[Closed] So when is an aircraft carrier not an...?

it's ok, we've said the French can use them in the meantime.

That thing was nothing but a gigantic floating target and it's good that we're rid of it. It would not have lasted long had it all really kicked off on the seas.

Ehhh??

I disagree. It limits us massively as an expeditionary force and means we'd have to rely on NATO/septic tanks for air support.

What would happen if the Argentine sabre-rattling that happens every time the Junta fear uprising actually came to something? Would the French or Americans let us borrow a carrier to take some Sea Harriers down to the South Atlantic?

When it's a spade

[url= http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/assault-ships/hms-ocean/ ]When it's an Aviation Support Ship, or Amphibious Support Ship, or Landing Platform Helicopter..[/url]

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8072041/Navy-aircraft-carrier-will-be-sold-after-three-years-and-never-carry-jets.html ]Or when there's no aircraft to go on it[/url]

So when is an aircraft carrier not an...?

Ambiguous Support Ship?

Did anyone see that programme with HMS Ocean on - it was like a joke.

Firstly they only had 4 helicopters - 3 were out of order broken, the other was ready to go. That was until someone on board fell and hurt themselves. He needed a doctor which there wasn't one on board - nor a nurse so they had an admin person (cant remember her job) that also did medical work as she had first aid training.

They went to medivac him only for the helicopter to brake down. They ended up calling in a one from the Malaysian Navy.

Then in the middle of it all when they were waiting on the helicopter coming they decided they were passing the sea grave of some old Navy ship from years ago that sank. At which point they all had to drop tools and assemble on deck for a salute to their falling seamen.

I couldn't believe what I was watching, once Britain was know for its perfection in its Armed Forces, especially the Navy with our maritime history.

Please someone tell me the Navy isnt all like this. From an outside veiw it looked very shoddy and poorly funded ran.

If we arent going to do a decent job of keeping it all working and efficient then whats the point - lets minimise it all now and do what the Belgians, Swedes, Norwegians do and let someone else police the world.

[i]Would the French or Americans let us borrow a carrier to take some Sea Harriers down to the South Atlantic?[/i]

Or would we just perhaps rely on the aircraft permanently stationed there? Seems easier...

More interesting is that the design of the two new carriers may be changed to cope with conventional, rather than V/STOL aircraft, The Americans fired the general in charge of the F35 programme after too many cost over runs and may in fact cancel the whole programme. They're quite rightly asking themselves what can the F35 do that the very successful F22 can't?

This would leave the Navy somewhat in the lurch, no wonder they're thinking about making them compatible with French Naval aircraft...

Mind you, according to Thersa May the biggest threat facing us is Cyber attack, just what use an empty aircraft carrier is in those circumstances hasn't be made clear yet...

In the last 50 years how many times have we used aircraft carriers in anger? In the last 50 years how many times have we used nuclear weapons in anger?

Obvious that we need to keep one an ditch the other IMHO

However.........

Anyone else got a feeling of déjà vu ????

The current carriers were actually conceived as "through deck cruisers" (mainly for helicopter operations) in the late 1960s / early 1970s - calling them aircraft cariers was one of the early examples of "spin"... 🙄

The gap in fast jet operability has little to do with the retirement of the current ships (Illustious / Ark Royal) or commisioning of the two new carriers, and more to do with the scrapping of the Harrier force. Whether the old boats soldiered on or the new boats were ordered sooner, no Harriers = no jets.... until arrival of the JSF. This relates as much to the previous Government getting rid of the RNs Sea Harriers and general ongoing reduction in Air strength

Given the late delivery of most defence projects, and time taken for the shakedown of complex new military kit, the first of the new carriers would probably take until 2019 to get built, complete sea trials and commissioning etc. So just in time to take on the first JSF squadrons.

Only the government could spend £100bn on something it will never ever dream of using when the country is skint.

[i] Would the French or Americans let us borrow a carrier to take some Sea Harriers down to the South Atlantic? [/i]

Pointless, as they are getting rid of the Harriers too.

Joined up thinking, by 10 year olds!

Only the government could spend £100bn on something it will never ever dream of using when the country is skint.

Keep to the point, London Olympics deserves a thread of it's own.

[i]So just in time to take on the first JSF squadrons. [/i]

as long as those aeroplanes still exist, not a certainty

I've a vague feeling the same thing happen when the current Ark Royal was commissioned.

This is pretty scandalous too.
[url] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/05/type_45_gets_one_off_at_last/ [/url]

lets minimise it all now and do what the Belgians, Swedes, Norwegians do and let someone else police the world.

Innit though? I don't see anyone about to invade those countries. I do see far better state health and education systems mind. Save the taxpayer a few quid. If Britain wasn't constantly involved in this stupid pointless destructive game of global willy-waving, maybe our nation would be in better shape, and our wonderful government woon't be needing to make such drastic cuts....

Or would we just perhaps rely on the aircraft permanently stationed there? Seems easier...

We have an airbase in Argentina? What a stroke of genius. 😉

Elfin, as so often, you're bang on. Carbon's right: Let's scrap the lot and make a statement to the world that war is pointless and messy. And then stop annoying other countries so they don't hate us.

All the service men can get jobs in health and Education.....

Ive sorted it - there you go all fixed.

No one will attack us because we will be a cool hippy country.

Maybe even some money spare for trails.

I'd vote that party...Oh hang on I did...

[url= http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/policypointers/pppeace.pdf ]defence strategy that doesn't involve doing what the 'mericans tell us[/url]

This is pretty scandalous too.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/05/type_45_gets_one_off_at_last/

This isn't entirely accurate; Daring has only just completed her training and has just gone on her first deployment. The decision was made to use Daring in other ways rather than let her rust. After all, she does more than just fire missiles. Dauntless went on to do the first live firing concurrently.

Its not ideal that we had a ship on a deployment that hadn't proven her missile system but if the deployment didn't really require that capability, did it really matter?

I couldn't believe what I was watching, once Britain was know for its perfection in its Armed Forces, especially the Navy with our maritime history.

Please someone tell me the Navy isnt all like this. From an outside veiw it looked very shoddy and poorly funded ran

We're asked to do a lot (too much?), with not a lot. Fewer jobs, more money and/or more intelligent procurement I reckon.

In response to a few posts here;

British carriers have been used numerous times since WW2. They saw extensive active service in the withdrawal from Empire and the numerous brushfire conflicts. They guaranteed the security of Belize so it was able to become an independent nation when it's neighbour threatened it and without them the campaign to retake the Falklands could not have been waged.

If you are a bit of a lefty and want to get away from 'colonial' uses then they were very useful in the 1990's supporting operations in the Balkans and Africa.

Don't also forget that we are an Island with most of our trade carried by ship. Those ships can carry ASW aircraft which with everyone building submarines at the moment could be very useful in years to come.

Since WW2 all air to air kills performed by British aircraft were from Royal Navy jets or flew from an RN carrier. Despite the governments insistence that there are currently no overflight problems for the RAF that won't always be the case.

On the flip side the Tornado GR4 is a much more useful aircraft than the Harrier if you need someone hanging around with lots of bombs just in case. Their range, speed, and payload make them far more effective for policing a country like Afghanistan than Harrier GR9.

The Sea Harriers were not effective in Afghanistan because firstly there wasn't a Taliban air-force to worry about (and they are an air to air weapon) and secondly they were under powered for flying in the Hindu Mountains.

The Americans won't cancel F35 in favour of more F22's as they are totally different; the F22 is air-air only, the F35 is primarily a strike aircraft. The Americans may cancel it in favour of more F/A-18's and drones.

I think that about covers most of it...

When it's a baby RN "carrier"

Proper aircraft carier on the left. One of ours on the right....

[img] [/img]

Liam Fox seemed to be bending the truth on R4 this morning as well - talking about previous gaps in not having aircraft to fly from our carriers "after Buccaneer" was retired in the 70s...

Wrong way around - more a case of not having any carriers for our aircraft to fly off

The FAA's Buccaneers and Phantoms were retired when the previous Ark Royal was decommisioned in 1978, and they lost any steam catapault flight decks to fly off. (hence Argentinians starting to get more strident in territorial ambitions...)

Part of this is the way that the last Govenrment committed all the forces to 2 simultaneous (or at least immediately consecutive) wars of dubious legality which we're now mired in and have been for the last 8 years which has cost a fortune in kit, lives, morale, the Government committed to loads of fancy new stuff with an overspend it couldn't possibly hope to deal with.

Now it's going to cost more to cancel than to go ahead so we end up with outdated or out-of-spec stuff but then that's always the way on long term projects - look at Eurofighter.

It's a no-win situation this.

If you are a bit of a lefty and want to get away from 'colonial' uses then they were very useful in the 1990's supporting operations in the Balkans and Africa.

But why is it always us....?

Where is Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Finland, I bet they are only doing a small part - why cant we for a change?

The Americans won't cancel F35 in favour of more F22's as they are totally different; the F22 is air-air only, the F35 is primarily a strike aircraft. The Americans may cancel it in favour of more F/A-18's and drones.

Presumably the F22 hasn't got any carrier capability?

In the last 50 years how many times have we used aircraft carriers in anger? In the last 50 years how many times have we used nuclear weapons in anger?

[img] [/img]

[i]Of course, the whole point of a [s]nuclear deterrent[/s] Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?[/i]

from Laura Kuensberg on twitter - 42000 service personnel to be cut by 2015!!

horrendous.

If we can do without them what have they been doing up to now?

I cant believe that the majority are in support roles, or carrying out roles that we no longer really need

crazy-legs,

if the wars had been legal would that have made a difference?

rkk01 - Member
The Americans won't cancel F35 in favour of more F22's as they are totally different; the F22 is air-air only, the F35 is primarily a strike aircraft. The Americans may cancel it in favour of more F/A-18's and drones.
Presumably the F22 hasn't got any carrier capability?

Well there is that, which is similar to the 'why can't the Navy fly RAF Typhoons off the new carriers?' which keeps getting asked in these types of conversation.

My view is we should have 2 carriers, ditch F35 and buy F/A-18 or shhh.. Rafale depending on how much you want to annoy the Americans.

However you need to remember a carrier is only useful as long as it floats. If they are not properly protected some very low rate powers now have diesel electric submarines which would be able to kill one easily enough*. It would be very embarrassing for the pride of the RN being sunk by a North Korean sub.

*Also remember these are not like the armoured warships of WW2 and look at USS Cole to see what an explosive laden speedboat can do to modern thin hulls.

[i]The Americans won't cancel F35 in favour of more F22's as they are totally different; the F22 is air-air only, the F35 is primarily a strike aircraft[/i]

The F22 can already carry JDAM, and newer versions will have an even greater strike capability. One of the F35 biggest problems is it's A2A role is more than a little bit rubbish.

I agree with you that we should be buying F/A 18 and shhh Ralfe...

[i]crazy-legs,
if the wars had been legal would that have made a difference? [/i]

It would have been a hell of a lot easier to justify the massive cuts now being made as a result of committing 3 forces to 2 wars over 9 years.

It's quite easy to say (and I've heard it said on news programmes discussing the cuts), well if we hadn't have gone steaming into Iraq and Afghanistan with no long term plan of what to do or how to get out then there wouldn't be a gaping hole ion the MoD budget. OK, we're in this mess now and it has to be dealt with so I guess the arguments are more semantic/point-scoring than anything...

Also remember these are not like the armoured warships of WW2 and look at USS Cole to see what an explosive laden speedboat can do to modern thin hulls.

Hence the concerns over Exocet / Invincible during the Falklands...

No one will attack us because we will be a cool hippy country.

That would be amazing. Hippies are great.

I agree with the over stretching and budget, I was just being a bit arsey, the legal - illegal bit personally winds me up a bit tbh.

Out of curiosity, do things like fuel,food etc required to function in Iraq and Afghanistan or any other theatre or conflict/deployment come out of the annual budget for the MOD or some other place?

just wonder what these costs would be in percentage terms of the overall budget and what they could have saved

Labour were always keen to point out that all the "war fighting" costs came from the Treasury, not the MoD budget - which covers the standing costs of personnel, eqpt, bases etc...

I see where you're coming from turin, it bugs me too but it's been commented on in the news. One of those "oh I wish we'd done this instead" scenarios and it's not really helping anyone now...

I dont know alot about this so I will write something. I like the idea of having some new boats, the old ones do seem a bit small and pointless. I would also like to see the harrier remain in service but again it seems outdated and under utlilised. I am sure there have been more VTOLs for demo purposes than in real use.

The 3 forces are massive and inefficient, they make councils look simple. I believe they do need a big shake up but it does need to be done carefully as that massive overhead of history is part of the pride and confidence of our forces.

Do we still have the Astute sub coming?

I also agree we do tend to stick our oar in everywhere and dont seem to benefit from it, I know we still have a defence industry but why arent we providing the gear to everyone else?

I wonder what the "war fighting costs" were then, Im sure it will be locked away for a few years but could be interesting given current circumstances. Are we talking a wayne rooney bought a month or a bank bailed out a year kind of terms?

I doubt the true value would ever be released

Dont get me wrong,I wouldnt want the service personnel to be under supplied or restricted, just curious.

well iirc a cruise missile is 1/4 million a pop
not sure how many we launched, mind

id imagine the sums we are taking about would be bailing out the banks every year

yep 7 astute subs coming

seperate from the trident replacements of course

So Astutes are nuclear powered but not nuclear armed?

We also have trident missile replacement coming too which requires new subs not the current ones and not Astutes?

well thats what i just read in todays metro, which is made by the daily mail so who knows whats true!

i would once again reccomend this programme
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00v3qt5

secret iraq on bbc2 - warning it will make you bitter despondent and frustrated