JonesyAnd maybe since this isn’t some stupid scenario where the US attempts to pull off a pearl harbor on someone else, the enemy would actually have a good idea of where the carrier is based on simple logic.
You mean the stupid scenario where the USN exploits its decades of training and experience in deceptive manoeuver warfare?. No….they are of course far more likely to steam in with every emitter going full blast so that legacy opposing systems can track, identify and engage them!. How dare they do otherwise….it would be unthinkable surely!.
Jonesy
Me…now, miserably mid-30’s homing in on 40. Bit fuzzier round the edges and wishing I had that bit more time to appreciate the gym and recall lessons numerous sadistic staff PTI’s beat in to me once upon a time!.
My eldest is also well impressed with the pics of Raven Ren!.
Jonesy
Me…now, miserably mid-30’s homing in on 40. Bit fuzzier round the edges and wishing I had that bit more time to appreciate the gym and recall lessons numerous sadistic staff PTI’s beat in to me once upon a time!.
My eldest is also well impressed with the pics of Raven Ren!.
JonesyMember Tango III must be given tons of credit for keeping the news threads. I mainly come for the news and pics thread.
Seconded on that. Recognition and respects are very much due there.
Conversely I think this board has undergone an evolutionary process recently and has benefitted in many ways from it.
There are still obvious dross threads etc, but, the general level of flames has decreased by an easy order of magnitude – cap doffed to more effective moderation than we have seen in years past – also the technical depth of the more intensively ‘disputed’ threads has, IMO, increased dramatically with some really good work being put in here and there. That sort of thing will never be the baseline of course but, as has been said, there is stuff worth staying here for!.
JonesyActually Jonesy I don’t wish to divert the thread too much but I’m not sure about all of the airwing being struck down below in CVA-01’s hanger.
Granted on the Ark post-Phantomisation the normal doctrine was torn up and thrown overboard!.
CVA was intended to have a routine and surge capacity though. My understanding was that the fastjet component was more on the order of 12 cabs of both types. Taking into account the routine flying programme of offboard and deck-spotted cabs then the hangar should have been sufficient for the full ‘routine’ airgroup to be struck below.
JonesyUmm. How do you figure? I love it when people offer “critisism” when they dont offer any statements to back it up, and for your information, there is a hangar, in fact two. Go back a couple pages and you will find out where they are…
Max you are joking here?. You do know that you have drawn a pretty picture of something that is wholly without any value whatsoever?.
Four or five hulls in total with an 8 gun main battery – so its an NGFS platform right? – yet its got a huge VLS installation and a full area-AAW outfit so its a carrier consort?. At the size you are proposing its not a littorals support hull so that renders the gun armament secondary to the VLS for striking power, but, you have 4 mounts expensive in cost, but, moreso in ship impact!. 4 or 5 hulls isn’t enough for battlegroup deployment so that rules out carrier consort. What requirement is this ship actually intended to service?
The hangars aren’t the details either side of ‘X’ turret are they?. Looks rather worryingly like you have a track extending back almost a 3rd the length of the hull taking choppers back to widely split hangars?. Why would you do that?. It immediately means you have to duplicate aviation support systems, magazines etc and are obliged to have to shunt airframes back and forth down those ridiculously long tracks before you can start prepping them for flight!.
What you’ve done is draw a nice picture of a fantasy ship that you’ve just conjured up, which is fine, everyone enjoys playtime. This is/was a serious thread though so if someone picks you up on the practicalities of your picture you cant be surprised!.
JonesyAs for CVA-01 by the time it got south half its aircraft complement would have been washed off that stupid “alaskan highway” (the solution to a problem that didn’t exsist) and then the wind over deck would have been so high most of the time as to ground everything but the SAR Wessex for most of the Operation. As John Nott said at the time Harrier was “the one reason why”.
CVA-01 was designed, as with all RN carriers, to strike its entire airgroup below decks. We dont operate with permanent deck parks as is USN policy.
Quoting Nott is never advised either as the man had little concept of the amount of knowledge he lacked regarding naval matters. The CVA-01 would not have operated in the same waters as the STOVL carriers and wouldnt have been in theatre as long. It would have stood off to the west of the islands under Gannet AEW and severed the Argentine air bridge to the islands whilst sending PGM’d Buccs back east to knock out every CP artillery piece, radar and vehicle. The ‘war’ would’ve been over in a week!.
STOVL had a good war in 82 and Nott certainly tried hard enough to revise history so as to try and camouflage his culpability in the whole action. Doesnt wash with most of us though!. His ’81 review effectively gave Galtieri the green light and no amount of praise, in spite of his decisions, will ever erase his guilt!.
JonesyJonesy, when I said LPH, I meant combining the roles with a carrier capability. If the treasury said “look CVF will have to be cancelled or we can combine it with the planned LPH programme” which in turn would be cancelled as a seperate programme, would you honestly say no given the state of finances? If CVF melded into something more akin to Wasp would that be so bad? It would still have a strike carrier function…
What do we need a redesigned UK variant Wasp for, which we’d have to pay for the design of, when we have an already designed CVF?. A Wasp style LPA isnt going to be any cheaper and its going to be far worse in the strike carrier role. I think you are missing the crucial factor that the required sortie generation rate actually defines. Only an absolute fool would opt for an new LPA design under the circumstances that exist right now.
Like I said the finances are there to easily afford the CVF’s and the Treasury has actually signed off on the contracts. The only people talking about cancellation are in the media, competitor armed services and people on forums such as this!.
I agree with you about the backing up of military force, but its more about the willingness to use it than its actual size, state, equipment. I would never want 82 to be repeated certainly. The SF capability of Britain is very small but its credible threat and diplomatic leverage has been in HMGs willingness to use it (and not talk about it after!).
We had SF in 82 that were at the height of their fame. They slowed down Galtieri not a jot…the threat of CVA-01 appearing off his coast would clearly have done so.
JonesyI know that CVF has lived a precarious life thus far, which UK procurement project hasn’t of late? But the sounds (or lack there of) coming from whitehall have been far less encouraging of late.
If it comes to pass then I would suggest the most secure way of getting a decent aviation capability would be to combine the future LPH project and aim for something of multirole ship. This may be palatable to the treasury and still fit many of the UKs key requirements.
Of course it wont be palatable to the Treasury and having given up CVF on the altar of ‘cant afford’ and ‘small island nation somewhere off the coast of France’ what grounds do we have to order LPH’s?. We cant deploy them anywhere as we cant provide air support to cover them?. Names like Galahad and Tristram live long in the memory.
If Carrier Strike goes we lose the lot. There is simply no connection between a nation with our commitments and a state with a frigate navy. Its like having a swine flu epidemic and tackling it with the St Johns Ambulance!.
Without Carrier Strike we dont need the amphibious lift apart from the Ro-Ro’s and perhaps the LSL’s. Without the amphibs and carriers we need escorts to contribute to SNMG, if we bother, and to protect the ro-ro’s if they have to take the Army somewhere only. Its pointless doing APT(S) as even if it did detect hostile intent there is precious little we could do about any event down there anyway.
SSN’s could be made a case for in terms of sea denial, TLAM and intel gathering but they are expensive and the skills towards building them are perishable. Do we bother when the small island mentality really sets in and we ‘remember’ our place in the world rather than being committed to resolutely upholding our place in it. With a Treasury feeling its oats after swinging the axe so successfully I’d rather believe not.
What you say about British diplomacy is accurate but flawed in such a heavy way. British diplomacy was subtle and effective based on the respect that our percieved military capability carried. Dont kid yourself that diplomacy has changed, or become somehow more enlightened, in the timespan between those days and now.
Galtierieri proved it in 82, exploiting our perceived weakness, until our actions in CORPORATE, bought largely with the blood of sailors manning obsolescent vessels and soldiers with inferior kit, restored the image of Britain as a powerful nation who’s word could be backed up with resolve and determination. Ahmedinejad and the mullahs have also proved just this month that states exist that hold us in contempt and that the weakness now being broadcast by snivelling, whining, politicians is having the same effect all over again just as human nature dictates that it always will.
JonesyYour not wrong. I hope CVF goes ahead, but what concerns me is that the RN maintains a carrier capability. At the moment all the signals are that CVF may be on the chopping block, HMG has not countered the paper released this week which is standard whitehall practice for softening the blow. Alternatives need to be considered and the case for them put robustly.
I would argue though that our current world role and obligations mean that a direct CVS equivilant may be adequate.
CVS doesnt do the job and everyone knows it…that is why the requirement was written that needs CVF to fill it. In whole-life terms CVF is a cost-effective solution and that has been proven time and again. Simply put there is no alternative at this point other than to cut Carrier Strike – which is not about to happen.
As for signals of CVF ‘facing the chopping block’ at what point in time over the last 5 years or so has the CVF NOT been faced with the chopping block or had some proverbial damocles sword dangling over it?. Its been allegedly dead more times than Lazarus yet its going to keep lots of jocks happily bashing steel for a good while to come!. At this point I’ll believe its cancellation when I see Brown fall on his own bagpipes!
JonesyPJ,
I freely admit to being slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, but, I have worked in the public sector myself. After I left the service I followed up a personal interest in structures design by spending a few years in the local highways department doing traffic management, accident investigation and highways maintenance project work.
I’ve seen the wastage that goes on when its the taxpayer footing the bill firsthand. I’ve seen highways paving schemes whereby new flags have been dumped on site for laying, in high crime areas, only to (surprising to no-one) ‘disappear’ overnight. Those to be replaced with a new order and that consequently disappear too – and lots of locals with shiny new-paved driveways mysteriously appear over the following few days!. The public sector is inherently wasteful and that is something that cannot be disputed.
The unclaimed benefits pool is money already allocated and not spent. Its averaged between £8-10bn per annum for the last few years. That gives you an idea of the fraction of spending, even just comparative to the Social Security budget, that the CVF’s represent – it is miniscule!. It also HAS to be remembered, spending the money inside the UK on capital projects like shipbuilding is supporting UK economy in key engineering sectors. Cancel CVF and see what happens to the communities around the Clyde and on the south coast. You will get a higher incidence of the raft of social unrest issues you are bemoaning all stemming from poverty and unemployment.
CVF is win-win all round. It provides the capability the RN need where no alternate exists. It is an inherently economical hull to run in year-on-year costs terms. It is now a mature and frozen, yet flexible, design and it is supporting thousands of jobs in the UK the salaries from which are feeding back their taxes into the UK exchequer. What grounds are their to be critical of this….honestly?
JonesyCorrect me if i’m wrong but outside the USN there is no carrier built/building that will match/better the CVF specs, right? That seems pretty good to me.
Not one that can support the same sortie rates over time no there isnt. For the money, specifically in context of the UK Carrier Strike requirement, there is no more suitable platform in existence or realitically planned.
JonesyPJ,
The no money wailing is all just noise. Both CVF’s can easily be funded out of the Social Security budgets unclaimed benefits pool, including artificial cost hike, with enough left over to put the 6 cancelled T45’s back on the slate too…from a SINGLE years unclaimed benefits!.
The money is very definitely there to build the carriers, assets that will give service for at least 3 decades it should be remembered, as stated we are already paying for Carrier Strike from the existing budget…the new carriers are only going to tap the same funding.
The only ‘new’ expense over the status quo is the aircraft and the JSF’s are going to provide service to the RAF as well as RN and, in the more expensive STOVL variant, we get the offset of a cheap(er) carrier and greatly reduced operational, training and, likely, attritional costs.
As stated Carrier Strike demands a defined sortie rate. CVF is the absolute cheapest hull that meets that operational requirement. There is no foreign, lower-cost, CVS/LHA design that matches up to the specification.
JonesyThe route of all of this is the difference between the expectation of British Foreign Policy and how it is funded and executed. As a nation we still cling to an Imperial view, a Britain that is powerul and influential country, a force of good that is respected by other nations as an acknowledged leader on the world stage.
This view, a view that is held by Prime Minister and shopkeeper a like is outdated and almost entirely wrong. The UK is no longer a world leader, not anywhere near. It is viewed as an outdated, out of touch little country that has an inflated view of its own self importance. Its economy is weak and will continue to weaken relative to others. Its ability to influence world politics is small when in concert with others, non-exsistent when by itself. Its military clings to a technological superiority that grows ever more expensive and unattainable.
The real debate about foreign policy and defence policy needs to be had, to a certain degree this report is starting to address that.
Do we need a nuclear deterrent? We will never independently launch, so who exactly is it aimed at? Does it have a real role other than keeping our seat at the UN security Council?
Carriers? Do we need this level of power projection? Is it affordable or even desirable? Like nuclear deterrence the chance of us launching a large power projection war independently is tiny, so should we pay for that level of force given it it is unlikely to be used?
The sort of military operation the UK will launch independently will be no larger than a brigade+ Operation. It will be of the Sierra Leone scale. When politicians and Hiearchy except this we might actually get a military procurement that is efficient, value for money and affordable.
What a pile of garbage. Sorry PJ but I’ve not seen a more ridiculous statement for a very long time.
Do we need to project power?. Yes. We have signed treaty responsibilities that we have undertaken to honour. We have dependents across the globe that we have a duty towards and we have the force of history that teaches us that once you lose the ability to influence events, that deployable military power behind your diplomacy brings, then you lose the ability to act in service of your own interests.
In that light then the CVF’s are crucial enabling platforms. Carrier Strike has been evaluated and re-evaluated as a capability and, every time, been determined to be a core and irreplaceable function that UK armed forces require to undertake their taskings. To achieve their mission those vessels have been, professionally, determined as needing to support a specific sortie generation rate.
To support that sortie generation rate, with the aircraft type selected, demands a carrier of the size of CVF. Its a simple as that. CVF is NOT gold plated and, in fact, should be operated year-on-year for the same budget as the CVS’s. Cavour is simply too small to do the job that has resulted in the CVF design.
There is NO alternate here. No other solution will satisfy the Carrier Strike requirement as the CVF is already the minimum, most austere, hull that will do the job and that job must be done.
The CVF’s are ordered, are being built and will be fine ships when completed. Simple as that.
JonesyFinishing a stint of 14 consecutive 12-hr night shifts on comms watch and looking forward to 3 days off with runs planned to the local water park and to the beach with the kids!. The fact that the metoc chappies are saying we are in for a heatwave just makes the smile that little bit broader!.
Sign In
