EdLawNo, 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.
EdLawPlacing the bridge in the bow of the carrier would be very unpopular, and not a great design. The bow of the ship is not normally ballasted, quite the opposite, the higher the bow is, the healthier the takeoff, because it effectively increases the angle of attack of the aircraft’s wings. The better solution is to minimise what is actually put in the island, and therefore reduce the space it takes up.
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. 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!
EdLawThe other problem being that the A-5 was really only a nuclear bomber, since it relied on releasing the bombs through a tunnel in the tail. This would seriously limit the flexibility, eliminating a lot of weapons choices, and limiting ‘growth’ potential, i.e. laser guided bombs, missiles etc…
On the other hand, it was very fast – Phantoms in ‘Nam had to select a little afterburner to keep up with the dry running Vigilantes that were on recon runs.
EdLawI was, in part, referring to the fact that Gordon Brown hired around 200,000 extra civil servants, in large part to staff political projects. The ‘advisors’ and ‘consultants’ are a horrible syndrome of the government, notably the political cronyism that is so rife in the current government. There have been studies, by various groups like the public accounts committees, and assorted financial institutions, revealing the magnitude of the problem. A part of the problem is the rise of quangos, and next steps agencies, which are an abomination – they are brought in to look like they are more efficient, but in practice, they just add endlessly to the total civil service.
I do not believe in scrapping FRES, which should (hopefully) prove to be a good vehicle, I merely believe that the current defence budget is poorly used. I think there is sufficient funding to have a much healthier military, it is simply the fact that the government insists on making everything ‘joint’ -whether joint RAF/RN, or join UK/EU, where the best experience has been the UK production of US designs, the Phantom, Sea King, Wessex etc…
I propose that the UK separate the defence budget, into running costs, and purchasing costs, preventing the current ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ method of funding procurement.
EdLawI think the best escort group would be four DDGs (Type 45), plus four FFGs (cheaper derivative of the Type 45). It would be a great mix, and allow enough ASW helicopters to be carried on the escorts, avoiding the need to use the carrier as a helo platform. I would like to see a nice joint RAF/RN CSAR force, probably using the Merlin, to support combat rescue and special operations.
The Type 45 is a good design, though the PAAMS is not a great idea, given the total lack of flexibility. The benefit of using a lower cost version as a frigate, by removing the long range radars, would be obvious – defined cost, and better production run.
EdLawI was not pointing to a link between civil servants and military cost overruns, merely that some of the money spent on the excess civil servants could perhaps be spent on the military.
EdLawI maintain that the cost is not actually 50% more – it would actually be more like 35% more, which is a very good deal. The problem is the anti-defence media, who love to ‘expose’ the costs of defence programs, in order to pursue an agenda. Most cost overruns on defence projects are the result of politics, not design flaws, just look at Typhoon, Brimstone, Chinook HC.3 – all designs that were sound, but damaged by political interference.
If the UK’s spending on the NHS can go up year on year, then so should defence spending – most money is not spent on actual service (doctors and healthcare in the NHS, and troops and weapons for the military), it is spent on civil servants etc…
The UK could cut 200,000 civil servants, and spend the money on defence – then the UK could actually afford to play with the big boys!
EdLawThe extra money is worth it, and is there – a lot of the current problems are due to a lot of ‘dead’ spending, and the government’s questionable accounting methods. If the UK is going to continue to be a world power, it will need to accept the need to pay for the capabilities. The price currently quoted for the JCA (JSF) is not the true cost, it is a massively inflated figure, including development spending, and a lot of ‘future spending’.
In terms of aircraft, three carriers would certainly need more aircraft, probably an increase to about 180 F-35s for the Royal Navy, plus a similar number of F-35s for the RAF, alongside the Typhoons.
One of the most worrying tendencies is the government’s continual line that the UK faces no credible air-threat when overseas. In Iraq, there were no aircraft flown against allied forces, but that is because their air force had more than twelve years of rundown. If the UK faces anyone with Su-27s or similar, then the current ‘advantage’ will evaporate overnight.
EdLawThe reason for buying the third carrier is simple: it offers a 100% increase in deployable carriers, for less than 50% more money. The fact is that one carrier is one carrier, thus if there is a deck fire or similar, one carrier is out of action – but if two can be deployed, then you can keep up air cover. The other advantage is that it allows for a two-pronged attack, which would be useful for another Falklands conflict.
EdLawI seriously doubt that France would buy two CVF derivatives, since they have expressed no desire for having three carriers – the UK for years has had three carriers, France only ever had two (Foch and Clemenceau), thus there is not the same perception of a reduction.
The carriers should be quite good, the main issue at the moment seems to be the choice of the F-35B – the RN want the F-35C, since they need a fighter, whether STOVL or conventional, but the RAF need a STOVL to replace the Harrier (or they think they do, anyway). The other problem is going to be government willingness to spend the money, if Gordon Brown gets his way, the UK will get no new carriers, no new aircraft, since defence spending does not win as many votes as health spending…
EdLawThe P-8 is actually more likely to cruise at around 10-20,000ft, only swooping down when it is actually needed. It will most likely be supplemented by a maritime patrol version of the Predator B, the Mariner, which will probably carry a number of sonobouys, and possibly even a trailing MAD, derived from a helicopter mounted unit, possibly the AN/ASQ-81.
In terms of rivals, there are very few as good as the P-8, but a high-low mixture of P-8s and Dornier Do328s, operating at long- and short-ranges respectively.
EdLawI hope they just buy a third CVF for the Royal Navy, in order to allow a decent UK carrier force. The third ship would add far less than 50% to the contract (no more design effort, so only the costs of actually building the ship), yet would allow a ‘surge’ capability of two carriers, which is a 100% increase in capability. Double the capability, for only about 40% more cost seems a good deal! Of course, it would mean buying 150 JSFs just for the Navy…
EdLawMy pick (yes, it is 11, but could not think which to remove from the list!):
F-4 Phantom – true classic, a really great aircraft
F/A-18 – nice aircraft, and quite purposeful
F-14 Tomcat – stunning, with the right balance of size and manouverability
F-3H Demon – a forgotten aircraft, but very attractive in its own way
Hawker Hunter – great aircraft, sadly the last true export success of a UK fighter
A-4 Skyhawk – just a wonderful aircraft, its ruggedness saved hundreds of lives
A-6 Intruder – a good aircraft, very tough and purposeful
A-7 Corsair – not quite as good as the Skyhawk, but still a great plane
F-35 JSF – a mean looking plane, need I say more?
F-111 Aardvark – long range, almost bomber, almost fighter
Mig-21 – light, affordable and fast, a good mix
EdLawI think the RAF might have a bright future, but only if the government stops the ‘effects-based’ nonsense. The whole concept is basically a giant defence cut, based on the premise that as long as the UK can provide one task force, with no backup or rotation, then all is well.
If the RAF procures a decent number of UCAVs, then things might improve, but not for a decade or so. In terms of helicopters, I think there is little hope of much improvement – replacing the Lynx with another Lynx is not a great idea, as eight Lynx can only move half the number of personnel that an NH-90 can carry. I think the UK needs to simply place a large order for NH-90s, stipulating that the aircraft be built in the UK.
Sign In
