British CVF thread

I think the important part would be to fit something similar to the American RAM missile to the amphibs and support vessels – if each ship can basically defend itself, then it makes a task force a lot easier to ‘manage’. One of the weaknesses in the Falklands was the relative inability of individual vessels to defend themselves, which meant that frigates actually had to protect other ships with their defence missiles.

I think that having self-sufficient vessels in the battle group would allow for a more flexible deployment of assets, allowing targets to be further apart – it is great to decoy an Exocet missile, but if all you do is trick it to sink another of your ships, it is not such a great bargain…

Oh and by the way, the Army has already been used to counter UK terrorists, the obvious example being Northern Ireland and there was the deployment of troops and armour to Heathrow airport.

That’s true, but they just backed up the Police to stop rioting and help patrol trouble spots. This was a great help to the Police, but the Army became the victims of snipers and bombs.

huh that still doesnt add up as i said those ampbhibious vessels have crew of 300 while carrier requires 5 times that much, and also those amphbious vessels dont really have any escorts assigned to them were as carrier needs them.

Invincible class complement: 685 crew nominal (actual: Illustrious 643; Invincible 670) plus 376 aircrew (without GR.7’s)

Ocean class complement: 283 plus 180 airgroup plus 480 military (803 at overload)

Albion class complement: 325 crew plus 305 military (710 at overload)

Looking at these figures I don’t think you would need 1,500 crew to run a modern 25,000t carrier and the Bay class ships don’t need individual escorts assigned to them if they operate in a task force. Complement info from http://navy-matters.beedall.com/

I think the RN has missed the point when it says that it needs the CVF to allow power projection etc. Yes a carrier is a great way to show the flag, but if you want to project power you need more than aircraft. What the RN needed was a vessel similar to the USN’s Wasp class or its successor, geared withan emphasis on air operations but still retaining its ability to transport troops and material to a trouble spot. If you propositioned equipment for say a regimental battle group on one of these ships together with an airwing of Harriers/JSF, Apaches, Merlin HC2 (navalised) and say a Merlin based AEW&C you have a real force for power projection. Fly out the troops to their eqipment in times of need and given the west technical superiority you have an awful lot of firepower and flexibility siting off someones coast. Build three of these and one can be at sea ready to move to where it is needed quickly. For full blown operations, having two of these vessels on site plus the amphibious group and air deployable forces available, and you have a reinforced division available with intergral fixed and rotary air support. Now that is power projection

I think the CVF’s are the right size ships for the Royal Navy. Personally, I would have went with a CTOL Carrier. Yet, there several advantages to the CVF’s and a JSF AirWing. (i.e. sortie rate, cost, infrastructure, etc.) Basically, the Royal Navy is likely to fight one of two hypothetical Carrier Actions. One would be a “go it alone” much like the Falklands War of 1982. The other part of a Allied Fleet fighting a common enemy. With the latter being the most likely. Regardless. in either case the CVF’s would be ideal. 😀

The carriers I suggested would only replace the LPDs at the end of their service life and they would have some amphibious capability too.

A lot of the RNs amphibious capability will be in the form of the Bay class Large Amphibious Landing Ships anyway. http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2750.html

I think the manpower requirements for six modern technology 25,000t carriers will not be a problem when you consider that only 3-4 will be active at one time and will embark airgroups which bring their own support personal.

huh that still doesnt add up as i said those ampbhibious vessels have crew of 300 while carrier requires 5 times that much, and also those amphbious vessels dont really have any escorts assigned to them were as carrier needs them.

I think the RN has missed the point when it says that it needs the CVF to allow power projection etc. Yes a carrier is a great way to show the flag, but if you want to project power you need more than aircraft. What the RN needed was a vessel similar to the USN’s Wasp class or its successor, geared withan emphasis on air operations but still retaining its ability to transport troops and material to a trouble spot. If you propositioned equipment for say a regimental battle group on one of these ships together with an airwing of Harriers/JSF, Apaches, Merlin HC2 (navalised) and say a Merlin based AEW&C you have a real force for power projection. Fly out the troops to their eqipment in times of need and given the west technical superiority you have an awful lot of firepower and flexibility siting off someones coast. Build three of these and one can be at sea ready to move to where it is needed quickly. For full blown operations, having two of these vessels on site plus the amphibious group and air deployable forces available, and you have a reinforced division available with intergral fixed and rotary air support. Now that is power projection

Oh and by the way, the Army has already been used to counter UK terrorists, the obvious example being Northern Ireland and there was the deployment of troops and armour to Heathrow airport.

Steve, the militarys job is to defend the nation its interests and its people, it should do whatever is neccesay to do this even if it means fundamental change.
Anyway I wasnt suggesting that the Army be used for dealing with terrorist in the UK, I just felt that your reply needed an answer, my suggestion was that the money ED wants to spend on a third CVF could be better spent dealing with terrorism (ie funding the security services, or removing the reasons people resort to terror)

Terrorism is a criminal act, not really a military threat. Terrorists can only murder, maim and disrupt, if they took control of a area in a riot they would be surrounded and eventually defeated. They can only win if we let them.

Terrorism or no terrorism, the UK still needs aircraft carriers if it wants to continue to have a world wide influence. I think that the CVF design is the wrong choice for the UK, it’s too big, too expensive and 2 is not enough. But we still need carriers.

An army is one of those things I’d rather have and not need then need and not have…….

But why do armed forces have to be uniformed soldiers blowing things up and killing people? Armys were created for very specific roles, protecting nations from other Armys, but if there are nolonger armys to be protected against but the threat is now terrorists why not change the Army or part of it into a force to defend against it?
An example, For hundreds of years your nation has an arny to defend against other armys, the armys of your neighbours. But then these armys no longer pose a threat, in fact they are allies, why keep your own army as a special force to defend against the armys of your neighbours when they are not your enemy? But then from knowhere come a band of disgruntled sheep from wales and launch a terror campaign, what do you do? Your army is amazing as is your navy and airforce but it is intended to defeat your neighbours it is not capable of dealing with a highly motivated band of disgruntled sheep, thus surely the best thing to do is adapt your army to deal with the threat the sheep pose, even if this means the army changes beyond all recognition.
Steve, the militarys job is to defend the nation its interests and its people, it should do whatever is neccesay to do this even if it means fundamental change.
Anyway I wasnt suggesting that the Army be used for dealing with terrorist in the UK, I just felt that your reply needed an answer, my suggestion was that the money ED wants to spend on a third CVF could be better spent dealing with terrorism (ie funding the security services, or removing the reasons people resort to terror)

Fighting domestic terrorism is the job of the Police backed up by the intelligence community. The military should assist only when absolutely necessary. It would be far better to increase the Police force rather than putting the Army on the streets.

The job of the military is to kill people and destroy things, getting them to do anything else is a waste of money. Your more likely to stop terrorists with armed plain clothes Police Detectives than a bunch of SA80 carrying soldiers.

Lets get back to discussing the CVF!

Carriers only allow you to attack countrys with accesible coastlines, if they are land locked you still need permission from neighbouring countrys.
The 7/7 suspects did not attend terrorist training camps in the full sense of the title, in fact it is still not certain that they even travelled abroad, but if they did what they attended were actually religous schools in which individuals preach that Jihad is the way forward, the usage of Bombs against such sites would only be counter-productive widening the belief in parts of the muslim world that the war on terror is a war on Islam thus increasing tension. The best option (as in fact is happening) is targetted arrests followed by prosecution and imprisonment, thus seperating extremists from the larger part of the population.
I am not arguing that Britain should not have aircraft carriers but that two are sufficient and that they are from the best method if dealing with terrorism.
If it is the military operating in a police role that is required to defend the people of Britain then so be it, but there is no need to operate a large armed force when it does not have an enemy to fight. The US and the coalition have got it right in afghanistan, using military power to hunt for terrorist suspects and infrastructure and remove them, whilst at the same time attempting to introduce democracy and reduce poverty and violence so as to remove the motivation for people to resort to terrorism

I am arguing that the military can fight terrorism, hence I suggested that armed forces need to be tailored to the threat.
It is far better for nations to tackle the terrorist in their respective nations, currently the Pakistanis are cracking down on suspected miltaints, and you expect your 6 carriers to go and bomb them, that will help international relations.
One of the most important factors in the defeat of Irish terrorism was in fact the processe of criminilisation, categorising terrorists as criminals thus removing their moral high ground which had been aquired by calling the themselves armys and saying they were fighting wars.

No, the threat is terrorism, which needs to be fought on two fronts –

-at home, with counter terrorism, and tracking of individuals
-abroad, targetting and striking at terrorist training camps

Indeed, carriers are of limited use for the former, but for the latter, they are the best solution, since they allow force projection without having to bow to host nation pressures.

I think you are trying to use the fact that the terrorists happened to be British to support your position. The fact is that they went abroad to terrorist training camps, and the sooner the left-wing wakes up to the fact that terrorists are not just criminals, the safer the world will be. The carriers are necessary, because they allow the UK to strike at terrorist training camps anywhere, without needing permission from neighbouring countries.

By your logic, if the military can play no role in stopping terrorism, then there should be no military, only police.

How usefull is a CVF at stopping terrorists on the underground?
Armed forces need to be tailored to the threat, the threat, as has been shown over the last few days is UK based terrorists, thus would it not be better to spend more money dealing with that threat than preparing to face an enemy which does not exist?
Granted your ships would be more flexible, but they would not be suited to any special task in the same way LPDs and other assets are.

you think you can get enough budget out of LPDS, a very specific desighn to purchase to more carriers, whilst massively reducing the RN’s amphibious capability? thats one of the most insane ideas Ive heard.

Insane???? Why would replacing 6 ships with 6 more flexible ships be insane?

To be honest I think britains defence budget, some of it at least, would be better spent on dealing with terrorists in britain rather than on having more than 2 carriers.

How will cutting back on military equipment spending have any effect on terrorism?

you think you can get enough budget out of LPDS, a very specific desighn to purchase to more carriers, whilst massively reducing the RN’s amphibious capability? thats one of the most insane ideas Ive heard.
To be honest I think britains defence budget, some of it at least, would be better spent on dealing with terrorists in britain rather than on having more than 2 carriers.

huh yeah they will
-first of all no of RN escorts is drastically going down from 30 to 18,
-second of all without those docks RN’s amphibious capabilities will be very limited.
-Third those docks dont require much manpower or maintenence cost, around 300 complement for albion. A 25k ton carrier would require 4 times as much.

The carriers I suggested would only replace the LPDs at the end of their service life and they would have some amphibious capability too.

A lot of the RNs amphibious capability will be in the form of the Bay class Large Amphibious Landing Ships anyway. http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2750.html

I think the manpower requirements for six modern technology 25,000t carriers will not be a problem when you consider that only 3-4 will be active at one time and will embark airgroups which bring their own support personal.

which six ships? the RN only has four real aviation ships at the moment of which only 2 are fully active at any one time. The RN certainly cant sacrifice any more ships in other areas.

These six.

the three Invincible class carriers, then the LPH HMS Ocean and finally the LPDs HMS Albion and Bulwark.

some of the earliest carriers in 1920-30 timeframe had bridge in bow and a clear deck.
in theory is a decent idea. but having a control tower with a commanding view of the airbase is a good idea. perhaps a slim airport style control tower topped with a PA radar and comm masts is ok.
what else should be there in the island ?

Placing the bridge in the bow of the carrier would be very unpopular, and not a great design.

So why has there been many designs with this feature?

The bow of the ship is not normally ballasted, quite the opposite

Another reason to add the bridge there and fill up the gap, anyway the ballast I was refering to was in the lower part of the bow, where I have actually seen it.

the higher the bow is, the healthier the takeoff, because it effectively increases the angle of attack of the aircraft’s wings.

This fact is not in dispute, infact a 12* ski jump allows a bridge to be inserted with a nice thick layer of noise supression added in for good measure!

The better solution is to minimise what is actually put in the island, and therefore reduce the space it takes up.

Yeah, kick the officers out of flag country, and put them one deck down that way if the ship gets hit, the first ones out won’t be them but the real people 😉

A lot of the existing radars can now be replaced with one or two phased array radars, electronically steered, which are a lot more reliable and powerful.

Like the ones being developed and used on the Horizon ships?

All of this allows the size of the island to be reduced, the only problem in conventional carriers is then the exhaust – it is damaging for the aircraft and radars, in some cases practically sandblasting the aircraft!

Why not exhaust them in the water like water jets? Our current patrol boats do this and it’s said to increase the speed another 5-15kts, though a carrier would make a different case due to the mass involved, but still the technology is there to exhaust it elsewhere! Why not out to the side and down like the Japanese Carrier Shinano of WWII?