Is the CVF necessary for the Uk?

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

Aussiegunneragain Stobiewan 6/24/2009 10:15:55 AM

Inconceivable.

Agreed. Apart from anything else by nuking Argentina over the Falklands the UK would have been totally undermining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. What second tier nation in their right mind would stay as a signatory when one of the nuclear powers had clearly demonstrated their willingness to use nuclear weapons over a minor scrap in the South Atlantic?

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain 6/24/2009 10:22:35 AM

I agree with those posters saying that the carriers are a good idea for the UK. It takes ten years to build a carrier and they will have a 30 year plus service life. Geo-political realities can change dramatically in that sort of timeframe and when they do change they can do so suddenly. For instance, what happens if the US allows offshore drilling and finds enough oil to ignore the Middle East, and therefore decides that it is sick of everybody elses problems and decides to go isolationist again?. Just looking at the immediate geopolitical circumstances is very short sighted, the UK still has global interests and it needs to be prepared to defend them without the US if necessary.

Quote Reply

usajoe1 willkill4rice 6/25/2009 12:57:47 AM

2 SSBNs is enough to ruin anyones day, 4-6 SSNs is formidable, 2 at home, 1 with each carrier and 2 spare. 6 DDGs, 6 FFGs would be better.

With the numbers you came up with the British will not have a continuous sea deterrence. They will have 1 carrier, 3 or 4 SSN's and 3 or 4 DDGs at any given time. You call that a powerful Navy? Japan, (if they had the support ships), France, Russia, and in about 10 years China and India will outclass this version of the British Navy that you are proposing.

Quote Reply

prometheus 6/25/2009 6:24:18 AM

2 SSBNs is enough to ruin anyones day, 4-6 SSNs is formidable, 2 at home, 1 with each carrier and 2 spare. 6 DDGs, 6 FFGs would be better.

His version is not going to happen, for a start there will be at least 8 Astute SSNs, 4 SSBNs, 2CVFs, 1 LHP, 6 DDGs, 17 FFGs, 2 LHDs plus associated aircraft, the F-35 with support from highly capable Lynx and Merlin helicopters. The RN will still be one of the few navies with a long range strike capability embodied in the Tomahawk missile. It has and will continue to have a large amphibious force in terms of gross tonnage plus the Royal Marines.

Depending on what the C1/C2 concept comes out as will depend on what further strike capacity our surface ships get.

In terms of tonnage, technology and training, exaclty how will France, Russia, China and India surpass that?

Quote Reply

usajoe1 Prometheus 6/25/2009 6:20:24 PM

I was talking about this version of the British Navy that willkill4rice said would be better for the British!

2 SSBNs is enough to ruin anyones day, 4-6 SSNs is formidable, 2 at home, 1 with each carrier and 2 spare. 6 DDGs, 6 FFGs would be better.

Quote Reply

LB Numbers Still Matter 6/25/2009 11:56:48 PM

According to Adm Sandy Woodward, the Falklands Task Force Commander, in his book he had 3 SSNs on station and they could not track the Argentine carrier group and in fact lost it. Part of the reason he wanted Belgrano sunk was his fear the SSN tracking it would lose it again. An RN with 6 SSNs is a pathetic joke.

Japan keeps 20 subs in commission and builds a new one every year. Sure they are "only" 4,200 tons and the new ones have AIP instead of being nukes but Japanese political considerations aside these are good boats. Hell Australia is talking about more subs just for regional considerations. The RN gave up it's diesel boats and Labor gets the RN down to 6 SSN's. It really is a pathetic joke.

The RN is too small to be a navy and in fact it's barely the size of a flotilla. In 1990 the RN had 29 fleet subs (not SSBNs) and is now going to have 6. In 1990 the RN had 49 destroyers and frigates and is going to have 6 DDGs and 13 Type 23s (the 4 remaining 22s are gone in 2015 to 2018). When Labor took over in 1997 there were 35 and Labor promised to keep it at 25. Today there are 22 and it's going to drop to 19 soon.

The RN at the end of 2008 had no ship availabe for naval station South Atlantic which includes the Falklands. HMS Illustrious is the only "strike carrier" left and she deploys with no UK Harriers. Labor not only got rid of the Sea Harrier with it's Blue Vixen and AMRAAMs but retired the Jaguar early and is running the GR9s into the ground so none available for Illustrious.

Once upon a time I had a love affair with the RN but she's gone now. Only the memories will remain. RIP. May her many honored ghosts haunt those who gutted her.

If anyone needs anymore perspective the Future Lynx program was once at 60, then 35, and now it's 28 projected. The JMSDF operates 131 SH-60 and 19 UH-60s. Is the RN going to ever get it's 12 Nimrod MR4s? Japan has 80 P-3Cs and another 9 for elint and recon.

I was talking about this version of the British Navy that willkill4rice said would be better for the British!

2 SSBNs is enough to ruin anyones day, 4-6 SSNs is formidable, 2 at home, 1 with each carrier and 2 spare. 6 DDGs, 6 FFGs would be better.

Quote Reply

prometheus 6/26/2009 5:51:43 AM

Once upon a time I had a love affair with the RN but she's gone now. Only the memories will remain. RIP. May her many honored ghosts haunt those who gutted her.

I was talking about this version of the British Navy that willkill4rice said would be better for the British!

2 SSBNs is enough to ruin anyones day, 4-6 SSNs is formidable, 2 at home, 1 with each carrier and 2 spare. 6 DDGs, 6 FFGs would be better.

In actual fact , the SSN number will eventually hover around the 10 mark, the later trafagars having some time still to run, and no doubt the RN (who have become much better at fighting political battles) will probably maage to get them replaced by batch 2 astutes. Without any major strategic threat to the nation, then this is surely enough.

As for the FFG/DDG program. The T-45s are a massive qualitiative boost over the T-42s and really if the trade off is making sure the Navy gets the two CVFs then 6 for 12 is fine. The FSC concept is still to be worked out, the out of service dates means that they will need a design in place no later than 2012 to prepare for replacing the first of the t-22s. There is still time. If the navy plays it's cards right, it could probably sacrifice much of the C3 program to bolster number sof the high end asw C1 and general purpose C2 program, an optimistic forecast wouldf get us 25 C1/C2s that would be enough to support a carrier group plus an amphibious group.

I accept that there are gaps in RN capabilities right now, but they are temporary. The RN of 2018 should be a fairly potent force. As for the lynx program well, the probable eventuality is that the RN will eventually buy an off the shelf replacement for it. As for the nimrods, they are the RAF's problem and got hit badly by the fact that as good as Nimrod is, the airframes

Quote Reply

StevoJH 6/26/2009 8:36:21 AM

A minimum of 7 Astutes are planned, there might be more depending on when construction on the vanguard replacements begins, some of the Trafalgar class are good until around 2020.

The problem is that a nuclear sub costs a MINIMUM of twice as much as a conventional submarine simply because they have the reactor, without even considering that they tend to be much larger (twice the displacement on the trafalgars and astutes, and over twice the crew).

The Type 22 B3's are now planned to leave service between 2019 and 2022 at the rate of one per year, with the T23's leaving service at the same rate afterwards with the last (St Albans) due to leave service in 2036 (aged 35).

Illustrious and Ark Royal have both had exercises with GR.9's aboard within the last several months, Ark Royal is currently being refitted back into its strike carrier role which will give the RN two strike carriers again. If the RN requires Harriers, there are more GR.9's available to the RAF and RN then they can fit onto their carriers, especially if they are embarking even a small portion of the RN's ASW helicopter force.

Once upon a time I had a love affair with the RN but she's gone now. Only the memories will remain. RIP. May her many honored ghosts haunt those who gutted her.

Smaller yes, but still larger and more capable then just about every other then the USN. The French Navy and Russian navy can deploy a more potent group then the RN as long as only one of the Carriers is operational, but they don't have the logistics to deploy those groups far from home for long, unlike the RN.

The RN has 44 Merlin Helicopters and 64 Lynx Helos in service for ASW. The Lynx's are roughly comparable to the SH-60's, the Merlins are much more capable, eitherway that is 108 ASW helicopters compared to the JMSDF's 131, however they have more platforms to fly them off and they have less capable aircraft. The RN also has 42 Commando Sea Kings and a further 16 Sea Kings for SAR, 58 aircraft compared to the 19 UH-60's operated by the JMSDF, and the Sea Kings are larger and more capable then the Blackhawks. N

Quote Reply

LB RN SSNs 6/26/2009 4:06:27 PM

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/astute.htm In April 2003 a leak of the contents of the MOD's "Equipment Plan 2003" indicated that the SSN fleet was to be reduced to just 7 boats, compared to current 12 and the SDR mandated 10 SSN's. This report was confirmed by government sources, although emphasising that no final decision has been made. In July 2004 the government stated that the SSN force would be reduced to 8 boats by December 2007, and it is suspected that in the long term these will be solely Astute Class boats. However reports in early 2005 indicated that only 7 Astute's are planned, appearing to confirm EP03. EP07, approved March 2007 apparently included a total of 7 Astute's - this number was finally offically confirmed in in mid-2008, with the UK press already doubting that even seven would ever be ordered. Possible road map for RN SSN force levels based on data available mid 2008 Year Submarine Event New number in fleet 2004 Splendid Decommissioned 11 2006 Sovereign Decommissioned 10 2006 Spartan Decommissioned 9 2008 Superb Decommissioned 8 2009 Trafalgar Decommissioned 7 2009 Astute Delivered & Commissioned* 8 2010 Sceptre Decommissioned 7 2010 Ambush Delivered 8 2011 Turbulent Decommissioned 7 2011 Artful Delivered 8 2013 Tireless Decommissioned 7 2013 Audacious Delivered 8 2015 Torbay Decommissioned 7 2015 A-05 Delivered 8 2017 Trenchant Decommissioned 7 2017 A-06 Delivered 8 2019 Talent Decommissioned 7 2019 A-07 Delivered 8 2022 Triumph Decommissioned 7 * Not equivalent to operational

Quote Reply

LB RN Escorts 6/26/2009 4:11:03 PM

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/fsc.htm The first FSC's are expected to enter service in the later years of the next decade - 2019 has been speculated by industry sources. The following pay-off dates for current vessels were officially published in March 2005:- Type 22 Batch 3 frigates: HMS Cornwall (2015), HMS Cumberland (2017), HMS Campbeltown (2017), and HMS Chatham (2018). Type 23 frigates: HMS Argyll (2019), HMS Lancaster (2019), HMS Iron Duke (2020), HMS Monmouth (2021), HMS Montrose (2021), HMS Westminster (2021), HMS Northumberland (2022), HMS Richmond (2022), HMS Somerset (2023), HMS Sutherland (2025), HMS Kent (2028), HMS Portland (2028), HMS St. Albans (2029). It was announced in June 2008 that only six Type 45 destroyers will be built. The first FSC would thus need to enter service in 2015 to replace HMS Cornwall if the Royal Navy's escort force was not to drop below 23 units (6 Type 45 destroyers, 13 Type 23 frigates, and the remaining Type 22 Batch3 frigates). This is very unlikely to happen given the current status (at August 2008) of the FSC project, indeed keeping the escort force strength above 19 units will now be very challenging for the Royal Navy.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT