Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!
2,889 thoughts on “Open Thread – Land, Sea and Air II”
Simon
Personally I don’t think you can beat HMS Victorious.
She also happens to be about he prettiest aircraft carrier that’s ever existed after her mods to an angled deck.
ArmChairCivvy
Hi Martin, RE “It is becoming clearer and clearer to me that the USA is really f**ked and may well never recover from it’s current problems.”
- they will recover, but there is a bigger problem
- they are becoming energy self-sufficient, and the shared interests with Europe regarding other parts of the world will diminish
The pontificating about joint-European capabilities that has gone on for decades has about 5 years to morph into an action plan, with funding, or we become a total by-stander in events that may impact on our vital interests
John Hartley
War or wars tend to break out 8-12 years after global financial crisis. This makes 2015-19 the danger years. This coincides with UK capability gaps. There may not be votes in defence, but many votes will be lost by a government that allows a major military defeat.
x
Elizabeth and Victoria? Gosh no. Google Cunard…
Alex
There are loads of good carrier names. Formidable. You couldn’t beat Illustrious for history. Victorious. Invincible is traditionally a new class of major warship. I quite like Furious, and she was the very first ship to land-on an aircraft, although that one would be nicknamed to HMS Pissed Off or Mildly Annoyed. Eagle’s pretty good too.
Observer
lol x I forgot about that, but to be fair, the QE2 is very famous. Having the prestige carried over might not be a bad thing.
And I do think we have a sort-of-kind-of consensus. Anything but PoW (Prisoner of War).
JH, I do agree on the 10 year danger period, it ties in with my guessimates too, but the area that is really heating up is ironically one that has not been actually hard hit by the crisis. China. They’re really pushing the South China Sea issue.
martin, so agree on the sovreign capability issue, some planning must be done to retain capability to operate independently of the US. Yes, taking on China or Russia is probably a job for half the world, but the UK should at least retain enough capability to put down a middle tier country like Iran or Syria independently (put down, not occupy. I never liked the idea of long term occupations. Only way I can see them succeed is along the lines of genocide, not good.)
Lord Jim, I’m worried about China, they’re getting more aggressive by the day. You heard the recent “law” passed that allows their navy to board and seize any ship that infringes disputed territory? Or that their new passports have a map of China including the disputed territories as sovereign Chinese territory, and that letting other countries stamp their passports may be constituted as unofficial recognition of their claims, leading to some countries refusing to stamp Chinese passports?
I’m one of those that think you really do need new equipment, and not UORs (How the hell do you do long term training as a UOR? Or toss a recruit in front of a new bought AESA radar MPA and expect him to get up and run?). On the other hand, despite all the marketting and chest thumping on “high tech” by arms manufacturers, a lot of equipment is actually very generic, so it isn’t very hard to set a baseline as your equipment benchmark and to get them off the shelf without more “development cost” for long term usage.
x
@ Observer re QE2
Yes. But the two was nothing to do with HM the Queen. The two stood for the ship being the second with that name in the Cunard Line. Same today with Queen Mary 2. The current Cunarder Queen Elizabeth would be QE3, but I think to save confusion etc. they don’t refer to her as such.
Further the first CVF’s name is Queen Elizabeth not Queen Elizabeth II. She will be second ship of that name to go into service, the first one being a battle ship, and named after the Tudor queen. The RN did have a class of battle ship called King George V , or KGV’s as they get referred to. King George V was a person, the ships weren’t the King George class. Similarly Prince of Wales is a title not a person, so CVF 2 is named after a title not HRH Prince Charles.
It is all very straightforward.
Observer
I know x, but length of reign, Elizabeth II has an advantage over Elizabeth I. Don’t tell me you don’t want your carrier to be as long lived as possible?
x
@ Observer
I hope I get to visit both CVF many times over many decades.
John Hartley
OBS
Some woman China expert was on RT last night, saying China has another 5-10 years of high growth building missing infrastructure. After that, they are probably on the same low growth as the rest of us. May come as a shock to them & the rest of the world.
Observer
John, there are 2 people here with that possible shortened nickname.
And she’s optimistic. They have already hit the point of diminishing returns. There was a report that a lot of the infrastructure they mass built is currently lying around unused as they overdid it. They could drag it out a bit longer by urbanizing the suburbs, but the slowdown is already starting. However, their current militancy is not due to a slow economy, but a strong one, combined with nationalism, a sense of manifest destiny (helped by the strong economy and national pride) and a chip on their shoulder the size of the Himalayans.
martin
@ Observer
“but a strong one, combined with nationalism, a sense of manifest destiny (helped by the strong economy and national pride) and a chip on their shoulder the size of the Himalayans.”
A dangerous combination. However given the distances involved how worried should the UK be. The USA has lot’s of disputes with island nation’s near it in particular Cuba but it does not really affect the UK. One could say that given the fact that the ASEAN nation’s have some 500 million people of their own and a far higher per capita income than China maybe it’s time they look after themselves.
Not sure if I agree with this just playing devils advocat
Mike
Just to tag on with naming of the carriers – been done to death I know… – but with Prince of Wales last incarnation, WW2, I find it rather ironic/funky that we’d name an aircraft carrier after a ship that was sunk by aircraft… something a little wonderful in that
Takes the names’ time in action and the lives lost into account, a way to remember. So I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the name stays.
I’m pretty intrigued to see how the X47′s carrier trials go, it’ll be quite a moment in naval aviation.
martin
@ ACC
Hi Martin, RE “It is becoming clearer and clearer to me that the USA is really f**ked and may well never recover from it’s current problems.”
- they will recover, but there is a bigger problem
- they are becoming energy self-sufficient, and the shared interests with Europe regarding other parts of the world will diminish
I hope they do recover but the more data that I see coming out the more I wonder. In many key indicators the USA is dropping out of the OECD. They have lower broadband penetration than Romania. They have dropped to 14th in the world in terms of number of graduates down from number one just 20 years ago. Their power system is dilapidated and by far the oldest and least efficient in the industrialised world. They spend nearly triple the amount of per capita GDP that the UK does on health care and they don’t even cover 80% of the population. The one thing keeping their social security system afloat was a rapidly growing population but with a reversal of immigration to latin America and the collapse of birth rates amongst Hispanic Americans even this is in jeopardy. It’s well with in their power to solve these issue’s but the political will it would take is just not their and I doubt if it ever will be.
In some ways their seems to be too much optimism amongst the political classes of America that they have done it in the past and they will do it again in the future. I know many route America off in the 1980′s and they came back stronger than ever however much of that success i.e. the tech sector was as a result of expansion in education and R&D spending in the 1960′s. They have not done anything like this since and they can only reap the benefits of those historic events for so long.
I take your point about energy independence but remember they had energy independence in 1991 and it did not stop them intervening in the gulf. Also it takes American’s significantly more energy input for a given unit of GDP than a European country. Largely due to the lay out of their cities and the use of large vehicles. Even with energy indapendance they will still have to import oil and the head winds of higher oil prices take a much larger toll on the USA than any other OECD country.
They seem to be painting themselves a rosy picture that despite all their problems they are doing better than Europe but lets no forget they have higher government debt to GDP than Italy and a bigger budget deficit than Greece. No other nation would get away with a 2 year debate over budgets and deficit reduction. At present the markets are leaving the USA alone largely because of the issues in Europe and Japan but this may not last for long and when it does turn on them it could be very violent.
In the medium to longer term one thing seems clear to me. The USA won’t be spending 50% of the world military budget and we better find a way to pick up the slack.
IXION
Re CVF name
They are white elephants so Nellie and Dumbo fit nicely. But seeing as they are also ‘whited sepulchers’ (look that one up), for the practical functionality of the RN: – perhaps they should be named after the old 8 inch Washington treaty cruisers.
Or my personal favorites HMS HOW F**king Much!!?, and HMS Casablanca (because she will spend a lot of time waiting around for a single plane)!
If it looks like I am not taking this seriously- I’m not. Interested in fighting capability not poncy historical names.
Observer
@martin
I’d also feel happier if the Pacific countries could take care of themselves, especially in defence, but there are problems that are hard to overcome, like the lack of a large market (unless they sell to China, which is the definition of causing your own problems). The US and European arms market sells to the US, Europe AND Asia and still show slight profit margins. Smaller arms developers don’t have that reach.
One of my fantasies is for the US to release either the F-22 or 23 for development/sale to Asia, that should keep the Chinese stealth program in check for a while and would boost the area’s defences massively (though how the Philipines are going to pay for it, I’ve no idea. Give them 2nd hand F-5 castoffs might be a better idea). Not going to happen, ITAR, which is why it’s classed as “fantasy”.
As for America? *sigh*.. we’ll just have to wait their problems out.
Challenger
@Simon
Totally agree on Victorious, she looked dam fine after her post war refit!
I may provoke a strong reaction against this but I’m not particularly enthusiastic about the monarchy, although I’m more anti royalist than pro republican (as in it doesn’t really matter to my day to day life and I don’t want to suddenly revolt and storm the palace!).
For that reason I have never really warmed to ships being named after monarchs or their titles, I don’t feel it really represents the spirit and history of the RN or the nation as well as an evocative name such as Victorious or Invincible or another dozen long-standing names can.
Challenger
@Lord Jim
I get what you’re saying and broadly agree with you on capability gaps, that if they are to occur then the government and MOD needs to be more open and honest about what we can and can’t afford, planning our global ambitions and commitments around what can be paid for, not the other way round and breaking with the deferral/make do and mend mentality.
martin
@ Observer
I totally agree. If the ASEAN leader’s would move faster on a single market they might be able to provide a very credible alternative to China.
I just find it hard that the UK should be overly concerned about the security of nations like the Philipines and Vietnam which are significantly larger than the UK.
Granted they are developing nation’s but so is China. The pitiful state of their nation’s defence says to me their politicians and people don’t care enough about their own defence so why should we. Imagine a nation like the Philipines with nearly 100 million people and not a single jet interceptor for the entire country. Some times I wonder why the USA is prepared to put it on the line for nation’s such as this. If they don’t wan to pay to defend their resources maybe they should just roll over and give the Spartly’s to China.
x
Chally said “I don’t feel it really represents the spirit and history of the RN”
Um you do not what the letter in bold italics stands for?
OK? You do? Moving right along….
Observer
x, behave
Challenger, the UK could have done a lot worse than a constitutional monarchy, and at least they knew when to let go. Live and let live I guess. Though if someone needed to fire the government of Australia again, they know who to look for.
Challenger
@X and Observer
When I reference the RN of course I know what the R stands for! However X you know as well as I do that an institution such as the Royal Navy doesn’t just serve whichever monarch happens to be on the throne, it transcends both time and politics, representing part of our national history more than any one or small group of individuals. No matter what it’s called it belongs to us, the people (don’t want that to sound too leftist and radical, but hey it’s true!).
Observer I absolutely agree that a constitutional monarchy has served the UK well over the centuries, I’m not so much calling for it to be abolished, more seen in rational/less emotional light.
I’m just not really that interested in monarchs and attached royals getting privilege beyond their worth and being revered as national hero’s. Case in point is this recent William and Kate baby news. I wish no harm to either them or their offspring, them seem like nice enough people, but beyond that I really couldn’t care less, I have better, more important, more interesting things to focus my time and attention on.
WiseApe
Re carrier name, perhaps we’d get more jets on board HMS Dowding? HMS Biggin Hill?
I do agree though that it would be better to stay away from peoples’ names (tempting as HMS Rod Stewart is); also not a royalist (you do know we had a civil war, yes?).
Might it be better to rename both carriers, so clearly not associated with any particular person? We are fortunate (or should that be spoilt for choice) in having many famous ship names not currently in use (the plus side in having such a reduced navy!).
I suggest Superb and Splendid; then Swiftsure and Steadfast for batch two.
x
@ Chally
@ Wise Ape
The English Civil Wars were about the rising middle class verses the upper class not we the people verses the monarchy.
Question, or should that be petrol on the barby, followed by a hand grenade, just for shits and giggles…
Given the increasing sophistication, realism and all round spiffingness of modern high fidelity immersive artificial training environments (simulators to you and me) exactly how much time would aircrew need to spend on board, being part of the integrated weapon system that is a carrier blah blah?
I would suggest that it is minimal
And I would go further to say there is no need whatsoever to have aircrew or aircraft permanently embarked, we have shown this with Ocean and Apache, we showed in 1982 and we showed it in other operations with aircraft that did not have the level of simulation and sophistication of the F35B.
So the permanently embarked aircraft notion is nothing more than a ruse to keep the FAA in the fast jet business or some throwback to union rules of old
Aircraft are damned precious, the F35B will be even more precious so in my simple brain, they go where and when they are needed. The platform from which they operate from, sea or land, is largely irrelevant. Sea one day, a concrete runway another, whatever.
Now I appreciate life gets a bit more complicated for the deck handling and ground crew element because quite clearly there are safety and efficiency issues plus the role they might play in damage control, ships routine functions etc but if anyone suggests to me that aircrew must stag on on a ship, or don a firesuit and get hosing I would suggest they need to do a risk assessment against the value of the asset i.e. expensive and few in number aircrew should not be fighting fires or knocking bits of wood into leaking holes.
We need to get real because the whole permanently embarked aircraft notion is just a fantasy lost in the midst of the FAA glory days, never to be repeated in a cost constrained world where aircrew and aircraft are as rare as hens teeth
Carry on
Mr.fred
Challenger, you have a very rose-tinted view of things going on there. I think that you will find that for the overwhelming majority of its existence the Royal Navy DID serve whichever Monarch was on the throne at the time and they do not transcend politics as much as they are an intrinsic part of it in both cause and effect.
If we’re doing the QE class again, perhaps we could have Warspite?
WiseApe
Does anyone know who supplied the “friendly submarine?”
“The platform from which they operate from, sea or land, is largely irrelevant. Sea one day, a concrete runway another, whatever” – I’m going to surprise many here by agreeing with this. X keeps saying that no one joins the air force to go to sea, well, “you’re in the army now!” I think the RAF need to get used to the idea of expeditionary deployments being on decks, rather than airfields and plush hotels.
Edit: Perhaps in future deployments, FAA might do CAP while RAF do strike/CAS or vice virse?
All Politicians are the Same
@TD
Aircraft do not permanently embark anyway. they embark when a carrier goes to sea. The type and number embarking is dependent on the tasking.
As for using simulators? Yes you can do but you still have to do real deck landings as no simulator can recreate the actual feeling of jet wash, noise movement and the actions of real life aircraft for the handlers etc.
As for your last paragraph, well all I can say is “please sober up before your permanent return as I have never ever seen come out with such drivel before”.
The point remains though, perhaps permanently should have been routinely but you know what I am saying, nailing up F35B’s and their aircrew to CVF
We cant afford it
All Politicians are the Same
Wise Ape
It was a French SSN.
@TD The F35B will (almost definitely) operate in a similar manner to the way JFH worked. though they may at least initially spend mre time at sea as the capability is proven and trials etc conducted.
x
@ TD
Have you managed to decorate the Officers’ Mess? I bet fairy dust is never in short supply at RAF High Wycombe.
@ APATS
Are you saying my drivel is not up to snuff? I have had at least 3 poorly constructed jibes at the RAF over the last week alone. Writing down to standard is hard work. How The Guardian manages it each and everyday I don’t know.
You all know I am right, fairy dust or no fairy dust
I think there is a reality gap and a spot of nostalgic wishful thinking going on
F35B should be operated like Apache on Ocean i.e. training and on demand
Simon
TD,
As long as the 300 or so aircrew per embarked F35 squadron train to do their maintenance tasks in a confined hangar with simulated pitch and roll moving screwdrivers and the like across the floor with a couple of massive doors in the side open to force 10 gales of salty water, I’d have no problem with a land based F35 force from the RAF.
There’s nothing like reality and I’m very, very into simulators… That sounds like I do it for a living… I’d like to think that if Rediffusion Simulation were recruiting when I left school I’d be doing it for a living!
Sorry TD luckily you are in a minority of one. Remember that Apache is a supporting element of Oceans prime role. That is not the case for the new carriers; the only way they will achieve anything approaching their potential will be regularly operating and training with their different air groups to ensure currency in certain roles.
You are aware that it takes quite a lot of training and plenty of box ticking to allow Ships to be at operational readiness?
In order for the Carriers to actually be useful they will need a minimum of F35B in a JFH role. Anything else will simply ensure that they are no use at all.
Why would we want our F35b sitting on an airfield when a Carrier is at sea? It is not be used as a QRF fighter is it? If we had something more operational for them to do than embark on a cruise with a carrier then fair enough but the idea we are going to buy them and then not embark them for deployments is ridiculous.
Note that Apache deployed with the JRF, so every time the JRF as gone east of Gib it has carried Apache!
Mark
TD
Your fishing has obviously improved it took all of hour to get how many bites. Must be the bait your using
x
@ APATS
I would have F35b doing QRA, scrap Typhoon early, never buy F35a, get GCHQ to take over the monitoring of UK airspace, give the Chinooks to the AAC, the Guards to takeover from QCS as the rapid reaction drill team, and that would just leave the Alsations. I like dogs so if a greatly reduced other bunch just walked and looked after Alsations that would be fine. If only I had some fairy dust to make my dream come true….
Challenger
@Mr.fred
‘you have a very rose-tinted view of things going on there. I think that you will find that for the overwhelming majority of its existence the Royal Navy DID serve whichever Monarch was on the throne at the time’.
I completely agree on the DID part, as in before the civil war, the restoration, the glorious revolution and all 300+ years that have followed. You do know it’s 2012 don’t you? I don’t care if the armed forces are called royal this or royal that and has a bunch of hanger-on nobility acting as colonel in chiefs and ship sponsors, the government decides what the armed forces do and the tax payers fund it.
I know that’s a simplistic version but my history isn’t anywhere near as bad as you suggest and all I was advocating, in my humble opinion was giving ships names that evoke and represent the long and illustrious history of the navy, not names that purely defer to the current monarchy.
And yes, I agree that Warspite would be a good one!
WiseApe
“Virsa!” – Where was my spellchecker when I needed it?
“Why would we want our F35b sitting on an airfield when a Carrier is at sea?” – Precisely. When a carrier deploys out of UK waters it will carry at least 12 F35s. I frankly don’t care what shade of blue the pilots wear, but obviously the deck/hangar crew will be navy. The more jets you embark, the more deck crew you embark. Not rocket science.
Some people seem to be arguing that while we can operate Apaches (never designed to go to sea, flown by the army FFS – hat tip to X) from Illustrious/Ocean, we can’t operate F35Bs (designed for carrier use) flown by the RAF off our carriers. Why not exactly? Isn’t F35B easier to fly than Harrier? Haven’t you been paying attention to Mark’s comments!
It costs millions of £s to train a FJ pilot and keep his skills current. Are we seriously considering having two lots of pilots – RAF and FAA – to fly our small number of F35s, handing the jets over as they embark/disembark?
HMG needs to decide who owns/operates these jets and then they have to get on with it, whether at sea or on land. Given that these jets will spend the majority of their time parked in RAF hangars (there’s going to be no carrier CASD) it seems sensible to let the RAF pay for them, let the navy spend its budget on, oh say, ships and ships’ crews for example.
John Hartley
Is TD now posting from an Australian radio station?
PS has anyone seen the Telegraph article saying UK Apaches could be reduced in numbers or cut altogether?
Mr.fred
Challenger,
My point, in return, is that the affiliation with the Monarchy is part of the long and illustrious history of the Royal Navy.
Do the RN swear allegiance to the Government or the Monarch and by extension their government?
Perhaps two royal-affiliated ships out of a class of two is a bit much and one should be named differently
Challenger
@Wiseape
I don’t want to provoke an in-depth argument over this (for once!) but wouldn’t it be nice to say ‘right anything AAC or FAA will be rotary wing and anything RAF will be fixed wing’.
x
@ Mr fred.
More for balance really. The RN likes things squared away. Though the ships aren’t really named after living people there is an implied connection. If as longest reigning monarch your navy can’t be bothered to name (even by proxy) their biggest ever ship after you then really what’s the point? If CVF 1 is QE, then what better way to balance that out than PoW? Even if it is a disappointing name. Sad to say that may be a good argument for Ark Royal. Um, now Mountbatten would be a good name; a real Marmite suggestion…..
Simon
If you think of F35B as the expeditionary air-wing then it will be based on CVF or foreign soil, operating in rough seas, ice fields, deserts, jungles, anywhere other than the middle of the road, temperate Blighty!
I see the F35 force as non-RAF and non-FAA, it’s essentially the Royal Marines Air Force (RMAF?), very much akin to the F35B in the USMC.
x
Back in the 1960s Vice Admiral Sir Louis Le Bailly wrote a paper on moving the FAA under the RM.
VSTOL F-35B ops need steel or concrete under them. Trying to do it from mud or ice, will not end well, unlike the Harrier ops of yore.
Dunservin
Will the RAF still exist when the QE Class becomes operational?
Brian Black
”I don’t want to provoke an in-depth argument over this (for once!) but wouldn’t it be nice to say ‘right anything AAC or FAA will be rotary wing and anything RAF will be fixed wing’.”
But what about the RA’s UAVs, challenger?
Challenger
@Brian Black
You’ve got me there!
Challenger
Bit of a divergence but I have been looking at statistics on and photo’s of the second Sir Galahad built after the Falklands and I can’t help but feel it was a bit of a waste that she was sold off.
The original Round Table LSL’s were very old and presumably knackered by the time the Bay’s replaced them, but Sir Galahad was a mere 18 years old and a modified, larger design. Of course she would have almost certainly been scrapped by 2010 and the SDSR, but who knows, maybe she could have been offered up in place of Largs Bay and served a final use that way.
I understand as well that Sir Bedivere was supposed to stay in service until 2011 after a major refit. Always interesting to consider what could have been!
Personally I don’t think you can beat HMS Victorious.
She also happens to be about he prettiest aircraft carrier that’s ever existed after her mods to an angled deck.
Hi Martin, RE “It is becoming clearer and clearer to me that the USA is really f**ked and may well never recover from it’s current problems.”
- they will recover, but there is a bigger problem
- they are becoming energy self-sufficient, and the shared interests with Europe regarding other parts of the world will diminish
The pontificating about joint-European capabilities that has gone on for decades has about 5 years to morph into an action plan, with funding, or we become a total by-stander in events that may impact on our vital interests
War or wars tend to break out 8-12 years after global financial crisis. This makes 2015-19 the danger years. This coincides with UK capability gaps. There may not be votes in defence, but many votes will be lost by a government that allows a major military defeat.
Elizabeth and Victoria? Gosh no. Google Cunard…
There are loads of good carrier names. Formidable. You couldn’t beat Illustrious for history. Victorious. Invincible is traditionally a new class of major warship. I quite like Furious, and she was the very first ship to land-on an aircraft, although that one would be nicknamed to HMS Pissed Off or Mildly Annoyed. Eagle’s pretty good too.
lol x I forgot about that, but to be fair, the QE2 is very famous. Having the prestige carried over might not be a bad thing.
And I do think we have a sort-of-kind-of consensus. Anything but PoW (Prisoner of War).
JH, I do agree on the 10 year danger period, it ties in with my guessimates too, but the area that is really heating up is ironically one that has not been actually hard hit by the crisis. China. They’re really pushing the South China Sea issue.
martin, so agree on the sovreign capability issue, some planning must be done to retain capability to operate independently of the US. Yes, taking on China or Russia is probably a job for half the world, but the UK should at least retain enough capability to put down a middle tier country like Iran or Syria independently (put down, not occupy. I never liked the idea of long term occupations. Only way I can see them succeed is along the lines of genocide, not good.)
Lord Jim, I’m worried about China, they’re getting more aggressive by the day. You heard the recent “law” passed that allows their navy to board and seize any ship that infringes disputed territory? Or that their new passports have a map of China including the disputed territories as sovereign Chinese territory, and that letting other countries stamp their passports may be constituted as unofficial recognition of their claims, leading to some countries refusing to stamp Chinese passports?
I’m one of those that think you really do need new equipment, and not UORs (How the hell do you do long term training as a UOR? Or toss a recruit in front of a new bought AESA radar MPA and expect him to get up and run?). On the other hand, despite all the marketting and chest thumping on “high tech” by arms manufacturers, a lot of equipment is actually very generic, so it isn’t very hard to set a baseline as your equipment benchmark and to get them off the shelf without more “development cost” for long term usage.
@ Observer re QE2
Yes. But the two was nothing to do with HM the Queen. The two stood for the ship being the second with that name in the Cunard Line. Same today with Queen Mary 2. The current Cunarder Queen Elizabeth would be QE3, but I think to save confusion etc. they don’t refer to her as such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Queen_Elizabeth
Further the first CVF’s name is Queen Elizabeth not Queen Elizabeth II. She will be second ship of that name to go into service, the first one being a battle ship, and named after the Tudor queen. The RN did have a class of battle ship called King George V , or KGV’s as they get referred to. King George V was a person, the ships weren’t the King George class. Similarly Prince of Wales is a title not a person, so CVF 2 is named after a title not HRH Prince Charles.
It is all very straightforward.
I know x, but length of reign, Elizabeth II has an advantage over Elizabeth I. Don’t tell me you don’t want your carrier to be as long lived as possible?
@ Observer
I hope I get to visit both CVF many times over many decades.
OBS
Some woman China expert was on RT last night, saying China has another 5-10 years of high growth building missing infrastructure. After that, they are probably on the same low growth as the rest of us. May come as a shock to them & the rest of the world.
John, there are 2 people here with that possible shortened nickname.
And she’s optimistic. They have already hit the point of diminishing returns. There was a report that a lot of the infrastructure they mass built is currently lying around unused as they overdid it. They could drag it out a bit longer by urbanizing the suburbs, but the slowdown is already starting. However, their current militancy is not due to a slow economy, but a strong one, combined with nationalism, a sense of manifest destiny (helped by the strong economy and national pride) and a chip on their shoulder the size of the Himalayans.
@ Observer
“but a strong one, combined with nationalism, a sense of manifest destiny (helped by the strong economy and national pride) and a chip on their shoulder the size of the Himalayans.”
A dangerous combination. However given the distances involved how worried should the UK be. The USA has lot’s of disputes with island nation’s near it in particular Cuba but it does not really affect the UK. One could say that given the fact that the ASEAN nation’s have some 500 million people of their own and a far higher per capita income than China maybe it’s time they look after themselves.
Not sure if I agree with this just playing devils advocat
Just to tag on with naming of the carriers – been done to death I know… – but with Prince of Wales last incarnation, WW2, I find it rather ironic/funky that we’d name an aircraft carrier after a ship that was sunk by aircraft… something a little wonderful in that
Takes the names’ time in action and the lives lost into account, a way to remember. So I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the name stays.
I’m pretty intrigued to see how the X47′s carrier trials go, it’ll be quite a moment in naval aviation.
@ ACC
Hi Martin, RE “It is becoming clearer and clearer to me that the USA is really f**ked and may well never recover from it’s current problems.”
- they will recover, but there is a bigger problem
- they are becoming energy self-sufficient, and the shared interests with Europe regarding other parts of the world will diminish
I hope they do recover but the more data that I see coming out the more I wonder. In many key indicators the USA is dropping out of the OECD. They have lower broadband penetration than Romania. They have dropped to 14th in the world in terms of number of graduates down from number one just 20 years ago. Their power system is dilapidated and by far the oldest and least efficient in the industrialised world. They spend nearly triple the amount of per capita GDP that the UK does on health care and they don’t even cover 80% of the population. The one thing keeping their social security system afloat was a rapidly growing population but with a reversal of immigration to latin America and the collapse of birth rates amongst Hispanic Americans even this is in jeopardy. It’s well with in their power to solve these issue’s but the political will it would take is just not their and I doubt if it ever will be.
In some ways their seems to be too much optimism amongst the political classes of America that they have done it in the past and they will do it again in the future. I know many route America off in the 1980′s and they came back stronger than ever however much of that success i.e. the tech sector was as a result of expansion in education and R&D spending in the 1960′s. They have not done anything like this since and they can only reap the benefits of those historic events for so long.
I take your point about energy independence but remember they had energy independence in 1991 and it did not stop them intervening in the gulf. Also it takes American’s significantly more energy input for a given unit of GDP than a European country. Largely due to the lay out of their cities and the use of large vehicles. Even with energy indapendance they will still have to import oil and the head winds of higher oil prices take a much larger toll on the USA than any other OECD country.
They seem to be painting themselves a rosy picture that despite all their problems they are doing better than Europe but lets no forget they have higher government debt to GDP than Italy and a bigger budget deficit than Greece. No other nation would get away with a 2 year debate over budgets and deficit reduction. At present the markets are leaving the USA alone largely because of the issues in Europe and Japan but this may not last for long and when it does turn on them it could be very violent.
In the medium to longer term one thing seems clear to me. The USA won’t be spending 50% of the world military budget and we better find a way to pick up the slack.
Re CVF name
They are white elephants so Nellie and Dumbo fit nicely. But seeing as they are also ‘whited sepulchers’ (look that one up), for the practical functionality of the RN: – perhaps they should be named after the old 8 inch Washington treaty cruisers.
Or my personal favorites HMS HOW F**king Much!!?, and HMS Casablanca (because she will spend a lot of time waiting around for a single plane)!
If it looks like I am not taking this seriously- I’m not. Interested in fighting capability not poncy historical names.
@martin
I’d also feel happier if the Pacific countries could take care of themselves, especially in defence, but there are problems that are hard to overcome, like the lack of a large market (unless they sell to China, which is the definition of causing your own problems). The US and European arms market sells to the US, Europe AND Asia and still show slight profit margins. Smaller arms developers don’t have that reach.
One of my fantasies is for the US to release either the F-22 or 23 for development/sale to Asia, that should keep the Chinese stealth program in check for a while and would boost the area’s defences massively (though how the Philipines are going to pay for it, I’ve no idea. Give them 2nd hand F-5 castoffs might be a better idea). Not going to happen, ITAR, which is why it’s classed as “fantasy”.
As for America? *sigh*.. we’ll just have to wait their problems out.
@Simon
Totally agree on Victorious, she looked dam fine after her post war refit!
I may provoke a strong reaction against this but I’m not particularly enthusiastic about the monarchy, although I’m more anti royalist than pro republican (as in it doesn’t really matter to my day to day life and I don’t want to suddenly revolt and storm the palace!).
For that reason I have never really warmed to ships being named after monarchs or their titles, I don’t feel it really represents the spirit and history of the RN or the nation as well as an evocative name such as Victorious or Invincible or another dozen long-standing names can.
@Lord Jim
I get what you’re saying and broadly agree with you on capability gaps, that if they are to occur then the government and MOD needs to be more open and honest about what we can and can’t afford, planning our global ambitions and commitments around what can be paid for, not the other way round and breaking with the deferral/make do and mend mentality.
@ Observer
I totally agree. If the ASEAN leader’s would move faster on a single market they might be able to provide a very credible alternative to China.
I just find it hard that the UK should be overly concerned about the security of nations like the Philipines and Vietnam which are significantly larger than the UK.
Granted they are developing nation’s but so is China. The pitiful state of their nation’s defence says to me their politicians and people don’t care enough about their own defence so why should we. Imagine a nation like the Philipines with nearly 100 million people and not a single jet interceptor for the entire country. Some times I wonder why the USA is prepared to put it on the line for nation’s such as this. If they don’t wan to pay to defend their resources maybe they should just roll over and give the Spartly’s to China.
Chally said “I don’t feel it really represents the spirit and history of the RN”
Um you do not what the letter in bold italics stands for?
OK? You do? Moving right along….
x, behave
Challenger, the UK could have done a lot worse than a constitutional monarchy, and at least they knew when to let go. Live and let live I guess. Though if someone needed to fire the government of Australia again, they know who to look for.
@X and Observer
When I reference the RN of course I know what the R stands for! However X you know as well as I do that an institution such as the Royal Navy doesn’t just serve whichever monarch happens to be on the throne, it transcends both time and politics, representing part of our national history more than any one or small group of individuals. No matter what it’s called it belongs to us, the people (don’t want that to sound too leftist and radical, but hey it’s true!).
Observer I absolutely agree that a constitutional monarchy has served the UK well over the centuries, I’m not so much calling for it to be abolished, more seen in rational/less emotional light.
I’m just not really that interested in monarchs and attached royals getting privilege beyond their worth and being revered as national hero’s. Case in point is this recent William and Kate baby news. I wish no harm to either them or their offspring, them seem like nice enough people, but beyond that I really couldn’t care less, I have better, more important, more interesting things to focus my time and attention on.
Re carrier name, perhaps we’d get more jets on board HMS Dowding? HMS Biggin Hill?
I do agree though that it would be better to stay away from peoples’ names (tempting as HMS Rod Stewart is); also not a royalist (you do know we had a civil war, yes?).
Might it be better to rename both carriers, so clearly not associated with any particular person? We are fortunate (or should that be spoilt for choice) in having many famous ship names not currently in use (the plus side in having such a reduced navy!).
I suggest Superb and Splendid; then Swiftsure and Steadfast for batch two.
@ Chally
@ Wise Ape
The English Civil Wars were about the rising middle class verses the upper class not we the people verses the monarchy.
Question, or should that be petrol on the barby, followed by a hand grenade, just for shits and giggles…
Given the increasing sophistication, realism and all round spiffingness of modern high fidelity immersive artificial training environments (simulators to you and me) exactly how much time would aircrew need to spend on board, being part of the integrated weapon system that is a carrier blah blah?
I would suggest that it is minimal
And I would go further to say there is no need whatsoever to have aircrew or aircraft permanently embarked, we have shown this with Ocean and Apache, we showed in 1982 and we showed it in other operations with aircraft that did not have the level of simulation and sophistication of the F35B.
So the permanently embarked aircraft notion is nothing more than a ruse to keep the FAA in the fast jet business or some throwback to union rules of old
Aircraft are damned precious, the F35B will be even more precious so in my simple brain, they go where and when they are needed. The platform from which they operate from, sea or land, is largely irrelevant. Sea one day, a concrete runway another, whatever.
Now I appreciate life gets a bit more complicated for the deck handling and ground crew element because quite clearly there are safety and efficiency issues plus the role they might play in damage control, ships routine functions etc but if anyone suggests to me that aircrew must stag on on a ship, or don a firesuit and get hosing I would suggest they need to do a risk assessment against the value of the asset i.e. expensive and few in number aircrew should not be fighting fires or knocking bits of wood into leaking holes.
We need to get real because the whole permanently embarked aircraft notion is just a fantasy lost in the midst of the FAA glory days, never to be repeated in a cost constrained world where aircrew and aircraft are as rare as hens teeth
Carry on
Challenger, you have a very rose-tinted view of things going on there. I think that you will find that for the overwhelming majority of its existence the Royal Navy DID serve whichever Monarch was on the throne at the time and they do not transcend politics as much as they are an intrinsic part of it in both cause and effect.
If we’re doing the QE class again, perhaps we could have Warspite?
Does anyone know who supplied the “friendly submarine?”
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=775
A bit of Indian fantasy fleets:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/india-nears-catapult-decision-for-second-indigenous-carrier-379825/
“The platform from which they operate from, sea or land, is largely irrelevant. Sea one day, a concrete runway another, whatever” – I’m going to surprise many here by agreeing with this. X keeps saying that no one joins the air force to go to sea, well, “you’re in the army now!” I think the RAF need to get used to the idea of expeditionary deployments being on decks, rather than airfields and plush hotels.
Edit: Perhaps in future deployments, FAA might do CAP while RAF do strike/CAS or vice virse?
@TD
Aircraft do not permanently embark anyway. they embark when a carrier goes to sea. The type and number embarking is dependent on the tasking.
As for using simulators? Yes you can do but you still have to do real deck landings as no simulator can recreate the actual feeling of jet wash, noise movement and the actions of real life aircraft for the handlers etc.
As for your last paragraph, well all I can say is “please sober up before your permanent return as I have never ever seen come out with such drivel before”.
I did say it was a drive by shooting
The point remains though, perhaps permanently should have been routinely but you know what I am saying, nailing up F35B’s and their aircrew to CVF
We cant afford it
Wise Ape
It was a French SSN.
@TD The F35B will (almost definitely) operate in a similar manner to the way JFH worked. though they may at least initially spend mre time at sea as the capability is proven and trials etc conducted.
@ TD
Have you managed to decorate the Officers’ Mess? I bet fairy dust is never in short supply at RAF High Wycombe.
@ APATS
Are you saying my drivel is not up to snuff? I have had at least 3 poorly constructed jibes at the RAF over the last week alone. Writing down to standard is hard work. How The Guardian manages it each and everyday I don’t know.
You all know I am right, fairy dust or no fairy dust
I think there is a reality gap and a spot of nostalgic wishful thinking going on
F35B should be operated like Apache on Ocean i.e. training and on demand
TD,
As long as the 300 or so aircrew per embarked F35 squadron train to do their maintenance tasks in a confined hangar with simulated pitch and roll moving screwdrivers and the like across the floor with a couple of massive doors in the side open to force 10 gales of salty water, I’d have no problem with a land based F35 force from the RAF.
There’s nothing like reality and I’m very, very into simulators… That sounds like I do it for a living… I’d like to think that if Rediffusion Simulation were recruiting when I left school I’d be doing it for a living!
@ TD
http://ministryplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Third-party-facepalm.jpg
@TD
Sorry TD luckily you are in a minority of one. Remember that Apache is a supporting element of Oceans prime role. That is not the case for the new carriers; the only way they will achieve anything approaching their potential will be regularly operating and training with their different air groups to ensure currency in certain roles.
You are aware that it takes quite a lot of training and plenty of box ticking to allow Ships to be at operational readiness?
In order for the Carriers to actually be useful they will need a minimum of F35B in a JFH role. Anything else will simply ensure that they are no use at all.
Why would we want our F35b sitting on an airfield when a Carrier is at sea? It is not be used as a QRF fighter is it? If we had something more operational for them to do than embark on a cruise with a carrier then fair enough but the idea we are going to buy them and then not embark them for deployments is ridiculous.
Note that Apache deployed with the JRF, so every time the JRF as gone east of Gib it has carried Apache!
TD
Your fishing has obviously improved it took all of hour to get how many bites. Must be the bait your using
@ APATS
I would have F35b doing QRA, scrap Typhoon early, never buy F35a, get GCHQ to take over the monitoring of UK airspace, give the Chinooks to the AAC, the Guards to takeover from QCS as the rapid reaction drill team, and that would just leave the Alsations. I like dogs so if a greatly reduced other bunch just walked and looked after Alsations that would be fine. If only I had some fairy dust to make my dream come true….
@Mr.fred
‘you have a very rose-tinted view of things going on there. I think that you will find that for the overwhelming majority of its existence the Royal Navy DID serve whichever Monarch was on the throne at the time’.
I completely agree on the DID part, as in before the civil war, the restoration, the glorious revolution and all 300+ years that have followed. You do know it’s 2012 don’t you? I don’t care if the armed forces are called royal this or royal that and has a bunch of hanger-on nobility acting as colonel in chiefs and ship sponsors, the government decides what the armed forces do and the tax payers fund it.
I know that’s a simplistic version but my history isn’t anywhere near as bad as you suggest and all I was advocating, in my humble opinion was giving ships names that evoke and represent the long and illustrious history of the navy, not names that purely defer to the current monarchy.
And yes, I agree that Warspite would be a good one!
“Virsa!” – Where was my spellchecker when I needed it?
“Why would we want our F35b sitting on an airfield when a Carrier is at sea?” – Precisely. When a carrier deploys out of UK waters it will carry at least 12 F35s. I frankly don’t care what shade of blue the pilots wear, but obviously the deck/hangar crew will be navy. The more jets you embark, the more deck crew you embark. Not rocket science.
Some people seem to be arguing that while we can operate Apaches (never designed to go to sea, flown by the army FFS – hat tip to X) from Illustrious/Ocean, we can’t operate F35Bs (designed for carrier use) flown by the RAF off our carriers. Why not exactly? Isn’t F35B easier to fly than Harrier? Haven’t you been paying attention to Mark’s comments!
It costs millions of £s to train a FJ pilot and keep his skills current. Are we seriously considering having two lots of pilots – RAF and FAA – to fly our small number of F35s, handing the jets over as they embark/disembark?
HMG needs to decide who owns/operates these jets and then they have to get on with it, whether at sea or on land. Given that these jets will spend the majority of their time parked in RAF hangars (there’s going to be no carrier CASD) it seems sensible to let the RAF pay for them, let the navy spend its budget on, oh say, ships and ships’ crews for example.
Is TD now posting from an Australian radio station?
PS has anyone seen the Telegraph article saying UK Apaches could be reduced in numbers or cut altogether?
Challenger,
My point, in return, is that the affiliation with the Monarchy is part of the long and illustrious history of the Royal Navy.
Do the RN swear allegiance to the Government or the Monarch and by extension their government?
Perhaps two royal-affiliated ships out of a class of two is a bit much and one should be named differently
@Wiseape
I don’t want to provoke an in-depth argument over this (for once!) but wouldn’t it be nice to say ‘right anything AAC or FAA will be rotary wing and anything RAF will be fixed wing’.
@ Mr fred.
More for balance really. The RN likes things squared away. Though the ships aren’t really named after living people there is an implied connection. If as longest reigning monarch your navy can’t be bothered to name (even by proxy) their biggest ever ship after you then really what’s the point? If CVF 1 is QE, then what better way to balance that out than PoW? Even if it is a disappointing name. Sad to say that may be a good argument for Ark Royal. Um, now Mountbatten would be a good name; a real Marmite suggestion…..
If you think of F35B as the expeditionary air-wing then it will be based on CVF or foreign soil, operating in rough seas, ice fields, deserts, jungles, anywhere other than the middle of the road, temperate Blighty!
I see the F35 force as non-RAF and non-FAA, it’s essentially the Royal Marines Air Force (RMAF?), very much akin to the F35B in the USMC.
Back in the 1960s Vice Admiral Sir Louis Le Bailly wrote a paper on moving the FAA under the RM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Le_Bailly
VSTOL F-35B ops need steel or concrete under them. Trying to do it from mud or ice, will not end well, unlike the Harrier ops of yore.
Will the RAF still exist when the QE Class becomes operational?
”I don’t want to provoke an in-depth argument over this (for once!) but wouldn’t it be nice to say ‘right anything AAC or FAA will be rotary wing and anything RAF will be fixed wing’.”
But what about the RA’s UAVs, challenger?
@Brian Black
You’ve got me there!
Bit of a divergence but I have been looking at statistics on and photo’s of the second Sir Galahad built after the Falklands and I can’t help but feel it was a bit of a waste that she was sold off.
The original Round Table LSL’s were very old and presumably knackered by the time the Bay’s replaced them, but Sir Galahad was a mere 18 years old and a modified, larger design. Of course she would have almost certainly been scrapped by 2010 and the SDSR, but who knows, maybe she could have been offered up in place of Largs Bay and served a final use that way.
I understand as well that Sir Bedivere was supposed to stay in service until 2011 after a major refit. Always interesting to consider what could have been!