British carriers may shrink..

[SirNitram]

What he was saying is that the EU has been there, and has learnt the lesson. There will always be a big dog, and there will always be trouble heading it's way. Better to let someone else do that while you reap benefits. Moral? Probably not, but it works.

Besides, I don't bet on the EU stepping up to be the big dog again. China is more likely, IMHO.

[RadiO]

The only reason to have a carrier command is to rival the French and may be the Russians. And what is the good of having a French carrier or a Russian carrier that's never used and are easily dwarfed both in number and size by their American counterparts.

To fulfill national policy requirements. It's that simple.
That's why the USN has maintained the powerful carrier force in history for over a decade after the only conceivable threat to its existance left the page. That's why the French have maintained a CV force since WWII. That's why the RN was allowed to have a limited strike fighter force even after political expediency demanded the death of its conventional carriers.
If a nation's interests are threatened, a carrier gives a country temendous flexibility of independent response, without any qualms over basing rights.
Look at how the RN's Invincibles acted as an additional LPH during the war in Iraq; or as an attack carrier during the action in Sierra Leone; or as a air defence and power projection asset in the Falklands; or in their original role as ASW command ships during the Cold War. And that's a small carrier that can still pull off all these vital roles. A larger ship would be more effective still.
For a country that has interests overseas, or merely wishes to play a part in multinational operations, a carrier can be something over than an overpriced status symbol. It can be an utterly vital tool.

[RadiO]

To add to that;
A carrier has real applications other than pure power projection. They can support humanitarian missions, evacuations, transport of troops and equipment, peacekeeping. They give a country options that it might not have otherwise.

[Sea Skimmer]

isnt it safer to have multiple smaller ships then one big one carrying your planes? more targets, more missiles..

No, because those small carriers combine will have less capability and individually wont be able to conduct both a defensive CAP and fly strike missions. They are also far less able to take damage.

Capability drops faster then cost and size when you're building warships, bigger is better and gives your more for less. Unfortunately for decades the MoD has been unable to convince the British parliament of this. These new carriers appeared to be a reversal of that, but it seems that won't be the case.

[Sea Skimmer]

To clarify on the above. Europe has no need of a power projection policy. We don't need to project our power on anyone, european millitaries serve a defensive/peacekeeping role.

*Glances at Iraq and the 30,000 British troops that invaded*

Anyway please do explain why the UK has been steadily beefing up its force entry capability for the last decade if it only wants to conduct peace keeping missions?

[TheDarkling]

Anyway please do explain why the UK has been steadily beefing up its force entry capability for the last decade if it only wants to conduct peace keeping missions?

Oh we can't tell you that it would spoil the surprise

Seriously we simply let our forces degrade so much they need building up for us to have the ability to play a roll in international operations (although at the moment we enjoy No 2 position and are unlikely to move from that spot).

A better military capability gives us more pull with the US on joint missions and it will also allow us to control any EU military policy because it will have to revolve around us (as everyone in Europe with their had screwed on realises).

[Montcalm]

Anyway please do explain why the UK has been steadily beefing up its force entry capability for the last decade if it only wants to conduct peace keeping missions?

Oh we can't tell you that it would spoil the surprise

Seriously we simply let our forces degrade so much they need building up for us to have the ability to play a roll in international operations (although at the moment we enjoy No 2 position and are unlikely to move from that spot).

I guess thats what the Canadian government is doing,but our prime minister "Joke cretin" is not beefing up our navy.

[0.1]

I tend to disagree about the need for carriers in the case of the Brits. It's good to be independent of the U.S., but really, think about the likely commitment and structured needs of the forces in the near future.

The threats facing the Brits and a lot of other European nations is not really coming from powers with serious enough military. There is a need to configure forces to handle the right threats, it is all about the economy of force.

Why do you think there was such a push to the arsenal ship in the U.S., I believe that in the present situation, a carrier is not necessarily needed for the Brits. Their heaviest ship ought to be geared to supporting amphibious/land operations, the fact that those ships can carry the new V/STOL aircraft will tremendously up their striking potential.

The key for the Brits are keeping up an economical offensive capability that complements the U.S. for the time. SSBNs loaded with cruise missiles would complement that quite well for their troops. Ideally long range bombers (something else that the Brits haven't had for a while) with airborne tankers could help, but the Brits just don't have enough airbases around for that, although the Americans should be able to help on that score.

There is no question on the flexibility of a mobile airbase, but is the cost really worth it for the Brits. I'm gonna guess the answer is no with there being cheaper alternatives available.

[Sea Skimmer]

I tend to disagree about the need for carriers in the case of the Brits. It's good to be independent of the U.S., but really, think about the likely commitment and structured needs of the forces in the near future.

Nations spend tens of millions of dollars determining what the threats are and what capabilities can meet them. The RN isn't getting new carriers for the sake of having them. Since the last big deck RN carrier was retired there has been a steady demand placed on the Invincible and often a fleet carrier would have been extremely useful. A single fleet carrier at the Falklands could have prevent the loss of every one of the six major vessels lost, though its unlikely Argentina would have even invaded if one was afloat.

The threats facing the Brits and a lot of other European nations is not really coming from powers with serious enough military. There is a need to configure forces to handle the right threats, it is all about the economy of force.

And a modern carrier is ideal for the job. It can do the work of a ring of expensive overseas bases and its deployment is much easier then flying in land-based aircraft.

Why do you think there was such a push to the arsenal ship in the U.S., I believe that in the present situation, a carrier is not necessarily needed for the Brits. Their heaviest ship ought to be geared to supporting amphibious/land operations, the fact that those ships can carry the new V/STOL aircraft will tremendously up their striking potential.

Arsenal ship was an awful idea and rightly died. A ship geared towards supporting amphibious and land operations sounds like a fleet carrier to me. Funny that that’s what the RN is getting.

The key for the Brits are keeping up an economical offensive capability that complements the U.S. for the time. SSBNs loaded with cruise missiles would complement that quite well for their troops.

No it wouldn't, it can't do air defence, can't provide close support and its total striking capability is equal to about two strike missions by the planned 30 JSF airgroup. Such a vessel can do one of the missions a fleet carrier can, attacking fixed strategic targets, and its not the most important one for the UK.

Now where do you propose to get SSBN's to convert anyway, and what about money to pay for them. The US conversions alone are costing 2 billion dollars and the subs cost a billion each in the first place. That’s enough to pay for a pair of small carriers right there.

Ideally long range bombers (something else that the Brits haven't had for a while) with airborne tankers could help, but the Brits just don't have enough airbases around for that, although the Americans should be able to help on that score.

You have no idea how much heavy bombers and heavy tankers cost do you? Nor do you seem toe realize how limited they are. You can't fly your heavy bombers without fighter cover. That means either sending in a carrier or having an airbase close at hand. The carrier is rather more mobile and doesn’t worry about politics.

There is no question on the flexibility of a mobile airbase, but is the cost really worth it for the Brits. I'm gonna guess the answer is no with there being cheaper alternatives available.

Please do explain what the cheaper alternatives are, so far you've only listed incredibly expensive options that cant do everything or even a fraction of what a fleet carrier can.

[RadiO]

For Britain, an Arsenal Ship or SSGN would be a gross waste of resources. It has absolutely no function but power-projection. It can't carry troops and choppers anywhere, it can't evacuate British or other nationals from a flashpoint, it can't provide CAP for friendly forces or co-ordinate fleet operations as could a carrier.
On top of that, Arsenal Ships of all stripes and nationalities would be grossly expensive in terms of the vast number of warshots they would fire in each war. The hull would be cheap, sure, but the weapons would not be.
I mean, at the moment the USN can't fully fill the VLS tubes of the Ohio SSGN conversions without stripping Tomahawks from the rest of the fleet, and the boats may never carry a full warload. Why would it be any different for the RN?
It's telling that increasingly the amphibious/SF warfare capabilities of the Ohio conversions is being trumpeted louder than the SSGN role. Sure, that's a very useful capability for a powerful navy like the USN. But would that be worth sacrificing much of the RN's budget and resources for?
And then there's the idea of reloading the tubes at sea. It's difficult enough to do that with a surface warship. Reloading multiple tubes on a rolling submarine in anything like a rough sea? Yikes.
And finally, we have to question weither missile bombardment alone will actually win a war. Used in concert with other forces, Tomahawks have been an extremely successful and powerful tool. Used alone, as in the Clinton era of "Cruise Missile Deplomacy", their power and effects on the enemy have been less obvious.

[Dirty Harry]

It would appear the government is between something of a rock and a hard place on this one.If the government does not buy British, jobs will be lost and they will suffer at the ballot box. If the government uses BAE, they will have to put up with BAE's habit of taking projects...er..a bit over budget.

[0.1]

Simply put, SSBNs loaded with cruise missiles are much cheaper alternatives to CVBGs. You don't need escorts, the only thing you regularly need is some type of ammo resupply ship.

The issue with a carrier group's cost comes from the logistics. A carrier group literally needs that ring of bases overseas for long term deployment, you need ships to resupply the basic needs, those resupply ships are not nuke powered. The carrier escorts have some of the same resupply requirements. One reason the U.S. navy is so damn successful is becauase of its network of expensive overseas bases. Ranging from Diego Garcia, to Europe, to Japan, there are major bases that supply the American navy, especially its carrier fleet. A nuclear SSBN loaded with cruise missiles have far smaller logitical requirements for obvious reasons (think crew size)

The operational costs of SSBN in the long run is far cheaper than a CVBG. So, how much is the cost of a new SSBN say vs a helicopter carrier? You are the expert, so I'm listening. Now, toss in the escorts and the planes. I'd wager the costs are considerable, I guarantee that it'll be much more than the cost of an SSBN (a new one even).

You don't see me disagreeing about the fact that fleet carriers are the most flexible option. But the costs are tremendous. Granted, you have the air defense capabilities on the carrier, and much more flexibility in offensive power. But why replace the Ocean or the remaining Invincible class with new carriers?

In terms of bombers, that's not even an issue at this point, I did say it's a nice to have item, but not realistic right now. It's not the necessity given who the likely opposition for the Brits are going to be in the foreseeable future. Unless of course, you mean to tell me that the French are about to go at it with the Brits.

All in all, think about the role that the Brits have been playing in the last few years. Their most serious requirements are how to support the Americans. A carrier would certainly be very helpful that way. But I don't see it as a necessity.

[0.1]

RadiO,

The question you're really raising is will the Brits go alone against someone in the near future and operate with such capabilities without its traditional ally. Odds are, probably not.

For the other functions you mentioned, the Brits are either more than capable of handling these functions with their current helicopter carrier. Or better yet, in serious conflicts, it will likely have its American ally behind them.

I won't diagree with any of the arguments on the operational capability of a carrier. It's far more flexible than any type of arsenal ships. But the question is, does the Brits really need a carrier. What type of operations are they going to be conducting that will need those operational capabilities?

[Sea Skimmer]

And then there's the idea of reloading the tubes at sea. It's difficult enough to do that with a surface warship. Reloading multiple tubes on a rolling submarine in anything like a rough sea?

Reloading large caliber VLS tubes at sea is not possibul. The USN tired just once to do it with a Ticonderoga and it nearly resulted in a missile exploding. The reloading cranes have since been removed.

[Sea Skimmer]

Simply put, SSBNs loaded with cruise missiles are much cheaper alternatives to CVBGs. You don't need escorts, the only thing you regularly need is some type of ammo resupply ship.

Except it's NOT an alternative because it cannot come remotely close to conducting the same range of missions. And you cannot resupply without a large well equiped base. Of course your still stuck with at best half million dollar missiles to shoot.

You’re the one whose arguing that the threat doesn’t justify fleet carriers, yet your arguing in favor of an expensive option which is ONLY useful against target that have large amounts of fixed infrastructure and that generally goes hand in hand with significant military strength. It’s a retarded contradicting argument.

[RadiO]

And then there's the idea of reloading the tubes at sea. It's difficult enough to do that with a surface warship. Reloading multiple tubes on a rolling submarine in anything like a rough sea?

Reloading large caliber VLS tubes at sea is not possibul. The USN tired just once to do it with a Ticonderoga and it nearly resulted in a missile exploding. The reloading cranes have since been removed.

Thanks! I'd wondered about that. I assumed that reloading at sea was a difficult luxury that had been pruned for reasons of space. Didn't realise it was actually dangerous.

The question you're really raising is will the Brits go alone against someone in the near future and operate with such capabilities without its traditional ally. Odds are, probably not.

We can never discount the possibility that a situation requiring military force may occur that would concern only the UK. It's been done to death, I admit, but:
If you'd have asked the First Sea Lord in 1981 what he saw the RN doing in a year's time, he would have envisaged patrolling the GIUK gap with NATO - not the need to deploy a large task force to fight a conventional war halfway around the globe.
How much credibilty would HMG have if it had to keep asking the Americans to give them support that should really be organic to the forces we employ? There's too much of that already. I don't think that Britain should have a military capable of handling multiple regional conflicts at once, but it really ought to be able to handle one, and have all the basics in place to do that. CAP is a basic. So is CAS.

For the other functions you mentioned, the Brits are either more than capable of handling these functions with their current helicopter carrier. Or better yet, in serious conflicts, it will likely have its American ally behind them.

The current ships are at least halfway though their lives and will need some kind of replacement in the next decade. This is the key objective for the CVF programme. If there was a choice between a new carrier design of whatever persuasion (even a like-for-like design that represents little advance over what we have now) or a sub or heavy cruiser with a massive land attack capability, I'd know which of those I'd choose.

I won't diagree with any of the arguments on the operational capability of a carrier. It's far more flexible than any type of arsenal ships. But the question is, does the Brits really need a carrier. What type of operations are they going to be conducting that will need those operational capabilities?

Well, if Britain doesn't need a carrier, why would it need an Arsenal Ship?
The land-attack role is being considered for the Future Surface Combatant programme. Who knows, maybe sometime in the future the Vanguard class will be given a true non-strategic role like that of the four Ohios. But that'll be almost certainly be in addition to whatever replaces the Invincibles.

[Howedar]

Frankly I think they RN would be better off with one full-sized carrier than two tiny ones.

[Sea Skimmer]

Frankly I think they RN would be better off with one full-sized carrier than two tiny ones.

That would leave them with at the very best 50% availability, until it needs a major refit at which point they'd be without anything for a couple years. And unlike France the RN doesn’t have another major carrier to keep in reserve for that eventuality.

[Howedar]

I know. Hopefully they could allocate money for another carrier later.

But even with two carriers I very much doubt they'd be able to have one deployed at all times.

I guess I'd take the 2.8B and spend 2B on the new carrier, then spend the rest making an Incincible or two operable for longer. Then I'd build another real carrier as soon as I could.

[Sea Skimmer]

I know. Hopefully they could allocate money for another carrier later.

But even with two carriers I very much doubt they'd be able to have one deployed at all times.

I guess I'd take the 2.8B and spend 2B on the new carrier, then spend the rest making an Incincible or two operable for longer. Then I'd build another real carrier as soon as I could.

That basically what happened to the MM only with the money going towards keeping one old carrier in good condition in reserve, still no sign of that second nuke carrier though and almost all talk of it has disappeared.

[Stormbringer]

isnt it safer to have multiple smaller ships then one big one carrying your planes? more targets, more missiles..

Or go with the US philosophy of lots of large carriers. Last I recall we had more supercarriers than any other navies has carriers, period.

[Stuart Mackey]

So the British want to start projecting power? You can't do that unless you're willing to spend money to do it. The US Navy of today ain't cheap. BTW is this a victory for US naval phiolosohy of the 20th century that the other major European powers want to emulate it now?

Europe has always known of the effectiveness of carriers, they lacked the money to build them

[Stuart Mackey]

Please note I did say project force. I don't see any reason why the Brits would need to project power. They have the Americans to do that for them. Let's face it, the Brits and the Americans have in general the same foreign policies. Power projection comes down to money, and the Brits no longer have their strategic bases located all over the world as they once did.

Economically speaking, the Brits are no longer as capable as they once were. Presence is all well and good, but what do the Brits need presence for? Their present navy with the Invincible and Ocean class more than adequate in their missions parameters. The only reason to have a carrier command is to rival the French and may be the Russians. And what is the good of having a French carrier or a Russian carrier that's never used and are easily dwarfed both in number and size by their American counterparts.

Bleh..heard all of that before..same old shite that was sputed befor a certain invasion in 1982.

[Stuart Mackey]

Please do explain what the cheaper alternatives are, so far you've only listed incredibly expensive options that cant do everything or even a fraction of what a fleet carrier can.

Actually his argument is almost exactly the same as those arguments that were used to scrap the Brit Big Decks before 1982.

[NecronLord]

*Glances at Iraq and the 30,000 British troops that invaded*

Anyway please do explain why the UK has been steadily beefing up its force entry capability for the last decade if it only wants to conduct peace keeping missions?

Perpetual urge to do what the US says from the government. Something most of us do not approve of. It's a pointless endevour that in no way serves the interests of the UK - and frankly, if the great british voters (TM) would elect leaders who wouldn't follow the US like a lost pup, that wouldn't be happening.

They are there to serve the same role as Auxiliaries in the Roman Army, namely, get killed before Americans do.