QE Class Carrier - BBC Article
Discussion
The coolness of the aircraft carrier is that it allows us to park an airfield anywhere we want to. We have many allies, that's true. But what if, for example, we wanted to bomb somewhere that was next to a country that didn't like us enough to give us an airbase? It'd be like Vulcan 607 all over again.
dafeller said:
Don't have to, as you imply, simply to have it. But in the projection-of-power programme, it's rather essential that you have the power to project. The QE-class will certainly allow the UK to do that, with it's 12 f-35s. Wait, is that right? 12 F-35s on the QE? Well, you'll be able to project power over the Falklands probably.
I'm a little more concerned about the BBC's title: the Mind Boggling Job of building a 65,000 ton AC. Good thing you're not building the Ronald Reagan. Heads wouldn't boggle, they'd explode.
The QE Class will carry a lot more than 12 F-35's, more like 35. Typical shoddy Beeb reporting! I'm a little more concerned about the BBC's title: the Mind Boggling Job of building a 65,000 ton AC. Good thing you're not building the Ronald Reagan. Heads wouldn't boggle, they'd explode.
I'd rather we plan our military defence leaving spare capacity where possible, a carrier that can carry 35 aircraft but only has 12, is much more useful than 35 aircraft and a carrier that can only carry 12, I suspect planes can be found quicker than a carrier can be enlarged or found.
dafeller said:
fergywales said:
f
king Yanks still have to have the biggest! 
Don't have to, as you imply, simply to have it. But in the projection-of-power programme, it's rather essential that you have the power to project. The QE-class will certainly allow the UK to do that, with it's 12 f-35s. Wait, is that right? 12 F-35s on the QE? Well, you'll be able to project power over the Falklands probably. king Yanks still have to have the biggest! I'm a little more concerned about the BBC's title: the Mind Boggling Job of building a 65,000 ton AC. Good thing you're not building the
It may be that I am a bit thick, but I honestly have no idea why we are building those, and keep coming back to 'jobs for Labour voters'.
We have less money to spend on the RN than, well, ever, and it has long been acknowledged that the smart way ahead for small navies is small, cheap to run carriers about the size of, er, the Invincible class.
Small = either more of them, or less money spent overall + smaller target (we can't afford to replace them)+ more versatile + smaller complement (trained manpower is really expensive) + all sorts of other reasons.
I dunno.
We have less money to spend on the RN than, well, ever, and it has long been acknowledged that the smart way ahead for small navies is small, cheap to run carriers about the size of, er, the Invincible class.
Small = either more of them, or less money spent overall + smaller target (we can't afford to replace them)+ more versatile + smaller complement (trained manpower is really expensive) + all sorts of other reasons.
I dunno.
Engineer1 said:
I'd rather we plan our military defence leaving spare capacity where possible, a carrier that can carry 35 aircraft but only has 12, is much more useful than 35 aircraft and a carrier that can only carry 12, I suspect planes can be found quicker than a carrier can be enlarged or found.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/10/35..."$450 MILLION PER AIRCRAFT over percieved lifespan"
Not a hope in hell of buying F35's.
Rafale YES, as then we can carry out continuity training on the French carrier using their aircraft, continuity training for all FAA members that is,not just the cocktail party jet set.
If we don't flog them off first.
Edited by Mojocvh on Friday 8th April 15:31
It's pathetic that people really fail to grasp the need for a strong dedicated CVBG.
Let me enlighten those of you who think we can manage strikes from the RAF alone. To launch the initial strikes against Libya like some of you mentioned the Tornados were only capable of carrying 1 Storm Shadow each, we could only get 6 Tornados in the air... That's 6 missiles. The flight took 12 hours and refueling from numerous other support aircraft. They were over libya for a few minutes beforing having no option to return.
Let my further enlighten you to the realities of a South Italian air base deployment and the total lack in speed of response. A fighter will take at minimum 5 minutes from Alert 5. It will then be probably 30 minutes out from the coast of Libya. That's 35 minutes at full speed response (meaning less fuel).
Let me further provide examples in history, we will start with North Korea and the deployment of a CVBG and marines, then the Suez and it's military success in the deployment of 5 CV/LPH's (not to be mixed up with it's political failure), then we have the falklands, then more recently we have Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, the Lebanon, Haiti and the ash cloud.
In short every major operation in history has had us deploy a carrier. The French and the US have deployed their carriers for Libya and as a result had more planes available.
You want to talk about cost? Talk about £27 billion for the Eurofighters instead of the planned £7 billion. For the extra £20 billion over budget we can buy 2 Queen Elizabeth carriers, 100 F/A-18E/F superhornets, 8 E2D Hawkeye AND a couple of escorts. I know I'd rather have 2 Carriers, 100 F18's (Some of which can be growler EW's), AWACS and a couple of T45 than 160 Typhoons.
It's time people realised how much British territory we have, how many British nationals on that territory we have, how much (94% ish) of our trade and supplies come from overseas. Not to mention the ability for carriers to supply massive aid humanitarian. Their 50 year lifespan (as opposed to the 18 year life span or 6000 hour life span of a Typhoon). The ability to be updated easily due to size, the ability to be deployed as commando carriers.
Get a grip, America is a world super power because she controls the oceans, whoever controls the oceans ultimately controls trade and the flow of materials. The ability to deploy a CVBG on any coast line in the world means she can delpoy an air group of 80 fighters per CVBG to any military crisis. It is an effective, lethal and comprehensive tool.
The RAF claimed that strategic bombing would be the future... they were wrong and passed the buck to someone else
The RAF claimed that they were the best service to use the strategic deterence... they were proved wrong and had to pass the buck
The RAF claimed we would not need carriers despite Korea and Suez... they were wrong and only the cloak and dagger tactics of the RN to get the Invicible class saved the Falklands.
The RAF claimed we would not need carriers again... Libya crops up and shows how useful they would be.
Instead of pathetic 5 minute patrols etc an Invicible class with a full compliment of 18 Sea Harriers and 4 AEW.7 Sea Kings would provide aircover 15-20 minutes out from anywhere in libya. The initial strike element supporting the overal nato strike would have been 12-14 Sea Harriers supported by AWACs with 4-6 missiles each... instead of 6 Tornados with 1 storm shadow.
Course the RAF still thinks they can do everything, still thinks they need the biggest budget and can have the audacity to claim the other services go too much over budget when they went 200% over the initial cost of their pet project...
Britain needs to get it's act together, how can we justify £300 million a year in foreign aid to India when we can't defend ourselves. How can we justify aid to China and all these other countries who are expanding their military... if they can afford to start building carriers and having what could be more capable militaries than ours in 10 years time we need to start asking where our aid is going.
Let me enlighten those of you who think we can manage strikes from the RAF alone. To launch the initial strikes against Libya like some of you mentioned the Tornados were only capable of carrying 1 Storm Shadow each, we could only get 6 Tornados in the air... That's 6 missiles. The flight took 12 hours and refueling from numerous other support aircraft. They were over libya for a few minutes beforing having no option to return.
Let my further enlighten you to the realities of a South Italian air base deployment and the total lack in speed of response. A fighter will take at minimum 5 minutes from Alert 5. It will then be probably 30 minutes out from the coast of Libya. That's 35 minutes at full speed response (meaning less fuel).
Let me further provide examples in history, we will start with North Korea and the deployment of a CVBG and marines, then the Suez and it's military success in the deployment of 5 CV/LPH's (not to be mixed up with it's political failure), then we have the falklands, then more recently we have Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, the Lebanon, Haiti and the ash cloud.
In short every major operation in history has had us deploy a carrier. The French and the US have deployed their carriers for Libya and as a result had more planes available.
You want to talk about cost? Talk about £27 billion for the Eurofighters instead of the planned £7 billion. For the extra £20 billion over budget we can buy 2 Queen Elizabeth carriers, 100 F/A-18E/F superhornets, 8 E2D Hawkeye AND a couple of escorts. I know I'd rather have 2 Carriers, 100 F18's (Some of which can be growler EW's), AWACS and a couple of T45 than 160 Typhoons.
It's time people realised how much British territory we have, how many British nationals on that territory we have, how much (94% ish) of our trade and supplies come from overseas. Not to mention the ability for carriers to supply massive aid humanitarian. Their 50 year lifespan (as opposed to the 18 year life span or 6000 hour life span of a Typhoon). The ability to be updated easily due to size, the ability to be deployed as commando carriers.
Get a grip, America is a world super power because she controls the oceans, whoever controls the oceans ultimately controls trade and the flow of materials. The ability to deploy a CVBG on any coast line in the world means she can delpoy an air group of 80 fighters per CVBG to any military crisis. It is an effective, lethal and comprehensive tool.
The RAF claimed that strategic bombing would be the future... they were wrong and passed the buck to someone else
The RAF claimed that they were the best service to use the strategic deterence... they were proved wrong and had to pass the buck
The RAF claimed we would not need carriers despite Korea and Suez... they were wrong and only the cloak and dagger tactics of the RN to get the Invicible class saved the Falklands.
The RAF claimed we would not need carriers again... Libya crops up and shows how useful they would be.
Instead of pathetic 5 minute patrols etc an Invicible class with a full compliment of 18 Sea Harriers and 4 AEW.7 Sea Kings would provide aircover 15-20 minutes out from anywhere in libya. The initial strike element supporting the overal nato strike would have been 12-14 Sea Harriers supported by AWACs with 4-6 missiles each... instead of 6 Tornados with 1 storm shadow.
Course the RAF still thinks they can do everything, still thinks they need the biggest budget and can have the audacity to claim the other services go too much over budget when they went 200% over the initial cost of their pet project...
Britain needs to get it's act together, how can we justify £300 million a year in foreign aid to India when we can't defend ourselves. How can we justify aid to China and all these other countries who are expanding their military... if they can afford to start building carriers and having what could be more capable militaries than ours in 10 years time we need to start asking where our aid is going.
andy400 said:
It may be that I am a bit thick, but I honestly have no idea why we are building those, and keep coming back to 'jobs for Labour voters'.
We have less money to spend on the RN than, well, ever, and it has long been acknowledged that the smart way ahead for small navies is small, cheap to run carriers about the size of, er, the Invincible class.
Small = either more of them, or less money spent overall + smaller target (we can't afford to replace them)+ more versatile + smaller complement (trained manpower is really expensive) + all sorts of other reasons.
I dunno.
Clearly you don't.We have less money to spend on the RN than, well, ever, and it has long been acknowledged that the smart way ahead for small navies is small, cheap to run carriers about the size of, er, the Invincible class.
Small = either more of them, or less money spent overall + smaller target (we can't afford to replace them)+ more versatile + smaller complement (trained manpower is really expensive) + all sorts of other reasons.
I dunno.
What do you propose to fly off these small carriers, as it's not a lot of point building small 'cheap' carriers if you have no a/c to fly off of them
Sea Dragon said:
It's pathetic that people really fail to grasp the need for a strong dedicated CVBG.
Because they are Blair's Children and have never read a history book.Sea Dragon said:
other sound stuff
Well said.Sea Dragon said:
how can we justify £300 million a year in foreign aid to India when we can't defend ourselves. How can we justify aid to China and all these other countries who are expanding their military...
Beacuse we're a bunch of appeasing fking idiots who've had our brains dissolved into pap by 13 years of socialism and 60 years of peace. The only problem is that 13 years of socialism has also bankrupted us. But foreigners are more important than us of course.Edited by Simpo Two on Friday 15th April 22:16
I am a RAFophile from way back but what Sea Dragon says is entirely right (if we take out the constant tiresome inter service bickering content)
We do need carriers to a: extend the range of our strike efforts and b: protect and assist any UK citizens worldwide who need help on occasion
If we withdrew from the outside world, sent out no specialists to work in foreign enterprises and gave away any claim/rights/abilities to the Commonwealth countries who are entitled to call for our help as we have called on them in the past, then we could drag our heads under the safety blanket of EU protection (OI>>>STOP BLOODY LAUGHING AT THE BACK!) and be a small island again.
Sod it, build the bloody carriers I say
We do need carriers to a: extend the range of our strike efforts and b: protect and assist any UK citizens worldwide who need help on occasion
If we withdrew from the outside world, sent out no specialists to work in foreign enterprises and gave away any claim/rights/abilities to the Commonwealth countries who are entitled to call for our help as we have called on them in the past, then we could drag our heads under the safety blanket of EU protection (OI>>>STOP BLOODY LAUGHING AT THE BACK!) and be a small island again.
Sod it, build the bloody carriers I say
Bin the RAF, thanks guys but your job is done. Fast jets etc to fleet air arm.
Build the carriers, make the navy a defence force that can defend and project force for the uk and the falklands etc.
Staet to form the army around the Royal Marines. Highly trained, quick reaction force.
All helo and transport forces to the army, to be taken into the fast reaction force.
The US marines are bigger and just as potent as UK defence. Lose a few generals and air commodores, lose the flag staff that are fighting to justify their jobs.
Re role the very talented RAF to other roles.
Keep trident and successor as final defence.
Stop fking with other countries. Unless you want to use it for 'in theatre training'.
Build the carriers, make the navy a defence force that can defend and project force for the uk and the falklands etc.
Staet to form the army around the Royal Marines. Highly trained, quick reaction force.
All helo and transport forces to the army, to be taken into the fast reaction force.
The US marines are bigger and just as potent as UK defence. Lose a few generals and air commodores, lose the flag staff that are fighting to justify their jobs.
Re role the very talented RAF to other roles.
Keep trident and successor as final defence.
Stop f
king with other countries. Unless you want to use it for 'in theatre training'.Edited by Zaxxon on Friday 15th April 23:58
Err quick point for seadragon and the enormous chip on both his shoulders, quite what would Sea Harriers do against land targets??? 6 storm shadows are better than a navy mate trying to work out how to stop a tank with an air to air missile
The cuts have been decided and the Admirals decided the navy future within the current constraints so blaming the RAF is a bit daft. As others have said inter service bickering is very self destructive
If we going to be involved in world policeman stuff then we need to pay, which would fund the carriers and a decent airwing among other stuff but thats not going to happen
The cuts have been decided and the Admirals decided the navy future within the current constraints so blaming the RAF is a bit daft. As others have said inter service bickering is very self destructive
If we going to be involved in world policeman stuff then we need to pay, which would fund the carriers and a decent airwing among other stuff but thats not going to happen
Edited by Madness60 on Saturday 16th April 00:03
Madness60 said:
Err quick point for seadragon and the enormous chip on both his shoulders, quite what would Sea Harriers do against land targets??? 6 storm shadows are better than a navy mate trying to work out how to stop a tank with an air to air missile
The reality is that we should have stuck with at least 2 Invincible class carriers with a mixed fleet of Sea Harriers and GR9s on them.Sea Dragon said:
It's pathetic that people really fail to grasp the need for a strong dedicated CVBG.
Let me enlighten those of you who think we can manage strikes from the RAF alone. To launch the initial strikes against Libya like some of you mentioned the Tornados were only capable of carrying 1 Storm Shadow each, we could only get 6 Tornados in the air... That's 6 missiles. The flight took 12 hours and refueling from numerous other support aircraft. They were over libya for a few minutes beforing having no option to return.
Let my further enlighten you to the realities of a South Italian air base deployment and the total lack in speed of response. A fighter will take at minimum 5 minutes from Alert 5. It will then be probably 30 minutes out from the coast of Libya. That's 35 minutes at full speed response (meaning less fuel).
Let me further provide examples in history, we will start with North Korea and the deployment of a CVBG and marines, then the Suez and it's military success in the deployment of 5 CV/LPH's (not to be mixed up with it's political failure), then we have the falklands, then more recently we have Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, the Lebanon, Haiti and the ash cloud.
In short every major operation in history has had us deploy a carrier. The French and the US have deployed their carriers for Libya and as a result had more planes available.
You want to talk about cost? Talk about £27 billion for the Eurofighters instead of the planned £7 billion. For the extra £20 billion over budget we can buy 2 Queen Elizabeth carriers, 100 F/A-18E/F superhornets, 8 E2D Hawkeye AND a couple of escorts. I know I'd rather have 2 Carriers, 100 F18's (Some of which can be growler EW's), AWACS and a couple of T45 than 160 Typhoons.
It's time people realised how much British territory we have, how many British nationals on that territory we have, how much (94% ish) of our trade and supplies come from overseas. Not to mention the ability for carriers to supply massive aid humanitarian. Their 50 year lifespan (as opposed to the 18 year life span or 6000 hour life span of a Typhoon). The ability to be updated easily due to size, the ability to be deployed as commando carriers.
Get a grip, America is a world super power because she controls the oceans, whoever controls the oceans ultimately controls trade and the flow of materials. The ability to deploy a CVBG on any coast line in the world means she can delpoy an air group of 80 fighters per CVBG to any military crisis. It is an effective, lethal and comprehensive tool.
The RAF claimed that strategic bombing would be the future... they were wrong and passed the buck to someone else
The RAF claimed that they were the best service to use the strategic deterence... they were proved wrong and had to pass the buck
The RAF claimed we would not need carriers despite Korea and Suez... they were wrong and only the cloak and dagger tactics of the RN to get the Invicible class saved the Falklands.
The RAF claimed we would not need carriers again... Libya crops up and shows how useful they would be.
Instead of pathetic 5 minute patrols etc an Invicible class with a full compliment of 18 Sea Harriers and 4 AEW.7 Sea Kings would provide aircover 15-20 minutes out from anywhere in libya. The initial strike element supporting the overal nato strike would have been 12-14 Sea Harriers supported by AWACs with 4-6 missiles each... instead of 6 Tornados with 1 storm shadow.
Course the RAF still thinks they can do everything, still thinks they need the biggest budget and can have the audacity to claim the other services go too much over budget when they went 200% over the initial cost of their pet project...
Britain needs to get it's act together, how can we justify £300 million a year in foreign aid to India when we can't defend ourselves. How can we justify aid to China and all these other countries who are expanding their military... if they can afford to start building carriers and having what could be more capable militaries than ours in 10 years time we need to start asking where our aid is going.
That all sounds plausible right up until Johnny Foreigner sinks your one and only operational carrier with his silent-but-deadly diesel-electric submarine the Germans sold him.Let me enlighten those of you who think we can manage strikes from the RAF alone. To launch the initial strikes against Libya like some of you mentioned the Tornados were only capable of carrying 1 Storm Shadow each, we could only get 6 Tornados in the air... That's 6 missiles. The flight took 12 hours and refueling from numerous other support aircraft. They were over libya for a few minutes beforing having no option to return.
Let my further enlighten you to the realities of a South Italian air base deployment and the total lack in speed of response. A fighter will take at minimum 5 minutes from Alert 5. It will then be probably 30 minutes out from the coast of Libya. That's 35 minutes at full speed response (meaning less fuel).
Let me further provide examples in history, we will start with North Korea and the deployment of a CVBG and marines, then the Suez and it's military success in the deployment of 5 CV/LPH's (not to be mixed up with it's political failure), then we have the falklands, then more recently we have Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, the Lebanon, Haiti and the ash cloud.
In short every major operation in history has had us deploy a carrier. The French and the US have deployed their carriers for Libya and as a result had more planes available.
You want to talk about cost? Talk about £27 billion for the Eurofighters instead of the planned £7 billion. For the extra £20 billion over budget we can buy 2 Queen Elizabeth carriers, 100 F/A-18E/F superhornets, 8 E2D Hawkeye AND a couple of escorts. I know I'd rather have 2 Carriers, 100 F18's (Some of which can be growler EW's), AWACS and a couple of T45 than 160 Typhoons.
It's time people realised how much British territory we have, how many British nationals on that territory we have, how much (94% ish) of our trade and supplies come from overseas. Not to mention the ability for carriers to supply massive aid humanitarian. Their 50 year lifespan (as opposed to the 18 year life span or 6000 hour life span of a Typhoon). The ability to be updated easily due to size, the ability to be deployed as commando carriers.
Get a grip, America is a world super power because she controls the oceans, whoever controls the oceans ultimately controls trade and the flow of materials. The ability to deploy a CVBG on any coast line in the world means she can delpoy an air group of 80 fighters per CVBG to any military crisis. It is an effective, lethal and comprehensive tool.
The RAF claimed that strategic bombing would be the future... they were wrong and passed the buck to someone else
The RAF claimed that they were the best service to use the strategic deterence... they were proved wrong and had to pass the buck
The RAF claimed we would not need carriers despite Korea and Suez... they were wrong and only the cloak and dagger tactics of the RN to get the Invicible class saved the Falklands.
The RAF claimed we would not need carriers again... Libya crops up and shows how useful they would be.
Instead of pathetic 5 minute patrols etc an Invicible class with a full compliment of 18 Sea Harriers and 4 AEW.7 Sea Kings would provide aircover 15-20 minutes out from anywhere in libya. The initial strike element supporting the overal nato strike would have been 12-14 Sea Harriers supported by AWACs with 4-6 missiles each... instead of 6 Tornados with 1 storm shadow.
Course the RAF still thinks they can do everything, still thinks they need the biggest budget and can have the audacity to claim the other services go too much over budget when they went 200% over the initial cost of their pet project...
Britain needs to get it's act together, how can we justify £300 million a year in foreign aid to India when we can't defend ourselves. How can we justify aid to China and all these other countries who are expanding their military... if they can afford to start building carriers and having what could be more capable militaries than ours in 10 years time we need to start asking where our aid is going.
The concept that the US Navy rules the world's trade routes by dint of possession of Carrier Battle Groups is patently cobblers. In case you haven't been keeping up with world affairs, a bunch of kids with knackered assault rifles and RPGs seem perfectly capable of running riot in the world's most lucrative shipping lanes without the US Navy being able to do much of anything about it.
Large carriers were the product of the requirement to project airpower over long distances. The strategic aspect of that was taken away from the carriers decades ago, and handed to the SLBM fleet and the strategic bomber fleet, leaving the carriers the tactical role.
Truth is, nowadays, you get more bang for your buck delivering tactical support from long-range, in-flight-refuelled air assets that you ever will from a carrier group, because in essence all a carrier group really represents is a collection of very expensive surface targets, and once your adversary has even a half-decent submarine resource or the carriers are in range of shore-launched missiles, they're toast.
Trouble is, nowadays, we don't have enough buck for even the most cost-efficient bang - long-range tactical air - and we sure as hell can't afford the carriers.
We should cancel our two white elephants and have done with it.
More generally, like the battle-ship before it, the day of the large carrier is over.
If you want to defend the sea-lanes against sophisticated surface threats, buy submarines.
If you want to defend the sea-lanes against Somalian
s with assault rifles, mount strap-down containerised minigun units on oil tankers, and crew them with people with a mandate to use them. Once enough pirates stop coming back to port, never to be seen again, the problem will solve itself.Oh, and quite how you cite the volcanic ash melodrama as a case for a carrier fleet is beyond me - a car ferry would have done just as well.
eharding said:
Sea Dragon said:
It's pathetic that people really fail to grasp the need for a strong dedicated CVBG.
Let me enlighten those of you who think we can manage strikes from the RAF alone. To launch the initial strikes against Libya like some of you mentioned the Tornados were only capable of carrying 1 Storm Shadow each, we could only get 6 Tornados in the air... That's 6 missiles. The flight took 12 hours and refueling from numerous other support aircraft. They were over libya for a few minutes beforing having no option to return.
Let my further enlighten you to the realities of a South Italian air base deployment and the total lack in speed of response. A fighter will take at minimum 5 minutes from Alert 5. It will then be probably 30 minutes out from the coast of Libya. That's 35 minutes at full speed response (meaning less fuel).
Let me further provide examples in history, we will start with North Korea and the deployment of a CVBG and marines, then the Suez and it's military success in the deployment of 5 CV/LPH's (not to be mixed up with it's political failure), then we have the falklands, then more recently we have Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, the Lebanon, Haiti and the ash cloud.
In short every major operation in history has had us deploy a carrier. The French and the US have deployed their carriers for Libya and as a result had more planes available.
You want to talk about cost? Talk about £27 billion for the Eurofighters instead of the planned £7 billion. For the extra £20 billion over budget we can buy 2 Queen Elizabeth carriers, 100 F/A-18E/F superhornets, 8 E2D Hawkeye AND a couple of escorts. I know I'd rather have 2 Carriers, 100 F18's (Some of which can be growler EW's), AWACS and a couple of T45 than 160 Typhoons.
It's time people realised how much British territory we have, how many British nationals on that territory we have, how much (94% ish) of our trade and supplies come from overseas. Not to mention the ability for carriers to supply massive aid humanitarian. Their 50 year lifespan (as opposed to the 18 year life span or 6000 hour life span of a Typhoon). The ability to be updated easily due to size, the ability to be deployed as commando carriers.
Get a grip, America is a world super power because she controls the oceans, whoever controls the oceans ultimately controls trade and the flow of materials. The ability to deploy a CVBG on any coast line in the world means she can delpoy an air group of 80 fighters per CVBG to any military crisis. It is an effective, lethal and comprehensive tool.
The RAF claimed that strategic bombing would be the future... they were wrong and passed the buck to someone else
The RAF claimed that they were the best service to use the strategic deterence... they were proved wrong and had to pass the buck
The RAF claimed we would not need carriers despite Korea and Suez... they were wrong and only the cloak and dagger tactics of the RN to get the Invicible class saved the Falklands.
The RAF claimed we would not need carriers again... Libya crops up and shows how useful they would be.
Instead of pathetic 5 minute patrols etc an Invicible class with a full compliment of 18 Sea Harriers and 4 AEW.7 Sea Kings would provide aircover 15-20 minutes out from anywhere in libya. The initial strike element supporting the overal nato strike would have been 12-14 Sea Harriers supported by AWACs with 4-6 missiles each... instead of 6 Tornados with 1 storm shadow.
Course the RAF still thinks they can do everything, still thinks they need the biggest budget and can have the audacity to claim the other services go too much over budget when they went 200% over the initial cost of their pet project...
Britain needs to get it's act together, how can we justify £300 million a year in foreign aid to India when we can't defend ourselves. How can we justify aid to China and all these other countries who are expanding their military... if they can afford to start building carriers and having what could be more capable militaries than ours in 10 years time we need to start asking where our aid is going.
That all sounds plausible right up until Johnny Foreigner sinks your one and only operational carrier with his silent-but-deadly diesel-electric submarine the Germans sold him.Let me enlighten those of you who think we can manage strikes from the RAF alone. To launch the initial strikes against Libya like some of you mentioned the Tornados were only capable of carrying 1 Storm Shadow each, we could only get 6 Tornados in the air... That's 6 missiles. The flight took 12 hours and refueling from numerous other support aircraft. They were over libya for a few minutes beforing having no option to return.
Let my further enlighten you to the realities of a South Italian air base deployment and the total lack in speed of response. A fighter will take at minimum 5 minutes from Alert 5. It will then be probably 30 minutes out from the coast of Libya. That's 35 minutes at full speed response (meaning less fuel).
Let me further provide examples in history, we will start with North Korea and the deployment of a CVBG and marines, then the Suez and it's military success in the deployment of 5 CV/LPH's (not to be mixed up with it's political failure), then we have the falklands, then more recently we have Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, the Lebanon, Haiti and the ash cloud.
In short every major operation in history has had us deploy a carrier. The French and the US have deployed their carriers for Libya and as a result had more planes available.
You want to talk about cost? Talk about £27 billion for the Eurofighters instead of the planned £7 billion. For the extra £20 billion over budget we can buy 2 Queen Elizabeth carriers, 100 F/A-18E/F superhornets, 8 E2D Hawkeye AND a couple of escorts. I know I'd rather have 2 Carriers, 100 F18's (Some of which can be growler EW's), AWACS and a couple of T45 than 160 Typhoons.
It's time people realised how much British territory we have, how many British nationals on that territory we have, how much (94% ish) of our trade and supplies come from overseas. Not to mention the ability for carriers to supply massive aid humanitarian. Their 50 year lifespan (as opposed to the 18 year life span or 6000 hour life span of a Typhoon). The ability to be updated easily due to size, the ability to be deployed as commando carriers.
Get a grip, America is a world super power because she controls the oceans, whoever controls the oceans ultimately controls trade and the flow of materials. The ability to deploy a CVBG on any coast line in the world means she can delpoy an air group of 80 fighters per CVBG to any military crisis. It is an effective, lethal and comprehensive tool.
The RAF claimed that strategic bombing would be the future... they were wrong and passed the buck to someone else
The RAF claimed that they were the best service to use the strategic deterence... they were proved wrong and had to pass the buck
The RAF claimed we would not need carriers despite Korea and Suez... they were wrong and only the cloak and dagger tactics of the RN to get the Invicible class saved the Falklands.
The RAF claimed we would not need carriers again... Libya crops up and shows how useful they would be.
Instead of pathetic 5 minute patrols etc an Invicible class with a full compliment of 18 Sea Harriers and 4 AEW.7 Sea Kings would provide aircover 15-20 minutes out from anywhere in libya. The initial strike element supporting the overal nato strike would have been 12-14 Sea Harriers supported by AWACs with 4-6 missiles each... instead of 6 Tornados with 1 storm shadow.
Course the RAF still thinks they can do everything, still thinks they need the biggest budget and can have the audacity to claim the other services go too much over budget when they went 200% over the initial cost of their pet project...
Britain needs to get it's act together, how can we justify £300 million a year in foreign aid to India when we can't defend ourselves. How can we justify aid to China and all these other countries who are expanding their military... if they can afford to start building carriers and having what could be more capable militaries than ours in 10 years time we need to start asking where our aid is going.
The concept that the US Navy rules the world's trade routes by dint of possession of Carrier Battle Groups is patently cobblers. In case you haven't been keeping up with world affairs, a bunch of kids with knackered assault rifles and RPGs seem perfectly capable of running riot in the world's most lucrative shipping lanes without the US Navy being able to do much of anything about it.
Large carriers were the product of the requirement to project airpower over long distances. The strategic aspect of that was taken away from the carriers decades ago, and handed to the SLBM fleet and the strategic bomber fleet, leaving the carriers the tactical role.
Truth is, nowadays, you get more bang for your buck delivering tactical support from long-range, in-flight-refuelled air assets that you ever will from a carrier group, because in essence all a carrier group really represents is a collection of very expensive surface targets, and once your adversary has even a half-decent submarine resource or the carriers are in range of shore-launched missiles, they're toast.
Trouble is, nowadays, we don't have enough buck for even the most cost-efficient bang - long-range tactical air - and we sure as hell can't afford the carriers.
We should cancel our two white elephants and have done with it.
More generally, like the battle-ship before it, the day of the large carrier is over.
If you want to defend the sea-lanes against sophisticated surface threats, buy submarines.
If you want to defend the sea-lanes against Somalian
s with assault rifles, mount strap-down containerised minigun units on oil tankers, and crew them with people with a mandate to use them. Once enough pirates stop coming back to port, never to be seen again, the problem will solve itself.Oh, and quite how you cite the volcanic ash melodrama as a case for a carrier fleet is beyond me - a car ferry would have done just as well.
I doubt even the present standard of CIWS fitted to US carriers would defeat a co ordinated brahmos attack let alone jolly jack and a gimpy strapped to the railings....
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff