SUBSIM Radio Room Forums



SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > General > Sub & Naval Discussions: World Naval News, Books, & Films
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-12-18, 05:58 AM   #1
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 40,340
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default Modern British carriers

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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Last edited by Skybird; 10-12-18 at 06:17 AM.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-18, 10:34 AM   #2
Bilge_Rat
Silent Hunter
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: standing watch...
Posts: 3,790
Downloads: 343
Uploads: 0
Default

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!
__________________
Bilge_Rat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-18, 10:38 AM   #3
em2nought
Ocean Warrior
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,184
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird View Post
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.
__________________
Looks like we need a Lemon Law for Presidents now! DNC sold us a dud, and they knew it.
em2nought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-18, 03:25 PM   #4
Kapitan
Sub Test Pilot
 
Kapitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK + Canada
Posts: 7,083
Downloads: 65
Uploads: 7


Default

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.
__________________
DONT FORGET if you like a post to nominate it by using the blue diamond



Find out about Museum Ships here: https://www.museumships.us/

Flickr for all my pictures: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/

Navy general board articles: https://www.navygeneralboard.com/author/aegis/
Kapitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-18, 03:28 PM   #5
Platapus
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 18,855
Downloads: 63
Uploads: 0


Default

If we are interested in humanitarian missions, how many USNS Mercy's could we build for one aircraft carrier?
__________________
abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.
Platapus is online   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-18, 04:40 PM   #6
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 40,340
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

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.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Last edited by Skybird; 10-12-18 at 04:55 PM.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-18, 04:01 AM   #7
Kapitan
Sub Test Pilot
 
Kapitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK + Canada
Posts: 7,083
Downloads: 65
Uploads: 7


Default

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.
__________________
DONT FORGET if you like a post to nominate it by using the blue diamond



Find out about Museum Ships here: https://www.museumships.us/

Flickr for all my pictures: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/

Navy general board articles: https://www.navygeneralboard.com/author/aegis/
Kapitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-18, 09:55 AM   #8
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 40,340
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

Kapitan,


the article mentioned international flotillas as escorts, yes. But I do not buy it, for me that is the maximum-optimism scanrio in case of a future major war at sea. Note that Washington refused to take clear sides with Britain some years ago when the tensions between the UK and Argentina went up and caused plenty of rhetorical exchange. With brexit, I again would not bet that this indicates a strengthening of international cooperation. Next, in NATO in case of a major war, memebers are not at all that surely to be counted as all speaking with on voice and agreeing on when to trigger article 5. Its formulation is wishy.washy and allows members to opt out of any alliance delcrtation os a state of war. And some NATO nations always have been uncertain members anyway, Greece for example. - To make the 6 billion coins investement of two carriers depending in its usability on foreign nations'S good will, to me does not sound like a clever move. Even more so when other nations may have as big problems as the Germans to fulfill their material obligaitons to the alliance.



Of clourse I have a war with the Russian or Chinese navy on mind. Amognst pother scnearios, but to exlcude this scenairo for being ocnsidere dunlikely, is not acceptable. You build tools of war not to play games or to hope the future enemy will play ball wioth yoiur intentions and will hpold hiomself back a bit. You do like in chess: you claculate with the strnongest moves by your opponent you can imagine, and then base your own moves on that. Anything else is careless. If these carriers are not meant to counter and survive the threats staged by the strongest and possible enemies at sea , why do you even build them in the first then? Just to scare donkeys and sheep in some forgotten desert?


You read a lot ointo the special relaitonship with America. But i think this has its strongest times already behind it. The Americans abused you and lured you into their Iraq adventure 2003, and then rejected to give you the promised economic reward after 2003. They will most likely not again line themselves up with you in case of another Falkland issue, like they did in the early 80s. They will try to get use of these carriers if they see them as useful, and this leaves oyu a little bit at their mercy if talkign abotu the options for global committment of these carriers - for I seriously doubt the RN has the means to provide the needed robust defence for them in case it is sending them against the russians, or China. And if it does, it necessarily opens wide open gaps in British naval dfeences elsewhere.



These carriers, says the article, were designed to host 36 aircraft. But the UK has ordered only 138 F-35 ordered, and that number is most likely to be cut back even further, due to the nightmare named "costs". If you take 35 or 70 planes away form that fleet to have the carriers actually being useful for something, That costs you over one half of the F-35 fleet for the whole UK defence and military strategy. I doubt that these carriers will ever be filled up with the ammount of aircraft they were designed for.



Your rotation and fleet size numbers do not change the fact that a force of this size will find it hard to compensate platform losses from enemy fire. The fleet that retook the Flklands, was build form ananvy that was three times the sioze of what the RN is today. And they sailed on after suffering several losses after Exocet strikes. The RN today would hardly be able to swallow such losses without being seriously handicapped and needing to reduce its ambitions and operations drastically. These carriers needs to be protected, and the F-35 is not known to have a really huge range, so you need to get you carriers closer than if you were operating with Tomcats and Superhornets, and you need to accept to beocme even more vulenrable due to increased air refueling operations. All this together - it does not compute well in my CPU. It just doesn'T.



The main diferenc ebetween yo and me is that you see many things far more optimistic than I do. But when it is about chess and about war, i always calculate with the worst. Doing differently to me makes no sense at all.



For the same reason I wonder why ships of war sail unarmed, like German subs, that just makes no sense. Readiness is all. Being prpared, for evertyhign, at all times. Else you must not even start to sail. A warship that sails unarmed, is no warship. And note, the article did not indicate that the free space on RN ships where weapons platforms were planned but did not arrive, means that you just need to armt hem up and then the ship is "complete". I understood it that the planned weaponry does not exist. It was cut, due to costs. It is said always that battles at sea costs imemnse quntities of ammunition, and today with all these smart weapons and missiles, ships hold even more limited ammunition reserves. This makes any defence very vuolnerable, no matter how sophisticate din tehcnology it is, becasue it coukld simply be flooded with incoming fire that needs to be shot down. The defender is at a disadvantage there, he will run faster out of ammo than the attacker who maybe even operates close to his own supply lines (China). The taks of hitting sooinjer or later, is easier to be accomplished than the task of preventing to get hit.



There are other tasks that must be financed for the British forces. Polaris on my mind. More aircraft and combat ships would be fine, aerial submarine hunters. Technological superiority is all nice and well, but ot does not allow you to stand in two difefrent places simulataneously, and it doe snot proivde you a magic ability to compensate losses.


Stanislaw Lem once wrote an ironci essay about wepaon systems of the comign century. In it he reasoned the US Air Force would consist of just three planes, because they are to expensive to build then, and they never fly and leave the bunker, especially not during war, becasue they are way to porecious to expose them to the risk of enemy fire or even just loosing them due to a profane accident . And it was some British former fighter pilot whose book I read back in the aklte 80s who said that over the time of the late cold war he and many of his colleaugues doubted that the superior tehcnology of Western jets and their shorter maintence times would allow them to compensate for the greater numbers of Pact aircraft they were up against. NATO would have lost the air war. Wiuth nhigh losses to the WP, yes - but the WP could afford them.



Being able to afford losses in war, is essential. Only fools expect to fight a war against an equal opponent without getting hit oneself. That would be like a boxer expecting to only deliver strikes, never to receive any hits. You do not need only quality. As important is sufficient quantity. I think this ghets systematically underestimated in NATO, to sell the image of a surgical, clean war in which our own forces do not need to suffer. BS.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-18, 11:01 AM   #9
Mr Quatro
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,772
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0


Default

Your also leaving out the pride of it all ... not just the pride of having a big ship arrive in Hong Kong for crew liberty, but the pride of the men and women that serve that were selected from among the best to train and serve in Her Majesty's service. The logistic's alone boggle the mind to feed and entertain 5,000 sailors and the safety of the airwing.

China is just now starting to build and commission and use aircraft carriers to do just that. Russia is way behind in that regard.

Were you aware that in the 1950's Russia did not believe that the USN could launch and retrieve aircraft at night. They had submarines follow our carriers in the Med to film and prove it to the admiral's in their arm chairs.

Don't forget the pride of the nation that these aircraft carriers represent
__________________
pla•teau noun
a relatively stable level, period,
or condition a level of attainment
or achievement

Lord help me get to the next plateau ..


Mr Quatro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-18, 01:53 PM   #10
Kapitan
Sub Test Pilot
 
Kapitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK + Canada
Posts: 7,083
Downloads: 65
Uploads: 7


Default

The whole notion of our carriers is centered around the Saint-Malo agreement which is a common pan European defense policy to which it should comprise 3 carriers 1 french and two British the remaining European nations provided the escort forces that's the main reason they were built.

I don't disagree with you about numbers i do think we do lack a sufficient amount of escorting ships and shouldn't places the hopes on a foreign nation.
i would have dearly loved to have seen 12 type 45's in our fleet along with a full commitment to 16 type 26's but alas it hasn't happened.

I also agree on your view that the Royal navy couldn't sustain the losses it sustained in the Falklands but that was a different time and technology involved, yes we sent 127 ships down south but this was augmented by a large civilian fleet, and a large RFA force however the number of major warships in the area such as CVA DDG FFG SSN's came to the following

2 Light Carriers
2 LPD
6 Submarines (5 SSN's 1 SSK)
23 DDG & FFG (4 were lost 2 Type 42's & 2 type 21) (others suffered various damages)

Problem is Skybird you also seem to count the RFA as Royal navy losses that's just not the case because the RFA is a fully separate civilian organisation and is not part of the Royal Navy at all.

We had 15 Tankers taken up from trade to assist our 10 RFA fleet tankers
we also had 20 freighters sail to assist our 5 landing ship Logistic LSL from the RFA and yes these suffered losses too but were not part of the main battle fleet

We also took up 3 liners from trade the Canberra QE2 and also Uganda (acted as hospital ship) these delivered the bulk of the land forces.

In reality the losses for the war were slim the biggest loss to us was Atlantic conveyor which was a civilian ship taken up from trade, losses were sustainable and with that in mind in a current loss like the above 4 ships of a battle fleet we could afford to loose a few today.


one thing you must also leave out the budget is the Trident program as this is a separate budget issue trident has a stand alone budget and does not feature in our normal main stream defense budget, there is a commitment to replace these submarines with the new Dreadnought class SSBN the number of missiles carried will be 8 not 16 but at present most of our submarine patrol with only half a war load anyway as does the French navy.

Your plan to have the vessels stocked at all times does not make sense in cost terms every time a weapon is employed on a vessel its inspected and certified once it comes off it goes through the same process the handling inspections all cost money the politicians have to get a balance they send ships to sea with only a limited ammunition stock for cost reasons even the USN does this to save money the world is at peace yes we have difficult neighbors sometimes but major war is not imminent.

The German issue seems to stem from lack of investment in personnel and lack of sufficient budget and that's a political problem.

As for the notion the United states didn't help us and shunned us in 1982 that's not correct, we did not ask for American assistance yet the United States aided us with Sidewinder missiles for the Harriers Satellite intelligence and even went to the lengths of offering us a Tarawa class LPA in case one of our carriers got hit we did not ask them to be involved in the conflict at all, the Obama administration let us deal with Libya along with France and took a back seat the operation went well in terms of objectives completed it showed the UK does not need to rely on the United States, however the intertwining of our two navies has been absolute since December 7th 1941 what you don't hear about is the British Navy active role with the USN to augment its fleet during that war in fact a lot of our ships were put at the United States disposal, same with Korea although we did not get involved with Vietnam and they did not get involved in the Falklands.

The UK and USA has many treaties between them and if it wasn't for the UK the Atomic bomb that they created would have taken much longer if it happened at all that was fully down to the UK handing over the Tube Alloys project to the USA, yes after the war they tried to shut us out but that failed as did Skybolt the UK nuclear deterrent is fully independent and does not require any American authority to fire indeed the only thing that is American is the launch system and rocket body the warhead is British but we pay a share in the development costs its a joint venture much like the F35 program and a lot of the technology is shared between the UK and USA more than we think, we also have a common intelligence sharing policy that's far deeper than anything we have with Europe that's the whole reason GCHQ exists.

The UK Iraq invasion was a misadventure but for an economical end, however the UK did benefit from it much to your dismay.
it is a region where we have past experience Iraq is a former Empire colony once named Mesopotamia we controlled it from 1918 chemical attacked Baghdad in 1922 and they gained independence from us in 1962.
one of the first civilian ships to leave the Al Faw refinery terminal after the invasion was BP British Pride destination Southampton we got a lot of oil out of there and still do Iraq is now one of the main ports of call for BP tankers before 2003 BP never serviced Iraq only Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, strange that.

A war with Russia or China as a stand alone 1 v 1 i don't think will happen yes it is a possibility but its a remote one at that and i mean absolutely remote even the Skipiral incident has barely lit a match and the Russians know that bombing the UK would embroil the USA due to the fact the USA has a lot of military establishments here and couldn't guarantee not hitting them.


As for the F35 the UK is fully committed to the procurement of 138 of these aircraft and reiterated that in October 2017 under the defense white paper bill, the fact we have already started delivery on board the QE and also 617 Squadron shows were committed the first 45 should be delivered by Summer 2019, the UK prime minister stated that the defense bill stated 138 F35's is the number they will commit to, that is a sealed commitment it would now cost us to U turn on that whats more the F35 isn't just for the QE but for two squadrons in the UK replacing the now ageing Tornado.

As for why do they sail unarmed well its to show there's no intent its probably a similar reason why sailors man the rails when entering port which is a tradition that harks back to the age of sail to show that no man is below manning weapons, again it is down to international diplomacy and also cost.

Yes im optimistic but i do have a little inside edge with what i do in my line of work, the fact that most of our ships do go to sea only half stocked is a cost measure the theory is if war does break out like it did in 1982 then they can always stop off and arm up which is exactly what they did do in 1982 don't forget the British fleet at that time was on exercise when they got the order to sail south.

Why do we build them? "walk softly and carry a big stick" well the UK is the world leading nation in soft power (the USA is the reverse obviously) the Carriers are the big stick its a statement of intent the we can reach out and touch you, yes that might be a camel in a desert but that might also be Gadzhievo in the Russian far north, currently the Russians do not posses an aircraft carrier (The Kuznetsov is a heavy aviation cruiser just so were clear and has a different mission role) but i do agree more escorts are needed for our two carriers i cant disagree with you on that.

As Mr Quattro said there is also an element of pride in the scheme too moral in the navy is actually quite high right now and recruitment is steady, what is more we have had in the last decade a very big investment in the navy not just the QE but the type 45's new submarines new patrol vessels and new tankers not to mention the solid state vessels.


https://assets.publishing.service.go...ate_17_Oct.pdf This is a colorful example for what our money gets spent on roughly

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ity_Review.pdf This is the SDSR 2015 this outlines a defence plan for the coming 5 years were not due one until 2020 however as you can see its flawed

https://rusi.org/sites/default/files...ision_time.pdf hence this was pushed into the house of commons
__________________
DONT FORGET if you like a post to nominate it by using the blue diamond



Find out about Museum Ships here: https://www.museumships.us/

Flickr for all my pictures: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/

Navy general board articles: https://www.navygeneralboard.com/author/aegis/
Kapitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-18, 04:54 PM   #11
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 40,340
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

Your forgot the two Italian light carriers.


The Milo declaration was no treaty and just a declaration or intention, or recommendation. It has, at least to my knowledge, no legally binding power.


I do not see civilian ships as capable combat platforms, nor do i rate logistic support units and minelayers and amphibious landing platforms as suitable combat platforms that could survive a naval combat with hostile surface or submarine units. By the end of the day, there are six destroyers, 13 frigates and 6 hunter killer submarines (you do not send the four additional SLBM boats into ship hunting scen arios, do you). Thats 19 surface combatants, 6 submarines. 2x2 destroyers and 2x2 frigates and 2x2 submarines needed for the planned escort flotillas. Leaves you with 2 destroyers, 9 frigates and 2 subamrianes for time at port for supply and maintenance, patrolling, other proptective tasks, submarine hunting. - Global presenc,e global operations, with these numbers? Sorry, no way. Just one or two of these ships taken nmout could ruin much more than just your day. It wrecks your complete precise, clever formula - BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO REAL RESERVES.



In land warfare one would talk of "overstretching".



Imagine that money spend on additional submarine hunters (aerial and naval), a capabilitity that all NATO has become shockingly weak in. Smaller, cheaper units, to boost the numbers for those precious non-Russia and non-China scenarios: like defending or sealing off territorial borders and coastline, When I read that the RN plans to escort Russian warships passing close by or through the Channel by light patrol boats or minesweepers, then i question the point in shadowing them at all. I have no understanding for this kind of symbolic nonsense. Either a measure has substance, or it has not.



The usefulness of these plans with the carriers, and their economic costs, simply do not compute for me.



Not to get too long again, Kapitan. We simpyl disagree much in the optimism we meet these points with. You have much more optimism than I have, it seems. And maybe you give too much, at leats more than i do, for declarations, plans and printed paper numbers (procurement numbers, technical efficiency). I tick differently on these things, too: what can go wrong, will go wrong sooner or later, and even more so under the pressure of war. Politicians always plan with small cost numbers, to see their project being waved through, alter they either have to mutliply the cost assessment, or they have to cut down the intended numbers. Happens all the time, everywhere, it seems.



__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-18, 06:38 PM   #12
Kapitan
Sub Test Pilot
 
Kapitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK + Canada
Posts: 7,083
Downloads: 65
Uploads: 7


Default

Spain and Italy light carriers are much like the Invincible class budget carriers but they can boost the ranks and assist the St malo agreement did not mention them because the agreement was specifically aimed at large fleet carriers, whats more the Juan Carlos is pretty much an LPA not a CVA.

The UK has 7 nuclear submarines she is replacing the Trafalgar class 1 for 1 so 7 astute will be built in fact the last 3 are under construction right now.
the UK also and has 3 of the 4 decommissioned Trafalgar that could be bought back into service too if the need arises

The point of a MHCM shadowing Russian warships in the channel well, the English Channel is an international water way and as such no nation can be barred passage, MHCM vessels do double as patrol craft they also have equipment for ELINT on board whats more its likely they would be met also with a French Dutch or Belgian heavy unit that's n the area.

the 1/3 rule is flexible enough to allow you the use of 2/3 of the fleet if needed, some platforms require more maintenance than others for example the patrol craft mine hunters don't require as much down time as the type 45's they can go for years and in fact they do in Bahrain.

No country not even the USA has reserves even Russia doesn't have reserves the days of having ships in reserve are long gone there's next to nothing in the layup yards that can be put back to service.

I agree the army would be somewhat over stretched in a future large scale conflict.

Bits of paper have caused wars so have promises and yes i'm a bit more optimistic because i see what goes on nearly every day, the RFA fill in for some RN operations around the world such as the Caribbean and gulf of Aden that in itself frees up valuable escorts.

I agree we will disagree but i do agree we need more escort ships to support the carriers but IMHO they are a worth while investment and i support the decision to have them in our fleet.

Don't forget it was the UK that made much of the advances in carrier design and technology.

Do you think that the USN should have 10 carriers?

Do you think Germany should have a light carrier?
__________________
DONT FORGET if you like a post to nominate it by using the blue diamond



Find out about Museum Ships here: https://www.museumships.us/

Flickr for all my pictures: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/

Navy general board articles: https://www.navygeneralboard.com/author/aegis/
Kapitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-18, 06:26 AM   #13
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 40,340
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kapitan View Post

Do you think that the USN should have 10 carriers?
I think it is unwise to build new ones, they are an outgoing platform, I favour submarines over carriers. Think they should phase them out over the coming two decades or so.
I think manned platforms in general are a dying species both on sea, and in the air. So, even in submarines I only put limited trust for the longer perspective. Neal recently posted a link to how China tries to force subamrines out of their hiding - if that kind of technology succeeds, the time of being able to justify the heavy investments into submarines are over. I think further that any future war against an equal opponent, namely China, will show that espcially carriers have exceeded the timespan of usefulness in such conflicts. Too vulnerable, too expensive, and not fit to deal with the raising new threats.

What I fear most in near future technology, are swarm weapons. Contemporary technology provides no defence against these, and maybe never will. Thus I conclude that concentrating on own offensive swarm weapon technology is the top priority, with defence being provided by the same principle that made nuclear deterrance a working option: the perspective of mutual assured destruction. Since swarm weapons are not primarily aimed at cities and civiolian population, but enemy military platforms, deterrance however will not work as reliable as with nuclear weapons: the war remains to be possible, fightable, managable, survivable. With nuclear exchange scenarios, the deterrance is total.

My view on these things have almost u-turned over the past 10 years or so.

Quote:
Do you think Germany should have a light carrier?
No. Heck, what for? We currently have just one submarine in service, all others still are off duty! Currently the German navy has 0 destroyers, 9 frigates (in theory, they are off duty quite often), 5 corvettes, both frigates and corvettes suffer from serious limitiations in their operation profiles and are not as versatile (anti air and anti submarine especially) as international competitors in both ship classes, and there are one dozen mine sweepers and two dozen support ships, mostly tenders and tankers.



A german carrier would be good only for helping in the protecting of the Helgoland homeland. LOL
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-18, 10:59 AM   #14
mapuc
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 17,715
Downloads: 37
Uploads: 0


Default

I say:

In the future Carriers will be obsolete

I guess the military will have developed new type of combustion and/or fuel type.

The fighter jets will also have changed.

Meaning a futuristic F35 could, without refueling. fly from USA over Europe and Russia to China.

Markus
mapuc is online   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-18, 11:40 AM   #15
Mr Quatro
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,772
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mapuc View Post
I say:

In the future Carriers will be obsolete

I guess the military will have developed new type of combustion and/or fuel type.

The fighter jets will also have changed.

Meaning a futuristic F35 could, without refueling. fly from USA over Europe and Russia to China.

Markus
It will take a long time to replace the F-35 ... over twenty years in the planning stage now with the first crash just recently. The unit costs vary, but the price tag of F-35s is around $100 million each.

Drones are next ... I see hundreds of the old F-5 air frames on pogo sticks with AI pilots steering them to targets for only 10% of what an F-35 cost.

The Carriers like the latest one the USS Ford can last fifty (50) years using drones that can be launched as soon as a threat is detected.

In fact you could use an AK to launch drones. Like this one:

Name: USNS Soderman

General characteristics
Displacement:
54,298 t. (full)
32,589 t. (light)
Length: 907 ft (276 m)
Beam: 106 ft (32 m)
Draft: 36 ft (11 m)
Installed power: 47,000 hp (35 MW) [1]
Propulsion:
1 Burmeister & Wain 12L90 GFCA diesel;
1 shaft; bow and stern thrusters
Speed: 22 knots (41 km/h)
Capacity: 312,461 sq ft (29,029 m2) [2]
Complement:
29 civilian mariners,
2 naval officers, 48 enlisted
Aviation facilities: helicopter platform

USNS GySgt Fred W. Stockham (T-AK-3017) is a Shughart-class container & roll-on roll-off support vessel in the United States Navy's Military Sealift Command

__________________
pla•teau noun
a relatively stable level, period,
or condition a level of attainment
or achievement

Lord help me get to the next plateau ..


Mr Quatro is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2024 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.