"Why Build An Aircraft Carrier When it Will Have No Planes?" Topic

"MPs warn in report of spiralling costs of aircraft and of support needed to protect carrier with ships and submarines

A second large aircraft carrier planned for the navy – the Prince of Wales – would make "little sense" unless enough money could be found to provide it with planes to fly from it and ships to protect it, a cross-party group of MPs warned on Tuesday.

The verdict, at a time of intense financial pressure on Britain's armed forces, is contained in a Commons defence committee report, entitled Rethinking Defence to Meet New Threats…"

Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Cost more to cancel it, besides if only one at a time is normally in operation while the other is refitting you only need enough planes for one (?). Unless, of course, there is an emergency requiring two carriers in which case…

Heads really ought to roll on this one. We should see resignations at least. They will be of no real use. Apart from re-taking the Falklands, but since they will not have planes for at least five years even that argument is a bit thin. Its about time we, as a country, acknowledge that we are not responsible for policing the world. The world is different as is our place within it.Successive Governments have made some extremely poor choices – wee have no maritime patrol aircraft but empty carriers and no escorts. It seems that decisions have been made with s in mind rather than appropriate military power.

If the UK wasn't getting any planes then it would be an issue.

We are.

It isn't

Wot David said.

Re 'heads rolling' – they already have in the 2010 election. It was the previous government who made all the decisions re aircraft procurement, including the ludicrous decision to fly V/STOL aircraft off a fleet-sized carrier – primarily because it was thought to be cheaper than building and operating carriers fitted with cats & traps.

The present government tried to change that decision as soon as it came into power and investigated the possibility of switching to F-35C or F-18 with cats & traps, but after a year had to conclude that the contracts were FAR too expensive to change or cancel (and in the process spent a small fortune merely in investigating that possibility).

See also the criminally poor and expensive decisions made by the last government while awarding contracts for Voyager and Nimrod MRA4.

The intention is to get up to 48 of them – but that seems to include quite a few for land based use.

Just noticed this about British F35:

'[4] The F-35B does not mount an internal cannon and the external gun pod developed for the Marine Corps is not currently planned to be purchased for RAF service.'

link

That seems… crazy.

Re-taking the Falklands would certainly be the most obvious military use, but presumably these carriers would also be deployed for disaster relief, evacuation of British citizens from danger zones, "flag-flying" etc, as well.

See also the criminally poor and expensive decisions made by the last government while awarding contracts for Voyager and Nimrod MRA4.

It's great being an island nation that doesn't own any Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

Please don't tell me about the ASW helicopters, or I may laugh. And I'm not supposed to give any sign of enjoying myself where I am right now.

Oh yes, and Lynx Wildcat…

Re the cannon – it's like the Typhoons, T45 destroyers, etc. We can't afford 'optional extras' yet, but have options to buy in the future…

Re Martime Patrol Aircraft – the former Nimrod crews are still retained and are presently farmed out to other air forces and navies, especially the USN P-8 squadrons, to retain skills and gain experience on other (possibly future UK) types. So there is still clearly an intention to regain that capability at the earliest opportunity.

Britain is still holding dearly to the idea that she must remain a major naval power with force projection capabilities, even when the current and projected future fiscal realities and the prohibitive costs of new weapon systems prove otherwise.

This leads to the shortsightedness we see here where politicians put the carriage in front of the horse and "hope" that there's enough budget to buy the horse somewhere down the line.

Stupid idea relying on planes bought from the US.
The land of overbuilt and overbudget.

Just idle musing here, but given one part of the rationale I'm sure is UN/NATO missions, how long it'll be before we see true coalition (UN or NATO) carriers. I think a couple of countries (France and ?) sort of do this already. So say a British carrier with air wings rotating from Canada, Norway, Germany. Or the carrier itself is a groupthink.

No good for national defence that way though, unless you can convince the rest of the coalition to help.

We are.

It isn't

Only the UK would make procurement choices in this way. When the a/c do arrive it will be 2-3 years after the ship sails. And we certainly have no guarantee that they will be any good.
Send the bloody things to South Korea – make them into proper carriers (cheaper) get some useful aircraft like the F18 or (god forbid) the Rafale and move on.

Rabbit,

As opposed to underbudget like Voyager, Lynx Wildcat, Nimrod AEW3, Nimrod MRA4, A400M Atlas, FRES, Typhoon…?

Er, hang on…

And then there's the latest Apache hoo-ha, where the UK has been given the opportunity to buy into the US Army's order and get brand-new, latest-model Apaches at a bargain knock-down price (and for a lot less than we bought the first batch for)… But Agusta-Westland are demanding the right to sell them to us at twice the price (British jobs and all that)…

The French have.
Can they land in this Aircraft Carrier?
If the answer is yes, you can buy some of them.

Amicalement
Armand

I would think that an island nation would need a real navy to defend itself. Who would you trust to defend it for you?

The previous government did not sell off our jump jets, or scrap our very expensive nimrods by chopping the wings off.

But.. the procurement of any item by government in the UK is beset by all sorts of problems…

Anyway…

We will have some aircraft in the future.. And may have some way of defending it if needs be…

Stupid idea relying on planes bought from the US.
The land of overbuilt and overbudget.

As opposed to underbuilt and then canceled because the program cost too much to custom-build ~50 birds instead of buying something made en masse by someone else?

"That seems… crazy".

Well, in the missile age, aircraft cannon are rather superfluous, as any student of aerial history knows the USAF proved during Vietnam.

;-)

[heavy sarcasm, and totally contrarian claim, in case you couldn't tell, or don't know anything about the Vietnam air war]

The French have.
Can they land in this Aircraft Carrier?
If the answer is yes, you can buy some of them.

Would need cats and traps for Rafale – and the new carriers don't have them because they are designed for STOVL (no they aren't – yes they are – no – yes – no…oh ok yes – have we wasted enough money faffing around yet ?).

One great idea during the short period of full flight deck with cats and traps was that the French could use our carrier for us if there's ever needed a repair.

It wasn't worded that way – something more like collaboration and shared effort – but if you have the boat and not the planes then you have to do what the owner of the planes wants to do. Or he'll stop playing.

In the interim, would probably be a good venue for RedBull, Flugtag parties.

Perhaps you might be able to recoup some of your costs on it/them, too, that way.

;-)

So there is still clearly an intention to regain that capability at the earliest opportunity.

As a maritime nation should we not ALWAYS have the necessary capabilities? When a household changes cars you there is not a gap of several years between losing the old and obtaining the new. The ineptitude of the current politicians with regard to the military forces is truly terrifying; a maritime power with heavy dependancy on the sea and we have neither viable maritime patrol aircraft nor minimally acceptable aircraft carrier capabilities because we just broke them up before replacing them. Perhaps the soldiers should scrap their small arms on the basis that they will be issued with new improved versions in five years time.

Perhaps the soldiers should scrap their small arms on the basis that they will be issued with new improved versions in five years time.

I would not suggest that too loudly, I'm positive that there are some British MPs (and/or Treasury staffers) who would jump all over that idea in the name of "saving money".

What makes you think Britain is still a maritime nation? The days of fleets protecting our imperial outposts are long gone. What defence would an aircraft carrier add to? I think the life expectancy of a carrier in the Med or Baltic would be in minutes due to missile attack from land based aircraft. I can't think of a role in the Atlantic. I'm not saying this to inflame, I just wonder what role (even with planes) these ships are supposed to take in modern war. I'm pretty sure if the money had been spent on hospitals, a lot more British lives would have been saved than these will ever do.

For me its further evidence that we dont have an independent foreign policy worth a name.
Aircraft carriers allow participation in US interventions, mimics US force structure and works according to US doctrine. It makes sense from the US perspective but as an independent navy/instrument of foreign policy its a bit pants.

What makes you think Britain is still a maritime nation?

The fact that you're an island, and import 40% (and rising) of the food you consume.

The days of fleets protecting our imperial outposts are long gone. What defence would an aircraft carrier add to? I think the life expectancy of a carrier in the Med or Baltic would be in minutes due to missile attack from land based aircraft. I can't think of a role in the Atlantic. I'm not saying this to inflame, I just wonder what role (even with planes) these ships are supposed to take in modern war.

I would remind you of the Falklands War. For that matter, there's also a LOT of other things that the Brits can use a carrier for that does not involve actually dropping bombs on people.

It's called "battleship diplomacy" or "showing the flag" and refers to the fact that someone in a dispute with the nation owning the carrier now has an unspoken threat on their front porch.

There's also the disaster response mission.

As much as I disliked Bill Clinton, he had a very wise statement from his time as President that apply to every nation. "When confronted with a crisis, the first two questions out of the President's mouth should be, 'where are the carriers' and 'where are the amphibious ships.'"

Having a carrier gives you options that nations without a carrier don't have.

I'm pretty sure if the money had been spent on hospitals, a lot more British lives would have been saved than these will ever do.

From what I've heard about the UK's National Health System, it ain't a lack of hospitals. It's a lack of specialists.

As far as what having a carrier means in terms of saving lives of people in the UK, well, if there's anyone left in the UK who remembers what life was like in 1939 up through the 1950s, ask them what the phrase "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare" means.

I know that at one point, the UK was down to about 3 weeks of food.

Modern ships carry far more cargo, but that also means that each ship is that much more valuable. And even a single Russian sub could hunt down and virtually strangle the UK. Especially after a Spetsnaz operation to close the Chunnel.

Yeah, a carrier isn't an anti-sub platform specifically. The carrier goes after the ports of said subs.

If the Spanish/French/Germans/Soviets/Russians/whoever attempt an amphibious landing on the UK, who do you think is going to protect the UK?

What entity is going to protect the North Sea oil fields from destruction by terrorists or foreign militaries?

Buying carriers without planes? I don't get the fuss. We wargamers do dumb stuff like that all the time! I mean, who hasn't gone whole hog and purchased whole armies of metal then realized that they forgot to get the bases?? D'oh!!

Lion – whereas I entirely agree with you about the parlous state of our defences…

From what I've heard about the UK's National Health System, it ain't a lack of hospitals. It's a lack of specialists.

For all its faults the NHS is a superior system to the American one (in terms of life expectancy and general health) and costs far less…..

But we need a decent navy far more than a decent army.

Though note the 40% of foodstuffs we import tends to be things we can't grow here as much as anything else….

For all its faults the NHS is a superior system to the American one (in terms of life expectancy and general health) and costs far less…

Unless you're a cardiac patient, or a cancer patient, or…

What was it I heard a couple years ago? 3 year wait to see a cardiologist, assuming that you survived the heart attack that actually let you onto the cardiologist's waiting list in the first place?

Though the US's Veterans Affairs hospitals also have a problem with lack of specialists, so I suspect that may be a known bug of single-payer healthcare systems. Never enough budget to get enough specialists to see everyone that needs to be seen in a timely manner.

But we're getting waaaaay off topic here.

Any national government should have a military big enough to hold the territory against potential invaders.

The exact mix will depend on the nation. Island nations will need a much bigger navy than a country that only has a couple hundred km of coastline, for example. But even the island nation needs an army large enough to answer to treaty obligations and still secure the island, and I'm afraid that the current British Army is at the ragged edge of that.

What makes you think Britain is still a maritime nation? The days of fleets protecting our imperial outposts are long gone. What defence would an aircraft carrier add to? I think the life expectancy of a carrier in the Med or Baltic would be in minutes due to missile attack from land based aircraft. I can't think of a role in the Atlantic. I'm not saying this to inflame, I just wonder what role (even with planes) these ships are supposed to take in modern war. I'm pretty sure if the money had been spent on hospitals, a lot more British lives would have been saved than these will ever do.

No flaming in the response either.

India, Italy, China, Spain, France, Russia, Brazil, Thailand all have carriers and might therefore be presumed to be maritime nations, which we, it would seem, are not. Or we are ahead of the herd in our thinking? In such terms I think you might have a point. Personally I am not in favour of the huge new carriers as there is too much risk in putting them into a battle or they are likely to be supplanted merchantmen flying off drones. My preference would be more 'through' deck cruisers: smaller, more flexible with a more acceptable risk profile but sometimes size has an advantage.

Experts have been telling the world since before WWII that modern navies are finished close to land and since the 1950s that aircraft are finished and now we are in the age of the missile. It would seem that reports of their death have been grossly exagerated.

However, if we are going to have armed forces we ought to have them properly equipped and that includes carrying aircraft to sea, and not just helicopters on the back of a frigate. The government has decided on building LARGE fleet carriers but has managed to have a large gap between scraping the old and introducing the new to which they have also added the additional twist of not having appropraite aircraft to operate off them when they are commissioned. I think they have succeeded in annoying just about everyone from those loving the carrier concept to those loathing it.

"The previous government did not sell off our jump jets, or scrap our very expensive nimrods by chopping the wings off."

The previous government did indeed sell off Sea Harriers, leaving the Invincible class without airborne air defence. They also spent all the money that ensured that Harrier GR9s could continue. Would you rather that Tornado were scrapped (which is a vastly superior aircraft in all respects to Harrier)? They entered into the god-awful procurement mess over Nimrod MRA4 (and Voyager and F-35B and Carriers and FRES and Atlas and…).

Nimrod MRA4 was scrapped because it was still a very long way from working. None of the (1950s coach-built) airframes could be fitted with the (robot-built) new bits without hundreds of millions of pounds'-worth of work. And even then, there was STILL no guarantee that the bloody things would work without another few billion being spent.

I agree ENTIRELY that the UK badly needs an MPA, but scrapping Nimrod was entirely the right choice. Getting out of that god-awful contract was ruinously expensive, but keeping the useless crates was even more ruinously expensive. It should be remembered that the RAF wanted P8 Poseidons, but 'British jobs were at stake'…