Modern British carriers

[Skybird]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources...craft_carriers


I admit I think in today's financial reality and with the ever shrinking numbers of personell serving and with the already extremely low number of combat vessels available, these carriers are a huge mistake and show British ambition exceeding capability. Thinking about millstones around the navy budget's neck.

He said “armchair” commentators should “shut up” and described the carrier as “a highly versatile and potent force” that would be capable of humanitarian and disaster relief as well as “high-end warfighting”.

Yes, thats what warships are being build for: humanitarian aid and desaster relief. One could also deploy them to North Africa and have them helping to shuttle bigger loads of migrants over the Med.


Maybe these two carriers are just the two biggest tears so far shed over the loss of the Empire.

he navy argues that today's warships are far more sophisticated than those of the past. One new one is worth many old ones, so the argument goes. But then again, today's British warships are hardly armed to the teeth. Most have empty spaces on board for weapons the navy can't currently afford - like cruise missiles or the most up-to-date anti-ship missiles and anti-submarine torpedoes.

An army so small that it cannot susbtain losses, cannot live over a war. It desintegrates, or withdraws and then desintegrates due to lacking maintenance.


I already grew nuts when seeing on TV that German submarines patrol - if they patrol at all, that is... - with no torpedoes aboard and the torpedo tubes instead being loaded with supply goods.


Some really call for getting pearlharboured again.


That the article also said the carriers are not nuclear but depend on tankers keeping them running, left me speechless. So now this war navy of just 19 ships currently not only has to protect two carriers, but also four additional tankers. Planning brilliance at work.Add the task of patrolling the North Sea, Atlantic, and the global ambitions politicians love to babble about.

[Bilge_Rat]

Agreed. There is no logical reason for the UK to have an aircraft carrier.

However, if the UK ceases to have a CV, it will be forced to stop pretending that the Royal Navy is still first class or that the UK is still a major international player.

plus there is the matter of the REAL enemy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French...rles_de_Gaulle

no way the UK will go without an aircraft carrier as long as the Frogs have one!

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Skybird

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources...craft_carriers

One could also deploy them to North Africa and have them helping to shuttle bigger loads of migrants over the Med.

There you go giving Angela Merkel more bad ideas.

[Kapitan]

I have to comment on this.

The UK is committed to many different theaters of operations across the world, on top of that the UK has many dominions and territories outside of UK controlled air space point in case would be the Pitcairn, Falklands, South Georgia South sandwich islands Ascension island and South Georgia all located in near and around the southern Atlantic, also in the south Atlantic region is a nation who openly threatens the UK that nation is Argentina.

True Argentina could not right now at least the go to war with the UK due to their economic problems however lets not forget what first caused the Argentine invasion of 1982 was the knowledge that the UK had pledged to scrap all of its major surface warships including LPD's and Carriers (it also had arrangements for HMS Invincible to be sold to Australia).

It is for this reason and others the UK requires a operational fixed wing capable carrier, we saw the after effects of 1982 and how quick the defense white paper was U turned by thatcher

The UK has pledged support to the Caribbean nations during hurricane season and also a continual effort by the Royal navy and Royal fleet auxiliary
against drug smuggling in the area

The UK has also got a commitment to NATO and also a separate joint Anglo-Franco alliance.

The case for having a carrier in our fleet is very strong our operations in the Persian gulf in 2003 along side the USN and previous interventions such as the 1995 Bosnian conflict showed a need for such vessels to remain, we went into two more theaters in recent times without carriers Libya and Syria missions were flown from Italian and Cypriot air bases by land based aircraft this has proved extremely expensive and time consuming, in contrast during the Libyan front France operated their carrier in the region at almost a fraction of the expense of the UK operations as a result French aircraft spent more time on station the any UK jet in that theater.

If we wind the clock back to 2004 and the tsunami HMS Illustrious was dispatched to provide relief to the victims and performed this task very well the new QE class being much larger can offer a much bigger package in this field of operations.

The UK maintains one of the strongest and most advanced fleets in Europe and arguably the world the only country it truly is en par with technically is France, true the RN has over the last 10 years declined in numbers but the capability of the vessels has increased ten fold and become larger as a result.

The only faults i can find with the new carriers are that we should have opted for a conventional CATOBAR arrangement instead of the lay out we currently have this would enable the RN to operate cross deck deployments for example a french rafale could land and take off from the deck or a USN E2 or F18 could also operate from the deck unfortunately this missed opportunity could have some consequences.

The other fault i find is not with the carriers its with the escorts it is a fact we posses too few IMHO DDG and FFG types we are relying on allied escorts to work with our own fleet if needed, the UK currently operates 6 type 45 DDG and 13 type 23 FFG escort vessels (to be replaced by the type 26 and likely type 31)

With a two carrier navy i personally believe the minimum number should be increased as follows 8-10 DDG's 16 FFG these numbers due to fleet rotations so in theory using the 1/3 model currently 2 DDG's and 3 FFG's will be the sum total of a task force.

I also think with the CATOBAR option we should have opted for the F35B not the VTOL C variant



As for your comments Skybird about our army:

The UK army unless in time of war has barely been above 100,000 in peace time even during empire it was down to Empire troops mainly to keep the peace backed by a handful of British soldiers.

The UK possess 82,000 in her army and a further 20,000 Royal marines, the training they receive and under go is noted as some of the best in the world indeed it was an army a fraction the size of what is above that took out Argentina's invasion force, what is more much of our army is combat experienced.

As for money for weapons i don't see this and I've spent many years dealing with the MOD and munitions, it is not the case that each time a vessel goes to sea it is fully armed even the USN does not operate fully armed vessels in peace time quite often their submarines go to sea with only a handful of torpedoes or missiles and that depends on area of operations, currently the UK does not have any major threat against it therefore stocking a warship fully and then de stocking it when it returns is nonsensical and i will tell you for a fact Skybird the German armed forces follow the same philosophy (even the Russian do this )

The UK does have a blue water navy and is capable of operating anywhere on the globe it has a fleet auxiliary service that can keep it at sea for extended periods of time and also friendly bases something other nations cannot achieve.

Our current obligations around the world will see us operate this carrier in many roles and i have no doubt it will serve the next 50 years with the RN outstandingly.

Skybird i would like you to put forward your argument as to why you think these are mistakes.

[Platapus]

If we are interested in humanitarian missions, how many USNS Mercy's could we build for one aircraft carrier?

[Skybird]

Kapitan,

over the past years it was to be read time and again how stressed the personell situation in thee british navy nowadays is. Not enough young men joining. Its the same like over here: or did you know that the Germans have 6 submarines, but only 4 crews? the Germans could not send 5 boats even if they want. What this means if these crews suffer losses, can be eaisly imagined. There are no replacements currently. Just these four crews rotating in and out on the boats. There ar around just 100 German submarines over here!


Sweden is bringing back the draw. They cannot fill the gaps in their forces anymore.


As the article said, many of those platforms of the British navy that you claim to be still superior, have just empty spaces instead of the weapons that once were intended for them. Money, or better: the lack of money. Sensors and electronics may be of superior quality. They are also quite sensible to weather and saltwater and need many timeouts for maintenance. These ships are anything but untouchable. And with such low numbers of platforms in the fleet, every loss is even harder to be compensated for.

You said the British nation still has many international claims and obligations. But what worth is a navy of just 19 combat units? By the rule of three, 6 ships are undergoing repairs, 6 ships are preparing, and 6 ships are at sea. I wonder if there even are enough crews to have them all at sea? The article further says the carrier is planned to be escorted by 2 frigates, two destroyers and 2 subamrines. And there are TWO carriers. And then there are the tankers. Such a small fleet shall run all its many globla duties, and even protect those carriers and then four addiitonal tankers without which the carriers get stuck at sea?

A navy that cannot sustain its - low - numerical strength if meeting a determined foe in real war, is a peacetime flotilla only, or one that is meant to be used only against inferior enemies, preferrably without own aerial and naval means.

The whole carrier project is reality denial in my book. And it is even highly uncertain that these carriers will ever have as many planes aboard as they were designed for, the F-35 is no cheap plane.

And all this, without the amount of protection I would prefer to see when putting such stellar values at sea, should sail into harms way if a war brakes out that is more than just punishing some desert bandits in some godforsaken rathole of a country? Taking on China? Russia? Modern subamrines and air forces and drone weapons and cruise missiles waiting for big tasty targets like this?

These carriers are, as I said, two additional big tears wept for the loss of the past glory. It would have been better to spend the money for less global and more local defence matters. The times of Britannia ruling the waves are over. If Argentina would ever conquer the Falklands again, however unlikely that currently seems to be, Britain will lack the means to retake them like in 1982 - and 1982 already it was a close call. As the admiral back then meanwhile admitted, if any of the carriers back then would have been hit instead of for exampel the Sheffield, the operation would have been needed to be called off. It was close.

Its a bit like choosing a sword for a fight that is much too heavy and too long for your arms. If you lack the muscle strength, you may be better off with a smaller, lighter weapon that you find easier to swing and to block with. A good dagger. A machete. A gladius. But not that two-handed monster of a heavy broadsword that you have choosen but cannot even lift the tip of it off the ground.

Carriers imo are outgoing weapons anyway. For intel gathering, subs are better, and they are more likely to survive a hot war at sea - for now. It seems the Chinese work hard on making the ocean transparent and denying subs the option to hide in its depth.

Drones. Autonomous drones. Autonomous drone swarms. Autonomous drone swarms with swarm intelligence, but no sophisticated platform AI (might not be needed to get swarm intelligence, we see it at work in nature). That is what the future will bring. These carriers, carriers in general, are weapons to crack down on inferior enemies, and they are tools of political intimidation. But they are no weapons anymore to fight an equal enemy in battle - in that scenario they are just floating targets and not more. And with today's minimal ammunition ammounts on warships, defences can easily be flooded until they are all expended and faster so than they can be replenished at sea. War is about logistics, and money. And both seem to speak against these two monsterous British carriers.

Dreadnought and Battleships are no longer in service. For a reason. Carriers are the next type of ship to leave.

[Kapitan]

You make some valid points skybird i can agree with some of them but not all

I agree we have too few escorts however this is easily resolved, look at how many wars we have been in a coalition with 1982 is the exception not the rule, in 2003 HMS Ark Royal was guarded by type 42's and Arleigh Burke destroyers, and on a wider front we had assistance from the Australian navy also.

Our current navy is set up to work chiefly with our allies now its not uncommon for the French carrier to go to sea with Belgian Dutch or German frigates along side too in fact even our own type 45's and type 23's have escorted French assets.

I think Skybird your thinking in two dimensions where as our navy is thinking in Three dimensions, a war with Russia (Very unlikely) will likely see the entire USA and NATO against this "threat" to which there would be an abundance of escorts available to the new carriers from other navies acting as a coalition of nations it also allows the strike capability of the European nations to increase even after we leave the EU i don't for one moment believe that we wont ever work together again.

The days of operating alone are pretty much over i would say in fact the 2017 sailing shows perfectly my stance when i say we work together, the HMS Queen Elizabeth met up with the USN group headed by the USS George Bush and escorted by HMNoS Helge Indsadt HMS Westminster HMS Iron Duke USS Donald Cook USS Philippine sea and USNS Supply.

It is actually quite often we work with the USN i guess you could say the Royal navy is the USN European fleet seeing as they dont get the same support from Germany or France.

You said Admiral Woodward stated that "loose a carrier loose the war" yes he did state that you are correct however the two carriers down there at that time were very small and between them they had a total of 20 harriers, a full combat load for a QE is 36 aircraft (could stretch to 40) and F35B we have 138 confirmed orders for the this type, so the loss of one wouldn't be as big an issue as it would otherwise have been yes admittedly a massive blow but still not the knockout, there were many other contributing factors to the whole war as well for example the type 909 radar couldn't pick up low flying objects close to a shore line the new Sampson radar can, we relied heavily on missile defense today not so we use CIWS systems to augment the missiles.

Manpower is an issue but however it has not tied our ships up as much as other nations in contrast to the 4,000 people on an American carrier or the French Charles De Gaulle 1,350 required to man them the HMS Queen Elizabeth requires just 600 people (I've not included the air wings), and moral in the service is fairly high at the moment, yes recruitment is a slight issue but not as big of one as the media portrays, Even the BBC has a political agenda even though technically it is supposed to be Neutral.

I agree the whole of Europe is suffering a problem with man power and also spending this i would say is a big problem as for your own fleet the German navy has been under funded for a very long time you have some impressive assets yet neglect the funds for a lot of the work and crews not to mention numbers, currently the German nation spends 1.2% GDP on defense the UK spends around 1.8% the German economy is larger than the UK and therefore should be able to afford an increase i know they want to bring the level up to 1,5% but still its low in comparison to the UK and France and doesn't meet the NATO advised target of 2%.

The current major fleet is 19 escort vessels the rule of 3 is peace time operations while true 1 at sea 1 preparing to go to sea or working up or light refit 1 in major overhaul the reality is we could indeed put 4 DDG's 6 FFG's to sea in that situation, the 12 RFA vessels don't tend to operate the same rotation they spend a lot longer at sea than RN ships so generally speaking there's always 8 or 9 RFA ships available somewhere, be it the Indian ocean Caribbean south Atlantic or home waters, out of the entire RFA 6 of the vessels are dedicated tankers we also have three other dry store vessel in lay up so if needed we can bring into service 15 ships if needed this also doesn't include the four point class RO RO vessels (two are permanently chartered to the MOD and two others can be used if needed) this brings the numbers to 19 RFA Vessels.

Do not forget the RFA is a civilian force and is manned by civilians and is not part of the Royal Navy at all they conform to the Merchant Navy code, like all nations too we would rely heavily on our commercial merchant navy in time of war (i worked on such a vessel in 2003-2006 that was chartered to the MOD) so the man power there inst much of an issue, also we have the RNR which are fully qualified reservists and in time of war or in time of need they can be called upon each person who departs the military in the UK is contractually required to sign on to a reserve force for a minimum of 6 years after which it becomes a voluntary basis and any person can join, this force adds a lot of flexibility to the fleet and it is not uncommon to find RNR personnel in with normal crews on any ship or submarine in the fleet the reason they sail so often is to keep them current on developments i don't know if Germany has the same system.

As for Sweden that's a whole different kettle of fish all together, Sweden by constitutional decree cannot legally be allied to any nation therefore they are on their own and they know it this is why Sweden is not part of NATO or any other formal alliance, it also has different objectives to the UK and maintains Local defense rather than global operations their Navy is optimized for sea warfare in the Baltic and coastal defense not open ocean deployments, it is a large country 2 times the size of the UK but with a population of less than London (Sweden has 5.5 Million London 8.2 million the UK 68+ Million) we don,'t require the draft but as i said Sweden is alone and due to numbers requires it their neighbor Norway with a similar situation does have conscription as does Denmark.

It is extremely unlikely we would be involved in a war with Russia or China yes a threat is there but we wouldn't stand alone and that's the key thing we train more and more as a coalition i think your thinking of a all out battle with Russia V UK that is extremely unlikely to happen it would likely be UK NATO v Russia its not likely at all we would take them on alone.
As for the notion of Inferior enemy i would agree with that currently the threat from Argentina is low but we could handle conflict with any south American naval power (including Brazil) with the Current assets we have.

The UK could not take on 1 v 1 against nations such as Russia China India France & USA but the latter two and loosely the third are allied nations our navy is designed really to overwhelm technologically any enemy that poses a threat Iraq is a push over Iran doesn't poses the strike capability the UK does and whats more the UK can sustain extended operations in that region and the Iranians know that we wouldn't come alone, what we couldn't do is a land war i don't think that would be too costly for us.

The UK and Dutch navies operate a joint Amphibious force and our efforts are largely swayed to that type of operation as well as ASW efforts we have 2 LPD type vessels in HMS Bulwark & Albion but also we have 3 Bay class LPD (A) to off set this we have the ability to call up 4 point class which can operate as LST, one of the set missions given to the new Queen Elizabeth class carrier was amphibious landing support we learnt from the American experience this is why they have LPA type vessels operating VTOL aircraft.

The capability of the Royal Navy is still there although numbers much decreased the Queen Elizabeth will likely in the near future operate drones as well as manned aircraft yes this maybe the last carrier for manned aircraft we build but she is here and her sister is coming along.

You seem as if you want every ship fully stocked ready for war in peace time that's never the case, the only two places where a ship is likely to go to sea with a full war load is Gulf of Aden and Persian gulf the rest of the oceans are at peace we do not need to go to sea with maximum war load the presence is enough, if war broke out every ship has enough to carry a fight and be fully stocked our stockpiles are not as depleted as you think indeed you also have to remember we disperse some of our stock around the globe to places like Falklands Bahrain USA etc so mainland stock isn't always full, we also have ships on charter that deliver our fuel to our overseas bases directly.

Things will change and things will be different in 20 or 30 years time i agree but right now these carriers are an investment and a statement of intent we may no longer Rule the waves but the RN is still a fighting force to be taken seriously.