Sadly, Cameron can only play with the cards the MoD and Brown dealt him. And the RN Top Brass were stupid enough to play along, assuming they'd get additional ships to support the carriers.
Imagine the whining from Scotland if they'd binned the CVF contracts.
Certainly his hands were tied to a great extent.
But the previous plan of running the Queen Elizabeth as a Charles De Gaulle style, undefended mobile aistrip that only goes to safe waters while mothballing the Prince of Wales WAS sensible and sound given the cards which were on the table.
Even selling the PoW for £1bn to India or France at a huge loss would havee been more sensible than this new plan.
Committing to full scale Carrier Groups is not sensible and not practical for a navy our size. Almost the entire Capital fleet of the RN tied up with Carrier Groups is LUDICROUS.
Run many navies, have you ?
Our hundreds of Admirals have not either Alan.
Dair doesn't give them the chance.
We need some ships, we have multiple times the number of Admirals as we have ships. Is it any wonder we are in such a state.
Cameron really has thrown his credibility out the window with the SDSR, committing to running both carriers while slashing the number of frigates (especially given that the RN has no Cruisers and limited Destroyer capability) will leave the RN almost incapable of doing anything other than run around the world with useless, impractical, expensive Carrier Groups which offer no practical defence to the UK.
To give an example, a US Carrier Group sees each Supercarrier accompanied by at least 1 Cruiser, at least 2 Destroyers plus at least 1 of either a second Cruiser or third Destroyer, at least one Frigate and at least 2 Attack Subs. That's 5 Capital Ships minimum and 2 Subs. And an Oiler but let's just ignore that.
The RN is projecting to have 6 Destroyers, 8 Frigates and 6 completely undefined and undesigned "light Frigates" which are likely to be little more than bulked up River 2s and 6 Attack Subs (or possibly 4).
Any idiot can see that almost the entire Royal Navy capital and attack submarine fleet will be unavailable for any other mission task, including the Defense of the home islands (which is of course, currently neglected completely much to our detriment and other country's mirth).
A realistic deployment of 3 Type 45s, 2 Type 26s and two Astute Class subs for each Carrier group will mean that the Royal Navy has 4 Frigates, 2 Subs and some bulked up Offshore Patrol to fulfil it's entire non-Carrier related duties.
This does not seem enough.
Really? How many ships are escorting the Charles de Gaulle at this very moment (please do not count the British ones)
By the way .... Have you never heard of NATO?
Charles De Gaulle is not a Supercarrier. It is not an effective warship. It is not used as a warship. It's only role is as a mobile landing strip which has virtually no defensive capability and could not be used in a conflict with even a mid-strength power like Iran.
So the air wings couldn't do carrier protection duties like every other single carrier ever built ?
Just out of interest, Mr.Brooke, what anti-ship weapons do you think the RAF/FAA actually have?
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
Hurst are they actually going to have aircraft before they are rusting hulks.
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
So why are they claiming to have air launched Harpoons ? Harpoons aren't exactly the most modern missile they first appeared about 40 years ago, but presumably like Tornados they may not be perfect but they're what we;ve got.
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ?
On the other hand you could take the view that if they've all screwed up on procurement then it's level playing field.
Or that every army and navy starts off with the wrong equipment when fighting a war and has to adapt with what it has got. See just about any conflict you can think of.
The issue then becomes how good are you at using what you've got, something UK forces have proved reasonaly good at especially since as of late we've often been fighting someone we didn't expect to fight.
Navies around the world DO NOT BUILD Supercarriers.
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
Russia do not have a supercarrier. The Kuznetsov is lighter than the QE2 class, and under half the weight of a Nimitz. It's also technically an aircraft-carrying cruiser, not a carrier.
The Chinese Liaoning has yet to be used on operations (remember the comedy a few weeks ago when some were claiming it was off the coast of Syria?). Personally I doubt it will ever be used in anger: it is very much a learning experience for the Chinese. Their first real carrier will be the first indigenous vessel they build for themselves.
I can see the Chinese building three successors only loosely based on the originally-Russian Liaoning. But in such matters the Chinese are as inscrutable as ever.
And the Indians are building a biggie as well in the Vishal, successor to the Vikrant.
Not Vishal, it's a new ship called Vikrant. Vishal is merely projected (2025).
Also have the Vikramaditya, formerly the Soviet Baku, but radically transformed with ski-jump in lieu of anti-ship missiles. And the oldest serving Aircraft Carrier, the Viraat (ex-HMS Hermes) is still in service - but not for much longer.
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ?
On the other hand you could take the view that if they've all screwed up on procurement then it's level playing field.
Or that every army and navy starts off with the wrong equipment when fighting a war and has to adapt with what it has got. See just about any conflict you can think of.
The issue then becomes how good are you at using what you've got, something UK forces have proved reasonaly good at especially since as of late we've often been fighting someone we didn't expect to fight.
Navies around the world DO NOT BUILD Supercarriers.
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
and the french
so basically everyone of the UN security council.
plus India.
Charles de Gaulle, at 45000 tonnes is comparable to WW2 era carriers. It is NOT a Supecarrier, which is generally boats over 65000 tonnes (which the QE Class only just qualifies as).
India have no Supercarriers, they have the 45000 ton a recent build of a 40 year old Russian design. and the old WW2 era HMS Hermes under a new name which is a 24000 ton Light Aircraft Carrier.
The only countries with Supercarriers are the United States with 10.
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ?
On the other hand you could take the view that if they've all screwed up on procurement then it's level playing field.
Or that every army and navy starts off with the wrong equipment when fighting a war and has to adapt with what it has got. See just about any conflict you can think of.
The issue then becomes how good are you at using what you've got, something UK forces have proved reasonaly good at especially since as of late we've often been fighting someone we didn't expect to fight.
Navies around the world DO NOT BUILD Supercarriers.
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
Russia do not have a supercarrier. The Kuznetsov is lighter than the QE2 class, and under half the weight of a Nimitz. It's also technically an aircraft-carrying cruiser, not a carrier.
The Chinese Liaoning has yet to be used on operations (remember the comedy a few weeks ago when some were claiming it was off the coast of Syria?). Personally I doubt it will ever be used in anger: it is very much a learning experience for the Chinese. Their first real carrier will be the first indigenous vessel they build for themselves.
I can see the Chinese building three successors only loosely based on the originally-Russian Liaoning. But in such matters the Chinese are as inscrutable as ever.
And the Indians are building a biggie as well in the Vishal, successor to the Vikrant.
I just checked and you're right. I thought the Kuznetsov class was 67000 tonnes but they are 55000 tonnes. Close but no cigar.
So the only nation with Supercarriers is the United States (and soon the tiny UK). It shows how stupid this build is.
Given the size of China and its military expenditure, the plans for two or three (possibly Super) carriers shows just how little value they have. I suspect their new 7500mph ballistic missile to which guarantees a dead Supercarrier and cannot be defended against might be colouring their judgement.
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ?
On the other hand you could take the view that if they've all screwed up on procurement then it's level playing field.
Or that every army and navy starts off with the wrong equipment when fighting a war and has to adapt with what it has got. See just about any conflict you can think of.
The issue then becomes how good are you at using what you've got, something UK forces have proved reasonaly good at especially since as of late we've often been fighting someone we didn't expect to fight.
Navies around the world DO NOT BUILD Supercarriers.
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
and the french
so basically everyone of the UN security council.
plus India.
Charles de Gaulle, at 45000 tonnes is comparable to WW2 era carriers. It is NOT a Supecarrier, which is generally boats over 65000 tonnes (which the QE Class only just qualifies as).
India have no Supercarriers, they have the 45000 ton a recent build of a 40 year old Russian design. and the old WW2 era HMS Hermes under a new name which is a 24000 ton Light Aircraft Carrier.
The only countries with Supercarriers are the United States with 10, Russia with 1 and China with 1.
yeah, this whole concept seems to hang around what Admiral Dair deems is fit for his navy.
If the french have a carrier capable of bombing someone, that's fine by me.
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ?
On the other hand you could take the view that if they've all screwed up on procurement then it's level playing field.
Or that every army and navy starts off with the wrong equipment when fighting a war and has to adapt with what it has got. See just about any conflict you can think of.
The issue then becomes how good are you at using what you've got, something UK forces have proved reasonaly good at especially since as of late we've often been fighting someone we didn't expect to fight.
Navies around the world DO NOT BUILD Supercarriers.
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
Russia do not have a supercarrier. The Kuznetsov is lighter than the QE2 class, and under half the weight of a Nimitz. It's also technically an aircraft-carrying cruiser, not a carrier.
The Chinese Liaoning has yet to be used on operations (remember the comedy a few weeks ago when some were claiming it was off the coast of Syria?). Personally I doubt it will ever be used in anger: it is very much a learning experience for the Chinese. Their first real carrier will be the first indigenous vessel they build for themselves.
I can see the Chinese building three successors only loosely based on the originally-Russian Liaoning. But in such matters the Chinese are as inscrutable as ever.
And the Indians are building a biggie as well in the Vishal, successor to the Vikrant.
Not Vishal, it's a new ship called Vikrant. Vishal is merely projected (2025).
Also have the Vikramaditya, formerly the Soviet Baku, but radically transformed with ski-jump in lieu of anti-ship missiles. And the oldest serving Aircraft Carrier, the Viraat (ex-HMS Hermes) is still in service - but not for much longer.
The Viraat is too light (at under 30,000 tons) to be classed as anything like a supercarrier.
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ?
On the other hand you could take the view that if they've all screwed up on procurement then it's level playing field.
Or that every army and navy starts off with the wrong equipment when fighting a war and has to adapt with what it has got. See just about any conflict you can think of.
The issue then becomes how good are you at using what you've got, something UK forces have proved reasonaly good at especially since as of late we've often been fighting someone we didn't expect to fight.
Navies around the world DO NOT BUILD Supercarriers.
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
Russia do not have a supercarrier. The Kuznetsov is lighter than the QE2 class, and under half the weight of a Nimitz. It's also technically an aircraft-carrying cruiser, not a carrier.
The Chinese Liaoning has yet to be used on operations (remember the comedy a few weeks ago when some were claiming it was off the coast of Syria?). Personally I doubt it will ever be used in anger: it is very much a learning experience for the Chinese. Their first real carrier will be the first indigenous vessel they build for themselves.
I can see the Chinese building three successors only loosely based on the originally-Russian Liaoning. But in such matters the Chinese are as inscrutable as ever.
And the Indians are building a biggie as well in the Vishal, successor to the Vikrant.
I just checked and you're right. I thought the Kuznetsov class was 67000 tonnes but they are 55000 tonnes. Close but no cigar.
So the only nation with Supercarriers is the United States (and soon the tiny UK). It shows how stupid this build is.
How do you know?
Since nobody nows what the next naval deployment will be all we can say is best not pick a fight with the USA.
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ?
On the other hand you could take the view that if they've all screwed up on procurement then it's level playing field.
Or that every army and navy starts off with the wrong equipment when fighting a war and has to adapt with what it has got. See just about any conflict you can think of.
The issue then becomes how good are you at using what you've got, something UK forces have proved reasonaly good at especially since as of late we've often been fighting someone we didn't expect to fight.
Navies around the world DO NOT BUILD Supercarriers.
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
Russia do not have a supercarrier. The Kuznetsov is lighter than the QE2 class, and under half the weight of a Nimitz. It's also technically an aircraft-carrying cruiser, not a carrier.
The Chinese Liaoning has yet to be used on operations (remember the comedy a few weeks ago when some were claiming it was off the coast of Syria?). Personally I doubt it will ever be used in anger: it is very much a learning experience for the Chinese. Their first real carrier will be the first indigenous vessel they build for themselves.
I can see the Chinese building three successors only loosely based on the originally-Russian Liaoning. But in such matters the Chinese are as inscrutable as ever.
And the Indians are building a biggie as well in the Vishal, successor to the Vikrant.
Not Vishal, it's a new ship called Vikrant. Vishal is merely projected (2025).
Also have the Vikramaditya, formerly the Soviet Baku, but radically transformed with ski-jump in lieu of anti-ship missiles. And the oldest serving Aircraft Carrier, the Viraat (ex-HMS Hermes) is still in service - but not for much longer.
The Viraat is too light (at under 30,000 tons) to be classed as anything like a supercarrier.
I didn't say she is a supercarrier, just including her for sake of completeness. She was laid down during WW2!
Oh Dear, Dair and Malcolmg must have received an email from SNPHQ to defend the honour of the party. Or is something else just about to be splattered on the circulatory air conditioning that could be more embarrassing than Mcgarry.
As to the Nationalist, circulation under 16k now, how long before it's binned for good?
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
An early, antiquated guided missile destroyer would have little problem taking out an undefended Supercarrier.
Against any reasonably equipped opponent a Supercarrier may as well have a large target painted on the flightdeck with the words "please sink me at your convenience" next to it.
The newest Ford Class US Supercarrier has only two Phalanx CIWS and would be trivially indefensible to a destroyer.
The implied expertise on military strategy here this afternoon is hilarious. Almost as funny as the talk of Labour's marvellous 'ground game' in May....
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ?
On the other hand you could take the view that if they've all screwed up on procurement then it's level playing field.
Or that every army and navy starts off with the wrong equipment when fighting a war and has to adapt with what it has got. See just about any conflict you can think of.
The issue then becomes how good are you at using what you've got, something UK forces have proved reasonaly good at especially since as of late we've often been fighting someone we didn't expect to fight.
Navies around the world DO NOT BUILD Supercarriers.
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
and the french
so basically everyone of the UN security council.
plus India.
Charles de Gaulle, at 45000 tonnes is comparable to WW2 era carriers. It is NOT a Supecarrier, which is generally boats over 65000 tonnes (which the QE Class only just qualifies as).
India have no Supercarriers, they have the 45000 ton a recent build of a 40 year old Russian design. and the old WW2 era HMS Hermes under a new name which is a 24000 ton Light Aircraft Carrier.
The only countries with Supercarriers are the United States with 10.
The implied expertise on military strategy here this afternoon is hilarious. Almost as funny as the talk of Labour's marvellous 'ground game' in May....
[Sunil utters a cough that sounds suspiciously like "Ilford North"]
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
So why are they claiming to have air launched Harpoons ? Harpoons aren't exactly the most modern missile they first appeared about 40 years ago, but presumably like Tornados they may not be perfect but they're what we;ve got.
Harpoons have ballistic flghtpaths. This makes them trivial to take out by CIWS. Modern guided missile have a non-ballistic flghtpath making them much harder to take out.
Oh Dear, Dair and Malcolmg must have received an email from SNPHQ to defend the honour of the party. Or is something else just about to be splattered on the circulatory air conditioning that could be more embarrassing than Mcgarry.
As to the Nationalist, circulation under 16k now, how long before it's binned for good?
Count Down : 56, 55, 54.....
Oh, bbbbbbut they give away badges. Is that not saving them?
Still can't believe that someone launched a new paid-for newspaper. Not heard of digitisation in Scotland? Or free papers?
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
So why are they claiming to have air launched Harpoons ? Harpoons aren't exactly the most modern missile they first appeared about 40 years ago, but presumably like Tornados they may not be perfect but they're what we;ve got.
Harpoons have ballistic flghtpaths. This makes them trivial to take out by CIWS. Modern guided missile have a non-ballistic flghtpath making them much harder to take out.
and just who will be using all this hi tech against us ?
our nato allies, the shrinking russian navy or the undeveloped chinese one ?
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
So why are they claiming to have air launched Harpoons ? Harpoons aren't exactly the most modern missile they first appeared about 40 years ago, but presumably like Tornados they may not be perfect but they're what we;ve got.
Harpoons have ballistic flghtpaths. This makes them trivial to take out by CIWS. Modern guided missile have a non-ballistic flghtpath making them much harder to take out.
Not really surprising that 'The Sun' should want it's moronic readership to share its prejudices by rigging the poll. They could have saved themselves some dosh. "The Sun Says" would have had the same effect.
I would though suggest a law making any financial or physical support for a foreign power illegal irrespective of whether they are considered allies. I would also ban duel passports making holders choose.
Though it would affect Israel more than ISIS at least it would be seen to be even handed.
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
So why are they claiming to have air launched Harpoons ? Harpoons aren't exactly the most modern missile they first appeared about 40 years ago, but presumably like Tornados they may not be perfect but they're what we;ve got.
Harpoons have ballistic flghtpaths. This makes them trivial to take out by CIWS. Modern guided missile have a non-ballistic flghtpath making them much harder to take out.
and just who will be using all this hi tech against us ?
our nato allies, the shrinking russian navy or the undeveloped chinese one ?
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ?
On the other hand you could take the view that if they've all screwed up on procurement then it's level playing field.
Or that every army and navy starts off with the wrong equipment when fighting a war and has to adapt with what it has got. See just about any conflict you can think of.
The issue then becomes how good are you at using what you've got, something UK forces have proved reasonaly good at especially since as of late we've often been fighting someone we didn't expect to fight.
Navies around the world DO NOT BUILD Supercarriers.
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
and the french
so basically everyone of the UN security council.
plus India.
Charles de Gaulle, at 45000 tonnes is comparable to WW2 era carriers. It is NOT a Supecarrier, which is generally boats over 65000 tonnes (which the QE Class only just qualifies as).
India have no Supercarriers, they have the 45000 ton a recent build of a 40 year old Russian design. and the old WW2 era HMS Hermes under a new name which is a 24000 ton Light Aircraft Carrier.
The only countries with Supercarriers are the United States with 10, Russia with 1 and China with 1.
yeah, this whole concept seems to hang around what Admiral Dair deems is fit for his navy.
If the french have a carrier capable of bombing someone, that's fine by me.
I think the thinking is that the UK will work with its allies to provide carrier escorts. It is doing the same for Charles de Gaulle at the moment.
The bigger issue we have is personnel to staff all this kit - personally, I think we're a few thousand short.
I can only assume the government will staff up following the SDR2020 once the UK budget is more heathy.
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
So why are they claiming to have air launched Harpoons ? Harpoons aren't exactly the most modern missile they first appeared about 40 years ago, but presumably like Tornados they may not be perfect but they're what we;ve got.
Harpoons have ballistic flghtpaths. This makes them trivial to take out by CIWS. Modern guided missile have a non-ballistic flghtpath making them much harder to take out.
and just who will be using all this hi tech against us ?
our nato allies, the shrinking russian navy or the undeveloped chinese one ?
I would doubt there is any Navy on the planet which does not have Phalanx or Goalkeeper on their Capital ships which makes Harpoons obsolete.
Goalkeeper is dirt cheap and as I understand it just as effective as Phalanx.
You're argument was that an Aircraft Carrier has the ability to defend itself with its Aircraft. This is just not true. The aircraft would need to b able to defend against Ships, Planes, Guided Missiles and Ballistic Missiles. They could arguably provide an air defence against aircraft.
But the UK could not provide a defence against anything else using carrier aircraft.
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ?
On the other hand you could take the view that if they've all screwed up on procurement then it's level playing field.
Or that every army and navy starts off with the wrong equipment when fighting a war and has to adapt with what it has got. See just about any conflict you can think of.
The issue then becomes how good are you at using what you've got, something UK forces have proved reasonaly good at especially since as of late we've often been fighting someone we didn't expect to fight.
Navies around the world DO NOT BUILD Supercarriers.
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
and the french
so basically everyone of the UN security council.
plus India.
Charles de Gaulle, at 45000 tonnes is comparable to WW2 era carriers. It is NOT a Supecarrier, which is generally boats over 65000 tonnes (which the QE Class only just qualifies as).
India have no Supercarriers, they have the 45000 ton a recent build of a 40 year old Russian design. and the old WW2 era HMS Hermes under a new name which is a 24000 ton Light Aircraft Carrier.
The only countries with Supercarriers are the United States with 10.
"Yoga needs to be wrenched away from the hyper-flexible, white elite few"
Well, let's think this through ladies. If we can start playing the 'cultural appropriation' card, we can stop Johnny Foreigner playing footer, rugger and so on. This is our big chance to clean up all the important sporting trophies .
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
So why are they claiming to have air launched Harpoons ? Harpoons aren't exactly the most modern missile they first appeared about 40 years ago, but presumably like Tornados they may not be perfect but they're what we;ve got.
Harpoons have ballistic flghtpaths. This makes them trivial to take out by CIWS. Modern guided missile have a non-ballistic flghtpath making them much harder to take out.
Harpoon is sea skimming.
Meh, ok. Harpoon uses a direct trajectory which means it is trivial to take out. Modern guided missiles move all over the place randomly, requiring CIWS to spray over an area rather than focus directly on a target. Harpoons would be directly focused, guaranteeing they are taken out.
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
So why are they claiming to have air launched Harpoons ? Harpoons aren't exactly the most modern missile they first appeared about 40 years ago, but presumably like Tornados they may not be perfect but they're what we;ve got.
Harpoons have ballistic flghtpaths. This makes them trivial to take out by CIWS. Modern guided missile have a non-ballistic flghtpath making them much harder to take out.
and just who will be using all this hi tech against us ?
our nato allies, the shrinking russian navy or the undeveloped chinese one ?
The navy of an independent Scotland?
MalcolmG in a Pedalo tossing empty whisky bottles at anyone drunk enough to take him on.
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
So why are they claiming to have air launched Harpoons ? Harpoons aren't exactly the most modern missile they first appeared about 40 years ago, but presumably like Tornados they may not be perfect but they're what we;ve got.
Harpoons have ballistic flghtpaths. This makes them trivial to take out by CIWS. Modern guided missile have a non-ballistic flghtpath making them much harder to take out.
and just who will be using all this hi tech against us ?
our nato allies, the shrinking russian navy or the undeveloped chinese one ?
I would doubt there is any Navy on the planet which does not have Phalanx or Goalkeeper on their Capital ships which makes Harpoons obsolete.
Goalkeeper is dirt cheap and as I understand it just as effective as Phalanx.
You're argument was that an Aircraft Carrier has the ability to defend itself with its Aircraft. This is just not true. The aircraft would need to b able to defend against Ships, Planes, Guided Missiles and Ballistic Missiles. They could arguably provide an air defence against aircraft.
But the UK could not provide a defence against anything else using carrier aircraft.
yeah you've done the usual threat magnifcication, but you haven't actually said who you think will deploy all this hi tech against us. So once again who will deploy all this hi tech against us.
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ?
On the other hand you could take the view that if they've all screwed up on procurement then it's level playing field.
Or that every army and navy starts off with the wrong equipment when fighting a war and has to adapt with what it has got. See just about any conflict you can think of.
The issue then becomes how good are you at using what you've got, something UK forces have proved reasonaly good at especially since as of late we've often been fighting someone we didn't expect to fight.
Navies around the world DO NOT BUILD Supercarriers.
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
and the french
so basically everyone of the UN security council.
plus India.
Charles de Gaulle, at 45000 tonnes is comparable to WW2 era carriers. It is NOT a Supecarrier, which is generally boats over 65000 tonnes (which the QE Class only just qualifies as).
India have no Supercarriers, they have the 45000 ton a recent build of a 40 year old Russian design. and the old WW2 era HMS Hermes under a new name which is a 24000 ton Light Aircraft Carrier.
The only countries with Supercarriers are the United States with 10, Russia with 1 and China with 1.
yeah, this whole concept seems to hang around what Admiral Dair deems is fit for his navy.
If the french have a carrier capable of bombing someone, that's fine by me.
I think the thinking is that the UK will work with its allies to provide carrier escorts. It is doing the same for Charles de Gaulle at the moment.
The bigger issue we have is personnel to staff all this kit - personally, I think we're a few thousand short.
I can only assume the government will staff up following the SDR2020 once the UK budget is more heathy.
I'm not sure the budget will be much healthier.
Cameron has changed the commitment from, IIRC, 16 Lightning 2s on one Supercarrier, to 24 Lightning 2s on two Supercarriers. This is not going to be cheap. Lockheed Martin et al will be demanding their pound of flesh in the back end to keep the planes in the air.
norman smith @BBCNormanS 1m1 minute ago Jeremy Corbyn calls for a human rights adviser in every embassy
Embassies already have access to such people. They are known as lawyers. And the FCO have plenty of them.
Not just any human rights adviser - a jeremy corbyn huma rights adviser
I wonder if he might be talking about a 'human rights adviser' from charities, not government. How about a CAGE adviser in every embassy? A Stop the War walllah in every consulate?
Sounds good to me, Mr. Jessop we could set up a charity, call it "Human Rights Experts" and provide the people to be stationed in every embassy. Of course, as with a lot of trendy lefty charities most of our money would come from HMG, so we would avoid all that nasty fund raising business.
However, I am prepared to take the Australian gig for a couple of years on an expenses only basis (providing I don't actually have to get in an aeroplane). I'd do Oman for free too and I wouldn't say no to Iran (again no travel by air would have to be written in to the contract).
A great idea, but it'd be dangerous. With my communication skills and (kn/l)ack of diplomacy, we'd be at war with whichever country I was posted to within five minutes of arrival .
Not really surprising that 'The Sun' should want it's moronic readership to share its prejudices by rigging the poll. They could have saved themselves some dosh. "The Sun Says" would have had the same effect.
I would though suggest a law making any financial or physical support for a foreign power illegal irrespective of whether they are considered allies. I would also ban duel passports making holders choose.
Though it would affect Israel more than ISIS at least it would be seen to be even handed.
Why ban dual passports? Are you saying that somone who has an Irish and a UK passport has to choose? What would that achieve?
That just seems like another version of Tebbit's absurd "cricket test" which would not even affect or impact the major risk we face at the moment.
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
So why are they claiming to have air launched Harpoons ? Harpoons aren't exactly the most modern missile they first appeared about 40 years ago, but presumably like Tornados they may not be perfect but they're what we;ve got.
Who is claiming to have air launched Harpoons? Certainly not the RAF, they got rid of them years ago in another round of defence cuts, along with the Sea Eagle.
I think you'll find Mr. Brook that out anti-shipping capability is down to the submarines and the single 4.5 inch gun on the ever shrinking number of destroyers and Frigates. If we want to defend the QE class carriers against a surface threat the best thing we could probably do is reactivate HMS Belfast - it has more anti-surface capability than the rest of the RN/RAF put together (being armoured it is also more likely to survive any combat).
I just checked and you're right. I thought the Kuznetsov class was 67000 tonnes but they are 55000 tonnes. Close but no cigar.
So the only nation with Supercarriers is the United States (and soon the tiny UK). It shows how stupid this build is.
Given the size of China and its military expenditure, the plans for two or three (possibly Super) carriers shows just how little value they have. I suspect their new 7500mph ballistic missile to which guarantees a dead Supercarrier and cannot be defended against might be colouring their judgement.
"I suspect their new 7500mph ballistic missile to which guarantees a dead Supercarrier and cannot be defended against"
There are several things to say about this. The technical challenges of a 7,500 MPH ballistic missile capable of hitting something as small as a carrier without using a nuclear warhead to 'make the target bigger' are many. People believe the Chinese have them, and they have done a few test firings; there is less information on the success or failure of those test firings.
And if they are nuclear-enabled, then all bets are off. A nuclear strike against a US carrier would be an act of war; a nuclear attack against a US carrier would be responded to in kind.
Then there is the 'cannot be defended against'. Again, I rather think you are over-egging the pudding.
So yes, hypersonic missiles are a potential threat. But for the moment that is what they are: a potential threat, not a real one. And the US and others will be working out how to mitigate that potential threat, including countermeasures.
The issue is also illuminated by Survation's control group of NON-Muslims, showing strikingly similar figures - essentially there is a small percentage of people who feel it's brave, or sad, or anti-establishment, or something, to gfo and fight in Syria, and that's not primarily determined by religion. Their comment (from the Guardian blog):
A clear majority of British Muslims, 71%, say they have “no sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria”. 5% had “a lot of sympathy” and 15% had “some sympathy”. These figures represent a significant drop in sympathy since March, from 8% and 20% respectively. In total 8% fewer Muslims have any sympathy for Muslims leaving for Syria than they did in March. Interestingly, when we polled the remainder of the British population in March, 4% of non-Muslims expressed “a lot of sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria” and 9% expressed “some sympathy”, suggesting that attitudes held by the Muslim and non-Muslim populations are not that different.
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ? ...
The issue then becomes how good are you at using what you've got, something UK forces have proved reasonaly good at especially since as of late we've often been fighting someone we didn't expect to fight.
Navies around the world DO NOT BUILD Supercarriers.
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
Russia do not have a supercarrier. The Kuznetsov is lighter than the QE2 class, and under half the weight of a Nimitz. It's also technically an aircraft-carrying cruiser, not a carrier.
The Chinese Liaoning has yet to be used on operations (remember the comedy a few weeks ago when some were claiming it was off the coast of Syria?). Personally I doubt it will ever be used in anger: it is very much a learning experience for the Chinese. Their first real carrier will be the first indigenous vessel they build for themselves.
I can see the Chinese building three successors only loosely based on the originally-Russian Liaoning. But in such matters the Chinese are as inscrutable as ever.
And the Indians are building a biggie as well in the Vishal, successor to the Vikrant.
Not Vishal, it's a new ship called Vikrant. Vishal is merely projected (2025).
Also have the Vikramaditya, formerly the Soviet Baku, but radically transformed with ski-jump in lieu of anti-ship missiles. And the oldest serving Aircraft Carrier, the Viraat (ex-HMS Hermes) is still in service - but not for much longer.
The Viraat is too light (at under 30,000 tons) to be classed as anything like a supercarrier.
The QE2 class is not a 'super carrier' it does not have nuclear power, it does not have an angled flight deck, it does not have a single catapult - let alone 2 like a Nimitz class, it falls far short of the necessary 80 to 90 thousand tonnes and it cannot carry upwards of 90 fixed wing conventional jet planes. As ever Dair is clueless. Well really all he is doing is setting up a straw man to make a spurious argument. Thanks to Labour's poor defence procurement these planes are decisively NOT supercarriers, despite their displacement and their short term ability to fly 30 VTOL planes in an emergency. However we are stuck with them thanks to Labour.
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
So why are they claiming to have air launched Harpoons ? Harpoons aren't exactly the most modern missile they first appeared about 40 years ago, but presumably like Tornados they may not be perfect but they're what we;ve got.
Harpoons have ballistic flghtpaths. This makes them trivial to take out by CIWS. Modern guided missile have a non-ballistic flghtpath making them much harder to take out.
and just who will be using all this hi tech against us ?
our nato allies, the shrinking russian navy or the undeveloped chinese one ?
I would doubt there is any Navy on the planet which does not have Phalanx or Goalkeeper on their Capital ships which makes Harpoons obsolete.
Goalkeeper is dirt cheap and as I understand it just as effective as Phalanx.
You're argument was that an Aircraft Carrier has the ability to defend itself with its Aircraft. This is just not true. The aircraft would need to b able to defend against Ships, Planes, Guided Missiles and Ballistic Missiles. They could arguably provide an air defence against aircraft.
But the UK could not provide a defence against anything else using carrier aircraft.
yeah you've done the usual threat magnifcication, but you haven't actually said who you think will deploy all this hi tech against us. So once again who will deploy all this hi tech against us.
I doubt there are many Navies who could not take out an undefended carrier today. I forgot to include Torpedoes from subs or planes. Even the bankrupt Argies have got subs which can effortlessly take out a carrier.
Threats to carriers are very real. That's why US Carrier Groups need so many capital ships and subs to try to defend their Supercarriers.
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
So why are they claiming to have air launched Harpoons ? Harpoons aren't exactly the most modern missile they first appeared about 40 years ago, but presumably like Tornados they may not be perfect but they're what we;ve got.
Who is claiming to have air launched Harpoons? Certainly not the RAF, they got rid of them years ago in another round of defence cuts, along with the Sea Eagle.
I think you'll find Mr. Brook that out anti-shipping capability is down to the submarines and the single 4.5 inch gun on the ever shrinking number of destroyers and Frigates. If we want to defend the QE class carriers against a surface threat the best thing we could probably do is reactivate HMS Belfast - it has more anti-surface capability than the rest of the RN/RAF put together (being armoured it is also more likely to survive any combat).
well last time I looked the RAF was claiming to have them. I thought the FAA was dead these days ?
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
So why are they claiming to have air launched Harpoons ? Harpoons aren't exactly the most modern missile they first appeared about 40 years ago, but presumably like Tornados they may not be perfect but they're what we;ve got.
Harpoons have ballistic flghtpaths. This makes them trivial to take out by CIWS. Modern guided missile have a non-ballistic flghtpath making them much harder to take out.
and just who will be using all this hi tech against us ?
our nato allies, the shrinking russian navy or the undeveloped chinese one ?
I would doubt there is any Navy on the planet which does not have Phalanx or Goalkeeper on their Capital ships which makes Harpoons obsolete.
Goalkeeper is dirt cheap and as I understand it just as effective as Phalanx.
You're argument was that an Aircraft Carrier has the ability to defend itself with its Aircraft. This is just not true. The aircraft would need to b able to defend against Ships, Planes, Guided Missiles and Ballistic Missiles. They could arguably provide an air defence against aircraft.
But the UK could not provide a defence against anything else using carrier aircraft.
yeah you've done the usual threat magnifcication, but you haven't actually said who you think will deploy all this hi tech against us. So once again who will deploy all this hi tech against us.
I doubt there are many Navies who could not take out an undefended carrier today. I forgot to include Torpedoes from subs or planes. Even the bankrupt Argies have got subs which can effortlessly take out a carrier.
Threats to carriers are very real. That's why US Carrier Groups need so many capital ships and subs to try to defend their Supercarriers.
Yes once again you've avoided the question, who will be fighting us ?
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ?
On the other hand you could take the view that if they've all screwed up on procurement then it's level playing field.
Or that every army and navy starts off with the wrong equipment when fighting a war and has to adapt with what it has got. See just about any conflict you can think of.
The issue then becomes how good are you at using what you've got, something UK forces have proved reasonaly good at especially since as of late we've often been fighting someone we didn't expect to fight.
Navies around the world DO NOT BUILD Supercarriers.
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
and the french
so basically everyone of the UN security council.
plus India.
C
yeah, this whole concept seems to hang around what Admiral Dair deems is fit for his navy.
If the french have a carrier capable of bombing someone, that's fine by me.
I think the thinking is that the UK will work with its allies to provide carrier escorts. It is doing the same for Charles de Gaulle at the moment.
The bigger issue we have is personnel to staff all this kit - personally, I think we're a few thousand short.
I can only assume the government will staff up following the SDR2020 once the UK budget is more heathy.
I'm not sure the budget will be much healthier.
Cameron has changed the commitment from, IIRC, 16 Lightning 2s on one Supercarrier, to 24 Lightning 2s on two Supercarriers. This is not going to be cheap. Lockheed Martin et al will be demanding their pound of flesh in the back end to keep the planes in the air.
The commitment is huge: to buy all 138 F35s originally planned. No one expected anything like that.
What hasn't been picked up on is the small print: buying them in several tranches over two decades. That seems quite slow to me: we'll have 24 or so by 2023 and well over a hundred still to come. And who knows where technology will be by 2040.
Personally, I'll be very surprised if we ever buy that many.
Sadly, Cameron can only play with the cards the MoD and Brown dealt him. And the RN Top Brass were stupid enough to play along, assuming they'd get additional ships to support the carriers.
Imagine the whining from Scotland if they'd binned the CVF contracts.
Certainly his hands were tied to a great extent.
But the previous plan of running the Queen Elizabeth as a Charles De Gaulle style, undefended mobile aistrip that only goes to safe waters while mothballing the Prince of Wales WAS sensible and sound given the cards which were on the table.
Even selling the PoW for £1bn to India or France at a huge loss would havee been more sensible than this new plan.
Committing to full scale Carrier Groups is not sensible and not practical for a navy our size. Almost the entire Capital fleet of the RN tied up with Carrier Groups is LUDICROUS.
Run many navies, have you ?
Our hundreds of Admirals have not either Alan.
We have 40 admirals at the last count. This is nothing new, in the past all you had to do was live long enough to get to the top of the captains list to become an admiral.
I just checked and you're right. I thought the Kuznetsov class was 67000 tonnes but they are 55000 tonnes. Close but no cigar.
So the only nation with Supercarriers is the United States (and soon the tiny UK). It shows how stupid this build is.
Given the size of China and its military expenditure, the plans for two or three (possibly Super) carriers shows just how little value they have. I suspect their new 7500mph ballistic missile to which guarantees a dead Supercarrier and cannot be defended against might be colouring their judgement.
"I suspect their new 7500mph ballistic missile to which guarantees a dead Supercarrier and cannot be defended against"
There are several things to say about this. The technical challenges of a 7,500 MPH ballistic missile capable of hitting something as small as a carrier without using a nuclear warhead to 'make the target bigger' are many. People believe the Chinese have them, and they have done a few test firings; there is less information on the success or failure of those test firings.
And if they are nuclear-enabled, then all bets are off. A nuclear strike against a US carrier would be an act of war; a nuclear attack against a US carrier would be responded to in kind.
Then there is the 'cannot be defended against'. Again, I rather think you are over-egging the pudding.
So yes, hypersonic missiles are a potential threat. But for the moment that is what they are: a potential threat, not a real one. And the US and others will be working out how to mitigate that potential threat, including countermeasures.
Even lower speed Ballistic Missiles are damn hard to offer any certainty of defending again. CIWS will do nothing to them and ship to air missiles offer no guarantee of successfully hitting a Ballistic Missile and even when they do, may not destroy or deflect it from the target.
A damaged Ballistic Missile might not sink the carrier but it only has to hit a reasonably large part of the flightdeck to put the carrier out of action (or severely restrict its range if it has VTOL capability).
The Viraat is too light (at under 30,000 tons) to be classed as anything like a supercarrier.
The QE2 class is not a 'super carrier' it does not have nuclear power, it does not have an angled flight deck, it does not have a single catapult - let alone 2 like a Nimitz class, it falls far short of the necessary 80 to 90 thousand tonnes and it cannot carry upwards of 90 fixed wing conventional jet planes. As ever Dair is clueless. Well really all he is doing is setting up a straw man to make a spurious argument. Thanks to Labour's poor defence procurement these planes are decisively NOT supercarriers, despite their displacement and their short term ability to fly 30 VTOL planes in an emergency. However we are stuck with them thanks to Labour.
A Supercarrier is any carrier over 64000 tonnes.
The rest of your drooling rant falls nicely into the category of "crap Flightpath just made up".
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
So why are they claiming to have air launched Harpoons ? Harpoons aren't exactly the most modern missile they first appeared about 40 years ago, but presumably like Tornados they may not be perfect but they're what we;ve got.
Harpoons have ballistic flghtpaths. This makes them trivial to take out by CIWS. Modern guided missile have a non-ballistic flghtpath making them much harder to take out.
Harpoon is sea skimming.
Actually, there is some very interesting work going on in Cambridge into holographic radars that can reliably detect sea-skimming missiles. Waves act as radar disrupters, meaning that very low-flying objects (planes, missiles, shells) can be hard to detect.
The same technology can allow air-traffic control radars to be used near wind farms; currently you cannot build a wind farm too near an airport as they confuse radars.
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
So why are they claiming to have air launched Harpoons ? Harpoons aren't exactly the most modern missile they first appeared about 40 years ago, but presumably like Tornados they may not be perfect but they're what we;ve got.
Who is claiming to have air launched Harpoons? Certainly not the RAF, they got rid of them years ago in another round of defence cuts, along with the Sea Eagle.
I think you'll find Mr. Brook that out anti-shipping capability is down to the submarines and the single 4.5 inch gun on the ever shrinking number of destroyers and Frigates. If we want to defend the QE class carriers against a surface threat the best thing we could probably do is reactivate HMS Belfast - it has more anti-surface capability than the rest of the RN/RAF put together (being armoured it is also more likely to survive any combat).
well last time I looked the RAF was claiming to have them. I thought the FAA was dead these days ?
Maybe you should look again, Mr. Brooke. The RAF have nothing that can carry a harpoon anymore.
As for the FAA not dead, just sleeping. AT least one has to hope so or those carriers are going to look damn silly sliding around the oceans equipped with a couple of helicopters.
Cameron has changed the commitment from, IIRC, 16 Lightning 2s on one Supercarrier, to 24 Lightning 2s on two Supercarriers. This is not going to be cheap. Lockheed Martin et al will be demanding their pound of flesh in the back end to keep the planes in the air.
The commitment is huge: to buy all 138 F35s originally planned. No one expected anything like that.
What hasn't been picked up on is the small print: buying them in several tranches over two decades. That seems quite slow to me: we'll have 24 or so by 2023 and well over a hundred still to come. And who knows where technology will be by 2040.
Personally, I'll be very surprised if we ever buy that many.
Ouch, that makes things even worse.
Personally, short of an update to the Geneva Convention against autonomous fighter planes and bombers (which I am pretty sure the United States would block) the idea that planes will be using pilots in 2040 seems a bit of a stretch.
@Dair - I'm not an expert but the simulations I've seen from the carrier alliance show a carrier group consisting of carrier + type 45 + type 26 + astute attack sub + RFA supply ship.
I expect in reality that would be augmented by additional escorts from allies or requisitions if necessary.
However, I do agree with you the order of only 8 x type 26s is too light. It could easily end up pushing up the per unit cost to justify the R&D and not save much over the original x 13.
FWIW, for a balanced navy, I think we need around 8 x type 45 destroyers and 14-16 x frigates. Not that we will ever get that many. Our sub numbers are probably about right.
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
How many do you think they should have ?
I think you will find that the RAF/FAA have no anti-shipping missile or any heavy weapon capable of taking out a ship save for bombs. The reason I asked was your post suggesting that the QE class carriers could defend themselves with their aircraft. Against an airborne threat they might, as long as it isn't the Russians or, maybe, the Chinese. However, against a warship then they have very little defensive, actually offensive, capability at all.
So why are they claiming to have air launched Harpoons ? Harpoons aren't exactly the most modern missile they first appeared about 40 years ago, but presumably like Tornados they may not be perfect but they're what we;ve got.
Who is claiming to have air launched Harpoons? Certainly not the RAF, they got rid of them years ago in another round of defence cuts, along with the Sea Eagle.
I think you'll find Mr. Brook that out anti-shipping capability is down to the submarines and the single 4.5 inch gun on the ever shrinking number of destroyers and Frigates. If we want to defend the QE class carriers against a surface threat the best thing we could probably do is reactivate HMS Belfast - it has more anti-surface capability than the rest of the RN/RAF put together (being armoured it is also more likely to survive any combat).
well last time I looked the RAF was claiming to have them. I thought the FAA was dead these days ?
Maybe you should look again, Mr. Brooke. The RAF have nothing that can carry a harpoon anymore.
As for the FAA not dead, just sleeping. AT least one has to hope so or those carriers are going to look damn silly sliding around the oceans equipped with a couple of helicopters.
I thought the FAA had been taken under the wing of the RAF ?
The issue is also illuminated by Survation's control group of NON-Muslims, showing strikingly similar figures - essentially there is a small percentage of people who feel it's brave, or sad, or anti-establishment, or something, to gfo and fight in Syria, and that's not primarily determined by religion. Their comment (from the Guardian blog):
A clear majority of British Muslims, 71%, say they have “no sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria”. 5% had “a lot of sympathy” and 15% had “some sympathy”. These figures represent a significant drop in sympathy since March, from 8% and 20% respectively. In total 8% fewer Muslims have any sympathy for Muslims leaving for Syria than they did in March. Interestingly, when we polled the remainder of the British population in March, 4% of non-Muslims expressed “a lot of sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria” and 9% expressed “some sympathy”, suggesting that attitudes held by the Muslim and non-Muslim populations are not that different.
This is push-polling: it's dire stuff.
There are young Brits heading off to fight with the Kurds, which is why OGH's pedantry about "fighting for ISIS" is particularly important.
There are also people who are "sympathetic" to these folks because they feel sorry for the brainwashed and "lost souls".
Cameron has changed the commitment from, IIRC, 16 Lightning 2s on one Supercarrier, to 24 Lightning 2s on two Supercarriers. This is not going to be cheap. Lockheed Martin et al will be demanding their pound of flesh in the back end to keep the planes in the air.
The commitment is huge: to buy all 138 F35s originally planned. No one expected anything like that.
What hasn't been picked up on is the small print: buying them in several tranches over two decades. That seems quite slow to me: we'll have 24 or so by 2023 and well over a hundred still to come. And who knows where technology will be by 2040.
Personally, I'll be very surprised if we ever buy that many.
Ouch, that makes things even worse.
Personally, short of an update to the Geneva Convention against autonomous fighter planes and bombers (which I am pretty sure the United States would block) the idea that planes will be using pilots in 2040 seems a bit of a stretch.
Duncan Sandys said that in the1957 defence review, and with it helped kill off a large part of the British aircraft industry.
Yet nearly sixty years on, we still have combat planes with pilots.
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ? ...
Navies around the world DO NOT BUILD Supercarriers.
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
and the french
so basically everyone of the UN security council.
plus India.
C
yeah, this whole concept seems to hang around what Admiral Dair deems is fit for his navy.
If the french have a carrier capable of bombing someone, that's fine by me.
I think the thinking is that the UK will work with its allies to provide carrier escorts. It is doing the same for Charles de Gaulle at the moment.
The bigger issue we have is personnel to staff all this kit - personally, I think we're a few thousand short.
I can only assume the government will staff up following the SDR2020 once the UK budget is more heathy.
I'm not sure the budget will be much healthier.
Cameron has changed the commitment from, IIRC, 16 Lightning 2s on one Supercarrier, to 24 Lightning 2s on two Supercarriers. This is not going to be cheap. Lockheed Martin et al will be demanding their pound of flesh in the back end to keep the planes in the air.
The commitment is huge: to buy all 138 F35s originally planned. No one expected anything like that.
What hasn't been picked up on is the small print: buying them in several tranches over two decades. That seems quite slow to me: we'll have 24 or so by 2023 and well over a hundred still to come. And who knows where technology will be by 2040.
Personally, I'll be very surprised if we ever buy that many.
These planes are going to evolve enormously over time, like the Typhoon is doing. These are being bought over a long time, just like the Tornado was . The ones purchased later will be replacing earlier ones which will probably be mothballed. They are for the RAF not just the navy.
@Dair - I'm not an expert but the simulations I've seen from the carrier alliance show a carrier group consisting of carrier + type 45 + type 26 + astute attack sub + RFA supply ship.
I expect in reality that would be augmented by additional escorts from allies or requisitions if necessary.
However, I do agree with you the order of only 8 x type 26s is too light. It could easily end up pushing up the per unit cost to justify the R&D and not save much over the original x 13.
FWIW, for a balanced navy, I think we need around 8 x type 45 destroyers and 14-16 x frigates. Not that we will ever get that many. Our sub numbers are probably about right.
The core problem is this half arsed attempt to pretend to have a Blue Water capability which comes directly at the expense of a proper Offshore defense and absolutely no Littoral defense.
Britain NEEDS a strong Offshore defense and a limited Littoral defense around the channel. Beyond that, any capability should be purely as a part of Nato joint operations.
Supercarriers are simply not necessary for a nation which maintains diverse flight operations bases in all corners of the globe. For power protection (if even needed), Ballistic specced DDGs should be all we need ever consider.
"It’s not about Jeremy Corbyn any more. His leadership of the Labour Party – if you can seriously call his grotesque tenure “leadership” – is over before it has properly begun. He may stagger on for a few months, muttering to himself about the thousands of new party members rallying to his side, and providing fresh material for the people who produce online parodies of Downfall, the German film about Hitler’s last days. But we know how the great Corbyn experiment ends, if we ever really had any doubts."
I just checked and you're right. I thought the Kuznetsov class was 67000 tonnes but they are 55000 tonnes. Close but no cigar.
So the only nation with Supercarriers is the United States (and soon the tiny UK). It shows how stupid this build is.
Given the size of China and its military expenditure, the plans for two or three (possibly Super) carriers shows just how little value they have. I suspect their new 7500mph ballistic missile to which guarantees a dead Supercarrier and cannot be defended against might be colouring their judgement.
"I suspect their new 7500mph ballistic missile to which guarantees a dead Supercarrier and cannot be defended against"
There are several things to say about this. The technical challenges of a 7,500 MPH ballistic missile capable of hitting something as small as a carrier without using a nuclear warhead to 'make the target bigger' are many. People believe the Chinese have them, and they have done a few test firings; there is less information on the success or failure of those test firings.
And if they are nuclear-enabled, then all bets are off. A nuclear strike against a US carrier would be an act of war; a nuclear attack against a US carrier would be responded to in kind.
Then there is the 'cannot be defended against'. Again, I rather think you are over-egging the pudding.
So yes, hypersonic missiles are a potential threat. But for the moment that is what they are: a potential threat, not a real one. And the US and others will be working out how to mitigate that potential threat, including countermeasures.
Even lower speed Ballistic Missiles are damn hard to offer any certainty of defending again. CIWS will do nothing to them and ship to air missiles offer no guarantee of successfully hitting a Ballistic Missile and even when they do, may not destroy or deflect it from the target.
A damaged Ballistic Missile might not sink the carrier but it only has to hit a reasonably large part of the flightdeck to put the carrier out of action (or severely restrict its range if it has VTOL capability).
Ballistic missiles rely on speed to increase accuracy due to wind drift. That's why the shape of the re-entry body is so vital: earlier systems were blunter, and less accurate as they spent more time in the atmosphere during re-entry.
It also depends on whether we're talking of SRBM, IRBM or ICBM, and whether there are associated glide-flight bodies.
But to hit a carrier with a non-nuclear payload, you're talking about higher accuracy than the CEP of a few hundred metres of many ballistic missile systems. It's non-trivial.
As for taking them out: I think you need to read up more on the technology. The best time to get them would be during the boost phase anyway.
@Dair - I'm not an expert but the simulations I've seen from the carrier alliance show a carrier group consisting of carrier + type 45 + type 26 + astute attack sub + RFA supply ship.
I expect in reality that would be augmented by additional escorts from allies or requisitions if necessary.
However, I do agree with you the order of only 8 x type 26s is too light. It could easily end up pushing up the per unit cost to justify the R&D and not save much over the original x 13.
FWIW, for a balanced navy, I think we need around 8 x type 45 destroyers and 14-16 x frigates. Not that we will ever get that many. Our sub numbers are probably about right.
I think that at the time the two carriers were ordered certain other assumptions were made about the number of escorts and submarines that would be provided. Twelve Type 45s definitely strikes a cord. As the years rolled on the numbers the numbers were cut and cut again. Today we see that the number of ASW frigates is going to be cut even further.
I suspect that by the time the carriers come into service they will have fewer aircraft than the old Invincible class and the RN will have too few escorts for the carriers ever to be sailed into harm's way.
If the argument is to be trotted out that we will only ever go to war with allies and they will form the escort fleet, then I will have to ask why didn't we leave it to some other bugger to build the big stuff? We could have stumped up for a couple of escorts at a much lower cost; no need even for a T-45, we could have just gone with a few re-built T23s, or even half a dozen Leander class.
@Dair - I'm not an expert but the simulations I've seen from the carrier alliance show a carrier group consisting of carrier + type 45 + type 26 + astute attack sub + RFA supply ship.
I expect in reality that would be augmented by additional escorts from allies or requisitions if necessary.
However, I do agree with you the order of only 8 x type 26s is too light. It could easily end up pushing up the per unit cost to justify the R&D and not save much over the original x 13.
FWIW, for a balanced navy, I think we need around 8 x type 45 destroyers and 14-16 x frigates. Not that we will ever get that many. Our sub numbers are probably about right.
The carrier aset should be seen as part of our contribution to NATO and other NATO navies will contibute to its active service. Hence of course all the combined NATO exercises we read about. If we use ourbnave for non NATO purposes then other navise will take over our specific commitment.
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ? ...
Navies around the world DO NOT BUILD Supercarriers.
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
and the french
so basically everyone of the UN security council.
plus India.
C
yeah, this whole concept seems to hang around what Admiral Dair deems is fit for his navy.
If the french have a carrier capable of bombing someone, that's fine by me.
I think the thinking is that the UK will work with its allies to provide carrier escorts. It is doing the same for Charles de Gaulle at the moment.
The bigger issue we have is personnel to staff all this kit - personally, I think we're a few thousand short.
I can only assume the government will staff up following the SDR2020 once the UK budget is more heathy.
I'm not sure the budget will be much healthier.
Cameron has changed the commitment from, IIRC, 16 Lightning 2s on one Supercarrier, to 24 Lightning 2s on two Supercarriers. This is not going to be cheap. Lockheed Martin et al will be demanding their pound of flesh in the back end to keep the planes in the air.
The commitment is huge: to buy all 138 F35s originally planned. No one expected anything like that.
What hasn't been picked up on is the small print: buying them in several tranches over two decades. That seems quite slow to me: we'll have 24 or so by 2023 and well over a hundred still to come. And who knows where technology will be by 2040.
Personally, I'll be very surprised if we ever buy that many.
These planes are going to evolve enormously over time, like the Typhoon is doing. These are being bought over a long time, just like the Tornado was . The ones purchased later will be replacing earlier ones which will probably be mothballed. They are for the RAF not just the navy.
@Dair - I'm not an expert but the simulations I've seen from the carrier alliance show a carrier group consisting of carrier + type 45 + type 26 + astute attack sub + RFA supply ship.
I expect in reality that would be augmented by additional escorts from allies or requisitions if necessary.
However, I do agree with you the order of only 8 x type 26s is too light. It could easily end up pushing up the per unit cost to justify the R&D and not save much over the original x 13.
FWIW, for a balanced navy, I think we need around 8 x type 45 destroyers and 14-16 x frigates. Not that we will ever get that many. Our sub numbers are probably about right.
I think that at the time the two carriers were ordered certain other assumptions were made about the number of escorts and submarines that would be provided. Twelve Type 45s definitely strikes a cord. As the years rolled on the numbers the numbers were cut and cut again. Today we see that the number of ASW frigates is going to be cut even further.
I suspect that by the time the carriers come into service they will have fewer aircraft than the old Invincible class and the RN will have too few escorts for the carriers ever to be sailed into harm's way.
If the argument is to be trotted out that we will only ever go to war with allies and they will form the escort fleet, then I will have to ask why didn't we leave it to some other bugger to build the big stuff? We could have stumped up for a couple of escorts at a much lower cost; no need even for a T-45, we could have just gone with a few re-built T23s, or even half a dozen Leander class.
and yet Mr L has there been a war in the last 100 years where we;ve stumbled in to it with all the right equipment ? Possibly Gulf 1 where we had a cold war bonanza to blow, after that I;m stuck. And if it applies to us it applies to the other side as well. It's all about what we do with what we've got.
@Dair - I'm not an expert but the simulations I've seen from the carrier alliance show a carrier group consisting of carrier + type 45 + type 26 + astute attack sub + RFA supply ship.
I expect in reality that would be augmented by additional escorts from allies or requisitions if necessary.
However, I do agree with you the order of only 8 x type 26s is too light. It could easily end up pushing up the per unit cost to justify the R&D and not save much over the original x 13.
FWIW, for a balanced navy, I think we need around 8 x type 45 destroyers and 14-16 x frigates. Not that we will ever get that many. Our sub numbers are probably about right.
I think that at the time the two carriers were ordered certain other assumptions were made about the number of escorts and submarines that would be provided. Twelve Type 45s definitely strikes a cord. As the years rolled on the numbers the numbers were cut and cut again. Today we see that the number of ASW frigates is going to be cut even further.
I suspect that by the time the carriers come into service they will have fewer aircraft than the old Invincible class and the RN will have too few escorts for the carriers ever to be sailed into harm's way.
If the argument is to be trotted out that we will only ever go to war with allies and they will form the escort fleet, then I will have to ask why didn't we leave it to some other bugger to build the big stuff? We could have stumped up for a couple of escorts at a much lower cost; no need even for a T-45, we could have just gone with a few re-built T23s, or even half a dozen Leander class.
Well, I wouldn't start from here. But carriers give you sovereign terrority, a mobile base and operations centre, local air superiority and a multi-lateral power projection (strike) ability virtually anywhere in the world.
The strategic flexibility is unmatched. You can't do much without them, and we'd be abandoning all ambition of remaining a world power if we did.
I view these and our nuclear deterrent subs as essential.
Ballistic missiles rely on speed to increase accuracy due to wind drift. That's why the shape of the re-entry body is so vital: earlier systems were blunter, and less accurate as they spent more time in the atmosphere during re-entry.
It also depends on whether we're talking of SRBM, IRBM or ICBM, and whether there are associated glide-flight bodies.
But to hit a carrier with a non-nuclear payload, you're talking about higher accuracy than the CEP of a few hundred metres of many ballistic missile systems. It's non-trivial.
As for taking them out: I think you need to read up more on the technology. The best time to get them would be during the boost phase anyway.
Surely if we are talking about a carriers ability to defend itself then this is purely about the carriers ability to detect, target and destroy a ballistic missile. Which is quite limited and may not be effective.
The boost phase is well outwith the capability of a carrier to defend itself.
"A secret British cell of Islamist women is brainwashing young female Muslims in the UK and encouraging them to join Isil, an undercover investigation has revealed."
"It’s not about Jeremy Corbyn any more. His leadership of the Labour Party – if you can seriously call his grotesque tenure “leadership” – is over before it has properly begun. He may stagger on for a few months, muttering to himself about the thousands of new party members rallying to his side, and providing fresh material for the people who produce online parodies of Downfall, the German film about Hitler’s last days. But we know how the great Corbyn experiment ends, if we ever really had any doubts."
This is seriously bad news. Fortunately it is from the Telegraph, so hope lives on.
I think that at the time the two carriers were ordered certain other assumptions were made about the number of escorts and submarines that would be provided. Twelve Type 45s definitely strikes a cord. As the years rolled on the numbers the numbers were cut and cut again. Today we see that the number of ASW frigates is going to be cut even further.
I suspect that by the time the carriers come into service they will have fewer aircraft than the old Invincible class and the RN will have too few escorts for the carriers ever to be sailed into harm's way.
If the argument is to be trotted out that we will only ever go to war with allies and they will form the escort fleet, then I will have to ask why didn't we leave it to some other bugger to build the big stuff? We could have stumped up for a couple of escorts at a much lower cost; no need even for a T-45, we could have just gone with a few re-built T23s, or even half a dozen Leander class.
That's a great point.
When it comes to carrier defence, the platform is mostly irrelevant. The systems could just as easily be refitted to Type 23s and Type 42s as for there to be a need for 45s or 26s.
And indeed for Carrier defense, diesel subs are every bit as practical as the hugely expensive Nuclear powered Astutes.
@Dair - I'm not an expert but the simulations I've seen from the carrier alliance show a carrier group consisting of carrier + type 45 + type 26 + astute attack sub + RFA supply ship.
I expect in reality that would be augmented by additional escorts from allies or requisitions if necessary.
However, I do agree with you the order of only 8 x type 26s is too light. It could easily end up pushing up the per unit cost to justify the R&D and not save much over the original x 13.
FWIW, for a balanced navy, I think we need around 8 x type 45 destroyers and 14-16 x frigates. Not that we will ever get that many. Our sub numbers are probably about right.
The carrier aset should be seen as part of our contribution to NATO and other NATO navies will contibute to its active service. Hence of course all the combined NATO exercises we read about. If we use ourbnave for non NATO purposes then other navise will take over our specific commitment.
Well let's take a historically important naval military like Denmark.
They currently field a total of ZERO ships which would be capable of providing Carrier defense. They have three air defense Frigates which might at a push be used as cover for missing DDGs but would be vastly inferior to a real air defense capital ship.
Most small NATO powers base their navies around their own practical needs.
The UK is the muggins wasting billions on boats that serve no practical purpose to her own defense.
Ballistic missiles rely on speed to increase accuracy due to wind drift. That's why the shape of the re-entry body is so vital: earlier systems were blunter, and less accurate as they spent more time in the atmosphere during re-entry.
It also depends on whether we're talking of SRBM, IRBM or ICBM, and whether there are associated glide-flight bodies.
But to hit a carrier with a non-nuclear payload, you're talking about higher accuracy than the CEP of a few hundred metres of many ballistic missile systems. It's non-trivial.
As for taking them out: I think you need to read up more on the technology. The best time to get them would be during the boost phase anyway.
Surely if we are talking about a carriers ability to defend itself then this is purely about the carriers ability to detect, target and destroy a ballistic missile. Which is quite limited and may not be effective.
The boost phase is well outwith the capability of a carrier to defend itself.
Again, you ignore the accuracy problem: a CEP of a couple of hundred metres would be too big to reliably hit a carrier (remember, a CEP is a 50% chance of hitting within a circle of that radius).
And some of the laser-based tech the Americans are developing may be able to do the job. You can be sure the Yanks are working on asimilar systems, and countermeasures.
@Dair - I'm not an expert but the simulations I've seen from the carrier alliance show a carrier group consisting of carrier + type 45 + type 26 + astute attack sub + RFA supply ship.
I expect in reality that would be augmented by additional escorts from allies or requisitions if necessary.
However, I do agree with you the order of only 8 x type 26s is too light. It could easily end up pushing up the per unit cost to justify the R&D and not save much over the original x 13.
FWIW, for a balanced navy, I think we need around 8 x type 45 destroyers and 14-16 x frigates. Not that we will ever get that many. Our sub numbers are probably about right.
I think that at the time the two carriers were ordered certain other assumptions were made about the number of escorts and submarines that would be provided. Twelve Type 45s definitely strikes a cord. As the years rolled on the numbers the numbers were cut and cut again. Today we see that the number of ASW frigates is going to be cut even further.
I suspect that by the time the carriers come into service they will have fewer aircraft than the old Invincible class and the RN will have too few escorts for the carriers ever to be sailed into harm's way.
If the argument is to be trotted out that we will only ever go to war with allies and they will form the escort fleet, then I will have to ask why didn't we leave it to some other bugger to build the big stuff? We could have stumped up for a couple of escorts at a much lower cost; no need even for a T-45, we could have just gone with a few re-built T23s, or even half a dozen Leander class.
and yet Mr L has there been a war in the last 100 years where we;ve stumbled in to it with all the right equipment ? Possibly Gulf 1 where we had a cold war bonanza to blow, after that I;m stuck. And if it applies to us it applies to the other side as well. It's all about what we do with what we've got.
WW2. We didn't have enough of it but overall we had the best equipped armed forces in Europe.
Anyway, I am going to spend the rest of the evening in the XIVth century. The aftermath of the Black Death awaits. Play nicely, all.
After Ed Miliband reportedly told his MPs 'I bet that you didn't think things would actually get worse' he gave a muted endorsement to Corbyn on the Today programme as to whether Corbyn could be PM 'Of course in the end that's a decision for the electorate as I discovered to my cost.' Naughtie then stuck the boot in when Ed said 'I'm not going to be a backseat driver' 'Yeah because you crashed the car'http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/23/ed-miliband-burned-by-bbc-presenter-jim-naughtie-for-crashing-labour-car_n_8626664.html
@Dair - I'm not an expert but the simulations I've seen from the carrier alliance show a carrier group consisting of carrier + type 45 + type 26 + astute attack sub + RFA supply ship.
I expect in reality that would be augmented by additional escorts from allies or requisitions if necessary.
However, I do agree with you the order of only 8 x type 26s is too light. It could easily end up pushing up the per unit cost to justify the R&D and not save much over the original x 13.
FWIW, for a balanced navy, I think we need around 8 x type 45 destroyers and 14-16 x frigates. Not that we will ever get that many. Our sub numbers are probably about right.
The carrier aset should be seen as part of our contribution to NATO and other NATO navies will contibute to its active service. Hence of course all the combined NATO exercises we read about. If we use ourbnave for non NATO purposes then other navise will take over our specific commitment.
Well let's take a historically important naval military like Denmark.
They currently field a total of ZERO ships which would be capable of providing Carrier defense. They have three air defense Frigates which might at a push be used as cover for missing DDGs but would be vastle inferior to a real air defense capital ship.
Most small NATO powers base their navies around their own practical needs.
The UK is the muggins wasting billions on boats that serve no practical purpose to her own defense.
Built in Scotland by a Scottish PM!
In a major shooting war with Russia or similar no fleet would be safe for long. Neither ours nor theirs.
The major use of these supercarriers is as floating expeditionary platforms, such as the way the frogs are using theirs against Daesh.
@Dair - I'm not an expert but the simulations I've seen from the carrier alliance show a carrier group consisting of carrier + type 45 + type 26 + astute attack sub + RFA supply ship.
I expect in reality that would be augmented by additional escorts from allies or requisitions if necessary.
However, I do agree with you the order of only 8 x type 26s is too light. It could easily end up pushing up the per unit cost to justify the R&D and not save much over the original x 13.
FWIW, for a balanced navy, I think we need around 8 x type 45 destroyers and 14-16 x frigates. Not that we will ever get that many. Our sub numbers are probably about right.
I think that at the time the two carriers were ordered certain other assumptions were made about the number of escorts and submarines that would be provided. Twelve Type 45s definitely strikes a cord. As the years rolled on the numbers the numbers were cut and cut again. Today we see that the number of ASW frigates is going to be cut even further.
I suspect that by the time the carriers come into service they will have fewer aircraft than the old Invincible class and the RN will have too few escorts for the carriers ever to be sailed into harm's way.
If the argument is to be trotted out that we will only ever go to war with allies and they will form the escort fleet, then I will have to ask why didn't we leave it to some other bugger to build the big stuff? We could have stumped up for a couple of escorts at a much lower cost; no need even for a T-45, we could have just gone with a few re-built T23s, or even half a dozen Leander class.
Well, I wouldn't start from here. But carriers give you sovereign terrority, a mobile base and operations centre, local air superiority and a multi-lateral power projection (strike) ability virtually anywhere in the world.
The strategic flexibility is unmatched. You can't do much without them, and we'd be abandoning all ambition of remaining a world power if we did.
I view these and our nuclear deterrent subs as essential.
You make fair points, but really 'all' we needed was a proper aircraft carrier like the C de G with a catapult. The size of the QE2s give a certain amount of flexibility but mostly I think will not be be needed. The issue that labour could not face was providing nuclear power to generate the steam necessary for a catapult. But these ships were what labour ordered and so we use them with their F35 VTOLs. Dair with his fanciful ICMBs is talking tactical and strategic rubbish, which in any event is meaningless since these ships will not form part of a strategic force to launch a nuclear capable air strike on China (or anywhere else). So they are not likely to be targeted by a nuclear tipped ICBM.
Yes. She's sitting off Akrotiri, to which the French have been offered full access and from which it can fly far more capable Mirage 2000s than the chubby Rafale Ms on the De Gaulle.
Sadly, Cameron can only play with the cards the MoD and Brown dealt him. And the RN Top Brass were stupid enough to play along, assuming they'd get additional ships to support the carriers.
Imagine the whining from Scotland if they'd binned the CVF contracts.
Certainly his hands were tied to a great extent.
But the previous plan of running the Queen Elizabeth as a Charles De Gaulle style, undefended mobile aistrip that only goes to safe waters while mothballing the Prince of Wales WAS sensible and sound given the cards which were on the table.
Even selling the PoW for £1bn to India or France at a huge loss would havee been more sensible than this new plan.
Committing to full scale Carrier Groups is not sensible and not practical for a navy our size. Almost the entire Capital fleet of the RN tied up with Carrier Groups is LUDICROUS.
Run many navies, have you ?
You don't have to run a navy to have a basic understanding of how utterly bad Supercarriers are in most military roles. They require huge assistance to be able to even remotely defend themselves (and even then do not have any defence to ballistic missiles).
There is a reason why China only has one second-hand Supercarrier and very limited plans for future carriers.
No one will launch a ballistic missile at a carrier unless it is nuclear war as a ballistic missile launch aimed at a carrier is I distinguishable from a nuclear missile strike.
The 'no defence against a ballistic missile' canard is a gross attempt by the US navy for funding for pointless but well paying work for their military industrial mates.
Ballistic missiles rely on speed to increase accuracy due to wind drift. That's why the shape of the re-entry body is so vital: earlier systems were blunter, and less accurate as they spent more time in the atmosphere during re-entry.
It also depends on whether we're talking of SRBM, IRBM or ICBM, and whether there are associated glide-flight bodies.
But to hit a carrier with a non-nuclear payload, you're talking about higher accuracy than the CEP of a few hundred metres of many ballistic missile systems. It's non-trivial.
As for taking them out: I think you need to read up more on the technology. The best time to get them would be during the boost phase anyway.
Surely if we are talking about a carriers ability to defend itself then this is purely about the carriers ability to detect, target and destroy a ballistic missile. Which is quite limited and may not be effective.
The boost phase is well outwith the capability of a carrier to defend itself.
Again, you ignore the accuracy problem: a CEP of a couple of hundred metres would be too big to reliably hit a carrier (remember, a CEP is a 50% chance of hitting within a circle of that radius).
And some of the laser-based tech the Americans are developing may be able to do the job. You can be sure the Yanks are working on asimilar systems, and countermeasures.
Yes but do remember that Dair has now raised 2 straw men. So called supercarriers, which the QE2s are not and now these silly HE armed ICBMs aimed at a tiny dot in the ocean. I can only suppose the price of oil has dropped again and another SNP MP is in trouble.
Regarding the graph from Number Cruncher that compared sympathy for Muslims fighting in Syria between British muslims and other Brits, I am simply flabbergasted that no one on here thought the fact it compared
Non Muslim attitudes before Tunisia, Sharm & Paris
to
Muslim attitudes in the aftermath of the latest terrorism
...made it utter nonsense
If you were aiming to promote a narrative that "British muslims aren't as bad as you might think" etc etc, surely the way to do that, using this data, is to point out that 28% were sympathetic in March, and only 20% are now
Using the non Muslim response from March, without knowing what it is now, is beyond stupid
Ballistic missiles rely on speed to increase accuracy due to wind drift. That's why the shape of the re-entry body is so vital: earlier systems were blunter, and less accurate as they spent more time in the atmosphere during re-entry.
It also depends on whether we're talking of SRBM, IRBM or ICBM, and whether there are associated glide-flight bodies.
But to hit a carrier with a non-nuclear payload, you're talking about higher accuracy than the CEP of a few hundred metres of many ballistic missile systems. It's non-trivial.
As for taking them out: I think you need to read up more on the technology. The best time to get them would be during the boost phase anyway.
Surely if we are talking about a carriers ability to defend itself then this is purely about the carriers ability to detect, target and destroy a ballistic missile. Which is quite limited and may not be effective.
The boost phase is well outwith the capability of a carrier to defend itself.
Again, you ignore the accuracy problem: a CEP of a couple of hundred metres would be too big to reliably hit a carrier (remember, a CEP is a 50% chance of hitting within a circle of that radius).
And some of the laser-based tech the Americans are developing may be able to do the job. You can be sure the Yanks are working on asimilar systems, and countermeasures.
But also remember that the QE class has a 280m length and 70m beam. The bigger the carrier, the bigger the target. Even at a 50% CEP over 200m, you don't need that many Ballistic Missiles which cannot be stopped to guarantee a hit.
Out of interest, isn't it very likely the Chinese and Russians will be able to paint the target with satellites making the circular error much, much lower?
The RN was only gonna get 8 dedicated ASW vessels as that's the number of 2087 sets we are buying. The rest - as with the T23 - GP (and we do not know what a 'light - frigate will look like in 2025). [Hopefully a modern T22 BIII. ]
Steam cats are a non-starter for a navy that switched to COGAG decades ago. 'Leccy was the only way to power a cat-set (but even the Septics are struggling).
"Why ban dual passports? Are you saying that somone who has an Irish and a UK passport has to choose? What would that achieve?
That just seems like another version of Tebbit's absurd "cricket test" which would not even affect or impact the major risk we face at the moment."
It seems to me that a lot hinges on nationality. William Joyce was executed for treason despite there being a very good case that he was Irish.
Now that questions of divided loyalty are being flung daily at Muslims (among others) and the wealthy can effectively buy a passport for any country that promises them even greater riches I see nothing Tebbit like about asking passport holders to choose.
There is also the strange anomaly that a British Jew can simultaneously belong to the Israeli defense force and the British army which surely can't be healthy.
Yes but do remember that Dair has now raised 2 straw men. So called supercarriers, which the QE2s are not and now these silly HE armed ICBMs aimed at a tiny dot in the ocean. I can only suppose the price of oil has dropped again and another SNP MP is in trouble.
Dair's arguments have more to do with who is placing the orders, the wicked Westminster government, rather than any valid criticism that is based on reality. Whatever the SDSR said he'd be criticising it, and if hypothetically this was a Nat SDSR he'd being singing its praises.
Regarding the graph from Number Cruncher that compared sympathy for Muslims fighting in Syria between British muslims and other Brits, I am simply flabbergasted that no one on here thought the fact it compared
Non Muslim attitudes before Tunisia, Sharm & Paris
to
Muslim attitudes in the aftermath of the latest terrorism
...made it utter nonsense
If you were aiming to promote a narrative that "British muslims aren't as bad as you might think" etc etc, surely the way to do that, using this data, is to point out that 28% were sympathetic in March, and only 20% are now
Using the non Muslim response from March, without knowing what it is now, is beyond stupid
I suspect the figures done now may not be much different for non-muslims.
The difference though is willingness to help the terrorists. In practice these are exclusively Muslim. We do not need to worry quite so much as the non-muslim sympathisers.
Yes. She's sitting off Akrotiri, to which the French have been offered full access and from which it can fly far more capable Mirage 2000s than the chubby Rafale Ms on the De Gaulle.
She's really paying her way.
Well the french airforce isn't actually in Cyprus yet so paying her way.
Indeed I'm shocked given your previous certainties, that the CdG hasn;t been sunk yet.
@Dair - I'm not an expert but the simulations I've seen from the carrier alliance show a carrier group consisting of carrier + type 45 + type 26 + astute attack sub + RFA supply ship.
I expect in reality that would be augmented by additional escorts from allies or requisitions if necessary.
However, I do agree with you the order of only 8 x type 26s is too light. It could easily end up pushing up the per unit cost to justify the R&D and not save much over the original x 13.
FWIW, for a balanced navy, I think we need around 8 x type 45 destroyers and 14-16 x frigates. Not that we will ever get that many. Our sub numbers are probably about right.
The carrier aset should be seen as part of our contribution to NATO and other NATO navies will contibute to its active service. Hence of course all the combined NATO exercises we read about. If we use ourbnave for non NATO purposes then other navise will take over our specific commitment.
Well let's take a historically important naval military like Denmark.
They currently field a total of ZERO ships which would be capable of providing Carrier defense. They have three air defense Frigates which might at a push be used as cover for missing DDGs but would be vastle inferior to a real air defense capital ship.
Most small NATO powers base their navies around their own practical needs.
The UK is the muggins wasting billions on boats that serve no practical purpose to her own defense.
Built in Scotland by a Scottish PM!
In a major shooting war with Russia or similar no fleet would be safe for long. Neither ours nor theirs.
The major use of these supercarriers is as floating expeditionary platforms, such as the way the frogs are using theirs against Daesh.
Indeed. Or look at the way the US were able to use their carriers in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami. Sitting offshore providing critical search and rescue, communications and hospital facilities for disaster relief.
@Dair - I'm not an expert but the simulations I've seen from the carrier alliance show a carrier group consisting of carrier + type 45 + type 26 + astute attack sub + RFA supply ship.
I expect in reality that would be augmented by additional escorts from allies or requisitions if necessary.
However, I do agree with you the order of only 8 x type 26s is too light. It could easily end up pushing up the per unit cost to justify the R&D and not save much over the original x 13.
FWIW, for a balanced navy, I think we need around 8 x type 45 destroyers and 14-16 x frigates. Not that we will ever get that many. Our sub numbers are probably about right.
I think that at the time the two carriers were ordered certain other assumptions were made about the number of escorts and submarines that would be provided. Twelve Type 45s definitely strikes a cord. As the years rolled on the numbers the numbers were cut and cut again. Today we see that the number of ASW frigates is going to be cut even further.
I suspect that by the time the carriers come into service they will have fewer aircraft than the old Invincible class and the RN will have too few escorts for the carriers ever to be sailed into harm's way.
If the argument is to be trotted out that we will only ever go to war with allies and they will form the escort fleet, then I will have to ask why didn't we leave it to some other bugger to build the big stuff? We could have stumped up for a couple of escorts at a much lower cost; no need even for a T-45, we could have just gone with a few re-built T23s, or even half a dozen Leander class.
and yet Mr L has there been a war in the last 100 years where we;ve stumbled in to it with all the right equipment ? Possibly Gulf 1 where we had a cold war bonanza to blow, after that I;m stuck. And if it applies to us it applies to the other side as well. It's all about what we do with what we've got.
WW2. We didn't have enough of it but overall we had the best equipped armed forces in Europe.
Anyway, I am going to spend the rest of the evening in the XIVth century. The aftermath of the Black Death awaits. Play nicely, all.
Nah, our tanks were total crap. We only matched the Germans in 1945, by which time it was all over, Oddly if you'd said that about WW1 I might have agreed.
OT Anyone watched The Leftovers? A show from S2 is getting some great reviews.
Yes - it's by far and away the best thing on TV at the moment. Fabulously emotionally manipulative. Very high up my all time list. Hope it gets the awards it deserves so HBO keep it going.
It also depends on whether we're talking of SRBM, IRBM or ICBM, and whether there are associated glide-flight bodies.
But to hit a carrier with a non-nuclear payload, you're talking about higher accuracy than the CEP of a few hundred metres of many ballistic missile systems. It's non-trivial.
As for taking them out: I think you need to read up more on the technology. The best time to get them would be during the boost phase anyway.
Surely if we are talking about a carriers ability to defend itself then this is purely about the carriers ability to detect, target and destroy a ballistic missile. Which is quite limited and may not be effective.
The boost phase is well outwith the capability of a carrier to defend itself.
You should read up on some naval architecture - D.K. Brown for example. His series on the development of the RN from HMS Warrior to the present day is *the* work for those who are interested in this stuff.
Since carriers were invented people have been trying to stuff anti-aircraft weapons and anti-surface weapons on them. Hence the comic look of the original HMS Hermes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hermes_(95)
The giant lump on the top of the mast is the gunnery control position. The Americans tried it. The UK kept on trying with the guns on the original Invincibles. The Russians actually contemplated firing their giant anti ship missiles from silos in the flight deck of one of their designs... The waste of space radar on the USS Enterprise was the last gasp of this in Western designs.
All a waste of time. It is always simpler to mount the radar and weapons on the escort ships. The Type 45 was designed with this in mind. The radar was deigned to have a full spectrum capability for tracking targets from supersonic sea skimmers to ballistic missiles. Given that the much older Aegis system can do this, it is not surprising that PAAMS/SAMPSON can.
You can't get such a system onto a ship muck smaller than a Type 45 - the radar is heavy, and demands alot of power. But, what you get for that is a 120km "dome" - enter that zone and your probability of survival goes down very rapidly as you approach the ship.
You mentioned the Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missile. Did you know that the much older Aegis ships regularly shoot down ballistic targets? - as well as supersonic sea skimmers. It is actually part of the their qualification (as a ship & crew) of being ready for deployment. HMS Daring has been undergoing trials on the US ballistic missile defense range in the Pacific, and the ASTER missile does have ABM capability
As to the numbers of F-35 being bought - the new carriers can carry up to 35 fixed wing aircraft in the hangers, with a surge capability (deck park) up to 50. 138 planes would be a full surge for both, plus attrition air frames.
But also remember that the QE class has a 280m length and 70m beam. The bigger the carrier, the bigger the target. Even at a 50% CEP over 200m, you don't need that many Ballistic Missiles which cannot be stopped to guarantee a hit.
Out of interest, isn't it very likely the Chinese and Russians will be able to paint the target with satellites making the circular error much, much lower?
''Paint the target with satellites' ? Do you mean locate, or are you saying the satellites 'beam' down some form of laser onto the target?
If so, no. A major part of the problem with ballistic missiles comes from high-altitude winds. Not as much for modern designs with lower drag coefficients, but significant nonetheless.
I'm not sure you quite realise the complexities of what you're saying. Manoeuvring a hypersonic vehicle is non-trivial. The only experience of it is really the Shuttle / Buran (*), and that was a fairly special case. And if it goes slower, it is easier to hit.
There is a long and illustrious history of countries claiming their weapons have near-magical capabilities. It looks good domestically, and forces the opposition to waste money trying to develop countermeasures. After all, that's one of the things that helped bankrupt the Soviet Union.
I'm not saying the Chinese and Russians have not, and could not, develop such technology - they have some incredibly clever engineers. It's just that the complexities in such a system are fairly immense. Temperature management alone is a major issue. True, the problems are not as immense as they would be for a powered hypersonic vehicle, most of which have been utter failures (e.g. HTV-2)
(*) We're talking about speeds twice what the X-15 achieved.
@Dair - I'm not an expert but the simulations I've seen from the carrier alliance show a carrier group consisting of carrier + type 45 + type 26 + astute attack sub + RFA supply ship.
I expect in reality that would be augmented by additional escorts from allies or requisitions if necessary.
However, I do agree with you the order of only 8 x type 26s is too light. It could easily end up pushing up the per unit cost to justify the R&D and not save much over the original x 13.
FWIW, for a balanced navy, I think we need around 8 x type 45 destroyers and 14-16 x frigates. Not that we will ever get that many. Our sub numbers are probably about right.
I think that at the time the two carriers were ordered certain other assumptions were made about the number of escorts and submarines that would be provided. Twelve Type 45s definitely strikes a cord. As the years rolled on the numbers the numbers were cut and cut again. Today we see that the number of ASW frigates is going to be cut even further.
I suspect that by the time the carriers come into service they will have fewer aircraft than the old Invincible class and the RN will have too few escorts for the carriers ever to be sailed into harm's way.
If the argument is to be trotted out that we will only ever go to war with allies and they will form the escort fleet, then I will have to ask why didn't we leave it to some other bugger to build the big stuff? We could have stumped up for a couple of escorts at a much lower cost; no need even for a T-45, we could have just gone with a few re-built T23s, or even half a dozen Leander class.
and yet Mr L has there been a war in the last 100 years where we;ve stumbled in to it with all the right equipment ? Possibly Gulf 1 where we had a cold war bonanza to blow, after that I;m stuck. And if it applies to us it applies to the other side as well. It's all about what we do with what we've got.
WW2. We didn't have enough of it but overall we had the best equipped armed forces in Europe.
Anyway, I am going to spend the rest of the evening in the XIVth century. The aftermath of the Black Death awaits. Play nicely, all.
Nah, our tanks were total crap. We only matched the Germans in 1945, by which time it was all over, Oddly if you'd said that about WW1 I might have agreed.
In 1940 most German tanks were armed with machine guns. They did have Stukas of course and the organisation to use their mobile forces.
Yes but do remember that Dair has now raised 2 straw men. So called supercarriers, which the QE2s are not and now these silly HE armed ICBMs aimed at a tiny dot in the ocean. I can only suppose the price of oil has dropped again and another SNP MP is in trouble.
Dair's arguments have more to do with who is placing the orders, the wicked Westminster government, rather than any valid criticism that is based on reality. Whatever the SDSR said he'd be criticising it, and if hypothetically this was a Nat SDSR he'd being singing its praises.
If an Independent Scottish Government considered building one Supercarrier, I would be complaining to the rafters. Even a LAC I would think ridiculous.
I would, however, happily inherit an Albion class. The running costs and functionality are exceptional.
Yes but do remember that Dair has now raised 2 straw men. So called supercarriers, which the QE2s are not and now these silly HE armed ICBMs aimed at a tiny dot in the ocean. I can only suppose the price of oil has dropped again and another SNP MP is in trouble.
Dair's arguments have more to do with who is placing the orders, the wicked Westminster government, rather than any valid criticism that is based on reality. Whatever the SDSR said he'd be criticising it, and if hypothetically this was a Nat SDSR he'd being singing its praises.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikrant_(2013)
Also have the Vikramaditya, formerly the Soviet Baku, but radically transformed with ski-jump in lieu of anti-ship missiles. And the oldest serving Aircraft Carrier, the Viraat (ex-HMS Hermes) is still in service - but not for much longer.
India have no Supercarriers, they have the 45000 ton a recent build of a 40 year old Russian design. and the old WW2 era HMS Hermes under a new name which is a 24000 ton Light Aircraft Carrier.
The only countries with Supercarriers are the United States with 10.
So the only nation with Supercarriers is the United States (and soon the tiny UK). It shows how stupid this build is.
Given the size of China and its military expenditure, the plans for two or three (possibly Super) carriers shows just how little value they have. I suspect their new 7500mph ballistic missile to which guarantees a dead Supercarrier and cannot be defended against might be colouring their judgement.
If the french have a carrier capable of bombing someone, that's fine by me.
Since nobody nows what the next naval deployment will be all we can say is best not pick a fight with the USA.
As to the Nationalist, circulation under 16k now, how long before it's binned for good?
Count Down : 56, 55, 54.....
Against any reasonably equipped opponent a Supercarrier may as well have a large target painted on the flightdeck with the words "please sink me at your convenience" next to it.
The newest Ford Class US Supercarrier has only two Phalanx CIWS and would be trivially indefensible to a destroyer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vishal
Still can't believe that someone launched a new paid-for newspaper. Not heard of digitisation in Scotland? Or free papers?
our nato allies, the shrinking russian navy or the undeveloped chinese one ?
I would though suggest a law making any financial or physical support for a foreign power illegal irrespective of whether they are considered allies. I would also ban duel passports making holders choose.
Though it would affect Israel more than ISIS at least it would be seen to be even handed.
The bigger issue we have is personnel to staff all this kit - personally, I think we're a few thousand short.
I can only assume the government will staff up following the SDR2020 once the UK budget is more heathy.
Goalkeeper is dirt cheap and as I understand it just as effective as Phalanx.
You're argument was that an Aircraft Carrier has the ability to defend itself with its Aircraft. This is just not true. The aircraft would need to b able to defend against Ships, Planes, Guided Missiles and Ballistic Missiles. They could arguably provide an air defence against aircraft.
But the UK could not provide a defence against anything else using carrier aircraft.
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/deeyah-khan-what-is-do-is-like-grooming-they-prey-on-guilt-loneliness-and-anger-a3121011.html
Cameron has changed the commitment from, IIRC, 16 Lightning 2s on one Supercarrier, to 24 Lightning 2s on two Supercarriers. This is not going to be cheap. Lockheed Martin et al will be demanding their pound of flesh in the back end to keep the planes in the air.
That just seems like another version of Tebbit's absurd "cricket test" which would not even affect or impact the major risk we face at the moment.
I think you'll find Mr. Brook that out anti-shipping capability is down to the submarines and the single 4.5 inch gun on the ever shrinking number of destroyers and Frigates. If we want to defend the QE class carriers against a surface threat the best thing we could probably do is reactivate HMS Belfast - it has more anti-surface capability than the rest of the RN/RAF put together (being armoured it is also more likely to survive any combat).
There are several things to say about this. The technical challenges of a 7,500 MPH ballistic missile capable of hitting something as small as a carrier without using a nuclear warhead to 'make the target bigger' are many. People believe the Chinese have them, and they have done a few test firings; there is less information on the success or failure of those test firings.
And if they are nuclear-enabled, then all bets are off. A nuclear strike against a US carrier would be an act of war; a nuclear attack against a US carrier would be responded to in kind.
Then there is the 'cannot be defended against'. Again, I rather think you are over-egging the pudding.
So yes, hypersonic missiles are a potential threat. But for the moment that is what they are: a potential threat, not a real one. And the US and others will be working out how to mitigate that potential threat, including countermeasures.
A clear majority of British Muslims, 71%, say they have “no sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria”. 5% had “a lot of sympathy” and 15% had “some sympathy”. These figures represent a significant drop in sympathy since March, from 8% and 20% respectively. In total 8% fewer Muslims have any sympathy for Muslims leaving for Syria than they did in March. Interestingly, when we polled the remainder of the British population in March, 4% of non-Muslims expressed “a lot of sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria” and 9% expressed “some sympathy”, suggesting that attitudes held by the Muslim and non-Muslim populations are not that different.
As ever Dair is clueless. Well really all he is doing is setting up a straw man to make a spurious argument. Thanks to Labour's poor defence procurement these planes are decisively NOT supercarriers, despite their displacement and their short term ability to fly 30 VTOL planes in an emergency.
However we are stuck with them thanks to Labour.
Threats to carriers are very real. That's why US Carrier Groups need so many capital ships and subs to try to defend their Supercarriers.
What hasn't been picked up on is the small print: buying them in several tranches over two decades. That seems quite slow to me: we'll have 24 or so by 2023 and well over a hundred still to come. And who knows where technology will be by 2040.
Personally, I'll be very surprised if we ever buy that many.
A damaged Ballistic Missile might not sink the carrier but it only has to hit a reasonably large part of the flightdeck to put the carrier out of action (or severely restrict its range if it has VTOL capability).
The rest of your drooling rant falls nicely into the category of "crap Flightpath just made up".
The same technology can allow air-traffic control radars to be used near wind farms; currently you cannot build a wind farm too near an airport as they confuse radars.
http://www.aveillant.com/
http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/holographic-radar-tracks-1000-mph-shells/
I could tell you more, but I'd have to kill myself. If I wasn't killed first ...
As for the FAA not dead, just sleeping. AT least one has to hope so or those carriers are going to look damn silly sliding around the oceans equipped with a couple of helicopters.
Personally, short of an update to the Geneva Convention against autonomous fighter planes and bombers (which I am pretty sure the United States would block) the idea that planes will be using pilots in 2040 seems a bit of a stretch.
I expect in reality that would be augmented by additional escorts from allies or requisitions if necessary.
However, I do agree with you the order of only 8 x type 26s is too light. It could easily end up pushing up the per unit cost to justify the R&D and not save much over the original x 13.
FWIW, for a balanced navy, I think we need around 8 x type 45 destroyers and 14-16 x frigates. Not that we will ever get that many. Our sub numbers are probably about right.
There are young Brits heading off to fight with the Kurds, which is why OGH's pedantry about "fighting for ISIS" is particularly important.
There are also people who are "sympathetic" to these folks because they feel sorry for the brainwashed and "lost souls".
Lab 2/7
UKIP 5/2
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/8378499/Oldham-West-and-Royton-By-Election.html
Yet nearly sixty years on, we still have combat planes with pilots.
Britain NEEDS a strong Offshore defense and a limited Littoral defense around the channel. Beyond that, any capability should be purely as a part of Nato joint operations.
Supercarriers are simply not necessary for a nation which maintains diverse flight operations bases in all corners of the globe. For power protection (if even needed), Ballistic specced DDGs should be all we need ever consider.
"It’s not about Jeremy Corbyn any more. His leadership of the Labour Party – if you can seriously call his grotesque tenure “leadership” – is over before it has properly begun. He may stagger on for a few months, muttering to himself about the thousands of new party members rallying to his side, and providing fresh material for the people who produce online parodies of Downfall, the German film about Hitler’s last days. But we know how the great Corbyn experiment ends, if we ever really had any doubts."
It also depends on whether we're talking of SRBM, IRBM or ICBM, and whether there are associated glide-flight bodies.
But to hit a carrier with a non-nuclear payload, you're talking about higher accuracy than the CEP of a few hundred metres of many ballistic missile systems. It's non-trivial.
As for taking them out: I think you need to read up more on the technology. The best time to get them would be during the boost phase anyway.
I suspect that by the time the carriers come into service they will have fewer aircraft than the old Invincible class and the RN will have too few escorts for the carriers ever to be sailed into harm's way.
If the argument is to be trotted out that we will only ever go to war with allies and they will form the escort fleet, then I will have to ask why didn't we leave it to some other bugger to build the big stuff? We could have stumped up for a couple of escorts at a much lower cost; no need even for a T-45, we could have just gone with a few re-built T23s, or even half a dozen Leander class.
If we use ourbnave for non NATO purposes then other navise will take over our specific commitment.
The strategic flexibility is unmatched. You can't do much without them, and we'd be abandoning all ambition of remaining a world power if we did.
I view these and our nuclear deterrent subs as essential.
The boost phase is well outwith the capability of a carrier to defend itself.
"A secret British cell of Islamist women is brainwashing young female Muslims in the UK and encouraging them to join Isil, an undercover investigation has revealed."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12012683/Secret-cell-of-British-Muslim-women-encouraging-other-to-join-Isil-exposed.html
When it comes to carrier defence, the platform is mostly irrelevant. The systems could just as easily be refitted to Type 23s and Type 42s as for there to be a need for 45s or 26s.
And indeed for Carrier defense, diesel subs are every bit as practical as the hugely expensive Nuclear powered Astutes.
They currently field a total of ZERO ships which would be capable of providing Carrier defense. They have three air defense Frigates which might at a push be used as cover for missing DDGs but would be vastly inferior to a real air defense capital ship.
Most small NATO powers base their navies around their own practical needs.
The UK is the muggins wasting billions on boats that serve no practical purpose to her own defense.
norman smithVerified account
@BBCNormanS
Labour MPs told not to speak to journalists outside tonight's PLP meeting.
Anyhow here's the french carrier wasting it's time bombing ISIL
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2015/11/23/01003-20151123ARTFIG00157-le-porte-avions-francais-charles-de-gaulle-est-entre-en-action-en-syrie-et-en-irak.php
And some of the laser-based tech the Americans are developing may be able to do the job. You can be sure the Yanks are working on asimilar systems, and countermeasures.
Anyway, I am going to spend the rest of the evening in the XIVth century. The aftermath of the Black Death awaits. Play nicely, all.
In a major shooting war with Russia or similar no fleet would be safe for long. Neither ours nor theirs.
The major use of these supercarriers is as floating expeditionary platforms, such as the way the frogs are using theirs against Daesh.
Dair with his fanciful ICMBs is talking tactical and strategic rubbish, which in any event is meaningless since these ships will not form part of a strategic force to launch a nuclear capable air strike on China (or anywhere else). So they are not likely to be targeted by a nuclear tipped ICBM.
She's really paying her way.
The 'no defence against a ballistic missile' canard is a gross attempt by the US navy for funding for pointless but well paying work for their military industrial mates.
I can only suppose the price of oil has dropped again and another SNP MP is in trouble.
Non Muslim attitudes before Tunisia, Sharm & Paris
to
Muslim attitudes in the aftermath of the latest terrorism
...made it utter nonsense
If you were aiming to promote a narrative that "British muslims aren't as bad as you might think" etc etc, surely the way to do that, using this data, is to point out that 28% were sympathetic in March, and only 20% are now
Using the non Muslim response from March, without knowing what it is now, is beyond stupid
https://twitter.com/hoskas/status/668881393737445376?lang=en
Cue for briefings, or a major rebellion? Can't think of an occasion when I Labour leader was so isolated by his own side.
Out of interest, isn't it very likely the Chinese and Russians will be able to paint the target with satellites making the circular error much, much lower?
The RN was only gonna get 8 dedicated ASW vessels as that's the number of 2087 sets we are buying. The rest - as with the T23 - GP (and we do not know what a 'light - frigate will look like in 2025). [Hopefully a modern T22 BIII.
Steam cats are a non-starter for a navy that switched to COGAG decades ago. 'Leccy was the only way to power a cat-set (but even the Septics are struggling).
:now-play-fantasy-fleets-nicely:
"Why ban dual passports? Are you saying that somone who has an Irish and a UK passport has to choose? What would that achieve?
That just seems like another version of Tebbit's absurd "cricket test" which would not even affect or impact the major risk we face at the moment."
It seems to me that a lot hinges on nationality. William Joyce was executed for treason despite there being a very good case that he was Irish.
Now that questions of divided loyalty are being flung daily at Muslims (among others) and the wealthy can effectively buy a passport for any country that promises them even greater riches I see nothing Tebbit like about asking passport holders to choose.
There is also the strange anomaly that a British Jew can simultaneously belong to the Israeli defense force and the British army which surely can't be healthy.
The difference though is willingness to help the terrorists. In practice these are exclusively Muslim. We do not need to worry quite so much as the non-muslim sympathisers.
Indeed I'm shocked given your previous certainties, that the CdG hasn;t been sunk yet.
Since carriers were invented people have been trying to stuff anti-aircraft weapons and anti-surface weapons on them. Hence the comic look of the original HMS Hermes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hermes_(95)
The giant lump on the top of the mast is the gunnery control position. The Americans tried it. The UK kept on trying with the guns on the original Invincibles. The Russians actually contemplated firing their giant anti ship missiles from silos in the flight deck of one of their designs... The waste of space radar on the USS Enterprise was the last gasp of this in Western designs.
All a waste of time. It is always simpler to mount the radar and weapons on the escort ships. The Type 45 was designed with this in mind. The radar was deigned to have a full spectrum capability for tracking targets from supersonic sea skimmers to ballistic missiles. Given that the much older Aegis system can do this, it is not surprising that PAAMS/SAMPSON can.
You can't get such a system onto a ship muck smaller than a Type 45 - the radar is heavy, and demands alot of power. But, what you get for that is a 120km "dome" - enter that zone and your probability of survival goes down very rapidly as you approach the ship.
You mentioned the Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missile. Did you know that the much older Aegis ships regularly shoot down ballistic targets? - as well as supersonic sea skimmers. It is actually part of the their qualification (as a ship & crew) of being ready for deployment. HMS Daring has been undergoing trials on the US ballistic missile defense range in the Pacific, and the ASTER missile does have ABM capability
As to the numbers of F-35 being bought - the new carriers can carry up to 35 fixed wing aircraft in the hangers, with a surge capability (deck park) up to 50. 138 planes would be a full surge for both, plus attrition air frames.
If so, no. A major part of the problem with ballistic missiles comes from high-altitude winds. Not as much for modern designs with lower drag coefficients, but significant nonetheless.
I'm not sure you quite realise the complexities of what you're saying. Manoeuvring a hypersonic vehicle is non-trivial. The only experience of it is really the Shuttle / Buran (*), and that was a fairly special case. And if it goes slower, it is easier to hit.
There is a long and illustrious history of countries claiming their weapons have near-magical capabilities. It looks good domestically, and forces the opposition to waste money trying to develop countermeasures. After all, that's one of the things that helped bankrupt the Soviet Union.
I'm not saying the Chinese and Russians have not, and could not, develop such technology - they have some incredibly clever engineers. It's just that the complexities in such a system are fairly immense. Temperature management alone is a major issue. True, the problems are not as immense as they would be for a powered hypersonic vehicle, most of which have been utter failures (e.g. HTV-2)
(*) We're talking about speeds twice what the X-15 achieved.
They did have Stukas of course and the organisation to use their mobile forces.
I would, however, happily inherit an Albion class. The running costs and functionality are exceptional.