Jump to content


Photo

Hms Queen Elizabeth


  • Please log in to reply
1225 replies to this topic

#1181 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,859 posts

Posted 20 December 2019 - 0228 AM

But we wouldn't. Its hard enough task to keep our own military shipyards in work. In fact, they are currently redefining the support ships from RFA, ostensibly civilian ships which are to be put for open tender, to military ships, which we can build in our military shipyards, for this very reason.

 

Equally Barrow in Furness is perhaps the ONLY place in the world, other than the US, that could build US Nuclear attack submarines. In fact with the shortfall in boat's due to the ongoing retirement of the 688 boats, its probably a good idea. But the US wont, for exactly the same reason.


  • 0

#1182 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,859 posts

Posted 20 December 2019 - 0337 AM

EMJdTNWXUAA-URb.jpg

 

https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz


  • 0

#1183 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,946 posts

Posted 20 December 2019 - 0552 AM

The thought had occurred that if any nation would ever be given the option from economic, political, and 5 Eyes perspectives to purchase the latest USN carrier class off the shelf, it would be UK. Whether and why not are the obvious questions that arise.

 

Too expensive, nobody but the USA wants to/can afford such expensive carriers. And of course the other reasons mentined by Stuart, that each wants to keep their home industry going.


  • 0

#1184 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,859 posts

Posted 20 December 2019 - 0607 AM

There is another reason two that I ought to relate.

 

There was an interesting youtube video (and im damned if I can recall this) that related, making these ships nuclear vessels would add to the maintainance, and put a great strain on Royal Navy which has to keep 4 Vanguard class boats (soon to be replaced by 4 Dreadnaught class SSBN's) and keep 7 Astute class submarines in operation. That is a big ask for a European navy. In fact, its would in reactor terms be approaching our cold war peak. Then you have disposal to think of, and considering we have every nuclear submarine we ever built still tied up waiting for disposal, clearly there is something of an issue finding room for 2 60000 ton warships, not least whilst we find somewhere other than India to break them up. You also have the reduction in life. You have 50 years of potential use built in these ships. Put a reactor in it, you are getting at least 10 years less, maybe more through the metal around the reactor getting brittle.. And then there is the time you have to take out to refuel it.

 

Its like with the cats and traps. Its undoubtedly a greater capability, but is it worth it, to us, to put a kettle in it to get it? Possibly not.And as the US ONLY builds Nuclear powered carriers these days, clearly its not an option for us. It begs the question of what we replace these with in 2070 or so. Maybe the carrier with be an irrelevance by then and it wont matter.

 

What would I like to buy off the Americans? LCS, in the doubtless to follow fire sale. They will make highly useful patrol ships to keep the French fisherman at bay....


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 20 December 2019 - 0608 AM.

  • 0

#1185 Justin

Justin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 20 December 2019 - 0945 AM

There is another reason two that I ought to relate.

 

There was an interesting youtube video (and im damned if I can recall this) that related, making these ships nuclear vessels would add to the maintainance, and put a great strain on Royal Navy which has to keep 4 Vanguard class boats (soon to be replaced by 4 Dreadnaught class SSBN's) and keep 7 Astute class submarines in operation. That is a big ask for a European navy. In fact, its would in reactor terms be approaching our cold war peak. Then you have disposal to think of, and considering we have every nuclear submarine we ever built still tied up waiting for disposal, clearly there is something of an issue finding room for 2 60000 ton warships, not least whilst we find somewhere other than India to break them up. You also have the reduction in life. You have 50 years of potential use built in these ships. Put a reactor in it, you are getting at least 10 years less, maybe more through the metal around the reactor getting brittle.. And then there is the time you have to take out to refuel it.

 

Its like with the cats and traps. Its undoubtedly a greater capability, but is it worth it, to us, to put a kettle in it to get it? Possibly not.And as the US ONLY builds Nuclear powered carriers these days, clearly its not an option for us. It begs the question of what we replace these with in 2070 or so. Maybe the carrier with be an irrelevance by then and it wont matter.

 

What would I like to buy off the Americans? LCS, in the doubtless to follow fire sale. They will make highly useful patrol ships to keep the French fisherman at bay....

I Feel like being able to embark Hawkeye would be worth it going with a more traditional design alone.  Also we do build the amphibious assault ships and the newest ones can embark 20+ F35s i believe if configured for it so a pretty good airgroup.  I know it is just a game but I was playing that Command Modern operations the "Canarys Cage" Scenario with the Spanish Navy.  The QE is obviously much more capable vessel then the Spanish carrier but it would have been really nice in that scenario to be able to put up a Hawkeye for AWACS work instead of a helicopter.  Obviously the Assault ships mentioned above would not have the capability of QE.


  • 0

#1186 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,859 posts

Posted 20 December 2019 - 0954 AM

 

There is another reason two that I ought to relate.

 

There was an interesting youtube video (and im damned if I can recall this) that related, making these ships nuclear vessels would add to the maintainance, and put a great strain on Royal Navy which has to keep 4 Vanguard class boats (soon to be replaced by 4 Dreadnaught class SSBN's) and keep 7 Astute class submarines in operation. That is a big ask for a European navy. In fact, its would in reactor terms be approaching our cold war peak. Then you have disposal to think of, and considering we have every nuclear submarine we ever built still tied up waiting for disposal, clearly there is something of an issue finding room for 2 60000 ton warships, not least whilst we find somewhere other than India to break them up. You also have the reduction in life. You have 50 years of potential use built in these ships. Put a reactor in it, you are getting at least 10 years less, maybe more through the metal around the reactor getting brittle.. And then there is the time you have to take out to refuel it.

 

Its like with the cats and traps. Its undoubtedly a greater capability, but is it worth it, to us, to put a kettle in it to get it? Possibly not.And as the US ONLY builds Nuclear powered carriers these days, clearly its not an option for us. It begs the question of what we replace these with in 2070 or so. Maybe the carrier with be an irrelevance by then and it wont matter.

 

What would I like to buy off the Americans? LCS, in the doubtless to follow fire sale. They will make highly useful patrol ships to keep the French fisherman at bay....

I Feel like being able to embark Hawkeye would be worth it going with a more traditional design alone.  Also we do build the amphibious assault ships and the newest ones can embark 20+ F35s i believe if configured for it so a pretty good airgroup.  I know it is just a game but I was playing that Command Modern operations the "Canarys Cage" Scenario with the Spanish Navy.  The QE is obviously much more capable vessel then the Spanish carrier but it would have been really nice in that scenario to be able to put up a Hawkeye for AWACS work instead of a helicopter.  Obviously the Assault ships mentioned above would not have the capability of QE.

 

It depends if you are in range of land based radar aircraft. In most of the occasions which the US has operated since the 1960's, they are, tankers as well. Sure in theory a land based ASW and radar capability is a very good idea. In reality, with long range refueling and knowing the range of systems like the Poseidon or Sentry, is it really necessary? Possibly not. I dont think its quite the be all and end all it was, say, 50 years ago.

 

CMANO is a truly great game, and ill not knock it. It made me realise how hard it actually is to find a carrier on teh open ocean, particularly when its surrounded by civilian sea traffic.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 20 December 2019 - 0959 AM.

  • 0

#1187 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,671 posts

Posted 20 December 2019 - 1425 PM

Keeping military shipyards open is critical for any major power, and if building carriers is the Way, then by all means. What comes to mind, however, is a more efficient Way of doing so. Demand for British-built carriers of this class is limited by political and economic factors, and this is coming from someone who would have no reservations in supporting the immediate purchase of 2 for the Japanese Navy.

 

I do see a market for a conventionally powered carrier apart from the USN's nuclear offerings, but I also would have no reservations in supporting the immediate purchase of 2 Ford class carriers for the same.

 

I contend that if the RN did not consider purchasing current-class USN carriers, it should have, as keeping military shipyards open could be accomplished more efficiently by supplying other warship classes in greater domestic and foreign demand.

 

As far as expense, the UK is one of a handful of nations that could afford them.

 

France's decision to build its own nuclear carrier is even more deserving of scrutiny from this perspective.


Edited by Nobu, 20 December 2019 - 1427 PM.

  • 0

#1188 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,859 posts

Posted 20 December 2019 - 1427 PM

Give it 6 months...
  • 0

#1189 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,774 posts

Posted 20 December 2019 - 1813 PM

I've always thought the UK can, but won't, afford them.

Three license produced Nimitz would have served them quite well IMO.


  • 0

#1190 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,859 posts

Posted 21 December 2019 - 0253 AM

I've always thought the UK can, but won't, afford them.

Three license produced Nimitz would have served them quite well IMO.

Which has been my fear, all the way back to 1998. I well believe we can afford them. Whether we will choose to is the point where my crystal ball clouds over.


  • 0

#1191 BJE

BJE

    Member

  • TestGroup
  • PipPip
  • 343 posts

Posted 21 December 2019 - 0643 AM

UK might afford to buy several Ford-class carriers. But I doubt that UK can afford to man them. Not only financially, but to recruit and train the huge number of personnel that a Ford requiere compared to a QE would be a problem.

RN and USN might be interoperable as no one else, but they differ a lot in practice regarding crew sizes. USN maintain rather large crews, which is a good thing when it's time to do damage control but otherwise it's a financial burden. RN has gone the "European way" with smaller crews.


  • 0

#1192 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,181 posts

Posted 21 December 2019 - 1156 AM

 

 

There is another reason two that I ought to relate.

 

There was an interesting youtube video (and im damned if I can recall this) that related, making these ships nuclear vessels would add to the maintainance, and put a great strain on Royal Navy which has to keep 4 Vanguard class boats (soon to be replaced by 4 Dreadnaught class SSBN's) and keep 7 Astute class submarines in operation. That is a big ask for a European navy. In fact, its would in reactor terms be approaching our cold war peak. Then you have disposal to think of, and considering we have every nuclear submarine we ever built still tied up waiting for disposal, clearly there is something of an issue finding room for 2 60000 ton warships, not least whilst we find somewhere other than India to break them up. You also have the reduction in life. You have 50 years of potential use built in these ships. Put a reactor in it, you are getting at least 10 years less, maybe more through the metal around the reactor getting brittle.. And then there is the time you have to take out to refuel it.

 

Its like with the cats and traps. Its undoubtedly a greater capability, but is it worth it, to us, to put a kettle in it to get it? Possibly not.And as the US ONLY builds Nuclear powered carriers these days, clearly its not an option for us. It begs the question of what we replace these with in 2070 or so. Maybe the carrier with be an irrelevance by then and it wont matter.

 

What would I like to buy off the Americans? LCS, in the doubtless to follow fire sale. They will make highly useful patrol ships to keep the French fisherman at bay....

I Feel like being able to embark Hawkeye would be worth it going with a more traditional design alone.  Also we do build the amphibious assault ships and the newest ones can embark 20+ F35s i believe if configured for it so a pretty good airgroup.  I know it is just a game but I was playing that Command Modern operations the "Canarys Cage" Scenario with the Spanish Navy.  The QE is obviously much more capable vessel then the Spanish carrier but it would have been really nice in that scenario to be able to put up a Hawkeye for AWACS work instead of a helicopter.  Obviously the Assault ships mentioned above would not have the capability of QE.

 

It depends if you are in range of land based radar aircraft. In most of the occasions which the US has operated since the 1960's, they are, tankers as well. Sure in theory a land based ASW and radar capability is a very good idea. In reality, with long range refueling and knowing the range of systems like the Poseidon or Sentry, is it really necessary? Possibly not. I dont think its quite the be all and end all it was, say, 50 years ago.

 

CMANO is a truly great game, and ill not knock it. It made me realise how hard it actually is to find a carrier on teh open ocean, particularly when its surrounded by civilian sea traffic.

 

 

The "civilian" sea traffic are going to be calling in its position, in addition to which, you may recall the Soviets used to tail US CVBGs with old DDs that were essentially expendable. Until fighting actually starts there is nothing you can do about that. Carriers are also mighty easy to find in port, where they are vulnerable to everything from cruise missiles to a nutter with an off the shelf drone, one of which landed on one of them unannounced.

 

As for using them for disaster relief, that's great, but just imagine how much more disaster relief you could do for a fraction of the money buying appropriate platforms for the job.

 

No, we don't have to defend the Falklands - they're a self-imposed burden. If Argentina is serious about wanting the Falklands back, they should be investing in land-based cruise missiles, a few of which could negate the islands defences and airfield and render them pretty much uninhabitable.

 

Someone claimed the carriers are the point of our sword - can you point out to me the key role carrier air power played in the war in NW and Eastern Europe in WW2, where our only likely geographically close adversary is located? Can you point out anything British CVs did in the theatre that was particularly useful, other than using up enemy torpedoes and cruiser projectiles?

 

The supposed linkage between the maintenance of national wealth and aircraft carrier ownership. How many carriers do Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Norway and Monaco have?


  • 0

#1193 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,774 posts

Posted 21 December 2019 - 1850 PM

UK might afford to buy several Ford-class carriers. But I doubt that UK can afford to man them. Not only financially, but to recruit and train the huge number of personnel that a Ford requiere compared to a QE would be a problem.


Yes, when I say afford, I mean everything involved.    Not just construction and operating costs, but to increase recruiting and manning, including retirement costs, the air wing and those associated costs, and even to expand the infrastructure for dry docking, mid life refueling, and to properly break up and dispose of the reactors at the end of service life.  E.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g.   The UK absolutely could afford this, and more, it's all a matter of priorities.

While Ford has significantly reduced crew requirements, I suspect there are significant teething problems yet to go and the legacy systems represent much less risk.  Three Nimitz class would employ ~18,000 including air wing, not to mention the shipyard workers for the next 15 years, and other associated employment such as expansion of training facilities and other infrastructure.   They could even spread the operating costs and manning load by making them Joint Commonwealth assets. 

The UK and Europe have basically dropped defense spending to nothing, slashing everything to the bone and sacrificing it at the altar of ever increasing public entitlements that are on course to spiral out of control.  Half the US admires this and considers it about ideal.   

Meanwhile the US Government has taken the opposite track to stupid levels and has been hemorrhaging money at clearly unsustainable levels like the cold war never ended, not just on silly wars but on procurement that's inefficient by design in order to subsidize the taxpayer dollars to corporate profits system rather than produce capability value for the dollar.

There's a middle ground, IMO, and I keep coming back to about 3% GDP (a raise of 1.2% for the UK, and a drop of 0.2% for the US) along with substantial procurement reform.   Three pence on the pound isn't too much to ask to ensure a perpetual place on the world stage along with the ability to secure overseas assets, interests and allies without having to rely on the aid of nations who didn't gut their military, hell it'd buy you the carriers and some SSGN.


Edited by Burncycle360, 21 December 2019 - 1957 PM.

  • 0

#1194 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,671 posts

Posted 22 December 2019 - 0232 AM

U.S. procurement reform is long overdue, but faces a long, uphill battle against and army of entrenched lobbyists, politicians, and industrialists should it ever begin.

 

I don't include myself in the camp of those who believe the UK is not pulling its defense spending weight, but the question of buying CVs from Washington outright could have been an interesting one.


  • 0

#1195 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,859 posts

Posted 23 December 2019 - 0740 AM

 

 

 

There is another reason two that I ought to relate.

 

There was an interesting youtube video (and im damned if I can recall this) that related, making these ships nuclear vessels would add to the maintainance, and put a great strain on Royal Navy which has to keep 4 Vanguard class boats (soon to be replaced by 4 Dreadnaught class SSBN's) and keep 7 Astute class submarines in operation. That is a big ask for a European navy. In fact, its would in reactor terms be approaching our cold war peak. Then you have disposal to think of, and considering we have every nuclear submarine we ever built still tied up waiting for disposal, clearly there is something of an issue finding room for 2 60000 ton warships, not least whilst we find somewhere other than India to break them up. You also have the reduction in life. You have 50 years of potential use built in these ships. Put a reactor in it, you are getting at least 10 years less, maybe more through the metal around the reactor getting brittle.. And then there is the time you have to take out to refuel it.

 

Its like with the cats and traps. Its undoubtedly a greater capability, but is it worth it, to us, to put a kettle in it to get it? Possibly not.And as the US ONLY builds Nuclear powered carriers these days, clearly its not an option for us. It begs the question of what we replace these with in 2070 or so. Maybe the carrier with be an irrelevance by then and it wont matter.

 

What would I like to buy off the Americans? LCS, in the doubtless to follow fire sale. They will make highly useful patrol ships to keep the French fisherman at bay....

I Feel like being able to embark Hawkeye would be worth it going with a more traditional design alone.  Also we do build the amphibious assault ships and the newest ones can embark 20+ F35s i believe if configured for it so a pretty good airgroup.  I know it is just a game but I was playing that Command Modern operations the "Canarys Cage" Scenario with the Spanish Navy.  The QE is obviously much more capable vessel then the Spanish carrier but it would have been really nice in that scenario to be able to put up a Hawkeye for AWACS work instead of a helicopter.  Obviously the Assault ships mentioned above would not have the capability of QE.

 

It depends if you are in range of land based radar aircraft. In most of the occasions which the US has operated since the 1960's, they are, tankers as well. Sure in theory a land based ASW and radar capability is a very good idea. In reality, with long range refueling and knowing the range of systems like the Poseidon or Sentry, is it really necessary? Possibly not. I dont think its quite the be all and end all it was, say, 50 years ago.

 

CMANO is a truly great game, and ill not knock it. It made me realise how hard it actually is to find a carrier on teh open ocean, particularly when its surrounded by civilian sea traffic.

 

 

The "civilian" sea traffic are going to be calling in its position, in addition to which, you may recall the Soviets used to tail US CVBGs with old DDs that were essentially expendable. Until fighting actually starts there is nothing you can do about that. Carriers are also mighty easy to find in port, where they are vulnerable to everything from cruise missiles to a nutter with an off the shelf drone, one of which landed on one of them unannounced.

 

As for using them for disaster relief, that's great, but just imagine how much more disaster relief you could do for a fraction of the money buying appropriate platforms for the job.

 

No, we don't have to defend the Falklands - they're a self-imposed burden. If Argentina is serious about wanting the Falklands back, they should be investing in land-based cruise missiles, a few of which could negate the islands defences and airfield and render them pretty much uninhabitable.

 

Someone claimed the carriers are the point of our sword - can you point out to me the key role carrier air power played in the war in NW and Eastern Europe in WW2, where our only likely geographically close adversary is located? Can you point out anything British CVs did in the theatre that was particularly useful, other than using up enemy torpedoes and cruiser projectiles?

 

The supposed linkage between the maintenance of national wealth and aircraft carrier ownership. How many carriers do Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Norway and Monaco have?

 

So you do one of two things. Either you turn off any reporting system (a relatively easy matter to shut down ship tracker) or you send out a spoof message claiming your aircraft carrier is the Vital Spark, a container ship carrying rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong. Yes, the 21st Century presents new problems, but lets not pretend there are not as many solutions to those problems

 

Yes, you can attack them in port. But what with? You know, there was a military novel written at the turn of the last century when a German terrorist sinks most of the Royal Navy at the spithead review. It makes for a might entertaining novel. But how practical is it to sink 60000 tons of warship at the dock with a drone? Not very. Even most light aircraft would bounce off the deck. That is what they are pretty much designed to do after all. And once again, what makes ours inherently vulnerable but the American and other European ones not?

 

Well you must ask the Americans how useful our carriers were in the Pacific. They borrowed one for several months, which seems to have been appreciated. And at the end of the war, the RN was undertaking combat air patrols over Tokyo in Seafires. Not I submit a distinct lack of use. it also airbrushes how useful they were in the mediterranean, without which Malta, and probably a lot else, would have been lost.  If they had limitations it was in design and the aircraft they had, although I submit, I still do not believe the last word on armoured decks has yet been written.

 

Once again, if Carriers are so useless, why do Japan, China, Russia, India, even south Korea want them? Because, contrary to narrative, it is useful to have your own airfield you take place anywhere on the planet. We have kicked this around the garden a dozen times Chris. My concerns are purely about whether the Government decides to pay for their use, not whether they do not have a viable use. They were not my first choice for investment in 21st Century security, but we have them, so why not use them?


  • 0

#1196 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,775 posts

Posted 23 December 2019 - 0828 AM

I guess it just comes down to what role is wanted out the the country. Carriers were indespensible during WW2. Although among important roles for UK carriers had during WW2, flying Sea Fires over Tokyo was not one. For the UK these days, even if the UK was to not adopt a "Global Britain" role, I still think the carriers could be useful regionally for being a mobile airfield that could help back Scandanavia or create a presence further north like in the arctic region, an area gradually getting more and more attention. France has only a single carrier and the Italian onesare going to stay in the Mid area. So if the UK doesn't have them, then it just means dependency on the US to provide a mobile airfield.
  • 0

#1197 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,859 posts

Posted 23 December 2019 - 1023 AM

Ive probably bored a few with this point before, but Ill mention it again. I recently read a book on the Royal Navy, and some guy in the 1700's described the navy as the wooden walls of England that we could move as we may. And a warship today, any warship, is just the same. It says, we are not just a region of the world, but we have interests in the wider world, and are willing to interpose our will as necessary. Thats true whether its a minehunter, but is more true if its an LPH, and LPD or a CV.

 

The world is simply TOO dangerous for us to say we are not interested in it. Too many European nations are doing that. And whilst personally I would rather put the money into more SSN's, the decision has been made. So lets get behind it and use the buggers according to our whim. Because sure as hell, our enemies, which do not grow fewer, will do the same.

 

We simply cannot keep developing new ideas, dropping them, and picking up new ones. That truly is MTV generation defence procurement, and we just cannot afford it anymore.


  • 0

#1198 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,671 posts

Posted 23 December 2019 - 1244 PM

Once again, if Carriers are so useless, why do Japan, China, Russia, India, even south Korea want them?

 

South Korea wants carriers for the same reason the minor regional power Chile wanted dreadnoughts.


  • 0

#1199 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,052 posts

Posted 24 December 2019 - 0146 AM

 

 

 

 

There is another reason two that I ought to relate.

 

There was an interesting youtube video (and im damned if I can recall this) that related, making these ships nuclear vessels would add to the maintainance, and put a great strain on Royal Navy which has to keep 4 Vanguard class boats (soon to be replaced by 4 Dreadnaught class SSBN's) and keep 7 Astute class submarines in operation. That is a big ask for a European navy. In fact, its would in reactor terms be approaching our cold war peak. Then you have disposal to think of, and considering we have every nuclear submarine we ever built still tied up waiting for disposal, clearly there is something of an issue finding room for 2 60000 ton warships, not least whilst we find somewhere other than India to break them up. You also have the reduction in life. You have 50 years of potential use built in these ships. Put a reactor in it, you are getting at least 10 years less, maybe more through the metal around the reactor getting brittle.. And then there is the time you have to take out to refuel it.

 

Its like with the cats and traps. Its undoubtedly a greater capability, but is it worth it, to us, to put a kettle in it to get it? Possibly not.And as the US ONLY builds Nuclear powered carriers these days, clearly its not an option for us. It begs the question of what we replace these with in 2070 or so. Maybe the carrier with be an irrelevance by then and it wont matter.

 

What would I like to buy off the Americans? LCS, in the doubtless to follow fire sale. They will make highly useful patrol ships to keep the French fisherman at bay....

I Feel like being able to embark Hawkeye would be worth it going with a more traditional design alone.  Also we do build the amphibious assault ships and the newest ones can embark 20+ F35s i believe if configured for it so a pretty good airgroup.  I know it is just a game but I was playing that Command Modern operations the "Canarys Cage" Scenario with the Spanish Navy.  The QE is obviously much more capable vessel then the Spanish carrier but it would have been really nice in that scenario to be able to put up a Hawkeye for AWACS work instead of a helicopter.  Obviously the Assault ships mentioned above would not have the capability of QE.

 

It depends if you are in range of land based radar aircraft. In most of the occasions which the US has operated since the 1960's, they are, tankers as well. Sure in theory a land based ASW and radar capability is a very good idea. In reality, with long range refueling and knowing the range of systems like the Poseidon or Sentry, is it really necessary? Possibly not. I dont think its quite the be all and end all it was, say, 50 years ago.

 

CMANO is a truly great game, and ill not knock it. It made me realise how hard it actually is to find a carrier on teh open ocean, particularly when its surrounded by civilian sea traffic.

 

 

The "civilian" sea traffic are going to be calling in its position, in addition to which, you may recall the Soviets used to tail US CVBGs with old DDs that were essentially expendable. Until fighting actually starts there is nothing you can do about that. Carriers are also mighty easy to find in port, where they are vulnerable to everything from cruise missiles to a nutter with an off the shelf drone, one of which landed on one of them unannounced.

 

As for using them for disaster relief, that's great, but just imagine how much more disaster relief you could do for a fraction of the money buying appropriate platforms for the job.

 

No, we don't have to defend the Falklands - they're a self-imposed burden. If Argentina is serious about wanting the Falklands back, they should be investing in land-based cruise missiles, a few of which could negate the islands defences and airfield and render them pretty much uninhabitable.

 

Someone claimed the carriers are the point of our sword - can you point out to me the key role carrier air power played in the war in NW and Eastern Europe in WW2, where our only likely geographically close adversary is located? Can you point out anything British CVs did in the theatre that was particularly useful, other than using up enemy torpedoes and cruiser projectiles?

 

The supposed linkage between the maintenance of national wealth and aircraft carrier ownership. How many carriers do Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Norway and Monaco have?

 

So you do one of two things. Either you turn off any reporting system (a relatively easy matter to shut down ship tracker) or you send out a spoof message claiming your aircraft carrier is the Vital Spark, a container ship carrying rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong. Yes, the 21st Century presents new problems, but lets not pretend there are not as many solutions to those problems

 

Yes, you can attack them in port. But what with? You know, there was a military novel written at the turn of the last century when a German terrorist sinks most of the Royal Navy at the spithead review. It makes for a might entertaining novel. But how practical is it to sink 60000 tons of warship at the dock with a drone? Not very. Even most light aircraft would bounce off the deck. That is what they are pretty much designed to do after all. And once again, what makes ours inherently vulnerable but the American and other European ones not?

 

Well you must ask the Americans how useful our carriers were in the Pacific. They borrowed one for several months, which seems to have been appreciated. And at the end of the war, the RN was undertaking combat air patrols over Tokyo in Seafires. Not I submit a distinct lack of use. it also airbrushes how useful they were in the mediterranean, without which Malta, and probably a lot else, would have been lost.  If they had limitations it was in design and the aircraft they had, although I submit, I still do not believe the last word on armoured decks has yet been written.

 

Once again, if Carriers are so useless, why do Japan, China, Russia, India, even south Korea want them? Because, contrary to narrative, it is useful to have your own airfield you take place anywhere on the planet. We have kicked this around the garden a dozen times Chris. My concerns are purely about whether the Government decides to pay for their use, not whether they do not have a viable use. They were not my first choice for investment in 21st Century security, but we have them, so why not use them?

 

Illegal fishing boats are doing just that, one was caught after it was realized that it was using 50 different AIS ID codes, often with several at once showing it to be in numerous different locations. 


Edited by Colin, 24 December 2019 - 0146 AM.

  • 0

#1200 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,859 posts

Posted 24 December 2019 - 0324 AM

Once again, if Carriers are so useless, why do Japan, China, Russia, India, even south Korea want them?

 

South Korea wants carriers for the same reason the minor regional power Chile wanted dreadnoughts.

 

Battlecruisers IIRC. Well fair one, and yet combat aircraft are still useful wherever they are based. You put them on land, they are regarded as a sensible investment. Put them on a steel deck in the atlantic and suddenly they are vulnerable. I simply do not get that kind of thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is another reason two that I ought to relate.

 

There was an interesting youtube video (and im damned if I can recall this) that related, making these ships nuclear vessels would add to the maintainance, and put a great strain on Royal Navy which has to keep 4 Vanguard class boats (soon to be replaced by 4 Dreadnaught class SSBN's) and keep 7 Astute class submarines in operation. That is a big ask for a European navy. In fact, its would in reactor terms be approaching our cold war peak. Then you have disposal to think of, and considering we have every nuclear submarine we ever built still tied up waiting for disposal, clearly there is something of an issue finding room for 2 60000 ton warships, not least whilst we find somewhere other than India to break them up. You also have the reduction in life. You have 50 years of potential use built in these ships. Put a reactor in it, you are getting at least 10 years less, maybe more through the metal around the reactor getting brittle.. And then there is the time you have to take out to refuel it.

 

Its like with the cats and traps. Its undoubtedly a greater capability, but is it worth it, to us, to put a kettle in it to get it? Possibly not.And as the US ONLY builds Nuclear powered carriers these days, clearly its not an option for us. It begs the question of what we replace these with in 2070 or so. Maybe the carrier with be an irrelevance by then and it wont matter.

 

What would I like to buy off the Americans? LCS, in the doubtless to follow fire sale. They will make highly useful patrol ships to keep the French fisherman at bay....

I Feel like being able to embark Hawkeye would be worth it going with a more traditional design alone.  Also we do build the amphibious assault ships and the newest ones can embark 20+ F35s i believe if configured for it so a pretty good airgroup.  I know it is just a game but I was playing that Command Modern operations the "Canarys Cage" Scenario with the Spanish Navy.  The QE is obviously much more capable vessel then the Spanish carrier but it would have been really nice in that scenario to be able to put up a Hawkeye for AWACS work instead of a helicopter.  Obviously the Assault ships mentioned above would not have the capability of QE.

 

It depends if you are in range of land based radar aircraft. In most of the occasions which the US has operated since the 1960's, they are, tankers as well. Sure in theory a land based ASW and radar capability is a very good idea. In reality, with long range refueling and knowing the range of systems like the Poseidon or Sentry, is it really necessary? Possibly not. I dont think its quite the be all and end all it was, say, 50 years ago.

 

CMANO is a truly great game, and ill not knock it. It made me realise how hard it actually is to find a carrier on teh open ocean, particularly when its surrounded by civilian sea traffic.

 

 

The "civilian" sea traffic are going to be calling in its position, in addition to which, you may recall the Soviets used to tail US CVBGs with old DDs that were essentially expendable. Until fighting actually starts there is nothing you can do about that. Carriers are also mighty easy to find in port, where they are vulnerable to everything from cruise missiles to a nutter with an off the shelf drone, one of which landed on one of them unannounced.

 

As for using them for disaster relief, that's great, but just imagine how much more disaster relief you could do for a fraction of the money buying appropriate platforms for the job.

 

No, we don't have to defend the Falklands - they're a self-imposed burden. If Argentina is serious about wanting the Falklands back, they should be investing in land-based cruise missiles, a few of which could negate the islands defences and airfield and render them pretty much uninhabitable.

 

Someone claimed the carriers are the point of our sword - can you point out to me the key role carrier air power played in the war in NW and Eastern Europe in WW2, where our only likely geographically close adversary is located? Can you point out anything British CVs did in the theatre that was particularly useful, other than using up enemy torpedoes and cruiser projectiles?

 

The supposed linkage between the maintenance of national wealth and aircraft carrier ownership. How many carriers do Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Norway and Monaco have?

 

So you do one of two things. Either you turn off any reporting system (a relatively easy matter to shut down ship tracker) or you send out a spoof message claiming your aircraft carrier is the Vital Spark, a container ship carrying rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong. Yes, the 21st Century presents new problems, but lets not pretend there are not as many solutions to those problems

 

Yes, you can attack them in port. But what with? You know, there was a military novel written at the turn of the last century when a German terrorist sinks most of the Royal Navy at the spithead review. It makes for a might entertaining novel. But how practical is it to sink 60000 tons of warship at the dock with a drone? Not very. Even most light aircraft would bounce off the deck. That is what they are pretty much designed to do after all. And once again, what makes ours inherently vulnerable but the American and other European ones not?

 

Well you must ask the Americans how useful our carriers were in the Pacific. They borrowed one for several months, which seems to have been appreciated. And at the end of the war, the RN was undertaking combat air patrols over Tokyo in Seafires. Not I submit a distinct lack of use. it also airbrushes how useful they were in the mediterranean, without which Malta, and probably a lot else, would have been lost.  If they had limitations it was in design and the aircraft they had, although I submit, I still do not believe the last word on armoured decks has yet been written.

 

Once again, if Carriers are so useless, why do Japan, China, Russia, India, even south Korea want them? Because, contrary to narrative, it is useful to have your own airfield you take place anywhere on the planet. We have kicked this around the garden a dozen times Chris. My concerns are purely about whether the Government decides to pay for their use, not whether they do not have a viable use. They were not my first choice for investment in 21st Century security, but we have them, so why not use them?

 

Illegal fishing boats are doing just that, one was caught after it was realized that it was using 50 different AIS ID codes, often with several at once showing it to be in numerous different locations. 

 

Yep. And we can see from the North Koreans and the Iranians, that perform illegal activity at sea all the time, its still possible to hide on the high seas.


  • 0