I stand accused of being an anti carrier zealot, looking at the RAF through rose tinted flying goggles and seeing dark blues under the bed, so I thought instead of throwing water on the barby I might try a little petrol instead!
One of the objectives of Think Defence is to get people talking and in that I have to thank every single commenter, seriously fellas, we are getting very close to 15,000 comments which for a blog that has only been running a couple of years is great. Apart from the service centric forums like ARRSE, PPRUNE, WARSHIPS1 etc I don’t think there is anything to match the numbers out there in the UK interwebnet.
However, the second objective of Think Defence is to try and counter the service centric bias that understandably and inevitably creeps in to any discussion; we are all products of our background after all. The difference between bias and honestly held opinion is often difficult to see, one man’s irreplaceable capability is another man’s white elephant and I make no secret of the fact that I think project CVF is not right for the UK. This does not however, mean I think carrier aviation is not a great capability to have, it is entirely complimentary to land based air power and in an ideal world we would have both, overlapping land and sea based air power.
It is absolutely the sensible thing to do.
If we had an unlimited pot of cash then CVF with 36 F35C’s and 4 E2’s makes perfect sense but the problem with this nirvana is that we don’t have an unlimited pot of cash and no matter how much whaling and gnashing of our teeth we do, that fact isn’t going to change any time soon.
The argument, therefore, is not about CVF/F35, it is about CVF/F35 in the context of a decreasing defence vote, increasing defence costs and the strategic reality of SDR and SDSR, both of which always seem to be conveniently forgotten when bitching about carriers.
In short, it is one of prioritisation.
And here is the problem; prioritisation will inevitably create so called winners and losers and it is into this maelstrom that bias and corrosive inter service rivalry is pitched. I sometimes think that creative tension between the services is a good thing but then I wake up and realise that it is responsible for many of the problems that have beset UK defence in the modern era, perhaps even longer. If fighting ones corner or defending ones service means that UK defence as a whole gets a battering then we must all question if we need to step back and ask of ourselves some searching questions.
The UK does not have a small defence budget, yet we get tremendously poor value for money and end up with the inevitable Ford Focus capability for Rolls Royce cost. We can have the major projects but they inevitably fall short of the promise and the really important capabilities like ISTAR, logistics, maintenance, personnel development, training and intelligence go short.
It is service centric thinking that is responsible for much of this.
So when I rail against project CVF it is a reaction, a reaction to the MoD and Service Chiefs who see military capabilities through the prism of their service and the prestige they bring, not what is good for the UK.
As soon as Libya kicked off I could have put my mortgage on the fact that various blogs, notable ‘ex somethings’ and others would be spinning the importance of carriers, how much better/faster/cheaper it would have been with the Harrier and how they were right all along, the RAF being crap etc.
You might think I have too much sympathy with the RAF but this could not be further from the truth, as my previous post will show. That said, if since their birth they have been fending off calls for their disbandment then one can understand a certain flair for self preservation.
So what about Libya and carriers?
Does the operation prove that carrier based fast air is intrinsically better than land based, of course it bloody well doesn’t.
It proves nothing except that a series of complimentary and overlapping capabilities, in a coalition, can deliver military effect.
Channel 4 News led the charge of the dark blue (rinse) brigade with a contribution from a certain well known Falklands aviator and measured viewer of all things light blue, the headline proudly proclaiming that Axed carriers Could Have Saved Lives
The lack of a sea-based strike option initially left the RAF with no choice but to fly sorties from bases in the UK, sending Tornado jets on 3,000-mile round trips at a cost of £200,000 per aircraft, according to estimates from analysts.
Commenting, Commander Ward said
The USMC Harrier is almost identical to the RAF Harrier in capability. Its flexibility is perfectly clear. They are they now on-site doing a job. Wherever there is a troublespot in the world, it’s so easy to put a carrier there and provide a deterrent. When Cumberland went in to rescue Britons from Benghazi, you could have had Ark Royal with harriers on board just sitting there, saying: ‘Okay, we’re watching you.’ It would have been a significant deterrent to Gaddafi escalating his actions, and then when the UN resolution came through, we would have been ready to move.
In terms of attacking tanks and army units the Harrier is just as capable as the Tornado, and the Harrier has indeed got a better capability for ensuring no casualties for civilians, because is system is more accurate for the delivery of precision guided bombs.
Quite clearly, it is a better aircraft. We’re getting a lot of spin to denigrate the capability of the Harrier to justify a bad decision, and that is an appalling record for this Government
The Tornado is very old. It is suffering from heavy fatigue problems. It’s being held together by a lot of engineering work. In terms of airworthiness, serviceability and maintainability, it’s awful.
That’s pretty strong stuff but does it hold true.
Cmdr Sharkey estimates that the fuel needed to fly one Tornado from RAF Marham to Libya and back would cost the taxpayer £200,000 – about 35 times what it would have cost to get a Harrier from the deck of an aircraft carrier.
He calculates that it will cost £22,500 per jet to fly from Italy rather than £5,750 from a carrier near the coast of Libya.
Other sources, including Commander Ward’s own blog pile on the accusations, in two posts here and here.
In the interests of balance, let’s have a look at those claims.
The Cost
The first point being made is the cost of launching the strike package from Norfolk instead of from an aircraft carrier somewhere in Mediterranean.
Of course the cost of fuel to go a few hundred miles will be significantly less than the cost of fuel to go a few thousand miles, especially given the need for tankers but this assumption misses off a rather important element.
The cost of fuel and manning for say, HMS Ark Royal to steam from the UK to the Mediterranean and stay moving whilst on station would knock the cost of aviation fuel for the Tornado strike into a cocked hat. Plus of course, the cost of the Ark Royal’s escort force (Libya still has some naval anti ship capability, however small, it would have to be defended against) and attending RFA vessel has to be considered.
The point was also made about drop tanks being discarded, despite video and aircraft spotter evidence to the contrary and unsubstantiated claims about tanker numbers.
A detailed analysis of costs would have to take into account many many factors, much more than the one dimensional claims floating around the media now.
Capabilities
As we all know, the claim that USMC Harriers are the virtually the same as the recently retired GR9’s is somewhat wide of the mark.
Unlike the USMC Harriers, GR9 does not have any radar so in an air to air engagement would be reliant on AWAC’s, visual detection and hope. Whilst the GR9 could carry anti aircraft missiles I am not sure if they were ever cleared for such and going against a supersonic aircraft, equipped with radar, with a sub sonic aircraft, not equipped with radar would seem to me to be an unacceptable risk just to prove a point.
Because the GR9’s cannot carry Storm Shadows they would have had to penetrate the Libyan air space to drop their missiles and bombs directly over the target. Again, in a sub sonic aircraft this would seem rather risky. This is exactly the reason for Storm Shadow, to launch outside the air defence envelope.
We have heard many claims that not integrating Storm Shadow on Harrier was a blatant light blue plot to protect Tornado but look behind this nonsense and you see a host of very good reasons why Storm Shadow and Harrier was a marriage never meant to be.
Storm Shadow is very large and heavy. Because of asymmetric loading and release issues, dropping one of these from a wing pylon would be a serious issue to overcome, even for a Tornado, the Tornado carries them on the fuselage hardpoint for this reason. A Harrier does not have the ability to do this because of under fuselage clearance; wing pylon mounting would be the only option. This means those asymmetric release issues become more pronounced and because of the length of the missile and relative size of the Harriers wing it is difficult to see how it would be carried on a wing pylon without some additional costly modification.
Because of the Harriers relatively poor ‘bring back’ performance and vertical landing restrictions, if there was a need to bring back a weapon then the pilot would be faced with a difficult decision. Ditch the weapon, ditch the aircraft or try and divert to a land based airfield. This issue ties into the cost argument, at roughly £750k each, dropping a Storm Shadow into the sea would be a very expensive thing to do.
Given that the target information changed mid flight in such a way that it resulted in the need to abort the launch of a recent Tornado/Storm Shadow missions, this would seem to be rather relevant to the cost argument as well.
Many commenters also make the assumption that the Harrier and CVS would be operating practically next door to Gadaffis’ compound but this is simply not the case. In order to provide some defence against anti ship missiles the carrier group would need to remain well offshore. Of course the threat is relatively low but that does not alter the fundamental fact that it would need defending against which means distance, escorts or both.
These add fuel and operating costs when measured against land bases.
So the reality is, for these initial strikes against the Libyan air defence system, the Harrier GR9 would have been a poor choice, risky at best and downright ridiculous at worst.
Maybe instead of slagging the RAF off, accusing them of showboating, perhaps some kudos is due for a clear demonstration of power projection. We should also give the fishheads some credit as well, two services coming together to deliver complimentary effects on target.
If we are talking about subsequent operations, either enforcing a no fly zone with airborne patrols or reactive alert type forces then the closeness of a CVS would provide advantages in aircraft fuel, reaction time (assuming a standing start), airframe hours and other factors but as I have covered above, the GR9 would be a very poor choice for this role so the conversation is somewhat moot. Similar distances were present in operations in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Then we must look at ongoing strike/interdiction operations, attacking Libyan ground forces or remaining air defence system for example. A GR9 force aboard say, HMS Ark Royal, would be closer and arguably more reactive but its range of weapons load is less so this would need more aircraft, more refuelling, more aircrew etc.
Brimstone and dual mode Brimstone is not cleared and as we know, the Harrier GR9 does not have a cannon or RAPTOR pod capability. The Harriers manoeuvrability does lend itself to close air support but that is not the role it would be being used for and to suggest that CAS is a valid mission for UK forces is a clear indication of mission creep.
Finally, not sure what the claim that a Harrier is more accurate than a Tornado and therefore more able to reduce civilian casualties means. In fact I would say the opposite is true given the selective effects of the 27mm cannon and Dual mode Brimstone are not available to Harrier, despite the relative merits of the two targeting pods.
I think that is an example of clutching at straws to justify a weak argument.
Basing
This is always an interesting point; no doubt an aircraft carrier allows one to imperiously float above concerns about basing rights. With Malta refusing and even Italy making noises (for its own reasons it must be said) the fact is that host nation support cannot always be guaranteed, but equally, it is not always denied. The Med is probably not the best example of HNS denial, there are plenty of other options but please lets not think that aircraft carriers are the only answer.
At a political level, one might argue that for legitimacy, the regional nations must offer such support or we have no business being there in the first place, another argument perhaps but something to consider.
Forces the worlds over will always take a land base over an aircraft carrier, every day and twice on a Sunday. They only use sea basing when they have to and evidence of operations over many decades should show this to be the case.
This is not some conspiracy but just cold hard economics.
Summary
As usual, its swings and roundabouts;
GR9 might be closer to the action but it needs lots of support at sea, this might be balanced by additional fuel costs operating GR4’s from land.
GR9 is great at CAS but is slower and can carry less than a GR4, plus it has a smaller range of weapons/recce systems and lower endurance.
GR9 is not a credible CAP aircraft, sorry, it just isn’t.
What would have been a better situation is a combination of land based and sea based air power, each using its strengths to compliment the other.
Arguing that one is better than the other is woolly minded and demonstrative of the wasteful service rivalry that has so damaged UK defence.
That’s is why I get ranty.
I don’t think anyone objects to someone or in your case the editor having a different opinion. It is when one is judged a ‘cock waver’ for having a different opinion that it begins to grate.
Personally I think CVS with GR9′s was a considerable paper tiger and we were right to put funds into other assets at this cash strapped time. And yes the constant bleating about them is a nonsense.
However, you have to accept that there are those of us who think future British armed forces based around the punch of CVF and that a naval centric doctrine is the way forward for the UK in a world where troops on the ground is going to be extremely difficult politically.
“The argument, therefore, is not about CVF/F35, it is about CVF/F35 in the context of a decreasing defence vote. In short, it is one of prioritisation.”
Very much agreed.
But I hope you will appreciate that I have not been calling for the SDSR to be revisited, or harriers and carriers to be spared the axe.
When we are argue about ‘balance’ I often get the impression you think I am bitching about the here-and-now, the SDSR, afghanistan, etc, when in fact I am purely looking towards a post afghanistan level.
Further, that when I talk about a better balanced forces that does not mean I think any ability to sustain a persistent presence is pointless, I fully support the creation of the 5x large MRB’s which closely match the 4:1 harmony guidelines. Rather, I am merely delighted that our whole ground effect is not tied to persistent operations, as 16AAB and 3Cdo are specifically tasked with punitive/limited interventions.
Finally, that while I respect your opinion that carriers do not represent the best way to prioritise a decreasing Defence vote I also disagree with it, and that if you get irritated by continual references to carriers it might be because you keep on taking cheeky jabs at them, even in articles that notionally deal with other matters. Red Arrows vs Bay class LSD’s being a case in point.
Andy and Jedi, noted
Will try and target my accusations of cock waiving better, to be honest, it was aimed at the grown ups in the services and out who seem to display those traits, not the esteemed readership of TD
Absolutely agree – I am a carrier fan but even I will admit that Libya doesn’t make any sort of case for carriers. Sigonella’s only a couple of hundred miles away after all. From Sigonella, Gibraltar and Akrotiri you can cover pretty much the whole Mediterranean with GR4.
It does make rather a good case for Storm Shadows, and also, perhaps, for thinking about getting a few of the sealaunched type that the French are building and fitting them in the Sylver tubes on the T45s. Yes, sub-launched TLAM is all very well, but we can’t guarantee there’ll be a sub nearby at the right time – ship-launched Storm Shadow gives us a few more options.
Sven made a good point on another site about the cheapest way to launch cruise missiles is from a truck. Thought that was spot on actually and as you say, would give us more options.
Of course, I would insist on a containerised version
Consider the ability to fly, float or drive a 20ft ISO anywhere in the world, park it almost anywhere (back of a ship, a car park etc) and launch a salvo
Now that would be a seriously flexible and impressive capability to have
Thats it, I am arguing for a containerised Storm Shadow
Very interesting article and responses. You may all be interested in this not dissimilar piece I published on reuters.com on Monday. Great minds and all that. It’s not proved terribly popular in some quarters but I’m hoping that the logic will prove watertight.
http://blogs.reuters.com/uknews/2011/03/21/libya-crisis-could-scupper-british-aircraft-carriers-once-and-for-all/
Interesting article.
The first half I agree with, Libya is a poor case to argue for the retention our Ark Royal and Harriers.
The second half I do not, sovereign and strategic power projection requires more than missiles and overflight, it needs boots on the ground, and that is most effective at achieving its political aims via punitive/limited intervention. This is best achieved with carriers & an ARG.
MY issues with CVF Nellie and Dumbo, is not that I am anti carrier, I am pro carrier. Just not as realised by UK MOD procurement policy (very sadly aided and abbetted by RN Top brass); of sacrificing everything for a single carrier which as TD observes brings ltd practical capabilities (if any) compared to what we could have if we spent the cash elswhere.
AS I have observed before and TD mentions, this debate has got to the stage where the pro and anti crowd are just shouting at one another.
Each regards their view as a clealry expressed, honestly held, sensible apraissal of the situation.
The opposing view is clearly held by ranting greybeard loons who are at best fools and naves, and at worst traitors.
We have rather debated this into the ground.
Can’t resist one Q
IF Nellie and Dumbo were in full commission with 36 F35 each, could they along with CDG without land based support run the whole NFZ and interdiction campaign themselves opperating with Underway replenishment etc?
Or would they need port facilities and land based support from tankers/Awacs etc?
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/03/future-of-uk-maritime-aviation.html
“IF Nellie and Dumbo were in full commission with 36 F35 each, could they along with CDG without land based support run the whole NFZ and interdiction campaign themselves opperating with Underway replenishment etc?”
No they couldn’t, but it isn’t an either/or situation.
Carriers/ARG’s are designed for limited intervention, not endurance runs afghanistan or iraq no-fly-zones.
Horses for courses.
@ TD – Liking the Containerised Storm Shadow idea – Will have to add it to IXION’s list in the Open Thread.
“and in an ideal world we would have both, overlapping land and sea based air power.”
Which could be achieved by getting the RAF to fly aeroplanes that can land on boats. F-35B or C/F-18/Rafale/dare I say it… Naval Eurofighter!. Economies of scale and a more robust airframe than a dedicated land based aircraft. But that would be putting all our eggs in one basket if a fault or weakness in the aircraft became apparent.
JDBTX
IF they will not give us a sustained independant opperational cababilty against a country with the military might Libya, which is hardly that far away
Then why: -
IN THE NAME OF NOEL EDMUNDS!
Are we bothering with them!
Is it worth debating cheaper ways to get the same effect as CVF and F-35C in other ways – for how much would it cost to build “cruisers” with large number of strike length VLS tubes for say 80 tomahawk or SCALP-N?
Would 6 new SSGN’s based on Astute have been better use of the now £6 billion that we will spend on 2 new carriers?
Also should we have cancelled the carriers (and gotten Carrier Alliance to build us twenty odd corvettes and OPV’s under the agreement that guarantees certain amount of work) once we suspected that the F-35B was a total load of old c*ck that costs twice as much as we expected and only works as half as well, and that our plan to basically use QE and PoW as overlarge LHD’s was now flawed?
Is it worth going STOBAR and using the LCA (N) as our primary aircraft for the FAA, and concentrating on using CVF’s as primarily air defence carriers designed to escort our amphibious task force?
BTW I am pro-carrier (see my comments on Another Look at Balance), but I think it is worthwhile discussing the carriers further, as long as the same rigour required to defend the carriers is also applied to those who oppose them (you only have to look on the Why do we need the navy thread on ARRSE to see posters who are incapable of justifying their anti-carrier bias while accusing pro-carrier proponents of being clueless).
“IF they will not give us a sustained independent operational capability against a country with the military might Libya, which is hardly that far away then why are we bothering with them?”
Why does it have to be sustained?
The whole point of strategic raiding is that it is raiding that achieves strategic effect.
Tubby
Wecome aboard.
See its easy once you start to think the unthinkable and ask ‘the questions that dare not speak their name’.
You do not have to be a ranting greybeard loon to ask those very questions you have just asked.
Of course you must come to your own conclusions after debate, which may well be that we need Nellie and Dumbo.
But be carefull, the Carrier Junkies will come and get you just for asking about how many astutes we could have, and for example how many Absalon class we could have (About 24!) for the same cost.
JDBT
So thats £10 billion or so (to include some aircraft, + running costs) significantly weakening the RN’s remaining fleet, etc etc so we can strategicaly raid somewhere. When for a tenth the price we could still have a lot of the capability.
IS that really worth it?
Ix
Not all of us….
I’m rather partial to carrier power, but I’d have gone with V/STOVL on 20,000t flat tops, maybe even just Apaches, if we had a day one Storm Shadow Saturation Capability.
“So thats £10 billion or so significantly weakening the RN’s remaining fleet, etc etc so we can strategically raid somewhere. When for a tenth the price we could still have a lot of the capability.”
A lot of what capability?
There was no status-quo option, so the only parity alternative would have been to kill carriers, amphibs and the RM (brigade), in order to stick with an army that could retain eight-ten brigades with the intention of deploying two.
NOTHING else preserves useful expeditionary effect from the point of view of politicians achieving strategic aims.
Escorts, fighter planes, and non-deployable brigades are great for defence, but utterly useless for coercion, and without coercion the military is useless to governments who want to achieve political effect.
So, enduring land operations or limited maritime operations……….? I leave it to decide which the politicians will find easiest to sell to the electorate post Iraq/Afghan.
A very interesting article, as was pchoskins’ over at Reuters. However, your arguments against carriers and the Libyan operation contain a number of flaws:
Had the Hercules transports sent in to rescue nationals been shot down, what then? Chinooks from Malta to the rescue, sure, but who covers them going in? The evacuation of civilians from Beirut in 2006, resulted in over a thousand people being moved, had the evacuation of Libya been on this scale then the solution would’ve required larger ships and a more significant initial military intervention force and that would‘ve taken time, which highlights the flaw in the four days from Plymouth argument. In 2006 HMS Bulwark was on hand and could handle the numbers, as could a carrier, but not a Frigate. Had Malta denied access for the Chinooks, it would’ve created a serious problem.
Yes, Tornado’s can operate from the UK, but for how long? Yes, Typhoon’s can operate from Sicily, and Italy is an ally, but the Italians have already threatened to withdraw use of her airfields if NATO doesn’t assume command of the operation, so cracks are beginning to show in our ‘steadfast’ alliance. Would the French allow us to operate from their territory if necessary? What if a future operation was in Sub-Saharan Africa, what then? No airfields, no operation.
A carrier is more than a floating airfield, it is a mobile piece of sovereign territory that can rescue civilians, support allies and threaten tyrants. It removes a lot of ‘what ifs’ from an operation and simplifies and reduces the need for diplomatic negotiations. If we want to strut on the global stage, then we need global props and the carrier is one of them. Given the turmoil in the Middle East, we will not see an end to these operations and relying on frigates and Tornado’s to do the job is simply not enough.
Harriers GR.9’s may not be ideal for CAP and have limited capability in this respect, but then do you need a radar for a short range Sidewinder in the cloudless, azure skies of Libya? Israeli A-4 Skyhawks have shotdown enough Migs without the aid of a radar. Harriers do however, excel at ground attack, whereas Typhoon is ‘austere’ in this respect and untried in combat. To police a no fly zone, just having fast jets in the area is a deterrent in itself, the type may be of little relevance as they can still have a significant impact. If you lined up a row of Harriers in Tripoli, I’m sure Col Ghadaffi would salute as he drove past, he wouldn’t know the difference between a Harrier and a Mirage, most politicians can’t and neither can most civilians. But, if they know the Libyan Air Force is grounded and they hear a loud jet engine, it will have a psychological effect. Fast jets carry out fly-by’s in Iraq and Afghanistan to deter ambush’s and insurgent activity, so we know it works. As for the Harrier requiring AWACS as support, I’d be surprised to learn if the Typhoon’s over Libya at this time didn’t have an AWACS in the vicinity. I would’ve assumed this was a standard operating procedure, why denigrate the Harrier because of it? Ok, a Harrier cannot carry Stormshadow, but then a Tornado cannot take off from a short runway. Given the 3000 mile round trip from the UK, it would have been more cost-effective to launch Stormshadow from a VC-10 or a Tristar and cut out the middleman.
But then, that’s just my personal opinion.
I should’ve added: “And you can get the crew to gather on the flight deck and spell out the name of the ship, which you can’t do on a frigate!”
JDBT
What capability?
You have just agreed that the millitary giant Libya comes under the ‘Too hard to have a go at on our own’ even if both carriers with full compliment were up and running.
If 2 of them fully kitted out; (and i remind you that the 10 billion is only projected to get 1 with at best 24 aircraft on it); can’t destroy the Libyan airforce and enforce air supremacy and provide air cover for land forces on their own, when are we going to be sending in the marines? Anywhere?
Who are we going to coerce with them if we can’t coerce Libya?
It’s a classic business dilemma – do you go with low upfront costs and higher operating costs, or expend capital to get lower operating costs. The longer we’re there, the easier it is to justify fueling up a carrier. The other aspect is flexibility, so you need to account for some option value as well.
You’re right that this is a poor case for the Invincible/GR9 combo, the GR9 is a second-day-of-war aircraft. I wouldn’t be too hard on the Harrier – it’s a better CAS aircraft than the Mirage 2000, and it seems that the armoured column going into Benghazi was sorted by USMC Harriers rather than French land-based air. Suspect Sharkey is being a bit cute with the accuracy thing – Sniper may well have a better accuracy with Paveway than LITENING (the whole point of getting it was that TIALD wasn’t accurate enough), but Harrier doesn’t have Brimstone. It’s long been cleared for AIM-9L.
TD, it seems that you’re saying that carriers carrying planes with no radar, BVR AAM’s or Storm Shadow aren’t much help. If only we had a carrier with planes that could do all those things….
IXION asks a nice question. I think the basic answer is that a fully-loaded CVF battlegroup could do the mission, but you’d miss out on some nice-to-haves. AWACS would be covered by Hawkeyes, particularly E-2D which has more JSTARS-y capability as well. For this particular mission Sea King ASaC would just about do, but you might want extra fixed-wing AEW if it was available?
Extra tanking would be nice, even the US is a bit light on carrier tanking at the moment but they’ve obviously made a decision that buddy tanking is good enough for their purposes – presumably anything more serious and they fly over some land-based tankers. Shame they never went ahead with the KS-3A, perhaps we could rope in some Buccs or A-6′s from somewhere?
The obvious weakness in a European version of Odyssey Dawn (sic) is the inability to get large numbers of cruise missiles in the air as a “surprise” first attack. Compared to Iraq then 110 Tomahawks counts as a pretty small attack, but even that needs a lot of escorts/SSN’s if you only have 16 strike-length tubes per ship and rely on torpedo-tube delivery for the subs. I suspect that the government might be signing some cheques for T45 strike-length tubes soon, and perhaps might give new thought to Ajax getting a VLS stretch?
A SSGN is obviously the luxury option – but it is a very nice one to have…. Conversely I do like the idea of containerised missiles – but would note that an A70 launcher is 7m long, which is a bit of an awkward fit for a 20′ container. I know that’s not exactly a fatal objection, other lengths of container are available, but I merely note it.
The other area that is hard to assess is that there seems to be a lot of EW/ELINT activity going on – Italian Tornado ECRs, various types of EC-130 and so on. Even the Yank carriers are looking a bit light now that the ES-3A’s have retired. Hard to get much solid information on that kind of thing, and the RAF seems to be doctrinally opposed to dedicated EW aircraft, preferring a bit of EW on all their planes. I guess the F-35 continues that theme, with the attack mode of the AESA radar and so on. No doubt UAVs and other platforms can do a lot of the ELINT stuff these days, but it’d be interesting to see what happens on that front over the next decade.
“You have just agreed that the military giant Libya comes under the ‘Too hard to have a go at on our own’ even if both carriers with full compliment were up and running.”
No I haven’t. All I said was that carriers were not suitable tools for maintaining an open-ended no-fly-zone (read: potentially long-term), while acknowledging that all our expeditionary land-power is tied up in Afghanistan (read: circa two brigades).
“What capability?”
Presuming that is a question about the utility of raiding in the ‘real’ world, and not a rhetorical rejection of my comment……….. I will point you to the yanks who percieve the following advantages:
“Rapid entry/punitive campaigns might be necessary to:
• Defeat hybrid military threats or hostile irregular groups;
• Neutralize violent threats to friendly governments or unimpeded use of the global commons;
• Protect U.S. citizens and property abroad;
• Establish short-term control over un-, under-, or irresponsibly-governed territory;
• Destroy or dismantle criminal or terrorist sanctuary and support networks;
• Reverse illegitimate seizures of political power;
• Underwrite the extraterritorial exercise of U.S. law; or
• Seize and exercise temporary control over WMD, critical foreign infrastructure and resources, or foreign territory that may be essential to local restoration of order, authority, and the protection of wider international security.”
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/the-us-discovers-strategic-raiding-%E2%80%93-plays-catchup-with-britain/
Can we wire Merlin to carry Storm Shadow?
I don’t think really Their Lordships heart is really in deep strike. And I have thought for a while CVF should be about sea control and not about strike (or COIN.) I think if Their Lordships had been serious about deep strike the Astutes would have been fitted with a dozen or so VLS for TLAM just as the modern USN SSNs are. Smells a funny colour.
RS
You are letting tiddles out of the soft cloth recepticle.
‘If we want to strut on the global stage, then we need global props and the carrier is one of them’.
Mr Stockley:-
The chemist has your scrip of carrier ready for you to shoot up on his doorstep.
Carriers/amphibs are not the answer to everything, but nor too are they being asked to be; they provide very high strategic mobility, but very low strategic endurance.
We did not ask 3Cdo to patrol Basra by launching amphibious assaults across the al-fawr peninsula at 8:45am each morning, nor too would you ask the army to spend six months building up the logistical footprint to sustain a brigade against a Mass Atrocity Response Operation.
“The obvious weakness in a European version of Odyssey Dawn (sic) is the inability to get large numbers of cruise missiles in the air as a “surprise” first attack. ”
My usual suggestion is a T45 sized vessel, with the entire deck given over to vertical launch tubes.
Or a Vincie sized vessel with the same…
IXION: “The chemist has your scrip of carrier ready for you to shoot up on his doorstep.”
Why thankyou sir, I’ll take it immediately!
As an aside, I long to see the term ‘willy waving’ as part of a Daily Mail headline, it would make my day.
“Which could be achieved by getting the RAF to fly aeroplanes that can land on boats. ”
Or, to turn it around, getting rid of the RAF and letting the Navy fly land based aircraft too . . .
JDBT
There are some (not all contributors to this group, indeed the RN top brass are incuded); Who when the word carrier is mentioned go all Hommer Simpson.
Eyes glaze over and MMMM Carriers…… mumbles from their lips, and most importantly the see in the little cotton wool bubble above their heads their dream carrier: -
A Nimitz clas with full airgroup
Such a carrier may be able to do all the things you set out.
BUT how much of it realy could a QE class do’ with 12 fighters on it, in the real world when the first time the shooting starts fighters number 9-12 will be canablized to keep 1-8 in the air etc etc.
Proper Carriers yes!
Nellie and Dumbo no!
Tomahawk costs (at best) 500.000 dollars apiece. It actually costs a lot more, most likely, unless the SCALP Navale is plated in gold, since France is paying them a good million euro each.
And then again, it is not all about cruise missiles. Tomahawks aren’t that great at busting Hardened, Deeply Buried Targets.
They are also overkill for many kind of targets.
You don’t use a TacTom to bust a tank. A Tomahawk is used to destroy a command center, a bridge, a radar station, (parts) of an air base (the UK has only got the Unitary warhead variant, so no “area-attack” with submunitions either), this kind of targets.
But you can’t think to support land operations by firing a Tomahawk every time the troops on the ground are pinned by a sniper in the third floor of the bulding ahead, or because a tank is holding a crossroad.
The arsenal ship is not cost nor time effective for this kind of use.
If you have an aircraft carrier off the coast, instead, you can have:
-Fighters keeping enemy planes and helicopters off your back
-reconnaissance from above
-fighters loitering “on station” at a minute-time call for dropping a Paveway IV or firing a Brimstone into what’s giving you hell
-helicopters based on the ship ready to come and evacuate you or provide you mobility.
All things an arsenal ship (and even less a SSGN costing 2 billions or more, weapons and crew excluded) cannot do.
I keep reading about SSGNs. I guess a lot of people is fine with blasting a million dollar cruise missile with strategical capability to bust any kind of target…?
Even if we are, can someone explain me exactly how the troops on the ground are going to call on a strike from an SSGN? A satellite request to Northwood, with attached GPS coordinates, that Northwood will have to TRY (communicate with submerged subs is not easy!) and relay to the submarine.
And how will the GPS coordinates be kept up to date all along the flight time of the missile…?
It just won’t work.
An SSGN is a STRATEGIC attack asset, good to strike STRATEGIC targets, selected before a mission is started, and planned carefully.
As to all the limits of the GR9 and of Ark Royal itself, i agree on nearly all of them.
But i also believe that, until Great Britain wants to matter internationally and until ops abroad such as Libya are even considered, the need for CVF is absolute.
I can accept not spending money to bring Harriers and Ark back, but the stabbing at CVF, really no.
A proper carrier must available, with proper planes (which will have Paveway, Brimstone, Meteor, Storm Shadow and all) on board.
And no one in the world can (currently) produce an alternative that covers all the “capability boxes” that a carrier fills up.
Simple like that.
Without a carrier, and with a merely defensive posture, then everything changes. Scrap F35 as whole then.
Tomahawks not needed, better sub-harpoon.
Army not needed, if not a much, much smaller one.
A sole-Typhoon fleet for the RAF, for the air defence and ground attack both.
A strong marittime patrol aircraft fleet (i repeat, STRONG).
And lots of frigates to protect trade and sealines.
But in this case, it is a total change of policy: a UK isolationist and merely defensive. It is a matter of choosing.
“Eyes glaze over and MMMM Carriers…… mumbles from their lips, and most importantly the see in the little cotton wool bubble above their heads their dream carrier: – A Nimitz clas with full airgroup”
Sure, it turns up in the telegraph quite regularly.
“BUT how much of it realy could a QE class do’ with 12 fighters on it, in the real world when the first time the shooting starts fighters number 9-12 will be canablized to keep 1-8 in the air etc etc.”
Depends on how many we buy. Obviously we won’t get 150 any more, but i seriously doubt it will be as few as forty.
My personal guess is that twelve will be normal, twenty four achievable in within 30 days, and 36 with four months notice if we bootstrap everything a-la the island-that-shall-not-be-named. That presupposes four squadrons of twelve with 24 as the OCU/OCE. Optimistic, but it is what I reckon we will end up with in total, even if it takes some years to get there.
“Without a carrier, and with a merely defensive posture, then everything changes. But in this case, it is a total change of policy: a UK isolationist and merely defensive. It is a matter of choosing.”
Very much agreed Gabrielle
Is your car presently on fire, piddling oil like an excited drunk, you can’t change the stereo from a Britney Spears tune, and to top it all the steering’s locked-up? Scrap it and buy a new one. Yes, it’ll take time to pick the one you want. Maybe time to save up for a decent one, or pay off the loans for the heap of junk you’d been saddled with. But to carry on careering down the highstreet whilst yelling ‘It’s unpatriotic to stop! We have unique capabilities!’ is just mental.
Starve the MOD of funds until it gets its act together. Pare things to the bone. Nothing less drastic will stop the institutionalised rot. Nothing else will focus minds on what the UK really needs.
Cut the budget by 75% and only keep core capabilities like nuke warhead maintenance or Trident reactor upkeep. Yes, lots of lay-offs. Lots of domestic defence manufacturers no longer bodging together second rate tosh at enormous taxpayer expense. Sorry, but the Exchequer isn’t a charity. Take the dole – it’ll save the country money, and you’re not more important than anyone else. Why do you get a £100k a year subsidy when a miner or a computer programmer doesn’t?
Goodbye 95% of the deskbound admirals. Goodbye dodgy contracts and palatial headquarters and private parties and personal drivers and cushy jobs on the board of whatever metal bashers you ordered a gajillion quid’s worth of kit from just before you retired. Goodbye hideously expensive kit. Goodbye cold war equipment we’ll never use more than 10% of in any actual conflict (because that’s the only 10% we got people fully qualified on). Stick it all in a shed.
And, maybe ten years after the bloodletting, the MOD might actually get its act together. You don’t keep giving drugs to a junkie. Don’t give money to an organisation that needs to be scrapped and rebuilt. The UK’s in the middle of one of the safest places in the world – the North Atlantic. Flat out, no ‘big bads’ are going to threaten us for the next ten years. Is China going to invade us via Russia? Is Chad looking for some aggro? Latvia thinks it’s a bit tasty and we’re looking at its bird?
If we lose our discretionary ability to bomb foreigners for a decade until we decide what the best way to bomb foreigners really is, and when, and for what cost and with what kit – that’s hardly going to kill us.
@IXION says:
BUT how much of it realy could a QE class do’ with 12 fighters on it, in the real world when the first time the shooting starts fighters number 9-12 will be canablized to keep 1-8 in the air etc etc.
Arguably, it could do more than the RAF did by flying 6 Tornado GR4 from Marham after pulling out of the hangars all of the air tankers left in the UK.
And it will be able to do it again and again, while a feat like last night “Black Buck 2011″ is not something the UK can sustain many times, even just making a raid for day.
And it could do its part without having to ask anyone permission, and without having to wait days of political bickering about who gets to command the operations.
“Or it is NATO or i take back my bases!”
(Gods am i ashamed that my country’s government had to say something THAT stupid…)
As to the cannibalization, it depends on the amount of spares the Navy’s given.
You cannibalize a plane to keep another one flying only if you miss the particular spare part you need. Normally it does not happen. With Typhoon it happens because the flow of spare parts is not yet timely enough at times.
Fact is, that the F35C will be able to take off from QE up to 3 times a day.
Even with 12 planes, that’s 36 sorties a day. More than the RAF is managing currently.
Give it the planes it needs, and it will do its job.
Of course, if the RN gets the ship but the RAF steals the planes, you can’t even talk about it, but that’s another matter.
Gabriele
The BROACH warhead on Stormshadow is designed exclusivly to bust buried hardened targets.
People often say that cruise missiles are too expensive, but when you think about it, a Main Battle Tank costs £2-3 million, a cruise missile £1mn, so they are a cost effective way of plinking them, if not the best.
Obviously, they cant be used forever for fire support, hence my opinion that eventualy, some sort of air has to take over.
Carriers are useful, but an Arsenal ship can shut down dozens of airfields in moments, I’d like Carriers to send fighters out to blow stuff up on the ground later.
A 500 tube Arsenal Ship would cost £750mn. Assuming two missiles per aircraft, and 36 aircraft, and two flights per day, it takes a Carrier 4 days to to what an AS can do in minutes.
“And no one in the world can (currently) produce an alternative that covers all the “capability boxes” that a carrier fills up.
Simple like that.”
But we dont need everything in one super package.
A 500 Tube Arsenal Ship could paralyse virtualy any realistic foe. Imagine what 50 would do if lobbed at the MoD, Whitehall and Westminster. Headless chickens.
That leaves 450 to knock out radar and runways.
An austere carrier hosting Harrier threes then launches follow on strikes against grounded aircraft and anything that survived the Arsenal Ship.
And then carries on providing ground support to the landing airforces.
Imagine what 500 Tomahawks would do to the CVF, even guarded by all six T45′s?
To take on tanks, i’ll forever want a plane flying overhead with a load of Brimstones, thank you.
A far cheaper and faster way to destroy not one but even up as many as 12 (Tornado GR4) or 18 (Typhoon in the future) tanks for sortie.
I highly doubt the cost you propose for an arsenal ship. That money would probably cover only the missiles, without launch silos and ship and all the rest.
And it still would be a very task-specific asset capable to only fire missiles at ground targets.
No fleet overhead protection, no recce, no CAP, no air attack, no gun-strafing run over enemies…
The US Marines had the idea years ago. But soon dropped it, and funded more flexible assets.
Moreover, the UK which has less of everything, should ALWAYS prioritize flexibility: what the armed forces buy must be capable to cover as many roles as possible, because there is no funding for role-specific “master” assets.
That’s why, regardless of what service flies it, for example, i’d want all future helos to be like the Apache: capable to work ashore, and go on the ships too.
This is a first example of flexibility.
And instead of a 500-Tomahawk hull, i’ll always fund a carrier.
And put far smaller number of Tomahawks on part of the Type 26 frigates, instead, to give the RN’s ships better capability to influence the events ashore, while having hulls capable to do mostly everything.
Dom, I think the 500 missile swarm is why the USN is investing so heavily is lasers, because as you say, if (and it is a big if) you can locate a high value asset like an aircraft carrier and be in a position to launch such a swarming attack there is no doubt we would be in trouble, simply running out of AA missiles and CIWS rounds. Its an interesting thought exercise, how to defeat a layered defence system, not as easy as you might think but certainly enough to make you stop and think
MAT
Hear hear wish I could have put it like that love the Latvia crack.
JDBT @ 3.45
Your assesment is pretty much what I think! Really it is. A proper carrier force, with a proper number of aircraft is a geneuine multi function multi use capability, I have said before and will say again, if we could get 3 carriers with at least 18 fighters awacs and a handfull of copters one each as a baseline surgable to 36 then we really do have a capabillity and your asessment isn’t far short of that.
However it is not what we are promised, or likely to be able to afford.
If it does happen, you are talking about almost the entire future projected fighter numbers of the RAF available for flying of carriers: – 150 or so. Not in itself a bad idea but in the service centred world TD decries. I have more chance of being elected Pope.
I know we have reached diametrically opposed results but we do so from almost the same postion.
Its a funny old world
I’d be quite content with two carriers and 72 JCA, be they F18, F35c, or Sopwith-Camels.
There is no carrier/no-carrier debate. They’re being built, they’re going to be launched, they’re going to be manned, and that’s that. You can debate whether they should have been built in the first place, but that’s a far less interesting debate.
TD,
You cannot hide your natural antipathy towards CVF no matter how hard you claim to be unbiased,your so called attempt at debate on this matter is so slanted against it why don’t you just come out of the closet.
The one voice of reason amongst all the wishfull thinking and fantasy is Gabriele whom as always shows a logical,practical and even more acceptable a sensible approach towards the issue.
A five hundred tube ‘Arsenal ship’ ?. That when hit would make the biggest fireworks display in history.
When one reads some of the ideas that are thrown around on here then you can come to some understanding of the confusion and uncertainty that prevails in the MOD.
Instead of self proclaimed experts we could do with a few sharp incisive minds that can cut through and discard all the outlandish suggestions and give us a core capability of affordable reliable systems.
Yes I know it’s easier said than done but somehow we need to bring the three services into some sort of general agreement on what is needed for the defence of our country.
Politicians have always played them off one against the other and will continue to do so aided by career civil servants in the MOD.
We need a grass roots rethink of our defence needs that is based on actual need rather than money,we are not a world power but we can have influence and its either that or we pull back from world affairs and accept ourselves for the very small island that we are.
Mike 2
I vote for the small Island Strategy…..
Mike2
In my defence, I don’t think I have ever been in the closet but for the avoidance of doubt and if you had read the umpteen posts I have done on the subject you would see.
I do not think CVF/JCA represents good value for money, or in the context of the strategic reality of SDSR/SDR, essential to UK defence. In an ideal world I would have 8, with laser beams and everything, but we do not exist in the fantasy land of money orchards that the service chiefs seem to think we do, therefore I contend that their price (not just in cash terms but in very real impacts on other capabilities) is one not worth paying. However, I also recognise that the die is cast and we have to make do, getting the maximum benefit from our multi billion pound purchase should be our top priority now. The admirals have won, lets just hope their victory was worth it
I come to this conclusion based on what I think is a balanced view of things, the reality of operations in the last 30 years and what I think to be a reasonable look into the future, you might disagree but that at least is my story and I am sticking to it.
JS
You are of course correct. It is not to late, (but soon will be) to cancel them.
But given we are getting them it is how best to use them.
They have some use as LPH. But if we aint going to use them for that.
TD,
‘The admirals have won’ absolute nonsense,nobody has won not least the navy.
Your flippant remarks regards laser beams etc,are once again an attempt at steering the debate away from serious discussion.
I have read the ‘upteen posts’ you have made on this subject,why on earth do you think I am replying.
When you speak of the reality of operations in the last 30 years,have you conveniently forgotten the absolutely crucial part that carrier avaition played in the Falklands campaign,a war in all but name that we couldn’t have even contemplated without air power.
Your idea of a ‘balanced view’ seems to be somewhat out of line with reality,your ‘reasonable’ look into the future being disproven as we speak.
Stick to your story by all means,I have always been an avid reader of fiction.
Mike2
If TD’s bias re carriers is showing, then I am pretty sure he is not alone…..
Like I said this carrier thing became a shouting match some time ago, (in which I have happily engaged), welcome to the party.
Jedibeeftrix said “they provide very high strategic mobility, but very low strategic endurance.”
Was this a typo because navies provide high strategic endurance? It is air power that has low endurance. And armies neither have strategic reach or endurance.
OK Mike, I can see my attempt to lighten the mood hasn’t worked and as for serious discussion, we have done nothing but for the last couple of years on CVF and JCA, so can you forgive me a little sloped shoulders levity?
30 years, yes, again you are right, I didnt include the Falklands but that was it. Give me an example since then when maritime fast jet aviation from the UK alone has been essential