John KA full force of SHARS?? 10 regularly deployed and up to 18 on a typical surge on two ships, formidable…..
Will the RN deter much over the next ten years? Well much as oranges are not the only fruit Carriers mounting 25 year old light attack jets are not the only deterrent…there is the SSNs, which, as is their role, everyone forgets about but are actually the RNs most potent platform and have been since their introduction and with TLAM they have offered the Navy’s most powerful and longest range conventional attack capability for the last 12 years. Then there is the surface fleet, the Type 45 offering a level of air defence that arguably oustrips GR9s with sidewinders, there is the amphib force and the 7000 Royal Marines, there is the Strategic reach the RFA give the whole UK forces….
Two carriers and 24 SHARS are rather more formidable than nothing, which is what we will have for the next ten years at least. As to the rest, you are dreaming if you think the Royal Navy will present a strong deterrent. Seven SSNs with perhaps 30 TLAMs between them? Six Type 45s? An amphibious force cut in half and without helicopters? The RFA dying slowly before our eyes? Dream on.
John KLook up Operation Journeyman.
Under Callaghan, the government had the sense to see that Argentina shoul dbe deterred, & did so. Under Thatcher, the British government first announced the intention to virtually abandon the islanders, & then ignored a steady stream of escalating signals from Argentina, thus convincing the Argentinean leadership that we were content for the Falklands to be invaded. 255 British soldiers, sailors & airmen, & a lot more Argentineans, the majority of them conscripts, died because of that ghastly misunderstanding.
Personally, I’d prefer to see wars deterred rather than fought.
That’s my digression. Now, for the love of all that’s holy, ADDRESS THE TOPIC!
I said, Thatcher was not beyond criticism, far from it. John Nott’s 1981 plans for the Navy were deplorable. Then again, even Nott would have left us with Illustrious and Ark Royal, plus a full force of Sea Harriers. I’d take that now, wouldn’t you? Do you think that the Royal Navy will be able to deter very much at all for the next ten years?
John KYAWN…so your first angle of attack is to pick up on a typo, how tiresome.
You really believe that? First off we are a “major player”, but we have increasingly declining importance. We would be in an even worse position globally had we not been in the EU, China and India are interested in the UK precisiely because we are in europe, if we were outside of it there would be no point to investing in the UK as you would be outside the free trade area for a start (with a correspondingly smaller economy and therefore none of those carriers you dream of.)
You see I almost mentioned Thatcher in my last post, I knew you would be a fan! She was a dinosaur, she belonged to a bygone era, she railed against the advance of history, attempting to cling to fantasy ideal of British greatness that was long dead. Suez didn’t make Britain impotent, it demonstrated that Britain was impotent in such matters without global consensus, it showed that the world had moved on since the days of the Victorian empire where we could span the globe with impunity. Suez demonstrates the begining of the world we now inhabit, one where co-operation and consensus are the order of the day. Thats not self-imposed thats just how the world now works, if you think the UK can somehow change this or choose a path different from the rest of the world, then you are welcome to your view, but recent history says you are wrong.
As for Ward…does “fighting for you country” put you beyond criticism? I wasn’t aware of that. In which case Field Marshall Haig was a magnificent chap without blemish and his calls for maintaining horse cavalry between the wars were the mark of a genius. Come on, what ever you’ve done people are entitled to think your wrong, or a whinging tit. Or is discussion to be stifled with constant calls of “but he fought for our country!”
You have said that you approve of aircraft carriers and think we should build them. Since you think that Britain is an insignificant country, which should immerse itself into the EU, I have to ask “why”? Without an independent foreign policy, why do you think Britain should spend even one penny on carriers?
As to Thatcher, she was certainly not above criticism in my eyes. Nonetheless, this country was sliding towards oblivion in the 1970s, and would have reached it without her leadership. Her military policy was, again, not beyond criticism, the plan to scrap HMS Endurance being an obvious example. But can you really see Edward Heath or Jim Callaghan having the guts to retake the Falklands? If we had let the invasion stand, Britain would have been almost as feeble and pointless as you obviously feel it is.
And yes, I do take exception to your gratuitous insults aimed at Ward. Disagree with him all you like, but calling him a tit? Look in the mirror friend.
John KYou are obviously not a farmer are you John K.
Persons occupied with the farming industry might have a different viewpoint to yours re the “wasting of EU millions.”
Ironically without the EU millions being “wasted” on the farming industry the countryside of your beloved island just off the coast of Europe might well be looking rather different. That’s without mentioning all the other industries that have received EU subsidies over the years to enable them to start up or remain viable.
Without the products being produced by these industries the UK wouldn’t have the where withall to be able to produce the several carriers you reckon they would have got…but don’t let inconvienient things like factual accuracy get in the way of Rupert Murdochs (aka the Suns) views will you. :rolleyes:
We pay in £2.60 to the EU for every £1 we get back. If you think that’s a good deal, then you have chosen a very apt name for yourself.
John KConcede? I never agreed with Ward in the first place, can’t stand the whinging tit or his self interested son ( “oh what about ME!! my poor job!” ). It is absolutlely about Anglo-French naval integration and about time too I say.
Yes to a certain extent you are right, but this treaty is not about total integration anyway, only the Daily Wail and Torygraph seem to think that. BUT in the end what is the ultimate problem with Euro integration? We have a population of 60 million, we are a small nation with declining influence. The USA is 300million and is in decline. The rising stars are China (1.3 Billion) India (1.1 Billion) Brazil (193 million) If you want us to have a say in world affairs, to have influence on events then I’m afraid Euro-integration is the only way forward, the fact that even the Tories have realised this probably underlines the reality of that. Together the EU has a population of over 500 Million and is the largest economy on earth accounting for over 20% of world GDP. its the future, get used to it.:D
Really, what would the Harriers have brought to the game? 2016 QE sails with a dozen knackered 30 year old light attack aircraft. Hardly a world shattering soverign capability is it?
Not a fan of Dave then? Edward Heath was a realist who could see we were doomed as an isolated, tiny island nation with relatively shrinking economy, power and influence.
Well, having read that, I am not surprised that you cannot even spell the word “sovereign”. The fact is that if it wants to be, Britain can be a major player in world affairs. For the money we have wasted on the EU since 1973 we could have bought a dozen carriers without even worrying about the change. If you wish to see the end of British sovereignty, subsumed into a European defence identity, and thus unable to undertake independent operations in the British national interest, then I have good news for you, you are going to get your way. The British establishment has been completely gutless since Suez, and apart from a brief flurry under Thatcher, the long march towards self-imposed national decline has continued unabated. Your contempt for a man who fought magnificently for our country in 1982 really speaks volumes about you and the views you hold.
John KIts more the US and France not being able to cross deck to the RN that is the issue, not us to them.
Why would we need to fight for the Falklands again using a carrier? It is very adequately defended now, there is no chance of a repeat of 82. I believe in carriers, but I think using the spectre of a Falklands II is a red herring.
Whose been reading their Dawkins! – Good man! To be fair the harriers are a) almost knackered b) radar less and mainly a short range attack platform. By the time QE is in service there would be very little Harrierage left to operate from them anyway, that rear fuselage fatigue issue has not gone away and was only going to worsen.
You might like to concede that the decision to go from STOVL to CATOBAR had nothing whatever to do with Sharky Ward, who has no influence at all on the government. It is all about Anglo-French naval integration. They are signing the treaty today!
The Falklands serves as a useful example of a time when we might need independent naval assets. I am not saying the islands are under imminent threat, though I do not consider four Typhoons to be a particularly strong force, and if the Argentines seized RAF Mount Pleasant we would never get them out. But the point is that a warship is the military arm of a sovereign state. If we have a carrier with an air wing of French Rafales, it is not sovereign, it may as well not exist. Yet the establishment in this country is leading us into a future of European defence integration which will ensure that Britain can never hope to act in a sovereign and independent manner again. This will not happen today or tomorrow, but it is happening, and fast.
As to the Harrier force, I am well aware of their limitations, nonetheless, if Queen Elizabeth had been built as planned in 2016, she would not have been an “aircraft carrier without aircraft” as Dave the Tosser sought to denigrate her. The only reason this could happen was because his government scrapped the Harriers about eight years before it was due, and rejigged the CVF design to enable the French Navy to use Queen Elizabeth as a surrogate PA2. For all his meaningless protestations of euroscepticism, Green Dave is a poser who will turn out to be Edward Heath MkII.
John KTo my mind there is a very worrying level of naivete in that article and several others on that website.
The dangers of CATOBAR were starkly obvious before the SDSR decision was taken. The issue of deck qualification, continuation training and the need for the carrier air group to be flexibly deployable from land and sea also were all very clear.
The fact that the MoD didn’t want a Fleet Carrier and hadn’t specified one in its requirement for CVF was also very clear to anyone willing to read it.
Yet the august personalities in the Phoenix group, in willful ignorance of these very simple facts, continued to demand CATOBAR. Now CATOBAR is a stated aim, but, the requirement is unchanged. The operational concept is still Carrier Strike and the expectation is still set that the carrier will be the offshore mobile airbase with its ‘golfbag’ pick-up airgroup. Nothing more.
What makes you think Ward et al had any effect on this decision? The Prime Minister announced the fact that the F35B equipped carriers would not be able to cross deck with the US and France as if it was a scandal which had only just been uncovered. Of course, the F35B carrier could cross deck with the USMC, Italy and Spain, but that is not the point. The point is to facilitate increased Anglo-French naval integration. The talks are going on right now, and Dr Fox is trying lamely to justify the concept, which of course makes no sense if you view a warship as an expression of the military will of a sovereign state. French Navy Rafales on Queen Elizabeth will be no use if we ever have to fight for the Falklands again will they? This really has very little to do with the relative merits of STOVL vs. CATOBAR, or a fleet carrier vs a strike carrier, it is all about defence integration and the continuing erosion of national sovereignty. The fact that Cameron operates under the banner of euroscepticism means the square root of sod all. The project marches on, and this is simply one aspect of it.
One meme which does seem to have gained surprising traction, serving of course to denigrate the Royal Navy, is the myth of “aircraft carriers without aircraft”. If Queen Elizabeth had been built as planned, in 2016 she would have been at sea with Harriers, pending the arrival of the F35Bs. The only way she would have been an aircraft carrier without aircraft is if the government stupidly decided to scrap the Harrier force, which is what they did. They have effectively traduced the carrier programme to deflect attention from the criminal folly of deleting the Harrier force early, and they seem to have got away with it.
John KI can’t see anything to argue with in this piece, it is logically argued good sense.
The demise of the Harrier, and its associated Joint Force, aside from demonstrating the bad faith of the RAF towards the only aeroplane which our current carriers can operate, surely means the end of jointery in this field. The only way this could have been maintained was if the F35B purchase was going ahead. Since this is not to be, conventional F35Cs will operate at sea, and as this article clearly shows, that is a full time commitment which simply cannot be turned on and off. We have tried it before in Britain and it simply does not work. How often do we need to keep on learning this lesson?
The lesson of this latest defence review for me is that, once again, the RAF has played a canny political game. The talk before the SDSR was that the RAF would be hard hit, that the Tornado force would be scrapped, that the very future of the RAF might be in doubt. What happened? The RAF survived, the Tornados survived, and the types lost are the two of great importance to the Royal Navy, viz. the Harrier and Nimrod. If the RAF retains control of the F35Cs which are meant for carrier operation, I rather think the whole carrier programme will be a waste of time. The RAF has no interest in or ability to operate a carrier air force, as it has demonstrated time and time again. It would be like expecting the Royal Artillery to operate the Navy’s guns, and then being surprised that the guns never made it to sea!
John KYou may be right, but the RAF is very good at the political game. It helps of course that the media can’t get it into their heads that everything that flies isn’t the RAF. I even heard Cmdr Ward, who questioned Green Dave about the Harrier decision, called an RAF pilot on the BBC news. You can’t win!
John KI don’t see any justification for a “mixed” squadron, or indeed for any joint F35 force at all. The joint force only made sense when the RAF and FAA brought different planes to the party, which could make up a balanced carrier air group. The end of the SHAR put an end to that. Conventional carrier aviation is a full time specialism, and a full time Fleet Air Arm F35 force therefore needs to be established. I don’t see any room for doubt about this.
John KBadger:
That’s even worse, if correct. Prince of Wales will be built and then put straight into mothballs? What a stupid waste of resources. Our coalition masters really are a bunch of prats. Clegg, Cameron and Osbourne know nothing about defence, and it shows. Anyway, who really can put any faith in anything this government says will or will not happen in 2015? The Nimrod programme was cancelled when 90% of the money had been spent. Does that make sense anywhere apart from the planet Zarg?
John KCATOBAR means, as predicted, one service loses big time. We now have 7 years or so of the RAF doing their damnedest to strangle carrier strike at birth. Scrapping Joint Force Harrier while being allowed to keep this notion of joint ops for JSF is a hell of an achievement for the light blue. Makes you wonder how they got away with that.
Jonesy:
A very good point. I was always suspicious of Joint Force Harrier, but there was a time when it made sense, enabling the Navy to equip a carrier with Sea Harriers for air defence and Harriers for strike. Once the RAF made sure the Sea Harrier was killed off, most of the rationale for JFH went with it. However, the prospect of the F35B did at least mean that a joint service STOVL cadre could be maintained. Given that even that has gone, and the precipitate retirement of the Harrier means the end of the STOVL community, there is simply no justification for this jointery any more. Flying a CTOL aircraft off a carrier is a full time job, which needs to be done by dedicated naval aviators. It is not something which a Joint Force can dip into and out of. If the Admiralty have any balls at all (a debatable proposition I know), they must now push for a proper division of the F35 purchase between the Navy and RAF, nothing else makes any sense. In the next ten years, a core of naval aviators will have to be maintained, even if it means riding along with the USN or French Navy to keep the skills current.
John KIt is clear that the government would have cancelled one carrier if they could. We of course know that the contract was written so as to be for two carriers, that was the whole point of it, and our shipbuilding industry was built around it. To have cancelled one carrier would have devastated the industry, but the coalition would have done it. Amazing, and sickening.
As it is, the launch of Queen Elizabeth will be an odd affair. An unwanted carrier, that will serve for three years without aircraft, then be mothballed or sold off. Wonder what morale will be like on board?
John KPretty much, sounds like the RAF have done everything they could to protect fast jet numbers and damn everything else.
I agree 100%. Before the review, there was lots of talk of the Tornados being axed. Surprise surprise, they have been saved, and the two aircraft types axed, the Harrier and Nimrod, are the two which are of most use to the navy.
I expect the RAF now sees the F35C purchase as replacing the Tornados in the 2020s. The question is will there be a Fleet Air Arm? It has long been the RAF’s aim to get rid of the FAA, I think they are on the verge of success.
John Kdid you really just say that?
Maybe i misread it?:eek:
The Foreign Office has had more than its share over the years. Incidentally, the “Gay Traitor” was the name of the bar at the Hacienda, named after Anthony Blunt, who was of course, a gay traitor!
Sign In
