Does/did The Rn Need Qe Class Aircraft Carriers.

[Chris Werb]

But what we can do is make rational decisions about what we need our armed forces to do and what it is realistic to achieve and base our spending around that.

[Chris Werb]

A prerequisite for political and economic growth is confidence in and a vision of a better future for one's nation. What the UK ultimately does with its 2 carriers will go a long way toward signaling how much there exists of both in it.

 

If the answer is none, aircraft carrier expenditure is and will be the least of the UK's problems.

Switzerland, Denmark and Luxembourg would therefore be utterly impoverished by now, having never had aircraft carriers. Argentina became a global economic and military powerhouse through possession of one?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well to me, its not rational to take a policy we have been dead set upon for 20 years, and change it to an entirely other one, when it could be Putin's Russia could collapse tomorrow. Its not likely, but it is possible.

 

To my mind, there needs to be a reasonable stability in the force structure we build. Yes, as Ive said, I personally would not have made this decision 20 years ago for a variety of reasons. But having made it, and transitioned towards it, this fashionablity really bothers me. We have kit, so lets use it. Lets stop throwing it away in search of the next big thing, because to be honest, whether its Challenger 2 or Apache, we have been doing entirely too much of it. We are spending all our money transitioning, but never actually arriving anywhere.

 

BTW, I sent you a message with a link you might find interesting if you like aircraft flight manuals.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Stuart Galbraith

[Chris Werb]

Stuart, did you ever read the book "The post war naval revolution". If not I would highly recommend it.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ive not, but Ill certainly look out for it.

If you will take a recommendation from me, read Norman Friedmans 'Seapower and Space', which brilliantly illustrates the rise of the missile and communication revolution in seapower, and also illustrates quite how difficult how hard it is to find (and target) aircraft carriers at sea.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Seapower-Space-Norman-Friedman/dp/1861760043

[Panzermann]

 

A prerequisite for political and economic growth is confidence in and a vision of a better future for one's nation. What the UK ultimately does with its 2 carriers will go a long way toward signaling how much there exists of both in it.

 

If the answer is none, aircraft carrier expenditure is and will be the least of the UK's problems.

Switzerland, Denmark and Luxembourg would therefore be utterly impoverished by now, having never had aircraft carriers. Argentina became a global economic and military powerhouse through possession of one?

 

 

I think nobu is referring to national self confidence and not carriers in and of themselves. Though looking at Brexit I do not have much confidence in the UK's politicians handling anything properly.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Oh, im increasingly confident because of Brexit they will. Because an entire generation of feckless British politicians are having their careers crucified by Brexit. The gene pool after they are gone is sure to be better than it is now. Even Farage seems to be floundering at trying to get into Parliament.

 

The is a saying in English 'Give them enough rope to hang themselves'. Which as far as Boris Johnson seems incredibly likely. But I digress.

[Panzermann]

Oh, im increasingly confident because of Brexit they will. Because an entire generation of feckless British politicians are having their careers crucified by Brexit. The gene pool after they are gone is sure to be better than it is now. Even Farage seems to be floundering at trying to get into Parliament.

 

The is a saying in English 'Give them enough rope to hang themselves'. Which as far as Boris Johnson seems incredibly likely. But I digress.

 

Brexit brand chlorine for the politician pool?

 

Yes, I agree, Johnson is going to really burn it down. Instead of cutting it short and choosing someone like Stewart. But looking at the new EU comissars. One failure next to the other. On the continent we are no better off.

[Chris Werb]

Ive had my eye on these, they might be interesting.

 

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1021100/Aircraft_Carrier_Survival/

 

https://store.steampowered.com/app/580720/Carrier_Deck/

 

As for strategy, CMANO has taught me a fair bit. Not least how hard it is to find a carrier when you want to.

 

I'm sure you could model an oligarch's yacht following a CVBG around Otherwise...

 

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/5041-russian-military-deploying-sosus-like-global-maritime-surveillance-system-named-garmoniya.html

[Nobu]

For the 10th largest exporter in the world to anticipate having no seafaring interests to defend and no seafaring interests to fight for 25 years from now sounds like a referendum of its own on the UK's vision of its future. Forseeably, carriers and the ability to operate them will continue to dominate the ability of a nation to do both.

 

Leaving that for others to handle does not inspire confidence in whatever the UK may endeavor to accomplish otherwise.

[DougRichards]

Similar arguments have been raised about Australia's two fairly new Canberra Class LHDs. That that are too large and would be just large targets in anything but benign environments.

 

However the criticism of the Canberras can be justified as, unlike the QE2 Class, they could have been substituted by four smaller ships or so with similar total capabilities, but It would be harder to build a modern effective carrier smaller than the QE2.

[rmgill]

But what we can do is make rational decisions about what we need our armed forces to do and what it is realistic to achieve and base our spending around that.

Your nation can't even make rational decisions about a Brexit that was voted on and is supposed to have happened already. The UK seems like a cat that can't decide if it wants in or out. Even with the door open.

 

Do you want in and out of the UK? Do you want a carrier or not? My wife changes her mind less.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Oh, im increasingly confident because of Brexit they will. Because an entire generation of feckless British politicians are having their careers crucified by Brexit. The gene pool after they are gone is sure to be better than it is now. Even Farage seems to be floundering at trying to get into Parliament.

 

The is a saying in English 'Give them enough rope to hang themselves'. Which as far as Boris Johnson seems incredibly likely. But I digress.

 

Brexit brand chlorine for the politician pool?

 

Yes, I agree, Johnson is going to really burn it down. Instead of cutting it short and choosing someone like Stewart. But looking at the new EU comissars. One failure next to the other. On the continent we are no better off.

 

 

This is what ive tried delicately (well as near as I get) to point out to Banshee. Its not British politicians that are the problem, its politicians full stop. Politics+populism+social media=Boris Johnson. I see exactly the same equation happening in the EU. The only one I thought consistently seemed of any intelligence was Donald Tusk.

 

 

 

Ive had my eye on these, they might be interesting.

 

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1021100/Aircraft_Carrier_Survival/

 

https://store.steampowered.com/app/580720/Carrier_Deck/

 

As for strategy, CMANO has taught me a fair bit. Not least how hard it is to find a carrier when you want to.

 

I'm sure you could model an oligarch's yacht following a CVBG around Otherwise...

 

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/5041-russian-military-deploying-sosus-like-global-maritime-surveillance-system-named-garmoniya.html

 

 

Show me an oligarch's Yacht that can follow a 30 knot supercarrier around for 10000 nautical miles and I might agree with you. In fact, such tactics were out of date by the 1980's, because they could never survive long enough in a conflict to provide useful targeting data. With the Russian air arm reduced to 66 useful aircraft, I have to reflect its no better placed now.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Similar arguments have been raised about Australia's two fairly new Canberra Class LHDs. That that are too large and would be just large targets in anything but benign environments.

 

However the criticism of the Canberras can be justified as, unlike the QE2 Class, they could have been substituted by four smaller ships or so with similar total capabilities, but It would be harder to build a modern effective carrier smaller than the QE2.

 

What about a Canberra married to a QE battlegroup though? I accept Australia wants to do things by itself, but we dont have the cash to do all the things we want to either.

 

Id like personally to see more cooperation among the commonwealth, but for political reasons, i dont see anything like that happening. Ultimately we all have to do more, because quite clearly none of us can rely on the US anymore.

[DougRichards]

 

Similar arguments have been raised about Australia's two fairly new Canberra Class LHDs. That that are too large and would be just large targets in anything but benign environments.

 

However the criticism of the Canberras can be justified as, unlike the QE2 Class, they could have been substituted by four smaller ships or so with similar total capabilities, but It would be harder to build a modern effective carrier smaller than the QE2.

 

What about a Canberra married to a QE battlegroup though? I accept Australia wants to do things by itself, but we dont have the cash to do all the things we want to either.

 

Id like personally to see more cooperation among the commonwealth, but for political reasons, i dont see anything like that happening. Ultimately we all have to do more, because quite clearly none of us can rely on the US anymore.

 

 

The F35B would be capable of cross decking occasionally but there would be no support available on a Canberra and the deck cannot take the heat of too many take offs. But a Canberra assisting in the ASW helicopter carrier role may be feasible, except that a Canberra is considerably slower than a QE. Somewhere around 20kts in comparison to around 25-30kts.

 

But if naval warfare comes down to Armageddon in the South China Sea in around ten years, we may see the QE class working on cover and suppression whilst the Canberras land assault and occupation forces on the mini-islands created by China. The USN and Japan may be a bit too busy further north around the area of Taiwan. Also how India is getting along with China at the time comes into play. Oceania verses Eastasia I believe.

[rmgill]

 

Show me an oligarch's Yacht that can follow a 30 knot supercarrier around for 10000 nautical miles and I might agree with you. In fact, such tactics were out of date by the 1980's, because they could never survive long enough in a conflict to provide useful targeting data. With the Russian air arm reduced to 66 useful aircraft, I have to reflect its no better placed now.

 

AGIs did it for decades.

 

Funny story on those from a friend...

https://oldnfo.org/2012/03/09/usn-ka-3b-vs-russian-trawler-agi/

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

Similar arguments have been raised about Australia's two fairly new Canberra Class LHDs. That that are too large and would be just large targets in anything but benign environments.

 

However the criticism of the Canberras can be justified as, unlike the QE2 Class, they could have been substituted by four smaller ships or so with similar total capabilities, but It would be harder to build a modern effective carrier smaller than the QE2.

 

What about a Canberra married to a QE battlegroup though? I accept Australia wants to do things by itself, but we dont have the cash to do all the things we want to either.

 

Id like personally to see more cooperation among the commonwealth, but for political reasons, i dont see anything like that happening. Ultimately we all have to do more, because quite clearly none of us can rely on the US anymore.

 

 

The F35B would be capable of cross decking occasionally but there would be no support available on a Canberra and the deck cannot take the heat of too many take offs. But a Canberra assisting in the ASW helicopter carrier role may be feasible, except that a Canberra is considerably slower than a QE. Somewhere around 20kts in comparison to around 25-30kts.

 

But if naval warfare comes down to Armageddon in the South China Sea in around ten years, we may see the QE class working on cover and suppression whilst the Canberras land assault and occupation forces on the mini-islands created by China. The USN and Japan may be a bit too busy further north around the area of Taiwan. Also how India is getting along with China at the time comes into play. Oceania verses Eastasia I believe.

 

 

We probably wouldnt be operating at full speed either. There isnt much need operating off stealth aircraft.

 

I think India is just going to do their own thing. They are far too nationalist these days to deign to work with the imperialists. OTOH, they dont really need to.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

Show me an oligarch's Yacht that can follow a 30 knot supercarrier around for 10000 nautical miles and I might agree with you. In fact, such tactics were out of date by the 1980's, because they could never survive long enough in a conflict to provide useful targeting data. With the Russian air arm reduced to 66 useful aircraft, I have to reflect its no better placed now.

 

AGIs did it for decades.

 

Funny story on those from a friend...

https://oldnfo.org/2012/03/09/usn-ka-3b-vs-russian-trawler-agi/

 

 

So count how many AGI's the Russians have today, and then count how many carriers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Soviet_Navy#Electronic_Surveillance_ships

 

And even if they had enough to go around (for they would presumably have to track other NATO carriers as well), they then have to strike the carriers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Naval_Aviation

 

They have 1 missile carrying bomber squadron in Western Russia, and 3 in the Pacific. And 2 of those 4 are Tu-142. They only ever built 100 TU142's, and some of those were recce aircraft. So you are looking at something less than 166 aircraft to cover both oceans, and well less than half of those have any high performance.

 

So submarines right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_class_submarine

 

So we have 6, upgraded to 8, Oscars, between 2 oceans. Oh, and one Yasen, to be joined by another someday.

 

 

Ill not say there is no threat to NATO carriers. I will say that people keep projecting the Soviet threat, because that is the one the Russians keep presenting. This is not a 10th of the resources the Soviets had that could be thrown at our carriers. We had Carriers then despite the greater threat, why do people now say 'The Carrier is dead', when the Russian navy clearly has great problems maintaining the resources it has?

 

 

People need to look at the threat realistically, and stop presenting the Soviet menace as what we have to deal with. Which as ive pointed out before, was a giant with feet of clay as it was. Look at the exercise off the Kuriles in 1983 where they were able to lose the Soviets for days. They couldnt even find them when a Tomcat squadron overflew soviet territory.

Edited July 5, 2019 by Stuart Galbraith

[Chris Werb]

For the 10th largest exporter in the world to anticipate having no seafaring interests to defend and no seafaring interests to fight for 25 years from now sounds like a referendum of its own on the UK's vision of its future. Forseeably, carriers and the ability to operate them will continue to dominate the ability of a nation to do both.

 

Leaving that for others to handle does not inspire confidence in whatever the UK may endeavor to accomplish otherwise.

Once again you have failed to establish a connection between national wealth or wellbeing with aircraft carrier possession.

 

Two aircraft carrier battle groups, even if available, cannot protect our world trade from a large determined enemy. We almost failed at that vs a relatively small submarine arm when we had the world's largest navy. Fortunately, the only country conceivably likely to pose a threat to our interests in the next 25 years is just as dependent on tenuous and indefensible trade routes as we are and we have SSNs. Better still, they are dependent on trade with us and with other nations in the West. So, how does having those carriers help us again?

[Stuart Galbraith]

We trade with nations like that, we tacitly accept their values. We tacitly accept their values, they are a danger to our Democracy. Anyone doubting this would do well to see the values that are being jettisoned daily by the UK politicians in desperation just to trade with China. The way to deal with such nations is not to trade with them at all. Which raises the chance of a conflict, but perhaps better than than becoming just like them.

 

The arguments are all jigged to ensure carriers have no role. The one role that SSN's cannot undertake is deterrence. Is there any nation that has been deterred by someone saying 'oh we have a submarine there'. The only time that had any value to the Argentinians was when we blew a Cruiser in half. By contrast, when a carrier leaves port, and it undertakes combat air patrols, everyone knows its there. It may not know EXACTLY where it is, but it knows its there. An SSN can only undertake sea denial operations. It cannot undertake any missions other than that (other than perhaps cruise missile attack and landing special ops people). OTOH a carrier can undertake ASW missions, fleet action, land strike, interdiction, landing special operations forces, and so on and so on....

 

 

In short, a carrier can do, and a submarine can prevent. Against that you have surface assets such as cruisers, Destroyers, Frigates and (God spare us) LCS, which are assuredly no less vulnerable to all kinds of attack than an aircraft carrier. So you are left with a choice of just embarking on sea denial missions (when your enemy may ignore the sea entirely) or doing nothing at all. Which to my mind is an argument for apathy, not to build and employ carriers.

 

If you are going to embark on war at sea or from the sea, then you may as well do it properly. Or just throw up your hands in despair and say 'too difficult'. An approach that, contrary to what Ryan thinks, has never personally appealed to me.

[Chris Werb]

Submarines cannot take part in deterrence? Submarines have hosted our deterrent and a good part of the US, French and Russian deterrents for decades.

 

Will countries not go somewhere because we have a submarine there? What did the Argentine navy do after one of ours sank the Belgrano?

 

Mysteriously, a carrier that is somehow invisible and undetectable is somehow more of a deterrent because it is visible and therefore vulnerable? Which one is it? It can't be both. This is 2018. You can't just light up anything that gets eyes on your carrier. Lots of neutrals out there with radar, satcom and even drones and nothing stopping them simply having an AGI (or a neutral!) just tag along behind you.

 

The Chinese are currently outbuilding the USN at a ratio of at least 2.5:1 in tonnage alone. In submarines (the key weapon to negate enemy carriers) the ratio is something like 8:1. The ship building facilities to embark on a naval arms race with China do not exist in the US, let alone here. What do you suggest we do about that?

 

How would the Chinese ignore trading with the rest of the world? Assuming they did not do so, how would they prevent submarine interdiction of their trade?

 

I am simply not seeing any conceivable way in which our possessing two rather limited CVs is going to deter China from doing anything. We are not going to be doing any Tom Clancy shit against a vast, completely unscrupulous nation that is armed to the teeth and one of our chief world trading partners (nor against China for that matter ). We are even letting them build our infrastructure FFS! SSNs on the other hand render their entire international trade network vulnerable with near impunity, but that too is simply not going to happen. We have limited funds - spending them on silly fantasies of former imperial grandeur aren't going to help us.

[JasonJ]

 

 

 

 

 

The F35B would be capable of cross decking occasionally but there would be no support available on a Canberra and the deck cannot take the heat of too many take offs. But a Canberra assisting in the ASW helicopter carrier role may be feasible, except that a Canberra is considerably slower than a QE. Somewhere around 20kts in comparison to around 25-30kts.

 

But if naval warfare comes down to Armageddon in the South China Sea in around ten years, we may see the QE class working on cover and suppression whilst the Canberras land assault and occupation forces on the mini-islands created by China. The USN and Japan may be a bit too busy further north around the area of Taiwan. Also how India is getting along with China at the time comes into play. Oceania verses Eastasia I believe.

Japan will just stay home and watch Sony TV. And that's a good thing because better to not let historical revisionist have a stake in the security of the region. Plus, the US came to "save" the whole place from "international aggression". Just as Trump says, the US has never been stronger. So little Japan isn't even needed. Rapists Japanese can just be happy that Tokyo wasn't nuked for frying the emperor, so things like watching JAV can be the important business of the day instead of being "the-once-evil-but-now-good" mule for "team hero".

 

Feel free to offer the US stationing rights for 50,000 US personnel. Don't worry, they are much better than boat people, I'm sure you above all other Australians will give them a comfortable home. Nifee deebiru.

Edited July 5, 2019 by JasonJ

[DougRichards]

Did I just hear some static?

[JasonJ]

Did I just hear some static?

Such a common attitude on Troll-Net. Well what could be expected with so many grumpy old farts.

[lastdingo]

10 yrs old blog post of mine on the topic of British CVBG (among others):

https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/08/cost-of-carrier-aviation.html