No Aircraft Carrier with Aircraft for 9 years

tomterm8

Why would you need two super aircraft cariers to attack anyone else? We're a regional power, not a world power.

JP45

tomterm8 wrote: »

No, they were OK in WWII, when submarines existed. The real killer is satalites, since powers like the US can detect aircraft cariers anywhere in the world. They can't hide. There really aren't countermeasures available for mach-5 hypersonic missiles which can be fired anywhere in the world, and hit your aircraft carrier within an hour.

I agree, up to a point, in that it largely depends on who we're up against.

If we were to find ourselves in conflict with a major military force - such as China - then our carrier(s) would have a very limited lifespan, probably a matter of hours.

If, on the other hand, we were engaged in a conflict with a relatively minor power, then it's perfectly possible that our carrier(s) could provide offshore air support whilst remaining out of harms way. That's essentially what happened in the Falklands war where the carriers were kept well to the east of the Falklands so as to minimise the risk of attack, a tactic which (although absolutely right IMO) earned the naval commander, Admiral Woodward, the nickname 'Shanghai Sandy'.

It is absolutely inconceivable that we could have retaken the Falklands without the aircraft carriers. Nevertheless, I do wonder whether the costs of these two carriers and the accompanying aircraft (the fabulously expensive J35) can be justified in the context of today's much reduced defence budget. I strongly suspect that were we not already contractually committed then the whole idea of a couple of large aircraft carriers would have been quietly dropped.

Degenerate

JP45 wrote: »

Nevertheless, I do wonder whether the costs of these two carriers and the accompanying aircraft (the fabulously expensive J35) can be justified in the context of today's much reduced defence budget. I strongly suspect that were we not already contractually committed then the whole idea of a couple of large aircraft carriers would have been quietly dropped.

The carriers themselves are about the most useful project in the whole defense budget. The ridiculously expensive J35s are another matter. They've now decided to outfit at least one carrier with catapults and arrestor gear for operating conventional jets. If they did this to both, then we could just buy f18s for a tiny fraction of the price of the J35s and get immensely more bang for our buck.

Another total waste of money has been the ridiculous type 45 destroyers, which are looking less capable than the Aegis system we could have bought for half the price, that's if you think destroyers are useful in modern naval warfare, which many don't.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Degenerate wrote: »

then we could just buy f18s for a tiny fraction of the price of the J35s and get immensely more bang for our buck.

The last time we bought anything that flies from the Americans it turned out they couldn't fly in the dark, in the rain, in the desert........

FTBFun

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

The last time we bought anything that flies from the Americans it turned out they couldn't fly in the dark, in the rain, in the desert........

That was the fault of MOD procurement, not the manufacturers of the hardware.

ruggedtoast

Fiddlestick wrote: »

Twaddle.

American permission was not needed when the previous administration stepped in to stop the conflict in Sierra Leone, and it was the previous administration that convinced the Americans (against tough resistance) to step in to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

I think you're missing a bit of post war history, namely Suez.

Kosovo. I'm not sure how you think begging the Americans to do something to stop a conflict on our own doorstep signifies much military autonomy.

If anything that episode highlighted, painfully, quite how impotent and disorganised Europe is as a military force.

Sierra Leone. I can pretty much guarantee that the Americans are informed of operational deployments of UK forces. This would come under intelligence sharing if nothing else.

There is no special reason why they would care about a peacekeeping mission in Sierra Leone.

The UK's armed forces are inextricably linked with the Americans, and a good deal of money (on our side) has been spent on interoperability, which essentially means they can command British forces as part of an overall campaign.

The MOD frequently announces that a significant engagement of British forces without American assistance is "inconceivable". There are three meanings to that:

1) We are, purportedly, military partners.
2) We aren't militarily capable of projecting significant power beyond our borders.
3) We can't engage anywhere they don't allow us.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

FTBFun wrote: »

That was the fault of MOD procurement, not the manufacturers of the hardware.

So when a Government goes to to a manufacturer for military aircraft one would expect the manufacturer to know that the aircraft should be able to fly in the dark.... & in the rain..... :rotfl:

dunstonh

Oh, I have just seen you are an independent financial advisor.


Do you go around telling people they shouldn't bother with insurance either?

Sometimes i do yes. There is no point people having insurance that they cant afford. Indeed, most people do not adequately cover themselves as its not actually financially possible to cover all areas. So, you have to make judgement calls on what you do and do not cover. So, actually you point is closer to what the Govt is going than you clearly intended

1984ReturnsForReal_2

dunstonh wrote: »

Sometimes i do yes. There is no point people having insurance that they cant afford. Indeed, most people do not adequately cover themselves as its not actually financially possible to cover all areas. So, you have to make judgement calls on what you do and do not cover. So, actually you point is closer to what the Govt is going than you clearly intended

Being unaffordable is not the same as not being needed.

FTBFun

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

So when a Government goes to to a manufacturer for military aircraft one would expect the manufacturer to know that the aircraft should be able to fly in the dark.... & in the rain..... :rotfl:

Again - its the MODs fault:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Chinook_(UK_variants)

Eight Chinook HC3s were ordered in 1995 as dedicated special forces helicopters.[17] The HC3s were to be effectively low-cost variants of the US Army's special forces Chinook, the MH-47E.[17] The HC3s would include improved range, night vision sensors and navigation capability. The eight aircraft were to cost £259 million and the forecast in-service date was November 1998.[17] Although delivered in 2001, they could not be given airworthiness certificates because it was not possible to certify the avionics software to UK military standards. This was a result of poor risk analysis and crucial requirements being omitted from the procurement contract.[18] The Times claimed that the Ministry of Defence planned to perform software integration itself, without Boeing's involvement, in order to reduce costs.[19] Due to the lack of certification, the helicopters were only permitted to fly in visual meteorological conditions. They were subsequently stored in climate controlled hangars.[19]
After protracted negotiations to allow them to enter service, Air Forces Monthly reported in November 2006 that the Defence Aviation Repair Agency would likely receive a contract to install the Thales "TopDeck" avionics system on the Chinook HC3s.[20] However, the Ministry of Defence announced in March 2007 that this so-called "Fix to Field" programme would be cancelled, and instead it would revert the helicopters' avionics to Chinook HC2/2A specification.[21] The programme was estimated to cost £50-60 million.[22] In June 2008, the National Audit Office issued a scathing attack on the MoD's handling of the affair, calling it a "gold standard !!!!-up", with the whole programme likely to cost a total of £500 million by the time the helicopters enter service.[23][24] On 6 July 2009 the first of the eight modified Chinook HC3s made its first test flight at MoD Boscombe Down as part of the flight testing and evaluation phase of the HC3 "reversion" program