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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
VelocityVector       6/16/2009 12:03:16 AM

The British have punched at themselves below their own belt now for two generations.  You as may well grant them some dignity, please.

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       6/16/2009 4:31:04 AM
The type 45's were really designed for fleet escort and as long as there are at least two available to cover the carrier at sea, that's probably going to do the job. The shortfall in hull numbers can be addressed with lower cost solutions - I'm not sure where the future surface combatant program is but I believe that will tackle the land attack and surface warfare needs of the fleet (assuming they're built and manned in sufficient numbers)
 
But those carriers are vital - being able to put 30+ modern, low observable/stealth capable strike aircraft 12 miles off the shore of any country in the world is far too useful a capability to let go of. 
 
I'd let go of the SSBN replacement in favour of more Astutes with some nuclear cruise missile capability plus 3 carriers and two wings, quite happily.
 
Ian

 
Quote    Reply

prometheus       6/16/2009 7:23:01 AM

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.


Yes, we really do need those ships. The entire purpose of the British armed forces is compromised by the inability to project power that removing naval fixed wing aviation would entail.
 
I fthe US is happy for the UK to revert to a primarily defensive posture then I guess there would be no problem with scrapping the carriers and building a primarily destroyer equipped navy a la Japan.However, we wouldn't be much use to future US led coalitions either.
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       6/16/2009 5:45:55 PM
I'd let go of the SSBN replacement in favour of more Astutes with some nuclear cruise missile capability plus 3 carriers and two wings, quite happily.

There is no way the British can give up their SSBN's and remain a credible military power. There is nothing the UK has that guarantees its security like those boomers. The notion of having Astutes with nuclear cruise missile capabilities is not the same thing as having the boomers, for obvious reasons. The British are not going to fight any major adversary without the US, so there is really no need for those supercarriers. The British should of built those destroyers with a strong emphasis on land attack capabilities and maybe built more Astute's, and even more AAS.  Again, if there was enough money to go around then yes they should of built those carriers, but if they are going to talk about cutting the submarine/destroyer force so they can pay for this ships, than there is a problem.
 
Quote    Reply

eldnah       6/16/2009 9:51:35 PM
Does anyone with an IQ above their toe and finger count really, really believe two medium fleet carriers (50,000 -60,000 tons + or -) will be built by the Brits? You do? I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. 
 
Quote    Reply

stingray1003       6/17/2009 3:31:17 AM
They are already building them. They will get them.
 
 Yes they (we all) need them. The US isn't everything and can't be. Due to diplomatic reasons alone its important the world has two full carriers outside of the US so the US doesn't have to go in to start a much bigger incident. The british have interests that the US may not see the point in fighting for.  
 
 So the UK won't be flush with escorts. No biggy, europe has dozens of decent escort ships, the US has bazillions, and the UK has lots of Allies (eg Canada, Australia) that can help out if needed (Australia is getting, atleast 3 AEGIS destroyers could be as high as 12). In time the UK will build more smaller ships.
 
 I see this as the first big step after the post coldwar rundown. UK is stepping up to be a major player again, not just a has been.
 
 As an Australian I look forward to these carriers. Perhaps if they are found to be useful we can look at something simular for ourselves that will fit in above our two new 30,000t F-35B capable LHD to provide dedicate fixed wing support. Perhaps UK F-35B might even grace our LHD's one day if we ever operate next to each other (likely).
 
 I don't see how the carriers have killed off all other projects. They are just going to happen later. UK is hardly a poor nation that can't afford or man it, they have just focused on other things while the US eyeballed off the USSR.
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       6/17/2009 4:24:19 AM
I don't see how the carriers have killed off all other projects. They are just going to happen later. UK is hardly a poor nation that can't afford or man it, they have just focused on other things while the US eyeballed off the USSR.

I didn't say they killed off all other projects, all I was saying is that by paying for this carriers the UK cut its destroyer force and maybe its SSN force by half. I think it would of been better to cut one program fully, then cut other important programs in half just to build one. The UK can afford to be without carriers, but it can't afford to be without nuclear subs, and guided missile destroyers. The best bet for them would of been to cancel the CVF program and build all 12 destroyers with full land attack capabilities and build all 8 of the Astutes and maybe even more of them.
 
Quote    Reply

prometheus       6/17/2009 6:19:28 AM

I don't see how the carriers have killed off all other projects. They are just going to happen later. UK is hardly a poor nation that can't afford or man it, they have just focused on other things while the US eyeballed off the USSR.



I didn't say they killed off all other projects, all I was saying is that by paying for this carriers the UK cut its destroyer force and maybe its SSN force by half. I think it would of been better to cut one program fully, then cut other important programs in half just to build one. The UK can afford to be without carriers, but it can't afford to be without nuclear subs, and guided missile destroyers. The best bet for them would of been to cancel the CVF program and build all 12 destroyers with full land attack capabilities and build all 8 of the Astutes and maybe even more of them.


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.
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       6/17/2009 9:54:52 PM
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.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/18/2009 3:24:15 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.

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.
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics