Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

thunderchief said:

@Affordability of some weapon system is not a matter of opinion (mine , yours , British voters ... ) . It is a matter of simple maths .

What little training I have in maths tells me Britain could not afford two full CBGs . Maybe I'm wrong , time will tell .

@Jeff Head Currently there is no country that could seriously threaten Britain from the sea (cut their supply lines , enforce blockade ... ) except US and maybe France and both countries are British allies . And I don't see something like that happening in near future (20-30 years).[/I] .

Click to expand...

Like I said, it is not your decision to make...irrespective of your background in math and clinical calculations.

One thing history teaches is that the time to be prepared for someone trying to threaten your national interests, is not to wait until when it is happening. You have to be ready when it happens.

The UK is an island nation with many more dependencies and national interests than what it has through its reltionships with the US and France. And those dependancies and interests are flung world-wide across the earth...with the best access to most of them by ocean.

It cannot absolutely depend (and does not want to) on the US and France or anyone else to defend those interests if they are threatened. It has to be able do so itself.

The Falkland Island conflict is a great example. Something of that nature could crop up at almost any time, and unless the UK is prepared, it would have to simply watch those national interests either be destroyed, compromised, taken by someone else, or hope it could talk and ally into taking care of it for them.

Well, I have news for you, the US was not going to go down to the Falklands at the time and eject the Argentines for the British, the UK had to do that itself.

I remember it very well, being about 26-27 years old at the time and involved with a defense manufacturer as a designer at the time in the US. You know, don't you, that these same discussions and arguements, and theoretical postulates, were being bandied about by folks who had "calculated" that the UK could not afford its carriers back then, don't you?

Hehehe...I swear, it's like the ame song, different verse now. As Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the sun!"

Luckily for the UK and for its subjects/citizens on the Falklands, those folks making such "calculations," had not carried the day far enough at that time, and the UK had the wherewithall to defend its interests and carry the day.

All of those same points hold today...and, as I said, apparently the British people have already decided...despite your training in math and calculations. Sometimes, real life interposes itself, and reality shows it's own calculus which demands that the clinical, theories of the classroom math be set aside for the harsh light of reality.

I realize that there are also harsh economic realities as well.

The UK and its people certainly have the gross product and income to afford the QEs...and more than two if they wanted. It simply means they have to cut, or curtail costs elsewhere, or up the revenue. And please do not tell me about programs that cannot be cut...all of them can be cut if necessary. They have to decide it's necessary. It surely does not mean that is it something they cannot do...it just means that they have to manage their funds to do so...and apparently they have decided to do just that.

...and I am glad they have. Though only two in number, should we ever need them as free constitutional republics, and be forced to stand together like we have in the past...they will certainly come in handy.

As the old saying goes:

An Old Saying said:

"I'd rather have it and not need it...then need it and not have it!"

Click to expand...

I think thundercheif is really missing the whole point

Who exactly in today’s day and age is going to blockade UK? Likely hood is no one this is not WWII

The dynamics of the world are always changing, today Russia is on the rise, more and more bombers are intercepted by Norwegian F16s and there has been sightings of Russian submarines close to the Gulf of Mexico and detections in the Atlantic Ocean, considering UKs geographical location and cold war experience it is ideally placed to engage the Russians and it is becoming more and more likely that the two Queen Elizabeth Carriers will be operating further North near Arctic with one East of Suez

Russia has already planted flags on sea beds, they are making all sorts of noises about claims to resources under Arctic Sea this has to be deterred, considering the fact that they plan to use Mistral Class for North Arctic missions and have an increasing naval build-up in all areas of the North it is likely a flash point, now let’s say UK did nothing, never build any new DDGs and Carriers, what would happen? It’s a slow and steady decline and years down the line we will reject it big time

UK strategy was and will be to tie up as many Russian assets as possible and stop them from breaking out into the Atlantic Ocean, and now to deter them from making any more silly claims to resources which lie in international waters, now any nation including Russia who sees a British 21st century carrier strike group will buckle at its knees and most likely they aren’t going to carry out anything they had planned , it’s a deterrence and that’s the whole point

Also military manufacturing and spending advances medicine, research and development , science and technology and applications to almost everything we use on a daily basis

The secondary role is humanitarian relief, disaster relief, counter narcotics, anti-piracy and anti-terrorism, this is why I said in my previous post UK cannot afford NOT to have aircraft carriers, it is a pre-request for modern Britain

And as far as economic times go, well no one ever came out of a recession by saving money or making cuts, new money has to be found

asif iqbal said:

You say UK can't afford to have carriers, The reality is UK cannot afford not to have carriers, they cannot afford to not have SSN and SSBN, UK is a and always has been a sea going nation which lead to world trade for best part of three century's, I think they know a thing or two about what to and what not to spend money on

Click to expand...

What you need and what you can have are two different things . With a given income and a given situation in the world you need to prioritize : do I need so much SSNs and SSBNs , or is a aircraft carrier better investment etc.

Jeff Head said:

The Falkland Island conflict is a great example. Something of that nature could crop up at almost any time, and unless the UK is prepared, it would have to simply watch those national interests either be destroyed, compromised, taken by someone else, or hope it could talk and ally into taking care of it for them.

Well, I have news for you, the US was not going to go down to the Falklands at the time and eject the Argentines for the British, the UK had to do that itself.

Click to expand...

Well , according to your logic , Argentinians should invade Falklands right away , because currently UK doesn't have any aircraft carrier (HMS Illustrious is just helicopter carrier now ) But we all know this ain't going to happen simply because Argentinian economy and military is in worse shape then British . Furthermore , they would need years and even decades to rebuild their military to a level comparable to 1982. even if they have to money and political will to do so .

In reality , Britain doesn't have potential adversaries that would justify two QE aircraft carriers instead of one .

Jeff Head said:

I remember it very well, being about 26-27 years old at the time and involved with a defense manufacturer as a designer at the time in the US. You know, don't you, that these same discussions and arguements, and theoretical postulates, were being bandied about by folks who had "calculated" that the UK could not afford its carriers back then, don't you?

Hehehe...I swear, it's like the ame song, different verse now. As Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the sun!"

Click to expand...

Historically speaking , Britain got rid of their fleet carriers 30-40 years ago ( Audacious and Centaur class ) because they could not afford them . Invincible class was "sold" to British public as trough-deck cruisers

Jeff Head said:

The UK and its people certainly have the gross product and income to afford the QEs...and more than two if they wanted. It simply means they have to cut, or curtail costs elsewhere, or up the revenue. And please do not tell me about programs that cannot be cut...all of them can be cut if necessary. They have to decide it's necessary. It surely does not mean that is it something they cannot do...it just means that they have to manage their funds to do so...and apparently they have decided to do just that.

Click to expand...

Theoretically speaking , UK could save on something else to afford QEs . But realistically , don't expect them to cut their welfare programs or let "too big to fail" banks go bankrupt . Cuts could only come from other MoD items and somehow I suspect that British Army will be hardest hit .

asif iqbal said:

The dynamics of the world are always changing, today Russia is on the rise, more and more bombers are intercepted by Norwegian F16s and there has been sightings of Russian submarines close to the Gulf of Mexico and detections in the Atlantic Ocean, considering UKs geographical location and cold war experience it is ideally placed to engage the Russians and it is becoming more and more likely that the two Queen Elizabeth Carriers will be operating further North near Arctic with one East of Suez

Russia has already planted flags on sea beds, they are making all sorts of noises about claims to resources under Arctic Sea this has to be deterred, considering the fact that they plan to use Mistral Class for North Arctic missions and have an increasing naval build-up in all areas of the North it is likely a flash point, now let’s say UK did nothing, never build any new DDGs and Carriers, what would happen? It’s a slow and steady decline and years down the line we will reject it big time

Click to expand...

A bit of the straw man argument with big bad Russia In reality , Russia has neither plans nor means to harm British interests . US is not involved in disputes in North Arctic and US is . I don't think that Russians want to challenge might of the US Navy .

As for NATO-Russia confrontation , that could only happen if NATO tries to invade Russia , considering the vast disparity in military might . In that case , Russia has first-strike nuclear policy and that would not end well , carriers or no carriers .

asif iqbal said:

The secondary role is humanitarian relief, disaster relief, counter narcotics, anti-piracy and anti-terrorism, this is why I said in my previous post UK cannot afford NOT to have aircraft carriers, it is a pre-request for modern Britain

Click to expand...

You don't need aircraft carriers for any of that .

thunderchief said:

You don't need aircraft carriers for any of that .

Click to expand...

I am talking about in a emergnecy situation like when USS Peleiu did provide helicopters during Pakistans floods in 2010, USS Abraham Lincoln did deploy to Sumatra in 2004 Tsunami and Hyuga did deploy during 2011 Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan the list of disaster reliefs and use of flat tops is endless I'm not even going to list them you know the score

asif iqbal said:

I am talking about in a emergnecy situation like when USS Peleiu did provide helicopters during Pakistans floods in 2010, USS Abraham Lincoln did deploy to Sumatra in 2004 Tsunami and Hyuga did deploy during 2011 Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan the list of disaster reliefs and use of flat tops is endless I'm not even going to list them you know the score

Click to expand...

Well , for this kind of operations you don't need aircraft carrier - commando carriers like HMS Ocean are much cheaper and effective . Main selling point of QE is ability to launch F-35B , any other task could be accomplished with cheaper and smaller vessels .

Here is are a few thoughts gentleman.
1 as originally invisioned QE was to be part of a series of carriers that would span both the English and French navys .
2 Europe as a whole is moving into a state of semi unification as a single nation, some thing not seem since the Romans
3 the unification trend takes three forms the European Union for the political. NATO and the joint european defence structure for the military.

My thinking is this, the Carriers of Europe are no longer aimmed for there own national use but as part of a sort of united European defence force. The EU is a entity created to merge the individual power base in Europe, akin to how the individual socialist republics of the old USSR were intended to form a nation greater them the sum of its parts. As part of a Europe as a whole concept the QE would along with the other Carriers form a joint Atlantic Mediterranean formation able to project European power in a manner like that of the American navy. Basicky Europe is fallowing the trends and sees that by the mid 2020s the number of national and regional powers who can project their military might across the globe expands.

thunderchief said:

Well , according to your logic , Argentinians should invade Falklands right away , because currently UK doesn't have any aircraft carrier (HMS Illustrious is just helicopter carrier now ) But we all know this ain't going to happen simply because Argentinian economy and military is in worse shape then British .

In reality , Britain doesn't have potential adversaries that would justify two QE aircraft carriers instead of one .

Click to expand...

No, according to my logic at any time something like the Falklands of the 1980s could occur elsewhere in the world, threatening UK interest where they would need those carriers...and in order to have one available at all times, you need a minimum of two. And having them means they can respond, and not having them means they cannot. Simple as that. That's the logic.

As to the Falklands, the situation is hugely different now. UK SSNs are constantly on patrol there now, and there is a wing of Typhoons permanently stationed on the islands now. So, no invasion fleet, and no A-4s or other older aircraft bombing Stanley and the garrison there. They would most likely not need the carriers now because Argentina could not muster the airforce to defeat the Typhoons at this point...and certainly could not send any transports to the islands to help occupy them.

But, there are other places where the unexpected may occur, and will not be so well defended, hence the need for those carriers.

Seriously, we have discussed this over and over. The British people have already decided the issue and allocated the funds. Both carriers are being built and well along now with the first about to be launched.

You'd best get used to the fact that the UK is going to have two large fleet carriers and the vessels (Darings, Astutes and Type 23s (later Type 26s) to escort them. One carrier, one Daring, two frigates and one SSN per group. The Darings are all completed, two Astutes are commissioned with two more building out of a total of seven, all the Type 23s are available and very capable, and the Type 26s will start building in a few years. It's a done deal.

The argument is already over and there's no sense continuing bandying about what has already been decided.

Adieu.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

My thinking is this, the Carriers of Europe are no longer aimmed for there own national use but as part of a sort of united European defence force. The EU is a entity created to merge the individual power base in Europe, akin to how the individual socialist republics of the old USSR were intended to form a nation greater them the sum of its parts.

Click to expand...

Problem with that theory is that the USSR was dominated by Russia, which set policy for everyone else. The EU can't agree on foreign policy, not frequently enough and certainly not quickly enough. British carriers won't be used on the say-so of other countries that frequently wouldn't agree with British foreign policy.

At times, the carriers might form part of a European task force, but only when European policy converges with British policy - not the other way around.

Jeff Head said:

No, according to my logic at any time something like the Falklands of the 1980s could occur elsewhere in the world, threatening UK interest where they would need those carriers...and in order to have one available at all times, you need a minimum of two. And having them means they can respond, and not having them means they cannot. Simple as that. That's the logic.

Click to expand...

Britain has lot of overseas territories , that is the truth . But , looking at the map bellow , I really don't see any potential hot spot , except Falklands . As I said , any potential aggressor would make their move now , as RN currently doesn't have any aircraft carrier .



On the other hand , Britain may try to use military might as some kind of leverage on the international scene , but those kind of actions usually end up badly for countries that don't have economic and industrial might to sustain said military machine .

Jeff Head said:

You'd best get used to the fact that the UK is going to have two large fleet carriers and the vessels (Darings, Astutes and Type 23s (later Type 26s) to escort them. One carrier, one Daring, two frigates and one SSN per group. The Darings are all completed, two Astutes are commissioned with two more building out of a total of seven, all the Type 23s are available and very capable, and the Type 26s will start building in a few years. It's a done deal.

Click to expand...

Well , I'm no seer but I could agree that most of the ships mentioned will be completed (or declared completed) . What I'm arguing is that Britain would not have funds to operate and and maintain them , and that they may end up badly neglected like once proud ships of Soviet Navy , quietly rusting in ports .

In cases like this , it is better to have smaller but more effective and operational navy , one you could afford and one you could use effectively . But , as you said , British have made their choice , so they will have to live with it .

thunderchief said:

What I'm arguing is that Britain would not have funds to operate and and maintain them

Click to expand...

Has that been independently verified, or is it just the complaints of people who:

a) are trying to deprive the Royal Navy of funds and/or sink the carriers; or
b) are trying to get more money for the Royal Navy by pretending there will be disaster under current plans?