Carrier Aviation = Cheapest
 

Its official...

Prolonged Libya effort unsustainable, warns Navy chief | UK news | guardian.co.uk

First Sea Lord

"It's cheaper to fly an aircraft from an aircraft carrier than from the shore."

This 'sharky' type logic is surely misleading.

I can't see how the overall costs of a carrier based asset vs a land based asset can possibly be cheaper - unless you're not comparing like with like (i.e. ignoring the costs of the ship etc.).

I don't think these kind of statememts are acceptable - carrier aviation is a potentially brilliant capability - but lets not pretend it is cheap.

My first thought would be "well he would say that". However some interesting soundbites ....

But then goes on to say

He's obviously been catching up on PPRuNe each morning ....;)

Even taking into account the cost of the carriers etc (ameliorated over 30+ years, it probably is and the EFFECT (intensity of UK Ops) would be greater too as you can generate far more sorties from fewer aircraft - as the French and US are proving off Libya.

Kind of makes you wonder why we don't have any :confused:

Of course it is cheaper, that is why every country in the world doesn't bother with these pointless land airfields and just has carriers instead. Oh wait.....

You can bend numbers in lots of ways and use very specific examples, and if you want to have a fast response and happen to fight a country where all the targets are close to (an uncontested) sea but land bases are much further away then a carrier will be quicker responding. Maybe not more capable as you are limited to carrier capable aircraft, or longer on task (but possibly will be). But claiming that, generally speaking, flying aircraft off carriers is cheaper than flying them from land bases is ridiculous.

Anyone throw some figures around for how long a Harrier would take to get on task over Nad Ali from a carrier "somewhere in the Indian Ocean"? 700 miles @M.7 gives 100 minutes (plus the AAR time). Plus how much to support a carrier group in the Indian Ocean? Lies, damn lies and statistics.........
[A deliberate, parochial and biased view to show how you can make sense to a layman but actually have a bollox argument, for those that haven't noticed.]

Don't get me wrong I am a big carrier fan - I think the UK should have 2 full size carriers flying F35C (force mixed with rotary and FW AEW as required), but using flawed arguments to fight the case will only harm it, not help. I also fully agree with the 1SL that all this RN dripping is just becoming corrosive. We/they need to move on and put up a jt fight to ensure that we get the right capability in the future.

There's a whole lot of "hidden" costs in not having carriers. If you need to project power across the world without them you need to be keeping countries "sweet" ad infinitum - hence the outlandish "foreign aid" budgets people whine about all the time. While one understands those expenditures do not entirely cover basing aircraft on the ground there's a chunk of that expenditure that does so it's a bit like insurance - it's very expensive until you need it.

However, if you have serious international ambitions the ability to place, (as the US so brilliantly point out), 4.5 acres of sovereign territory anywhere in the world at short notice is priceless... But don't expect the polis to ever see that...

It's cheaper to drive from London to Edinburgh than it is to fly (well on BA anyway). But that doesn't take into account the cost of acquiring the car in the first place.

Then again, neither does it take into account the cost of the 737 that BA use. But that's a different argument. Apples and oranges all over the place.

But if they get the 737 on a PFI it is virtually free, as we all know, so then.........

It is cheaper to have an aircraft carrier, and a few escorts, in that it allows you to have an airbase anywhere in the world if you want one. That doesn't help all that much when dealing with land locked nations or locales (Tibet?) but since about 80 % of the world's population live within 200 miles of a coastline ...

What a carrier can't do is move big metal. (C-17, C-5, C-130, A330 ...) For that you have to have more runway. But, if you are dropping in to visit from the sea anyway, it is cheaper, albeit a bit slower, to bring stuff in a hull anyway. :hmm:

"What a carrier can't do is move big metal. "

really?

C-130 Hercules On An Aircraft Carrier!! - Video

93.7% of all statistics are made up.:ok:

Great if all your other assets are below deck ie not available for use, otherwise it's a pile of ploppy and totally irrelevant

so what about the need to have all the land based IPB enablers along for the ride.....

Also, lets just suppose we had Ocean, an RFA and a couple of escorts. That has to be about 2500+ people.....to deliver a very small number of AH....I'd love to know the actual true cost per flying hour.....:ugh:

This is all about political posturing rather than actual capability

...and it's a damn sight easier to **** up a carrier than a land base. The ideal is to have both, but if you insist on running a budget where you can't, then the carrier is the obvious one to do without.

As for overseas aid keeping people sweet - that's a bit dubious IMO (but only IMO) as when push comes to shove you can't rely on the people you bribed to stay honest.
(Amazingly enough).

As we have been finding out more frequently in recent years... I dread to think how much "bribe money" has been paid in the last half century that has been ignored when the western powers have asked for "consideration".

The moment you share your survival with another you guarantee the survival of neither.

And we won't even have any of those by the end of the decade.

Not having a fully capable carrier launched aircraft is daft for an island nation. DC has just got to realise that as you walk down the fairway of life you must smell the roses, for you only get to play one round.
As for the SDSR, well, Dave and his mates must realise that by three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.

"Limited" to SuperHornet. Bugger.

Heaven Forbid
 

Being hobbled by only having the F18 E/F also means that you are restricted to only having the G-Growler available to you to choose from as well.
Outrageous!:sad:

I think we would all prefer to have all options available to HM's Armed Forces. Surley the smart move for the future is to ensure that as much of our air armada is CATOBAR capable so that all possible assets can be both air and land based as required.

I'm sure having the Ark Royal back would ameliorate the feelings of the Navy. But they'd still have to amortise the cost....... ;)