UK Royal Navy vision embraces autonomous technology

[frozen-monkey]

While I don't personally have a problem with the military getting more money (as long as they're not going to squander it) I am curious as to where the money is coming from.....

From personal experience I can tell you it's not normally the military who squander the money, it's the civil servants in Whitehall.

[spacein_vader]

What good is a defence that you can't project? We may be an island but we're so reliant on other parts of the world that we'd be screwed if we couldn't protect them.

But with a carrier we can only protect one of them at a time. Take the Falklands, for a tiny fraction of what the QE cost you could build a 2nd runway, upgrade its AA & radar capabilities and even add 50% to its total available jets. That would be a permanent improvement to its defense 24/7/365, not just when the carrier is around.

We can project, can you name me an asset we'd need to protect that isn't already in range from a British or friendly allied airbase? The only reason we'd need a carrier is to park it off an enemy nations coastline, which is very much attack rather than defense.

[philehidiot]

But with a carrier we can only protect one of them at a time. Take the Falklands, for a tiny fraction of what the QE cost you could build a 2nd runway, upgrade its AA & radar capabilities and even add 50% to its total available jets. That would be a permanent improvement to its defense 24/7/365, not just when the carrier is around.

We can project, can you name me an asset we'd need to protect that isn't already in range from a British or friendly allied airbase? The only reason we'd need a carrier is to park it off an enemy nations coastline, which is very much attack rather than defense.

This is getting silly.

First of all, no the carriers and aircraft were not immedaitely ready and waiting for each other. This isn't a specialist internet video where everyone "arrives" together. If the planes had arrived before the carrier, you'd be whining the other way. The carrier lifespan means it'll probably have more than one jet type. A few years to wait for jet numbers isn't a big deal at all. We aren't the US with thousands of spare planes and pilots.

Secondly, the UK has bases and overflight rights for many countries. But lets take the Falklands. We had long range bombers and aircraft that could reach. The logistics were insane, requiring multiple airbourne refuelling and pilots flying insane hours. Do you really think the pilots are combat fresh after a several hour flight and multiple refuellings? How many missions do you think are scrubbed or changed, requiring a new loadout, before the planes have reached their targets? The Vulcans were used in the Falklands and guess what percentage failed to reach the target? Clue - a lot.

So you're proposing spending on one fixed site in the Falklands to protect against an enemy which is currently a non-threat? The airbase on the Falklands is just fine and there's more than adequate defensive capabilities both there and in the surrounding waters. Additionally, it'd be the first thing to be attacked in a strike. It'd be immediately disabled, there goes any additional investment. To retake the Falklands we had to bodge two more carriers out of civilian transports.

As for an asset we'd need to protect? We have a responsibility to the entirety of NATO and its assets. Or you could argue that our foreign airbases are the assets we might need to protect. That would be practically impossible with just overflight permissions.

Is a carrier essential? No, it isn't. Does it allow a huge advancement of offensive and defensive capability? Yes. If you're able to strike an enemy with relative ease, they're less like to mess with you. If you position a carrier in a contested area (such as around shipping passing by Iran), that shipping is far safer than if you place a warship there. Jets go a lot faster than ships and can adequately counter fast boats harrassing shipping. The effect would likely be that Iran would keep their boats to themselves whilst the carrier was in the area. So if shipping that doesn't get harrassed / hijacked is seen as an asset, thats definitely one.

You're arguing that a carrier we can only protect one thing at a time, yet arguing for fixed airbases as a cheaper option? Maybe straight up but you'd need loads more jets (to equip and defend each airbase), loads more spares, loads more pilots and ground crews and you'd be flying the same number of sorties as the carrier... multiplied by the number of bases you decide to build!

This idea of "in range" is eqaully silly. Allied airbases? Well first they have to agree to get involved which has been an issue in the past. We have no right to their bases. And in range of what? A few sqadrons of fast jets? Or a long range strategic strike? A carrier can put fresh, fully loaded pilots who can refuel and rearm in minutes right on the scene of the issue. This doesn't compare to a single mission a day with multiple refuellings and limited armnament with more limited time in the mission area due to fuel (no A2A refuelling plane is going to drop into range of enemy fighters unless it absolutely has to) and exhausted pilots. Having the same planes loading, launching, striking, rearming, etc 5 or 6 times a day is far more useful than one long round trip.

Again - is a carrier essential? No. But it makes a huge difference and we are landed with them thanks to Blair and his negotiations with the EU. To build them and mothball them was the other option in which case we have a contract for the jets, expenditure on the ship and no money to build / expand other airbases. So, that being the situation, what do you suggest they should do? Sell two of the most advanced carriers in the world to another nation for a pittance? Scrap them? Use them as a monument to political stupidity?

I've got a headache.

[Gentle Viking]

Well a carrier, to me that shout offensive warfare or at the very least a wish to be able to go do that, but we have seen what going to far away places to make war do for us,,,,, which is absolutely nothing or making things worse.

Personally i want Denmark to join the nuclear arms family, and i would want us to at least have some ICBMs to be able to retaliate on any far away nation attacking us.
I would also like us to make and deploy smaller swarm submarines, and ditto air force for defense.
I do not want for us to go do war in a far away place ever again, this have been nothing but a huge loss of money, and to me at least a unacceptable loss of life.

[selfishtoaster]

But with a carrier we can only protect one of them at a time. Take the Falklands, for a tiny fraction of what the QE cost you could build a 2nd runway, upgrade its AA & radar capabilities and even add 50% to its total available jets. That would be a permanent improvement to its defense 24/7/365, not just when the carrier is around.

We can project, can you name me an asset we'd need to protect that isn't already in range from a British or friendly allied airbase? The only reason we'd need a carrier is to park it off an enemy nations coastline, which is very much attack rather than defense.

The Persian gulf.... the straights of Mallaca...

The use of foreign air fields isn't guaranteed nor is it likely to be a quick process; how many weeks (assuming they're not in a huff with us) would it take to negotiate use before you could have anything on site? Not very useful if you need an asset in the area right now. Then are their airfields equipped for our planes? Probably not so now you're dragging all the maintenance facilities and personnel with you. How many more weeks is that?

Ok, so you pay to protect the falklands... now what? Falklands are safe but it doesn't help anywhere else. Gulf needs protection and Cyprus isn't convenient... let's build an airbase there too! Ok, new airfield, facilities, accommodation & jets... but we also have interests in east Asia? Another airfield! And on and on and on...

If you want expensive a permanent presence all over the world is a good way to do it; carriers are the most cost effective way of looking after our interests. We can ship large amounts of capability anywhere in the world at relatively short notice and we don't need anyone's permission. The flexibility it gives us is huge and actually improves relations with foreign partners; it's a huge confidence boost to know that your mate has the ability to be on your doorstep giving support if needed.

[philehidiot]

The Persian gulf.... the straights of Mallaca...

The use of foreign air fields isn't guaranteed nor is it likely to be a quick process; how many weeks (assuming they're not in a huff with us) would it take to negotiate use before you could have anything on site? Not very useful if you need an asset in the area right now. Then are their airfields equipped for our planes? Probably not so now you're dragging all the maintenance facilities and personnel with you. How many more weeks is that?

Ok, so you pay to protect the falklands... now what? Falklands are safe but it doesn't help anywhere else. Gulf needs protection and Cyprus isn't convenient... let's build an airbase there too! Ok, new airfield, facilities, accommodation & jets... but we also have interests in east Asia? Another airfield! And on and on and on...

If you want expensive a permanent presence all over the world is a good way to do it; carriers are the most cost effective way of looking after our interests. We can ship large amounts of capability anywhere in the world at relatively short notice and we don't need anyone's permission. The flexibility it gives us is huge and actually improves relations with foreign partners; it's a huge confidence boost to know that your mate has the ability to be on your doorstep giving support if needed.

Instead of reading my ramblings, read this. Same points, way briefer.

[philehidiot]

All this so we have a carrier, allegedly for defense purposes (if it was defensive you'd have a friendly airbase nearby, you only need a carrier for attacking purposes,) which can only fly 1 type of jet off of it. A type too expensive to be worth using against 90% of the targets its likely to face and obsolete vs the 10% of other advanced nations.

It took till Pearl Harbour for the west to learn that Battleships were obsolete, seems its going to take something just as obvious with carriers. With all these unmanned drones, sea skimming missiles and subs able to target such massive ships from miles away.

Spending money on defense is a good idea, but only if it actually helps defend you.

I know I'm double posting but I just wanted to address this as there's some really good point in it.

i've rambled about the number of F35s.

I absolutely agree about the single type of aircraft. This was done as a cost cutting decision because governments work on 4 yearly budget cycles and the problem of expensive aircraft being sent to do cheap aircraft jobs is someone else's problem. The carriers are designed to accept EMALS (the electromagnet launch) and can't use steam powered cats due to ships no longer running on steam power (directly - event the canteens on nuclear powered Nimitz class carriers used to run on steam from the reactor... madness). The use of the F-35B was done out of political convenience but frankly, I really hope the cost of operations will mean we don't casually send the thing to bomb another bunch of poor sandy shepherds. The last commander of QE2 did say he expected EMALS to be fitted which would be brilliant for interoperability with other NATO nations. I don't think there's a long term plan for it to happen because Tempest isn't being planned to be carrier ready and it would make a lot of sense for that to be cats n' traps ready if they planned on EMALS.

Pearl Harbour wasn't where Battleships were made obsolete. It was really Midway / The Pacific War in general. The Japanese made two of the most powerful battleships ever created and they got creamed.

But frankly, nothing massively innovative is on the cards. Drones will potentially throw a spanner in the works but CIWS is already capable of detecting and engaging drones. If they swarm, Phalanx CIWS can already accept HE munitions which would be perfect for swarms. Naval guns are also capable of firing stuff designed for defeating cover during land attack missions which scatters debris everywhere. Again, this would work well against drone swarms and it's just a matter of accurately calculating where the swarm will be when your munitions are times to pop. Sea skimming missiles are a threat already mitigated. Hypersonics are overrated, frankly. Hypersonic missiles are great for nukes as only one needs to get through. What they do for anti ship missiles is reduce the time available to respond and reduce the efficacy of the intercept missiles. Really, they are just a counter to advances in defensive missiles and CIWS. Once directed energy weapons become more useful, I expect they'll be just as effective as current missiles.

An example for the hypersonics - the Russains have two ships capable of launching them. If they are ever in the area, a carrier group will be on high alert with a helicopter up high for over the horizon ISTAR and so on. They'd probably have a CAP up as well. In order to score one hit on a carrier, those two ships would have to unload everything at once. They can do this but, as an offensive option, it's not brilliant. Where hypersonics come into their own are land batteries. But that kinda puts them on the defensive side of the argument.

Once directed energy comes along, hypersonics will be combined with stealth technology and so on and so forth.

A game changer like the Dreadnought, the submarine or the carrier hasn't come along yet. I expect it'll be space related when we next see a true paradigm shift.

[spacein_vader]

Thanks all for your input, it's clear a lot of people have put more thought/time/research into this than I have and you've helped my understanding.

I'm still uneasy about the idea of an aircraft carrier being anything but an attacking rather than defensive weapon, and the UKs need to have one & ability to support it.

I'd also like to apologise for my tone, it was more combative than I try to be. Afraid I wasn't feeling entirely myself yesterday.

[philehidiot]

Thanks all for your input, it's clear a lot of people have put more thought/time/research into this than I have and you've helped my understanding.

I'm still uneasy about the idea of an aircraft carrier being anything but an attacking rather than defensive weapon, and the UKs need to have one & ability to support it.

I'd also like to apologise for my tone, it was more combative than I try to be. Afraid I wasn't feeling entirely myself yesterday.

Dude, there's nothing to apologise for. Argument is how ideas move forward and I look forward to people showing me a different way to look at things. And nothing gets more respect than someone saying "y'know you've thought about this more than I have, thanks". I think my rebuttal was a bit OTT to be honest.

You're right about it being mostly for force projection and it reeks of old Empire. I think we need a carrier force because history has shown that when there's excrement-fan interaction, they are essential in a defensive role. I don't think we needed two insanely large ones at the expense of other ships but that's where politics landed us. I'd rather have had a few smaller ones as before which gives us much greater flexibility and the ability to combine them when required.

At the moment we have two carriers at sea, one doing sea trials and pilot qualification and the other conducting operations. The only other country capable of doing that is the US and it does send a message that we have capability.

I'm not a Bible fan but there's a fantastic phrase in there which goes "the meek shall inherit the Earth". The word "meek" is a mistranslation as there's no easy English word and it means "those who have strength such that they can keep their swords sheathed". Peace through strength is something I can get behind and I really stand behind my hope that just the insane expense of operating the F35-B will reduce the desire to ever use them trvially. If we invest in a strong military and we don't have to use it, I'd much rather that than a weaker one and end up spending far more in lives and money when we do have to use it in anger. Not a fan of inheriting the Earth, though. Too much paperwork.

There are definitely flaws in the carrier / air group implementation but ultimately, I think it's a net positive. There's real hope that the design will be used as a basis for an export model as they are proven and we're also doing that for the frigates. If we can support shipbuilding jobs in the UK without unneccesary domestic orders, that's something I can get behind.

[spacein_vader]

Too tired to reply in full, but I'm with you on the meek inherit the earth/speak softly and carry a bug stick approach. I was just hoping we had that covered off already with Trident.