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
StobieWan       6/19/2009 3:40:10 AM
Agreed- I'd go for a wing and a third for each carrier approximately - gives room for spare frames, downtime, combat and other attrition and also gives the ability to make surge deck loadings if you're in a scrap and need extra airframes on the deck.
 
 
I'll be amazed if we get a full wing and two carriers to be honest ;)
 
Ian
 
 
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

prometheus       6/19/2009 4:25:37 AM

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.


We are far more likely to need to make surgical strikes form an aircraft carrier than obliterate moscow with an ICBM. Besides, apart from my previous point that in order to be of any use in a US coalition we require our own force projection tools, there is the concept of european defence where we form part of a european coaliton and ours and the French carriers become the mechanism through which a european force can be utilised.
besides those two carriers pretty much mean we can knock someone like Russia out of a naval war at the very least.
 
I would much rather have the carriers than the ICBMs.
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       6/19/2009 4:47:29 AM
I would much rather have the carriers than the ICBMs.
You rather have carriers than remain a nuclear power? Wow! Let me ask you a question, do you want UK to remain a credible world power? If yes, then tell me which country is a major world power that does not have Nuclear Weapons? France, US, Russia, China, India? Japan and Germany do not count because they are only economical powers. Imagine this the UK will be the only member of the permanent security council without Nukes.
 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       6/19/2009 4:50:02 AM
Ditto - nuclear sabre rattling isn't anywhere near as relevant as the ability to park a balanced offensive force,screened by state of the art attack subs from below and advanced air warfare destroyers on the surface, right off the coast of any other potential hostile naval power in the world. It's unlikely we'd have to act alone again in the future, but at least we'd have the capability.
 
It does our global standing far more good to be able to show up, tell any potential ally "we're here, we're in the game with some very modern and capable kit, where do you want us?" than having a bunch of D4's pootling around under the waves someplace in the oceans.
 
I'd like both, but if we have to make the choice, some limited nuclear strike capability can be obtained at far lower cost and the money spent on conventional forces we can actually use.
 
Ian
 

 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       6/19/2009 5:19:32 AM
More productive to name the countries which have nuclear weapons but which remain regional powers surely? Nuclear weapons and a method of delivering them aren't a surefire ticket to being a global power.
 
I'd further argue that China for instance, right now, isn't a global power - they have no expeditionary capability and can't project power at any great distance beyond their borders. They'll get there but right now, they fail the test of being a global power in the sense I believe you mean. 
 
Nuclear weapons remain items of last resort, and the UK will not be able to use them in anything other the the most dire of circumstances. I'd like both but I'll take limited nuclear strike capability plus a global power projection capability if I have to choose.
 
Ian
 

I would much rather have the carriers than the ICBMs.


You rather have carriers than remain a nuclear power? Wow! Let me ask you a question, do you want UK to remain a credible world power? If yes, then tell me which country is a major world power that does not have Nuclear Weapons?


 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    No, try Super Power   6/19/2009 5:41:46 AM
I'd further argue that China for instance, right now, isn't a global power - they have no expeditionary capability and can't project power at any great distance beyond their borders. They'll get there but right now, they fail the test of being a global power in the sense I believe you mean. 
 
China is the second most powerful country in the world. They have the fastest growing economy, soon to be number two in the world. They have over a billion people, the second largest land mass, the largest standing Army, with the second highest defense spending in the world, and a major nuclear power. They are a permanent member of the UN security council, and outside of the US, are the closest thing to a Super Power. In about 20 years China is going to be a full fledged Super Power and the biggest competitor the US had since the Soviet Union.
 
Quote    Reply

prometheus       6/19/2009 6:53:52 AM

I'd further argue that China for instance, right now, isn't a global power - they have no expeditionary capability and can't project power at any great distance beyond their borders. They'll get there but right now, they fail the test of being a global power in the sense I believe you mean. 

 

China is the second most powerful country in the world. They have the fastest growing economy, soon to be number two in the world. They have over a billion people, the second largest land mass, the largest standing Army, with the second highest defense spending in the world, and a major nuclear power. They are a permanent member of the UN security council, and outside of the US, are the closest thing to a Super Power. In about 20 years China is going to be a full fledged Super Power and the biggest competitor the US had since the Soviet Union.



Without wishing to completely derailt he topic, the old dichotomy of superpowers in competition is no longer relevant. The US and the Soviets might have been in direct competiton but China and the USa re now so inexonerably linked economically that competition would seem to be self defeating.
 
Economically it will tkae them some time to push Japan and the combined EU and as Stobie wan has pointed out their ability to militarily influence events is profoundly limited.
 
Back on topic, yes, like Stobie I'd quite like to keep both, but if one were sacrificed, I'd rather keep the carriers, this is the opinion of the admiralty as well. At the end of the day, limited nuclear strike capabilities could be afforded by cruise missiles, and would be a far more proportionate repsonse to the current WMD matrix that exists in the modern world.
 
And yes, the ability to project the fleet and protect the fleet froma ir attack means we can park it off someone's coast, which is of far greater deterrence value over a broad swathe of the threat spectrum to be more useful than simply whispering in some foreign diplomat's ear the possibility of a D4 landing on their doorstep.
 
If we had had this discussion 30 years ago, abandoned the Invincibles and kept Polaris as the sole facot in making us militarily credible, we would ahve had to have nuked beunos aires to get back the falklands. Hardly the just repsonse of a liberal democracy.
 
The carriers are the most flexible and most available means of making British opinion known, as an option betwen angry shouting at the UN and nuking people we don't like.
 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       6/19/2009 7:04:56 AM
You're not perhaps following by what's usually mean by a global power - which I understand as one which at a large remove, can hold another countries or interests therof, at risk.
 
China has no expeditionary capability - they're working on it and I have no doubt they will become very strong if they so desire but right now, they are not a *global* power in a military sense.
 
They could not, for instance, have fought and won the Falklands war in the way the UK did in 1982, nor could they today.
 
They cannot reach out, project power - militarily, they're a regional power only. This will change but right now, my point is valid I feel.
 
Ian
 
 
 
 
I'd further argue that China for instance, right now, isn't a global power - they have no expeditionary capability and can't project power at any great distance beyond their borders. They'll get there but right now, they fail the test of being a global power in the sense I believe you mean. 

 

China is the second most powerful country in the world. They have the fastest growing economy, soon to be number two in the world. They have over a billion people, the second largest land mass, the largest standing Army, with the second highest defense spending in the world, and a major nuclear power. They are a permanent member of the UN security council, and outside of the US, are the closest thing to a Super Power. In about 20 years China is going to be a full fledged Super Power and the biggest competitor the US had since the Soviet Union.


 
Quote    Reply

John G       6/19/2009 9:04:23 AM
We will def get QE and more than likely get POW whether we get more than just a token force of f-35's is another matter.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       6/19/2009 9:12:47 AM
StobieWan  
There is 3 order of magnitude between the destructive power of a carrier and a SSBN.
 
Usajoe1 is right, you can not choose between nuclear deterrent and carrier
To be able to use your carrier in offensive mean to support your diplomacy or interests, you need to have FIRST nuclear protection, or otherwise, any nuclear power could blackmail you like in Suez in 1956.
The lesson of Suez is that you can have a strong power projection ability and militarly win on the field but if a nuclear power start to put pressure on you , you lose and withdraw.
Not necessarly by striking British cities first , but only by using tactical nukes on your fleet or your airfields.
And don't think that USA would back UK with US nukes for very situation, and risk a nuclear war for British interests.
Nuclear deterrent is the supreme force, conventional forces are used for infranuclear situation, but ability to use it outside your homeland needs nuclear power to secure your forces and objectives.
 
UK can have both.You need only to make some cost reduction on manpower (in RAF for example) to fund them.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics