment, materials and infrastructure for the two ships, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, now total more than £160M.

Baroness Taylor, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, said: “The aircraft lifts order announced today and the other equipment and steel already contracted are a clear demonstration of the steady progress towards commencing building work at the shipyards. Construction of the carriers will provide jobs for thousands of people across the UK, which is only fitting given that these ships will be a key element of our nation’s defences.”

MoD Defence Equipment and Support carrier project team leader Rear Admiral Bob Love said: “Each of the carriers will have two huge lifts, which can lift 70 tonnes each - or two Joint Strike Fighters - from hangar to flight deck in 60 seconds. They are so powerful that together they could lift the weight of the entire ship’s crew (1,450 people). We are working closely with industry participants as we move towards building these ships.”

The lifts and their associated motors and hydraulic machinery have been designed using established technologies to provide excellent reliability throughout the expected operating life of the carriers, up to 50 years.

The ability to lift 70 tonnes suggests that future proofing is being taken seriously. I wonder what potential there is for exporting CVF related equipment to other shipborne F35B users, such as the US amphibious ships, or Italy and Spain, perhaps Australia and/or Japan (both potentially getting back in the carrier business).

How hard is it to precision target an airfield thanks to Google earth?

An airfield with aircraft in hardened shelters dispersed over a wide area is not an easy target to destroy or disable, as opposed to military asset-dense targets such as large surface warships, which are easier and easier to detect and track on long range radar.


Runways damaged? That’s what land-based VSTOL fighters are good for.


If it’s an American airfield, it will have active ballistic and cruise missile defenses.

But surely you would never need or want operate a carrier in real brown water?

Is the Persian Gulf braun wasser or blue?

WEBF,

is taken from your post which is copied and pasted verbatim from another thread several weeks ago. I may be wrong, but this looks like a transparent attempt to keep this thread on the front page.

I'd be interested to know, of these 'old arguments', which issues you have changed your view on as a result of the debate?

The good news for CVF is that steps are being taken to protect schedule despite the slip in the contract.

More good news here:

In a statement, Lockheed said that the Joint Strike Fighter "is performing solidly, making outstanding technical progress in the context of the most complex aircraft ever built" and that "the bedrock and the cornerstone" of the F-35 program have been "affordability and cost containment."

But then I looked at the date of the story. Oh :mad:!

Nothing like getting your excuses in early!

From today's letters page in the Times. Probably a bit late to be an April Fool's effort.

As pointed out earlier ' britain cannot afford all she needs ', sure we can, the fact that the current government seems to think a new london underground link and the 2012 f:mad:kabout, oh sorry 'olympics' are more important, just might have some bearing on the defence budget:(

I am intrigued to see the lasted CGI of HMS Queen Elizabeth and her JSF in the latest issue of Navy News. It appears we have abandoned STOVL and gone for a catapult and arrester. Is this just a bodge image or is it potentially what we are getting now?

Polikarpov

AIUI the mag system is based on an explosive atmosphere certified system in use in France - NOT the actual T5 system. However, it is made by Alstec (now owned by Babcock) who I believe made the T5 baggage-handling system. For a number of very good reasons, it isn't automatic, although it is unmanned in the deep mags. Alstec have previously made RAS systems and the project engineer seems to know what he's doing. Having seen a test version up close, it is proper engineering, with steel and everything!

Amb - the official line is still Dave B and STOVL. Suspect the picture editor at NN got confused as I believe the cat n trap CV deck renders are still updated with every design up-issue.

mr fish. Even after large chunks are bled off to the great Black Hole, it clearly isn't needed badly enough:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...ealth.politics

OK, in all fairness, that plus/minus variation in a budget that size isn't really such a disgrace. Don't expect any of it being invested in Defence, though;

Britain To Proceed With Carrier Program

LONDON - The British government will proceed with its 3.9 billion pound ($7.6 billion) aircraft carrier program and has told the companies involved that they are poised to make an announcement.

Paul Lester, the VT Group chief executive, said they had been told by the Ministry of Defence that approval for production was imminent. "We asked what imminent meant and they said a matter of weeks." An MoD spokesman confirmed an announcement was expected imminently.

The future of the carrier program for the Royal Navy has been in doubt for months as the Ministry of Defence has battled to balance its books in the face of a potential budget overspend during the next few years.

One option under consideration had been to slip the carrier start date by a year or more. Lester, who was speaking to reporters after announcing company results for the year, said the build program looked as though it would proceed on schedule. "We offered to reprofile the spend rate but I don't think that's going to happen now. … They want to make the timescale and can't afford any slippage," he said.

The carrier program appears to have emerged from the MoD's planning round for 2008 unscathed said Lester.

Although much support for the carrier program had slipped away within the MoD over the last 12 months, the Navy retained the political backing of an already unpopular government anxious to avoid large-scale job losses in key constituencies.........