off centre,

1) Everyone knows.

2) It's irrelevant

Apparently I haven't written anything on PPRuNe for over a month but this thread seems like a good place to have a little post.

Jacko

5) Aircraft carriers are by no means 'self contained' - they require AD frigates, an SSN, tankers, RFAs, etc. - a small Armada.

Do they? Are the frigates, submarines and RFA attached to the carrier? Do they have no roles except supporting a carrier? The level of escort a carrier has depends on the threat. Funnily enough ships get sent to trouble spots even if there is no carrier there. Even if they are attached to a carrier group, they can be detached and act independently. Even in the Falklands ships were detached from the main task force for other tasks. There are no dedicated ships to support carriers than can do nothing else. I believe that the escort to the CVS in the Adriatic in the 90s was a single frigate. There were others but they were enforcing an arms embargo.

When the threat is high enough to warrant lots of escorts then the situation would demand lots of escorts anyway. How many frigates/destroyers did we have in the Gulf in 1991? No CVS there.

Submarines can operate with a carrier, or they can act independently. Since you need naval forces you need RFAs.

Your argument, previously seen on the Sea Jet and Future Carrier threads, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The levels of frigates/destroyers, and submarines are set by Ministers. CVF will be part of the Fleet, some of you seem to think a new fleet of vessels will be needed to support them.

Soddim

Yes, Not a Boffin, you are quite right, the carriers in a benign air defence environment are a very good way of (slowly) deploying a respectable force and projecting power over long distance.

However, why are we spending such a large slice of our budget on a force incapable of defending itself in a hostile air environment?

Some Navies have carrier based fighters (ours used to) to defend the fleet, particularly high value assets (yes, there are high value assets other than carriers - like amphibious forces and certain merchant vessels) so they can. They also provide an outer layer of defence in addition to shipborne missiles.

Unfortunately, although we live in a relatively threat-free period at least in terms of military threats, intentions can and do change quicker than we can change capabilities. There are too many potentially hostile nations with force levels we could not contend with at present. Although in the past we have generated improved capabilities quickly in time of tension, modern technologies and the ability to use them preclude the rapid expansion that our small force would need.

Better get the carriers then!

Fortunately, there was no combat as the Argies were too busy concentrating on ground and ship attack to bring air-to-air weapons along but what a different story it would have been if they had.

There was me thinking the Argentines lost the war as they ran out of aircraft before we ran out of ships, and the carriers and landing forces were successfully defended, including by Sea Harriers. No combat? What about the 23 kills achieved by 800 and 801? Attacking ships was Argentina's best hope for winning the war and they were ordered to avoid confrontations with the Sea Harrier. And what makes you think the Sea Harrier would have lost if it had?

Your claiming if they had used air to air weapons instead of anti ship ones the carriers would have been a higher risk?

Lots of spin and half truths here.

Just my 0.02...

If binning the Harriers is a serious proposal, and sliding the CVF further to the right is planned, then it all seems extremely short-sighted if we intend to retain the capability. However, it seems to me that the UK faces one of three choices in defence spending at the moment:


(A) Decide what victory in Afghanistan is, accept that there is a 25 year commitment to deliver it, and structure our forces to delivering this within the £36bn a year we spend on it.

What this means: Army / Marines first, second and third, RAF focus on AT, SH and COIN and that the UK gives up strategic pretensions (Trident, Deep Strike) F3 goes immediately, with GR4 / CVF binned and sells on as many Tiffys as possible, with a minimal number for UKADGE.

(B) That UK wishes to spend £36bn and retain worldwide projection capability, and couldn't care less if NATO AS A WHOLE fails in Afghanistan. UK publicly blames other NATO states for not doing their bit.

What this means: UK forces out of Afghanland by 2012. CVF saved, Harriers roll on and Tiffy to replace F3 in UKADGE without deploying it. NATO slack taken up in Afghan by US if anyone does, probable Taliban-lite government.

(C) That the UK wants to do (A) and (B), and is prepared to significantly increase spending to do this - probably in the order of £10 - 15bn p.a. for 10 years.

What this could mean: FRES, CVF, KC-45 (vice A330 PFI x20ish), C-17 (x12ish), A400M (ideally to replace C-130J for a single tactical fleet), Puma / Lynx replacement, Dave, Astute (x 10), T45 (x14) and various other bits and pieces (eg FSC, MARS, Dabinett) funded in full. Along with significant increase in Light Role Amy Bns to win in Afghanland.

Which one you choose is personal political preference. What cannot be allowed is option (D):

(D) Option (C) within the existing budgets.

Time for some honesty and leadership - in the services and more importantly, politically.

S41

Would it be beyond the realms of fantasy in this, the 21st Century, to design one type of Aircraft Carrier and one type of aircraft that could be a, used on that Carrier and b, also be land based? Could that aircraft be designed to have AD, GA, AS capabilities?
Wouldn't this multi-role aircraft suit both dark/light blues' wishes and save huge amounts of money?

Could I be fantasising a 21st Century version of the F4?

Taxydual....

Yep, it's called Dave-C, complete with crochet hook thing on the back end. And on a CVF with cats and traps, UK Dave-C won't even need the extending nose gear of F-4K.....

S41

F-35C

The F-35C carrier variant will have a larger, folding wing and larger control surfaces for improved low-speed control, and stronger landing gear for the stresses of carrierF/A-18C Hornet, achieving much the same goal as the heavier F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. landings. The larger wing area allows for decreased landing speed, increased range and payload, with twice the range on internal fuel compared with the



Cats and traps and these babies. Wouldn't that solve the back stabbing?

OK, I'm no expert, I'm only an ex-OpsO.
Or is that too simple?

Time to bite the bullet!
 

Scrap Trident perhaps. Conventional forces will be used.
If you want nukes, deploy cruise on submarines.
Oh yes, scrap a few politicians, managers, administrators, much of the money given to the EEC as well. No more defence cuts period!!:ok:

Taxydual,

No, it wouldn't.

Because of the training burden imposed by cat and trap, Super Hornet or F-35C would effectively become carrier-only assets. At least Harrier and F-35B are useful some of the time, and aren't tied to a carrier all the time.

Squirrel 41,

There is an option D.

(A) Make a proportionate contribution to delivering victory in Afghanistan, and structure our forces to delivering core, key UK defence capabilities autonomously, with an eye to making the most cost-effective contribution to coalition operations.

What this means: Bin CVF. cancel (or delay) JSF. Perhaps eventually buy a much smaller number of F-35A for FCAC (along with CFT equipped Tranche 3 Typhoon) as GR4 replacement. Continue with a full buy of Typhoon for UK AD and to replace Jaguar/Harrier. Address shortcomings in battlefield helicopters and especially amphibious helicopter lift with a big buy of folding Commando Merlins, and a proper Puma replacement. Ensure that a full three squadron Chinook force is maintained. Buy tankers (no PFI malarkey). Buy a proper, national Sigint aircraft (not RJ). A400M and C-17 as described above. Consider a cheaper deterrent than a full sub launched ballistic missile (perhaps cruise?). Boost frigate numbers. Boost Astute. Fully fund FRES.

I do not think, W E Branch Fanatic we speak a common language. Combat is joined when the enemy shoots back. The Argie aircraft did not because they did not come armed with AAM to the fray. If the Argies had been able to employ fighter sweep/escort the outcome might have been very different.

The Harriers did not defend the carriers - the Navy used geography instead - they kept them safely out of range. Neither did they adequately defend the ships - the Argies got bombs in 17 surface ships - fortunately, they did not all fuse successfully.

You are quite right - seaborne air power can provide fleet air defence, of course. In fact, at the start of the Falklands war that was the role of the SHARs. It was the RAF Harriers that were trained air-ground.

Whilst I am not opposed to the carrier capability, we cannot afford it and anybody who believes that we could adequately defend our own airspace at the moment has lost track of the disparity between the minimum number of fighters we said we needed only a few years ago and the number we have now.

> tornado dumped before harrier

Well no, dump some of the Tornados if it's a cash issue of one or the other - we seem to have a lot (comparatively) and they don't seem to get used very much, was my thought. Better not have all eggs in one basket etc. Once again I must disclaim any expert knowledge here and offer this up in the spirit of providing what may be a common civilian perspective.

And as to airframe hours... stop flying the bloody things on pointless unwinnable middle eastern willy waving contests.

Oops, did I say that. I must have been drinking.

P

Did you ever hear of the USMC Jack? Marine fighter and attack squadrons have been flying off of carriers since WWII. In fact they sometimes deploy with the carriers. In wartime Marine F-18s are expected to fly from carriers and transfer shore side as soon as an airstrip becomes available.They are in no way carrier-only assets. Naval aircraft fly and operate from land bases while their carrier is in port as well.

Pretty piss poor argument you have there Jack. In fact most would tell you that if you can operate from a carrier you can certainly operate from an airstrip. I though a journalist like you would know that but in case you did not you can always research USMC aviation and how they employ fixed wing assets.

Fact is an F-35C would make all the sense in the world. They would enable the CVFs to embark a proper AEW platform and they would provide a very powerful and flexible shore and sea based asset.

Not strictly relevant but:

Our armies are marching out of step | Allan Mallinson - Times Online

Soddim, IIRC some of the early engagements were A-A with the Argies apparently firing IRM head-on. I believe only later was it discovered that they were matra 530 (radar if I got the design right).

After that of course you are correct more bombers against the fleet. However, I also believe a fair number of fighres were held back for air defence of the mainland.

A bit selective there WEBF.

I think most of us have been argung indeed that enough ships can be sent to trouble spots rather than carriers.

I would be so bold as to say that no carrier can operate without escorts. A carrier operating aircraft has limited freedom of movement. It would need at least one escort to keep her company. It is true that a helo can do some of the jobs of an escort but a boarding party is best served by an escort - picking up several pirates for instance. Immediately you need to add an RFA to the mix. If the carrier is engaged in hot operations you probably need to add logisitics support. If you then take one escort out of the equation, you need a spare.

Yes.

In coastal or near coastal waters against an SSC the SSN DS is probably essential. Without a CVF however you would not need the SSN there.

Just to add two musings to this debate:

1. Chopping the Harrier out of hand, whilst denying the short comings of the GR4 would be daft. A balance between the two would be wise.

2. If one actually goes to Afghanistan (seriously - try it) which appears to be forming a mainstay of this debate, one will find that (on the average day) approximately 1/3 of all combat air sorties come from a boat. A boat that cannot be mortared or RPG'd, that doesn't rely on petrol brought overland by trucks and that doesn't sit at the wrong end of the world's fraillest airbridge. It's expensive, the transits must be a little hard on 'the cheeks' - but it seems to be earning its keep. Just saying.

What is so very sad, but not at all suprising over this particular situation, is that absolutely nobody in authority has put their hand up & said, the idea to scrap the harrier is total c*ap!

My solution folks, don't scrap the Harrier, scrap the Defence Chiefs, after all they are just a useless & very expensive waste of time. Replace said people by two Corporals & a couple of SACs, these chaps would at least have the advantage of a brain to work with, something lacking within the MOD.

Orca said "A boat that cannot be mortared or RPG'd, that doesn't rely on petrol brought overland by trucks and that doesn't sit at the wrong end of the world's fraillest airbridge."

Taliban attack NATO supply convoy for second night running

Carriers give you flexibility and freedom. Flexibility at a price, but it's worth the price to be able provide aircraft 24/7 without worrying that Terry will hit your MSRs.

There is a very good, proven airframe that does all that already - Rafale. The French were right to withdraw from Eurofighter. Rafale might not be quite as good in AD role as Typhoon, but it is still plenty good enough to be an effective air-defence deterrent. But whilst it is important to have AD as a deterrent, it is highly improbably that our Typhoon's AD capability will ever actually be tested in combat. More importantly, Rafale is probably better in ground attack role, and is proven on carriers, and those are two roles that would be regularly tested.

Given the likely cuts in US defence spending over the next eight years, there is a good chance that Dave will be delayed or cancelled by the US DOD.

Go on, flesh out that comment a little bit with some factual meat.

Whingeing git now,

That 'piss poor argument' is an accurate precis of the official UK case for F-35B.

The problem is that with a cat and trap carrier RN squadrons would not be made available for lengthy land based rotational commitments in the way that RN Harrier squadrons have been.