Changes to QE Aircraft Carrier?

[imperialman]

This is so pedantic it's pathetic. If it's in the EU we will obviously have access to an airbase and thus not need an aircraft carrier.

What, like in Kosovo and Bosnia? No, carriers represent a much cheaper option than forward basing and the mass of support infrastructure that brings compared to an organic capability.

If Iran decided to blockade the Gulf, one aircraft carrier wouldn't make a jot of difference.

Why do you say that?

You're hilarious

Are you saying that because you can't reply to what I said?

I really don't give a damn about the war on terror, and neither should you.
You're going to have to source your claim about Libya being cheaper with carriers.

You seem to have misunderstood. My point is simply that, given our defence commitments and deployments, carriers make perfect sense.

Here's an informative article regarding my point on carriers being cheaper for Libya (which should be common sense but there we go) http://www.sharkeysworld.com/2011/03/carriers-better-safer-faster-and.html

What a surpise, the Jingoist has a nineteenth century view of geopolitics. Prestige, sir, prestige!
Seeing the structure of Britain break down during the London riots did a lot more to damage our "international standing" than not having an aircraft carrier would.

Britain will be better equipped and able to act unilaterally, as it did in the Falklands War, or in the Sierra Leone intervention, when rebels were set on slaughtering the people of Freetown. But also, a powerful navy will provide Britain with unprecedented influence in the evolving strategic culture of the European Union which is a tremendous thing in my opinion. Britain and France already cooperate on a whole range of military issues, and France will work with Britain to build its next aircraft carrier, by using British designs. A powerful European defence capability is in Britain’s interests, as it will provide a greater pool of resources from which to draw, reducing the burden on British financial (saving us money), political and military expenditure. Further, a European defence capability will strengthen the European and American relationship, reducing European dependency on the United States, and increasing Brussels’ ability not only to act in the wider world, but also to bringing credible military assets to the table.

Given Britain’s global interests, its worldwide commitments, its leading strategic role as part of the European Union, as well as its alliance with the United States and NATO, and its values-driven foreign policy, a ’blue-water’ navy will indeed continue to have a role to play in both peacetime and war. The Royal Navy’s deep oceanic power projection capability means that its aircraft carriers will remain the backbone of the surface fleet well into the distant future. Accordingly, it is essential for Britain to maintain, and reinforce further, its abilities to project power. Britain is a major nation with global commitments and as long as we have those, carriers make perfect sense.

I am slightly confused here, why are you calling me a jingoist? Do you even know what that word means? Your hostility seems a bit unwarranted.

 

[unmerged(475212)]

This is so pedantic it's pathetic. If it's in the EU we will obviously have access to an airbase and thus not need an aircraft carrier.




If Iran decided to blockade the Gulf, one aircraft carrier wouldn't make a jot of difference.


You're hilarious




I really don't give a damn about the war on terror, and neither should you.
You're going to have to source your claim about Libya being cheaper with carriers.

What a surpise, the Jingoist has a nineteenth century view of geopolitics. Prestige, sir, prestige!
Seeing the structure of Britain break down during the London riots did a lot more to damage our "international standing" than not having an aircraft carrier would.

Although your opinion is very valid, you really should take a look at that paper. Its not about starting conflicts and losing lives, or international presitge or even chasing terrorists. Its about the ability to deter attacks on us through the power projection aircraft carriers offer in order to protect the people and its interests. If you don't agree with Britain's national interests that is fine, but you can't disagree with the fact that protecting the people is wrong? Just on a matter of opinion what would you see the British government do to protect its people from foreign attacks in the future? China attacks? Iran attack? Argentina attack?

 

[imperialman]

You mean like with the Libya campaign when our aircraft had to fly much further than the (carrier based) French and US aircraft and thus used far more fuel?

Exactly, that's one reason carrier operations have a lower cost impact than land based air.

 

[unmerged(475212)]

What, like in Kosovo and Bosnia? No, carriers represent a much cheaper option than forward basing and the mass of support infrastructure that brings compared to an organic capability.



Why do you say that?



Are you saying that because you can't reply to what I said?



You seem to have misunderstood. My point is simply that, given our defence commitments and deployments, carriers make perfect sense.

Here's an informative article regarding my point on carriers being cheaper for Libya (which should be common sense but there we go) http://www.sharkeysworld.com/2011/03/carriers-better-safer-faster-and.html



Britain will be better equipped and able to act unilaterally, as it did in the Falklands War, or in the Sierra Leone intervention, when rebels were set on slaughtering the people of Freetown. But also, a powerful navy will provide Britain with unprecedented influence in the evolving strategic culture of the European Union which is a tremendous thing in my opinion. Britain and France already cooperate on a whole range of military issues, and France will work with Britain to build its next aircraft carrier, by using British designs. A powerful European defence capability is in Britain’s interests, as it will provide a greater pool of resources from which to draw, reducing the burden on British financial (saving us money), political and military expenditure. Further, a European defence capability will strengthen the European and American relationship, reducing European dependency on the United States, and increasing Brussels’ ability not only to act in the wider world, but also to bringing credible military assets to the table.

Given Britain’s global interests, its worldwide commitments, its leading strategic role as part of the European Union, as well as its alliance with the United States and NATO, and its values-driven foreign policy, a ’blue-water’ navy will indeed continue to have a role to play in both peacetime and war. The Royal Navy’s deep oceanic power projection capability means that its aircraft carriers will remain the backbone of the surface fleet well into the distant future. Accordingly, it is essential for Britain to maintain, and reinforce further, its abilities to project power. Britain is a major nation with global commitments and as long as we have those, carriers make perfect sense.

I am slightly confused here, why are you calling me a jingoist? Do you even know what that word means? Your hostility seems a bit unwarranted.

Very well said.

 

[AntEater]

Value driven foreign policy?

:blink:

I guess that's what supplying Saudi Arabia with weapons is called today.

 

[imperialman]

Value driven foreign policy?

:blink:

Please bomb/embargo Saudi Arabia and then try again plz.

Sierra Leone and Libya are good examples and I'm not saying our foreign policy is perfect but maybe "more often than not value driven foreign policy" should have been said. Also, as pointed out, even if we wanted to, we couldn't bomb Saudi Arabia without a carrier.

 

[imperialman]

Very well said.

Thanks, the textbook lefties don't make it hard though.

 

[unmerged(475212)]

Thanks, the textbook lefties don't make it hard though.

Just been reading some more things, it appears the QE carriers are only the start of a major development of the RN. The trident successor will soon be put into development with an estimated 6-7 next generation subs. Those complaining about the cost of QE should stop. With the world looking to become less stable in the future it is key that defence spending is maintain.

As the MOD say by 2025:

"Will be able to maintain at sea two self-sustaining battle groups, consisting of an aircraft carrier, amphibious/helicopter landing ship together with a supporting force of T45 destroyers, T26 frigates and mine counter measures vessels."

And this also crucial.. (I think most people just take this for granted)

"Failure to configure Britain’s armed forces to the demands of the mid-21st Century is already leading to questions in Washington and beyond about Britain’s future usefulness as a military partner.[27]

15.6 In an increasingly multi-polar world, doubts about the United Kingdom’s value as a military partner might lead to fresh alignments in international politics not necessarily in the interests of the UK."

Edit: Clear evidence of cost of land-based aircraft power projection.

"3.1: If Operation Ellamy were to continue for six months as suggested by the Chief of the Air Staff, Land-based air operations (Tornado/Typhoon) would cost at least £900 million (£0.9 billion) for that period (see detailed estimates at Annex A[1]). In contrast, carrying out the same job through Sea-Based air (HMS Ocean, HMS Illustrious, Royal Navy Harrier GR9 aircraft and Army air Corps Apaches) would cost approximately £100 million (£0.1 billion)."

 

[Faulty]

Unsourced blogspot articles, nice. You'll forgive me if I stop responding.

 

[slornie]

The trident successor will soon be put into development with an estimated 6-7 next generation subs.

6-7 submarines? We currently have four and, as far as i am aware, the plan for the replacement is to replace them at a maximum of a one-to-one basis (possibly even cutting it to three submarines)?

 

[unmerged(475212)]

Unsourced blogspot articles, nice. You'll forgive me if I stop responding.

Might want to take a look here. http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/analysis/

You might learn something.

 

[unmerged(475212)]

6-7 submarines? We currently have four and, as far as i am aware, the plan for the replacement is to replace them at a maximum of a one-to-one basis (possibly even cutting it to three submarines)?

3 as SSBN (Ballistic Missile) and 3 as SSGN (Cruise Missile).

 

[goodman528]

The simple thing to do is to just keep one carrier, and sell the other. This way maintains capability to intervene in Falklands and elsewhere, but also recover the majority of the cost of building the carrier. China has a lot of money and definitely the desire to get a carrier. The obvious thing with that is of course we have no planes to sell with the carriers.

 

[imperialman]

Unsourced blogspot articles, nice. You'll forgive me if I stop responding.

Are you serious? What exactly do you require to be sourced? The article lists the various factors involved, that's like asking for a source for the assertion blue is blue. What do you need sourced to prove the claim that flying a shorter distance is cheaper than flying a longer distance?

I think what's happened here is that you've been proven wrong, cannot respond to points raised (hence your "hilarious" and "jingoistic" remarks) and are now simply looking for a way out and have said you won't respond in an effort to try and save face.

Oh and here are some decent sources regarding my claim that flying from a carrier 20 miles away is cheaper than flying from a land base hundreds of miles away. I hope evidence given to the defence selection committee is good enough for you along with some well informed articles.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmdfence/950/950vw04.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8573849/Navy-chief-Britain-cannot-keep-up-its-role-in-Libya-air-war-due-to-cuts.html
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2011/07/air-power-projection-options/

The way you have tried to argue is not new or unique. You appear and make some vague and ill-informed comments on matters you are obviously poorly informed about and then when proven wrong, pretend that we are beneath you, moronic and not worthy of responding to. Pseudo-intellectuals, eh?

 

[unmerged(83789)]

Carriers and a blue water navy are key for a type of peacekeeping called Over The Horizon Guarantees (Google it). Basically France stopped coups and civil wars in Francophone West Africa from between 1960 till now massively reducing the amount of infrastructure and lives potentially lost by engaging in a series of informal guarantees to stop any undemocratic regime change in their ex-colonies in the region. The UK is experimenting with it (see Sierra Leone and Libya) and has come to the conclusion that it works pretty damn well and is very cost effective.

War, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places by Paul Collier (a economist and head of African Studies at Oxford) argues the pros and cons of Over the Horizon Guarantees and comes down decisively in favour of it for it calling it just as effective if not more so than UN missions. At only around £15 I'd recommend the book to anyone.

EDIT: I had originally planned for this post to be somewhat more structured and include more information about what Over The Horizon Guarantees actually is but I'm a lazy bugger so can't be bothered. That said it really is worth googleing.

EDIT 2: It might be worth giving this article a quick read over, it contains some info on OTHG:

http://bostonreview.net/BR34.4/collier.php

 

[imperialman]

The simple thing to do is to just keep one carrier, and sell the other. This way maintains capability to intervene in Falklands and elsewhere, but also recover the majority of the cost of building the carrier. China has a lot of money and definitely the desire to get a carrier. The obvious thing with that is of course we have no planes to sell with the carriers.

Having two enables us to always have one in service. To use your Falklands example, what happens if Argentina were to attack (not that they could really but the example isn't specific to them) in the third of the year it was unavailable?

 

[unmerged(475212)]

Having two enables us to always have one in service. To use your Falklands example, what happens if Argentina were to attack (not that they could really but the example isn't specific to them) in the third of the year it was unavailable?

Very true. It is also important to remember:

Planned Argentine Military Resources

The British Government should take serious note of the major military air procurement program now underway in Argentina.

· An order for up to 128 F-15C and F-15E Strike Eagle fighters has been made from the USA with delivery due to begin in the 2017/18 timeframe . The F-15C Eagle’s passive IRST sensor system, used alone or in concert with existing F-15 sensors, provides unprecedented on-board situational awareness while detecting, identifying and engaging enemy targets at extended ranges. The IRST system’s high-angle accuracy also provides the ability to track closely-spaced targets at maximum ranges. This information can be used alone or combined with other sensor data to further enhance the pilot’s situational awareness.

· A further order for Landing Craft Air Cushion Vehicles (LCACs) – hovercraft – has been made. They are seagoing vehicles with the capacity to deliver stores and ammunition to the islands from the mainland at high speed – and remain invulnerable to attack by SSN torpedoes.

· The latest version of the Mirage F1 air to air fighter aircraft has also been ordered from France and there are amphibious warfare oriented Hind gunships in the pipeline from Russia. Hinds are combat-proven against light sea surface and land vehicles.

Such a major military air resources build-up can have only one aim in mind: retaking the Falklands. (The purchase of the LCACs in particular is a very good indicator of this.)

What Options Would we Have?

With or without A British Carrier Battle Group

· If the Queen Elizabeth class carriers are in service with a robust fixed wing, fast jet air group, it is highly unlikely that an Argentine invasion or disruption would take place, either on the Falkland Islands or Ascension Island. Knowledge of the superior fire power of a British Carrier Battle Group would have deterred it.

· If the Queen Elizabeth based Carrier Battle Group is available and an invasion does take place, a prolonged and expensive conflict could be expected with:

o Our Naval Task Force standing off from the Islands and launching long range interdiction attacks to render the Mount Pleasant airfield inoperable by using manned aircraft, Unmanned Carrier Air Vehicles (UCAVs) and Tomahawk-standard cruise missiles.

o A return to the 1982 Amphibious Landing scenario provided that airfield interdiction has been successful.

· If we have no fully equipped Queen Elizabeth class carrier capability, any naval task force would be unable to approach the Islands without suffering unacceptable losses from intense Argentine air attacks launched from Mount Pleasant. Retaking the Islands would be a non-starter.

http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2011/05/the-falklands/

 

[Faulty]

Are you serious? What exactly do you require to be sourced? The article lists the various factors involved, that's like asking for a source for the assertion blue is blue. What do you need sourced to prove the claim that flying a shorter distance is cheaper than flying a longer distance?

I think what's happened here is that you've been proven wrong, cannot respond to points raised (hence your "hilarious" and "jingoistic" remarks) and are now simply looking for a way out and have said you won't respond in an effort to try and save face.

Oh and here are some decent sources regarding my claim that flying from a carrier 20 miles away is cheaper than flying from a land base hundreds of miles away. I hope evidence given to the defence selection committee is good enough for you along with some well informed articles.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmdfence/950/950vw04.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8573849/Navy-chief-Britain-cannot-keep-up-its-role-in-Libya-air-war-due-to-cuts.html
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2011/07/air-power-projection-options/

The way you have tried to argue is not new or unique. You appear and make some vague and ill-informed comments on matters you are obviously poorly informed about and then when proven wrong, pretend that we are beneath you, moronic and not worthy of responding to. Pseudo-intellectuals, eh?

Those stats are for Harriers, a 50 year old platform. I'm not surprised it's cheaper than for modern aircraft.

 

[unmerged(255172)]

Gentlemen,

This is a very interesting debate, but I would greatly appreciate if you all tone it down a bit and leave out the insults. I know "somebody is wrong on the internet", but, relax! Thank you.

 

[safferli]

To add to JanH post: please be nice to each other, or warnings and infractions will be handed out.