Page 2 of 2
Re: Delay to carriers..
Posted: 13 Dec 2008, 01:45
by Paul K
I'm rather excited that I'm going to see the biggest warships ever built for the Royal Navy. Shame one of them will be laid up immediately while the other becomes a helicopter carrier. ( You read it first here, folks. )
Re: Delay to carriers..
Posted: 13 Dec 2008, 09:23
by emfrat
Very sad to see. It looks like the start of the standard undermining process (in Oz, this is called "white-anting", white ants being termites, y'know). There will be an offishul inquiry, and another one into that, and when the cost of these is added in to the cost of the carriers project, the gummint of the day will reluctantly find it necessary to abandon the project, not least because doing so will generate massive unemployment on Clydeside - Clydeside having been a thorn in the Whithall mandarins' flesh since the 1930's.
Maybe someone with FO connections could tell me who the enemy is these days - is it still France?
More in sorrow than in anger.
MikeW
Re: Delay to carriers..
Posted: 13 Dec 2008, 16:50
by SkippyBing
I know Aircraft Carriers are there to carry the aircraft that provide fighter cover for the other ships, and the Destroyers and Frigates are there to provide protection for the Carrier. So if we didn't have an Aircraft Carrier we wouldn't need Destroyers and Frigates to protect it, and if we didn't have Destroyers and Frigates we wouldn't need a Carrier to provide their air cover. So why do we need the Navy?? ...... Stands back and waits for the flame war.
A rather one dimensional view of naval tactics. The Aircraft Carrier is there to provide offensive and defensive air power, think close air support to troops in contact, anti-ship strikes, anything else a land based strike aircraft can do, without being tied to a land base that may itself need defending at substantial economic and political cost. Fighter cover for the FF/DD is merely a complimentary role.
The Frigates and Destroyers being there solely to protect the carriers is a typical RAF aviation centric thought process. The present carriers deploy with generally a Frigate for ASW/ASuW escort and a Destroyer for AAW, obviously when the Shar was embarked it provided the outer layer of air defence with Sea Dart in the medium range and Sea Wolf/CIWS close in, and CVF will have similar numbers. As well as protecting the carrier they'll also be providing mutual protection and any high value or mission essential unit with the task group, think anything carrying troops, vital supplies, unarmed merchantmen etc. Remember most ordinance goes by sea to the Gulf theatre because it's too heavy to be moved by air, and there are less friendly nations all along the route. The FF/DDs can also escort convoys without an carrier and operate independently such as in the case of Atlantic Patrol Tasks North and South (APT(N) and APT(S)), policing the Northern Gulf, Horn of Africa etc. and for global shows of force such as the recent deployment to the Far East by HMS Kent in support of the Five Powers Defence Agreement.
The disappointing thing about CVF is that it's currently going to be fitted for VSTOL operations which although making it cheaper to purchase, increases the cost of the aircraft and limits there capabilities. Remember VSTOL aircraft have shorter operating lives than conventional ones as they're shaking themselves to bits on take off and landing, plus they sacrifice range and payload while limiting bring back. Also with conventional carrier aircraft it's possible to configure some in the tanker role by strapping drop tanks to all the pylons along with a buddy refuelling pod, not something you can normally do with a VSTOL type.
It's probably worth pointing out that something like 80% of the UK's trade goes by sea, generally via a number of choke points and that we still have interests worldwide which require our protection. We obviously don't have the capacity to have permanent bases covering all these areas, or even somewhere to put them in some cases so a properly balanced fleet is often the only way to provide that cover.
Re: Delay to carriers..
Posted: 13 Dec 2008, 17:34
by forthbridge
A very well put our explanation Skip. Thank goodness we had the navy we did when the Falklands happened. And while cruise missiles are very clever, nothing in the foreseeable future can replace the well trained human in certain roles, or, for that matter the sight of a a couple of warships which can have a powerful effect in it's own right.