UK Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Why do we need carriers? Well seeing as we're a landlocked country at the heart of Europe completely self sufficient in food, fuel and raw materials for our immense manufacturing industry, we can do without a navy altogether and just rely on the army and the air force to defend us...

Click to expand...

ha ha very true, but I think you should read my comments as part of my lack of enthusiasm for Super Carriers in general. I would rather have more smaller Carriers better able to perform wider (and to my mind) and better Sea Lane protection duties.

Point taken on the cost, I could ask why not go a head a spend the extra for full Nimitz style capability, but do realise that I am heading into cake and eat it territory. I would rather not go this route at all, but if me must, lets at least do it to the full and not half measure.

Am I the only one who think's defence spending should be upped,given the interventionist nature of "our" foreign policy?

Click to expand...

Personally I think we should reduce our overall expenditure and start cutting our cloth to the reality of our reduced circumstances in the world. we are no longer a major world power like we were in 45 and frankly fail to see why us or France should still be PMUNSC. (that an aside folks not an invitation).

We have other priorities for Tax payers monies and other priorities for our Service Personnel from current obligations. These are things we should be concentrating on and stop forever trying to punch above our weight to impress the big boys.

SampanViking said:

ha ha very true, but I think you should read my comments as part of my lack of enthusiasm for Super Carriers in general. I would rather have more smaller Carriers better able to perform wider (and to my mind) and better Sea Lane protection duties.

Point taken on the cost, I could ask why not go a head a spend the extra for full Nimitz style capability, but do realise that I am heading into cake and eat it territory. I would rather not go this route at all, but if me must, lets at least do it to the full and not half measure.




Personally I think we should reduce our overall expenditure and start cutting our cloth to the reality of our reduced circumstances in the world. we are no longer a major world power like we were in 45 and frankly fail to see why us or France should still be PMUNSC. (that an aside folks not an invitation).

We have other priorities for Tax payers monies and other priorities for our Service Personnel from current obligations. These are things we should be concentrating on and stop forever trying to punch above our weight to impress the big boys.

Click to expand...

according to the telegraph the type 45 7&8 are to be built post CVF1&2. and for all who don't know the 1st steel is being cut of the 4 august.

hardly reduced circumstances in the world 4th largest economy and one of the Largest stock markets. with Europe most powerful armed forces I feel that an interventionist policy reflects the Anglo Saxon view. As few other countries would intervene and if you don't intervene now it could create more trouble in the future. Thats appeasement showed us.

It is pretty much a Nimitz as UK numbers in the air group are increasing while the USN are reduced so the numbers of planes aren't so different[well compared with the harrier carriers].

SampanViking said:

I would rather have more smaller Carriers better able to perform wider (and to my mind) and better Sea Lane protection duties.

Click to expand...

That would require a lot more escorts and submarines - can't do that if you want to cut the budget. You don't save that much money by reducing the size of a carrier, and it costs a lot more to build more of them.

I could ask why not go a head a spend the extra for full Nimitz style capability

Click to expand...

Probably because it would cost a lot more in £ Sterling than the exchange rate might suggest.

the reality of our reduced circumstances in the world. we are no longer a major world power like we were in 45 and frankly fail to see why us or France should still be PMUNSC.

Click to expand...

Our reality being one of the major economies of the world, magnet for financial trading/investment, etc? I think you're stuck in the 1970s, Sampan. Maybe France has lost its right to be there, but that's their problem.

These are things we should be concentrating on and stop forever trying to punch above our weight to impress the big boys.

Click to expand...

I'd say that we're not even punching at our weight at the moment - we could easily do more if there was less waste on the NHS black hole (throwing money at an institution so fast it can't even spend it properly) and other departments.

harryRIEDL said:

according to the telegraph the type 45 7&8 are to be built post CVF1&2.

Click to expand...

harry, could you provide a link to the article that said that and quote the relevant bit? Last thing I heard was that the government said 7 & 8 were cancelled, not postponed.

Mr T said:

harry, could you provide a link to the article that said that and quote the relevant bit? Last thing I heard was that the government said 7 & 8 were cancelled, not postponed.

Click to expand...

I found out on defense talk and have asked for the link I will pass it one when i get it

How many AAW ships do we need? At least 12. Thats what Labour said in the SDR. Now they have cut the T45s back to 6, they say they will bring FSC forward. OK, we have a design ready to go to the shipbuilders already, R&D already paid for. Type 45! We'll give them a new designation (Type 46?) and order 6-8 of them before the year is out... The pollies will never know!

CVF. The size is something many quibble about, but they are as big as we can operate. Anything bigger won't be able to pass through the harbour entrances for either Portsmouth or Plymouth. You could park a Nimitz ssize carrier in Southampton, but that means spending money setting up support facilities (a mini naval base in effect) at great expense, duplicating what is already available in Pompey. I do see the merit in building more smaller carriers, 35-40,000ton, but they individually wouldn't be that much cheaper than CVF and the bottom line is the government wouldn't pay for more hulls. If we are only going to get two, let's get the best two we can. As an historical footnote, after CVA-01 was cancelled a working party was set up to decide what sort of ships were required by a Navy without strike carriers. After looking long and hard at the problem they concluded the only viable replacement for aircraft carriers were... Aircraft Carriers! The argument the RAF had claimed to have won was the strike role, which is the current Raison d' etre of the CVFs. But even if that role is surrendered to the crabs, the fleet still needs air defence, AEW, anti ship strike and ASW. The Invincibles represented the barest minimum acceptable capability in this respect, and now many Navies worldwide are accepting this lesson (Japan's Hyugas, South Korea's Dokdos, Thailand's Chakri Narubet for example).

Also remember Britains MOD has probably the smallest budget of any government department, so we are punching well below our weight if anything. We are still a world power, just a different one to what we were back in 45. Fourth largest economy, with Business interests all over the globe. Our supplies come from all over the globe too, and that is our achilles heel. We are as vulnerable now as we were in WW2 to attacks on the ships we rely on for, well, just about everything. All the Typhoons in europe will just be shiny scrap metal if there is no fuel for them or food for their pilots, and the enemy is beyond their range from land bases anyway.

Would def agree that we are punching below our weight at present,given the fact that we now devote a far smaller proportion of our national wealth to defence than we did in the early 80's,when our economy was far smaller,and had far more shaky fundamental's.
Throw into the mix that the world security situation is far more dangerous than it was back then,when there was 2 Superpowers to keep a lid on thing's.

The Thai A/C,"Chakri Narubet" ,that's a clone of the Spanish "Principes De Asturias",isnt,designed and built by Navantia,of Spain,which in turn was modelled on the now defunct "sea control carriers" concept from the US.

To those that keep refereeing to the UK as the worlds 4th largest economy, I would point out that we have in fact been the worlds 5th largest economy for the last two years and shame on you for making that mistake on this forum of all places.

I do believe that there is a discussion that the UK needs to have about its armed forces as to exactly where they fit and the roles that they play in the International Security Structures and Environment in which we now exist.

The first question to ask is how actually Independent is our Foreign and Military policy these days? Ever since Suez when we leaned who now yanked our chain, we have been in a process of gradual assimilation into first NATO and now the EU. Our last truly stand alone operation was the Falklands and even here, we were operating under considerable "assistance"

The second question is given the degree of Integration of our forces into International Security Organisations, should we continue to spread our resource into reproducing a mini all round capability version of our forces as we did in the days of Empire or should we concentrate our resources into one particular area for Global operations and simply retain the others sufficient for Home defence?

Personally I would go with the Navy (senior service, family connections and being a land locked mid continental country etc) and develop a number of Task forces built around a number of smaller Carriers per group, but thats just my prejudice.

CVF. The size is something many quibble about, but they are as big as we can operate. Anything bigger won't be able to pass through the harbour entrances for either Portsmouth or Plymouth.

Click to expand...

I grew up around Portsmouth and remember the visits of big US Carriers coming into Pompey in the 70's and 80's without any difficulty.

I'd say that we're not even punching at our weight at the moment - we could easily do more if there was less waste on the NHS black hole (throwing money at an institution so fast it can't even spend it properly) and other departments.

Click to expand...

Well the fiscal management for defence comes from the same bunch wasting it at Health and Education, so what makes you think defence spending is any better managed, especially when the old boys network and Official Secrets Act ensures there is far less scrutiny of defence spending than there is for the other two?

Would agree the navy should recieve the most attention as,as you rightly say,it is the senior service,and without doubt the most important,given our island status.
However,would strongly disagree with your opinion on retaining 3 smaller fleet carriers,as using your example of the Falklands Campaign,these type of carriers proved to be not very effective!
Here's why I say this.As you rightly point out,GB had a lot of help in that campaign,part of that help was from Chile,who passed on intelligence relating to Argentine Air Force take off's flight path's etc.As a result of that intelligence,the A/C'S were able to position intercept's etc.
My point is,we may not have that help in future,remember,it took a long time before the US came off the fence,and took GB's side,so we will need far more aircraft to fly CAP's,primary threat axis,secondary threat axis etc.
Smaller carrier's dont have sufficient aircraft to do all this,remember in the Falklands we lost a lot of ship's and live's,even with the help we had!
Also bear in mind,the Argentine carrier could have come out to fight,if it had,it is extremely unlikely that the small carriers in theatre could have dealt with both the threat from this group,and the Argentine Airforce simultaneously.
As it was we were extremely lucky.
This is the reason I believe we need larger carrier's,both as a deterrent,and to save live's iin the unfortunate event of another conflict.
Please bear in mind I am not a military man,and the above is just my opinion as an interested layman.)ie,I'm willing to stand correcton from someone who knows what thee talking about)

SampanViking said:

The first question to ask is how actually Independent is our Foreign and Military policy these days? Ever since Suez when we leaned who now yanked our chain

Click to expand...

And how exactly could we ever decide to have what you might regard as being an "independent" foreign/military policy without fleet aircraft carriers?

Well the fiscal management for defence comes from the same bunch wasting it at Health and Education, so what makes you think defence spending is any better managed

Click to expand...

You can't compare them that easily because their output is completely different. But there are far less quangos for defence than there are for health and education, so I would say that it's easier to make money "work" for defence.

The NHS doesn't have a problem with lack of money, it's how it's spent and how the thing is run. On the other hand, even if there could be savings somewhere in the MoD, military spending as a % of GDP has shrunk and things like numbers of ships, bases, etc have been cut.