BBC reporting that we lose Ark Royal a few years early though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593

Isn’t one of the carriers pretty much on the reseve list, not going anywhere fast, used as spares for the others, anyway?

return to REAL carrier aviation

My how I tittered:D

This was precisely what I was getting-at. Far too many people here have been reading far too many enthusiast magazines. If you seriously think a dozen jets on a single carrier constitutes “real” carrier aviation then I suspect you need your head examined!

I’ve never read an aviation magazine in my life, but I think its good move to go with a CATOBAR carriers. Yes, a dozen jets most certainly does constitute a real carrier aviation! They have a much longer range than the Harriers, and can deliver precision munitions. They will also be compatible with future naval UCAVs, which should raise the number deployed as well. If we are going to face cuts to 40 to 50 JSF, I’d much rather we had jets that packed as much punch as possible.

I don’t see a need for two air forces, the RN and RAF must be made to share where it is beneficial. I don’t favour either side, nor the Army, all are equally valuable to our country, and all have shown tremendous dedication to the country.

Second Carrier definately Conventioal. PoW to get cats. Just been leaked.

What do you mean by second carrier conventional? CATOBAR? Good to hear they will be CATOBAR carriers though 🙂

PJ

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the operational environment here. At present the threat is in the littoral not blue water. Chokepoints, shallows, shoal water etc. You cannot avoid pushing HVU’s like amphibs into those waters if you expect to do anything in the way of power projection. There will always be a need for ASW escort in those areas. You can try and do that with 8000 ton DDG’s carrying a pair of ASW choppers if you like but, currently, those DDG’s are big and noisy. In tight waters they are not always favourite to come out ahead of the game.

A smaller, more nimble, quieter ship is necessary for those ops. With the DDG standing off providing sensor and aviation support and covering fires. I’ve long been a fan of our C1 capacity being a DDH built off the T45 design with a big aviation dept for up to 3 Merlins. That would need to be paired up though with a smaller ‘inshore’ hull though i.e a C2 with a fair-middlin bow sonar and, ideally, a couple of USVs towing CAPTAS NANO style arrays!.

At present were still a way off from that, so, a very discrete frigate is a key player in the operational scenario that the Navy is set up to undertake.

IMO that kind of ASW role is best left to a ROV with a sonar, to match silence for silence, though vulnerability of communications is a possible risk factor. Obviously a secondary sonar on the mothership would still be important, if only to provide triangulation.

I wonder why the UK’s cutting choices are so extreme (either scrapping all 120 GR4s, or retiring all 50 Harriers……) ? Can’t it preserve some parts of both fighters (such as 40 to 60 GR4s + 20 to 30 Harriers) for the necessary missions ?

Its because cutting old planes only saves on operational costs, which are quite small really, compared to procurement costs, when taken on a short term basis. Operational costs only really are significant over the life of the platform. Cutting a whole fleet saves more than cutting a bit of each, as you can eliminate an entire support structure from the force, rather than retain the support structure for both and just supply it to a smaller force. Much of the operational costs is going to be these support structures, so cutting a bit of both you only really save on fuel, crew, a bit of maintenance and maybe the airfield.

If you want to make a big saving, you need to slash a big ticket item that isn’t paid for. If FSTA were an upfront cost, which it isn’t, then you could save £13 billion by axing it. TBH, I’d actually be fairly in favour of cutting the FSTA project, with air refueling being provided by either converted A400, and/or a small buy of airliners fitted out for air refueling to be run by the RAF themselves. Cobham could perhaps be compensated by giving them a contract to supply the kits only.

Not to sure what’ll be unhappy about it. Expensive maybe, but at least with a civvy company running the operation (with the interests of efficiency and maximising revenue close to their hearts no doubt) there’s a decent chance of it being very successful, and help make up for the bad press (fair and unfair) that Crab-Air has had to deal with operating increasingly elderly strategic transport and tanker assets.

As for talk of modifying the contract, I don’t think AirTanker were that stupid and left that loophole open without attracting huge penalties.

As for DC’s intervention, maybe he suddenly realised where the sympathies of a large number of his own constituents lie!:)

I reckon air tanker are pretty miffed that the defence systems weren’t procured and so they can’t offer as much support in combat environments as they would like to. Just a guess like 😉

Not anti-Navy as such, just an honest appraisal of the way things really are. Carrier power (for the UK) has not been essential since 1982 and one could argue whether it was even necessary then (bailing-out bad foreign policy decisions is hardly a justification for keeping carriers). Prior to that, the last practical or necessary application of carrier air power was 1956 – and even that is a debatable saga.

Carriers are a luxury which Their Navyships obviously want, but are of little value to Britain’s defence needs. The ability to roam the globe and bring our formidable force of maybe 12-15 serviceable jets to bear on some unsuspecting country is hardly a credible asset. If some abstract notion of protecting oil-soaked territory is a serious future necessity, one modestly-equipped carrier isn’t going to help. The carriers are merely hideously over-priced tokenism which we patently can’t afford.

As of next week it seems clear that Britain will have only a meagre air defence force and an attack capability (excluding the disproportional clout of Trident) which is adequate for gesture politics (eg supporting America in Afghanistan, or wherever our beloved politicians choose to send our troops to be killed needlessly in future) but for seriously defending out country? Nope, those days are gone. Fox claims that he’s looked into his crystal ball and seen no serious threat towards the UK which (in his opinion) means that we can afford to abandon assets (presumably Harrier, some or all of the Tornado fleet and some of the Typhoon fleet) in order that we may spend what little amount of money is left on our crusade in Afghanistan.

Brilliant. A glorious self-fulfilling prophecy. But as I said previously, when we finally leave that poisonous saga behind, Britain will have nothing with which to seriously defend the UK should the need ever arise. We will be obliged to simply send our glorious carrier around the world to heroically maintain Britain’s presence in countries where we are either not welcome or better advised to avoid. That isn’t defence, it’s crude political showboating. Defence capability is already at a level where it might be judged to be of questionable value. As of next week it will be gone. What remains will have no serious credibility in terms of defending the United Kingdom. We really might as well dump the lot.

The Navy is probably the UKs most secure defender. The RAF are fairly vulnerable to a massive first strike on their bases, the Navy have the nuclear forces, which are really our ultimate defence.

First aircraft delivered to Brize this time next year.:)

First flight of the converted aircraft was a few weeks back.

No, but I think I am suggesting something that is more reasonable. Single European countries are struggling to maintain their “carriers”; it would make more sense to team up and concentrate on a few decent ones, me thinks.

The UK used to be an empire; also Spain had their empire. However reality today is rather different; huge budget deficits, aging population, increased unemployment, etc. Combine that with no real military threat (for the time being) and it becomes increasingly difficult for each EU country to justify having those carriers. Furthermore one may argue that it’s better to have a few decent EU carriers than several tiny ones that are hugely expensive but each carry a limited punch.

It will be interesting to see if Italy and Spain succeed in hanging on to their carriers in the future. Also it will be interesting to see if the UK will get 2 complete carriers with F-35B (and how many?)….

Currently SEVEN carriers? Can you please enlighten me…

That’s all well and good if you are pro-European integration, however the majority of the country is against European integration, which poses what could be described as democratic problem. Personally, I’d much rather have an independent navy composed of 2 OPVs than a 900 ship navy with 100 massive CVNs as part of European superstate.

Chox one thing I don’t understand here: you seem to use the defend the UK mainland arguement against building carriers, but you seem to be all for keeping the GR4s, which have no defensive value at all.

I think he means they can be used to strike out at attackers, which is true, but they aren’t exactly kitted out for the role, lacking dedicated ASuM missiles for a start.

In that time frame there will be some american aircraft to lend them for training purposes.

Unfortunately the UK receives no military assistance from the US at all, unlike many of the F35 buyers which are having their F35 buys either massively subsidised or outright paid for by American aid.

What you’re not taking into account is that the UK may well be about to cut those 4 frigates from the fleet in the SDSR anyway. That has been suggested in several rumours over the last few days. If that is the case it makes sense to use them for something else useful.

No I’ve taken it into account, however they still have a value, and giving them away for free is a bad idea when they can instead be sold. Giving 4 frigates away to get a contract for a small part of 5 is unlikely to yield a net profit. Remember, these ships are almost certain to be built in Brazil, and probably a lot of their systems too. The 4 frigates could be sold to any number of countries.

What makes you think that the SSN force will survive unscathed?

Not much left to cut!