I am not sure why, but we often use the term, we are not Belgium, when describing our military capabilities. It’s not a slight on Belgium in any way at all, the UK and Belgium have a long history of working together in military terms but more a comment on our relative strategic outlooks.
In the aftermath of the Harrier withdrawal, looming reductions in Tornado numbers, uncertainty about final Typhoon numbers and even more uncertainty about F35 orders, Air Vice-Marshal Greg Bagwell seems to have publicly deployed the ‘Belgium Bomb’
But did he?
Reading the Telegraph article it is clear that he was asked, not sure by whom, whether the cuts would leave us with an air force the same size as Belgium’s he replied;
I think we’re slightly above Belgium, and we are not a Belgium-minded country
We should always be careful to avoid misquoting and third hand assumptions because this has happened so many times, the Air Vice Marshal was responding to a leading question so when the tabloids start screaming about the RAF being only slightly larger than the Belgian Air Force (Component) and quoting him, we should step back.
But what about Belgium anyway?
The Belgian Air Component has 72 F16 fighter bombers, of which 60 are assigned to NATO. In addition, they have a small number of transport aircraft, trainers and helicopters. The RAF is of course substantially more powerful and capable across all areas, comparing the numbers of squadrons only provides half the picture. Zimbabwe has more squadrons than the RAF, or Belgium for that matter.
Behind the Belgian comparison there is a more serious point, the likely reduction of the RAF to 6 fast jet squadrons by 2020, 5 Typhoon and 1 F35C.
He warned that even the reductions that have been publicly announced — from 12 fast-jet squadrons to eight — would leave the RAF only “just about” able to do its current tasks, with no leeway for the unexpected.
“Am I happy to be down at that number [eight squadrons] next April? No, it worries the hell out of me,” he said. “I can just about do Operation Herrick [Afghanistan], and the QRAs [air defence operations]. Can I do other things? Yes, but it is at risk.”
In all the bitch fighting about Harriers or Tornado’s we might often lose sight of the fact that it is not just the Royal Navy that has been dramatically reduced, accepting the limitations of using squadron numbers as a benchmark, the RAF in the early 90′s had about 30 fast jet squadrons.
The MoD quickly distanced themselves from the comments.
Equally illuminating were his comments on F35C and carrier operating skills
The techniques and procedures to recover a conventional carrier aircraft using catapult launches and arrestor gear recoveries, or ‘cats and traps,’ are totally different from that of a STOVL aircraft. That is just as true for the aircrew as it is for the ships crew. Whilst the Harrier would have preserved the requisite skill sets for the F35B STOVL variant of the Joint Combat Aircraft. Effectively, we need to build the skill sets for the new aircraft and carrier configuration from scratch. We all ready have plans in place to begin that build up over the next 10 years with our allies and partners.”
One senior Royal Navy commander agreed with Bagwell’s assessment and said there was a much bigger question mark over regaining deck skills than the capabilities of pilots
We have 10 years to get our act in gear and understand what operating the F-35C variant means for training and other preparation. Some we will have to learn from the USA and France. We will be flying Rafales from French carriers within a few years. I’m sure of it
So that single squadron will need an initial order of 40 aircraft.
How the aircraft will be employed in the future has yet to be worked out, but said he thought the aircraft would not be tied to the aircraft carrier.
They are there to project air power. It’s irrelevant where they are launched from. The Royal Navy will hate me for this, but sometimes they will be launched from the deck of an aircraft carrier for good reason. Other times it will be in-country closer to the problem
What can we take from these comments?
At a guess;
- An initial buy of 36 F35C with the promise of some jam tomorrow
- Closer integration with the French and US Navies, not because of some intrinsic strategic partnership but because we will not be able to work up to carrier operations in the absence of a our own carriers
- No permanently embarked aircraft force for the QE class aircraft carrier/s
- Yet more inter service handbags
- Disbanding of Fleet Air Arm fast jet capability
- Delays to the in service date of the QE class to allow deck operation skills to be built
Mayonnaise on chips, you are joking!
Perhaps this is relevant – The Chinese government has for the first time officially revealed that it has launched a programme to build an aircraft carrier, an already widely-known project that has recently stirred debate over China’s naval intentions and capabilities.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article959162.ece
May be this is more interesting – http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/12/17/2010121700326.html
Will the PLAN have operational carrier squadrons before the RN?
Rising powers always ape established powers. One of the reasons why the large Latin American countries had a mini naval arms race back in the 19th century.
I would suggest that TD you go to look at how many men tiny Belgium placed in the field during WW1. A bit of a tangent…..
More to the point, I recall reading that of the Belgian 72 F16s, they’re due to drop to 60 in a couple of years, and thats the whole fleet size. I believe a total of 16 aircraft are actually deployable at any one time (2 Sqns worth).
A friend of Mr Gladstone
I think your first link is much more interesting for two reasons.
The first is this bit:
A report released this year by the State Oceanic Administration said China’s progress had even been quicker than expected, with the first Chinese-made carrier set to be ready in 2014, a year ahead of the schedule.
I find it strange that they are pushing the project ahead so fast, maybe it’s a case of they want a Carrier fast whether it works or not. For show if nothing else.
The second bit is this:
The report said having an aircraft carrier was not only required to close China’s yawning gap with American naval might, but also to “heighten patriotic sentiment” at home.
Generally i get the impression that all Governments throughout the ages only seek to “heighten patriotic sentiment” when they are planning or expecting an outbreak of hostilities.
Someone else may just see it as sabre rattling, maybe it’s just a belated reaction to Clinton’s three Carrier Battle Group in the Taiwan Straits. Now, i am not so certain.
X
What you say’s been true for thousands of years hasn’t it, Rome did after all build a Navy to defeat Carthage. So, nothing really changes, this isn’t a sort of new age.
That begs the question, why has the UK Gov. & NATO set a target or limit of around 2% of GDP for defence, no matter what the real situation is?
jim30
I always thought a “for real” squadron was about 20 aircraft, to allow for maintainance, pilot training etc or to be able to cope with losses when the shooting starts.
Isn’t 16 aircraft just a single weak squadron?
I sometimes get the impression that the West has decided to disarm itself.
A US naval strategy researcher has been quoted for “PLAN, please build more carriers as they make such fat targets” – and divert resources from the build up of other threats.
USN plans to keep their carriers well out of the “inland sea” between China and “the first island chain” running from Japan southwards.
The real (assessed) threat is this “The Chinese military’s conventional missiles are capable of attacking and effectively closing down five of six major U.S. air bases in South Korea and Japan, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission warns.
Quoting an annual report the UCESRC will release next week, Bloomberg News on Thursday reported that China has boosted its capability to “inhibit” U.S. military’s operations in the western Pacific by increasing its inventory of short and medium-range missiles.
The report says China’s current missile power “may be sufficient” to destroy runways, parked aircraft, fuel and maintenance facilities at Osan and Gunsan air bases in South Korea and Kadena, Misawa and Yokota bases in Japan, Bloomberg added. The air bases lie within a 1,100 km radius of China. ”
Two accelerated developments
- putting more emphasis on Guam, Australia and Hawaii
- getting a persistent deep strike aircraft for the Navy (USAF can wait)
– with the distances involved in the Pacific e.g. the F35 is a not such a capability
No expert, but surely it cost less to keep 9 – 12 F-35 permanently embarked on the QE than it does to land base them and then have to re-qualify the pilots and re-train the shooters and all the other specialists who operate the cat and traps when you feel like deploying them on QE?
Tubby
Yes thats why the whole QE situation makes us a laughing stock. It’s just an Humungously expensive paper tiger, and the worlds real navies know it.
This ” Humungously expensive paper tiger” is starting to be a problem more generally:
- the 100k t carriers are assessed to cost $15bn a piece going forward
- the planes are too expensive (the max. is hardly ever carried) and don’t have the range/endurange to be truly strategic assets
- the huge crew is priceless
Compare this with a cost of firing a couple of dozen ballistic carrier-killers (after some appropriate diversions, to keep the escorts busy)
- no wonder Aegis-ships building programme suddenly got 8-9 additions to it for the (USN); more for Japan
RE: IXION
Not completely sure how your comment relates to mine, I was suggesting that land basing all the F-35C’s is stupid as it will cost more than permanently basing them on the carrier. You seem to be suggesting that the QE is a stupid idea full stop, but I may have misunderstood your point.
I accept that carriers are an expensive way of projecting power, but they seem a relatively cheap way of providing enough fast jets to cover your task group, and bring along a decent number of helicopters for ASW and ASuW, with possibly some refitted S-3 Vikings either reconfigured for MASC role or as long range ASW platforms. I am perfectly happy with QE in this sort of role and if I had the MoD budget I would be dropping the F-35C all together and buying 40 – 50 LCA (N) kits for UK assembly using a EJ200 engine with TVN, a Selex based AESA radar, and other UK only avionic systems to provide QE with a primarily air defence fighter, with only limited strike capabilities (likely only integrate ASRAAM, AMRAAM, Paveway IV, Brimstone and NSM) and forgetting about the idea of flying deep strike missions from QE with F-35C. In fact if you want do deep strike a stealthy armed UAV is the way to go.
It’s all about appropriate strategies, again really isn’t it.
QE’s are a lot cheaper than USN “Super Carriers”. F18E/F are cheaper than Typhoon apparently.
F35 is a “jack of all trades and master of non” bodge job to replace everything from the F16 to the A10 for USAF, with USN “first day of the war stealth strike” requirements tacked on to make up for not getting the A12….. as noted above, even the F35C does not have the legs to make it relevant in the Pacific theater.
I (of course) disagree with the RAF Senior Officers viewpoint on operating for shore or carriers. We back to those flawed assumptions that in 10 to 15 years time there will always be friendly airbases available “closer to the action”. So yes Ixion, as things are, the QE are paper tigers. However if we wanted, we could have 3 and 120 F18′s to fly from them (1 operations, 1 training cycle, 1 refit) and I apologise to the RAF, but that would be our strike / attack capability. RAF would be 160 Typhoon’s for Air defence of the UK and transport squadrons – and if the HMG was not completely insane 21 x Nimrod MR4 ….. !
ACC – the cost of firing a dozen ballistic carrier-killer missiles is not cheaper – purely because demonstrable operational capability simply does not exist. It is also a “paper tiger”. Don’t forget it is also an anti-access / area denial weapon, it is not a flexible multi-use weapon like the carrier air wing – hence the Chinese interest in carriers (to secure their future African colonies !!)
Burke Class got 8 to 9 additions due to it being the only viable anti-ballistic missile capability in the US inventory, but this appears mostly to be about defending us (Europe) from Islamic intermediate range threats by having ships in the Med – it is partly the fall out of the diplomatic spats with Russia about land based anti-missile systems in NATO states that have Russian borders (e.g. Poland), partly because the land based interceptor keeps failing test firings, and partly because the DDG1000 program has been curtailed. However I am sure they would also be able to shoot at the fabled Chinese missile when it appears
When it comes down to it, what we have that Belgium doesn’t is not just fighter numbers, its the capability enhancers: tankers, AEw&C, EW platforms etc. This capability has also taken a huge hit with cancellation of Nimrod (not just an MPA, but massively capable overland ISTAR platform) and the impending early retirement of the only just acquired Sentinel, not to mention our loss of “sovereign” ELINT capability (RAF Rivet Joint – puh-leeez…….).
I have no problem with Belgium’s strategic view of its position in the world, at least it does not posture and pretend, it’s government does not constantly produce rhetoric that it has absolutely no intention of backing up with budget !!
Hi Tubby @ 3:18,
I agree ” In fact if you want do deep strike a stealthy armed UAV is the way to go.” This one gives many of the reasons, which have not changed from 2007:
May 10, 2007
THE UNMANNED COMBAT AIR SYSTEM
CARRIER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM: A
NEW DAWN FOR NAVAL AVIATION?1
By Thomas P. Ehrhard, PhD, and Robert O. Work
- I lose the URL’s when I download the pdf’s so sorry for that inconvenience
Tubby and Jed
The QE are stupid paper tigers because we only have one with 12 fighters on it. So Jed I agree with you 3 with 38 f18 on each and full escorts and support, and I would be shouting my support from the rooftops. 1 paper tiger is a vampire that is going to suck the remaining effectiveness from our Navy HMS Nosferatou.
Hi Jed @ 3:21,
What a post! May have to break up the comments into two, or more..
RE “120 F18′s to fly from them”
- based on the most recent multiyear procurement of 124 F/A-18E/F and E/A-18G aircraft, the per-unit cost is approximately $42.7 million, excluding the cost of both engines.
- the target cost for the most expensive variant — the carrier version (CV)of JSF — is $142.9
- because of the difference in the production run “maturity” at least 25% should be taken off the latter
- after that (the comparison is without engine prices for BOTH, a good thing as to whether the RR variant will get built; eliminates that angle)
- so, 40% of he unit cost of an F35C then?
The magic 40 (40/ 120) makes 40%. Did you do this math, I used Aviation Week numbers ?
I understand your point now IXION. But I am thinking that we do not need a strike carrier or a super-carrier, what we need is an air defence/ASW carrier and while QE can do this it is an expensive way to do it, with the most expensive fighter they could find flying from it. If they been more realistic, and not gone for a strike carrier design and the F-35, then said air defence/ASW carrier would be in service now. I think if we had aimed for a carrier routinely carrying 12 F/A-18 E/F’s or Sea Gripen or LCA (N), surging to 18 in wartime plus 8 – 10 helicopters we would have gotten it in service by now, as let face it there are better ways to defend the Falklands than a new carrier and for every other likely scenario an air defence/ASW carrier is all we would need.
Hi Jed @ 3:21,
RE1 “is not cheaper – purely because demonstrable operational capability simply does not exist. It is also a “paper tiger”.”
- sorry, I don’t buy that. At an early age I trained with econometrics (as a way of modelling) and the more informed professors warned about “steering by looking into the back mirror”. I would go with scenario analysis, factoring in all the evidence about technology and its maturity in application (you can gather a lot of that outside the defence sphere)
RE2 “Don’t forget it is also an anti-access / area denial weapon,”
- ABSOLUTELY not, as I have posted many times (but strategy is multi-layered)
RE3 ” it is not a flexible multi-use weapon like the carrier air wing – hence the Chinese interest in carriers (to secure their future African colonies!!)”
- yes, exactly that
- India is paranoid about being encircled… China building blue-water nave bases in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Tanzania… hence this sudden orientation to buy weapons from the US, rather than a working prototype from Russia, and then work 20-25 years on the domestic variant
- I would say the (Chinese) interest in having a presence is quite legitimate, the tonnage (their foreign trade, including oil and minerals coming in)going through that area and its choke points is a huge part of the total
- a Sea-Control Ship will pre-ceed the carriers (no details of course, internet does not “work” everywhere
Hi Jed @ 3:21, to conclude (all these Xmas drinks and stuff getting in the way of serious[?] blogging:
RE “When it comes down to it, what we have that Belgium doesn’t is not just fighter numbers, its the capability enhancers: tankers”
- absolutely right, and at what a cost… Was it the marginal or average cost of the service the French baulked at?
- I am not criticising that, it just simply has to be done
- but about deep strike and the persistance of it (this time not in the Pacific):
- F35 is a fantastic aircraft with the stealth, all-round sensor package and missiles that do “the” job
- NOW: what is the job… deep strike?
– to defend itself, more weapons are needed than what can go into the internal bay; stealth gone then, but part of the survivability in hostile environment still there
– persistance? The tankers trailing it are not stealthy on the radar
My wager about Rafale M’s to top up the (carrier-based?)capability ( F35 kept switchable between land and sea basing, even though just that would seem to up the unit cost by about 25% [UP this time] seems to be bringing the chips in… it was only a tenner, between friends!)
@ Mike (Civ)
I nearly went with Rome and Carthage as my example.
If the UK’s armed forces are only concerned with immediate homeland security we should scrap the Army……..
People,
Just came across this thread. To me its very simple. We are building conventional aircraft carriers. Best aircraft to go on them by launch date are what’s availiable = FA18/Rafale/E2 Hawkeye/and our helos. Take your pick. F35 is expensive/unproven.
Talking of the Army is it true Chally 2 is Afghan bound?
Tubby
My Point is all along been that it is perfectly easy to design a 35.000 single landing take off strip catobar aircraft carrier. (Think Foch with only one strip) that could comfortably accomodate 12 – 18 f18; think of it as the same role as Invincible but with f18, it would have been hugely cheaper to build, and run = medium speed d’ls would do for about 25 knots,
I have suggested this in a number of ways on a number of forums to a number of interrested people over the last 5 years or so. Some love it, some hate it, but it could have us to where we are now for fraction of the cost and we could have had three of the and an ocean replacement. They would have the same strike capability as what we are getting and one would have been in service all the time, and they would not have cost more than billion a time.
Instead of the stupid situation we are now in.
@ IXION
Why did you rule out STOBAR for your design?
IXION,
It sounds like we are on the same page then, as what you suggest is roughly what I would have done, though I would have been tempted to keep the carriers STOL and go with the Super Harrier/Harrier III proposal put forward by BAE in the nineties.
I have seen a counter-argument that the Falkland Islands proved that the RN needed more than 12 – 18 fighters, which is why I mentioned there are better ways to protect the Falkland Islands as there is nearly always a reference to the Falkland Islands when justifying carrier strike.
This all goes to show that politicians cannot be trusted to protect the country or run an Armed Forces. Can anybody tell me the last time the was an sctuall real increase in defence spending that led to an increase in our defensive capacity and capability? Mind given Joe public do not really care about defence because the media and Government ensure they are more interested in more immediate issues, it is hardly unsurprising the Armed Forces have been allowed to continuously wither. I can see this trend continuing in 2015 and 2020 as it has been proven i many people eyes that you can fight wars and cut spending. The only reason we are still more capable than Belgium is that they began to reduce their Armned Forces before we did and we haven’t caught up yet. I am at a loss as to what events would actually bring about a proper re-sizing of our Armed Forces to make them truely effective again?
X AND TUBBY
I did not particualry rule out Stobar, as there was a lot of design studies done in the 70′s about it.
12-18 is enough for most of the peace enforcing, beating up on failed states etc that Invincible does, whe you need more, use two. ore even all three.
But by adopting the KISS principle shooting anyone who sticks their head round the door and says “can you just add this — or would’t it be a good idea if it could do…” (especially anyone from BAE, promising us a ‘world beating capabilty’) And accept the limitations of the single flight deck, we could build enough to have at least one imediatley ready.
However I have no wish to hijack this article and turn it into another battle with the carrier junkies..
Well I have never been happy with idea of CVF as a strike carrier. I have always thought it was asking too much. Air defence yes, and more as a way to get missiles into the air a long way away quickly than true air combat. I suppose a bit like Invincible class SHARs’ original purpose (shooting down shadowers.)
Strike in my mind (such as it is) means heavy raids. I think you are advocating a platform for CAS and “small stuff.”
Good point:
“Strike in my mind (such as it is) means heavy raids. I think you are advocating a platform for CAS and “small stuff.”…” ?
Thank you. TBH I think strike using aeroplane is outdated. If a cruise missile (you choose the flavour) costs in the region £500k to £1mill (please somebody with a brain correct them!) then a raid with 12 aircraft become prohibitively expensive. 12 x (60million cab + 2million training + payout to widow + avcat + wear tear + etc. etc.) The loss of one cab would pay for the missile strike.
CAS is different. That is still an eyes on operation. And it is a different proposition against an enemy without AAW.
The unfortunate thing about spending too much money and then having the Receiver come around to sort out the mess, is that you find out that you can’t just admit your mistake and go back to what you could really have afforded if you had done your budget correctly in the first place; you in fact get significantly less than that despite all the extra money you will have spent.
On the basis of current rumour and speculation it looks like we will spend 9.6 billion pounds to receive in ten years time one operational carrier and 36 F35C (building two carriers, one not to be used, $6 billion and 36 x $100M for the jets), and have also foregone 10 years of naval jet aviation as well, with a further indignity for the navy that the jets will be shared with, if not owned by, the RAF. Not that that will be much cause for celebration in the RAF as it looks like the same F35C will replace rather than augment, a larger number of still serviceable Tornados.
Of course retaining the status quo isn’t without cost. Over ten years you would have had to eventually replace two Invincible class carriers and purchase, say, 50 new build Harriers, but at one billion each for the ships and 50 x $50M for the aircraft it is still less than half the cost.
The F35C had better be capable of working miracles, as the procuring of a mere token number of them has decimated both the navy and RAF.
Let’s just enjoy the scene. Large Chinese aircraft carrier; 500 miles away half a dozen B52s launch 8 cruise missiles each.
That is it “half a dozen B52s launch 8 cruise missiles each”
- stand-off weapons are just too effective for concentrating on just a few units (call them e.g. carriers) to make any sense
For Richard W’s post I would make it (just out of memory as the information is released in nonsensical incremental bits):
- 7.2 bn for the carriers
- 36 x $145m for just the airframes
- any number of engines x $45m (RR might be more)
- weapons & spares as a percentage of above
Plus flight hours, crew training (techs to jet jet jockeys), losses (accident such as impromptu float tests,) etc.
If we’re going to compare Belgian and UK forces I would like to raise that while I have only eaten in a Belgian army mess on one occasion, the blue briquette of horsemeat that was served up to me -with skinny fries and salad- made the usual British army slop seem absolutely wonderful!
Gents, i think your numbers are very slightly off, as in a bit optimistic.
I think you’ll need to add about £800 million to the cost of the Carriers. We still have more than 5 years to go before the first one is finished.
ArmChairCivvy’s numbers for the aircraft look right, right now.
However i’d expect a still higher cost when we actually come to sign the contracts & actually start paying for them.
There is still, what, maybe 5-8 years to go on the aircraft itself. (i can’t find an expected in service date, which is why the timeframe is so varied)
Then add in the costs of weapons, spares, maint. tools & training & all the stuff X points out etc etc.
A lot of the people here will be & are being proved right, the Carrier/JSF project is costing the Navy, the rest of the Navy.
I’m not one of them by the way, i had my head in the clouds.
HMG & the RN now just look like someone who’s thirst is greater than their capacity. Something you can see in any big town at night, most weekends, when the pubs empty out.
Have you ever met a drunk who loudly complains that he isn’t drunk?
Brian Black
I heard from someone quite a while ago who had been based oversea’s for training.
Hamburger & fires twice a day, while working a demmanding 12-14 hour day.
TD
Interesting piece about the current situation with the RAF, things are really starting to look as if the ghost of “Duncan Sandys” has come upon the boys in light blue.
On the subject of numbers UAV’s must be on the agenda in huge numbers because if the current plans go-ahead the RAF’s future must be in doubt.
Couple of questions:
How many Typhoons are we up for and how many may we need to buy in the future?
What is the size of a squadron?
Three flights of four aircraft plus a couple of spares?
How many pilots does the RAF train in a year?
How many go to fast jets, other aircraft and helicopters?
How many other aircraft will the RAF have over and above their beloved fast jets?
The basic question is how many men do you need to support 8 or 6 frontline squadrons of fast jets?
The current roster of 30K looks a lot of people to support very little.
As an aside aircraft costs are starting to look ridiculous.
The F35 programme looks to be the enemy within for the USAF, gradually sucking the lifeblood out of a well resourced service. It looks as if the worlds military aircraft manufacturers are the ultimate pacifists, systematically removing the ability to fight from all the airforces around the world.
Nothing wrong in trying to stop the next world or even regional war but I would rather the politicians did it explicitly rather than a cartel of poorly performing perfectionists did it by way of supporting a very lavish lifestyle for all the world’s middle class with a degree in aeronautical engineering.
The fewer the number of aircraft being built the glossier the brochures and the more lavish seems to the hospitality.
For the UK it cannot be long till we move to the day when the country will have 50 aero escort aiframes rather that 50 naval ASW hulls.
Anyone care to hazard a guess to the date when a fifth generation fighter will cost more than an upmarket ASW hull? I am suggesting the 9th April 2031.
Finally – Defence politics, any thoughts on some blue on blue action very soon?
Blue on blue infers they are on the same side.
@ FBOT 19:26
What is the size of a squadron?
This has varied over the years. RAF fighter squadrons have normally been 12 aircraft units. V force squadrons have been 8 aircraft units. Other units such as OCU’s with a wartime commitment have up to 18 aircraft. The FAA prior to 1978 had 892sqn with 12 Phantoms and 809sqn with 14 Buccaneers on HMS Ark Royal. Do not forget that the USAF in this country usually provided a wing of some 80-90 aircraft on one base assigned to 4 squadrons. 20th TFW / 48th TFW / 81st TFW.
While we may not yet be on a par with the Belgians, I wonder just how much more capable the UK actually is if all the billions more we spend on defence only achieves a future expeditionary capability of a single bits-n-bobs brigade and an empty aircraft carrier.
I think the comments that the F35 will sometimes be launched from a carrier deck and sometimes in-country are simply pragmatic realism. If we are to only operate one carrier, then during a conflict we need to think about getting off that carrier as soon as other options become available.
The last time the UK armed forces used sustained carrier support was in Korea. A carrier was kept on station throughout our involvement in that conflict, but I think the RN began that with around half a dozen fleet carriers in service and another couple in extended readiness.
I’ve long agreed with the idea that we should have aircraft for both CVF and if necessary reduce the RAF to primarily UK air defence, transport, tanker etc (sentiments touched on earlier by Jed). Even if we only ever deploy one carrier group outside of home waters at any one time, then number two is surely needed to provide a useful degree of availability and persistence – even if taking into account Anglo-French cooperation.
As it is, the government still don’t seem to have committed themselves to keeping both ships, or even to fitting cats/traps on PoW. I fully support weighting the UK’s fast jets in favour of the FAA, it‘s the most flexible solution for us within the context of the reduction of aircraft; if that causes a few droopy handlebar moustaches within the RAF, then so be it.
If carriers are only to be a half-assed Royal Navy capability, then we should get out of that altogether and be touting the pair of them to Russia and China.
-
One thing that strikes me when reading through TD’s Royal Navy series of articles is that, while TD has sought to provide costing and explanation as to where the money would come from, the actual cost of implementing some aspect of TD’s ideas could be pretty negligible in the big scheme of things; and yet potentially provide quite significant strategic benefits.
At the moment the UK is still spending the military budget of a global Mr Big, but getting an increasingly Belgian looking capability in return. In value for money terms, we would be better off spending that little bit extra on defence for the noticeable increase in capability that it would deliver.
One of the reasons the coalition government has cut so deeply at such an early stage is so that they may have the option of easing up and giving a little something back before the next election. But military spending doesn’t win elections; spending on health and education does. If the government can cut the military budget during Afghanistan, then come 2015 -with an election to win and troops returned home- how much easier will it be?
The politicians trim and trim the defence budget; yet we still pay the big bucks on development of weapons that we can’t afford and that are too expensive to sell. In comparing the RAF with the Belgian air force, note that Belgium bought F16 while the UK snubbed the F16 and other off the peg options to get the rather unexceptional Typhoon -bundled in with the F16/18 whenever comparisons are made.
Politicians need to accept that we can only afford the high-street kit rather than the designer gear -though I do believe the government would have ditched the F35 by now had it not been for our investment in that project. Also, if defence spending is just a job creation project, then the DWP should be chipping in for the costs of F35, T45, etc.
With continuing cuts, we are steadily reaching the spending threshold at which the delivered capability is not worth the money spent on it. If in future we don’t have forces that can act independently, or lead a strong EU operation, or provide a meaningful contribution to a US deployment; then we might as well withdraw from any idea of armed foreign policy, lop 60% off the budget and just have a home defence and civil contingency force instead.
A relatively small additional amount of money in the defence budget, or just smarter procurement, could produce a significant increase to our military power and strategic options -and at the very least would maintain our ability to crush Belgium, should the need ever arise.