overlander
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7,301
Defence cuts: Carrier 'fully operational in 2030'
BBC News - Defence cuts: Carrier 'fully operational in 2030'
BBC News - Defence cuts: Carrier 'fully operational in 2030'
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Old news - basically, that timetable for a full 36 aircraft available has been a long established fact of the delivery cycle for F35.
How are the Argentinians performing this major invasion? Their current amphib capability is limited to some ancient LVPT-7's winched over the side from a training ship. In terms of naval strength, they're greatly reduced from their 1982 establishment, with no carrier, no major operational surface escorts, leaving some MEKO's I believe? They're down to one operational SSK, which is about thirty years old.
Their air force has something like 40 operational airframes, none of which have received much in the way of upgrades over the years and I don't think they have much in the way of PGM's etc.
Against that, at MPA, they'd be facing an established strength of about 500 troops, the bulk of which are combat engineers, plus a Falklands Island defence force, which have automatic weapons, heavy machine guns and good cross country vehicles.
There's a good lengthy run way and a lot of fortified sangars and so forth in the area, a guard ship on permanent detachment which is usually a type 23. Add four Typhoon at MPA ready to be scrambled.
So, to get into the Islands you'd have to assemble a fairly large force, get them four hundred miles across the seas and onto land, without them being spotted by intel or otherwise being noticed.
It's been gamed through many times and to add to the complexity of the task, the Islands can be reinforced from the air at very short notice. If there's any suspicion of the Argentinians forming up a force, it'd be very easy to stick an extra couple of hundred troops into the mix.
Worse..any time you're thinking of doing this, you just don't know if there's an SSN out there. And you never ever will til something explodes and sinks - Argentina has no effective ASW, certainly nothing that can stand up to a modern, well handled SSN.
I don't think it's very likely, put it that way.
Ian
A4kscooter
Member
Financially the UK maybe in dire straights but unless others know different Spain and Italy who are in a much worse situation still have a carrier capability.
The UK has worldwide military conmitments but our leaders have decided we can do without carriers - either Spanish and Italian politicians have got it wrong or the UKs government thinks defence is no longer a priority?
Originally the new carriers were to be equipped with 36 F35B now we are looking at 12 - the carriers are now a victim of the MoD/government incompetence in forward planning, managing budgets etc.
We didn't envisage our forces been used in Libya one year ago so how we can afford to wait to 2030 before one carrier is fully operational - the world is changing daily (look at the situation in Iran) and politicians are gambling with our security.
The UK has worldwide military conmitments but our leaders have decided we can do without carriers - either Spanish and Italian politicians have got it wrong or the UKs government thinks defence is no longer a priority?
Originally the new carriers were to be equipped with 36 F35B now we are looking at 12 - the carriers are now a victim of the MoD/government incompetence in forward planning, managing budgets etc.
We didn't envisage our forces been used in Libya one year ago so how we can afford to wait to 2030 before one carrier is fully operational - the world is changing daily (look at the situation in Iran) and politicians are gambling with our security.
cynicalbeard
New Member
The garrison also includes a batallion of regular infantry and four typhoons.
Any potential invasion (although what with is beyond me) would have to either take Mount Pleasant within the first 24 hours or risk the garrison doubling in size as it would almost certainly be reinforced by air rather than sea. The new A330-MRTT Voyagers have the capacity to fly direct, with 300 equipped infantry and refuelling another Typhoon or two as well.
The Argentine air capacity is limited to Mirage 3 and 5 derivatives that have airframes so old and ill maintained that they have had serious FOTS issues and subsonic ground-attack aircraft. As if that wasn't disadvantage enough they don't have any air-to-air capacity with a range beyond 37km whereas the AMRAAM-equipped Typhoons have a considerably longer range as well as more speed and higher manouverability. The FAA aircraft would look increasingly like flying caskets.
Combine that with the not insignificant issue that the Royal Navy don't advertise where their submarines are, even the attack subs, so one could very well be on station (or near enough) to start taking pot shots at anything in the water heading towards the Falkland Islands with ill intent, and quite a few of the potential landing beaches still have Argentine antipersonnel mines scattered on them and the entire adventure looks positively unappealing.
Any potential invasion (although what with is beyond me) would have to either take Mount Pleasant within the first 24 hours or risk the garrison doubling in size as it would almost certainly be reinforced by air rather than sea. The new A330-MRTT Voyagers have the capacity to fly direct, with 300 equipped infantry and refuelling another Typhoon or two as well.
The Argentine air capacity is limited to Mirage 3 and 5 derivatives that have airframes so old and ill maintained that they have had serious FOTS issues and subsonic ground-attack aircraft. As if that wasn't disadvantage enough they don't have any air-to-air capacity with a range beyond 37km whereas the AMRAAM-equipped Typhoons have a considerably longer range as well as more speed and higher manouverability. The FAA aircraft would look increasingly like flying caskets.
Combine that with the not insignificant issue that the Royal Navy don't advertise where their submarines are, even the attack subs, so one could very well be on station (or near enough) to start taking pot shots at anything in the water heading towards the Falkland Islands with ill intent, and quite a few of the potential landing beaches still have Argentine antipersonnel mines scattered on them and the entire adventure looks positively unappealing.
overlander
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7,306
I totally agree with your opinion but be careful that somebody here will write soon you are "running down the royal navy" as they write when I write the same opinions in this forum.
It,s incredible that Italy and Spain with a much worst finantial and economic situation than U.K. (Spain has the largest unemployment rate in all the E.U.) still they preserve 2 carriers and around 25 harriers each country.
British politicians they are totally unrresponsible leaving Britain without a carrier capability during at least another 10-12 years.
Totally agree that for them defence is no longer a priority.
They are thinking to put a carrier at sea with just a dozen of fighters in a carrier of 65.000 tonnes and nearly 300 metres length !!!!, this is ridiculous.
With these premises I am totally pesimistic about the future of the carrier strike capability of the U.K.
In the best situation only 1 carrier will be operational, the other will be sold at a bargain price after a few years to justify the construction of it, the history of Queen Elizabeth class maybe the biggest fiasco in the recent defence history of Europe.
And as Richard Beedall says after 10-15 years without carrier capability they can argue that is no longer needed.
The only situation that can reverse this sad situation is that a major conflict in wich Britain could be involved will demonstrate that carrier capabilty is essential for the U.K., sadly it maybe with the cost of many lives of british servicemen thanks to the unrresponsability of U.K. politicians.
It,s sad and incredible that the country wich develops the carrier aviation and the first country to build a carrier is now in this situation.
overlander
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7,308
UK Carrier Strike capability
Both the National Audit
Office and Public Accounts Committee today published reports on the MOD's
Carrier Strike capability. Several media sources have reported on inaccurate
claims that a full Carrier Strike capability will not be achieved until
2030.
This is not true. The more capable Carrier variant of the Joint Strike
Fighter fast jet will begin operating from our aircraft carrier from 2020, with
six UK jets available for operations. By 2023, this number will increase to 12
UK jets onboard and we will be able to work with our allies to increase that
number because of the interoperability that the Carrier variant Joint Strike
Fighter allows.
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said: "We are tackling the inherited black
hole in the Defence Budget and, earlier this month, the National Audit Office
[NAO] rightly recognised the work that this Government is undertaking to bring
the Department's finances back into balance.
"When this Government came into power, the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers
were already £1.6bn over budget. As part of an overall package of measures taken
in the Strategic Defence and Security Review we have reduced overall spending on
the Carrier Strike Programme by £4.4bn over the next ten years.
"The NAO and the Public Accounts Committee have both acknowledged that our
decision to build a second aircraft carrier makes financial sense. Converting
one of the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers to operate the more capable
Carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter fast jet from 2020 will maximise our
military capability and enhance interoperability with our allies.
"Operating the more cost effective Carrier variant fast jet will, in the long
term, offset the conversion costs and provide us with aircraft that have a
longer range and carry a greater payload. Until our new Carrier capability comes
into service, we can utilise our extensive basing and overflight rights to
project decisive air power, as we showed during the Libya campaign."
Both the National Audit
Office and Public Accounts Committee today published reports on the MOD's
Carrier Strike capability. Several media sources have reported on inaccurate
claims that a full Carrier Strike capability will not be achieved until
2030.
This is not true. The more capable Carrier variant of the Joint Strike
Fighter fast jet will begin operating from our aircraft carrier from 2020, with
six UK jets available for operations. By 2023, this number will increase to 12
UK jets onboard and we will be able to work with our allies to increase that
number because of the interoperability that the Carrier variant Joint Strike
Fighter allows.
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said: "We are tackling the inherited black
hole in the Defence Budget and, earlier this month, the National Audit Office
[NAO] rightly recognised the work that this Government is undertaking to bring
the Department's finances back into balance.
"When this Government came into power, the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers
were already £1.6bn over budget. As part of an overall package of measures taken
in the Strategic Defence and Security Review we have reduced overall spending on
the Carrier Strike Programme by £4.4bn over the next ten years.
"The NAO and the Public Accounts Committee have both acknowledged that our
decision to build a second aircraft carrier makes financial sense. Converting
one of the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers to operate the more capable
Carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter fast jet from 2020 will maximise our
military capability and enhance interoperability with our allies.
"Operating the more cost effective Carrier variant fast jet will, in the long
term, offset the conversion costs and provide us with aircraft that have a
longer range and carry a greater payload. Until our new Carrier capability comes
into service, we can utilise our extensive basing and overflight rights to
project decisive air power, as we showed during the Libya campaign."
Well, two points, firstly, the UK, financially has taken all the actions that Spain and Italy will eventually have to take in terms of restructuring the economy. I'd hold off talking about who has what until Italy and Spain seriously take measures on their economy.
In terms of numbers for carrier aircraft, there aren't any solid announcements to work with - it's likely we'd be running 12 aircraft on them for a bit, but let's look at that - we ran 9-12 Harriers off the deck for ten or more years and recall, we never operated more than two dozen Sea Harrier at the height of things. In future,we'll be running 12 fifth generation aircraft - any one of which could self escort into the heart of a modern IADS and strike targets. Try that with a Harrier..
Worse than that, it's reliably reported that at the time Joint Force Harrier was binned, there were a total of eight airworthy cabs available, with the rest of the fleet being either downed or in deep maintenance. They were old aircraft, had (unlike Italy and Spain's fleet) been flown hard in combat, as well as being worked hard during their life.
Given that, keeping those aircraft in service was likely to be disproportionately expensive. I liked Harrier, like most folk in the UK, it's up their with "Spitfire" in terms of emotional appeal, but let's not kid around, it was marginal in service against a contested airspace as far back as the first Gulf War. I'd loved to have seen the thing go out in Libya, armed with Brimstone and Paveway but that's not the swansong it got.
Numbers are still up in the air but let's hang on to something here - we're talking about an aircraft that we're a tier one partner in and which will be in production for thirty to forty years. I know it's a pain in the ass to be without carrier strike right now but let's remember, there was always going to be a gap in capability as Harrier was due to be out of service along with the CVS by 2014.
We may be starting off with a longer than planned gap and with less than intended aircraft but it's still a solid base to work up from. I am getting totally bored with people trotting out the assertion that one of the incoming carriers will be sold off however - there's no basis for this in the SDR and I think there's plenty of scope for both to be brought into service - one perhaps as an LPH and replacement for Ocean as an interim and the second as a CATOBAR carrier for a while, until both are available for cat and trap ops.
And let's not kid around, last time out, Argentina did not believe or understand that the UK would react and re-take the Islands. This time around, there's no kidding around - they know very well that they'll get a response.
Also, politically, things have changed - first time out, the US was quite restrained as to what they felt able to do publicly (although they were privately very generous)
This time around? I think if we asked nicely, we'd have a multination task force if we wanted. I mean, we've stepped up to the plate for two Gulf wars, the invasion of Afghanistan, Libya - we've put a lot into the pot, I'm sure if we just got our puppy eyes out on this *one* occasion, we could get some aviation support if needed.
Even assuming Argentina could conduct a bolt from the blue assault and take the islands, the reinforce them, we'd be putting two or three modern and very capable AWD's into theatre, potentially doing something we'd not done first time around - enforcing a complete airblockade of the islands. We'd also have Tomahawk and Stormshadow.
I think we could defend a task force without fixed wing assets - it'd be harder than I'd like but our air defences would be much much better than 1982 (even the systems used at the time have been greatly upgraded -- Sea Dart is much improved, Sea Wolf is a mature system in it's second iteration)
We'd also have ASAC in the form of the airborne SeaKing radar which could cover most of the islands in one pass and giving a useful warning not available first time around.
I definitely wouldn't suggest doing that against a solid air force but Argentina would still be at the limits of their range, they have little air to air refuelling. If day one, their attrition rates hit 25%, I think a lot of pilots might ring in sick on day two.
As I say, main response would be that they're not taking them in the first place.
Ian
Also, politically, things have changed - first time out, the US was quite restrained as to what they felt able to do publicly (although they were privately very generous)
This time around? I think if we asked nicely, we'd have a multination task force if we wanted. I mean, we've stepped up to the plate for two Gulf wars, the invasion of Afghanistan, Libya - we've put a lot into the pot, I'm sure if we just got our puppy eyes out on this *one* occasion, we could get some aviation support if needed.
Even assuming Argentina could conduct a bolt from the blue assault and take the islands, the reinforce them, we'd be putting two or three modern and very capable AWD's into theatre, potentially doing something we'd not done first time around - enforcing a complete airblockade of the islands. We'd also have Tomahawk and Stormshadow.
I think we could defend a task force without fixed wing assets - it'd be harder than I'd like but our air defences would be much much better than 1982 (even the systems used at the time have been greatly upgraded -- Sea Dart is much improved, Sea Wolf is a mature system in it's second iteration)
We'd also have ASAC in the form of the airborne SeaKing radar which could cover most of the islands in one pass and giving a useful warning not available first time around.
I definitely wouldn't suggest doing that against a solid air force but Argentina would still be at the limits of their range, they have little air to air refuelling. If day one, their attrition rates hit 25%, I think a lot of pilots might ring in sick on day two.
As I say, main response would be that they're not taking them in the first place.
Ian
Self determination is a key UN requirement. Unfortuantely, the first time around when the Argies had control of the Falklands, they claimed there wouldn't be any changes for the islanders and then almost at the same moment installed martial law and forced the islanders to drive on the right side of the road... BIG CHANGES...
Now a ton of honey wouldn't change the islanders minds...
Now a ton of honey wouldn't change the islanders minds...
Tee_Centre_10
Member
Why is Spain and Italy being looked at for comparison? You may as well be asking "If Thailand can operate Harriers off a carrier..."? It would almost be as valid. The UK has chosen to spend funds on other assets (or retaining a capability) at the expense of Harriers and flat-tops.
It is all very fine Spain and Italy running their carriers, but I don't see many SSBNs and SSNs in their fleets nor the nuclear weapons to go with it, they don't maintain the kinds of SF capability provided by the SAS, the strategic tanker/transport fleet provided by RAF heavies, the domestic AWACS aircraft (not a shared NATO capability), a global signals and intelligence capability...I could go on, but my point is that each country maintains the capabilities it believes are the most important given x amount of funds to spend.
All the capabilities I listed are very expensive, enormously so in the case of the nuclear one and the subs they ride in.
The UK Gov (presumably with some consultation of the MOD and defence chiefs) has made the decision that the carriers are critical to have but not essential to national security at the expense of other capabilities. I would argue that MI6 is more critical to the interests of the UK than the Harriers of Cavour are to Italy's.
Another point I would make is having an asset listed in an OOB is not the same as it being capable of being utilised as intended or required. This isn't a comment on Spain or Italy, but on precious money sinks in general. The above mentioned Thailand and its CV/Harriers could be a textbook example, as they haven't flown Harriers in years and I would bet every asset I own that it isn't capable of being anything more than a floating platform for helicopters in benign conditions within a short distance of Thailand.
It also applies to the UK. Would you rather retain carriers but funded so poorly that the capability is essentially hollow and it spreads the rot to other capabilities as well?
As for Libya, the ability to sit a carrier off the coast of some recalcitrant regime and blackmail them into submission is great to have, but hardly essential. Ignoring completely the rights, wrongs, morals and needs of Libya and operations like it, let's face the fact that militarily it was essentially a PR exercise for the EU.
If a genuine military need arose that challenged the security and integrity of the UK (ie Falklands Part 2), a couple of SSNs halting all shipping in or out of the offending country and lobbing Tomahawks at military infrastructure would be quite useful as well. The world has changed since 1982, and I don't think the UK would be as squeamish about mainland strikes and naval blockades as they were then, and the international community has been desensitised by over a decade of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Of far greater concern is the fact that the RAF has no maritime patrol capability (NONE!!), apart from a Hercules fitted with a MkI Eyeball. Seriously, WTF?
Should have had a few P-3Cs bundled with the RC-135Ws.
So the QE-class won't be the biggest defence fiasco because that place is reserved for the MR4. Oh wait, I just remembered the Chinook HC3...
It is all very fine Spain and Italy running their carriers, but I don't see many SSBNs and SSNs in their fleets nor the nuclear weapons to go with it, they don't maintain the kinds of SF capability provided by the SAS, the strategic tanker/transport fleet provided by RAF heavies, the domestic AWACS aircraft (not a shared NATO capability), a global signals and intelligence capability...I could go on, but my point is that each country maintains the capabilities it believes are the most important given x amount of funds to spend.
All the capabilities I listed are very expensive, enormously so in the case of the nuclear one and the subs they ride in.
The UK Gov (presumably with some consultation of the MOD and defence chiefs) has made the decision that the carriers are critical to have but not essential to national security at the expense of other capabilities. I would argue that MI6 is more critical to the interests of the UK than the Harriers of Cavour are to Italy's.
Another point I would make is having an asset listed in an OOB is not the same as it being capable of being utilised as intended or required. This isn't a comment on Spain or Italy, but on precious money sinks in general. The above mentioned Thailand and its CV/Harriers could be a textbook example, as they haven't flown Harriers in years and I would bet every asset I own that it isn't capable of being anything more than a floating platform for helicopters in benign conditions within a short distance of Thailand.
It also applies to the UK. Would you rather retain carriers but funded so poorly that the capability is essentially hollow and it spreads the rot to other capabilities as well?
As for Libya, the ability to sit a carrier off the coast of some recalcitrant regime and blackmail them into submission is great to have, but hardly essential. Ignoring completely the rights, wrongs, morals and needs of Libya and operations like it, let's face the fact that militarily it was essentially a PR exercise for the EU.
If a genuine military need arose that challenged the security and integrity of the UK (ie Falklands Part 2), a couple of SSNs halting all shipping in or out of the offending country and lobbing Tomahawks at military infrastructure would be quite useful as well. The world has changed since 1982, and I don't think the UK would be as squeamish about mainland strikes and naval blockades as they were then, and the international community has been desensitised by over a decade of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Of far greater concern is the fact that the RAF has no maritime patrol capability (NONE!!), apart from a Hercules fitted with a MkI Eyeball. Seriously, WTF?
Should have had a few P-3Cs bundled with the RC-135Ws.
So the QE-class won't be the biggest defence fiasco because that place is reserved for the MR4. Oh wait, I just remembered the Chinook HC3...
That's a tough one to call - Chinook was pretty impressive as a total f*ckup - I mean "here's the aircraft you need, straight off the shelf, available right now..you'd rather whittle your own because it's cheaper? Oh, okay..."
That's a whole box of "special".
MR4 on the other hand? Maybe the road to hell is paved with inadequately de-risked milestones instead of good intentions?
I don't even want to think of the QE's in terms of waste - that 3 billion could have paid for a complete fleet of P8's with change for an Astute. Oh, hell, Astute...:cries:
We can't get *anything* right - we can't buy off the peg (HC3..) and we can't refurb existing kit (MR4) and we can't build to order (QE)
:more tears:
Ian
I wouldn't say that. What the UK did to the Apache was about the best thing one could do with an attack helicopter.
And it has been one of the biggest successes I have seen in recent times in terms of military programs.
Here we goes again...
Please understand this, while we, the Argentineans think that the Islands belong to us, the war in 1982 was the idea of a goverment that was anything but popular among us, quite the opposite...
Argentina with all his flaws it has been in a democracy for almost 30 years and there is no indication, internal or external of that changing in the future.
We will keep our claim forever, but a invasion is not a option, not because our military is far from a good shape, which is true, but because that everybody here think that that will be stupid, if the UK decide tomorrow to double the extesion of the area that is claimed by the islander as their EEZ then will see, but right now and in the foreseable future, that scenario is fiction.
In this thread you can find a more detailed insght about that in the "argentinian-blockade-falklands" thread, sorry I can post links yet.
Anyway since the UK begun with its defence budget cuts the Islands issue has been more and more recurrent...
Last edited:
It'd be a lot smarter for both countries to just work together and make lots of money - it looks like there's oil in there and of course, Argentina has experience and equipment in refining.
We're not going to give them up (that position became entrenched when we had to retake them) but I think we'd prefer to be on better terms with the neighbours
Ian
Oh, I like WAH-64 for sure.
Chinook HC3? Hello, Mr US, do you have any crazy ass spec ops guys roaring around in the dead of night, doing scary stuff in Chinooks? You do? Why, what model do they buy? Oh, that sounds expensive, we'll have a crack at that ourselves"
Doh...
They should have been in service for the outset of the Afghanistan war and would have saved lives, instead of finally being converted to the relevant specification after a decade of sitting around doing nothing, being unuseable for anything other than daylight flying.
We could have bought the same specification as was in production for the Netherlands at the time. It met our needs. The whole thing was due to a crazy idea that a weird bespoke hybrid of new digital & old analogue kit, with a specially created interface to allow them to work together, would be cheaper than OTS.
It made as much sense as the "let's delete the gun from Typhoon to save money" lunacy, when it was already developed, bought & paid for, along with the ammunition. The studies which eventually decided that it would be cheaper to leave it in place cost more than the saving which the bean counters had hoped for, so it was pure waste.
It made as much sense as the "let's delete the gun from Typhoon to save money" lunacy, when it was already developed, bought & paid for, along with the ammunition. The studies which eventually decided that it would be cheaper to leave it in place cost more than the saving which the bean counters had hoped for, so it was pure waste.
Irritating as hell and I can only hope that sort of inbred thinking is dead. UK procurement has a long way to go before it can be considered fit for purpose. Fingers crossed eh?We could have bought the same specification as was in production for the Netherlands at the time. It met our needs. The whole thing was due to a crazy idea that a weird bespoke hybrid of new digital & old analogue kit, with a specially created interface to allow them to work together, would be cheaper than OTS.
It made as much sense as the "let's delete the gun from Typhoon to save money" lunacy, when it was already developed, bought & paid for, along with the ammunition. The studies which eventually decided that it would be cheaper to leave it in place cost more than the saving which the bean counters had hoped for, so it was pure waste.
wildcolonialboy
New Member
I'm not sure Argentina has the capability to invade. But even if they did, the UK has far more advanced capabilities even without resort to a carrier. I imagine a few Trafalgar SSNs would be able to harry the Argentines until they left.
With a few Type 42 and 45s and a few attack subs, the Royal Navy could impose a total air and sea blockade at a level that simply was not possible in the early 80s. Any Argentine aircraft attempting to fly in or out of the Falklands could be shot out of the sky with Sea Darts and Aster missiles, Trafalgar class subs could harry the Argentine garrison with Tomahawks and special forces raids.
Once you'd grinded them down a bit, I'm quite sure the RAF and the Army could organise an airlift of special forces, quite safe from Argentine air power due to the protective AAW bubble that a Type 45 can offer, to create a beachhead, with a Marine or Army landing following or simultaneously.