NEWTOWN, Conn. | Forecast International’s “The Market for Submarines” analysis projects that 111 submarines worth $106.7 billion will be produced from 2011-2020. The average value of these submarines will be $960 million, an indicator of the growing complexity of the modern submarine and the increasing use of air-independent propulsion, both of which add substantially to the cost of diesel-electric boats.

111 additional in just 9 years! Not too many then to threaten a carrier, one torp and goodbye "moveable airfield" a lot of resource concentrated in a very small space. Now does that sound sensible? Didn't we learn that lesson about dispering your assets. I guess the Navy is totally confident in its ASW assets being 100% effective, logically it seems close to madness!

pm575

wasn't that one of the original motives behind having the three small "Invincibles"? Three lower value targets instead of one high value / high risk target. If you remember the plan was also to augment these in time of war with "Arapahoe" container ships (or tankers) flying Harriers off pre-fab decks
Same logic as suggested the Harrier "Skyhook" trials, with the intention of launching off rails on a frigate, and being recovered by crane, with 2-3 per frigate.
Maybe we should take another look at both these: presumably with newer, more robust gear the Arapahoe concept could be made to work?

"Not having a fully capable carrier launched aircraft is daft for an island nation"

How many island nations operate carriers again? Try none...

So if we have been in the Stan all these years without our own carriers, being ably assisted by our allies with theirs you have to ask why do we need any of our own at all :confused:

Carrier = cheapest? The recent QE2-class price hike of £1bn could pay for 1000 land-based personnel to stay in 5-star comfort at a cost of £100 per night per person for a total of 27.4 years! That's the kind of comparison that would appeal to a Sun reader... arguments about fuel, weapons and on-station time are lost on the public.

Easy:

You're right... But you could eke out 30 years from a well designed and built carrier with all the fuel and "extra" stuff.. ;)

This logic can be quite easily turned on it's head: Excuse me Captain we have a possible sub in the area. Ok launch all anti sub assets and send a few frigates to screen us while we move away from the threat.

Excuse me General / Air Marshal we have a possible sub with tomahawk threat. Ok launch all anti sub assets while we move away from the .... oh bugger.

Or you could spin it:

Excuse me Captain we have a possible sub with a tomahawk threat in the vicinity. Don't worry No 1 we are totally immune to any anti shipping missile threats because we can simply move out of the way.....................:rolleyes:

I don't recall much need for the RN's little carriers and handful of Harriers in GW1....

Or GW2?

I may be wrong though - I often am!

And before the Bearded Bull$hitter's love child wakes up and starts quoting reams of references, I acknowledge that, apart from OP BLACK BUCK, there were no friendly aerodromes capable of supporting offensive operations over the Islas Malvinas in 1982.

If you can move an airfield in the time it takes for a sub to target and fire such a missle I will defer to your logic sir...

GW2 they operated out of Jordan.
Did a fab job during Kosova too from memory.
ooh, yes and Sierra Leone.....


Why all the spitefulness? Fragile ego?

"Excuse me Captain we have a possible sub with a tomahawk threat in the vicinity."

"What, the USN or RN are going to shoot at us?"

LJ101

and Kuwait. From a land based airfield in both cases.;)

Not many countries can operate submarines effectively; still fewer have Tomahawk. But most of our potential enemies have the ability and will to sacrifice their own lives if necessary to attack land targets. Look back at what the VC were able to do in Vietnam, for instance; destroyed 29 aircraft in one night, if I recall correctly. To defend an airbase fully requires a huge protective force; can we afford the manpower needed?

Because we can't always rely on others to front up with them, as recently demonstrated by the US Navy's withdrawal from Libya of USS Kearsarge (and its Harrier AV-8B air group) and Uncle Sam's reluctance to throw a CVN and its much larger air group into the fray. Nor can we guarantee HNS and overflight rights wherever the next mess flares up.

Unlike some, I don't see land and sea-based air as being mutually exclusive. After the costly investment in static infrastructure to establish a long-term airbase in AFG, long and complex logistics train through bandit country for heavy stores, ammo, fuel, etc., plus all the force protection entailed, it would be wasteful not to utilise it even if it needs augmenting with carrier-borne air from those nations who can provide it.

However, when the base is no longer needed it will be an expensive dead duck, unlike a fully operational carrier group that could be sent elsewhere at the drop of a hat to poise covertly offshore as a contingency, act as an overt deterrent or engage in fully-fledged combat operations.

If you can move a carrier to a position that a sub can no longer hit it I will defer to your logic as well Sir :ok:

Dry dock??

IGMC

Excuse me Captain we have a possible sub in the area. Ok launch all anti sub assets and send a few frigates to screen us while we move away from the threat.....


I would ask what anti sub assets, and what "few frigates"? Especially given that the cost of the carrier(s) and the F-35s have swallowed up so much of the defence budget that there is now no MPA cover and b*gg*r all ASW assets and frigates (how many Frigates have just been sold off, and how many will be purchased to replace the current Type 23s?)



Let alone the obvious question. How can you move away from the threat - UNLESS YOU ALREADY KNOW WHERE IT IS?? Unless you intend to vacate the entire theatre of operations? A submarine only tends to confirm its location when it puts a couple of torpedos into a high value unit, such as a carrier......

Biggus


Don't agree. HMG chose to hammer the MOD for the mess it got itself into after years of bungled procurement programmes. On top of that HMG also indicated it will in future bill MOD for the Trident replacement. The latter alone will come in at £ 20 Billion plus.

Of course the argument is that we are broke and need to cut our cloth to reduce our National Debt. If that's really the case, how on earth has HMG now found Billions more to lend to the IMF to help other Nations sort out their economies?:confused:

BBC News - UK raises annual payment to IMF by £9bn

draken55,

I'm not sure what it is I said that you disagree with. If it was that there isn't enough money in the defence budget for carriers, F-35s and to then still be able to provide sufficient capable ASW assets, then you're simply wrong - there just isn't enough money.



The point I made was in reference to the Defence Budget!! Yes, we as a country have enough money for all the toys, if the government of the day elects to spend more on defence and less on education, health, social services, loans to the IMF, etc - but that isn't going to happen as long as any government wants to get elected for more than one term!!!



If you don't believe that reducing our national debt is an issue, I suggest you discuss it with the people of Greece, Ireland, Portugal, etc...... Let alone any credible politician (if you can find one!) in this country. Even Labour consider debt reduction a priority - it is the speed of reduction that they disagree with the current government over, and Darling's plans for reduction were not as different from the current government's as people imagine!