JonesySuch a pity: for the vast sums being spent on these great big white elephants, the Navy could have got half-a-dozen smaller but almost equally capable carriers.
3 major inaccuracies in one sentence – impressive!
1, In comparitive terms the CVF isnt a programme that has vast sums being spent on it. £4bn for a capability that will last a minimum of 30 years and designed to run on the same budget as the preceeding class. Hardly wanton excess is it?.
2, Compare the cost difference between a Cavour (the kind of small carrier you are alluding to) and CVF. I doubt its even fully 2:1 let alone 6:1. The size of the carrier is not the key driver of its cost.
3, Compare the sortie generation rate of CVF versus Cavour. Compare the unsupported endurance CVF against Cavour. CVF is the size it is because it needs to support a defined sortie rate for a specific duration without UNREP. Its 65k ton for a reason…and only the greatest of fools would consider the possibility that a carriers size is defined by the need to “keep up with the Joneses”.
JonesyYes, I suspect the technical problems of operating a UAV for AEW of of a CVF would be significant. However, there is an opportunity here for BAE to at least start thinking about this sort of stuff. Time will tell.
Genral Atomics advertised, albeit very briefly, a carrier-capable version of their Mariner UAV that would have been similar in concept to a naval Mantis. That would seem to suggest, very superficially, that the problems would not be insurmountable.
The real beauty of naval Mantis would be if it could be made modular though. The basic air vehicle could have use in force protection, ISTAR, offboard ELINT, comms relay, perhaps even modest COD duties in conjunction with the AEW. In short a very, very valuable platform to have on a non-cat carrier.
JonesySo, scratch that alternative explanation.:diablo:
Yep.;)
US subs have been involved in collisions under ‘shallow’ waters, so is not impossible.
60-90ft depth?. Plus the ships they collided with were sheared at the keel in precisely the same fashion as a large capacity under-the-keel explosion generates?. Nope. You are inventing stuff that doesnt even match the damage pattern to the SK ships hull. Give it up.
The torpedo found is not a real evidence
Who cares?. The damage pattern is clear evidence.
The expert is saying the accident was caused by a collision, not by a explosion.
Then he isn’t an expert.
The ship did not detect any torpedo launching.
Or the ship wasn’t at action stations when the torpedo was launched and didn’t have a sonar watch set. Or, possibly, the sonar operator that detected high speed screws didnt survive the sinking and the watch leader that the detect was flashed to likewise.
Remember that there is no reason to expect every member of the crew to be aware of what happens on a ship. I know lads who were on Sheffield who were convinced they were torpedoed for days after the ship sank – simply because they believed the messdeck dits at the time that said there was an Argie sub in the area. Just because there is no published report of a torpedo launch doesnt mean there wasn’t one.
But people will still believe that it was a torpedo, why?, just because they ‘found’ (read seed) a torpedo nearby?
As I understand it the enquiry had already determined that the sinking was due to an under-the-keel heavyweight torpedo detonation well before the NK torpedo fragments were found. The reason is that the damage pattern is consistent with only one thing – a heavyweight torpedo.
JonesyA US Navy submarine collide with the ship, and the SK authorities used it to troll the north.
US Navy submarine in those waters is on the surface. Too shallow for an SSN there. I know you are intent on grasping for any other possible answer, however remote and unlikely, but understand that the damage was done by an under-the-keel explosion from someones heavyweight torpedo. Not a collision, not a mine and certainly not a grounding.
JonesyFor once i’m a wee bit stumped, is that a Frelon on the Heli-deck? I’m not sure it is and then i’m having trouble IDing it….
JonesyCan anyone make sense of this?
There is no sense to make in that – other than as either a deliberate attempt at misdirection or as the utterings of a fool. The damage pattern is not consistent with a collision. A big ship hitting a little ship doesnt split it down the middle….it rides over the top, rips the superstructure off and capsizes it – you end up with a very clear damage signature with the impact side stoved in and lee side bowed out. IF its hit with such a speed differential to do the damage in the first place.
The comment about a lack of scorching on ship internals and bodies is indicative of the lack of comprehension by the writer here. Impact and blast effects would cause those factors to be evident. An under-the-keel detonation does not produce them.
Jonesy..but … it is of the greatest regret to me that successive governments have cut and cut again R&D budgets for potential non-military projects which would have brought immense benefits to UK PLC
Why is the government responsible for stumping up seed money for private industry to get rich off?. If they think they can develop a merchantable product let them pay for their own R&D!. In your concept of endless government sponsored research budgets taxpayers money is poured down the holes on the ‘iffy’ projects that may not see a return. No one benefits from those. The commercially viable products are self supporting and dont need the taxpayer money poured into them.
The social services budget is needed to support people you are not as fortunate as you and I. Unless the industrial base of the UK expands and, what is more, expands where there are massive pockets of institutionalised unemployment I don’t see how the social service budget can be decreased without causing immense hardship to people who are already on, and below, the poverty line.
Stuff and nonsense. I had to move 200 miles away from my home and friends and extended family in order to pursue my career. I freely expect to have to move again. I do this, moving my family, because I dont expect/demand someone to come along and plonk a job on my doorstep for me!. The social security budget can be decreased by snapping people out of this indolent excuse-making view where they DO expect to sit back and have opportunities gift-wrapped for them.
It is my belief that the defence of the UK is not, absolutely not, best served by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As you say, you don’t see a lot, the simple fact is that militant Islam needs challenging militarily as well as in softer terms. Its a damnsight better having that fight in someone elses cities rather than ours. This is an irrlevence though as we are talking about aircraft carriers value to a nation with distant security commitments.
It doesn’t seem to me to be isolationist to say this, not at all, rather it is to say that Britain should not export violence to the rest of the world, and we would be better off, in every sense, if we didn’t export violence. If it comes to us, then respond, but don’t export it.
IF VIOLENCE COMES TO US???. Do you know what you are saying there?. We dont want violence coming to us at all!!!. Our governments first and overriding responsibility is the security and safety of the UK populace – how many British civillians do you think represents a necessary level of sacrifice before we are entitled to act I wonder?. Christ man do you think this is marquis of queensbury rules or something?. Put down your bloody Guardian long enough to look around the world!. Wake up!.
The British armed forces are suffering dreadful casualties because of policies by successive governments and the ‘by jingo’ attitudes of people like you.
….and left to you and your myopic breed of wishful-thinkers it would be British cities and British civillians that take the casualties. Think about that.
We need, in a very uncertain world, the armed forces and they need to be properly equipped, but what we British and the British armed forces need are sensible attitudes towards defence, not the foolish policies which are current.
We need the ability to apply coercive force abroad in support of our foreign policy. The credible threat of force underpins all diplomacy….if you haven’t realised that yet you are deeper into your Guardian than is healthy. Conventional deterrence is no different to nuclear deterrence – it relies on the availability and efficacy of a level of force, overwhelming and assured in nature, to make an opponent see the benefit in peaceful conflict resolution. Any way you slice it the aircraft carrier is a CRUCIAL component in that conventional deterrence.
JonesyAll I can see is an enormous national deficit (brought about by a banking crisis) and an MoD that just can’t get a handle on defence costs (brought about by incompetance within the department).
Of course you do. That is simple and easily quantifiable. What you dont see, because you aren’t interested in looking, is what comes from the investment in defence. You dont see with many thousands of UK jobs supported by the defence spend, you dont see Britains retention of key high-tech skills in its manufacturing base because of its defence industry, you dont see the reassurance given to friends and allies of British forces on the ground stood shoulder-to-shoulder with them.
Most importantly you dont see the impact, on Britain, of the course of action you are proposing. You dont comprehend that when we give up our ability to influence world events, even on the modest scale we now enjoy, we lose our voice in those events. At a time when globalisation has driven international communication and engagement to new heights you are proposing we withdraw from our position in that world and adopt the policy of the isolationist?. All to save a few billion here and there….money that the Social Security budget wastes every month?.
The problem here isnt with the budget….the problem here is with the amount that goes on that you don’t see.
too many projects are intended to serve a concept of British power which can’t be justified by the wealth of the nation.
Lets stop this absurd notion that we cant afford a military right now. Look at the defence budget as a porportion of GDP. Then look at the Social Security budget. Compare and contrast.
I think it’s time for Britain to understand that its days as a World Power are over, that these ‘numerous overseas defence commitments’ are a complete waste of time, taxpayers money, and the lives of British service men and women.
…and you appear to be someone else who has only a very vague grasp on what the word ‘commitment’ means!.
JonesyUnless the idea is to pull out of NATO and become like Switzerland (i.e. neutral) which only makes sense if we give up our nuclear deterrent, any overseas territories, pull out of the EC, end our involvement in the Commonwealth and generally ignore the world.
Many do advocate just that – we cant afford defence so scrap the lot of it because we’ll never be invaded and, even if we do, well….we’ve always won in the past and the US will be there to call on. Pure Guardian-reader logic.
The truth of the matter is that, if we behave like this, the global community sees the UK as a nation unwilling to meet its commitments, acting in bad faith towards its friends and allies and cutting off those who depend on it for their safety. Would you do business with a person who you saw as willing to back out on their friends and partners and willfully leave people in the lurch?. Personally I wouldn’t.
That scales up to the national level too. Its a widely accepted fact that meeting our obligations over the Falklands brought real, tangible, benefits to Britain. We were seen as a people willing to make the highest sacrifices to keep our word. Those who would oppose us were taught something of our resolve and those who had agreements with us felt safer in those relations and more disposed to enhance them.
When we have an annual surplus, in the bloated Social Security budget, of about £8bn in unclaimed benefits then, yes, we can afford those commitments as the price of abrogating them will, indirectly, be far higher.
JonesyWhich ones are worth the tens of billions of pounds cost of the carriers and aircraft and operating costs? Can the UK afford this kind of expenditure these days?
You seem to have a vague understanding of the word ‘commitment’ there Flanker. It doesn’t matter what ‘worth’ they have if we have committed to a defence agreement in good faith. To back out of those agreements would cost us far more, showing bad faith to allies, than the amount to keep a duty aircraft carrier operational.
Besides CVF is designed, like the T45’s, to be a lot more economical than its predecessors. The guideline was to have 2 CVF’s running on the same budget as the 3 CVS’s. We have managed to deploy the CVS’s quite ably for more than two decades so the CVF shouldn’t be an issue. Dont be so quick to believe the media rubbish!
JonesyI’ve never seen the virtues in the CVF. Time to let it go.
You dont see the virtue, for a nation with numerous overseas defence commitments, in having forward deployable airpower independent of local base-in considerations equipped with its own, organic, defence and logistics infrastructure?.
JonesyMaybe, but this government is on record as saying it won’t, & that it’d be a waste of money to scrap it now. Too much work done, too much money committed. It’s exactly the sort of thing, paying for stuff we don’t get, that it’s criticised the last lot for – and with good reason!
Agreed. Not to mention that the just-released emergency budget, correctly imho, targetted the apparent bottomless social security spend that Labour magic’d up. Bit of an own goal for a government to underscore employment and then put a bullet through about 10,000 manufacturing jobs!.
JonesyThe new 22DDH will be 248 meters long and 39 meters in beam, and displace more than 24,000 tons.
A dozen feet or so longer than Cavour…..thats an interesting statistic.
JonesyAWACS don’t ‘screen’ the ocean to search for targets, they use the earth’s curvature for low level detection, avoiding the problematic screening which is ‘solved’ with higher frequencies..and i say ‘solved’), now, the problem is that there are limitations for such operation.
I think you mean ‘scan’ instead of ‘screen’ and you are still wrong.
Jonesy2- The frequencies used for ground cluttering discrimination are definitively not in the C-band (more into X band..or even K band)
Overwater you are talking about multipath signal clutter. People have been filtering out multipath returns with doppler radar for about 40 years.
The target will be detected when there is not sea screening on it, it happens of course for the AWACS, but is not like it will have contact on the target all the time, not even enough time for a successful coordinated interception.
All that is needed is a raid assessment, threat bearing, range and rate of progression to cue fleet air defence responders. Why would the AWACS need to hold solid contact every second – even if that presented a genuine problem?.
Add decent jammers and you will see a parade of fighter bombers passing through the AWACS controlled zone
Yes because you want escort jammers alerting your target to a threat and potential threat bearing. You really do want to attack a fully alerted battle group dont you?!.
Nonsense…..every word.
If you want to attack a carrier group you have to locate it passively and engage it passively. You alert the group to a raid in progress and you have no option other than to try and saturate active defences…which is a hiding to nothing. Its ALWAYS easier for a carrier group to concentrate and rapidly apply force than a land component as the carrier, by nature, brings all its support components with it in a mobile package.
Coordination of sufficient firepower to overwhelm a battlegroup defence potential, in the missile age, has happened only in Clancy fantasy. Organising and deploying multi-squadron air-sea attacks on short duration, potentially spurious, battle group detects is a feat that is daunting in itself. Strike aircraft dont generate themselves and are finite in number!.
Sign In
