Like a moth to a flame I can’t help returning to this subject but it’s an elephant sized subject is an increasingly small room and therefore what defence themed blog can avoid it?
Let’s remind ourselves of defence planning assumptions, so easily overlooked in conversations about sortie rates, being a proper Navy, reach back payloads, tail hooks, cost inflation and stress fractures.
For a long time and reinforced by every single defence review since the 1998 SDR the UK needs to retain a full spectrum capability, or the ability to operate alone, only at a small to medium scale, which taken in context means a Sierra Leone, Non Combatant Evacuation or Falklands type operation and everything else will be in a coalition.
Whether it is a Libya, Afghanistan, the Balkans or Iraq type operation these will be in conjunction with others. Who those others will be is a separate and related discussion but more or less it means the USA, NATO and European Union in that order, with the last one being a very distant third. As the US very obviously and entirely correctly looks towards the Pacific it is less likely that the US will be a natural partner in operations around the periphery of Europe, North Africa and the Arctic being the obvious examples so this would point to a need for a greater capability within Europe across the spectrum of need but if Libya proved anything, it was that Carrier Strike was a nice to have, arguably more efficient in some areas, but hardly indispensable. If there is one thing that Europe is not in short supply of it is 10,000 foot long runways. Libya yet again, as all recent operations, sowed there is a general shortage in NATO of enabling assets, logistics, ISTAR and communications, not fast jets.
It is through this lens that CVF/JCA should be viewed.
It is also absolutely clear that CVF/JCA is about the projection of power, defence at arms-length or bullying other nations for dubious strategic gain, again, take your pick.
All things being equal, CVF and JCA would be considered an essential capability but the huge elephant in the room is that all things are not equal.
The ongoing financial crisis and static or declining defence budget means that project CVF, including the fast jets to fly off them, will take an increasing share of that budget. If it were a small budget item there would be few arguments against it but the simple fact is it is not. The manpower, capital and other through life costs of the combined ship and aircraft is huge and will be a significant proportion of the defence vote so the question should be, in order to have CVF and a bunch of fast jets…
what are we prepared to sacrifice?
It is this question that no one seems to want to address despite it making its presence felt in every year since CVF and JCA was born.
Quite simply, the Royal Navy has sacrificed its surface and sub surface fleet on the promise of CVF and the Royal Air Force has sacrificed the utility of Typhoon and a whole host of those short supply enabling assets to pay for the jam tomorrow promise of the F35.
CVF will not improve the value of the RAF and RN because it will not be a rounded capability as a whole, a sharp but brittle spear only of use in limited scenarios without the depth or breadth in other enabling areas to make it useful.
I am a strong supporter of the F35 and think that on the whole it will evolve past its current development woes into an effective aircraft but I don’t want to sacrifice the rest of the armed forces on the altar of sensor fusion and stealth because in pure terms, we are unlikely to need those capabilities in anything other than the large scale coalition operations.
Make no mistake, we are heading down a path that will see capabilities across all three services cut back, withdrawn, placed into extended readiness and not purchased because the RAF and RN are insistent on maintaining what for many is a vanity project, completely out of tune with actual defence needs.
I say ‘will see’ when in fact; it is obvious that we have already seen this happening.
But what about sunk costs, industrial benefits and prestige?
£4b of sunk costs were ignored when we binned off Nimrod MRA4, arguably a more important capability than CVF/JCA because we are an island and all that and the cast iron rule of decision making, however difficult it may be from an emotional perspective, is that sunk costs should always be ignored.
Industrial benefits; is defence for defence or the benefit of BAE. We need to seriously examine this question but whatever the arguments for a strong defence industry and there are many good ones, they don’t trump defence NEEDS.
Prestige or cock waiving, depending on your perspective, is arguably what has gotten us into this mess. The UK needs to take a very long hard look at defence needs and stop obsessing about our glorious past (although glorious it surely is) and start being pragmatic.
The SDSR did not make any really difficult decisions, it did not examine defence needs at all, that is a complete fallacy spread by the self-regarding politicians, civil servants and military chiefs who were responsible for the tawdry, shambolic mess it descended into. What it did was start from a list of future projects and worked back from there. They were prioritised and what cash was left over was split across everything else, realising there was not enough cash to match aspirations with wallets a whole spread of minor projects, capabilities, welfare and every other part of defence was cut.
A little here, a little there, what’s it called again, that thing the SDSR was touted as not being, yes, that’s it, salami slicing.
When as a nation, we are mothballing bridging assets or selling hard working and hugely useful vessels like the Bay’s, imposing pay cuts, making people redundant and deferring improvements in service family accommodation, driving around afghanistan is 40 year old vehicles and rationalising having fighting ships putting to sea with 4 missile onboard then surely someone somewhere must realise we are in danger of becoming all fur coat and no knickers.
Lots of cutting edge, shiny and sexy new toys but a dangerously hollowed out force of limited utility against the UK’s real threats.
It’s about time we had a proper defence review and stopped these vainglorious projects that deliver prestige but not much else, at least not much else of what we need.
WANT is not the same as NEED
664 Comments
Given that a) cancelling CVF will save relatively little money now, b) the majority of the costs for CVF are the air group, and c) if the F35C fails, there is an off the shelf and much cheaper option, I’m not sure why we’re flogging this dead horse :-)
QTWTAIN
wow, suddenly the carrier mafias complaints make perfect sense.
Suggest cutting two infantry battalions and your an autistic lunatic. Reduce the navy to a mcm and a couple of frigates and youre a pragmatist.
Libya didnt prove we can get by without carriers, it proved we cant.
t.
What we do against egypt or syria? The isralies would slaughter us.
The government still wants deep strike capability, that means carriers or arsenal ships.
Except arsenal ships require feet on the ground to mark anything but runways and buildings.
Maybe a commando brigade or two…..
I don’t think that the two should be considered completely intermingled , CVF can work in many roles with many assets UAVs helo fleets and other aircraft than JCA.
For my money I would limit JCA to late production slots as seems to be the current idea and purchased as funds allow, I’d definitely follow the Swiss example and reduce JCA numbers to add some Grippens.
CVF I’d keep building since the cost of cancelling seems the same, the role of the CVF I expect to be to fill in for the US carrier groups now being used to provide security for the straits of Hormuz.
The US will not have sufficient carriers to provide the coverage they now give to areas of European interest.
We know that many NATO partners are unable or unwilling to provide forces when needed so I think we must start really facing up to that issue and see CVF as a NATO level strategic asset that we cannot afford to abandon.
How we manage to get sufficient resource from our partners will be a big issue but I don’t think that we have yet let it sink in that we may be obliged to put up serious levels of force when the US are unable to give support in the future.
Hi TD,
The best description of the SDSR so far: ” What it did was start from a list of future projects and worked back from there. They were prioritised and what cash was left over was split across everything else, realising there was not enough cash to match aspirations with wallets a whole spread of minor projects, capabilities, welfare and every other part of defence was cut.”
However, even though I agree with the first part of this statement “Quite simply, the Royal Navy has sacrificed its surface and sub surface fleet” isn’t the second part on the side of hyperbole?
If this (by RW) “CVF I’d keep building since the cost of cancelling seems the same, the role of the CVF I expect to be to fill in for the US carrier groups now being used to provide security for the straits of Hormuz.
The US will not have sufficient carriers to provide the coverage they now give to areas of European interest” ISN’T true
- why would the CdG have spent so much time in the Indian Ocean
- the furcoat & knickers show will be very exposed at the whole European level when she will go into her prolonged refuelling period
@RW, I agree let’s seperate CVF and JCA. It is precisely the willy waving that TD complains about when people think that the CVFs have to be run like US strike carriers. It was never the purpose to do this. We’ve discussed this before but I think we should:
* Run the CVFs the way they were envisaged – mobile airfields for a broad range of air assets. Remember the reason why they are the size they are is because it was deemed to make more sense at the time rather than 3 smaller vessels – arguments which still stand up, but the politics (delays) have been the real issue.
* Scrap the F35 and buy off of the shelf (F18, Rafeal, you name it) or jump on board with a cheaper model such as the Griffon. The FAA only really needs 50-60 to meet it’s needs.
* The RAF takes what money is left to update the Typhoon for the multirole that’s needed and goes in big on UAVs.
I’m also going to also to reopen a long running debate in that if we actually decided the capability mix we wanted and decided to give the RN a fairer balance (:)) of the defence budget then perhaps the room would be bigger and the CVF not such a large elephant (to use TD’s term)…
Back when CVF was STOL carrier, the tailored air group idea was its biggest selling point (and the F-35B was its worst drawback). Going CATOBAR has simply increased the risks, the capital outlay of the ship and only slightly de-risked the cost of the airgroup. It’s to late to turn back to the F-35B or to pay Boeing and BAE to resurrect the Harrier production line for a slightly warmed over new build, but this is yet another example of where we want play with the big boys when we should have been following the Italian’s (with CVF being a larger, slightly better at acting as a commando carrier version of Cavour). How I wish BAE and Boeing would take a gamble and self-fund a new Harrier demonstrator, I bet they get so many takers right now that they would be shocked.
“Is It Time to Cancel CVF and JCA?”
No, because under current plans it will leave the Forces unable to engage in power-projection, of a sovereign and strategic nature, sufficient to achieve the political ambitions of our the government………………….
….unless we plan to bulk the army back up to 9 brigades, so that we can keep a short division in the field, and have sufficient confidence that the British public will allows its use!
“Is It Time to Cancel CVF and JCA?”
No, because we are increasingly being cut-loose by the yanks as they reorient towards the pacific century, thus losing the advantage of their specialisations.
The result being that our military future will most often be employed in EMEA in a european coalition, so we might as well specialise in something not greatly possessed by our future partners, in order to maximise its advantage to HMG.
Coals to Newcastle and all that!
“but if Libya proved anything, it was that Carrier Strike was a nice to have, arguably more efficient in some areas, but hardly indispensable”
Not evidenced by events:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/
And once more with feeling:
“what are we prepared to sacrifice?”
We already know, it is called the SDSR, and still preserves the following capability:
“A new set of Defence Planning Assumptions
The new Defence Planning Assumptions envisage that the Armed Forces in the future will be sized and
shaped to conduct:
• an enduring stabilisation operation at around brigade level (up to 6,500 personnel) with maritime
and air support as required, while also conducting:
• one non-enduring complex intervention (up to 2,000 personnel), and
• one non-enduring simple intervention (up to 1,000 personnel);
OR alternatively:
• three non-enduring operations if we were not already engaged in an enduring operation;
OR:
• for a limited time, and with sufficient warning, committing all our effort to a one-off intervention of
up to three brigades, with maritime and air support (around 30,000, two-thirds of the force
deployed to Iraq in 2003).”
Do you want more than this?
“CVF will not improve the value of the RAF and RN because it will not be a rounded capability as a whole”
That was clearly not the view of the SDSR, or the SDR98, or the SDR New Chapter ofr matter. It is not the view of Lindley-French either:
“There is a very great danger that by default, if we hold our nerve, we could end up with quite a sound defence strategy. There will be two carriers, strategic mobility, Astutes-not enough, but in time you could build more over 20, 30 or 40 years-Type 45s and Type 26s. It is a concept whereby there is projectability, not globally but regionally-plus. We could actually have a defence strategy worth talking about, by muddling through and from the bottom up, which has nothing to do with the NSS or the SDSR. The issue is, can we hold our nerve over that longer investment period?”
Who is that feels this way, other than yourself?
“Prestige or cock waiving, depending on your perspective, is arguably what has gotten us into this mess.”
There is another word for it; representative government responding to the will of the people:
“Which of the following statements comes closest to your view?
1. The UK should remain a great power, with substantial armed forces and our own seat at the United Nations Security Council as one of the ‘big five’ permanent members: YouGov 49% GB 62%
2. The UK should accept that it is no longer a great power, cut its defence budget significantly, and in due course give up its seat on the United Nations Security Council: YouGov41% GB 22%
3. Don’t know: YouGov 10% GB 15%”
“A little here, a little there, what’s it called again, that thing the SDSR was touted as not being, yes, that’s it, salami slicing.”
Hold on, you can’t have it both ways by dear boy, it cannot be said that one major capability is being preserved at great cost to a series of others……….. and that it is all just another exercise in salami slicing by service chiefs too scared of making difficult and decisive choices.
That just doesn’t fly!
“WANT is not the same as NEED”
Too right!
What Britain NEEDS is a defence budget of £16b/year that can pay for:
1. 5 Brigades
2. 5 squadrons of fighter jets
3. 12 frigates and two LHD’s
Has this rant calmed the blood-pressure for another month or so?
Only helicopters, seagulls or other nations Harriers can land on the first CVF. So there is still some time before carrier strike returns to the RN, when the second CATOBAR carrier is launched. Problems with the F-35C will be either sorted by then or the plane will be cancelled, so that decision may resolve itself.
The question HMG has to decide is do we need a first day of attack aircraft to fill the flat top. Another (cheaper) airframe could do Combat Air Patrols (CAP). The F-35C at present is unable to do the buddy re-fuelling (ARR) mission, so there is another task for a different airframe. Then once enemy air defences have been destroyed, the non stealthy airframe can carry out attack missions.
Plan B Typhoon flying from carriers is a non starter.
Plan C Super Bug, FAA and RAF pilots already training on the type and at least one FAA pilot carrying out attack missions in Afghanistan. Its cheaper, can in the E/F versions do the CAP and the AAR and secondary attack missions.
Plan D Gripen NG unproven in the carrier landing role. But can do all the rest of the tasks and is questionably the cheapest airframe.
Plan E Rafale can do CAP secondary strike not sure if it can do AAR. The problem here is its French, and that makes a huge difference. Its in very slow rate production and its performance in foreign sales is nothing to write home about. The clout of the $ may have some bearing on that.
The risk free option would be F/A18 around 40 for the strike carrier would provide two active squadrons and a reserve to fill her on active service. Any savings from the F-35 could be used to purchase the E2 Hawkeye. Even if the F-35C is produced there is still a case for the F/A18, with a mixture of 24/12, 18/18 each depending on the mission. Mixing the aircraft fleet does have supply problems but as has been said before if there’s a glitch with one type at least we would have something else to play with.
If the F-35C is cancelled I can still see the F-35A being produced for the USAF and others. The RAF could jump on that programme if there is not a viable UAV for the deep strike mission by then. Its going to be an interesting next ten years with many questions answered.
So CVF yes, F-35 reserve judgement for now.
wow.
so its being proposed that the UK no longer have a power projection capability? that would mean that for Europe as a whole, the only forces able to project power would be France, Italy and Spain.
Sad.
And don’t think that out of area operations will be easy. Libya was a one off campaign…everything else is going to be out of range of a ’11,000′ foot runway.
yet i see many are being short sighted, still in a bash the RN mood and can’t see the writing on the wall…even a European minister said it (can’t remember who) but he made the case that Europe will soon reach a point where it can’t defend itself….
thinking like this will hasten that day. be careful gents. Europe is rapidly becoming irrelevant.
*WARNING: Can of worms. Do not open!*
Brave boss. Brave.
On a point of the finances, remember that the NAO did the numbers and concluded that;
“Cancel both carriers
Accept demise of shipbuilding industry
Maintain Tornado until 2025 then replace with JSF”
… would save £6.3bn.
Whether you agree with their “accept the demise of British ship building” statement is a matter for discussion, what with future tanker projects and the type 26 on the horizon.
Libya proved without a shadow of a doubt that carrier delivered strike would have been cheaper, cause less maintenence issues with the Typhoons (we had to stop training for a while to get the spares required to run the ones in Libya), and deliver more time on target due to being closer to the target. My favourite is of course that deploying from a warship is cheaper than from a 4 star hotel. Oh and HEAVEN forbid the toff’s get told they can’t drink, I mean what are we doing reducing them to the same level as the ladies and gents fighting out in Afghanistan.
Then there is the Falklands, MPA is a relatively easy target to be quite frank… As soon as that is gone, that single one WEAK POINT we can’t defend it. Not to mention all our territories in the S.Atlantic, Indian Ocean and West Indies that have no airfields capable of supporting fast jets. Then there is overbasing, the assumption we will always be able to get it is beyond foolish. If not we have to rely on a string of tankers that are easy targets and cost a huge amount of money.
Finally I draw your attention to Iran and places like the Straits of Hormuz and the Suez canal… As history has proven with the deployment of American CBG’s or in the Suez war maritime strike WILL function far better in these places. It is the only way to retain 24/7 deployment of forces in the area.
Jesus, people compare the carrier to the battleship and point out is now obsolete but in a world were people keep TRYING to find new ways to kill the carrier it can’t be obsolete… Unlike a battleship it has been deployed to every major event in the world since WW2 and often provides a huge base for the airpower for a campagin even if it is only initially deployed from the carrier and then operates from forward bases establish on land.
The writing is on the wall, every time in history we have tried to get rid of carriers we have regretted it. Everytime the RAF lobby has said “we can do without carrier strike” we have suffered avoidable loses, lost territory and had the RAF fail to deliver. From WW2 through to the Falklands through to now.
Anyone else having dejavu of CVA-01?
I see more logic in shutting down the majority of the Army; all those parts don’t support 3Cdo or belong to 16AAB or RAF ops. After 2015 don’t renew any contracts, sell the bases, bring the legions home, sell the bases for house building, sell the tanks for scrap. Yes much more logical…..
Over the last year or so I confess I have gone through a radical conversion. My true enemy isn’t the RAF with their splendid high tech’ planes and RADARs and stuff, but the Army with their tea addiction and their propensity for hole digging. It is they who steal funds for my beloved SSNs and T45s not CVF. Its true I tell you!!!!
:)
The blogger doth protest too much, methinks.
The cuts aleady planned and those almost certain to follow in SDSR 2015 mean that the chance any meaningful increase in the Defence Budget has evaporated and the aspiration of FF2020 will remain just that. The CVF will be built but I believe will turn out t be a white elephant and we will try to sell them off ASAP as they are too big to be simply helicopter carriers and the RAF will make a case in 2015 for a switch to the cheapest F-35, the A model, to ensure it gets its tornado replacement in sufficient numbers, aiming to bring them into service in 2025.
As for future power projection, well as quietly as possible this will shrink further and further, with Governments hoping that the public don’t really notice.
Remember in 98 we were planning to have 2 CVFs and over 100 F-35s to operate one at sea with 30+ F-35s plus AEW&C and ASW assets, and how that aspiration has been reduced.
This is simply another case of capability over capacity. Governments, Senior Civil Servants and high ranking military officers like to shout about what capabilities the UK has or will have, and they are very keen to avoid the number game, often saying this is irrelevant as how you use a capability if all that matters. The Tresury has cut the legs from out of the MoD, blaming it for the “Black Hole” in its budgets but IT was working on planning assumptions and equipment needs to meet these believing funding would be available. Yes the MoD has never really balanced iots budget but then again NO Governemtn departments have, yet most of them saw budget increases from 2000 onwards whereas the MoD’s stood still.
Prior to the SDSR in 2015 the NSC needs to properly redefine the UKs role and what it can do with existing assets rather than look to additional funding. Planning assumption need to be based on ZERO real growth in the Defence Budget up to 2025.
As far as CVF is concerned it needs to change it name to LPH(F) which is what it will be in reality.
TD obviously wants the comment count up this should help.
If Europe and north Africa is our limit of view then an armed forces scaled to the level of Norway should suffice.
@ X
Tea addiction is nothing to be sniffed at. Some users become so dependent on tea that they can’t even function in the morning without a nice cup of co-op fairtrade. We need to recognise tea addiction as the illness that it is, not a concious choice. I’m ill I tell you!! ;)
@ Anthony
Libya didn’t really prove anything. People always mention “French” sorties and sortie rates, without acknowledging the fact that a significant number of French sorties were launched from land bases.
Then we get to spares. The spares issue is a Typhoon issue, not an all land based aircraft issue. That would be like picking on an old Navy aircraft and saying “that particular aircraft had spares issues, thus all Naval aircraft are inherently unreliable”. Both are equally fallacious.
Although I will be interested to see how a technologically advanced aircraft like the F-35 copes with persistant operations from a Carrier deck. There seems to be an automatic assumption among many (when calculating sortie rates for example) that it will maintain a 100% availability rate.
Then the hotels and drinks issue. That’s again something specific to the RAF. With one government mandate you could put an end to all of that. But again it’s something specific to that group of people, not to land based aircraft as a whole. If the MOD simply enforces new accommodation arrangements for the RAF then it’s problem solved, a relatively easy thing to do with the required will.
As for earlier comments by others about “Power Projection” I love the notion that Power Projection and Aircraft Carriers are considered to be one and the same, and that the first can’t exist without the second.
Despite numerous examples to the contrary.
@ Chris B re tea
I have just gone and got myself a fresh one to calm my nerves……….
It’s a provocative thread, two options
:lobby for an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP so the UK is the main player in Europe and not a side show for France.
or
2) Cut Trident and use the money to:
build up to a force of 8-10 SSN and 6 SSK (German designed built under licence)
Order 6 Corvettes (aka what BAE are building for Oman)
50 Super Hornets for the Royal Navy,
The RAF can either go down the UAV route, fully multi role the typhoon, or have 30-40 F35 A
I would love to hear your definition of power projection then Chris!
If we’re talking about out of area operations then how are you going to accomplish that feat without air support? Of course you could drop in your Paratroopers, mount an amphibious landing (opposed or unopposed) but in order to act with a degree of success you will need air power.
Unless you have some type of carrier available then its a dream. You could get by with Harriers but the MOD (with a big push from the RAF) cancelled them in favor of the less accomplished Tornado aircraft (really criminal…it appears that certain officials were aware of certain truths but chose to ignore them)….are you going to depend on Helicopters to fill the void? The Apache is fabulous and I’ve even heard many on this board claim that the UK has the most advanced version of it…but will it provide the flexibility, time on station and rapid response that your infantry or mechanized forces might need? Doubtful if we’re being honest.
So Chris…please Sir, tell me how you arrive at power projection without some form of fast carrier aircraft in an out of area scenario?
PS.
I hope the guys and girls in the Falklands are learning to speak Spanish
Once again TD light blue touch paper and retires..
OKAAY…
Takes sip from whole cup of hot coffee.
Takes phone of hook.
Cracks Knuckles.
Places hands on keyboard
Here we go…
TD
You have expressed the view before that ‘Equipment is not a substitute for strategy’ I have always argued that CVF is the exception..
All the carrier junkies
No one has addressed TD’S central points.
The same arguments are trotted out
WASAWPYK. Check.
The nameless Isles. Check
Libya Check
(Will never understand that
one, we manifestly did it
without a carrier)
Keeping straights of Hormuz open Check
Prestige Check
Don’t think anyone has mentioned China or Suez yet:- But what the hell it’s early days, someone will.
OK I will rephrase the challenge: – Taken up in the big army case by others…
All carrier junkies real world time! Assuming a static (or declining as projected), real world defence budget. What gets cut further,(after MPA, T45/T26 numbers, MARS, etc etc); to pay for Nellie and Dumbo?
What brigades go, what RAF Units go, what RN capability get sacrificed on Ganesh’s alter?
In other words where does the cash come from
To Man these ships
Fuel them
Maintain them at high readyness, and crucially to put some planes on them, With fuel, With weapons, with Guard ships with more than 6 missiles between them….
Otherwise they are just willie waiving and we ain’t got no Viagra.
“As for earlier comments by others about “Power Projection” I love the notion that Power Projection and Aircraft Carriers are considered to be one and the same, and that the first can’t exist without the second.”
Then you need to read both halves of the statement:
1.
No, because under current plans it will leave the Forces unable to engage in power-projection, of a sovereign and strategic nature, sufficient to achieve the political ambitions of our the government………………….
and
2.
….unless we plan to bulk the army back up to 9 brigades, so that we can keep a short division in the field, and have sufficient confidence that the British public will allows its use!
TD, i think your “Libya proved the carriers are not indispensable” is a statement ringing true only in your mind.
It kind of proved the opposite.
In order of effectiveness, the Libya air campaign saw:
Danish Air force – strike mostly on fixed targets suc as bunkers, for a while was the only country with bunker-buster bombs available. Over a bomb dropped per each mission flown. Based 30 minutes away from targets, in Sigonella. The heavy focus on unmoving targets though is significant: far less risk of mission being called off. Still, a formidable performance.
Franch helicopters, ship-based, close to the target. Flew 4% of sorties but hit more than 10% of the targets.
French airplanes from Charles De Gaulle, 15 minutes away from targets. CdG was available only for 120 days though, since it had just returned from months in the Indian Ocean flying Rafales over Afghanistan alongsize a US Navy carrier. Until she was present, she represented alone nearly 50% of the airpower deployed daily over Libya. To try and replace her and wha she offered, France deployed attack jets in Sigonella, the nearest land base, where previously only recce airplaned had been sent. A case? No.
The Briish Apache themselves, the closest thing to carrier aviation that the UK had in the area hit over 100 targets in an handful of missions.
The RAF flew thousands of strike sorties, most of which ended in no targets being hit because they were already gone by the time the airplanes arrived.
France, US, Italy and the RAF itself have taken the carrier lessson, thankfully. Your opinion on the matter, luckily, means very little.
“As for earlier comments by others about “Power Projection” I love the notion that Power Projection and Aircraft Carriers are considered to be one and the same, and that the first can’t exist without the second.”
For countries like Russia, America, India and other nations that are land locked and/or have large land borders you are correct. Yet the fact remains far too many ignore the simply to honest truth that we are a small Island. Our main resources and strategic points of interest are thousands of miles away and no land based aircraft can provide on station support 24/7. Some of my statements above might be harsh but you still haven’t replied to the basic facts.
1) Carriers have been heavily utilised by numerous countries in all major operations across the globe. Carrier based airpower often makes up 50% of the airpower used and more often than not more than 50% of that airpower.
2) To project power Britain must be able to deploy assets across oceans/seas and other countries. Without pulling our waning diplomatic strings and without being relient on other countries good will the only way we can do that is either maritime strike OR tanker based aircraft.
3) Tanker based aircraft are more expensive than carrier based aircraft because of the simple logistics of a ship being the most cost effective method to transport large amounts of anything to a given area across long distances (hence why most trade is still sea born and not air born).
4) While land based aircraft for land locked countries might be able to avoid the wear and tear of sea deployment in a corossive atmosphere ours WILL NOT. In major operations they will have to fly over the sea, fight around the coast and be subject to an element of that exposure… Land based aircraft aren’t designed for it… I find that section of your argument weak.
Britain is an Island, with oversea dependencies, that relies on oversea trade. That trade comes through several choke points which are NO WHERE NEAR a soverign landbase. Additionally the majority of our oversea territories have few landbases and little infrastructure to support a switch the “Island hopping” strategy that the RAF would seek to use. Preparing them for that would involve not insignificant investment. As a final note as I have mentioned above. This was tried before the start of WW2, before the start of the Falklands… On both occassions we had serious cause to rue the day we allowed the RAF to push the government to remove carrier strike. What are we dumb? Do people in Britain like being burnt? Do we like stiking our hand in the fire time and time again and claiming each time “NO it’s changed now”.
A lot of warfare has changed, the requirement to be able to provide airpower over any theatre has only got stronger… The RAF cannot deploy airpower over a theatre at short notice anywhere in the world. Libya actually proved that with stupidly long flight times that would have been useless if the Libyans had an airforce to speak of. Would have been down to France/America/Italy/Spain had that happened.
Typhoon spares issues are because the raf is using the planes more than our European friend and the spares contracts signed by the 4 partners can’t cope. Its compounded by the mod accounting which penalises raf for holds to many spares read any uk a/c outside c17. The single biggest advantage of f35 in service would be a truly global support and spares system which the yanks do very very well and we can buy into much like c17.
We didn’t do Libya though did we? Without the US providing all the force multipliers there wouldn’t have been much of a campaign. The French and the Italians had their carriers in play. As for the RAF they said moving that 8000k of stores across Europe wasn’t an exercise that needed repeating. And that Typhoon is resourced starved; doesn’t matter how good the lads in the cockpit or the spanner twirlers are at their jobs if the platform doesn’t have the necessary systems in sufficient numbers.
@ rec – “lobby for an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP so the UK is the main player in Europe and not a side show for France.”
To achieve what? We know what the SDSR needed to make it more than merely an aspiration, and we know what Fox wangled out of the Treasury in July. Is this not enough?
@ Lord Jim – “The cuts aleady planned and those almost certain to follow in SDSR 2015 mean that the chance any meaningful increase in the Defence Budget has evaporated and the aspiration of FF2020 will remain just that.”
Cuts in capability, or cuts in budget? Two very different things. The former I can well believe, the latter……… have we heard anything to indicate the 1% real terms increase won’t happen?
@ AAC – “the furcoat & knickers show will be very exposed at the whole European level when she will go into her prolonged refuelling period”
This! What brings greater value to HMG when configuring forces to meet coalition operations?
@ Anthony – “Then there is the Falklands, MPA is a relatively easy target to be quite frank… As soon as that is gone, that single one WEAK POINT we can’t defend it.”
While it is much better to win the fight by not fighting than having to fight to regain the islands, it is nevertheless true that all this pre-planning for graduated response is backed up by the ultimate insurance policy; we can always take it back off of them.
This capability to take back the Falklands is also highly complimentary with Britain’s desire to maintain rapid/limited intervention forces, so it is dual-use and not therefore as ‘expensive’ as might be imagined.
@ X – “The blogger doth protest too much, methinks.”
Forgive me an anti-rant rant. ;)
Ixion
I’d remove trident and it’s replacement and the personnel level in the army reduce further. Crew from illustrious and ocean provide sufficient numbers to run the high readiness carrier. We need refueling ships regardless and will be bought. We have sufficient ships to provide protection to a carrier for any uk only action. Coalition frigate nations can provide escorts for coalition operations avoiding over stretch on frigate fleet same for tanker assets.
Que moving into the service bickering and what we think future operations will be we’re they’ll be what we’ll contribute and our place in the world same story so when a further 100+ posts are posted on this thread that should sum it up for those who don’t want to read anymore.
Worms, can of, mk1, for the use of
Ha ha, its time to spin the wheel and I might be uncharacteristically belligerent in my responses, PLEASE don’t take it personally, I fancy a good virtual row :)
In order…
@Rupert, the capital costs are significant but pale into insignificance against the through life costs and whilst the majority of costs may well or may well not be in the air group the costs of maintaining 600 sailors at sea, RFA and protective assets are not cheap either.
@Fluffy, nice one, had to go and look it up but as a riposte; QTWTAIY
@DomJ, where did I say I would cancel CVF/JCA in order to retain 2 infantry battalions? Can I ask you how many carriers and maritime enabled fast jets we deployed to Libya, in nice round numbers? The answer to that question answers whether we can do without them or not.
@RW, cost of cancelling is a big fat smokescreen that is used as an excuse by those with vested interests and even if it is the case, which it is not, look at the through life costs. If we can’t afford to abandon CVF/JCA then what can we afford to abandon to pay for it, if those NATO partners are not going to be joining in our overseas ‘wog slapping’ what does that make CVF, it’s called a fur coat, are they suddenly going to start providing other assets, those assets that we won’t have?
@ACC, is it hyperbole, look at numbers of originally planned T45, RFA’s and Astutes etc and now look at what we have or will have. Type 26, we will be lucky to get 8.
@Repulse, its not about a fair balance of funding, nothing whatsoever and I am not going to get into arguments about the RN being hard done to because 1, I don’t believe its true and 2, its irrelevant. If our defence needs are met by 300 frigates and 2 dozen soldiers then fair enough, its not about equitable spilts of the funding pie its about what is needed.
@Tubby, I agree with a lot of what you say but why is it too late to switch back to F35B, apart from looking like world class bellends, aren’t we man enough?
@jedi, sorry mate, you sound like a management consultant straight from a ‘Defending the SDSR’ seminar Again, where did I say we needed 9 brigades, capability against need is derived not from simple literal thinking like that. The US don’t have specialisations, they just have a lot of everything but what they do provide to Europe is a broad range of enabling capabilities that we simply don’t have because Europe is intent on having parade ground capabilities that support defence industries not ever to be used in the real world. Seriously, do you expect me to take anything that Mr Beedal writes as proof of the ‘need’ for carriers and fast jets, you will be suggesting I gen up on what the PTT and Sharkey spout next. As for the Prof of the Netherlands, another academic who sees no value in real capabilities beyond the shiny prestige items and simply has no concept on the effectiveness of a fighting force beyond how many ships there are on his battleships table. No need to quote defence planning assumptions at me, I know them already but if you think that they will pay for CVF/JCA without resultant cuts in welfare, training, logistics and enabling capabilities across the whole of defence you are wrong, simply wrong.
@Jim, bit of nail and head interface going on there but why does CAS have to be delivered by a fast jet launched from a carrier? Risk free may well be F18 but we will it it actually save us anything substantial?
@Sol, no, where did I say we should give up at take all our toys home, I didn’t. you are conflating power projection with maritime fast jet aviation, two entirely different concepts. I do believe we are projecting power right now in Afghanistan, did so in Iraq, the Balkans and numerous other places with either no carrier fast aviation or minimal. There is more to projecting power that one capability or the other, there is more than one way to drop a warhead or have a look at something. Spain and Italy are both about to enter a spiral of currency disasters so they won’t be projecting anything any time soon. Why do you think I am bashing the RN when I have just suggested cutting JCA, the majority of which will be owned and operated by the RAF, take your blinkers off. Europe can more than defend itself; it possesses forces of an infinitely greater magnitude to defend itself than it needs. If you mean joining in ventures with the US of dubious strategic importance then you might have a point but whilst the US is looking to the Pacific many in Europe are saying, so long and thanks, I might not agree with them but the move to the Pacific cuts both ways. Harrier more accomplished than Tornado, surely you mean the other way around.
@Chris.B, fun isn’t it. I don’t think I said replace Tornado with JSF because I would cancel JSF so my savings are much more, the NAO also had a very selective range of options.
@Anthony, welcome to Think Defence, have you been lurking long? To some of your issues, Libya proved that we could do without carrier strike delivered by fast jets for the simple reason that CdG wasn’t there for the whole party and we didn’t turn up with ours because we had just sold it to the USMC, therefore, I do believe the strategic objective was delivered without. The 4 star hotel comment is a cheap shot, utter bollocks (sorry), the kind of blinkered service sniping/rivalry that I hold ZERO truck with and hold responsible for so much of the shit state we find ourselves in. The Falklands is an interesting issue and one debated many times here, my general perspective is that we would be better off concentrating on diplomacy backed up with a sensible defence capability against likely threats, not some glorious retaking of the islands at an enormous cost in money and life because we had fell asleep on the job of defence. Straits of Hormuz, let me put it this way, we are not as vulnerable as many think, the principle victims of a closing will be in this order, Iran, China, India. I never said the carrier is obsolete, or wanted to get rid for ideological or service centric views, just we either a) can’t afford it in the real world or b) can deliver much greater effect closer coupled to our needs in other ways. Can you clarify avoidable losses since WWII because the RAF persuaded us to do without carrier strike and also tell me what that has to do with tomorrow? Why can a sea based fast jet provide 24/7 coverage but a land based on cannot, test that assumption on an operation in Zimbabwe 9as an example, not a likelihood. If you want to get into stat wars about the percentage of carrier delivered fast air then you will find many on here to indulge you. I think your argument about the sea being the cheapest way to transport any given asset is too simplistic, a 60k tonne container ship has a crew of 30, what is CVF’s basic crew? As for overseas territories, come on, be serious. A load of kiddie fiddler in the Pitcairns, millionaires in Bermuda or Falkland Islanders who just happen to have 4 of the finest aircraft in the world, likely an SSN, a couple of patrol vessels and about a thousand or so personnel defending them. Your assertion that the RAF cannot deploy anywhere is interesting in two parts because firstly, real operations would tend to consign that comment to the round filing cabinet and secondly it assumes that the RN can. I think you need to divorce reality and aspiration.
@x, you are seeing it through a service centric lens, stop seeing winners and losers like it matters, it does not matter in the slightest
@Lord Jim, wasn’t the original number of JCA planned to be 150 and Typhoon 232?
@Mark, did I say I wanted us to limit our world view and it has nothing to do with comment count, that’s not why I put the effort I do into TD. Maybe Norway has the smart idea because I do believe in many ways the Nordics have a better standard of almost everything than we do, still, they don’t worry about their place in the world do they?
@rec, its not just about equipment.
@Gabby, yes mate, you have had many a good discussion here but you always tend to go off on tangents to try and prove an increasingly tenuous point concentrating on stats and technology like conflating sortie rates with effect but flying at 50,000 feet over the real issues. You are more than welcome to carry on though, go on, you know you want to :)
@ALL
We all concentrate on equipment, understandably, but please, if there is one thing I have tried to achieve with Think Defence it is to try and show how people, welfare, training, intelligent purchasing, logistics, spares, enabling capabilities, cohesion, commitment, coherence, containers and mexeflotes are what make a difference, not sortie rates, equal shares of the pie or what colour uniform you wear.
PS
Sorry if I upset anyone, all good natured, don’t mean to offend.
PPS
If we can avoid quoting comments it keeps things easier to read
PPPS
FIIIIIIIIGGGGGHHHHHTTTTTT
@jedibeeftrix – It depends if you see defence as part of politics in order to have a say in European forgein policy, we have to bring something to the table. A table where France and Germany dominate for historical and economic reasons.
CVF is a big ticket item, we can make it cheaper by buying a less costly aircraft, at least initially and the F18 is agood route to go down.
Power Projection – is a consequence of having freedom to move around the oceans. Aircraft carriers are the main means to provide air cover for martime forces. We have a choice either we go down route 1 and have captital ships (Aircraft Carriers) to provide the main means of defending forces at sea, or we go down the route of denying others the means to achieve that (ie submarines and mines). Historically (WW1 and WW2) we went down route 1 with large capital ships, and Germany went down route 2.
I think if the defence budget cannot politically be increased then it is a straight choice between Trident replacement or CVF (+ additional submarines, as outlined in my previous post.)
Mark
Good!
At least you feeding your addiction in the real world.
It is not an inter service point though the RN has sold off it’s bears and tigers to afford the elephants. It still has not budgeted for hay, and peanuts thought..
Come one everyone else.. If we NEED the carriers and their aircraft; what goes in order to pay for them?
TD I take as I was not included in you round up we agree…
I guess that most of the points have been argued to death. I have only a couple.
1. If we cancel our 2 whilst the Indians, Brazilians, Chinese etc all acquire them then we have to accept our position in terms of hard influence.
2. Once we have them, we have them, T23 originally did not have an ops room, it will by the end of its service life, have the best ASW sonar in the world 2087, the best ASW helo in the world, DNA2(world class command system) Artian a world class radar and CAAMS giving it an engagement range of 19NM.
The carriers in 2017 or 2020 may be scoffed at, what aircraft, CIWS, AEW etc but once we have those hoofing big hulls, we have them, we may not need them till 2035 by which point we may be able to put 100 UCAVs on board along with fixed wing AEW and tilt rotor assualt craft and bloody ballons for all I know. The point is that if you do not have the hulls then none of that is possible.
IXION
I believe that was costed in the SDSR. Both TD and yourself are making a case based on an assumption that further cuts tahn those detailed in the SDSR are inevitable and will be caused by the Carriers.
Ixion, yes, I think your post must have come in between me writing. The point is that CVF as constituted is a very expensive, distorting exercise in prestige that in reality will be no where near as capable as the theorists and equipment junkies would have you believe because it will not be surrounded by the things that ‘make it so’
Hard to disagree with that, despite Prof Lindley blithely saying we can buy some more Asutes, just like that, all whilst paying for CVF and JCA.
Apats, on your point 1, would that be a bad thing, we are already behind them in GDP terms and that is what delivers real power, not paper tigers that Brazilian, Indian and Chinese planners know full well they will be. If our only lever is hard power delivered by CVF then that is to admit the reality of national decline so we might as well just rip the plaster off and get it over with. On your second point, actually that is a good point and if there was any point that would convince me it is that. but are they physically capable of being as multi purpose as you say. As I keep saying though, there is more than one way to deliver influence, influence is all we have, we cannot coerce by force anyone but the meagerist of enemies on our own.
I wonder if the SDSR costed them based on the reality of defence inflation across every other capability or with a narrow focus in order to pre judge the outcome. Come on APATS, you know how these things work
Is it time to cancel CVF?
Not quite. HM Betty needs a new boat and the other one can be sold to the French. Then build a strategic bomber/tanker/mpa platform.
@ admin – “Sorry if I upset anyone, all good natured, don’t mean to offend.”
None taken.
@ rec – “it is a straight choice between Trident replacement or CVF (+ additional submarines, as outlined in my previous post.)”
If that 1% real terms increase cannot cover both (taking post aghan army plans into consideration) then I agree, and would take subs.
@ admin – “Apats, on your point 1, would that be a bad thing, we are already behind them in GDP terms and that is what delivers real power, not paper tigers that Brazilian, Indian and Chinese planners know full well they will be.”
Not for long, and only because of the massive sterling devaluation in 2008. All the projections show Britain significantly outgrowing france in the decades ahead:
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/britain-in-the-world-%E2%80%93-a-long-slide-into-oblivion/
Even a post-Scottish Britain would remain neck and neck with France!
TD said “ou are seeing it through a service centric lens, stop seeing winners and losers like it matters, it does not matter in the slightest”
Rubbish.
td
but what if our allies *do* want to join us in ‘wog slapping’
the uk, germany, poland and the scandies decide to invade south africa and reimplement white rule.
How?
‘Someone’ has to kick the doors in and take a port facility.
Who?
If not the uk, who?
Your arguement is flat out wrong.
The uk cant act alone on a large scale, we need allies, but those allies CAN NOT provide day 1 strike and forced entry* and never will be able to.
*Forced entry meaning sutton not overlord.
We can have 90 divisions but germany is never going to have the ability to force entry 8000 miles away.
“We have a choice either we go down route 1 and have captital ships (Aircraft Carriers) to provide the main means of defending forces at sea, or we go down the route of denying others the means to achieve that (ie submarines and mines). Historically (WW1 and WW2) we went down route 1 with large capital ships, and Germany went down route 2.”
The Uk interest is in keeping sealanes open.
Its likely problem is to face area-denial and chokepoint routes closures.
A “sea denial” strategy for the Uk with lots of subs does not make much sense.
“Come one everyone else.. If we NEED the carriers and their aircraft; what goes in order to pay for them?”
Like in the US, Army numbers. But this question is more rhetoric than solid. The MOD has been given the promise of a 1% real term increase in equipment budget and is planning according to that. They are well aware that if that fails to materialize things won’t work. Further adjustements will be needed as well.
But making that question now has little meaning as we don’t know if and how much effectively overbudget things go. The first big lever to work on to regulate costs is not the ship but the order for the airplanes. The Carrier Strike integrated project also includes MARS and other assets, on which delays and cancellations would fall to cover additional budget problems, as stated by the Navy.
Ultimately, if huge cuts come, new big changes are unavoidable, but at the moment, the problem is not yet there.
CVF’s costs left to pay are perhaps 3 billion by 2020. F35C costs are meaningless until the orders are made.
You know what tops the spending list and causes overstretch at this moment, and what did for the last decade (iraq war aside, and people here undervalues this factor a lot)?
Typhoon 20 billions + 13 billions cost of running it
FSTA 12+ billions.
There is no way around this reality. It is not CVF that sunk the budget.
The MOD is planning on the basis of the budgets it has been promised to get.
You are asking for the MOD to ignore the strategy selected for the country, ignore the budget assumptions, and plan for underspend on the “certainty” of further cuts incoming.
Get a grip on the reins. I’d dare hoping that “cut the defence budget” is not yet entirely an endless loop in the government’s software.
*trident replacement doesnt cost 100bn
thats the total cost of nuclear deterant over 25 years, including inflation and the cost of various nuclear clean up from every military nuclear system we ever built!
I’m sorry TD but your comments that carrier strike wasn’t there constantly for the Libya campaign could also be said to be devoid of reality…
CdG wasn’t on station the whole time true. However Italy also deployed Giuseppe Garibaldi with Harrier on board as well as the US deployed USS Bataan with Harrier and Cobra on board. The HMS Ocean was deployed with Apache because RAF jets kept having failed strike issues due to the length of time to respond to target calls. Unless I’m much mistaken a US carrier was also in the area and it provided an element of it’s airgroup for tasking as required.
The cost of RAF operations is not utter bollocks. Your right that I took a simplistic view of the cost to deploy an RN CBG but peoples opinion that the RAF can provide a cheaper alternative is also utter bollocks. The fact is that the RAF were put up in hotel at extra cost to their usual wages. Thats before we consider the HUGE cost of tanking large amounts of anything. Please bear in mind that against a credible opponent who would be a threat to carriers and require the deployment of heavy escorts it is likely that our tankers would be at threat and require constant protection resulting in yet more cost.
As for Iran being a victim of closing the straits that is also simplistic, current tension in that area is because they are instegating a threat to DO exactly that which is far from being the victim of closing them. While it is less likely that Britain would be targeted individually there is no reason that the upcoming Asian powers could have a fall out with us and close the straits to a number of NATO shipping. In this event the US would of course help resolve the issue but she is showing signs of getting tired of looking after Europe.
With regards the RAF being unable to provide 24/7 coverage that is because we have no soverign airbases that are close enough to allow that with regards to the Straits of the Suez Canal. Not to mention other areas. A carrier can position itself a couple of hundred miles off and provide direct presence in the area regardless of what another country might refuse the RAF with regards to diplomatic rights to base in a foreign country.
Quite frankly I do think our air power issue needs to be resolved and merging all airpower into a single service would be the way to go. If that was to then be called the RAF I don’t give a hoot. HOWEVER, in terms of versitility, ability to deploy anywhere in the world, ability to support Amphibious operations independently, ability to act independently and ability to provide a large and meaningful airgroup of 24+ strike aircraft along with ASW assets and AEW/ISTAR assets you need a carrier if you are the UK.
Equally a carrier/amphibious focused strategy would fit current foreign policy better as it is able to react with independence but also in collaboration with other countries. It is able to form a contained battlegroup that can see through an operation to the end. It is able to go anywhere, deploy anywhere and fight anywhere.
I *AM* keenly aware that we have a budget, however equipment is not one of the major issues of that failing budget. Continual political pandering and delays cost as much as an actual issue with the equipment itself. In the end the Type 45 cost as much to buy 6 as it would have to buy 12 if we had not delayed build time, changed spec due to political demands and generally faffed around. The carriers are another example of this… had the RAF and RN pushed together in a unified manner with a clear political agenda then they would not have been so expensive and we wouldn’t have this issue. Typhoon is yet another example.
We have a large budget, larger than other nations that are now looking to have more versatile and well rounded forces than we are… simply because the political will isn’t so diverged.
We cannot afford to not have carrier strike. Just like we cannot afford not to have long range ISTAR, a good long range MPA and a healthy tanker/heavy transport air fleet. However we can afford that on our current budget if we are sensible.
No. The sunk costs are as they say sunk; no amount of Tough Cuts! will get back the money spent in the unnecessarily long design and ramp-up phase. What matters is the capability you get for the remaining costs. Isn’t the estimate for the second ship actually under £1bn now? One of the under-reported bits of the story is how well the actual shipbuilding has gone. The USN blogs are full of people wondering why the CVN21 effort is costing so much for steelworking.
Whether we use them for strike, sea control, LPH, persistent ISTAR with either manned or unmanned airframes, you bet we’ll use them. To be honest, gambling that “something” will turn up to obviate the need for CAS is powerpoint thinking, and gambling that “son of taranis” will be so awesome that *it won’t need a forward operating base*?
Regarding ISTAR, if we can’t have MRA4, that doesn’t imply we have less need of a platform at sea for shorter-legged aircraft.
the statement below is from a European defense minister…
“Norway’s Minister of Defense, Espen Barth Eide warned in a recent speech at the Europhile think tank CSIS that “Article 5 is not in such a good shape. . . I’m not talking about political will, but the actual ability to deliver if something happens in the trans-Atlantic theater of a more classical type of aggression.”
that’s from a European. not an American but from someone inside the club house.
i marvel at how an island nation can suddenly adopt German type thinking when it comes to its sea services! you need an effective Navy and the Royal Air Force cannot make up for the lack of one.
TD…sorry ole boy but if bridging material and connex boxes must be binned in order to get a carrier and an effective modern fighter on it then so be it. it would have been more effective for your forces if the B model had been retained (you could surge RAF aircraft onto it in times of emergency as was done during Falklands 1) and it would allow for easier integration of helicopter operations but that decision has been made…what cannot be underestimated is the need for a stealth airplane. the Russians, India, China, Australia, Japan and the US are heading that way with several other nations soon too follow. experts in the US are already stating that even over medium threats stealth will be required to survive. so no, the F-18 won’t do in the 2020 time frame and if the current trend with the Typhoon and Rafale continue then they won’t be competitive either (talking about the upgrade paths for both planes)….sorry boys but the writing is on the wall.
invest in the one social service that will guarantee the others…your nations defense!
TD Thank you for admitting that I might ACTUALLY have made a valid point. Ref planning and costing assumptions, if one took your view then one would order nothing as we would be constantly wandering what we would have to cancel to complete it. It is a circular argument.
You would hope that the government would wise up and realise that there is a breaking point and that it probably isn’t too far away. Maybe then they might actually make some real ‘difficult decisions’ like cancelling foreign aid and renegotiating EU contributions which would benefit the entire country.
However, as that seems unlikely to happen we have to look at what further may have to go.
That’s difficult. FRES is probably top of my pile followed by Voyager.
I’d look initially at prolonging the life of both the current CVR(T)s and our existing AA refuelling assets with the long term goal of updating the CVR(T) and possibly replacing the tristars etc with refurbished stratotankers for commonality with the rivet joints.
I’d put off buying the A-400m and squeeze more life out of the Hercs. I’d also look at possibly lowering the total order and examine the Kawasaki C-2 for light lift/transport roles if it indeed turns out cheaper. Japan has been increasingly probing for customers regarding non-offensive military equipment.
I’m not a massive fan of the F-35. It has it’s uses as I have said as the ‘tip of a spear’. My issue is that given 10 years someone will work out how to spot them and you then essentially have £100 million of design compromises that can fly a bit. With both Russia and China in on the game this is a real possibility.
Instead, I would buy an absolute maximum of fifty and in future invest in cheaper, simpler single role strike and counter-insurgency aircraft accompanied by cheaper munitions to drop off them.
The RAF should receive the full compliment of typhoons which would be the backbone of the fighter fleet for the foreseeable future.
This is a long and complicated thing and I could go on all day about what I would and wouldn’t do so I’ll end it here.
Lastly, I wouldn’t scrap any further current equipment but I would consider mothballing anything not currently in use in Afghanistan.
APATS
Re your point 2
It is a valid one but.
It’s the old spaghetti argument..
If all you had was Spaghetti, You could with enough spaghetti stop a tank division. Does not mean building more spaghetti factories is a cost effective defence move.
If all we have is CVF every time we use it you can’t point to it and say “look we junkies are vindicated”. IF Something cheaper and just as flexible, etc could do the job better.
He just had to throw the CVF grenade again!
With the US taking it’s eyes off Europe, we will be less able to rely on the USN to back us up on projects of a particularly European interest. Bringing both carriers into service is the right thing to do.
F35, well that is not so essential. Good to have, but if we can’t afford it, not the end of the world. A cheaper option would put some limitations on what it could do, but it would still be a worthwhile capability to keep for most scenarios; and most of the higher threat scenarios would likely be following the USN anyway.
If it was a straight budget choice between cutting SSBN or CVF, then I would prefer to scrap the nuclear penis rather than the carrier penis. Carriers are likely to get more use than our nukes over the long-term; we should put them up for decommission in a bilateral dissarmament discussion with one of our nuclear adversaries – if we can actually identify one.
Scrap nukes, scrap F35, and reduce the land based fighter fleet to basic QRA, and by the time we operate the carriers we might actually have some cash for proper carrier borne AWACs, long-range land-based maritime patrol, and a long-range carrier strike UAV, like a fully developed X47b.
IXION, today is Jan 18 2012, what could we do today to obtain something cheaper that will give more felxibility over the next 50 years?
Sol, the containers thing was a joke but I agree about the B variant, always thought it was what both the RN and RAF didn’t want and therefore the natural choice!!
I am not denying the effectiveness, usefulness or all round cleverness of maritime fast jet aviation, or even the potential for future maritime UCAV’s etc, I don’t find myself in an ideological dead end.
So, for me CVF/JCA comes down to two very simple arguments
1.
Can we deliver a more relevant and effective match for likely needs for the same (or smaller, because it will be smaller) pot of cash with other spending on kit, welfare, training, logistics, maintenance etc etc
2.
Is it worth spending the money knowing what impact it will have on other areas of balanced capabilities.
These are the essential arguments, not tactical, not operational, not even strategic, cash.
A mean, stingy, small minded, know the cost of everything but the value of nothing type approach maybe.
But equally maybe, this is our reality, better to recognise it early
APATS, another good point, but the shopping list is long, as per the Future of series of posts and of course, a nip down to the container shop :)
The rumour I’ve hard floating about is that a certain high-level civil servant added up the numbers post-Lybia and figured out it would have been cheaper to bring the Ark Royal and the Harriers back into service then it was to base RAF assets in Italy.
I can’t verify that, but if true, this argument that “we can base with allies so carriers are an unnecessary expense” seems rather shaky.
The bigger question should be, given the extensive problems with F35 and the fact that we won’t be getting any until at least next decade (at the earliest) AND the near certainty that the price will continue to spiral…why the heck are we buying them?
If we can manage deep strike in dangerous environments with UAV’s at far lower cost and risk to service personal, why not focus on developing these assets rather then extremely expensive all-singing all-dancing stealth fighter bombers?
@TD. Sorry couldn’t resist the fairer budget comment as I knew it would get people going.
The fact remains though that the F35 is a nice to have and is not essential. Other options exist especially in the longer term. Also with the decommissioning of Illustrious and Ocean, the crew will be there to man an active CVF. If needed, I would can the Albion class first than the CVFs.
Steve D After Libya the Chief of the Air Staff submitted a FOI request wanting to know how many maritime platforms operated aircraft, what types, how many hours and missions flown, ordanance dropped and targets hit. That was sometime ago, from his silence I guess the answers did not suit him.
td
1. At this point, no, even going back to b is probably not cost effective.
Our most cost effective outcome is a giant carrier with only 40 aircraft ‘all in’
2.yes, the lesson is not carriers = bad, its big = bad.
We’d be much better off if, 20 years ago, someone had come up with todays size force, instead of every service holding every project long past sanity.
What would the army have lost if it went down to 80k men in 92? what would it have gained? thats what, 800,000 man years of wages and training costs saved.
Your looking at a billion a year.
The jaguar was perhaps the wrong cut in 97, but had it gone in 92, and no one played silly buggers ordering 250 typhoons, where would we be today?
And yes, even the navy is guilty of the same, fighting for every last escort as if it were jutland.
But i say again.
If the uk doesnt provide forced entry, who does?
@TD Yes our future posts are interesting but as i said it is Jan 2012 and to quote you earlier this time ref procurement, “Come on TD, you know how these things work”
Chief of the Air Staff having to resort to an FOI request to get information, seriously
And people wonder why we have such a dysfunctional defence management.
The CVF/JCA project will be consuming funds for decades to come so if we turned the tap off now there would be cash, in varying quantities depending on the outflow profile, for all manner of things, not all of which have long lead times.
let us not forget, that this is from the blogger who wanted to ban all talk of a big RAF cull on this blog ;)
CVF will happen, so much so this government are now constantly calling it the centrepiece of the UK future defence planning and they are cutting the army to bits to allow funding for it.
The public simply won’t accept another sand war any time in the near future. The government have now decided on a small army/high tec air force/navy combination. They rather liked Libya, and despite protestations that Libya somehow proved we didn’t need a carrier i’d suggest those with hold of the purse strings found out rather differently.
Shock horror, i’m with Solomon on this one.
“Libya yet again, as all recent operations, sowed there is a general shortage in NATO of enabling assets, logistics, ISTAR and communications, not fast jets.”
++
“Royal Air Force has sacrificed the utility of Typhoon and a whole host of those short supply enabling assets to pay for the jam tomorrow promise of the F35.”
Either we have enough fast jets of the types needed, or we haven’t. The second statement seems to indicate, that we haven’t.
If I remember correctly, you were on a constant war path defending the cancellation of the Harrier fleet instead of a FRACTION of the Tornado fleet or a low number of Typhoons. We had enough ISTAR in Libya, but only the French were capable of engaging targets of opportunity. No amount of air tankers can change this. It’s simple physics that an aircraft closer to target will always be quicker and will not need a tanker aircraft. Harrier would have delivered this, but it’s gone.
If we really want to save money NOW, we have to scrap Typhoon T3. An aircraft, which has been DESIGNED WITHOUT UTILITY and has simply no compelling business case up to date (or did we have any large A2A-battles in recent ops?). A brand new plane, requiring capability upgrades when it just comes into service. Why is that the CVF/F-35-combos fault?
Btw, CVF ***IS*** a logistics asset. It’s additionally a cross-service asset, as such a rare item.
@IXION
“Come one everyone else.. If we NEED the carriers and their aircraft; what goes in order to pay for them?”
As we only talk about the item NOW in procurement:
- Typhoon T3
- FSTA, instead more A400M
“If all we have is CVF every time we use it you can’t point to it and say “look we junkies are vindicated”. IF Something cheaper and just as flexible, etc could do the job better.”
Then show something cheaper. Where is it?
107 Typhoon + 13 FSTA = £46b.
2 CVF + 80 JCA = £12b
2 CVF + 160 JCA + 10 additional A400M = £24b
If we discount cost sunk, the numbers are even worse. Not to mention flexibility, which is completely lacking in our current equipment-range of one-trick ponies.
In all these cost arguments of carrier v land bases the thing that amuses me the most is most people miss the obvious fact that operations are paid for from one budget and core capabilities entirely a different one so in may respects, the difference between the two, from a budget planning perspective, matters NOT ONE JOT
Hotel bills and resurfacing runways might seem expensive but two things are important to note, the first is that this happens infrequently, the second is that carriers have to be paid for whether they are on operations or not.
Simplistic I know, maybe even bordering on silly season, but its reality nonetheless
@TD It was submitted immediately after the OP finished, when the people running the OP who could possibly provide the info had been working flat out for 4 months plus. It wanted very specific info that would not normally have been grouped together in one document. well especially immediately after an op, maybe in 6 months time. it also gave a very short window and bear in mind it wanted NATO info from all NATO nations including French and US assets that operated under National OPCON. Involving significant mapower and hours to gather from multiple sources.
Perhaps FOI is a misleading term it was the military equivelant.
So if thats the case then APATS, what a fucking tool for asking for information that he would have eventually seen and information that would have meant people who had been working flat out would have had to work that little bit harder immediately after an operation.
Its still piss poor either way isnt it
@TD Yes trust me it was appreciated, not!
Want to add something: the Danes with a smaller number of nearly obsolete multirole aircraft managed to drop more ordnance in Libya than we did, according to NATO numbers.
If ‘balance’ is a buzzword describing the absence of true multirole assets like the F-35 in HM armed forces, then no thanks.
My 2cts stirring in the can of worms ….
I agree with Tubby that several years ago it would have been better if the UK had ordered two or three Cavour-like CVS instead of CVF and had gone for F35B or even a third iteration of the Sea Harrier design. But that’s dreaming. CVF it is, with F35C. I remember reading a quote somewhere (Navy-Matters? Gabriele’s site?) from a US Navy admiral how delighted he was that the Royal Navy in the near future was going to join the US Navy launching alpha-strikes from carriers (and a proud UK admiral confirming it). The UK as a mini USA : how ambitious!
Should we cancel CVF and JCA?
CVF is being build. I doubt that stopping it now will save money. By the time the UK is ready to compensate UK shipbuilding industry for the cancellation by ordering other ships (Type26, MHPC, MARS, …) QE will have been launched and PoW will be in an advanced state. So, you better complete them and accept them. Once you have them you have several options: sell them, do not use them, use them as large LPH, or as will porbably happen, use them as a multi-purpose aviation enabling platforms with a very reduced fighter jet complement. As someone else already said, CVF is a flexible platform for the next 50 years. In 2040 the UK may have other uses for it.
JCA is in full development. It has its problems as could be expected for such a complicated engineering project. But eventually something usefull will come out of it. The project is too big to fail. The UK is in no hurry. First operational deployments in limited numbers on board of PoW are not due before 2022 or 2023. Wait and see. Anyway, expect an initial reduced buy of F35C to meet (naval) requirements for the reduced fighter jet complement on CVF. Depending on whether or not F35 and UAV/UCAV live up to their promises, further batches may or may not be purchased.
Who will pay for CVF and JCA? As usual, everyone will. Not only for CVF and JCA, but for all other big ticket programs. So, it will be salami-slicing everywhere. Some predictions….
Ground Forces (i.e. army and marines): reduce active batallions by another 10 or 15% to end with 4 MRB’s, 1 Airmobile and 1 Amphibious Brigade. Reduced FRES-program. Enduring operations, if any, will be limited to one or to battle group sized deployments.
Air: limited buy of F35C for operations off the carrier for FAA (30-40 aircraft between 2020 and 2030); Typhoon Multirole for RAF (5-6 squadrons all upgraded to latest standards in terms of sensors and weapons); AM400 C17 and MRTT as planned; post 2025 a slow buy of 10-15 aircraft: one single type for AWACS/ISTAR/ELINT and MPA. Helicopter fleet with Apache, Chinook, Wildcat (army and naval), Merlin (naval, commando and ASaCS).
Sea: between 55 and 60 units (compared tot the 67-69 post SDSR-2010) allowing for a single task force on either stand-alone or coalition deployment for 6-9 months a year, South Atlantic Standing patrol and FI Patrol Ship, Ready Duty frigate (can’t remember the correct acronym) in UK waters, one SSN in the Atlantic/Med and another one in Med/Indian Ocean. For all other deployments the Navy takes turn in NATO or other coalition operations (e.g. anti-piracy off Somalia).
CASD: an easy way to pay for CVF and JCA from the Navy budget would be to cancel Vanguard successor outright. Personally, I think that’s an option, but I do not think politicians will allow to remove the last symbol of being a world power.
Post 2015, all SDSR-2010 ambitions, statements and documents will be reviewed and adapted to the budgetary realities. It will be clear by then that post economic reccesion, post financial and banking crisis and post Euro- and EU-crisis, the UK can no longer afford what it assumed it could back in 2010. The same will be true for all other Europea nations. And maybe that is what is required to make all those nations think about a common European defence policy (let us not be overly ambitious and limit the common policy to smart sharing of resources and distribution of capabilities and to common procurement of costly items to save the remainder of EU defence industry.
mcz
defence of the uk requires, awacs, mpa, a heavy fighter, ssbn and ssn enough to protect it (i’d argue a proper sam as well, but i seem alone in that. sod a big ships mast, stick them on mountains :-) )
Typhoon t3 should be off the table, unless to buy a direct replacement
APATS
IF you Really want fast carrier heavy air.
3 X Queen Mary Liner hulls or even Mersk container hulls converted to Merchant aircraft carrier standard.
Guestimate 1 billion each in the water,
COTS components,
Accept a whole series of 2nd best design compromises; (The original WW2 Jeep carriers had sloping hanger decks forward); on the basis who cares if that space is the wrong shape we got 150,000 tons to play with.
Stick some F18s on it. Well able to deal with anything realistically for the next 15 20 years.
Of course
Not sexy
Not Built in marginal constituances
Not built in Britain
Commercial Hull
(oh the shame, how the other Navys will laugh at us.)!
That is IF you think we need heavy carriers.
I would rather hop back to TD’ forward defence and my gloss of home and away commands for navy, air force and army, as a way of providing a flexible response.
BTW
If we started today were ruthelss with the ‘can you just add this’ crowd I would bet my last farthing we could build the 3 hulls for less than what we will have to spend on finishing Nellie and Dumbo, AND they would be cheap enough to loose, and if Mersk based have less crew use less fuel etc than them as well, cheaper to run, etc.
sitting across the Atlantic and seeing all this hatred being thrown at the Royal Navy has me wondering…and TD i kinda wonder why you haven’t done a post on it…i’ve considered it and decided to wait but i must now ask…
how does the British Army justify its spending?
i mean we have the Warrior Upgrade, FRES (i believe that’s what you blokes call the Ascod abomination) and a long host of vehicles all filling the same roles.
you have BVS-10 (which i like), jackals, force protection fox, and an assorted number of vehicles all filling the same roles.
how about you do a head count and rationalize your vehicles? the RAF made an ass of your politicians and we got Harriers for a song (hopefully the US Marine Corps sent a thank you letter) and you sold a Bay class at fire sale prices.
you can afford the F-35, the carriers, Typhoons and other kit without any problem…you just have to rationalize your forces and do like we are and understanding that the desire to fight an extended land campaign are gone and by necessity your Army is going to have to be smaller.
oh and one other thing gents. if a nation depends on other nations for its defense is it a nation?
the answer is no.
its a protectorate.
whether you like it or not, a single Europe is being codified not through military strength but through collective weakness.
“Quite simply, the Royal Navy has sacrificed its surface and sub surface fleet on the promise of CVF and the Royal Air Force has sacrificed the utility of Typhoon and a whole host of those short supply enabling assets to pay for the jam tomorrow promise of the F35.”
The surface and sub-surface fleets saw their own 100% cost overruns, killing numbers in the process.
How exactly can an aircraft with a fixed-price development budget and not a single aircraft procured up to date be a hindrance to procure enabling assets? Please elaborate…
“Hotel bills and resurfacing runways might seem expensive but two things are important to note, the first is that this happens infrequently, the second is that carriers have to be paid for whether they are on operations or not.”
Yes, but hotels and runways in Sicily are hardly a conventional deterrent needed to defend a far-flung empire-remnant.
@ DomJ re UK SAM system
I have pondered that too. Unlike the Swedes and Norwegians and Swiss we don’t really do home defence do we? Well not since we stopped defending the inner German border.
It would seem to be an ideal role for the TA/RAF Aux/whoever (don’t want to be accused of being partisan again today do I?) A system capable of knocking out cruise missiles would probably off more air defence than 72 QRA Typhoons….
‘how does the British Army justify its spending?’
It did justify it, it was fighting a war in dusty places for a decade.
It no longer does. No cold war, no desert wars post 2015.
Nellie & Dumbo become the centrepiece of the UK armed forces and the army will get shafted and is in the process of taking it where it hurts right now.
I think there was some hope in the anti-CVF crowd that they were Liam Fox’s ‘thing’ so its amusing to see someone regarded as a penny pincher in Hammond constantly talk of them as central to the future.
Once upon a time, in a land called IXIONs wet dreams…
“3 X Queen Mary Liner hulls or even Mersk container hulls converted to Merchant aircraft carrier standard.
Guestimate 1 billion each in the water,”
According to NAO, PoW will cost just this £1b.
(If we were smart, we offer the Brazilians, the Japs and the US (hell, CVF carries more aircraft and helos than this America-class fuck-up and costs a third) to procure some of them.)
“on the basis who cares if that space is the wrong shape we got 150,000 tons to play with.”
Your 150k ts vessels will need a whole new naval base to accomodate.
“Stick some F18s on it.”
The next production slots for F-18 are available at the end of 2015. The USN is short of fighters themselves, so sorry, no second hand.
Ixion, What is merchan aircraft carrier standard? It is 18 Jan 2012 and you reckon it would be cheaper and give us as much flexibility to start reinventing merchant carriers?
Just a point, or not, depending on your view
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/foreign-affairs-committee/news/piracy—report/
@ WW – re predictions –
“Ground Forces (i.e. army and marines): reduce active batallions by another 10 or 15% to end with 4 MRB’s, 1 Airmobile and 1 Amphibious Brigade. Reduced FRES-program. Enduring operations, if any, will be limited to one or to battle group sized deployments.”
Very possible post Afghan, but i doubt it would shrink numbers or FF2020 capabilities much.
“CASD: an easy way to pay for CVF and JCA from the Navy budget would be to cancel Vanguard successor outright. Personally, I think that’s an option, but I do not think politicians will allow to remove the last symbol of being a world power.”
Not easy, as it means saying goodbye to SSN’s too, as we need a minimum sub fleet of 11 boats, produced on a 22 month drum-beat, with a 22 year service life, in order to sustain a nuke-sub industry (inc both design and manufacture).
McZ. that America class “f*ck up” is capable of carrying just as many aircraft (operationally it’ll carry more than the QE) and perhaps more importantly can also carry a Marine battalion (-) of warriors. additionally and perhaps more importantly, we have 90,000 ton aircraft carriers to fulfill the role of being an aircraft carrier…not having to use LHD’s in the role is just the way its suppose to be.
as far as justifying the Army’s budget let me be more precise. future Army purchases seem all over the map. you knew my intent in making that statement but chose to ignore the obvious.
Sol, I don’t disagree that all three services have their own share of past, present and future cock ups and if you read back through my posts you will see me equally critical of the incoherence of the army vehicle fleet, or the RAF’s concentration on fast jets at the expense of ISTAR, helicopters and logistics but the difference here is that the CVF/JCA combo will have an equally distorting impact on all three services in exactly the same manner as the Typhoon has. I would rather we avoid making the same mistake.
Criticism by the way, is not hatred.
If anything, CVF should have offered a similar set of capabilities to the America class, multi role. I like the America idea, I think if we are honest there has been mistakes in the implementation but for the UK, a UK version offering a mix of perhaps half a dozen to 12 F35B, helo space, ability to operate a mixed air/sea borne amphibious force would have been a better fit than CVF
Arguably less decisive, similarly arguably less politically high profile.
Of course that boat has sailed now though!
ps
steady on with the ‘warriors’ term, you will be saying warfighters next :)
So mcuh to say but just one thing – TD you completely misunderstand the Hormuz problem.
If the world loses 15% of its oil supply, then the price goes up to $250 or whatever it takes for the world to cut consumption by 15%. $250 oil means a massive world recession and even more economic chaos. The UK would not be magicly exempt from this – and we no longer have the option of closing our borders and relying on North Sea oil, as these days we import about a third of our 1.5 million barrels/day consumption. We also import half our gas, and 20% of our supplies comes directly through Hormuz from Qatar. Without the Qatar supplies, the world price of LNG would shoot up as well.
It’s not just the physical supplies, it’s the market that you have to worry about. Given how most of the West are on an economic knife-edge, major disruption in Hormuz would be a disaster for our national interest. It doesn’t matter whether other countries would be affected more, it’s just really, really bad for us.
Whilst we’re throwing numbers around, the NACMO (net additional cost) of Afganistan is £13,304 million to April 2011 aside from the cost in blood. Just sayin’ like. It’s better to have a big stick in the locker, than a smaller stick that you have to use.
To my mind, CVF should be binned. There is simply not enough money to avoid the bloody things becoming white elephants and too vulnerable in a real shooting match. There wil not b enough money for sufficient fighters. There will be no money for fixed wing AEW. There will be no money for carrier-borne tanker variants. There will not be enough escorts. Carrier Group escort, Amphibious Group escort and Logistics re-supply ship escorts would require frigates being pulled from stations such as APT(S), APT(N) etc.
The whole show is now too shoestring, with simply no margin for error. Too weak to do proper power projection without horrendous risk, and too much overkill for ops such as Sierra Leone.
Can anyone convince me otherwise?
Perhaps we should invest in pipelines and stop going all apeshit about a sovereign nation conducting exercises in its own sea space whilst wanting to obtain weapons us and Israel have.
The other point to mention is that a price that is unsustainable for a customer equally becomes unsustainable for the supplier
I think we need to be very careful about Iran and wake up to the that they in real terms, offer very little threat to the UK
Urgh someone said warriors.
WW, the person making the quote about joining the big boys club and how happy the USN were was none other than Lord West
@IXIOn
You can ask Costa Crociere if they can sell for conversion the hull of the Costa Concordia. Should come at a good price if they manage to refloat it from the rocks…
“I agree with Tubby that several years ago it would have been better if the UK had ordered two or three Cavour-like CVS instead of CVF and had gone for F35B or even a third iteration of the Sea Harrier design.”
How amusing: italy went for the Cavour and F35B and is currently wishing it could go F35C as well because even if the F35B is finished and money found to acquire it, it seems that Cavour might be too small to work with it decently.
The only thing that Cavour has that i would have liked CVF to have is a Ro-Ro ramp to embark vehicles in the hangar, at most.
“In all these cost arguments of carrier v land bases the thing that amuses me the most is most people miss the obvious fact that operations are paid for from one budget and core capabilities entirely a different one so in may respects, the difference between the two, from a budget planning perspective, matters NOT ONE JOT”
The cost of UOR-procured Javelin missiles does not count either, but i well remember that you correctly noted that using a 70.000 dollars missile for a compound made of mud is not a smart thing.
Even less smart is doing an air campaign in the most expensive and less effective way possible while making hotels happy and leave freshly resurfaced bases as a gift to the italian air force.
The carrier you have to pay all the time, yes. But it costs less than a RAF airbase on land, covers more roles (specifically CVF is set to replace Ocean as well), and can move around.
There is just not enough emphasis on the last bit. Where you need it, you bring it.
They call Italy “NATO’s aircraft carrier in the Med”, but unfortunately we can’t be moved around.
Without CVF:
-No Ocean replacement, perhaps as many as 800 men less in the amphibious task force, which goes down from 1800 to 1000 but in particular is stripped of most of its helicopter facilities (100% of hangars, namely, but most of the landing spots as well) and air cover (gone entirely).
-No air power deployed in absence of bases.
-No air cover for the fleet at sea. And no, i don’t think Type 45 alone is enough. It never was intended to be enough on its own.
I just don’t think it is acceptable.
please show me where you found info that the Cavour is too small to operate F-35B’s! it has as much deck space as a Tarawa class LHD and it can handle the job. and why can’t the Italians change to the F-35C if they want to???
Question. Why has no-one mentioned that we actually still have 1nr. LPH and 1nr. Through-Deck Cruiser?
Presumably air operations are still pewrfectly feasible from both (at a reduced tempo)?
So why are some on this thread (DomJ, JBT, Jim, Soloman, Anthony, ixion) acting like we have *abolutely no sea based “air power”*.
OK, with the scrapping of Harrier GR.9 and mothballing of FRS.2 all that power is rotary winged – but then what scenario do you see when we will require anything better (i.e. what enemy will we take on alone, that has at least a half-decent Air Defence system)?
cancel CVF? ask me again in 2014, sea griffo will be more than a CAD design, meaning we can evaluate a high/low mix of SG/F-35. Afghan will be drawing down therefore less of a strain on the purse.
Also our chums north might not be part of the UK and so cancelling won’t swamp the UK welare system with unemployed ship builders!!!
Beoing has already started work on the NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance) aircraft that will replace both the F-A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-22 Raptor. So far only an artist’s impression of the overall concept is available. Boeing is proposing an aircraft that looks like an F-22 without tail fins, somewhat similar to the cancelled A12 and existing B2 Spirit bomber. (I wonder if Lockheed Martin will get a look-in with this contract after the JSF and F-22 clusterfcuks.)
The new aircraft will obviously be used by both the USAF and US Navy. Whatever happens to JSF, I very much hope the UK partners with USA on this.
If NGAD is the future, then the F-18 may be a better option than the F-35 in the short term. However, I don’t think the USA is going to let the F-35 fail. I think it will morph into a usable machine even if the B version is canned. The aircraft we end up with may be an F-35 only in name because it will have changed so much. So long as it works and we get it in time, it doesn’t matter.
If Congress decides to pull the plug on the F-35, then I imagine the US will need to use Super Hornets too. We may see new G and H versions to plug the gap until NGAD is ready. Either way, the UK will get the combat aircraft it needs for its carriers.
Solomon the Italians can’t change to the F-35C because the Cavour is too small to operate proper CATOBAR facilities. It’s a STOVL Carrier/LPH hybrid.
Dangerous Dave
We have no aircraft… No fixed wing aircraft to project power. As regards what enemy we will take on alone I don’t know. That’s the POINT, you don’t just leave your sodding door open at night. True the chances are that no one would come in and murder you or rob you blind but they MIGHT. Your door acts as a deterent. Difference is the UK’s door constantly has people going in and out of it because we rely on trade. Furthermore it is linked to several other dependencies one of which is now critically important to us with the potential for lucrative fishing and oil grounds.
The government gave the EXACT same argument as you did in 1982 and we almost lost the Falklands and had British territory CONQUERED because of that attitude.
@Solomon
“and why can’t the Italians change to the F-35C if they want to???”
You can’t fit Cavour with catapults and arresting wires, simply. Way too small.
“it has as much deck space as a Tarawa class LHD”
A Tarawa LHA is 280 x 35 meters and over twice as heavy as Cavour.
She’s got 250 meters of Flight Deck.
Cavour has 232 meters of deck of which only 183 are the actual take off run, plus 14.2 meters of Ski Jump at 12°. It is also a lot narrower.
Fear is that it won’t do, and the hangar, which originally it was thought would fit 8 and 8 F35B in two rows will actually fit a single row of planes.
“Why has no-one mentioned that we actually still have 1nr. LPH and 1nr. Through-Deck Cruiser?
Presumably air operations are still pewrfectly feasible from both (at a reduced tempo)?”
Only one will serve at any one time. HMS Ocean will be busy with the olympics, then will enter refit.
Illustrious will be retired in 2014 and leave Ocean alone.
Ocean herself will bow out in 2016 or 2018 at the latest as CVF arrives.
Air operations… well.
Chinooks won’t fit the elevators and can’t be brough into the hangar without dismantling the rotors.
Apache flew some missions from Ocean but it proved not quite as naval as hoped and over half the planned missions had to cancelled.
Sea King HC4 bows out in 2016.
Air operations at sea right now are very, very limited.
Devils advocate time = cancel cvf and type 26. Replace both with 9 modern versions of G.Garibaldi
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/garibaldi/
Should be able to carry 12 F-35B or EH-101. If you need more aircraft, AEW, etc, put two or more carriers together.
Sol
Does an MEU operate exclusivly from a single America class?
Gab
“-No air cover for the fleet at sea. And no, i don’t think Type 45 alone is enough. It never was intended to be enough on its own.”
It was always intended to defend a fleet without a CAP (as was T42 for that matter), T42 could, provided there was little clutter, T45 deals with the clutter problem, and is updated to deal with modern supersonic threats.
Sol
I think the Italy problem is if B fails, there is No Plan B.
DD
“So why are some on this thread (DomJ, JBT, Jim, Soloman, Anthony, ixion) acting like we have *abolutely no sea based “air power”*. ”
I dont believe I have, I’m a big fan of helicopters, but they arent fast jets.
The fact is, EUrope couldnt have done Libya unless the US kicked the door open for us with its day one decapitation strike.
Doesnt matter how many Lynxs you have, run them into a functional SAM grid and they’ll get slaughtered.
“OK, with the scrapping of Harrier GR.9 and mothballing of FRS.2 all that power is rotary winged – but then what scenario do you see when we will require anything better (i.e. what enemy will we take on alone, that has at least a half-decent Air Defence system)?”
Yes, Libya.
The first action against Libya was a massive cruise missile attack on its air defences, the prime effects generator being an SSGN.
If the US hadnt destroyed those sites, and provided targetting information for EUrope to help, we couldnt have gone in at all.
I remain sceptical that if the UK gives up what little day 1 capability it has, or even fails to procure more, that the rest of EUrope can be relied upon to plug the gap.
Someone has to be able to shut down the enemy air defences, Someone has to go in over the undefended beach and seize the port facility.
If not us, who?
People keep saying “we cant rely on Germany to provide the ground troops” as if they COULD provide the first strike!
I repeat, if not the UK, who?
@ DD – “So why are some on this thread (DomJ, JBT, Jim, Soloman, Anthony, ixion) acting like we have *abolutely no sea based “air power”*.”
Because without CVF:
“Forces unable to engage in power-projection, of a sovereign and strategic nature, sufficient to achieve the political ambitions of our the government………………….”
Unless:
“we plan to bulk the army back up to 9 brigades, so that we can keep a short division in the field, and have sufficient confidence that the British public will allows its use!”
This is a political question of how much military effect you need to have to achieve HMG’s geo-political ambitions, and I accept the RUSI contention that on current budget projections the only way we can meet those ambitions is for the military to specialise:
http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR2.pdf
To become a narrow-spectrum Great Power rather than a broad-spectrum Regional/Middle Power:
http://europeangeostrategy.ideasoneurope.eu/2011/12/29/worlds-fifteen-most-powerful-countries-in-2012/
*Dominic
the MEU doesn’t operate exclusively from an America class but it can carry quite a large portion of the ground combat element (the battalion of Marines assigned to the MEU)
additionally the airplane under pressure in this whole F-35 row is the F-35C. its going to have the smallest production run, its primary advocate is the US Navy and they don’t appear enthused (in the states, there are rumors that the carrier force is going to be reduced from 11 to 9…yeah many of us are pissed at the thought but finances—China will reverse that talk once their carrier goes live though) and the next largest buyer (the USMC) wants and planned to be an all STOVL force. the reality is that the C model is perched closer to the cancellation edge than the B ever was!
*Gabrielle
comparisons of the Cavour and the Tarawa have to be confined to the flight deck. the Tarawa is twice as heavy because it also has a well deck and accomodations for AAV’s, Tanks, MTVR’s and other assorted armored and supply vehicles. i haven’t looked at the hanger spaces but i would still be interested in those sources. lastly, the UK and the US have demonstrated in the past that a straight deck ship can be converted or modified into the modern angle decked design that we all love today. Italy could make those modifications. steel is cheap…its just a design change.
*Dominic
I agree with your statement about day 1 capability 100%
@Ixion, “3 X Queen Mary Liner hulls or even Mersk container hulls converted to Merchant aircraft carrier standard.”
The need for platforms to operate air assets from is going to increase not decrease. While I do not agree that the approach you suggest is a suitable replacement for a manned fixed wing carrier, I do believe there is a need for simple UAV / helicopter carriers where a cheap and easy approach is relevant. These would supplement the CVFs.
I am in the process of trying to put my thoughts to paper for such a vessel, which would be based simply on a flat top Bay class – think maritime version of the Ford Transit van (with roof rack).
There you go again Gabby, totally missing the point and misrepresenting what I say in order to make a new point instead of actually addressing the core of the argument.
I think for Javelin, which, by the way, is not a UOR but a planned replacement for Milan called the Light Forces Anti-Tank Guided Weapon, I said there was two sides to the argument. That on operations, for budgeting purposes it doesn’t matter whether we use them for flip flop wearing chaps on Hondas but it is not perhaps a sensible way to approach the future and I also said that £60k v an IED emplacer is perhaps a different way of viewing that same equation. Nuanced, not simplistic, several ways to view something. In your black and white letterbox view it seems there is never an ambiguous answer. I definitely think using £60k Javelins as anti-personnel weapons is unsustainable but see the arguments, try and understand all sides and the post to which you were referring is about organic fire support to compliment, not replace Javelin, offering a complimentary range of target effects at a lower overall cost. I would also add that Javelin missiles are unlikely to distort all three services equipment options, impact the welfare of its personnel and ability to actually function as a coherent force, unlike Typhoon last season and CVF/JCA next.
Not quite in the same league and therefore entirely reasonable to look at it differently.
So CVF costs less than an airbase on land, I thought we had covered this particular piece and found that that was a completely incorrect statement. Without trolling through several hundred posts on the subject can I ask a question about the Italian air force? If as you say, carriers are inherently cheaper at delivering basing for fats jets, can you tell me why your country, who is as cash strapped as the next man, is not closing air force bases all over the country and buying into carriers. It seems any country that has an air force and a coastline is missing a clever way of reducing costs, lets close all our air bases that have fast jets on them and put them all on ships, its cheaper. I bet they are all kicking themselves now they have realised they have been wrong all these years.
As to your final bullet points,
Who said without CVF there would be no Ocean replacement, it would arguably free up budget for just such a thing. Ocean has been hugely useful, flexible, in demand and generally an great asset to UK defence for what was a tiny amount of money. Not perfect I would agree but sensible nonetheless.
No air power deployed without bases, so lets examine where the lack of bases has been critical to the outcome of operations where the UK acted alone, struggling a bit there, and for likely future operations, am struggling even more. I do not deny that carrier fast air offers many options, in some cases would be the preferred and best option, but these arguments do not convince me I should accept the impact on other areas for the few instances where this would be the case. Dont get too blinkered by my argument about CVF because JCA is a joint RAF/RN asset, mostly operated by the RAF so when I argue for its cancellation, I am also arguing for a reduction in RAF capabilities, kind of fucks up that anti RN, RAF cheerleader accusation doesn’t it?
Fleet air defence, CVF is not predicated on outer layer air defence, in fact, it has probably done more harm than good to that because it has put pressure on the ability to generate sufficient numbers of T45. CVF is an expeditionary strike asset and the lack of outer layer jet derived air defence does not seem to have bothered the RN much given their undue haste to get rid of Sea Harrier ow many years ago on the promise of CVF flavoured jam tomorrow or the fact that Meteor remains unfunded for F35 carriage, the general lack of resources for maritime AEW and small numbers of T45 that might have arguably taken up some of the slack. What scenarios do you envisage the UK operating in ALONE where the lack air defence against targets that cannot be handled by a combination of T45, CEC and whatever comes after MASC cannot handle.
There really is more to defence capabilities that carriers and jets, this is my main gripe about the whole thing, our strategy has become equipment led and everything else must be sacrificed on the altar of vainglorious projects that keep ex ministers, admirals, air chiefs and generals in after service jobs and posh lunches but deliver very little whilst costing a lot
How does Cavour compare size wise to the old HMS Eagle and HMS Hermes, both of which hand angled flight decks and operated man size aircraft like the Buccaneer
Gabby Apache AH mission cancellations were for reasons other than marinisation.
Eagle (sister ship of the previous Ark Royal)was almost the same size as the Queen Elizabeth class, 50000 tons, Hermes was 27 000 tons so both were larger than the Cavour.
Jedi
Explain how without CVF/JCA this…
‘Forces unable to engage in power-projection, of a sovereign and strategic nature, sufficient to achieve the political ambitions of our the government’
Matches this…
Iraq, twice
Iraq, no fly zone
Afghanistan
various adventures in the Balkans
Libya
Whatever we may get up to in the Gulf in the near term
Whatever we may get up to before CVF/JCA is in service
All of the above have been characterised by UK fast jet naval aviation playing no role or a bit part
rec, what about flight deck dimensions, which I think were the main metric used in the conversation, do you know what they were
Dom J, there is more than one way to skin a cat, the SSGN strike on the first night of the Libya op definitely aided in achieving a more passive air environment quickly but to suggest that it could not have been achieved without it is just nuts.
The whole op would have moved at a slower pace with sections of air defence being neutralised at a time but the objective would have been achievable.
td
better to use a javelin than lose a jackal.
Sol
i suppose as well as day one decapitation you need day 0 intel.
Again, if not the uk, who?
I note that still lacks an answer from ‘big army’
apats
balls!
How?
The last time the us went in it was a dozen sead aircraft, we couldnt get a dozen aircraft there at once!
At best, we’d be picking the off with stormshadow, but it would have months, months the rebels didnt have.
A month the rebels did not have! Bollocks 2 mech battalions landed at torbruk and but in front of Benghazi stops Libyan forces ion there tracks. You then have as long as you want to pick off the air defence network. UK and French cruise missiles, Attack helicopters, storm shadow, Turkish Popeye missiles, special forces.
The Libyan air defence network waqs nowhere near as effective as we thought it might be. The amount of force used to suppress it was serious overkill. lots of targets were revisited simply to keep pilots busy.
The problem we have is that we have grown used to the massive blitz on the first night followed by a benign air environment, thx to the US. yes it is nice to have but it is an enabler only not a requirement.
@ TD
Gulf? The next war will be in the India Ocean or at one of the poles. The RAF only operated in those places because US political power coupled with host nation support because they needed defending. JUST BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE OUR OWN SEA POWER AND THE RAF OPERATED FROM LAND BASES IN THOSE CONFLICTS DOESN’T MEAN WE ARE INDEPENDENT. WE RELY ON US AIR, SEA, ECONOMIC, AND DIPLOMATIC POWER FOR OUR FORCES TO OPERATE.
TD I think you need to stop quoting Libya as a successful operation that proves no requirement for Carrier strike.
America provided the bulk of Day 1 strikes
America provided the bulk of Day 0/Day 1 Intel
America remained on station and only backed out roughly half way through. France deployed a carrier as well. Italy deployed a carrier as well. As for both Iraq’s… again day 1 was heavily in favour of American strike power. Of which a large amount was made up of carrier strike. Whatever we may get up to in the Gulf “WITH AMERICA”.
Britains ability to do half the operations it has would have been doubtful without the presence of American carrier battlegroups and/or LPH’s. Stop trying to spin that it is otherwise. In most modern conflicts maritime air power either deployed from a carrier on day 1 or detached from a carrier later on has been a huge component of any strike.
If we want to bend over and be required to play out favours for other countries to enable us to “pretend” to be able to be a heavy hitter in oversea operations then sure… forward based RAF aircraft will do.
If we want to suck it up and be capable of independent action that can act as a deterent against threats to the soverign capability of Britain…. we need Amphibious capability, with amphibious capability comes a requirement in carrier strike.
@ admin – “Explain how without CVF/JCA this… ‘Forces unable to engage in power-projection, of a sovereign and strategic nature, sufficient to achieve the political ambitions of our the government’ – Matches this… Iraq, Afghanistan, etc”
Because this was done under an Defence posture that kept britain is a broad-spectrum Great Power, a mini US if you will, even if it was never properly funded.
1. You will note that we no longer (post FF2020) have the land forces to engage in persistent light-division level antics.
2. You will likewise note that statement was hedged against the alternate possibility of having an army capable of exactly that.
The important point here is that the budget to make the SDSR work is significantly less than the budget to make the SDR work, so we can no longer have both:
1. light-division level antics on a persistent basis
and:
2. all the naval-air/amphib stuff for rapid interventions
If we wanted both, i.e. the SDR, then the Defence budget would need to be £40b and rising rather than £34b and falling.
“The whole op would have moved at a slower pace with sections of air defence being neutralised at a time but the objective would have been achievable.”
With how slow Libya has been, one has to wonder how much slower NATO could be without giving Gaddafi the chance to strangle the rebellion. And we went close to that more than once as it is.
“Who said without CVF there would be no Ocean replacement, it would arguably free up budget for just such a thing.”
Yeah, sure. “Ya know, we scrap two hulls partially built, throw in the toilette 4 billion pounds plus 2+ billions in F35 development, and right away start building LHDs and Destroyers! Yay!”
Very, very credible.
Not even Gordon Brown would dare suggesting it.
Also Dom J, the Libyan offensive against Benghazi was stopped by French FBA operating before any suppresion of the air defence network.
All Politicians are the same;
I’m sure the Soldiers and Saliors who fought in conflicts like the Falklands would be glad to hear you say that air superiority is “nice to have”. If your operating in a foreign hostile environment you require air supremacy due to the slower reaction time of your air assets.
We couldn’t land forces in Libya, that would have broken the UN resolution wouldn’t it. Instead of providing precision strike to enable the Democratic rebels to gain control of their country it would have been ANOTHER intervention. The UN didn’t want that… so your suggestion there wouldn’t work now would it!!
Gabriele,
As you well know the pace of the Libyan op was dictated by several factors but the Libyan AD network was never one of them.
Anthony,
With no US involvement we would have had to look at other ways of preventing civilian casualties. The UN resolution did not exclude the use of ground forces it excluded an “occupation force”.
Please read things properly.
As for your first comment I appreciate that you are new here and do not know who serves and who doesnt so I will let it pass.
As for “If your operating in a foreign hostile environment you require air supremacy due to the slower reaction time of your air assets”. What is that suposed to mean? Distance and intelligence determine reaction time. We do not plan to fight under air supremacy on every occasion it is just a condition we have become used to in recent years. We barely had parity in the Falklands despite the kill ratios.
Another thing to remember is that the French operating from CdeG were able to be a lot more flexible in their response when the UK always had to be careful not to upset the Italians. Who let’s face it were a bit wobbly on the venture.
“Iraq, twice
Iraq, no fly zone
Afghanistan
various adventures in the Balkans
Libya”
Iraq 1 – A british carrier was in the Med.
Iraq 2 – LPHs were fundamental. 34% of all sorties flown in 2003 came from US Navy carriers.
Afghanistan – Again, LPH fundamental. Thick of land forces inserted from Amphibious ships. Over 75% of the air sorties in 2001 came from US Navy carriers. Land bases in the gulf were too far. USAF main contribution air tankers and heavy bombers, RAF air tankers.
Balkans – RAF Harriers flew from bases in Italy, Sea Harriers from the carrier. One was shot downduring a mission.
A more interesting question is: when the Uk had to go at it alone, where carriers used?
Yes.
Were they needed?
Yes.
Could the Falklands have been taken back without carriers?
No, whatever Chris B. says about it.
Independent power projection capability without carriers: lost or severely dimisnished, depending on enemy and geography.
Your list would mean that Italy, or even Canada, project power all the time.
No, they give a limited contribution to the power projection enabled and done by SOMEONE ELSE. For power projection i mean something a bit higher on the scale. Otherwise, given what Denmark did with an handful of F16 over Libya, you could tell me that Denmark can project power abroad.
I’d call that “apply” power abroad, in a very precise setting in which the operation is enabled by someone else. The difference is far from being in the mere words.
“As you well know the pace of the Libyan op was dictated by several factors but the Libyan AD network was never one of them.”
Because it was decapitated on the first night of ops and never again gave worries. Because there wasn’t a single SAM fired, nor a fighter jet sortie.
If the air defence installations were not hit, it almost certainly would have been different.
i’d also note that a lot of sorties were connected to countering the Libya air defence system anyway, according to reports. So i cannot agree.
All politicians are the same;
Distance and intelligence determine reaction time. If you are using land based aircraft over a large distance (like a body of water… say the Med?) then you will have a slower reaction time.
You’ve just confirmed that. Our forces based in Italy had a slower reaction time than those on the HMS Ocean, CdG, the Italian carrier or any American carrier/LPH asset. It showed when you look at the number of strikes called off because the target was no longer viable.
If you do not plan to fight under air supermacy then having your air assets closer is even more important. A carrier can guarente that for most conflicts because it can still “land base” its aircraft to provide support. If that’s not an alternative it doesn’t matter as you still have carrier strike capable of responding quickly… Rather in 1 hour, or 2 hours.
With no US involvement I don’t think Libya would have succeeded. Also switching from “no fly zone” to actively engaging Gadaffi forces caused enough of a stir in the UN as it was… Can you imagine if the US hadn’t been part of that (removing her considerable military and political influence) and we had had to resort to land based intervention… I suspect it wouldn’t have held. Lets face it NATO barely managed to hold together with the air operations and the US leading them. Without the US and doing a full scale boots on the ground…. I doubt the British PLC would have got behind it for starters let alone other nations.
30 air tankers out of 40 used were from the US, without even considering all other assets. And still there were planes landing in Malta for empty fuel tanks.
And people suggests it could have been done without the US?
Keep dreaming!
Not to spam or anything, but here is a breakdown of the Libya ops. Sorties, target hit, assets made available by all contributors.
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2011/12/final-analysis-of-libya-experience.html
Anthony For starters I am an exponent of carrier based air power and the flexibility it gives you. You however make the assumption that because aircraft are based in Italy that they start from there when called. Actually during OUP on call fast air was orbitting 24 7 very close to the AOR.
You now introduce the Political element and you may well be correct,however, militarily there was no reason we could not do the job without US involvement.
Do you suggest that NATO barely held it together militarily or politically? From the inside I saw no evidence of either. It was also certainly not led by the US, the real thrust both militarily and politically was spearheaded by the French and supported by the UK and others.
You’ve just confirmed that. Our forces based in Italy had a slower reaction time than those on the HMS Ocean, CdG, the Italian carrier or any American carrier/LPH asset. It showed when you look at the number of strikes called off because the target was no longer viable.
Fascinating post, the calling off of strikes was primarily to do with target identification, civilians in vicinity or non ability to engage dynamic targets which was the prime reason for the majority of Apache call offs.
@ repulse – I’ve been doing some research on and off on a similar concept. I could e-mail some links (vis TD possibly) or copy and paste in a thread here if you want?
Gabby, are you confusing LPH and fast jet maritime aviation because I am not and I suspect you are doing it deliberately to make a point
You might also want to read up on the ACTUAL contribution of BRITISH fast jet naval aviation in those operations I listed. The point Jedi made was that without the CVF/JCA combination we are unable to ‘project power….’ when I merely pointed out that the significant operations of the last 30 years kind of blew that assertion out of the water. I am not denigrating the role of Sea Harrier and Harrier because it was valuable but being realistic about the scale, thats all.
So from your list of significant operations of the last 30 odd years, narrowing it down to fast jet maritime and British contributions we have what, a relatively minor role over several years of Balkans operations and the Falklands, lets be charitable and throw in Sierra Leone as well, a couple of armed recces and a handful of shows of force.
I would say that Libya demonstrated perfectly how a nation like Denmark can deliver effect, cheaply, and equally maintain a commitment to their allies at a price that doesn’t cripple them. Likewise Canada or New Zealand or Fiji, each contributes what is sensible and doable.
Gabriele, It could have been done differently, could the conflict have been fought in the same way, No. Could it have been done, yes. What people do not realise and is not included on Gabby list is the number of targets hit 2 or even 3 times and the fact taht for the last month or so we were flying missions for the sake of it, the target list was exhausted and only dynamic CAS was actually adding value. just because we used a massive air armada did not make it essential.
apats
and how do we land and supply two mechanised battalions?
What happened to ‘you need at least two brigades’?
Gabriele
its funny how those who accuse other of pointy thing blindness are minimising us aar, istar and opening firepower…
I am also deeply suspicious of sortie numbers because do all those that provide the information measure what a sortie actually is in the same way, for example, is a Uk strike sortie defined in the same was an Italian one, do French sorties from CdG include those launched for non strike reasons, do Dutch figures mean anything if they don’t allow comparison of impact on objectives, what if sorties were aborted because of weather, ROE restrictions, the nature of target sets assigned to different aircraft and all manner of things that often makes any comparative analysis extremely difficult.
Its very easy to be seduced by tables of information and take them literally, especially if one had a pre-conceived argument to prove but they are rarely the full picture and should always be handled with care, especially by those outside the tent, like us all here.
Apats and Mcz
Re Ixion wet dream etc.
I was merely pointing out big hulls are cheap to build if you do not want the ‘made in bits in Britain way’.
I don’t think we actually need it.
The big problem is the imperial wet dream crowd are now out in force.
Long ago in blog post far away I was roundly rubbished for suggesting that the carrier fed the imperial dream in the world wide reach category.
I got roundly rubbished accused of putting words into peoples mouth etc.
Now just go back and see how many people now seem to believe Nellie and Dumbo will have a role ‘East of Suez’
That’s the problem.
some posters on this site when challenged about the mini CVN carrier battle group fantasy; shout don’t be silly no one thinks it will be that’ before going on to talk about it exactly as if that is how it will be used…
This thing is the wampom (see Flanders and Swann), of the WASAWPYK wannabees.
Got a revolutionary idea. Let the rest of the world sort out the Straights of whatever, The horn of whatever, and the Bwifflsnees canal problem.
Like we are seriously going to put an Elephant into the Gulf of Arabia, on our own without US permission. If we go with US permission then let them do it.
Dom J
Why do I have to, the Turks would have supplied the manpower and landed it. It would have been a benighn offload in Torbruk a port always controlled by the rebels.
Supply via Benghazi which was never threatened after the French airstrikes.
You disd not need 2 Brigades to standoff pro G forces from Benghazi.
TD do not know what Gabby classifies as a sorty but the official figures for OUP were collected by the ACC at Izmir lt Gen Jonas and his staff decided what a sortie, strike etc was.
Also, it seems the Danish were probably sent against buildings and compounds which are usually still there when you arrive so most bombs got dropped. We patrolled the skies quite often and I wonder if a sortie that saw a plane take off with bombs and return with all its bombs is counted as a strike sortie or not?
td,
true, sorties arent the full picture, but they are a picture.
We also have weapons deployed, targets hit and such.
Istar flights, refueling and caps are of course going to accomplish little concrete.
“a couple of armed recces and a handful of shows of force.”
In other words, what Torgnado GR4 does in Afghanistan today, since the last monthly report mentioned only 2 emergency take offs for CAS. With all it costs to keep hem there and keep Tornado fleet flying, “in scale”, surely the Uk can do without that and balance the books?
There are F18s and Rafales from US Carriers and CdG in the Indian Ocean anyway…
“Could it have been done, yes.”
What, the Falklands?
Post mission report:
“23 airplanes shot down, but six ships lost. We lacked AEW and had too few fighters”
Conclusion:
“Next time we go without air cover at all then, and ‘do it differently’!”
Come on, you can’t be so blind to miss the fact that it MAKES NO SENSE.
“I would say that Libya demonstrated perfectly how a nation like Denmark can deliver effect, cheaply, and equally maintain a commitment to their allies at a price that doesn’t cripple them. Likewise Canada or New Zealand or Fiji, each contributes what is sensible and doable.”
But that, i repeat, is not power projection, it is not the level of ambition the Uk sets for itself, and it is not independent at all.
This point makes sense only if the ambitions of the coutry change.
It also is not what NATO asks from the Uk.
Moreover, is not what HMG wants from the armed forces.
So you should say: we want to be a minor contributor, capable of doing only this and that, for so long, and given this help.
Then arguing for CVF cancellation makes sense.
Otherwise, it is not coherent.
“I wonder if a sortie that saw a plane take off with bombs and return with all its bombs is counted as a strike sortie or not?”
Definitely counts as strike sortie.
Libya should have been militarily achievable without the US; however, it would have taken longer. In many operations, including Libya, quick results are essential; not least for the need to hold together shaky coalitions and diplomatic resolve. Without results, political will quickly crumbles and the voices against war grow louder. We’ve seen the need for quick results before as troops have sat in the desert or on ships heading south. Europe as a whole also has major difficiancies in critical airpower areas, such as information and refueling.
I meant as a sum total, not a single month in an enduring campaign of several years that is now taking on a very different form but will still be ongoing for a few more years yet, still if it makes you happy to appear like a loon then fair enough, crack on
I was wondering when we would get back to Harriers and Tornados and the Falklands.
There is no way I am repeating myself about the Harrier v Tornado debate and as for the FI, against the Argentine forces of today, do we really need to concentrate on a glorious recapture effort with all CVF guns blazing or should we, like a sensible person do, actually concentrate on not repeating the same mistakes we made last time, which, by the way, when we didn’t have T45 and Apache to name but but two capabilities.
What exactly are we doing in Afghanistan right this very second, projecting power, UK carrier launched fast jet aviation is strangely absent, surely by your definition this is some mistake?
What exactly did we do in Iraq, Libya, the Balkans, was that not projecting power, surely you would classify that as power projection, what about the 4 MCM in the Gulf and the T45 that will be there very shortly, is that not power projection?
You are getting hung up on terms, I see power projection as something multi layered and multi faceted, it seems people like you only see it through a different, perhaps very narrowly focused, lens.
What was our contribution to Iraq, twice, the Balkans, Sierra Leone, no fly zones in Northern Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, all done with little or no UK maritime fast jet pointy things but certainly not minor contributions by any stretch of the imagination or any definition yo care to mention.
Ambition, the scale of our ambition when acting alone is a Sierra Leone, anything else will not be done on our own.
@ TD
I am going to say this again. But you constantly attack pro-carrier or pro-proper navy positions. According to you Gabby uses the wrong metrics and Phoenix ThinkTank over egg the pudding with their list of carrier dependent post war ventures. Yet you never actually reveal even in the broadest brush strokes an orbat for UK armed forces and a basic modus operandi. When I read your stuff I am starting to see pictures in my head of my local regiment 3 Mercian sitting on their kit bags waiting for their flight at Gatwick. While FedEx are handling their stores. Instead of sniping at everybody else’s position lets see you nail your colours to the mast (careful that is naval saying) for once.
boo hoo, is that nasty man in a metal box getting on your tits :)
Did I say wrong metric or that those metrics should be provided with context in a nuanced and intelligent manner?
I think one is allowed to disagree with something without necessarily having having an alternative
I will say this though, if you think I am for a massive Army at the expense of the other services you are wrong
Balance at a relevant and sensible scale is my starting point where equipment does not dictate strategy and enablers are given the appropriate slice of the pie, followed by a selection of extra capabilities that either meet real defence and security needs and/or contribute in a meaningful, practical, pragmatic and doable way to likely coalitions that don’t cripple my starting point i.e balance at a relevant scale
Take from that what you will.
Its only an opinion, but I think CVF/JCA does not qualify. I do not doubt the efficacy of carrier based fast jet aviation, I do not doubt it will deliver a decent enough capability where in some scenarios the flexibility delivers a fantastic range of options but I do not think we can afford to make it work well in a wider context and would rather not see lots of others things take a hit because of it.
As I have always said, my objection is principly one of cost and the distortion to a decreasing defence vote that it will cause.
Finally, the reason I have a hard time with Pro Proper Navy style lobyy opinions is not because I don’t want the UK to have one, its just the starting point for those opinions is usually, how can we raid the Army and Air Force’s budget. Thats what gets right up my nose, a stronger navy for a stronger navy’s sake and as long as we stitch up the Army and especially the Air Force then thats a double bonus
If the PTT for example, argued for a stronger navy based on a more balanced mix of capabilities that delivered against the most likely missions in a harmonious way with the other services then I would be in full support, they don’t they do they, instead wanting little fiefdoms of capability, harking back to glory days and nicking the other kids sweets
The US is selling the F35 to all and sundry, what happens when Argentina want some. OK it may not have the resources for them today. But its going to be a long programme and who knows what will happen in twenty years time. Will the HMG at the time be able to build a carrier, with strike aircraft, in the time they can get a squadron up and running. Its like car insurance no one wants to pay the premiums, but everyone has to buy it.
No one knows where or when the next war will be, so we either buy into the big expensive programmes or become like Ireland. Give up everything and stay at home. No ICBMs, CVF, Armour, JSF or any other strike or fighter aircraft and hope the other NATO countries will look after us.
What happens then, we take a casual and leisurely stroll down south with a handful of Typhoon/Meteor and a bunch of hairy arsed infantry soldiers whilst sailing south with an SSN or two and stocking up on Javelin.
Would Argentina and F35 not be a predictable and easily observed slowly escalating capability Jim
@TD – how many billions will your pipelines cost – and who pays? To be honest with some of the pipeline routes that get mooted, you’re more likely to see the US buying Rafales. Aside from giving Iran a whole lot of new, vulnerable nodes to attack, pipelines don’t solve the problem. Almost all the oilfields and processing facilities are all within Silkworm range of Iran, and many of the Qatargas platforms are just a few miles outside Iranian waters, they could be picked off by the 76mm guns on Iran’s FACs. Pipelines don’t solve the problem, they just deprive Iran of one target.
I think you’re still misunderstand the market problem. Most of the Saudi and Gulf oil is cut off, the rest of the world is producing 100%. Result is that world supply is down to 85%. To reduce demand in the short term by 15%, the price might have to go to $250 on fundamentals (and in reality the general panic would take it higher). In the long term people would adjust a bit, and only $210 say might be necessary to sustain consumption at 85% of starting levels. Both those could be regarded as “sustainable” for consumers and producers as being the price at which supply matched demand – it’s just not very nice for Saudi and the Gulf countries who have gone from producing 100% of their capacity to 0%. (OK, knock a bit off either extreme, I’m just making a point) Other suppliers would still be producing 100% of their capacity and would be happy as pigs in FRES. But history suggests that if the oilprice suddenly doubles, it does really bad things to our economy and all the other Western economies.
Bob Work, the US Navy Undersecretary has expressed the same concerns about squeezing F-35B’s into LHA’s – and TD, LHA-6/7 don’t have a well deck, future ones will at the expense of aviation space.
“Even the new LHA-6/7 America-class ships, being built without a well deck to accommodate more aircraft and fuel, will be able to carry only 6-10 JSFs in a standard air combat element.
Subsequent ships are expected to revert to a well-deck design. In that case, the Marines’ goal for the JSF—that 420 of the Navy’s 680-aircaft order should be B-models, replacing AV-8Bs and Harriers—could be ill-matched to the deck spots available”
The Americas are about 45,000t and cost £4.4bn for two; for comparison de Gaulle is 38,000t and about the same length, Cavour is less than 30,000t.
El Sid, let me ho away and have another think on the Hormuz gas/oil/pipeline thing
Did you read this by the way
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/05/uk-security-needs-%E2%80%93-food-trade-and-energy/
If Iran attacks Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi gas/oil installations, I mean actually attacks them rather than threatens to close the straits and indulge in a little harassment then it has entered a game with harsh offside rules that will see it being ass whooped by its regional neighbours, can you see Saudi and Qatar sitting back, not responding to a direct attack on its source of wealth and letting the US do all the punching or do you think they will join in and start using all that kit they have bought off us?
More to the point, will politics allows them to be interested sideline dwellers.
The impacts might be severe but they would be short term and its a game of brinkmanship but whilst Iran might talk the big un they know full well without a nuclear option they are going to be put back 30 years in economic terms, something that the restive population might not like, having grown accustomed to Facebook and Gucci handbags.
The first on the list would be Irans own creaking petrochem infrastructure that would see it unable to supply even its own demands for oil derived products, let alone its more or less sole source of income.
‘Finally, the reason I have a hard time with Pro Proper Navy style lobyy opinions is not because I don’t want the UK to have one, its just the starting point for those opinions is usually, how can we raid the Army and Air Force’s budget. Thats what gets right up my nose, a stronger navy for a stronger navy’s sake and as long as we stitch up the Army and especially the Air Force then thats a double bonus’
TD, what about those who have pro- proper navy opinions and think the navy should see more of the UK’s cash especially instead of the Army not because we play with rubber ducks in our bathtubs but because we think it provides the UK armed forces with more options, a bigger more independent bang for our buck and vastly more flexibility as well as providing an asset to any coalition which not many other countries would have? Or are all navy proponents the same to you?
On no subject TD turns to smoke and mirrons as with CVF.
“wrong metrics”
“letterbox view”
“sorties do not matter, is the effect that counts”
“financial reality”
“sensible”
And so along.
Mostly inconclusive smokescreens that seem to come out of an electoral meeting. That’s why i hate these debates.
On a point the us marines have changed there buy on F35 80 aircraft will be the F35C version. The US navy/marine buy will be split 50:50 between the B and c versions.
F35 is the UK replacement for Tornado if its scrapped what replaces tornado or does the RAF go down to 100 Fastjets? This isnt mutually exclusive.
The access afforded to UK strike assets in any likely theatre is reducing we’ve seen that in IRAQ and Libya and will likely only degrade from here. Countries were willing to accept the supporting cast but not the attack jet or troops. That is driving things to be done either from much greater distance or from the sea over a shorter distance. Thats the 2 option if you wish to operate overseas and requires investment in either a carrier or additional aar capacity and much longer ranged a/c. The US would like the UK to have such a capability to replace a single US carrier with a UK/French one to free its own resources.
A carrier deck is an insurance policy that allows jets to be guaranteed to be able to support any UK action anywhere in the world. And fast jets are the key kinetic enablers for any UK operation.
Just wondering out loud – how would Iran close the Straits? Mines would be a cheap, and difficult to counter, way. FAC attacking shipping; could be countered by helicopters/escorts, possibly FAC of our own. Air strikes – honestly don’t know the state of the Iranian airforce but I’m guessing the Arab airforces are capable of defeating the threat, let alone the USAF based in the area, and we have a Type 45 on the scene to help. Missiles – again Type 45 and CWIS of escorts could deal with them, with USAF strikes at the launchers.
Wouldn’t the best naval assets we could send would be escorts, including possibly a second Type 45, and MCMV, which are on station already?
El Sid. Pipelines are as much about protecting market confidence as about military defence. And any physical Iranian attack on gulf oil installations would be suicidal.
The USS America, without well deck, and in aircraft carrier configuration is intended to carry 22 F35b plus SeaHawks. It’s the kind of ship I think would have been ideal for the Royal Navy’s carriers. Naval air at a useful and more affordable scale – though I would have been very wrong if the F35b got pulled..
td
playing poodle to america is not power projection.
The uk can take no offensive action without american support.
Thats the whole point, its done *against* other peoples wishes
Thats just the facts.
No whining about mass or persistance or balance is relevent.
The uk cannot take a shit unless uncle sam says so.
The *only* way to change that is to go big navy and big istar, at the expense of whatever else needs to be cut to pay for it.
That then means there 50 or 60 nations we could partner with.
Anything but ‘big navy’ is an answer to the question ‘how to best serve the US.
*how many involved powers received emergency resupply of munitions from america?
Again, just the facts.
TD.
here in the states we have had this debate in our defense dept and the plan of action is Air-Sea battle (i know you don’t like the concept but hear me out).
in that concept it has been decided that the US will focus on the Pacific and in keeping with that shift, we will accept a smaller but still technologically advanced Army while increasing funding for the USAF and Navy. even the Marine Corps is set to get smaller.
but the budget will follow the planning. if the US can identify the need for CREDIBLE power projection in OUT OF AREA OPERATIONS then why is it unreasonable to expect our European allies AND our most valuable ally (as the Brits like to remind us) to have at least a modest capability.
you seem to be seeking to protect the Army from inevitable cuts because of the march of time.
extended nation building will not be tolerated after the fiasco that is Afghanistan (and rest assured its nation building and internal defense…)
with that in mind, it is essential that the Royal Navy be reconstituted.
one last thing. Libya was on Europe’s door steps and despite your protests to the contrary, NATO performed badly once the US stepped back. Former SecDef Gates complained that the US had to furnish armaments to our allies and once again asked the European nations to step up to their responsibilities.
i even posted a quotation earlier in which a Norwegian defense minister is worried about the continued viability of not only NATO but is also questioning whether or not Europe can credibly defend itself.
I go for lunch, come back, fire up Google Reader, and bugger me TD is bored, and were back on this old thread, again….. Yawn…. :-)
Lots of comments though, so Y’all “go for it”
It’s politics, HMG wants to carry a big stick, so it bankrupt other capabilities, as long as it has a shiny toy to play with.
What would I sacrifice to pay for CVF – sex change operations on the NHS !
What would I sacrifice to pay for F35 – nothing, bin it. Just buys some F18′s, exactly as flown by USN, but into USN supply and training systems.
Of you go now, will not be returning to this thread, so enjoy :-)
@TD
Just zipped through the blogs so apologies if I missed something
BUT I don’t think you get the point some people are making, you are OK for us to contribute a reasonable effort as part of a historical pattern of operations, Danish ++
What you’re not imagining is an absence of US involvement while at the same time there is a dramatic self interest; say if it was solely the Qatar gas that was shut off by Iran because they had a beef with the Qatar state. Qatar cannot defend itself against a much more experienced opponent
In the near future, a US retrenchment to a Pacific SINLGE/ONLY major engagement capability will be driven by long term budget constraints, it’s not that they won’t want to help out as needed more that their entire national focus – Congress included – will not tolerate supporting the weak willed Europeans when the US needs to stand up to the Chinese.
We need CVF not for willy waving but for survival – the Turkish in particular but also the Indians and the Brazilians seem to me to be destabilizing our security as they become stronger but with no equal impact on the US.
Accept for the moment that the US ….WILL NOT… support us – they are busy elsewhere
– How do we cope with Greece and Turkey starting a domino effect of European conflict
- How do we cope with India being drawn into conflict with Pakistan if India owns much of our car making and supply many of our counter inflationary services not to mention Superbainite
-How do we cope with Brazil finding that the route to continental dominance is to quietly but forcefully blockade then remove the Malvinas garrison as a contribution to South American confidence and independence.
BUGGER the past – waste of time any such examples – In the here and now the US is obliged to withdraw, their power is diminished and constrained by their massive and rising debt, we need to think of our future not as comfortable elements of a US strategy but as worried elements of a deeply delude European population- most of whom have no idea how protected they have been.
@TD Yes I’ve read it – and you ignored the costs and politics of pipelines then as well. Sure, attacking sovereign territory is an escalation for Iran over just blocking international waters – but I suspect that they will be given plenty of provocation over the next 50 years. And you can no more assume that Saudi and the Gulf nations will be on our side in 2060 – or 2020 for that matter – than Tunisia or Egypt. Say in 2022 the US has been kicked out of Bahrain and Saudi, what then?
@GJ – mines would be part of it, full-size and mini-submarines would be another. You can’t assume that our air defences would be fool-proof – and just one hit would be enough for insurers to get quite nervous. Also don’t forget that Iran has lots of ballistic missiles – Aster Block 1 may have had a successful test against Scud-type targets that don’t manoeuvre, but we don’t have any Block 1′s yet, and Iran has ICBMs as well.
Also – remember Millennium Challenge 2002 before assuming the USN can just waltz in unopposed.
Even if they do go to all-out war before they have nukes (again, what are your bets?) and are left a smoking ruin – our economy would be a smoking ruin too if they had managed a successful strike on 10+ million barrels per day of oil capacity plus the platforms that supply 20% of our gas. Gucci handbags would be in short supply in Britain as well, even if they hadn’t landed any missiles on us.
Changing subject, this is the submission to the Defence Comittee of Sandy Woodward and friends.
On the subject of costs of land air versus sea air, they claim :
a) A land-based air cost for Operation Ellamy of approximately £900 million.
b) An equivalent sea-based air cost of approximately £150 million.
6. If administrative support costs [2] are added to these figures as suggested at paragraph 2 above, the resultant overall costs would be as follows:
a) Land-based air cost for Operation Ellamy of approximately £1.35 billion.
b) An equivalent sea-based air cost of approximately £0.245 billion.
Just on running costs, they come to a total of £991m/year for the bases involved in an RAF campaign against Libya – Akrotiri, Brize, Coningsby, Kinloss, Lossie, Lyneham, Marham – compared to £187m/year for those needed for a hypothetical sea campaign using Culdrose, the Apaches, the Ocean air group, an Invincible and RFA. You can dispute some of the assumptions, and they’re a bit naughty lumping Brimstone in with Hellfire and ignoring the lack of sea equivalent for R1 or Asac being inferior to E-3, but it’s hard to argue that the CVH costs you more than an airbase, which typically comes in at around £100m/year. They claim 300 missions would cost £60m in fuel for Typhoon/Tornado vs £1.45m for Harrier/Apache. They also go on to talk a bit about the conduct of the campaign, highlight the role of the Growlers and talk about other scenarios like Iran. I don’t claim they’re unbiased or represent the whole truth, but it’s still worth a read.
Tanker costs are a bugger, aside from the fact we don’t have enough. I saw recently that the USAF reckon a gallon of fuel delivered from a tanker costs 17x a gallon on the ground. Obviously it costs a little more than “land prices” if delivered from an RFA, but one RFA costs less to run than an airliner-sized plane and a lot of carrier fuel will be delivered from land.
Due to the wealth of comments this might take a while and given that other comments will no doubt be posted inbetween, I’ll time stamp this as 19:15 GMT.
On with the show;
@ X – I had to feed my tea addiction twice just reading through the comments. On an additional note, the BV has now been fitted to the prototype weaponised Phil unit. Let’s just say that it’ll make some interesting photographs…
@ Solomon – The Israeli’s bombing the Iraqi reactor. The assassination of Iranian scientist (take your pick, Israel and US are prime candidates though emerging intelligence is even throwing suspicion at Russia, Turkey or Saudi Arabia). Both Iraq wars. Afghanistan. The old campaigns in Oman, Aden, Borneo etc. Counter Piracy operations off Somalia.
The list of power projection operations could go on and on. Narrowly defining “Power Projection” as being airpower delivered by Carriers is a waste of time; an argument designed to support your position and not a genuine reflection of the real world reality. Power Projection takes many forms.
@ Anthony – I’m guessing you meant Tanker supported being more expensive than Carrier based, which ties into the wider argument of the pure cost of Carrier based versus land based. An issue that has been tackled before, when the point had to be made repeatedly (I see it’s still being overlooked) that the carrier based aircraft still need a land base (in addition to the dock for the carrier) for when the carrier is at home. Except the permanent land base doesn’t burn fuel when in use, or require any of the crew dedicated to specific Naval tasks such as the helm or the engineering crew (for the ships engines, not the planes obviously).
Your argument about land based aircraft not being able to avoid sea spray also amuses me. While I can fully believe that occasionally the RAF will do a bit of sea skimming, I imagine sea spray is typically not a serious issue for them. What I was rather getting at is the assumption by some that the F-35 (a technically complex aircraft) will maintain a 100% servicability rate on UK carriers. Forgive me but that seems a tad optimistic.
Further, the “we are an island”. God almighty that argument is getting old. The overwhelming majority of our trade is conducted across the English Channel and North Sea with our delightful neighbours (smell the sarcasm) in Europe.
At this point I’m going to have to break out the oil figures. I know TD was storing this up for a future post but given how volatile this one is becoming I think it is worth cracking out. UK oil imports from Norway are 15 times greater than those from the middle east. Middle east oil imports to the UK have been and continue to decline. We could meet all of our gas and oil supplies from countries outside of the middle east, and the majority of our needs (95%) from non-OPEC countries. World dependency on middle eastern oil is also much lower than people think (4 of the top 5 nations that the US imports oil from are non-middle eastern, or 8 of the top 10).
@ The general India, Brazil, China are buying carriers – And? China and Brazil are not buying the same carriers for the same reasons. Not to mention the fact that what they do is down to them. Our defence decisions have to be made based on what we need and can afford, not on keeping up with the Jones’s. China is also building a completely indigenious 5th generation land based fighter, and India are looking to pair up with Russia to produce the same. Do I take it by extension then that people are suggesting the RAF should be given funds to produce a home grown 5th generation fighter, based on the “Well China and India are doing it principal”?
@ General Costs of cutting Carriers – The NAO has made it clear in their reports, there are huge savings to be made by axing CVF, on the order of £4-6bn depending on whether you go for the full cut, or build one and mothball immediately while axing the second carrier.
@ The concept of Libya not being doable without the US – What utter trash. It would have taken longer no doubt before we reached a level where you could call the skies over Libya predominantly “safe” (with the asterix that comes from calling any wartime operation safe), but it absolutely would have been doable. I think sometimes people forget that there was a world before TLAM’s and a lot has been learned in the interim. This should also emphasise why we need to make sure ALARM is replaced properly.
@ DomJ – Invading South Africa to re-establish the Aparteid regime? It says a lot about your recent comments that I took that suggestion in stride as just being a normal comment. With all due respect, I sincerley hope that in your upcoming election battle to become an MP you get pounded into the floor mercilessly by opposition.
@ Gabs – blimey, the old FI debate. I remind you that the majority of aircraft shot down by the Harriers were other fighters. The greatest toll on attack aircraft was inflicted by surface or land based weapon systems. And despite significant casualties the relief force still ended up being deployed. The FI debate for keeping Carriers is the single most dire and over hyped aspect of this paricular can of worms.
And FYI, a major sticking point between us and the French/Italians over Type 45 was specifically the fact that the RN envisaged Type 45 as being capable of throwing up an AA umbrella over an entire task force, whereas French/Italians just wanted a point defence frigate.
@ The main victims of closing the Straits of Hormuz – In order of imports from Iran; 1) China, 2) Japan, 3) India. But then Iran is actually working very hard to avoid closing the Straits. Like the US it fully understands the danger of that war going hot. That’s not to say that it wont close them if pushed too far, but both sides understand what is at stake and neither really wants to see a conflict.
Now football will interrupt this response….
extremely well and accurately stated RW.
you hit on points that i missed and you’ve captured the mood of the country. the US population is calling for the total withdrawal of troops in Europe and Obama split the difference by moving to a rotation.
believe me in the near future you will see rotational troops disappear and troops, air bases/bases will be shuttered.
but i’m repeating what RW said better than i ever could. but as a sidenote please watch the US presidential debates. candidates are accusing the current president of wanting to turn the US into Europe.
they always get applause when they state that they will never let that happen.
if the UK can no longer partner with the US as a credible partner and EQUAL then the separation between the US and EU will only deepen. the reason? because the bridge between the continent and the states abdicated its responsibilities.
HMG spends over £700 billion a year. To get UK armed forces back to roughly 1998 SDR level would probably cost an extra £ 7 billion a year. Can we really not save 1% from elsewhere in the budget?
Cutting overseas aid from 0.7% GDP to 0.5% like other nations would save £3.45 billion a year. Taking back Mrs Thatchers rebate from the EU would save £2 to £2.5 billion a year. Thats £6 billion in two items. Get the other billion by not overpaying doctors & legal aid lawyers. Also place fraud squad officers in John Lewis next December to catch all those Xmas presents bought on public sector credit cards.
Saying we wasted £4 billion scrapping Nimrod so lets waste another £4 billion+ scrapping the carriers, is a crackpot proposal. No wonder we spend billions but nothing reaches the front line.
F-35. The A seems fine, C has glitches but will make a fine carrier bomb truck. C do not know if it will come right, hope it does. If not, Northrop unveiled an advanced STOVL wing in 1992 (Flight International 1-7 July 1992, page 15). The outboard control surface wing developed by Northrop Advanced Technology & Design Center (NATDC). Slap that on an updated Harrier. Also add the latest compact AESA radar from the Gripen, plus plenum chamber burning= WooHoo.
well done chris…….
Muppet
@Gabriele: I suspect it’s not enough for the Cavour, but here’s one link re the use of ski jumps
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:GRNmczWNhyUJ:www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD%3DADA237265+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgGFWqtkV92lo5RUecmKla9hx0I_PDFrCJD4oh3U1kJ87bxwZ4pQFAFHOroLMVZH4DlCIZeIuh_GQoWuLzDGYBrb8x2CfWpxbF3MsMbe3dVwuqbz7Yr_wrj0r2D5zbMRmHWYQv-&sig=AHIEtbQMFd5oqTk9S1yL5R8CTbhAJ2WEFA&pli=1
And if you are feeling really keen, there’s always the “shove a big enough rocket on, of course it will bloody well fly” approach :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSFjhWw4DNo&feature=BFa&list=HL1326918085&lf=mh_lolz
Lack of holiday taking its toll.
When I wrote that I do not know if the F-35C will come right, I meant the F-35B.
Sorry, will lie down in darkened room.
@Chris.B. – see above for why your comments about the oil market are completely missing the point (search the thread for “$250 oil”). We may currently import a lot of oil from Norway – but we would be paying $250 or whatever for the privilege. And the oil market is not static like you assume – in the event of a big disruption like Hormuz, you would find Japanese and German and Korean tankers queuing up at Sullom Voe or Sture, ready to pay $251/barrel (or whatever) until demand was reduced by 15%. Plus you ignore the 20% of our natural gas that comes from Qatar.
@Brian Black – DOT&E reckons that LHA-6/7 can accommodate 20xF-35B plus 2xSAR helicopters. One would assume that we would need some AEW somewhere as well, so you’d be looking at <20 F-35B's. But then the Americas have a lot of space for Marines, if you're going for something that size then why not just go for a de Gaulle with a better powerplant? Except that was discussed extensively at the time and the conclusion was broadly "steel is cheap, air is free" and the operating advantages of something bigger outweighed the minimal cost savings.
@ DomJ
Funny you should be calling people Muppets. The exact scenario you brought up was the UK and European allies invading South African to re-establish an all white government. If you can’t see how that, on top of your Murmansk raids, blockading China and bombing Argentine Dams to flood Buenos Aires doesn’t make you completely unfit to sit in the Commons, then nothing will.
El Sid;
The oil and gas markets have huge capacity that is being under utilised. People will only pay so much and even the producers know that. Production would likely be ramped to compensate as countries looked to play the good samaritan and steal future deals from under the noses of OPEC. I don’t think the Oil market would be quite as volatile as you think.
yes chris, because i was being completely serious you complete tool….
Dom,
You have in the past – quite seriously – suggested;
- A unilateral blockade of China’s shipping lanes,
- Blowing up a dam near Buenos Aires in order to drown thousands of civilians as a revenge act for Argentina capturing the Falklands,
- Deploying a task force to capture Russian Submarine bases at Murmansk,
Why would you even bring up a UK/EU coalition to oust the current South African government?
@ Chris BAE re Harpoon
Does it foul the tail-hook? If it does I have seen this American thing that has a great big fan just behind the pilot chappy. Imagine a weaponised Flymo but in dour grey. BTW in the documentation the pilot is now known as Warrior Prime. Got a bit more of zing to it……
@ X
Warrior Prime. I like it. What about Warfighter Prime though? Not quite as romantic sounding, but a bit more techy and modern. Might seal the deal with the Japanese?
The tail hook should be fine. It’s becoming quite a tight squeeze though. Original drawings had the Phil unit looking fit and trim, but now he’s starting to look a little… rotund, shall we say. The current plan is to palm that off as being “stealth” design, with the curves reflecting radio waves away from critical internal angles.
I think people will buy it.
@ John Hartley – “HMG spends over £700 billion a year. To get UK armed forces back to roughly 1998 SDR level would probably cost an extra £ 7 billion a year. Can we really not save 1% from elsewhere in the budget?”
I’d be the first to cheer that on, but i really don’t see it happening.
Much as i hate to admit it, RUSI, TD and others were right to plan ahead on the current assumptions for Defence spending.
It’s the world we live in.
@ Chris BAE re Warfighter
Well I note that car manufacturers sometimes release the same model vehicle but with different names and slightly specs in different markets. So a bit of market research and we good have both Warrior and Warfighter! I can see the Japanese going for the latter as it sounds a bit video game-ish. And perhaps for the Japanese the naval version could be called the Tuna? PhilTuna? TunaPhil? Um…….
Rotund? Not to worry! To make space we can chuck out the whizz-bangs, RADARs, HDTV, DAB, WC, GPS, LTE, and a few of the engines and flog a logistics version. We can call it the PhilMeUp. I see it slotting in somewhere between a SWB Transit and the An-124.
chris
because i thought no one could possibly be stupid enough to think it was serious objective rather than a random reason to be fighting a war in southern africa.
I honestly thought ‘no, theres no way anyone will quibble over the objective’, foolish apparently.
The point stands, if the uk does not provide istar, day one decapitation and over the undefended beach landing followed by seizing a port, who does?
We are the only nation outside the us who can realisticaly offer that.
As for my ‘outrageous’ suggestions, we did blockade germany, twice, and used terror bombing as our main war effort for 4 years of total war, and they invaded poland.
john, ref getting money from elsewhere, i quote from today’s paper, and honestly this well solomon laughing his socks off and shaking his head at this country’s priorities.
today a romanian women won her case to receive housing benefit ON TOP OF the £25,500 she already gets for her and her 5 children. This would give an extra £2,500 a year. Did this grip my shit? well started puckering, but after i read she had been in this country 5 years and issued a statement about the ruling through an interpreter, that got me knew enough to fill out the right forms though, 5 years never worked a day (apart from selling the big issue) That’s where you make your saving stop this moving “within the EU” for a life on benefits.
By the way first job for the CVF to justify it’s building in my eyes, is to load the hanger deck with camp beds and drop all these lazy fu*kers back on the european mainland!
PaulG
Read that item as well.
I understand Italy has a law that lets them deport EU citizens if they commit crime or anti social acts in Italy. The Italians wisely got Brussels approval before they passed it, so lawyers stand little chance of challenging it.
Shame there is no UK version of that Italian law. Our political elite just prefers to blame Europe for their own unwillingness to act.
Dom,
Stop being a tard. You can’t just throw out a comment about invading South Africa given your history, then expect to pull it back later.
As for the “point” you do realise that other nations have things like ISTAR and strike assets? Just because we currently use TLAM does not mean that TLAM is the sole tool for hitting such targets. In, I think GW1, the first SEAD/DEAD strikes were carried out by Apaches. It could be special forces. It could be convential strike aircraft in a well organised package. This is precisely why training is often more important than equipment, something I’ve been mulling about doing a series on (currently using the cheesy title; “Men of War”. Suggestions on a postcard. Would people be interested even?).
As for your last section about your “outrageous” suggestions, it continually amazes me the ability of people to cherry pick the least applicable aspects of history and try to apply that to the modern world.
Like comparing WW1/WW2 Germany with the modern, nuclear armed China. The emphasis being on nuclear armed. And while we may have terror bombed Germany, mainly through lack of bombing accuracy than anything else, that would not be acceptable in the modern world.
Just look at the fuss being kicked up everytime Israel occasionally flattens a civilian building. Were it not for strong US support and the ambiguity of “were there people in the building with weapons or not”, then Israel would face serious backlash, and that’s just from hitting one building and killing a handful of innocents.
If you intentionally bombed a dam and flooded a major city, causing thousands of deaths, “ooops” is unlikely to get you off the hook. The repercussions would be unlike anything known in the modern era. Even the US probably wouldn’t be able to get away with that.
@ X
Hmm, different models for different markets, I like it. What about AquaPhil for the navalised version?
@ Gabby
Just noticed this from flicking through. I find it funny that you’re hear bashing TD and his blog, since your own seemed to have very little readership until you rolled up and started to use TD’s blog (in some cases – quite literally) to promote your own. You probably owe most of your current readership to your almost spam like linking (which we all know also bumps you up the search results).
And yet the points TD made that you are calling smokescreens are valid. A sortie is a very ambiguous term. Do we count CAP sorties by naval aircraft into their sortie generation rates? Is a sortie by a refuelling F-18 counted as a generated sortie for the air group? What actual effects do these sorties produce? What types of targets are they hitting?
And yes financial reality. If we had an endless pool of money we could rack up the aircraft carriers and build a fleet that would swamp the US. But as the pit of cash does have a bottom, that means we have to manage the funds. Which means questioning why, when the Admirals were pleading to the government that we don’t have enough escorts during Ellamy, that the Navy has decided to eschew the chance to can CVF and use its shrinking budget (in both cash and manpower) on a central task of the Navy for which it seems ill supplied?
According to the NAO you could bin the carriers and put two Type 45 into production yet still save several billion pounds. Does this not seem to solve both of the Navies main problems in one shot?
But then I guess not.
Dom you simply must write a list of countries whose Head of State shitters you don’t want to hold hostage it will be quicker.
The Romanian. The law states that an EU citizen can claim most benefits in this country if they are in one of five criteria: working, self employed, a student, a permanent resident or not a burden on the host state. This isn’t benefit law as such it is EU freedom of movement law that has a knock on effect into benefit provisions. The woman is self employed, therefore she qualifies if she is also habitually resident. The self employed route is a sneaky way to try and claim because you might be considered self employed and not work very hard at it. This law has been around for a very long time now. The only new development is that selling Big Issue is considered gainful self employment. A pointless battle waged by an obtuse council benefits dept.
But shit like this diverts attention from the REAL problems with the benefit system. There aren’t that many Romanians pretending to be self employed but there are MILLIONS who are dependent and divorced from economic reality.
I see yet another poster (rec this time) saying that the UK needs to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. Where does this trope come from?
In 2010, according to UKDS 2011 and NATO, defence spending in the UK was 2.7% of GDP. As for “catching up with France”, for France the figure was 2.0%. Data here.
@Chris.B.
It’s actually kinda scary how little spare capacity there is in the energy supply chain. Non OPEC produces flat-out, the only spare oil production capacity is in OPEC. The best estimate for that is 2.31 million barrels per day (compared to global consumption of 90 million bpd), and even that isn’t all immediately “turn-onable”. It should go up a bit as Libya returns to normal, but it’s still a long way from the 16.5 million bpd going through Hormuz. And the spare capacity doesn’t help the Hormuz scenario much because it’s all in Saudi.
Emergency oil stocks would help quite a bit, all members of the IEA are required to have 67.5 days’ national consumption, but that still isn’t enough for a long-term transition to a world which has lost 15% of global production.
@ Chris, spot on in the argument about reliance on TLAM and star wars first night strikes.
The point on training is an interesting one, the lowering kill rate in AAc between Korea and vietnam led the US to establish Red Flag or for our younger posters (top gun) training.
Sorties generated by OUP are clearly defined in the OUP NATO stats. Gabbys stats are reasonably accurate so sorry both yourself and TD are wrong to criticise them.
Was I being critical of them or saying we would need to establish both consistency and relevance, i.e. putting things in context and not relying on them to make a case one way or the other as if they were all that mattered
I apologise for the word criticism, however as I pointed out they are already consistent. The problem is how deep do you want to go in terms of relevance, there must be groupings. Whilst cleared personnel can look at individual missions and specifics that type of info will never be available for general release.
exactly, which is why I always, as I said, handle arguments backed up with sortie rates, with thick gloves
Have we all had a good spleen venting session, was it fun?
Its good to have a blow out now and then, surely?
Back to bloody bridges
I wonder where that funny figure of 67.5 (precisely) COMES FROM, AS FOR “all members of the IEA are required to have 67.5 days’ national consumption, but that still isn’t enough for a long-term transition to a world which has lost 15% of global production”
- could it be the 15% from 365 days (55), topped up for the winter seasonal factor (12.5), assuming the Hormuz thing happens at the very worst time as for consumption peaking, and squeezing stock levels?
@ APATS
It’s funny you should mention Red Flag/Top Gun, I was reading an old article the other day where it was suggested that a number of UK pilots had gone over and trained the first group of eight instructors for (I think) the Navies course. Would be an interesting twist if indeed true.
And that was the kind of thing I was thinking about for that Men of War series, along with things like the Thach Weave/American vs Japanese pilot training in WW2, Nelsons tactical approach to Trafalgar, the British Army of the Penninsular campaign etc, all focusing on how men have found ways to get the most out of their machines, bypass their weaknesses and highlight their strengths etc.
As for the sorties thing, I think TD hit the nail on the head. Without knowing all the precise details of each sortie then it’s very difficult to use sortie rates etc as evidence to back a certain position.
ah shit…
@ El Sid,
Sorry, missed this in my post above. There is a fair amount of spare capacity to go around. We ourselves are a good example. I suspect that a closure of the Straits would cause an initial shock to oil prices, but once everyone has calmed down a bit I suspect the prices would recover back to a decent value, though still higher than now.
If anything it could prove to be a blessing in disguise. After the last middle east oil crisis the UK basically traded out it’s middle east imports for imports from Norway and other suppliers. A closure of the straits of hormuz would give energy security a massive kick up the priority pile, resulting in a big surge in new nuclear, coal and tidal generation schemes, both here and abroad.
lol can of worms.
“Your opinion on the matter, luckily, means very little”
I lol’ed hard at that…so does everyones’ on here!
The Armed Forces are not thinking straight.
We would be better off and provide way more bang for buck with more Astute Subs , Daring Class Ships , Sattelite Band Width , Drones and loading HMS ocean with Apaches than these dumb trophy piece carriers.
The Darings should be loaded up with Tomahawk and have their potential BMD developed along with Harpoon anti ship capability .
Another four of these and the same number of Astute is enough to frighten any hostile and would be of far more use to the US in any major conflict.
We would at the same time give the UK a full Air Defense Umbrella in case we ever were attacked.
The RAF does not need the JSF , take the tranche 3b typhoons and keep developing the existing ones.
Welcome to TD Tim, exactly, although I would not spend money on Harpoon.
Interesting point you raise
Take a round number, say £5b
What gives us more value for money across a wider spectrum of operations
5 Astute or 1 CVF with limited air wing
I would say that CVF would probably come out on top of that argument to be honest purely because of the flexibility and potential for other capabilities but its an intriguing thought.
If I was Mr Dinnerjacket or Mrs Kirchner, which would give me the shits more, 5 SSN armed with Tomahawk, Spearfish, maybe some SF and a range of sensors against which I have precisely ZERO countermeasures, or, CVF with a handful of F35 that I can push offshore with the threat of a mine.
mmm. there is an interesting question
Change that to 2 extra SSN, 2 extra T45, a handful of SIMSS, the very latest in clever MCM kit, a couple of joint exercises and a shelf full of spares, what delivers more, the balance for me at least, swings away from CVF?
Cuts to the heart of that balance question doesn’t it
Mike, it is a good job no one actually listens to my opinion, bloody hell, perish the thought :)
One final point I didn’t address
Gabby mocked my position that cancelling project CVF would potentially free up funds post 2016 for an Ocean replacement, assuming a 1 to 1 replacement is what is ‘the answer’ saying that this thinking is something one Gordon Brown esquire would be proud of and would never happen in a million years.
Lets think about for that moment but put wings on it.
We sacked off £4b of sunk costs in Nimrod MRA4 and yet the MoD currently has plans and aspirations to regenerate that capability, which everyone on here, Gabby included, has speculated will likely be a P8 buy sometime in the next few years when the dust has settled on Nimrod and we have all had plenty of time to adjust.
This is exactly what I am talking about, ridiculous it may well be, but remember chaps, sunk costs are never ever taken into the decision matrix so when we are all wetting our pants about a P8 buy lets remember the same applies equally across all three services.
chris
‘other nations have strike assets’
who!
Provide a list of nations that can carry out a strike from 6000 miles away causing so much disruption they can safely land a division off cargo ships!
‘we’ll get in trouble’
no we wont!
Who is going to put their big boy pants on and go to war with the uk over argentina?
No one, not a dickie bird.
You might get lots of complaints, but asad in syria has shown their worth.
Let the un condem us, its toothless.
Russia is still occupying parts of georgia the un ordered it to leave for christs sake!
And you say i live in fantasy world!
Special forces seizing ports, what is it, the falklands….
@Gareth Jones, any links / thoughts you have on a simple UAV / Helo carrier would be greatly received (either posting or via TD). I’ve got the high level bit down, just need to get time away from the day job to get the detail bits done. Thanks.
One thing has been puzzling me, the initial question was phrased around do we need CVF and F-35 for independent operations (i.e Sierra Leone/Falkland Island at a push) but all the discussion has been around coalition level operations. It seems clear to me that we need a modest level of sea based fast air backed up with good amphibious capability for solitary operations, but I think there is an argument for coalition operations we could buy a seat at the table by buying more AAR assets, and a LRMPA with good overland capabilities, along with other ISTAR and C3 assets as what Libya showed is that Europe lacks is not fast jets but the support infrastructure (along with decent amount of munitions).
Still wish we stuck with a slightly larger Cavour and F-35B (or new build Harrier, in fact I think that new build harrier would have been a very low risk solution), to provide CAP and limited strike/CAS capabilities when we need to do small and medium sized operations on our own. To come back to a question TD asked a couple of days ago, why is it to late to change, I think it’s to late to change back to STOL as we have basically spent all our political capital with the US by flopping late in the process from the F-35B to the F-35C, if we change again, beyond the wasted funds looking at CATOBAR, we will start to seriously piss of our American cousins.
Finally P-8 buy, I think given the £1 billion budget rumoured to be floating about that a second P-3 buy is far more realistic if we assume that if we needed nine MRA4’s we will need at least as many P-8/3’s to cover the same role.
td
but the ongoing costs of building a carrier and operating it arent that much more than designing and building modern invincibles.
Yes, the operating costs of jets are high, but how much more does carrier certification cost? 40 C’s are gonna be bought, do we spend a little bit extra for the step change in capability.
5 astutes would be better than a carrrier, but neither is *enough*.
I agree we need to be rational about what we can afford, and that includes being able to train with live rounds and having a functional force at the end.
An ocean is a nice, but alone, its support
Wow, 190 comments in 25 hours, you guys sure are sensitive about those carriers.
Two comments
1. The RAF, your government in its minds eye seems to have the idea of operating around 160 fast jets. Amazingly that is roughly the number of Typhoons you have ordered. It is pretty obvious the JCA and indeed your fixed wing Fleet Air Arm is dependant on what happens to your Tranche 1 Typhoons (or later production slots). If you cannot sell Typhoon aircraft on reasonable terms is there likely to be funds available for anything more than a minimum (Token?)air group for PoW any time sooner than 2030?
2. The carriers themselves, clearly the current policy of completing both then leaving QE gathering rust streaks at the wharf is a convenience to be reworked at the next SDSR. Plainly, your government will try and sell one.If they can fine, the risk is that they cannot find a buyer for a 65K tonne carrier. In that situation there would be hugh pressure to put the vessel to some use and your second carrier puts`the axe through replacements for your amphib group (Ocean, Argus, the two LPD’s),and Diligence.
A bitter cup to swallow indeed.
tubby
i think we could do without carrier air if we had v22 airborne radar and maybe 400 cruise missiles.
Enemy airdefences go boom and you can not possibly repair a runway that has had ten broach warheads equaly spaced along it.
Even if they do repair it, put another ten in, the war will be over before they can maintain airpower.
‘If you cannot sell Typhoon aircraft on reasonable terms is there likely to be funds available for anything more than a minimum (Token?)air group for PoW any time sooner than 2030?’
I don’t think so, I don’t think the money on selling them as banked since the choice of what to do with them yet hasn’t been decided. I think a token air group is all that we’ll get anyway.
Manned naval fast jets are awfully spendy, and the time is rapidly approaching where a combination of unmanned strike and ISTAR assets are of far greater utility, and cheaper as a system. I’d rather we invest in amphibious shipping, among which is a simple flat top for helos and UAVs.
@ repulse –
Future Surface Escort
“With regards to a general war, the USN NEEDS anti-submarine and anti mine forces. Such missions and peacetime showing the flag missions, also require a fair number of ships.
One of the most effective ASW aside from a hunter killer submarine is the helicopter, which is a good minesweeping tool as well.”
“The US and UK determined in the ’50s and ’60s that helicopters were disruptive to more conventional flight operations, I assume that this is still the case. I also assume STOVL aircraft with their takeoff runs are only marginally less affected by this. The original UK solution, if I understand it, was to put the helicopter assets on an escorting light carrier (dubbed a cruiser). These designs had varying degrees of armament but most IIRC had through decks as this maximizes helicopter landing spots for surge operations.”
“Steel is cheap in comparison to the electronics system of a warship. The size of a vessel does not dictate its affordability, systems do.”
“This vessel needs an air defence capability beyond that offered by RAM, but it does not need an air defence system in the same class as an all-up Aegis system.”
“If a through deck is not utilized then JDS Haruna or the Danish Absalon would be close to what we’re looking for.”
“This brings up the question regards weather or not to use a through deck. This would give the following nontrivial advantages :
• 3-4 extra spots to get helicopters in the air quickly for mass rescue, troop landing or whatever.
• Even airflow over the deck, uninterrupted by a centerline superstructure. This is important as it affects landing safety far more than is appreciated and while not nearly as crucial for helicopters as fixed wing planes it is still a concern.
• The ability to land amidships at the point of minimum pitching allows helicopter operations in far worse weather than a stern landing pad.
• Small fixed wing UAV’s can use it like an old fashioned carrier, and possibly even small coin airplanes in a pinch if the government ever deigns to buy them for close air support. “
“On a general purpose ship an effective gun is generally desirable.”
“There are issues with blast and interference with other ship functions, but helicopter ops can be kept well away from the gun during firing.
A carrier with a gun is certainly anachronistic but…again…this is not a carrier. It’s a gunboat with helicopters…an aviso perhaps.”
“A large fairly austere hull is inherently versatile. Troop carrying, the ability to act as mothership or tender for small craft like the CB90′s or perhaps FACs, or loaned Coast Guard patrol boats looking for pesky pirates are all possibilities. ISO containers for disaster relief or just greatly expanded medical facilities would greatly facilitate the sort of “soft power” operations that are so important in “peacetime”. In a hot war provision for a big VDS fish and ASW helicopters would give the sort of ASW capability that everybody except the Japanese seems to be either ignoring or selling to Chile.
Regardless of configuration, such a project would need absolutely ruthless oversight to keep people from adding whistles and bells and pricing it out of reach.”
http://brickmuppet.mee.nu/weaponsnkit/935293
“Ironically, one of the most maligned and dismissed components of the current Fleet already has the fundamental attributes needed to meet tomorrow’s challenges. Amphibious ships are the prototypes for future surface combatants. Their design essentials make them perfect carriers of unmanned systems. Amphibious ships by design provide strong interfaces to the air, surface, and subsurface domains.
The new combatants would actually be “carriers,” but rather than carrying aircraft, they would carry an array of unmanned systems. A balanced Fleet would have a mix of small, medium, and large unmanned carrier combatants to cover the range of Fleet functions. One near-term option would be to truncate production of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and replace both the LCS and the Dock Landing Ship (LSD) with a common hull displacing around 10,000 tons.
That small amphib would have a flight deck capable of handling all naval rotorcraft and a well-deck that could accommodate current ship-to-shore connectors, as well as future unmanned surface and subsurface vehicles. Building 60 of these combatants would provide significant strategic flexibility to the Fleet, allowing ships performing LCS missions to be easily sortied as amphibs in support of a large amphibious mission, should the need arise. Those ships would be the utility infielders of the Fleet, providing a tremendous platform for engagement missions and humanitarian-assistance/disaster-relief response at one end and amphibious operations and sea control at the other.
This sort of mission flexibility should be considered a key design attribute for any future combatant. In addition, numbers count in two important ways. First, more ships allow the Fleet to operate forward in more places. Second, more numerous, smaller vessels provide a resilient and survivable high-low mix. Technology makes this disproportionate ratio of small to large combatants possible.
In past gun and aircraft eras, there was a linear relationship between size and reach. Now, in the missile era, a small combatant can reach as far as a larger one. Because the most critical naval competition will be the battle of signatures, a small signature-controlled combatant with long-range precision strike will be a decisive component of any Fleet.
If this combatant has the ability to deploy her own surface pickets and antisubmarine and mine-countermeasures unmanned systems, a resilient Fleet architecture emerges where these multi-mission self-protected elements can combine into larger federations of networked platforms to create the battle Fleet of the future. Given the strong capabilities of each component, there is no single point of failure, and the system would attrite gracefully in contrast to the catastrophic failure the loss of a supercarrier would entail with today’s Fleet.”
“When considering future Fleet composition, it is critical to explore with clarity the Fleet’s peacetime and wartime roles. In wartime, the Fleet must be capable of consolidating its power in a coherent fashion to control the seas and project power ashore against enemy centers of gravity. In peacetime, it must be able to disperse globally to operate as a deterrent and engagement force. “
“We should also be developing a new generation of combatants with flight decks and well-decks that can carry platforms for deployment into subsurface, surface, and aerial environments. All of this will provide regional combatant commanders with the ability to respond to a rapidly evolving security environment.”
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2011-05/twilight-uperfluous-carrier
Other links
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/san-giorgio.htm
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Never%20Built%20Designs/Great%20Britain/GB%20CH%20Escort%20Cruiser%20Series%2021%201961.gif
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=44091
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA518429&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/08/5th-fleet-focus-singapore-deploys-again.html
http://www.stengg.com/upload/1145a3IaZEMbeFV3E5EF.pdf
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate%20Universe/I%20CVS-LHD%20DHE-7500%201%20AU.gif
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate%20Universe/I%20CVS-LHD%20DHE-7500%202%20AU.gif
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate%20Universe/I%20CVS-LHD%20DHE-7500%203%20AU.gif
does anyone know how much more expensive carrier aircraft are?
Even just a guess?
(no gabby, they arent cheaper)
surely there reaches a point where the extra cost of carrier air is a worthwhile spend?
From my point of view, poor as that may be, 4 land groups and one carrier group seems better than 6 land groups.
With the eventual typhoon fleet at 160, are we better served by 40 carrier based, or another 80 land?
(to be none partisan, personaly, i think the usn only needs 6 active carriers at absolute most, even with their long refuel cycles, do they need 9?)
@ Angus – “In 2010, according to UKDS 2011 and NATO, defence spending in the UK was 2.7% of GDP. As for “catching up with France”, for France the figure was 2.0%.”
I believe it stems from the different ways in which people calculate defence budget.
Do you pension costs count etc.
Very difficult to get an even basis on which to compare, which is why a lot of people use the sipri definition as it is consistent across countries.
I, however, don’t like the sipri definition as i believe it lumps operational costs in along with the core defence budget.
Your figures would include the operational costs of Afghanistan, etc, (based entirely off the % of GDP rather than any actual knowledge).
If you go by core Defence budget we barely scrape past the 2.0% of GDP NATO floor.
James: however awesome non-existent drones might turn out to be 15 years and £zillions in development costs hence, it is very unlikely that they won’t need forward bases. It worries me that people seem to imagine “X47″ or “Son of Taranis” solve literally every problem…if and when they ever deliver.
Also, shouldn’t the “Growler question” be playing more of a role than it is?
On cancelling CVF to free up funds for a new Ocean. I have to support Gabby on this one. That we scrapped Nimrod is a bad comparison; the name ‘Nimrod’ is synonymous with ‘f-k up’. Not just MRA4, but everything Nimrod. When I was still a kid, Nimrod problems were all over the news; CVF on the other hand has been quite a smooth project, notwithstanding the politically inspired delays.
Chopping up problematic Nimrods with the intent to regenerate an MPA fleet in X years time is different from scrapping a perfectly sound viable ship that we intend to use as a heli-deck (and which has the potential to become a fully fledged aircraft carrier) in order to fund a new LPH would not be politically defencible.
There is also the question of what we would do with the unwanted carriers. Scrap a viable ship, and you’d likely be building another Ocean replacement while still chopping up the CVF. That’s not going to go down well.
If we try and sell a CVF, while there may be navies that want carriers, is CVF the type and size of ship that potential customers want? And any nation buying a new carrier will want ten years to sync it’s related procurement and training programmes; a potential buyer may not want the ship at the time we decide to sell, which would mean getting royally shafted in the sale – another very difficult political situation.
Then there is the issue of ITAR (International Transfer of Arms Regulations) and the retransfer of technology originally supplied to the UK. The further down the road to completion, and the more systems you may have to remove to complete a sale – with France possibly being the only customer unaffected. Catapults and arrester gear, for example, are elligible for US defence export controls; if our contract for a new EMALS catapult has retransfer restrictions written into it, then that could be quite some costly rebuild before having a finished AND saleable ship – and then take another loss selling our useless cat back to the US.
How deep does ITAR go in the CVF project, and how might we be affected? I’ve no idea, just speculating.
The carriers are here to stay -I bet a shiny shilling on that- the question is how competant will the air group be?
Someone mentioned ALARM, is it still being used (Libya?) or has it been deleted from the UK inventory.
If so when/where is the replacement.
The other carrier will probably end up as a Commando carrier. At least part time. It is traditional.
@James
How big a problem is lag when using UAVs out of LOS? Obviously there is an absolute physical limit to how small you can make that lag. I understand that Predators operated from the US over Afghan and Iraq needed locally based teams to land them because of satellite delay.
Hi Chris B,
Just read about this “suggested that a number of UK pilots had gone over and trained the first group of eight instructors for (I think) the Navies course. Would be an interesting twist if indeed true.”
It was unfortunately the obituary of the lead pilot. The good news is (even though his name escapes me) that he wrote an autobiography, called something like “from Navy pilot to mud mover”. The latter part refers to him going back to S.Africa and joining that airforce
Problem with drones is situational awareness of the pilot with what’s around him. The figures for near misses and air to air crashes in afghan is I’m told from very reputable source frightening. This is compounded if you have people shoot back at you. You then get to sovereign satellite capability and redundancy in that system. Just some problems
As for typhoon numbers when all 160 typhoons are delivered to the raf only about 125 are single seat combat a/c the rest are 2 seat trainers. When we lose tranche 1 that will drop to about 95 single seats of which at least 15 will be needed for ocu/oeu. Sdsr stated 200 total a/c with about 33% at fear we will need around another 80 a/c to meet that committement
@ Phil,
I’m not entirely sure (i.e. never tried to do it), but it would not appear to be a showstopper based on physics. Clearly, you would need 3rd country or local basing, but if that is in place I can’t see anything too difficult.
The more I reflect, the more I think we were wrong in 2003 to select Thales for Watchkeeper over Northrop Grumman. Yes, under the VFM and procurement rules Thales won, but the rules were too narrowly defined. The N-G Firescout helicopter UAV is a brilliant concept for expeditionary warfare, with anything in between 150 NM radius + 6 hours endurance, or 400 NM radius and one hour loiter, a 250kg payload, and enough electrical power on board for all sorts of sensors, jammers or comms equipment. Plus satcoms. There were in 2003 some worries about shipboard landing in heavy seas, but lots of people working on developing a “grid” system of lasers shining across pitching decks to help it self-locate and land safely.
Now, if the UK had bought that for the Watchkeeper requirement (which did not include naval operations), it would have been much simpler for the MoD to just extend the programme and have a joint services fleet of UAVs. The grid laser landing system was going to be modular and could have been operated from any helo-sized landing spot, not only from a carrier.
A naval UAV with a potential radius of 400 NM, variable payload that could include weapons or sensors, or both, and much much cheaper than a F-35, that can take off from one ship, land on another (that is not an aircraft carrier), and later after a refuel return to the mother ship. What would be wrong with that?
@ DomJ
I’m really intrigued now to know what you think would happen if indeed it were possible to crack a dam and flood most of Buenos Aires.
I suspect that the party in power would be done for just as a start. War crimes tribunals would likely follow. Blair has escaped by the skin of his teeth (so far) for his part in GW2, mainly due to the fact that Saddam was a prick and people aren’t exactly crying to see the back of him. I doubt Cameron would get the same free pass.
Now people probably aren’t going to go to war with the UK, but expect sanctions like you’ve never known before. That financial transaction tax? Basically a guarantee, if people will even do business in the UK anymore.
It’s one thing to accidentally drop a bomb in the wrong place, or to mistake a truck full of refugees for a truck full of militants, but it’s quite another to bomb a dam, causing mass flooding and death. How is the MoD supposed to explain that one away as just being a mistake?
And I see you’ve gone back to the usual “who can bomb this arbitrary target at this arbitrary distance?”.
You can’t just pick a random figure (6000 miles?) out of the hat and impose it as a scenario on people.
But if you must tow that line, you’d be surprised at what a collection of assets a European force can bring to bear when it really wants to. It might lack certain things in certain places but where there is a will, there is a way.
SEAD, recce, strike, etc. There are more than just one to do each of these tasks, and just because the Americans will pull up satellite support does not mean that other nations cannot turn to things like airborne cameras. Almost all modern multi-role aircraft have a degree of reconnaissance capability if needed.
@ JD
I think ALARM has now been retired and no, there does not appear to be a successor on the horizon. Heaven forbid someone should do something so sensible, it might break the mold.
On the drone sub-thread, the Israelis have fitted the communications suite for their drones on their F-15s. Draw what conclusions you like, although the idea of driving a drone from the back seat of a fighter manoeuvring in combat buggers the imagination with the sheer level of airsickness that could be achieved:-)
@ Mark – “Sdsr stated 200 total a/c with about 33% at fear we will need around another 80 a/c to meet that committement”
Did it state 200 aircraft?
And is that 200 combat aircraft, or 200 aircraft of combat types (i.e. 2 seat typhoons, etc)?
The latter seems more likely, in which case you are looking at 130 Typhoon and 65 JCA……….
Has ALARM been retired I’ve not heard such a thing?
Bombing a dam is a very clear war crime today. Very clear.
Jedi think it stated 107 typhoon 96 tornado. Or the pm did in parliament.
That would be 80 additional to current typhoon fleet envisaged. The 2 seaters are going due to the belief that hawk 2 can bridge the training gap as typhoon and jsf are very easy to fly and simulators are advancing.
I remember reading somewhere that it had. Now you’re going to frustrate me into going and checking. I guess that’s payback for the 40mm AP round for the RPG thing from a while back ;)
Right, Phil. ALARM isn’t and won’t be cleared for use on Typhoon. That means that when Tornado goes, so does ALARM.
The Typhoon decision can be changed and it could be put on JCA. By the time Tornado goes off to the scrapyard it’s going to be long in the tooth, thirty to forty years old design wise. I wonder what other options there are since there’s more than one way to skin a cat such as downloading radar station co ordinates into SPEAR or Storm Shadow once detected.
Yes I remember that !
I think the alarm missiles are life expired I think they may already have gone. Idea is a signature reduced a/c can get close enough without detection to allow the onboard aesa radar to provide jamming for the final progression to target or close enough to the radars system to allow engagement with paveway weapons or there like. The NGJ is a bigger system avaiable for the dedicated jamming mission to be carried by growler and f35
On the question of what the RAF replaces Tornado with if F35 is cancelled and the Navy go for F-18s, I was thinking why couldn’t Tornado also be replaced in RAF service with F18s ?
The RAF wont get the first day deep strike capability like they wanted with F35, but so what, we can’t afford it right now anyway, and wouldn’t a handful of Growlers within the fleet provide us with a similar and perhaps more flexible capability ?
I reckon the way to go is F-18 E/F/G for both Fleet air arm and RAF, A big enough order should get the price right down on what is already a fantastic value for money platform, plus costs saving with commonality, ect.
NGJ?
Like I said they are probably redundant now anyway and hark back to the days when it was our only stand off weapon and only our second precision guided weapon. We now have a lot more for both.
I can’t see how a fighter can put out enough power to take down a ground based station.
Well apparently congress has just announced that the F-35C is in real danger of being cancelled. As an aside they slipped in the little comment that ASRAAM won’t be supported with the F-35C. That’s a minor issue compared to the other things plaguing the F-35 but it does prevent rationalisation of all our short ranged AAM to ASRAAM which is a shame.
Obviously this topic has caused quite some considerable debate with people however I am curious about one thing. Why does everyone talk about CVF/JCA like without one you can’t have the other? The PoW will no operate as CATOBAR which means we have a host of aircraft, real and theoretical, that it can operate. The QE will be able to be converted at a later date to this if need be so is in the same boat. Furthermore they are capable of acting as an Ocean replacement if needs must. They are large and I believe have the desk space to take aster 15 without affecting internal volume and can even take aster 30 if you drill into the deck. In short they are large (steel is cheap) vessels that have had comparitively few delays besides political delays. They are versatile because of that size. They are well under build. They WILL be heavily used of that I am sure.
JCA is another matter and a major part of the cost of the carriers ($7ish Billion for 50 of them)…
Also because I’m feeling provocative it’s interesting that again it is an aircraft project that is soaring well into overrun… Everyone likes to criticise Type 45, Astute and CVF but has anyone looked at the overspend on the Typhoon… In 1988 the cost of the project was to be £7 billion… By entry to service it was £20 billion and 4.5 years late (no doubt meaning things like Tornado had to be retained for Ground attack for longer… increasing costs in logistics etc). The end cost of the project hasn’t been released due to “sensitivity issues” but is estimated to be around £37 billion..
The QE class will be 4 years late (extra 6 months early compared to Typhoon). Initial costs were £3.9 Billion. Even if the final costs are £10 billion as some are expecting… Well that’s nothing compared to Typhoon
Was someone saying something about an Elephant in the room?
@ Mark – “Jedi think it stated 107 typhoon 96 tornado. Or the pm did in parliament.”
Does that have any correlation with the FF2020 projections, or merely a temporary requirement to cycle tornado through afghanistan before it is retired?
RE ” links / thoughts you have on a simple UAV / Helo carrier”
- the Singapore company’s website that stands for the existing Endurance-class (one of them off to Thailand, too) has many versions (slower/faster, amphib/ other use) and they both simple and cheap (but can be endlessly upgraded with sensors and weapon systems as they have the volume (which also translates to “time on station”)
chris
simple, we dont destroy it.
What i actualy suggested, was encircle it with impacts, draw a bulls eye round it.
A hour later, hit it with a warheadless missile.
The argentine government will get the message, so will the populace.
BA will start to evacuate itself regardless, can you imagine the cost if london evacuated?
The argentine government would be lucky to survive, its certainly going to struggle to maintain order and fight us on the falklands.
So, argentina goes to the UN, ‘wah wah wah, englands really mean’ and the un says ‘rabble rabble we support you, england you must stop’. Now the brit stands up, rolls up his sleeves and says ‘whos gonna make me’.
And suddenly, it all goes quiet, argentina looks around, peru looks nervous, brazil looks away
And if we need to raise the pressure a little, hit it with something that’ll leave a mark but wont bring it down.
The government might think its a bluff, but no one who lives there will.
And if after the tenth hit, it breaks, oh well, who’s going to blame us, we gave plenty of warning, every chance to evacuate, everychance to stop invading our soil.
As for a transaction tax, the big problem france has is they cant make us pass one, france can pass the tax on french banks, but they’ll just jump to the uk, the uk wont pass it because our banks will leave.
@ Bergendale – “On the question of what the RAF replaces Tornado with if F35 is cancelled and the Navy go for F-18s, I was thinking why couldn’t Tornado also be replaced in RAF service with F18s?”
Because the SDSR switch to “c” included absorbing a £1b budget line for deep strike (FOAS?), and that would be tricky to unpick.
What third system would you run alongside F18 to provide that?
“Perhaps we should invest in pipelines and stop going all apeshit about a sovereign nation conducting exercises in its own sea space whilst wanting to obtain weapons us and Israel have.”
The shipping lanes in the straits of Hormuz are on the Omani side. Closing the straits would simply be an unprovoked action of war against Oman. Last time I checked, Oman was a relatively close ally to the UK…
“If I was Mr Dinnerjacket or Mrs Kirchner, which would give me the shits more, 5 SSN armed with Tomahawk, Spearfish, maybe some SF and a range of sensors against which I have precisely ZERO countermeasures”
I repeat: throwing Tomahawks at Argentina is politically not feasibly and as such no threat but a gamble.
“Change that to 2 extra SSN, 2 extra T45, a handful of SIMSS, the very latest in clever MCM kit, a couple of joint exercises and a shelf full of spares, what delivers more, the balance for me at least, swings away from CVF?”
Cancelling CVF now will bring around £1.5b to the budget, thats exactly one Astute.
Cancelling JCA will save exactly nothing, because development is spent and there are no deliveries yet.
If we would discuss honestly, we would analyze, what capability is required and what platform delivers. If we have enough CAS-birds, why should we add additional capability, which is hoped for by procuring Typhoon T3? If we don’t have enough CAS-birds, why did we ditch Harrier?
You can argue, that Typhoon compared to JCA is actually operational. But then we could also argue that CVF is a vessel that is actually designed, budgeted and building.
And finally, we don’t need further high-end-escorts to exercise auxiliary or policing tasks. We need a proper coast guard.
“Manned naval fast jets are awfully spendy, and the time is rapidly approaching where a combination of unmanned strike and ISTAR assets are of far greater utility, and cheaper as a system.”
Based on todays evidence, this is a bold statement.
Reaper costs $10m a lot. If we include the loss rate and compare the resulting equation with say a F-16, Reaper looks quite unfavourable. Apart from it being tested only in environments without any hard-kill or soft-kill air opposition.
Any other system is miles away from being an actual capability.
As a system, you have to add enlarged space-bound capacities as well.
Love it Dom. Excellent plan. Threaten war crimes. But in a dramatic and dread manner.
@DomJ
“What i actualy suggested, was encircle it with impacts, draw a bulls eye round it.
A hour later, hit it with a warheadless missile.
The argentine government will get the message, so will the populace.”
Such terrorist behavior as described would first generate an outcry in the UK, then an outcry around South America.
With some luck, we may avert outright war with Brazil, but do you really expect no diplomatic or economic reaction?
UN or not, we would find some of our largest companies directly in the conflict zone. FTSE would go collapse, with almost immediate downgrading by the rating agencies.
If we fire at south american soil, we are certain to loose the conflict. Ask Mrs Thatcher.
“links / thoughts you have on a simple UAV / Helo carrier”
BAEs UXV-concept?
I wouldn’t stand for it in this country. I’d expect the Queen to dismiss her entire Cabinet immediately and have them sent down.
It’s beyond stupid. Truly.
“What third system would you run alongside F18 to provide that?”
Tornado GR4 is currently tasked with the deep strike role. F-18E would provide an improvement on that. Maybe not the huge leap forward that the RAF envisaged F35 would give them but an improvement nonetheless.
I also see F35 as a bit of one trick pony, its not a mud mover, and that’s what we need. A rugged and proven airframe at a reasonable cost.
yes field marshall phil, you are right as always, the un doesnt look meekly on as syria slaughters children, it jumped in and taught that naughty syrian dictator a lesson….
Mcz
who exactly is going to sell their shares in Next over argentina?
And you call me a fantasist.
The eu wont sanction iran because it needs the cheap oil, and you think it’ll enter a trade war with us over argetina!
Ratings agencies care about getting paid, nothing else.
They’d happily triple A an *insert your pet daily mail here* as long as it paid its debts.
dismiss the cabinett!!!!
The queen!
What year is it in your world!
You dont think the Government premeditavely committing a clear and outrageous war crime wouldn’t cause a constitutional crisis? For a start the pilots would not follow such an illegal order.
We are still not on bloody dambusters are we
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKHc-U2FNHk
Phil
NGJ next generation jammer pod only avaiable to a select few if we want it.
Jedi I believe that was a 2020 aspirational requirement. Like everything it will be reviewed 2015. It will all be dependant on the number of fastjets you wish to deploy. 107 typhoon would max out a about 24 a/c deployed for a one off operation.
F18 has a shorter range than tornado with the required payload and would not fulfil the deep strike requirement.
phil
wont they?
Funny, they bombed germany for four years….
They just bombed libya, and your precious army had no trouble invading iraq.
As for constitional crisis, admitadly, last time, the tyrant would just of hung anyone who complained, cam wouldnt even need that, he house so packed with retards they’d get confused and pass an equal rights motion
Cameron is going to look very stupid if the F-35C gets cancelled. Mind you if it affects our future capabilities, then the US is in an even worse situation.
My money is on a further upgraded version of the F-18 Super Hornet with a longer range and increased payload capability.
Doms simplistic world view. I have told you before about the principle of PROPORTIONALITY in the law of armed conflict. And DISTINCTION. bombing a dam does not distinguish between military and civilian effects nor is it proportional now we have precision munitions.
RE ALARM et al
“Idea is a signature reduced a/c can get close enough without detection to allow the onboard aesa radar to provide jamming for the final progression to target or close enough to the radars system to allow engagement with paveway weapons or there like. The NGJ is a bigger system avaiable for the dedicated jamming mission to be carried by growler and f35″
-translation: the Typhoon AESA will be capable of range-limited function
- ALARM may have time expired, but despite being a brilliant design/concept, the range is just not sufficient against modern air defences without putting the launching aircraft in serious peril
- the plan that may or may not mature is an anti-radiation version of Meteor…considering that the basic version will only be operational in 2015 (with luck), it is all down to the Typhoon (that version of radar is also planned to be operational from 2015)
- no Growlers (unfotunately) but from about 5 years later either F-35 or Meteor, or both, or neither???
yes phil, i know, but theres no one to enforce these laws you keep quoting.
The world wont stand up to uk, they cant even stand up to syria!
The uk public will cheer, because the sun will tell them too.
Of course Dom. The international community does nothing when one state commits a war crime against another. You keep living on planet Dom.
“The uk public will cheer, because the sun will tell them too.” – Brilliant!
phil
provide evidence, every time it intervenes, there are ten it does not
case in point, syria, right now
@TD, @DominicJ et al: destroying a dam, as a power source, is not a war crime. I don’t see the point of doing so, since bombing the generator hall is far easier with much the same effects.
I would aver that we are living off our reputation from the deterrence point of view. All potential enemies need to know we will do whatever is takes to win, and nothing has been taken off the table. That means holding capabilities to recover what has been lost if necessary, which speak louder than any number of speeches. At that point,
@James: I daresay UAV’s will take over the world one day. But there aren’t any that can fly off frigates yet to do fleet air defence, and cancelling CVF for something 20 years off seems very silly, unless your name is Duncan Sandys :-)
It is a war crime because of the effects downstream. It is not proportional.
Keep believing we can commit war crimes with impunity Dom. Won’t make it true. Even with your vacuous Sun sound bite.
Syria is under heavy sanction Dom, as is Iran now despite not having actually done anything strictly illegal. For nations that don’t have highly advanced economies, sanctions are still bad news.
An economy like the UK would not survive in its current form if hit with heavy import and export sanctions. If you thought the banking crisis was bad, wait till you see what happens when our banking industry is effectively shut down to external trade, combined with significant reductions in fuel imports.
It would send our economy back decades.
And yes, the Queen. As Phil has pointed out, she still has the constitutional power to have the cabinet removed, to dissolve the entire parliament if she so choses, and to reject any law of her choosing. To avoid a constitutional crisis she does not exercise these powers, but be under no illusions that the sovereign possesses these powers and that they form a vital check against Parliament, should for a example a right wing government come to power with little wide public support, or should her government chose to blow up a dam and kill thousands of civilians.
Mark said “F18 has a shorter range than tornado with the required payload and would not fulfil the deep strike requirement.”
But F35 which was supposed to be the replacement for Tornado has even shorter legs.
Bergendale nope Not the case
Wow, I like this game! “Do not poke the bears” *prod*, *prod*. :-D
To reiterate though, I can’t see how we would engage against a near-peer military power, except as part of a coalition. And in an EU coalition the French, Italians & Spanish already have carriers and FJ’s. In my opinion better to concentrate on things they don’t have like ISTAR, AAR, Strategic Transport. Just to be provocative – AAR also allows us to develop strategic strike, instead of putting “grey boats” 100-200 miles off an unfriendly coast, attracting SSGW’s . . . :-0
@ Anthony: YYSSW
@DomJ & JBT: I understand that CVF is central to your Strategic Raider blueprints, but neither you nor others (really) have answered TD’s central point: “If you really, really need to keep CVF. What would you sacrifice to keep it?” – Actually JBT, I think I already know your well reasoned argument already! :-)
@dangerous Dave: I would cancel F35C for F18 and bin Tornado for CVF
“Actually JBT, I think I already know your well reasoned argument already!”
I should hope so! ;)
RE: bombing dams
Out of interest if Argentina decided to liberate the Falklands by bombing the living daylights out of Stanley and MPA, dropping cluster munitions like they were going out of fashion, and saying f*ck the civilian casualties, as the demolished the infrastructure and any structure big enough to hide a section of soliders we could presumably retaliate in a similar manner and go all DomJ on their arses?
@ Rupert Fiennes,
Firescout has already qualified for landing on the USS McInerney (a frigate) 3 years ago, and made an operational deployment on an anti-drugs mission. Doing fleet air defence may not be an ideal mission for it, but there is nothing in terms of data links or comms that would stop it being part of an early warning system say 100 miles forward of the ships with a six hour loiter time. I dare say that with the Apache-style stub wings proposed for the next generation Firescout it could even hoist a couple of missiles up. Is that a fully fledged AD system? Not really, but as part of a broader system of systems with say a controlling T45, 4 Firescouts greatly extend the overall AD envelope at a much lower cost than having a CVF and an airing of fast jets.
ISTAR missions are routine for UAVs now, UCAVs are beginning to come on stream and will become more potent. Add in Fireshadow loitering missiles, the TLAM we already have and you are approaching quite a respectable strike capability.
A Firescout-type of UAV would – although I am not an expert – perhaps also offer interesting utility in a MPA role. There’s 250 kg of payload capacity for sonobouys, and Northrop Grumman certainly had some design plans in 2003 for a “cargo module”, although I don’t know if that was ever fully developed.
In a perfect world, we’d of course have several CVFs and enough trained up fast jets to deploy to a Libya type of operation, but it’s not a perfect world. The combined costs of the CVF and air wings are enormous. The cost of a simple flattop with holds full of AH-64, UAVs with modular sensor packages and Fireshadow are considerably less. If you regard that as part of a “system of systems” with an accompanying T45 and Astute, and some much cheaper amphibious ships carrying a Brigade embarked, the costs would probably be lower, the utility pretty much the same in strike missions and probably better for ISTAR missions,
“airing” = “air wing”. Ruddy spell check.
Is the F35 cleared for bouncing bombs?
If you want to criminally threaten the Argies, Dom, it would be easier to find an Argentine child in the UK and have the PM hold a gun to his head on the evening news.
And the world is more than capable of standing up to Syria; NATO could crush their forces and take out the leadership if there was the will. But it’s the same issue that’s often left to one side when pondering Argentina’s ability to take the Falklands; it’s not just “can I do this” that matters, it’s also “am I prepared to pay the price”.
For Syria, (or the Malvinas) the price isn’t worth the trouble.
Dangerous Dave
I would merge all airpower into one service to reduce command and logistics overhead… probably the RAF given they will most be able to handle such a move.
I would cut heavily the number of higher tier officers throughout the forces. The are important but so are the ratings/specialists who will know the trade like the back of their hand. Given that we now have more officers than the marines but less kit/bodies I don’t see any reason not to make savings in that area.
To save money the Tank regiments and Heavy Artillery regiments would be moved to the TA. I would also probably cut numbers due to the ease with which one can buy lots of decent tanks/heavy artillery off the shelve versus the time to build fighters/ships.
Between losing CASD or CVF I would cut CASD without hesitation every single time. In a nuclear war we have lost already, CASD is almost like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Russia, America, China, India all have huge numbers of missiles compared to us. With regards Iran and states like that well a combination of ABM assets (like the Type 45) and tri-service nuclear cruise missiles/bombs (Nuclear tipped tomahawk, Scud type delivery etc) would be an effective deterrence that would probably be cheaper and as such I would move towards that.
With regards carriers, France has one. Spain and Italy have small escort carriers which are not at all the same thing and incapable of delivering the day 1 strike that the CdG, QE or PoW could not to mention the number of sorties and ability to strike while also defending Amphibious assets securing a beachhead.
You could argue that if you want to the play the “work with Europe” card then Britain should focus on assets like ISTAR, Carriers, SSN’s, AAR and let other nations take the burden with regards light infantry, mechanised battalions, land based fighters, etcetc… Europe has lots of those what it doesn’t have is a large enough number of true carriers, SSN’s, ISTAR assets. If we are going to do the coalition thing then given our history, skills and industry we shouldn’t be trying to maintain a huge (or even big) army and instead should focus on Naval, Air and Intelligence to provide the high tech kit and skilled troops to provide Day 1 knock down of the door so the rest of Europe can fill through the building once entry has been secured… so to speak.
dd
i would keep (and procure) awacs, mpa, aar, 4 squadrons of heavy fighters, ssbn, ssn enough to protect it, satellite imaging and comms, and then a sane version of my raider fleet.
If theres any money left, who knows.
Sorry for double post but the concept that AAR is any safer than a carrier against a high tech opponent that can threaten a carrier beggers belief. For goodness sake the F-35 lost in a scenario because it’s tankers were shot down which only highlights them as a weak point.
As for 200 miles off the coast while exposing itself to enemy fire not sure I agree with that. Taking the F-35C for example your looking at easily 450 miles combat radius on internal fuel. Buddy buddy tanking can extend that again. Coupled with TLAM launched missiles from SSN’s you can start hitting the opponents major threats before closing in with the Amphibious group.
@James: agreed. Yes, the Firescout is a useful platform, but given that it is a helicopter, it’s range, speed, sensor and weapon carrying capabilities will be limited, and that will be the case with any VTOL aircraft, compared to a CTOL equivalent. Moreever, no platform like this actually exists, even as a prototype, otherwise the RAF would be disbanding all it’s fighter squadrons, right?
All of these factors will increase the number of platforms required compared to non-VTOL platforms for the same coverage. Obviously, given the maintenance overhead for all these platforms, it would make more sense to put all these platforms on a few large ships with large flight decks :-)
Even after endless stretching out of procurement for budgetary reasons, we’re getting some capable ships for about the same price as 6 Daring’s. The air group may be expensive, but that’s because we are gold plating it, and given the transit times for land-based fighters, I would aver there are actually lower costs overall for the same effects.
The fact is, we have spent half a century trying to convince ourselves that there is some better, cheaper way of providing air support for naval forces and when projecting power overseas, and with all due respect to the Harrier, we have failed. It’s time to recognise reality
@ repulse – two further links that may be useful:
http://www.strategycenter.net/imgLib/20090310_10.jpg
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=59936
@ Rupert Fiennes,
slightly puzzled at your “no platform like this actually exists, even as a prototype…”, unless I have misunderstood you.
Firescout first flew in 2001 I think. I spent nearly 3 years on and off working on the Watchkeeper programme, so became familiar with it as it was one of 8 UAVs offered (4 competing teams, each with 2 different air vehicles).
It flies, it is coming into service with the USN (168 ordered), one even got shot down in Libya a few months ago. It lands and takes off from frigate-size helicopter spots using a grid system of lasers to guide it in and to cope with a pitching deck.
It’s got a modular payload bay, and while I’m sure not every type of sensor has been trialled in it, many have (there were some problems with data links, but those seem now to be ironed out). The upgrade plan is to put stub wings onto the next model to increase both flexibility and endurance.
I have also just checked the cargo module: it was trialled in 2010, apparently successful.
N-G claim flight costs of $2,700 an hour, compared with $10,000 for a Blackhawk, and Lord knows what for a modern naval fast jet. It costs about $10M per air vehicle. Is it as top dog as F-35C, of course not. Is it cheaper than F-35C? I suspect so.
I’m not a paid shill for Northrop-Grumman, so if you like consider the Firescout “an example” of some different thinking, not a specific recommendation. Ditto Fireshadow, the loitering munition.
I strongly suspect we are in the last generation of manned fast jets coming off aircraft carriers, not the last generation of naval aviation. My worry is that Britain, led by some very single service thinking that was certainly prevalent in the MoD in the late 90s / early 2000s, has decided to ignore that reality, or the rapid development of unmanned technologies, and has committed us as a nation to something over £20 billion of cost in 2 CVFs and the fast jets. That £20 billion buys a lot of amphibious capability.
How often are UK naval fast jets actually used in their optimum role (well pre-SDSR binning them for a while)? We pay a lot of money for something we hardly use, and there are other solutions that yearly look both more capable and more affordable.
How does a 250Kg payload replace a 8000kg payload of any fast jet?
Were can I fly the fire scout anywhere I like or is it restricted. When you look at the cost of fire scout or any UAV which flies outside line of sight do you need a satellite to go fly and if so at what cost. And in what weather conditions is it cleared to fly in.
No UCAV currently exists outside of a prototype in the US which has so far has flown a handful of times and has no mission system. When theres a fully working aircraft than demonstrates the independent freedom of operation currently enjoyed by any fastjet which similar capability then im prepared to listen on them replacing fast jets until that point there complementary systems for recon with limited attack capabilities in strictly limited circumstances.
@ James
You’ve lost me. Surely the UCAVs of the near future will be just about as large and need as much deck space as today’s manned aeroplanes?
“we could presumably retaliate in a similar manner and go all DomJ on their arses?”
It would still be a total war crime. HMG would be criminals. Those members of the armed forces that participated would also be criminals. You would criminalise a government, thus making it illegitimate and prompting a constitutional crisis of the most fundamental kind imaginable.
The only dumb weapons we now have in inventory are strapped to guidance kits to make them precision guided munitions. There is no need to destroy and entire dam to make it unable to generate electricity or transport that electricity onto the wider grid.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. There’s no chance I’d support or tolerate a government that murders women and children in a deliberate manner.
@ Mark,
when did the RN last need a 8,000kg payload on a fast jet flying off the deck of a ship? This thread is all about affordability, not having the ultimate insurance possibility for every eventuality.
(Was that 8,000kg payload fast jet also flexible enough to land on a frigate?)
I had hoped I was clear above, to me it is about a different and more affordable approach that puts together a system of systems – of which something like Firescout UAVs may be one element. For distant precision strike we already have TLAM. Loitering munitions are coming on the scene which offer a mid-range precision strike option, and shorter range strike can be performed by helicopters, both manned and unmanned. I would suggest that those capabilities together probably cover 90% of the UK’s “strike from the sea” needs. You also get some ISTAR capabilities that F-35C simply does not have.
I’m not sure how to interpret your “independent freedom of operation”. UAVs have been reprogrammable in flight for over 10 years, and the quality of optics and lack of a need to fly the thing while peering at a display mean that the situational awareness is hardly lacking in a modern UAV. I’m not joking when I recall that the decision to deploy the 1 CHESHIRE QRF into Sipovo in 1996 was taken by me after looking at live images of Serb movements of their reserve battalion being received from a US Predator. In the years before that, Army helicopters over Belfast regularly provided “heli-telly” into Lisburn. Is that sort of fidelity possible from a fast jet that is also trying to do other things and at 800 mph?
@ x In some cases larger already.
X,
I suspect none of us on here are designers of UAVs – I was once a user / tasker, but that’s not much good for this discussion.
I’m also not convinced that UCAVs are really a separate class. They are just UAVs with weapons and a targeting system. Currently, the design optimisation appears to be about low observability, RCS, and the ability to penetrate complex AD networks over quite some range. Those factors do certainly drive design decisions that with today’s technology look like Taranis or X-47B, and yes they are just about as big as modern FJ. However, loitering munitions look like TLAM or Fireshadow, and those can be launched from smaller ships. Don’t laugh, but I recall reading about a design proposal to put GMLRS on a ship with a counter-ship motion mount on the RPC. Guided 155mm shells also available now, putting the same precision and effect as a SDB into play without the need to launch any air vehicles.
I think there are now lots of ways to skin the cat on this one, and some of them are cheaper than F-35C. There will always be some missions that only a manned FJ can cover but in the context of “there’s no money left”, do we not have to take a few informed decisions?
@ Topman
I think we are closer to the Duncan Sandy-esque image of un-piloted air warfare. But how close I am not sure as having been around IT for the best part of 30 years I know machines are still dumber than a dumb thing.
@James: Firescout would be too small for an air defence platform, with the requirement to carry both missiles and radar. You would need something much bigger, say UH60 size. Assume rotary wing speeds, the same radar and missiles as a manned fighter and a CAP area 200K away, transit will take an hour, something that would take a CTOL aircraft less than 20 minutes. At the best possible altitude of 6000m for a helicopter, it’s radar horizon is around 360K. At that altitude you will find it’s endurance drastically reduced from the specified 5 hours, with an endurance likely to be the same as a CTOL aircraft at 2 hours. A CTOL aircraft can cruise easily at the tropopause (11000m) with a radar horizon of 500K. Furthermore, at the speed at which either missiles or supersonic aircraft can attack, there is effectively no way a rotary wing could reposition in time to meet an unexpected attack: you would need to increase the numbers available to compensate. So far I’ve proved that our “light VTOL UAV” has to be the size of a Blackhawk, and would be required in greater numbers than a CTOL aircraft for the same capability. The next generation of frigates and destroyers will need to carry 4 UH60′s each: none of the current ones do, so we had better get cracking on building lots more!
If you assume I think that aircraft carrier aircraft all have to have someone with a white scarf aboard, you couldn’t be more wrong. However, the state of the art in UAV’s requires heavy reliance on remote control, so I suspect we are going to require those damn pilots for another generation at least. And CTOL aircraft will always be more capable than VTOL. So, what’s wrong with them?
@ Rupert Fiennes,
I think we are probably not coming at this from diametrically opposed positions – we may even be on much the same side. All I’m saying is that in the context of vast costs for “limited trick ponies” such as F-35C and a large amount of steel and some eye-watering lifecycle costs, it’s as well to look at other solutions that technology may be offering. Certainly, in the last decade UAVs have advanced in capabilities more than many thought, and there’s all sorts of new thinking about how to use them.
You haven’t yet read my still-in-authoring article on airships, of which one variant is a UAV that can hoist 20 tonnes into the sky, stay aloft for weeks, cruises at around 50 knots so can stay well positioned over any naval task group, flies above any weather, and which USAF and Lawrence Livermore modelling thought could not be shot down in less than 27 separate AMRAAM hits. 20 tonnes is a reasonable amount of missiles and radars. I haven’t yet looked into radar coverage from 50,000 feet (nasty formula waiting for me to wrestle with), but I think it’s OK.
F35 is not a Royal Navy only asset it will replace the RAF tornado. It will have the added flexibility to also land on a aircraft carrier. So that is the capability your are replacing not just a navy plane. This requires more than tomahawk or fire shadow can deliver and more than 250kg payload as jets carry a significantly different number weapons for a variety of different targets. With the added benefit of having a someone in the cockpit which technology cannot yet replace.
Freedom of movement means I can fly to any location I wish. When I get to that location I can then fly in any type of airspace with any type of air traffic and in any type of weather condition. That I can commit additional a/c without the added constraint of worrying about bandwidth. And in more than a benign air threat.
Sensors on F35 will be comparable to any payload on fire scout. I agree UAV can add extra ISTAR recon capabilities which is what we have with watchkeeper but they are supplemental. I would say adding manned Kingair a/c would be more flexible for the UK than additional UAVs. Though procurement of the orca system maybe useful for the RN as a recon asset.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/nato-accused-of-war-crimes-in-libya-6291566.html
TD
Indeed, lol just funny how Gabs said that when by his own train of thought, his own would mean even less to the UK mill.
Please breath gentlemen XD
This thread really moved fast!
I’d rather see a couple of Oceans and Albions come into service first before the big flat-tops, I think – solomon – that our Amphibious capability is rather Sierra Hotel and that, rather than just only carrier aviation, which the US has enough of, it is the niche capabilities like amphibs what makes the RN and UK as a whole, a capability allie to treasure…that and our Sub force. Thats before looking at the other specialities our RAF and Army has.
I dont think carrier aviation alone, is something to gauge ‘usefullness’ by, especially when said US forces has enough of them.
I still think Carrier aviatio is inportant for a nation like the UK, given our dependancies and territories afar, and our aspiration on the world stage. Its a shame the plans we had before the SDSR has sense and were well thought about, but the funds arent there…lol thats the realtity.
@ Mark,
unless I misunderstood the premise of TD’s article, it was about “bang for buck” in comparison to CVF + JCA, so the fact that Tornadoes are being replaced as well by JCA is strictly not pertinent (but would drive their costs up through less purchased if a decision to stop purchasing CVF + JCA was taken).
To me, it’s a Pareto exchange. 80% of the capability for 20% of the cash. It is reasonable to ask when the final 20% of capability would ever (or has ever) been used by UK fast jets. I cannot think since 1982 of when we have ever used embarked fast jets to their full extent (granted, the FAA flew from Kandahar and GDC over Bosnia, but that’s not the same).
@Gareth and McZ, thanks both for the info – seems inline with my thinking… Having only one active CVF (without Ocean replacement) will limit our capability, hence we need other options. Probably cannot reduce the “escort” fleet to pay for it but the future amphibious force is up for grabs I believe – especially as full frontal beach assaults are one of the last things we should be prioritizing… When I get a chance I’ll finish my draft post to start the debate…
James
Yes it was the point of the article but It was flawed as a result as tornado replacement is now the major component in the f35 procurement and has at least in part drove the switch of varient
If you mean the additional 20% capability of a fastjet being dropping anything bigger than brimstone or hellfire over considerable distance with minimised response times in any environment against any target we’ve only used that capability almost every day for the last 20 years.
@James: a fighter aircraft can find and destroy other aircraft, missiles, ships, and ground targets, and has a man in the loop to reduce it’s communication requirements. It is also a difficult target. Not quite a one trick pony :-)
An airship on the other hand has fantastic endurance and volume, but isn’t good for much else. Given that AMRAAM has a rod warhead, a single proximity detonation would ventilate the envelope nicely, assuming it didn’t hit the gondola with all the metal components first, which would bring it down in hours at most. I can see plenty of roles for airships in MPA, communication relay and COIN, but they have one thing in common: they require a permissive air defence environment :-(
I don’t think we are coming at things from a different place, but I place a lot of emphasis on “stuff that works”. There’s lots of stuff that might work, but we are not in a situation where we can waste a lot of money on blue sky solutions :-(
BTW, the cost of all that steel was 80 million for both CVF. Cheap stuff steel :-)
@ Mark, re your second paragraph.
Except we haven’t used that capability almost every day over the last 20 years. We haven’t used _carrier_ based fast jets. We’ve used fast jets including FAA jets for a number of operations, except flying from air bases. Apart from training, we haven’t used carrier based fast jets for anything apart from patrolling a no fly zone over Bosnia since 1982, and before then 1953.
Let’s have fast jets, operated from a proper airport by whichever service wants to do so, but let’s not bankrupt the rest of the forces merely to have a couple of periods of use in 60 years unless we’re feeling flush with cash. Which we’re not.
@ Rupert Fiennes,
re cheap stuff steel. Not when you give BAE Systems and Thales a mongrel of a contract.
@ Rupert Fiennes,
pressed “enter” too soon. I can only go by the USAF / Lawrence Livermore modelling. Were you aware that the 20T-capable airship has over 19,000 separate gas compartments within the envelope? And that rips and tears don’t mean much gas leakage unless inflicted from above (helium rising etc)?
You are correct in that hitting the gondola is much more serious in terms of operating the UAV, but the modern design has combined radar reflectors and heat sources on sacrificial lobes that are designed to draw the attention of most missiles, and the radar centrally embedded in the middle of the envelope. Not invulnerable of course, but a tougher nut to crack than it first appears, and if it is firing back with AMRAAM, possibly a target that many 2nd/3rd world air forces may be unable to defeat at all.
James
Well that leaves us arguing over the cost of just the carrier then not fast jet a/c. Because the idea of f35 is it can be used from land or a sea base depending on the mission and operation replacing tornado in its roles.
And the argument for the carrier comes down to if you believe it’s becoming harder to get basing rights for strike a/c close to the operational theatre. Which can be covered by two ways either a aircraft carrier or significant additional aar a/c capacity.
james
i’m happy to give up carrier air, but we need major investment in sat/int and tlam strike if we do.
Is one cheaper than the other?
Ten years ago, **** the carrier, but today, i think we’re stuck with nellie and dumbo
phil
you may not be the last man of integrity, but enough ltcols defended landrover wolf as their men were being slaughtered in it for me not to worry….
@ Mark,
we can certainly agree on that. Without going into SAG scenarios (don’t want MoD Plod breathing down either my neck or TD’s servers), it is certainly a live debate.
History would, I suggest, indicate that unless money really is no object, the risk of facing a situation where carrier based fast jets are really the only answer is not so great. Particularly as the strike and ISTAR capabilities of other systems that can be operated from smaller ships increases all of the time, and yet the cost of those systems is perhaps an order of magnitude less than carrier-based fast jets.
I’m not anti-CVF / naval fast jets, merely I believe that in a cash-strapped world, we can get so much more capability for the £pound in other areas (e.g. amphibious), and if we can think outside of the box a little, actually what we lose by not having CVF / naval FJ is not really something that we are likely to miss.
I’m certainly happy to compromise on a simple flat top as an “aviation mothership” with AH-64, UAVs and loitering munitions. And maybe a couple of 20T hoisting “AD network extenders” in unmanned airships floating above, 24/7 for 3 months at a time.
Just done some maths: Hawkeye-quality airborne surveillance radar weighs about 4 tonnes as a system, which leaves enough payload capacity to additionally put 80 or so AMRAAM onto the platform and have 4T left over for additional generating capacity and fuel. I think 80 AMRAAM is probably overkill (not that I mind overkill), pull it down to 40 missiles and you can put them onto two side sponsons and increase survivability by moving the metal away from the central envelope, and double up on fuel or generators.
“us as a nation to something over £20 billion of cost in 2 CVFs and the fast jets.”
Where in hell does the 20 billion cost come from? And over how many decades?
How many of the people here have FOR REAL at least a general idea of the things they talk about…? Half of the stuff i read here tells me that people open their mouths to get air to their teeth.
With all possible due respect for everyone, but what the hell.
gabriele
‘ukpublicspending.co.uk’
20bn is pocket change over a year, never mind a decade
@ Gabriele,
2 x CVF = £6.5 billion to go from now.
About 50 F-35C for the CVFs (ignoring the 80 odd RAF F-35Cs) = £7 billion to go from now.
CVF sunk costs: £1 billion.
F-35* sunk costs: about £1.5 billion
£16 billion forecast, before any operation. The remaining £4 billion is to be divided into around 10,000 full time people who are some part of maintaining the system, whether in uniform or in civilian clothes (CVF crew about 2,200 x 2, remainder on shore). I think that’s about one year of operation, not many decades. In fact, I really don’t want to work it out in decades, as that will make me really irritated at the self-inflated naval egos of those idiots who thought all of this was a good idea.
Isn’t £20billion the approximate cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars?
@ repulse – another link:
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=749
I fail to see what landrovers have got to do with your war mongering suggestion of threatening to blow a dam in a ridiculous, utterly detached from reality, Tom Clancy, manner.
@ Gareth Jones
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e42/MihoshiK/SpruanceCarrier2.jpg
“How many of the people here have FOR REAL at least a general idea of the things they talk about…? Half of the stuff i read here tells me that people open their mouths to get air to their teeth”
– Now there’s an ironic statement.
@ X – Yes seen that concept, through hangar as well as through deck! There was also designs for STOVL support aircraft which could fly from them; ASW, AEW,general sea control, etc.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/5847312961_505519f14e_z.jpg
@ Repulse – another link; How could I forget the SCS concept?!
http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry2847.aspx
@ Repulse – there is also this thread about the old C2 idea; Sunk at Narvik’s helicopter frigate and DK Brown’s DDH:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/922/FSC-C2?page=3#.TxiryHopAhA
James,
CVF crew is about 800 x 2. The manning of 2 CVFs with only one likely to be operational at any one time is not any greater than the assets people talk about replacing them with if they were cancelled.
James and these 10,000 peope are all new hires to deal with CVF alone, they would not per chance have come from other projects and jobs within MOD and the RN. So in that case you are arguing that they should be made unemployed? They would have course not be needed for any alternatives?
Your post starts with an estimate, then more than doubles the ships company, followed by a claim that CVF has led to 10,000 extra jobs within the MOD. Crazy.
@jedibeeftrix: Thanks. I agree that there are definitional problems. But if I am reading UKDS 2011 table 1.2 right, the AFPS is reckoned under AME and not DEL. Weird. Would that explain why NATO’s figures show the UK spending surprisingly little on “personnel costs”?
For what it’s worth, the 2011 French defence budget summary en anglais se trouve ici. What larks!
James, I am however fascinated by the concept of your AEW Air Defence ballons!
APATS, off the top of your head do you know how many people it needs to keep one at sea, per post.
So if 800 are on CVF, what is the size of the pool to support that
@TD If the Ship is not be run in a 3 watch manning system then, there will not be a pool as such. Small units like MCMVs belong to Squadrons which have shore based admin as they cannot run thier own.
Will we create a Carrier Squadron? Interesting question but even a CVF squadron ashore would run to less than 60 people. The fact that we have a carrier will not automatically mean an increase in numbers withing organisations such as HMS Nelson(Portsmouth support base) or COMPORFLOT.
The Ships company is very similar to exsisting Carriers.
Tugs, pilotage, berthing services, cranes etc are already in place within the dockyard so not many if any extra manpower there.
So from a purely unifromed RN perspective very little increase.
Obviously up at Abbey Wood you have Carrier IPT and also engineering support from a variety of teams as you do with the introduction of any new class of Ship. A lot of these personnel will however transfer across from other IPTs as they phase out their Ship types.
In short the number of extra personnel required is minimal, the carriers are big but they are not fundamentallly different from what we do now.
Even with a full air group embarked they will have 1500 onboard a 5th of a US Nimitz class.
APATS,
sorry, a small error. Ship’s crew = 679, air group = 900, so together about 1600.
The 10,000 includes people in industry. The defence industry will routinely charge the MoD significantly more than their internal capitation rate for even quite junior or low paid staff.
I’m not over-fussed about the manning aspect, and certainly not suggesting that redundancies would be better (I’d like those people employed on something more useful such as amphibious shipping). But they are an ongoing cost and those costs have to be ascribed to something.
Phil
The Queen and the Army staging a coup is the most Tom Clanseyeque nonesense this site has ever seen.
Orders of magnitude beyond special forces shutting down Mt P.
Mike
” rather than just only carrier aviation, which the US has enough of, it is the niche capabilities like amphibs what makes the RN and UK as a whole, a capability allie to treasure…that and our Sub force”
But thats exactly the point
Without carriers, or something else to provide mass deep strike, we are asking “how best can we serve the US”.
Carriers, or something like, and amphibs, and subs, and SATINT allow us to play the role of America, if we can get some other nations to support us.
Dom you just don’t know what you’re talking about. You better go look up our constitution before Wikki goes down again. Who said anything about a bloody coup?! A constitutional crisis is unlikely ever to involve a military coup.
@ Angus – “But if I am reading UKDS 2011 table 1.2 right, the AFPS is reckoned under AME and not DEL. Weird. Would that explain why NATO’s figures show the UK spending surprisingly little on “personnel costs”?”
Not sure i understand the acronyms, and how they relate to the table, could you explain further?
@ James – “sorry, a small error. Ship’s crew = 679, air group = 900, so together about 1600″
Is the normal complement really 1600?
James I feel that this statement is deliberately misleading.
“Apart from training, we haven’t used carrier based fast jets for anything apart from patrolling a no fly zone over Bosnia since 1982, and before then 1953.”
I won’t bother to remind you that the Falklands was obviously in the 1980′s before Bosnia and that it involved a LOT of combat intensive flying done by FFA Sea harriers for AAW and CAS. A couple of RAF Harriers in the ground attack role were also involved.
Then we have Bosnia as you have mentioned. Carrier Battle groups were also despatched during the Gulf war and the Kosovo crisis. Indeed US carrier strike formed a large percentage of the total number of missions flown during both those wars. Our contribution from carrier was significantly more limited due to the range limit on Sea Harrier.
In 2000 operation Palliser was conducted without any purely land based fighters. Instead fighter patrols conducted were done so by RAF/FAA harriers off the HMS Illustrious. Obviously this was in support of the helicopter operations conducted off Illustious as well. Furthermore the carriers were also involved in providing support during the recent invasion of Iraq in one way or another.
Now that’s not a huge contribution but of course one must remember that a carriers air assets can easily be “detached” to land. While some might seek to use that to try and adevertise why carriers aren’t needed I think it just proves how versatile carrier strike is… It can operate on land and sea. Tornado isn’t going to be doing that now is it!!
A final note is that a lot of these operations were done as a coalition. The US is usually involved in these operations and has in most cases provided 1-2 CBG that provide the bulk of fighter support. The USAF certainly contributes but it is the US CBG that provides day 1 strike in the form of Cruise missile strikes and carrier strike contributions.
India is building carriers, China is building carriers, America is still maintaining it’s carriers, France has a proper carrier. Nations like Italy, Spain and Australlia all are attempting to have some form of naval aviataion component on a far more limited budget than our own.
That said, every single major conflict in recent times has seen a CBG from some nation respond. With a defence budget in the top 10 AND as part of a nation with significant far reaching oversea intrests a carrier provides a huge element of flexibility and reach. Whether that is detaching it’s airgroup for operations like Afghanistan, providing secure airspace for evacuation operations as in Operation Palliser, providing the means for an Amphibious group to land on hostile soil as in the Falklands or in support of a joint service approach as done in the Suez by us and more recently by the Americans in both Gulf wars and Libya. They also happen to be quite useful at humanitarian operations and are symbols of considerable influence.
Again sorry for the double post… the thread is moving very quickly…
Alternatively we could just rely on America or France to provide “proper” carrier strike. However America will be looking towards Asia much more and is less willing to support Europe. Relying on just one nation is bad and so we can’t continue to rely on America to provide day 1 Cruise missile and carrier strike. France has a single carrier and as a result can’t promise that Carrier strike will be available for operational tasking 365 days a year.
Our carriers converted to CATOBAR would be able to operate aircraft from a number of nations especially as well as from our own. 2 of these mean that 1 will usually be available (you need 3 to properly guarentee 24/7 deployment to be honest) and as such I suspect they will see a lot of use.
While we might not be able to operate in large operations alone the carriers still give Britain a large measure of independence and capability that more “land based bombers” just do not unless they are supported by AAR. At which point the costs because much more similar and the weakness during combat is not all that different (you say you can sink my carrier easily… I say your tanker has even less self defence capability and is waiting to be slapped down by any sensible opponent).
Phil
The House that voted for the actions would consider any attempt to overturn their judgement and hold them criminaly liable a coup.
Because it would be.
The Queen does not control parliament, that was decided long ago when parliament beheaded kings until they got the message.
What do you think would happen exactly?
The Queen would sack Cameron and his cabinet and they’d just pack their desks and leave?
What happens when they dont leave?
What happens when they recall Parliament and sit in the Commons?
What happens when the House of Commons passes “The Abolishment of the Monarchy Act”?
You’re talking nonsense
When telling us of the limits of carrier aviation of the UK in the Harrier era, people should also remember the size of the Sea Harrier fleet (very small) and its role (Air-Air engagement), which was not the main thing UK airplanes had to do in the last decades. Not to mention, of course, that in the rare cases in which there was something to shoot down from the sky in the post IIWW, it was the FAA who did it.
This said, Sea Harriers contributed in the Balkans and also contributed to the No Fly Zone effort over Iraq. And, excuse if it is little, were instrumental to the Falklands war far more than Tornado was instrumental to any of the Gulf Wars.
Honestly. Think about it and you can’t deny it is true. Without RAF Tornado in the gulf wars, the difference to ops would have been infinitely less relevant than the absence of carriers and Harriers would have been down south in 1982.
In the GR9 era, we all are aware of where the GR9 was. It flew over 18.000 sorties in Afghanistan. We are also well aware of the GR9′s limitations which ultimately got it retired early.
Those limitations influenced the use of carrier air, and shaped the requirement for the future carrier air for the UK.
A bit of coherence is in order when talking of the rather delicate situation of the carrierborne airpower in the Uk in the last 2/3 decades. We can’t talk about the limits of the GR9/Invincible combination one moment, and the following moment talk as if those limitations did not exist and carrierborne aviation was not employed just “because not needed/requested”. This is simply untrue and misleading.
There’s only so much Invincible/Harriers could do. It wasn’t much. Arguably, through their life both Invincibles and Harriers did far more than was expected from them originally.
The need for doing more shaped the CVF/JCA couple.
Invincible and Sea Harrier made perfect sense in the “ASW fleet” that guarded the GIUK for NATO.
GR9 was an interim solution for the new needs of the expeditionary warfare. Full of limits, yet did its part.
CVF/JCA born out of the requirements of the post Cold War world, to replace the interim solution and Tornado with a flexible air force capable to operate from/on sea and land without the limitations of GR9 and Tornado.
CVF/JCA does not leave gaps in capability. It gives the Uk the force it needs in any situation. It might be expensive, but it is excellent value for money.
Without offence, but it is far more value for money than Typhoon, regardless of how beautiful and awesome the phoon is.
I’d also note, more to make my position clear than anything else, that i do not share the optimism of people here ready to believe that a RN which gets CVF cancelled will have “budget to re-invest” in wonderful LHDs and amphibs and warships with UAV capabilities (naval UAVs by the way need investment too: the RN asked to make Watchkeeper carrier capable, but that option was not taken, we’ll see what happens with Telemos).
Sorry, i just don’t see it happening. Cutting CVF means inferting a tremendous blow to the amphibious capabilities as well. There won’t be replacement LHDs in exchange for sunk money.
At the very, very most, i could accept arguing for cancelling the fixed wing aviation bit, and use the two CVFs as Commando Carriers.
I don’t approve, but that would be kind of feasible.
Cancell CVF and get LHDs and destroyers and other shiny stuff, i just don’t see it happening.
Are you sure the JCA requirement was a replacement for Tordnado
where and when did the RN ask to make WK maritime capable, who decided not to
The uk would have been in better shape had we in 1990 decided to keep a slightly larger tornado gr1/f3 fleet in the air force and had a joint pool of say 100 harrier av8b plus operated by the navy and air force. And just scraped jaguar buccaneer sea harrier and harrier gr5.
I can see the future of th uk as an f35 only fastjet fleet.
Watchkeeper would be a poor option for carrier ops since it can’t be armed. ScanEagle from FF/DD would be a far more effective force multiplier, extending sensor horizons and significantly increasing the maritime surveillance zone. It could spot for NGS, conduct TPT for OTHT engagements, widen the counter-piracy field of view, all for very little outlay. The RN hasn’t got enough spare cash to pursue UAV’s sensibly.
School boy level of knowledge. Everything is black and white in Doms war mongering, war criminal world. Go and read up on some
Constitutional crises. You won’t find many military coups.
@James: I think we’ve come a way in this thread. We agree that the cost of manning the carriers minus the ai group is effectively irrelevant, we agree that we will need to pay for the planes and their manning whatever happens, we just need to nail down the capital costs of the ships and the additional cost of carrier capable planes to come up with our tradeoff costs.
In my misspent youth (1983 by memory) I can remember an ad from Airship International I think, showing a frigate with a tethered