Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Is the CVF necessary for the Uk?
usajoe1    6/15/2009 11:23:45 PM
I think the cost of this two carriers is two much for the UK, and is taking away other capabilities that the UK needs. Insted of paying 7+ billon for the carriers, the British should of bought the original 12 Type 45 destroyers, with land attack capabilities. They also should of bought all 8 Asute ssn's, although this may still happen. They also would of had the money to build another AAS as well. It would of have been nice to have every thing, but since there is the money problem, it is better to have cut one program fully, than cut away from other important programs just to build this carriers. I don't think the British really needed this ships. With 12 Type 45's, 8 Astute ssn's, 13/4 Type 23/22's, 4 AAS, 4 LPD's and 4 SSBN'S the UK would of been better off.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
usajoe1       6/18/2009 4:06:45 AM
Just how are you supposed to fight without air cover? A SAM cannot supply persistent time in the air. Only aircraft can.
 
Nations, that could give Britain a hard time, include any nation with a land based air force that is competent. That would be ARGENTINA. which demonstrated its first class tactical skill with what airpower they had. The Argentine Air Forces both land based and naval fought very hard.  They sank enough Royal Navy ships to prove their competence.. .
 
I wouldn't go into Falklands, round two, without at least a pair of Nimitzes and the Burkes to go with them.
 
I think a couple of smaller carriers like the ones they have now would of been a better choice. It would of cost them maybe a third of what they are paying for the CVF's and would of still given them the edge over second and third rate airforces like the one of Argentina today. I think you are giving way too much credit to the AAF. They are in a very bad shape right now. They have at best 2 squadrons of A-4's and Pucaras each, that are air worthy, and maybe a half a squadron of Super Etandards. Their air force budget has been getting smaller and smaller in the last 15 to 20 years. They have a couple of refueling planes and no awacs capabilities. Their navy is not match to the RN. They have a couple of serviceable frigates and maybe a sub or two that is serviceable. All of this would be nothing compared to the two or three T-45's, two or three Astutes, four or five T-22/23's and a couple of smaller carriers with maybe 24/36 JSF/ Harriers in total. Now with the Astutes lerking in their waters, I will bet the Argentinans will not even bring their navy out to play, and if the T-45's were fitted with Tomahawks that would help alot in taking care of important ground targets in Argentina. If those Argentinian birds try to come and play with this fleet, the Type 45's and the two dozen or so british fighers will take care of them. Now, maybe they might get lucky and sink a ship, but ther is no way the Aregentina of today, or the near future can beat the RN of today or the near future.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    They are in bad shape.   6/18/2009 4:53:33 AM

Just how are you supposed to fight without air cover? A SAM cannot supply persistent time in the air. Only aircraft can.

 

Nations, that could give Britain a hard time, include any nation with a land based air force that is competent. That would be ARGENTINA. which demonstrated its first class tactical skill with what airpower they had. The Argentine Air Forces both land based and naval fought very hard.  They sank enough Royal Navy ships to prove their competence.. .


 

I wouldn't go into Falklands, round two, without at least a pair of Nimitzes and the Burkes to go with them.


 

I think a couple of smaller carriers like the ones they have now would of been a better choice. It would of cost them maybe a third of what they are paying for the CVF's and would of still given them the edge over second and third rate airforces like the one of Argentina today. I think you are giving way too much credit to the AAF. They are in a very bad shape right now. They have at best 2 squadrons of A-4's and Pucaras each, that are air worthy, and maybe a half a squadron of Super Etandards. Their air force budget has been getting smaller and smaller in the last 15 to 20 years. They have a couple of refueling planes and no awacs capabilities. Their navy is not match to the RN. They have a couple of serviceable frigates and maybe a sub or two that is serviceable. All of this would be nothing compared to the two or three T-45's, two or three Astutes, four or five T-22/23's and a couple of smaller carriers with maybe 24/36 JSF/ Harriers in total. Now with the Astutes lerking in their waters, I will bet the Argentinans will not even bring their navy out to play, and if the T-45's were fitted with Tomahawks that would help alot in taking care of important ground targets in Argentina. If those Argentinian birds try to come and play with this fleet, the Type 45's and the two dozen or so british fighers will take care of them. Now, maybe they might get lucky and sink a ship, but ther is no way the Aregentina of today, or the near future can beat the RN of today or the near future.

 
As usual I use that source as a quick check of current status.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    Herald   6/18/2009 5:48:40 AM
I don't know if you read Combat Aircraft Magazine or not, but they had a good report on the current status of the Argentinian Air Arms a couple of editions back.
 
Quote    Reply

prometheus       6/18/2009 5:58:40 AM

Our guided missile destroyers would be picked off quite easily without organic air support, what do you wnat us to do? Wait on uncle sam's charity? In order to be a credible military power we need those carriers. End off. We'll get the 8 SSNs and if halfing the high end AAW assets is the price to pay, then it's a small one when you compare the firepower of one T-45 against the entire output of the whole T-42 fleet.

As it is, all they will do is make sure the T-22/T-23 frigate replacements have a better than minimal AAW mechanism in place.

 

For all those that make the argument about naval footprints, they do have a point, however, they should also ask themselves exaclty how useful about a third of Woodwards escort force in the Falklands was as anything other than a floating decoy.


Can you please tell me what major war Britain is going to fight without the US? China? It has no chance with or without the carriers to go at it alone. Russia? same as China. Now if you are talking about some African mission or like a another scnerio like the falklands, then the DDG's and SSN's along with the Amphibious ships would be more than enough. If the UK still wanted some air cover for their Navy, they should of built a ship that was similar to the HMS Ocean, and put a dozen or so F-35's on it. This would of been much cheaper and would of given the Royal Navy a credible blue sea capability. After all the only nation that has true supercarriers and can dafeat the Royal Navy is the US. Outside of the US the only countries that would give the Royal Navy a hard time and maybe even dafeat it, is, Russia, France, China, India and Japan, and those countries only have a shot of doing this when they are close to their mainland and have air cover from land. Now tell me do you think that Britain is going to fight any of this countries any time soon.


By that logic we should simply scrap the armed forces all together. The US has more than enough men, guns, tanks, planes and ships to go it by themselves - so why should britain get involved? That's the argument you are making.
 
In a coalition fight, there has to be some kind of principle of sharing the burden. The carriers give us that, Building another round of invincible type ships were thought about and dismissed, their deck space is too limite din terms of growth over time to be of any long term value. By the time they retire they will have had 30 years service, the QEs will be require dto last nearly twice as long.
 
In order to provide a sortie rate, strike package size and range required to actually be of use to the US navy, a 40 strong airgroup on 60,000 tonnes was what the calculators spat out. Therefore that is what we are building. If we don't ahve the carriers we might as well scrap the destroyers, since the ASW frigates will neve rhave to go outside the UK based landcover again, without the carriers we give up any pretence of a blue water navy.
 
And one last thing. Times change. We ahve no idea who we ar egoing to be fighting in the next ahlf century. A largish carrier force is not somethign we can build in a hurry. Bette rot have it in the locker than not.

 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       6/18/2009 9:43:54 AM
The fundamental problem is to know what a Navy is needed
In the case of UK, RN was traditionnaly needed to deter an invasion, protect supply lines and enforce British interests abroad.
Plus protection of fishing or SAR or antipiracy which are coast guard duties which need only low cost means.
Deterring an invasion is not an issue anymore especially when you have nuke and a potent air land battle force and when you are in NATO
Protecting supply lines is not a real issue anymore since UK is in NATO and EU.It is more a collective duty and US navy would also ensure freedom of navigation
So a small number of SSN and ASW frigate is enough
 
Enforcing British interests need a navy able to dominate other navies in blue and brown waters and able to do projection power.
And an aircraft carrier give independant air power projection and the best mean to protect a fleet from saturating attack from land based aircrafts.
Clearly it makes sense for RN to buy carriers or it would be meaningless in most cases.
A carrier last 40 years and 5 billions pounds is nothing on a period of 40 years.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       6/18/2009 9:49:59 AM
 
The fundamental problem is to know WHY a Navy is needed
In the case of UK, RN was traditionnaly needed to deter an invasion, protect supply lines and enforce British interests abroad.
Plus protection of fishing or SAR or antipiracy which are coast guard duties which need only low cost means.
 
1)Deterring an invasion is not an issue anymore especially when you have nukes and a potent air land battle force and when you are in NATO.A single nuke is enough to vaporize a bridgehead.
 
2)Protecting supply lines is not a real issue anymore since UK is in NATO and EU.It is more a collective duty and US navy would also ensure freedom of navigation
So a small number of SSN and ASW frigate is enough to enforce this collective defense duty
 
3)Enforcing British interests need a navy able to dominate other navies in blue and brown waters and able to do projection power.
And an aircraft carrier give independant air power projection and the best mean to protect a fleet from saturating attack from land based aircrafts.
Clearly it makes sense for RN to buy carriers or it would be meaningless in most cases.
A carrier last 40 years and 5 billions pounds is nothing on a period of 40 years.
It means only 125 millions pounds per year in average.
Evne a single carrier would be MUCH better than none.
A single carrier is the price of 3 T45 and bring MUCH more.
 
In the case of UK, 8 Astute,a dozen first class frigate (most ASW) and at least one carrier is a minimum if UK want to stay credible as a power.
It would be much better to have only 4 T45 but 2 carriers than 12 T45 and no carriers.
2 carriers are of course much better.
 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       6/18/2009 10:11:41 AM
So, why do we need SSBN's but not carriers?
 
I'd like both of course, but if I have to give something up, the SSBN replacement seems most logical. If you're arguing we'll never go to war without the US then I think you need a better grasp of British military history (Sierra Leone and of course the  Falklands spring to mind.)
 
There's no guarantee at all that we'll remain firm allies of the US or that US and UK interests will remain as closely intertwined in the lifetime of the carriers. We need to get back into fast jet strike and interceptor aviation in a big way.
 
 


 The British are not going to fight any major adversary without the US, so there is really no need for those supercarriers.


 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       6/18/2009 10:31:36 AM
Two carriers are the absolute minimum - one carrier on strength won't answer to requirements as it'd likely be down for maintenance or sailing elsewhere when needed.
 
There's a minimum buy, below which we have to accept we can't do business this way and anything less than two carriers is that minimum buy.
 
I'd prefer three with the intention to usually keep one at sea and in action at any time with the other two coming on or off station - it'd work the hulls less and give us some redundancy if something happened to the one out at sea (grounding, collision, major breakdowns - they all happen when you least need them.
 
If we can't afford the carriers then the last thing we need is more T45's - we need more hull numbers of smaller ships with better surface to surface armament to plug the gap in strike capability. The T45's were designed to meet the fleet defence requirement  - but currently carry nothing except a single gun tube for surface warfare. No good :)
 
 
Ian
 
 
 

It would be much better to have only 4 T45 but 2 carriers than 12 T45 and no carriers.

2 carriers are of course much better.




 
Quote    Reply

LB    How Many Carriers   6/18/2009 11:34:42 AM
Having two carriers and two carrier air wings makes little sense given how often one carrier will be unavailable for operations due to maintenance.  The most sensible course of action would be to have 3 carriers and 2 air wings.
 
That said the RN has almost no available aircraft now.  All the Sea Harriers are long gone leaving no fleet air defense fighters and the joint Harrier force seems barely able to support Afghanistan (how short sighted retiring Jaguar early).
 
The big surprise to me will not be the RN getting the two carriers eventually but rather getting enough aircraft to equip them properly.
 
Asking if CVF is necessary is asking if the UK requires the basic tools of power projection.  A Labor government concluded it does. 
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       6/18/2009 7:27:27 PM
I'd like both of course, but if I have to give something up, the SSBN replacement seems most logical
 
The SSBN fleet is the only nuclear deterrent the UK has, an giving it up would make no sense. The SSBN fleet can destroy all major Russian and Chinese cites, and is the only weapons system that will guarantee the security of the UK from major foreign powers. The two carriers are force projection ships, and like I said before, even with them the British can not project force to major powers without the help of the US. Yes it would be nice for Britian to have both of them, but as long as their is politics, economy and other factors involved, you have to prioritize, and the SSBN fleet is a must for UK's standing in the world as a major world power, not just a Navel power.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics