QE Class Carrier - BBC Article

[tank slapper]

eharding said:

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.

That isn't a capability problem, it's a political one. It would be trivial for them (or us) to destroy any pirate boat that was encountered in that region. The only thing preventing it is that do-gooders would moan like hell and upset the voters. If the Royal Navy had the authority to act as they did in the Caribbean during the 18th and 19th centuries then there wouldn't be much in the way of piracy in the Gulf of Aden either.

[andy400]

aeropilot said:

Clearly you don't.

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

Thanks for that. There's not a lot of point building big expensive ones when we have no a/c to fly off them.

[aeropilot]

andy400 said:

aeropilot said:

Clearly you don't.

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

Thanks for that. There's not a lot of point building big expensive ones when we have no a/c to fly off them.

There's a significant difference between 'your'.....

a) There's not a lot of point building big expensive ones when we have no a/c to fly off them

Because we don't actually as yet NEED to place an order for them, because we now have a choice of at least 3 types to choose from (2 of which actually exist and one of which doesn't)

and...'my'

b)it's not a lot of point building small 'cheap' carriers if you have no a/c to fly off of them

Because you only potentially have a choice of ONE type, which still may not ever exist, and even then may not be as effective as the type that you've just taken out of service, and yet will cost a considerable amount of money more to buy and to operate.

[andy400]

aeropilot said:

You don't appear to know what you're talking about, yet your smug attitude means you won't accept any points that aren't your own.

For that reason I am choosing today's best option of accepting defeat and leaving.

[aeropilot]

andy400 said:

You don't appear to know what you're talking about

At least I made an attempt at explaining my point......whereas you didn't/can't.

andy400 said:

For that reason I am choosing today's best option of accepting defeat and leaving.

[andy400]

aeropilot said:

[Sea Dragon]

eharding said:

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.

There is a huge amount of ambiguity in that statement. Unlike the Invincible class a QE class can easily project F35C to strike the enemy shore while remaining 500-600nm out. That is far enough to ensure that any diesel electric submarine has to come into deeper water were they are far less deadly.

There is also the concept that we would have an astute class (or two) SSN's running protection for the fleet, as well as T23 in ASW pickets AND ASW Helicopters. Of course there is then the number of capable torpedo decoys that we have over many of the 3rd world navies that have fallen prey to submarine attacks.

Finally of course is the hull construction of a carrier to help ensure it takes a high number of torpedos to sink it. Not to mention the escorts running alongside that will manouver to take a torpedo strike instead.

eharding said:

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.

That is a false argument. Like when people say the Suez was a military failure as oppossed to a political one. Similarly the failure to engage these pirates is a lack of political will to engage in actively seeking down and destroying these people.

Additionally a CVBG is easily capable of helping with this job in the hot spots freeing up minor escorts to continue protection along the less busy routes that require a less valuable asset.

eharding said:

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.

You are JOKING? Harmony requirements between the RAF and RN mean that the FAA is a more cost effective service. Requiring 3 squadrons to have 1 permenantly active. Unlike the 5 for 1 in the RAF. Additionally the carrier can in itself move 500nm in 24 hours. Allowing it to rapidly relocate to any major point that it's airpower is located.
Air to air refueling is both expensive and time consuming. Not to mention a waste of man power. Finally air to air refueling also reduces the air load that can be carried for the engagement. Not to mention that if you think a CVBG is an easy target then a flight of fighters all flying on one course, in a steady direction at low speeds is EVEN easier to blow to a million pieces.

As for your statement that CVBG's are easy to beat? I'd like the proof please? Every single war since WW2 has seen the use of carriers. Not only have they been a major source of air power for those wars they have yet to suffer MAJOR damage.

As for versatility. A CVBG can split up into sperate parts for Peace time operations. It's jets are multi role thus able to do tactical & strategic bombing, EW, interception, CAP and CAS. Not to mention other roles.

eharding said:

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.

Sure cause a bomber can stay on station to deliver a constant foot print. It can't operate in all weathers. It can't reach any target any place in the world without political support. It can't be used for peacetime operations. It can't provide ASW and fighter interception

eharding said:

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.

The battleship had been engaged by subs in WW1, it had had live demonstrations showing how easily the torpedo could beat it, how easily the plane could deliver that to engage it.
A carrier has the tools to engage those targets and the escorts to defend it.

Submarines are indeed killers, however they have sevre limitations in the surface and air picture they can paint due to limitations of their sensors in that department. They also have some huge limitations not to mention that they have one strike. Co-ordinating groups of submarines is also not a simple task by any means. I could go on but while very effective tools a navy using just subs will not be able to win

A very wise man once said "Defend everything and you defend nothing", or words to those effect. Giving merchantmen miniguns on the sides will not massively deter pirates. They will just get bigger weapons from the black market. More importantly the cost to give every single merchant man around the world will be prohibitive resulting in some with and some without... the ones without now have NO defence and as a result are picked off. Far more effective to produce a large number of light/medium weight light frigates capable of operating alone or in task groups to actively hunt down the pirates including their bases of operation.

eharding said:

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.

It was just an example of how versatile a carrier is. Not really a case for them by itself but just another of the slew of reasons to demonstrate why a carrier is such a potent tool.


As for the other posts about utilising long range surface to surface cruise missiles these missiles must locate a carrier. They must have up to date target data to enable them to actively get to the position the carrier is in so their onboard sensors can operate. They must negotiate multiple threat layers while doing so.

Satelites inteligience is not so common place as to be a sure bet. It can also be neutralised now a days meaning you couldn't rely on that.
That leaves you with another operational unit providing the data a unit that can AND WILL be engaged. You will therefore need multiples of these units that have to navigate the Air group, the escorts, the fleet submarines, the AWACS, the sensor net that protects a carrier. That unit then has to track the group without being destroyed while the missile heads to the carriers direction.

Assuming all that happens the missile has to evade engagement by the CAP. Then the outer layer of missile defence from the escorts, then the inner layer of defence, then the self defence layer of the carrier and finally any soft kill suites and manouvering by the carrier and/or escorts to hit it's target.

Oh it also has to evade tricks like helicopters using advanced decoy systems to look more attractive to the missile.

IT IS NOT as simple as everyone makes out

As for longer ranged anti carrier weapons, for all these top of the range ultra modern missiles launched from long range the carrier has equally exciting developments. The X47 UCAV has already launched from land and is due to test carrier landing. It has a range of over 2,000nm meaning a combat radius of over 1,000nm and 2 internal weapons bays capable of carrying 2,000kg each providing just under half the internal ordnance amount of a F35C or F35A and thus more than enough to target and destroy land or air based longe range cruise missiles. In short this provides a very capable answer to long range carrier strikes and actually gives carriers the ability to provide long range strategic bombing.

Finally someone mentioned Brahmos cruise missiles overwhelming a carrier? How exactly? With a range of just under 300km it's carrier is well within the engagement range of even a Harrier so you can bet that a conventional carrier as oppossed to a light carrier would have already detected the targets. If they haven't because the targets are running silent then how exactly do they target the carrier??

Sorry the only remotely worrying anti carrier missile is a chinese one.... It requires satelite launch to reach it's maximum range. Even then SM3 could engage it.

Now the carrier might have to adapt and start using some newer technologies like stealthier hull forms, ensuring that the outer hull stores fuel allowing for increase torpedo protection (do this already) and more importantly embarking UCAV's like the X47B however it's far from out of the game.

It is a versatile, adaptable and modern weapons system. Something that is therefore indespensible in modern operations and has proven this by being invovled in every major military success since WW2 and every major war since WW2 as well as many massive humanitarian operations.

Edited by Sea Dragon on Tuesday 26th April 15:35

[Sea Dragon]

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 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

You are of course correct. But then the Harrier is capable (Sea Harrier as well as GR) of handling Brimestone missiles, Maverick missiles as well as Sniper pods and of course a full variety of laser guided bombs. Yet the really useful kit like Brimestone was not approved for the Harrier fleet... They said they would do so at the end of 2010..

Also the final decision to retain the Tornado was made after the Cheif air marshel requested a private audience with the Prime Minister and requested that Tornado be kept and Harrier and the Carriers be scrapped. Up untill then the Army (who prefer Harrier due to speed of reaction etc), the Navy AND the independent bodies conducting the SDSR had agreed that keeping the Invicible class carriers and the harrier jets was the way to go considering that Typhoon was coming into service.

Inter service bickering is destructive. But then theres bickering and defending. I believe that the RAF has brought about a huge amount of problems by considering themselves instead of the Army or Navy or indeed the strategic picture. History has shown a HUGE number of their decisions since WW2 to be particularly eronous and those errors have resulted in large lose of lifes in multiple conflicts.

I appear to be so aggressive about this only because the historical evidence is so brutally against what the RAF have done to the other 2 services in their pursuit of fast fighters or strategic bombers and neglect of the other responsibilities they hold.

Another small example is the battle fo Britain, a crucial victory for sure and one that they would have lost if the government hadn't ordered the RAF to focus on fighter support instead of strategic bombing in the final years leading up to the war.

[Mojocvh]

"There is a huge amount of ambiguity in that statement.

Bit like this one then.

"QE class can easily project F35C"

So have we given up on the stol version?

Doesn't matter because UK plc can't afford to buy them (let alone lose one in an accident or even in action).

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/10/35...

"Canada's planned fleet of 65 F-35As will be at least 66% more expensive to buy and operate over a 30-year lifespan than government officials predicted, according to an independent cost analysis.

Those numbers add up to a total ownership cost of $450 million per aircraft, or $29.3 billion overall, according to the PBO report.

Lockheed must be 'avin a larf....

[Sea Dragon]

Mojocvh said:

"There is a huge amount of ambiguity in that statement.

Bit like this one then.

"QE class can easily project F35C"

So have we given up on the stol version?

Doesn't matter because UK plc can't afford to buy them (let alone lose one in an accident or even in action).

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/10/35...

"Canada's planned fleet of 65 F-35As will be at least 66% more expensive to buy and operate over a 30-year lifespan than government officials predicted, according to an independent cost analysis.

Those numbers add up to a total ownership cost of $450 million per aircraft, or $29.3 billion overall, according to the PBO report.

Lockheed must be 'avin a larf....

Lets see, the F35A is not carrier capable... thus it's out of the running on a carrier.
The F35B... well that is a STOVL version with huge problems in development AND it has a far smaller combat radius, range, low speed handling AND weapons payload.

The F35C has the best range of the variants, it has the same weapons ability as the F35A, it will be developed into the future jammer by the US navy to replace the F18 growler.

Overall if we must buy the F35 then we should buy the F35C. We should always have done so due to the electric propulsion of the carrier enabling Electro magnetic cats with all the advantages of cats and traps (like E2C/E2D Hawkeye).

An option I would have liked was a moderately large buy of F/A-18 E/F to enable 1 squadron of 16 F18's to be deployed on each carrier (so assuming 1 always on duty that's a minimum of 4-5 16 aircraft squadrons). This would do for training up the RN and FAA into full blown cats and traps carrier operations again especially with the addition of the E2 Hawkeye.

Then as the aircraft become available or needed either another purchase of F18's, a purchase of F35's or if the requirement is for a long range, stealthy and deep strike aircraft then the X47B would definitely fit the bill giving the carrier a combat strike range of over 1,000 nm which allows it incidentally to punish anyone trying to use large longe range land based anti ship cruise missiles.

A navalised Eurofighter from the start was also an option.

[aeropilot]

Mojocvh said:

"There is a huge amount of ambiguity in that statement.

Bit like this one then.

"QE class can easily project F35C"

So have we given up on the stol version?

Yes, STOVL F35B version has been offically binned by UK-PLC, in favour of the cat n trap F35C version that's being developed for the USN.
And yes, poroject delays and cost overruns on the F35 project are begining to make the Nimrod look like a well budgeted and run project

[Castrol Craig]

so are the QE class carriers now going to be cat & trap then?

[eharding]

Castrol Craig said:

so are the QE class carriers now going to be cat & trap then?

They might as well specify "Higgs Boson Catapult" and "Force Field Arrestor Gear"...because those technologies have an equal chance of seeing service aboard a Royal Navy aircraft carrier as anything more conventional.

The Royal Navy is out of the fast jet carrier business, permanently.

There is no cash, no real political will, and crucially - for all Sea Dragon's wailings - no compelling argument for them against more pressing calls on what defence budget we can afford.

The hulls may yet be completed, owing to the contractual pork-barrelling shenanigans of the previous administration, but they will not see service...and that, I'm afraid, is that. No amount of gnashing of teeth by the "Senior Service" is going to change the fact.

[Mojocvh]

Sea Dragon said:

Mojocvh said:

"There is a huge amount of ambiguity in that statement.

Bit like this one then.

"QE class can easily project F35C"

So have we given up on the stol version?

Doesn't matter because UK plc can't afford to buy them (let alone lose one in an accident or even in action).

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/10/35...

"Canada's planned fleet of 65 F-35As will be at least 66% more expensive to buy and operate over a 30-year lifespan than government officials predicted, according to an independent cost analysis.

Those numbers add up to a total ownership cost of $450 million per aircraft, or $29.3 billion overall, according to the PBO report.

Lockheed must be 'avin a larf....

Lets see, the F35A is not carrier capable... thus it's out of the running on a carrier.
The F35B... well that is a STOVL version with huge problems in development AND it has a far smaller combat radius, range, low speed handling AND weapons payload.

The F35C has the best range of the variants, it has the same weapons ability as the F35A, it will be developed into the future jammer by the US navy to replace the F18 growler.

Overall if we must buy the F35 then we should buy the F35C. We should always have done so due to the electric propulsion of the carrier enabling Electro magnetic cats with all the advantages of cats and traps (like E2C/E2D Hawkeye).

An option I would have liked was a moderately large buy of F/A-18 E/F to enable 1 squadron of 16 F18's to be deployed on each carrier (so assuming 1 always on duty that's a minimum of 4-5 16 aircraft squadrons). This would do for training up the RN and FAA into full blown cats and traps carrier operations again especially with the addition of the E2 Hawkeye.

Then as the aircraft become available or needed either another purchase of F18's, a purchase of F35's or if the requirement is for a long range, stealthy and deep strike aircraft then the X47B would definitely fit the bill giving the carrier a combat strike range of over 1,000 nm which allows it incidentally to punish anyone trying to use large longe range land based anti ship cruise missiles.

A navalised Eurofighter from the start was also an option.

"1,000 nm which allows it incidentally to punish anyone trying to use large longe range land based anti ship cruise missiles."

Would that be before or after the "event" ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_HhzRyQ8MY&NR=...


Once these start to proliferate then it becomes a deadly new ball game.

Perhaps we ARE being smart getting out of the carrier business..

http://www.brahmos.com/newscenter.php?newsid=71

Edited by Mojocvh on Tuesday 26th April 18:41

[aeropilot]

Castrol Craig said:

so are the QE class carriers now going to be cat & trap then?

The proposed plan......'cough'...... is that the first of the two, as being too far down the line, so to speak, will not have EMALS, so will enter service, as just effectively a chuffin huge helo carrier, and the 2nd one will be design and fitted with EMALS at build, and when that enters service, the first will then be retro-fitted with EMALS during it's first refit.

However....... I personally agree with eharding above, both will never see RN service with embarked fixed wing a/c and HMG are hawking for sale the 2nd one (if not both) upon completion. That's why F35B was dropped, and they announced they would be cat n trap..... makes them more saleable.....well, the 2nd of the two at any rate.

[Sea Dragon]

Mojocvh said:

Sea Dragon said:

Mojocvh said:

"There is a huge amount of ambiguity in that statement.

Bit like this one then.

"QE class can easily project F35C"

So have we given up on the stol version?

Doesn't matter because UK plc can't afford to buy them (let alone lose one in an accident or even in action).

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/10/35...

"Canada's planned fleet of 65 F-35As will be at least 66% more expensive to buy and operate over a 30-year lifespan than government officials predicted, according to an independent cost analysis.

Those numbers add up to a total ownership cost of $450 million per aircraft, or $29.3 billion overall, according to the PBO report.

Lockheed must be 'avin a larf....

Lets see, the F35A is not carrier capable... thus it's out of the running on a carrier.
The F35B... well that is a STOVL version with huge problems in development AND it has a far smaller combat radius, range, low speed handling AND weapons payload.

The F35C has the best range of the variants, it has the same weapons ability as the F35A, it will be developed into the future jammer by the US navy to replace the F18 growler.

Overall if we must buy the F35 then we should buy the F35C. We should always have done so due to the electric propulsion of the carrier enabling Electro magnetic cats with all the advantages of cats and traps (like E2C/E2D Hawkeye).

An option I would have liked was a moderately large buy of F/A-18 E/F to enable 1 squadron of 16 F18's to be deployed on each carrier (so assuming 1 always on duty that's a minimum of 4-5 16 aircraft squadrons). This would do for training up the RN and FAA into full blown cats and traps carrier operations again especially with the addition of the E2 Hawkeye.

Then as the aircraft become available or needed either another purchase of F18's, a purchase of F35's or if the requirement is for a long range, stealthy and deep strike aircraft then the X47B would definitely fit the bill giving the carrier a combat strike range of over 1,000 nm which allows it incidentally to punish anyone trying to use large longe range land based anti ship cruise missiles.

A navalised Eurofighter from the start was also an option.

"1,000 nm which allows it incidentally to punish anyone trying to use large longe range land based anti ship cruise missiles."

Would that be before or after the "event" ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_HhzRyQ8MY&NR=...


Once these start to proliferate then it becomes a deadly new ball game.

Perhaps we ARE being smart getting out of the carrier business..

http://www.brahmos.com/newscenter.php?newsid=71

Edited by Mojocvh on Tuesday 26th April 18:41

Oh I'm sorry... With 1,000 nm range they are exceeding the launch range of EVERY missile except the Chinese one. Brahmos has a maximum range of under 300km. That is less than the combat radius of a harrier which is apparently an outdated aircraft. Any plane flying off the carriers will have double that. To fire it they need a target, to get a target they need sensors. To use sensors they become visible... and dead and therefore they can be found before they fire and found as they try to find the carrier battle group.

As for my wailing, it's funny how people said they would be cancelled? Yet they weren't cancelled.
It's funny how people have said that carriers aren't needed since 1960's. Yet in every conflict since they have been a major asset and in several they have been a key requirement.

[Mojocvh]

Sea Dragon said:

Mojocvh said:

Sea Dragon said:

Mojocvh said:

"There is a huge amount of ambiguity in that statement.

Bit like this one then.

"QE class can easily project F35C"

So have we given up on the stol version?

Doesn't matter because UK plc can't afford to buy them (let alone lose one in an accident or even in action).

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/10/35...

"Canada's planned fleet of 65 F-35As will be at least 66% more expensive to buy and operate over a 30-year lifespan than government officials predicted, according to an independent cost analysis.

Those numbers add up to a total ownership cost of $450 million per aircraft, or $29.3 billion overall, according to the PBO report.

Lockheed must be 'avin a larf....

Lets see, the F35A is not carrier capable... thus it's out of the running on a carrier.
The F35B... well that is a STOVL version with huge problems in development AND it has a far smaller combat radius, range, low speed handling AND weapons payload.

The F35C has the best range of the variants, it has the same weapons ability as the F35A, it will be developed into the future jammer by the US navy to replace the F18 growler.

Overall if we must buy the F35 then we should buy the F35C. We should always have done so due to the electric propulsion of the carrier enabling Electro magnetic cats with all the advantages of cats and traps (like E2C/E2D Hawkeye).

An option I would have liked was a moderately large buy of F/A-18 E/F to enable 1 squadron of 16 F18's to be deployed on each carrier (so assuming 1 always on duty that's a minimum of 4-5 16 aircraft squadrons). This would do for training up the RN and FAA into full blown cats and traps carrier operations again especially with the addition of the E2 Hawkeye.

Then as the aircraft become available or needed either another purchase of F18's, a purchase of F35's or if the requirement is for a long range, stealthy and deep strike aircraft then the X47B would definitely fit the bill giving the carrier a combat strike range of over 1,000 nm which allows it incidentally to punish anyone trying to use large longe range land based anti ship cruise missiles.

A navalised Eurofighter from the start was also an option.

"1,000 nm which allows it incidentally to punish anyone trying to use large longe range land based anti ship cruise missiles."

Would that be before or after the "event" ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_HhzRyQ8MY&NR=...


Once these start to proliferate then it becomes a deadly new ball game.

Perhaps we ARE being smart getting out of the carrier business..

http://www.brahmos.com/newscenter.php?newsid=71

Edited by Mojocvh on Tuesday 26th April 18:41

Oh I'm sorry... With 1,000 nm range they are exceeding the launch range of EVERY missile except the Chinese one. Brahmos has a maximum range of under 300km. That is less than the combat radius of a harrier which is apparently an outdated aircraft. Any plane flying off the carriers will have double that. To fire it they need a target, to get a target they need sensors. To use sensors they become visible... and dead and therefore they can be found before they fire and found as they try to find the carrier battle group.

As for my wailing, it's funny how people said they would be cancelled? Yet they weren't cancelled.
It's funny how people have said that carriers aren't needed since 1960's. Yet in every conflict since they have been a major asset and in several they have been a key requirement.

So you say every time the "battle group" gets swept by a radar it's defcom 5?

Nope, I don't think that telling the bad guys that if they point their radar at the fleet they are going to get swiped is either an politically or operationally sound ROE somehow.

I'm sure that there will be a ready market for the GFL once they are completed.

[Sea Dragon]

Mojocvh said:

So you say every time the "battle group" gets swept by a radar it's defcom 5?

Nope, I don't think that telling the bad guys that if they point their radar at the fleet they are going to get swiped is either an politically or operationally sound ROE somehow.

I'm sure that there will be a ready market for the GFL once they are completed.

Not the case, there is a world of difference between an active radar and a radar that is active and launching a weapon. Even more so with semi active SSM's that require at least an inital designation.

At that moment you know the enemy is likely to launch soon. Destroying the launching unit can often help reduce the accuracy of the firing missile as most long range missiles need to be updated regularly to avoid missing the target due to course corrections.

Then as I said and people seem to fail to grasp, for a Missile to be any good it has to be delivered by a good target. That is a target that can actively track and engage the carrier battle group with reliable and capable sensors. A target that can operate in blue water without major sea handling problems. A target that has good operational training.

A missile with a 300km range is not a major threat unless it's carrier can infiltrate the battle group.

If it is a submarine then it will be limited in the number of the missiles it can fire. If it is a small boat then it's blue water capabilities will be limited so it will have to put up with the air group seaking and destroying the said unit before the carrier enters the more shallow waters.

Land based emplacements are large and easily observed by radar, space and visual. Not to mentiont they need additional military assets to guide the missile... assets that can be destroyed.

Seriously Bharmos is not a game changer due to it's relatively short range of 290km which is less than the combat radius of a Harrier.

[Mojocvh]

Sea Dragon said:

Not the case, there is a world of difference between an active radar and a radar that is active and launching a weapon. Even more so with semi active SSM's that require at least an inital designation.

At that moment you know the enemy is likely to launch soon. Destroying the launching unit can often help reduce the accuracy of the firing missile as most long range missiles need to be updated regularly to avoid missing the target due to course corrections.

Then as I said and people seem to fail to grasp, for a Missile to be any good it has to be delivered by a good target. That is a target that can actively track and engage the carrier battle group with reliable and capable sensors. A target that can operate in blue water without major sea handling problems. A target that has good operational training.

A missile with a 300km range is not a major threat unless it's carrier can infiltrate the battle group.

If it is a submarine then it will be limited in the number of the missiles it can fire. If it is a small boat then it's blue water capabilities will be limited so it will have to put up with the air group seaking and destroying the said unit before the carrier enters the more shallow waters.

Land based emplacements are large and easily observed by radar, space and visual. Not to mentiont they need additional military assets to guide the missile... assets that can be destroyed.

Seriously Bharmos is not a game changer due to it's relatively short range of 290km which is less than the combat radius of a Harrier.

"Seriously Bharmos is not a game changer due to it's relatively short range of 290km which is less than the combat radius of a RAF Harrier."

From today's MOD DCB:

Section VI: Summary of Requirements / Description of Work
Summary of Requirements / Description of Work: Technical assistance services. The Contractor shall provide an Independent Safety Audit, Safety and Environmental Subject Matter Expert advice and updates to the Harrier Environmental Case to support the Harrier Disposal Programme.

Oh and here's a snippet for you..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13218582

Time to pull the plug.

Loads of savings to be made especially if we don't have a "platform" for the ludicrously expensive F-35C as well, however it would be nice to see the money funneled [no pun intended] BACK to the services, not the MOD main offices for some more furniture and paintings.

[Sea Dragon]

Mojocvh said:

"Seriously Bharmos is not a game changer due to it's relatively short range of 290km which is less than the combat radius of a RAF Harrier."

From today's MOD DCB:

Section VI: Summary of Requirements / Description of Work
Summary of Requirements / Description of Work: Technical assistance services. The Contractor shall provide an Independent Safety Audit, Safety and Environmental Subject Matter Expert advice and updates to the Harrier Environmental Case to support the Harrier Disposal Programme.

Oh and here's a snippet for you..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13218582

Time to pull the plug.

Loads of savings to be made especially if we don't have a "platform" for the ludicrously expensive F-35C as well, however it would be nice to see the money funneled [no pun intended] BACK to the services, not the MOD main offices for some more furniture and paintings.

My point was not so much about the threat to our navy by the missile but the threat to other navies such as America, France, Italy and Spain who all operate at least one carrier. Of these navies the shortest ranged aircraft is the harrier. It's missiles will of course extend it's reach as well but my main point was that with the missile being within the combat radius (Ie loiter and patrol radius of a CAP as oppossed to strike radius) of a harrier then the harrier is likely to be able to engage targets as they attempt to launch the missile, or intercept and identify the targets before hand to ensure that should the situation deteriorate a first strike can indeed be made.

The over heating of the harrier is as much a spin of the RAF as it is fact, while a known problem a cheap solution was provided and despite the over heating situation it still provided much better CAS than tornados in the middle east due to it's quick reaction time, higher max ceiling and greater versatility to the Tornado.

America and France of course have the advantage that operating catapault launched aircraft they can have a combat raidus of 400-500nm.. which puts a bit of a dent in someone trying to sneak around inside 300km. Especially with E2D hawkeye coming into service which provides exceptional AWACS and ELINT. The growler also will provide comprehensive jamming abilities.

Of course there is then the fact that organisations love to go on about capabilities. Bharmos says it is not able to be shot down? Well thats a surprise as even sea wolf can engage a 4.5inch shell traveling faster than sound and that's a much older and apparently obsolete missile system... Then of course there is more than just hard kill methods. It still have to defeat soft kill methods AND safely launch it's missiles from a platform able to get inside the battle group.


As for our carriers... You think I moan and whine but really history has proven my argument right time and time again, not just old history but modern and recent history including the current situation in Libya where an aircraft carrier would be more cost effective, mission effective and provide more presence than aircraft flying out of Southern Italy.

If we are going to brandy around links then it might be worth reading material from the other side of the fence and thus I refer you to;

http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/?p=63
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/?p=785
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/?p=783
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/?p=171
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/?p=274

This is of course a look at the picture from my side of the fence. However the names of the Authors and references in the articles are well worth considering, respected academics, previous MOD officials, Admirals and of course a FAA pilot who in his career fought in an expeditionary war AND helped harness the true power of the FAA. RAF officers are among it's references.

After that I would recomend considering reading numerous books;
Seaforth World Naval review 2010 and Seaforth World Naval review 2011 have articles about some of the weapons and radars you talk about. They also have articles on the project 15 destroyers from Italy, Chinas new equipment as well as western navy details.

The royal Navy today and tomorrow is a historically interesting book that shows our discussion has been considered for a long time. It shows how the RN is in the state it is today and why the Admiralty follow the path of the "balanced" fleet. R.A Hill is also a respected figure

For reading about both sides of the story the journal and discussion website;
www.defencemangement.com

Is an interesting source.

Carriers are needed, the cost of our QE carriers is largely due to MOD failures as oppossed to RN ones. The RN had a vision and goal for the carriers, they should have been in service in 2012. Delays in initial procurement and poor handling by Industry, the treasury and the MOD has driven up the cost.

The same happened to the Eurofighter, the F35A, F35B and F35C, the Tornado development and numerous other RN and RAF projects. That is a poor indication of the failure of the carriers.

If the carrier is dead and gone why are India, China and Russia building or trying to build them? Why does America continue? Why does Spain, Italy, Brazil and Australia all operate light carriers? Why do France and Britain operate both lighter carriers and want to move to heavier conventional carriers?

Some of the countries who can apparently "kill" carriers with ease are in fact in the list above suggesting that regardless of what they say they see the utility of the carrier.

I could go on, but perhaps we should agree to disagree to keep things civil?
Though I would like to add that providing a link of a missile firing from youtube would not really be considered the best move for an academic and serious discussion given the nature of youtube.