Hms Queen Elizabeth

[shep854]

Fast work for the RAF, stepping up to combat training so quickly.

[Stuart Galbraith]

One of them was wearing a BBMF patch, did you notice? He probably qualifies for a 'My other Fighter is a Spitfire' bumper sticker.

[shep854]

I wondered what that meant.

[DB]

I think that the youtube commenters missed the point of the Brexit question - the reporter works for Forces TV, she can be expected to understand the difference between NATO and the EU. The answers she got reinforce the point that military cooperation isn't dependent on the EU .

 

Unless, of course, NATO disappears.

 

A pity that we didn't have a Russian AA cruiser to buzz.

[Stuart Galbraith]

There is the perspective that if the economy takes a dive (and we really dont know where we will be 2 years from now), then there is going to be questions asked about how useful these ships are. Personally, Id put this over damn near anything else in the inventory, but we have seen sillier things done to try and balance fiscal books in the past.

 

I still remain optimistic. Its a capability we clearly need, and I think it will prove itself in the near future.

[Stuart Galbraith]

[Stuart Galbraith]

[Stuart Galbraith]

[Chris Werb]

There is the perspective that if the economy takes a dive (and we really dont know where we will be 2 years from now), then there is going to be questions asked about how useful these ships are. Personally, Id put this over damn near anything else in the inventory, but we have seen sillier things done to try and balance fiscal books in the past.

 

I still remain optimistic. Its a capability we clearly need, and I think it will prove itself in the near future.

 

Stuart, these ships are irrelevant to any European conflict. They were built as part of a struggle to have our forces stay relevant in a post Cold War world. Now we're back in the Cold War and they're just sucking up money that could have been used for sensible defence preparations. The Russians correctly assess these things to be huge, defenceless missile and torpedo magnets. I hope they never get put to the test against a competent adversary.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well lets look at it like this, Russia is busy stirring up the third world for its ends. Right? So if we face the fact that this IS a cold war, the Third World (or even the second world, such as South America) is going to have a relevance for our security. So we just added to 60000 tons of British real estate where we can play the old games in the sand whomever is instigating them. Thus far im not seeing a problem. Our lack of such platforms badly hampered our foreign policy all through the 1980's and 1990's, nearly fatally in 1982.

 

As far as Europe, im still seeing an airbase parked off Russia's north cape as inherently useful. It would be even more so if we grew up and started thinking about these platforms for long range strike, such as readopting stormshadow for integration with F35, maybe even adopting B61.

 

If we view America as withdrawing from the world stage, someone is going to have to stand with our back to the wall defending liberal democracy. Clearly we are going to have issues affording it, but that was true all through the cold war.

 

The only thing im scared of is a Defence Secretary underestimating how useful such platforms are. We only need another John Nott (or in fact, any Defence Secretary from 1992 to 2017) and we are shagged. I think however the world security situation, and America's lack of interest in it, is going to focus minds. Either we and the French do it, or nobody will.

 

You have to ask yourself this basic question, if these are the missile and torpedo Magnets the Russians claim, then why did they about 6 months ago commit to building a large VSTOL carrier, in concept what can best be called a Queen Elizabethski class. I ask myself this question, why is such a weapon going to be useful to Russia, a mostly landlocked power with problems on its borders, and not for us, a power with global ambitions, as yet without reach?

 

I remain optimistic. Realistic, but optimistic. Which would make me about equidistant between you and DB I guess.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[Chris Werb]

Outside of Europe and Asia, Russia is nowhere else in the world but Syria and we can tackle that tiny contingent with land-based air and other assets if things got out of hand. It's the stupid wars we've gotten into in sandboxes and shitholes around the World that have gotten us nowhere and sapped up lots and lots of money that could have been better spent, not to mention the wasted loss of life. Do you really think the Russians are just going to let one of these park off the North Cape and not do anything about it?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Outside of Europe and Asia, Russia is nowhere else in the world but Syria and we can tackle that tiny contingent with land-based air and other assets if things got out of hand. It's the stupid wars we've gotten into in sandboxes and shitholes around the World that have gotten us nowhere and sapped up lots and lots of money that could have been better spent, not to mention the wasted loss of life. Do you really think the Russians are just going to let one of these park off the North Cape and not do anything about it?

 

Depends on how you look at it Chris. Iraq 91 was stupid sandbox war, yet I dont think anyone seriously thinks it didnt need to be fought. Ditto Afghanistan. And the Yanks were using the Tarawa's and Harrier force pretty seriously even in the Afghan war if the Osprey book is any guide.

 

Do I think we need to be smarter in the wars we fight? Absolutely. I was wholly against Libya for this precise reason, because I knew we would under Cameron never have the will to restabilize Libya. If an iraq style war such as 1991 happened tomorrow, we would have to commit. Because I tell you this, every time we duck a major issue like that, there will be nations like Russia, China, and a dozen and one others whom think we arent willing to stand by the UN charter anymore.

 

Im old fashioned. Im the last person that believes in Liberal Democracy, but IMHO there is a test to it coming and the cupboard is not nearly full to meet it. I dont believe in throwing away 60000 ton assets we took 20 years to build just because they arent fashionable. That really is MTV defence procurement in my view.

 

What are they going to do if we did park one off North Cape? Their sovremenny's, their main surface strike asset, are 30 years old and keep breaking down. Their Udaloys are good, but poorly equipped for surface strike. Their corvettes are all mainly in the Baltic. Sure, submarines are a problem, but thats what Poseidons and ASW Helo's are for. If the Americans believed they could operate a carrier battlegroup off the North Cape in the mid 1980's, then why cant we now, when most of the assets available to the Russian fleet are a pile of junk. They have precisely 66 Backfire bombers to cover both oceans. This is a fraction of what was available in 1989.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[Chris Werb]

So I don't believe in liberal democracy because I don't want us spending our limited defence budget on white elephants?

 

"Sure, submarines are a problem" - ummmm. Yes, they are. The Americans may or may not have been deluded in the mid 1980s. However, where surface ships are concerned, technology has now moved decisively in favour of other domains. Now ask yourself, what is a carrier off the North Cape with 36 or so F-35s actually going to achieve that they couldn't have achieved operating from land bases in Norway? If you believe stealth works, then B-2 bombers can hit anything the F-35s could, long before the carrier got there. How is the carrier going to get there in the first place? How are the vessels replenishing it going to be protected? What about the port facilities it operates from? Nine Poseidons and 30 Merlins (14 of the 25 expected to be operational are meant to be that one carrier, so forget escorting transatlantic convoys) are a fraction of the ASW aircraft we had available at the height of the Cold War - it isn't as if the Russians are the only ones who cut their forces. 60,000 tons of metal is not four acres of sovereign territory - airfields don't have lots of fuel and explosives crammed into a tiny space and, contrary to what one US politician would have us believe, they don't sink. Let's say it pans out though. How is having a carrier off the North Cape going to affect the outcome in Central Europe?

 

Let's be honest - the carriers are about national status and relevance in a World that no longer exists. They would not have been purchased if we were serious about a peer conflict - they were done away with when defence budgets were much larger.

[Stuart Galbraith]

So I don't believe in liberal democracy because I don't want us spending our limited defence budget on white elephants?

 

"Sure, submarines are a problem" - ummmm. Yes, they are. The Americans may or may not have been deluded in the mid 1980s. However, where surface ships are concerned, technology has now moved decisively in favour of other domains. Now ask yourself, what is a carrier off the North Cape with 36 or so F-35s actually going to achieve that they couldn't have achieved operating from land bases in Norway? If you believe stealth works, then B-2 bombers can hit anything the F-35s could, long before the carrier got there. How is the carrier going to get there in the first place? How are the vessels replenishing it going to be protected? What about the port facilities it operates from? Nine Poseidons and 30 Merlins (14 of the 25 expected to be operational are meant to be that one carrier, so forget escorting transatlantic convoys) are a fraction of the ASW aircraft we had available at the height of the Cold War - it isn't as if the Russians are the only ones who cut their forces. 60,000 tons of metal is not four acres of sovereign territory - airfields don't have lots of fuel and explosives crammed into a tiny space and, contrary to what one US politician would have us believe, they don't sink. Let's say it pans out though. How is having a carrier off the North Cape going to affect the outcome in Central Europe?

 

Let's be honest - the carriers are about national status and relevance in a World that no longer exists. They would not have been purchased if we were serious about a peer conflict - they were done away with when defence budgets were much larger.

 

Im sorry if thats the impression I gave Chris, I of course dont think you think that way. Im just saying, we bought it, so lets use it.

 

MOD have a fetish for throwing kit they just paid for. In 1996 they bought 386 Challenger 2's. By 2001 the MOD were actively briefing 'The Tank has had its day'. By 2003 they were proving useful in Iraq, to the point where an RAF senior commander was singing superlatives about them in a commons select committee. By 2009 they had dismantled over 100 over them because they never thought they would use them again. I wouldnt mind, but we keep seeing this happen time and again in the MOD, they orient to the threat facing them at that precise moment, throw away kit, then discover they would prefer to have kept them. The disposal of Scorpion and Ferret in the early 1990's was swiftly shown to be in error when peacekeeping in Bosnia reared its head for example.

 

The Russians are a near term threat, clearly. Where I part company is assigning capabilities to them they havent demonstrated since the cold war, and probably never will again.I ask myself this question, are the Russians likely to have an SSN superior to the 8 Astutes we will have in service in the near future? Probably not. And what they have they have to divide between 2 oceans, which time and again has proven to be a LONG way to travel, even under the ice cap. Is there an emerging threat? Sure. We do not as yet know how far that will emerge, and whether the Russian navy will fund their usage anything as keenly as they have procured them.

 

We spent 20 years building these things. So lets use them, and stop pretending the immediate threat means disposal and reorientation, when for all we know the Putin regime might fall over tomorrow. Which is just as likely a possibility as any other on offer. Even if the arguments you said are correct, the cold war proved deploying firepower, no matter how vulnerable, was valuable even if it wasnt used. You want a good example of that, look at Phoenix Squadron, the book about the Deployment of the Ark Royal air wing to defend Belize in 1972. We haven't had a capability that can do anything like that in decades, and if anything thats more valuable than pure warfighting capability.

 

Just my view for what its worth.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[Chris Werb]

Stuart, a couple of years later we flew harriers direct to Belize using Victor tankers to support them. They got there far faster than HMS Ark Royal could have. Pretty soon we will be able to do the same with F35Bs - we already can with Typhoons. The force we could rapidly deploy there and our ability to protect it would be vastly better than Ark Royal and its battlegroup.

[rmgill]

What if you don't have a base to land at? What if it's too close to the action going on?

[shep854]

How useful would the QEs be for open-ocean ASW?

[Harold Jones]

Wondering what exactly the UK has to fight over where they won't be in range of some sort of land based air station. I guess there's Falklands round 2 but honestly wouldn't they be money ahead to just give the Falklands to Argentina at this point? Also instead of two carriers wouldn't two or three cruise missile armed submarines and a pile of missiles have made more sense? As I understand it, what amounts to the entire Royal navy is needed to form a carrier battle group so what assets do they have for other missions when they do?

[Chris Werb]

What if you don't have a base to land at? What if it's too close to the action going on?

Can you give me some examples that could plausibly happen?

[Chris Werb]

Wondering what exactly the UK has to fight over where they won't be in range of some sort of land based air station. I guess there's Falklands round 2 but honestly wouldn't they be money ahead to just give the Falklands to Argentina at this point? Also instead of two carriers wouldn't two or three cruise missile armed submarines and a pile of missiles have made more sense? As I understand it, what amounts to the entire Royal navy is needed to form a carrier battle group so what assets do they have for other missions when they do?

This. All of it.

[rmgill]

 

What if you don't have a base to land at? What if it's too close to the action going on?

Can you give me some examples that could plausibly happen?

 

Falklands war.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The thing people miss about an aircraft carrier, it increases sortie rate. Its perfectly true you can plug an F35 in to a tanker and fly from almost everywhere. But I think its a given that Harriers, parked on HMS Invincible or Hermes, had a far higher sortie rate than Black Buck raids flying in from Ascension island 3000 miles away. So if you have a small force, then a carrier is a pretty important force magnifier. It means you gets more out of a given force than flying it from outside the conflict area. You have the bomb shop, the maintainance shop, the briefing room, the jacuzzi and bar all in the same location. What pilot worth his wing wouldnt love that.

 

More risk? Certainly. But maybe if you arent willing to run risk, then perhaps a war is something that should be fought by someone else.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Stuart, a couple of years later we flew harriers direct to Belize using Victor tankers to support them. They got there far faster than HMS Ark Royal could have. Pretty soon we will be able to do the same with F35Bs - we already can with Typhoons. The force we could rapidly deploy there and our ability to protect it would be vastly better than Ark Royal and its battlegroup.

 

Chris, those harriers would not be available for combat as soon as they arrived over Belize. For one thing they had to bomb them up, for another, they would have to remove the ferry wingtip extensions. Whereas with the Buccaneers, they were available for the A2A role as soon as they arrived over Belize. One was ferrying into a combat zone, the other was ready for war. There is a signficant difference between those two configurations.

 

You cannot fight an air campaign at the end of a tanker hose from over 3000 miles away. Im sorry, but even John Warden, whom is the last person whom believes in victory though airpower, would throw up his hands in despair at THAT kind of idea.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

[rmgill]

The carrier isn't about the carrier. The carrier is about the Strike (or ASW¹) aircraft it carries.


^{1. Don't forget the sea control mission.}

Edited December 8, 2018 by rmgill