mm3442 wrote:]The air carriers things is a bit annoying - but Britain is fighting a war in Afghanistan right? Last time I checked, there's no sea front on Afghanistan.
mm3442 wrote:the biggest department, Health, will see a 1.1% increase by 2015-16.
Super Jock wrote:I recently had a presentation from a salesman for Macdonald Douglas, his job was to sell a billion dollar contract to the Israelis. He went through the details of the multimillion dollar sales pitch, which lasted two decades and was in fact successful in the end. But the main thing I grasped, is that countries buying defence contracts has very little to do with need, *cough* nuclear weapons *cough* and more about the amount of pressure the sales people can impose. One of his final points was that now in Europe, the winning contract is always the one that comes with the most jobs.
rham wrote:The carriers are simply a waste of money. Those who ordered them should be fired, those who signed the contracts should be fired.
rham wrote:The latest chinese hypersonic missile is a single shot carrier kill. It has a range of 2000 km.
rham wrote:About all the carrier will be good for is frightening Argentina, but the whole point is this job could be done for much less money with much less advanced expensive weapons. ... if the Falklands are a priority for defence, how come with 10 times more per year each year not enough?
rham wrote:If you think our desire to be a first rate military nation has been cost free, the full cost aircraft carriers and trident (lets include planes, repairs, operations etc) would have paid for higher education. Which in the end guarantees security? A better educated society with opportunity or a bunch of debt ladden or ill educated citizen with a big (but possibly broken) stick?
jollytiddlywink wrote:rham wrote:The carriers are simply a waste of money. Those who ordered them should be fired, those who signed the contracts should be fired.
You might think that there are better uses for the money, but that doesn't make the carriers a waste. They were ordered in the middle of 2007, and to suggest that those who signed for them should have guessed that the bankers were going to knock the planet's economy into the toilet for a decade is silly. Even if a downturn was foreseen, the strategic utility of the carriers is not changed by economic cycles.
jollytiddlywink wrote:And Britain does possess sufficient frigates for the ASW role and sufficient type 45s (which are, by the way, good enough to make the USN with their Aegis cruisers a bit jealous)
jollytiddlywink wrote:No, as covered above, the carriers will be good for projecting force worldwide. Defending the Falklands could be done more cheaply, but there would be no multi-use capacity. A carrier can travel, whereas a few battalions based in the Falklands and an RAF base would do nothing but defend the Falklands. And in case you haven't noticed, the Falklands, by virtue of geography, are guaranteed to be more expensive for the UK to defend than for Argentina to attack.
jollytiddlywink wrote:Who said Britain is trying to be a first-rate power? We were in 1945, but weren't thereafter,
jequirity wrote:This explains why we couldn't cancel the carriers due to expense and i've got to say i'm quite impressed with the Mod at this.For once there is some sensible long term thinking going on! I did wonder why when the last Type 45 was launched there was a comment that this would be the last time a warship produced on the clyde would launched in such a fashion. This is due to the refurbishment of the shipyard and changes in shipbuilding technology. I actually think that all things considered that the carriers are not a waste of money after all and actually represent a sensible investment for this country.
jequirity wrote:At this point in time, a succesful coup de main on Stanley's airport withstanding, it would cost Argentina much more to attack the Falklands then it would for Britain to defend it.
jequirity wrote:I'd argue that the withdrawl of the Eastern fleet to Kenya and Monty's adoption in 1942 of whats come to be known as the "Collosal Cracks" doctrine really signalled the fact that Britain wasn't a first rate power anymore. Although the Eastern fleet eventually became the British Pacific Fleet, the largest fleet Britain had ever assembled we could only maintain it thanks to the help of our commonwealth manpower and US logistical supply. With regards to Monty's "Collosal Cracks" it showed a good appreciation of the strategical situation in an operational and tactical doctrine. It made use of what we had most of (i.e material) to overcome what we had least in (manpower) and allowed the British 2nd Army, along with the 21st Army group to achieve overall allied victory in the North of NW Europe even though we had to disband the 59th and 50th divisions, a couple of armoured and tank brigades and had to use the sole remaining combat-ready division (the 52nd Lowland Division) in Britain plus ship in the 5th Division from Italy. Alanbrooke made it clear to Monty that Britain needed to retain as much manpower as possible whilst being a major contributer to victory in NW Europe to maintain the illusion that we were a first rate power in the interests of Post-war discussions.This was indeed the case in the Mediterranean, Burma and the Pacific.
rham wrote:
You don't say how building one carrier which WILL NEVER fly jets because it lacks a catapult (this cannot be retrofitted) is an investment.
Wikipedia, never the best source but it will do. wrote:On 30 September 2002 the MoD announced that the Royal Navy and RAF will operate the STOVL F-35B variant. At the same time it was announced that the carriers would take the form of large, conventional carriers, initially adapted for STOVL operations. The carriers, expected to remain in service for 50 years, are designed for but not with catapults and arrestor wires. The carrier is thus said to be "future proof", allowing it to operate a generation of CATOBAR aircraft beyond the F-35.
rham wrote:...it lacks a catapult (this cannot be retrofitted)...
jollytiddlywink wrote:jequirity wrote:At this point in time, a succesful coup de main on Stanley's airport withstanding, it would cost Argentina much more to attack the Falklands then it would for Britain to defend it.
I'm curious about how you arrived at that conclusion.
jollytiddlywink wrote:As for the contention that Britain was out of the first-rate Powers by 1942, I'm not convinced, especially if 1942 is given as the date. If you'd said 1941, I think you'd be in with a shout.
To suggest that Britain wasn't a great power because it had to be careful with its manpower, and had to use industrial plenty instead, would peg the US as lacking great power status at the same time. It would have been the height of lunacy for Britain in 1940, outnumbered by residents of the Greater Reich (let alone occupied territory) by some 40 million, to refuse to use superior British industrial output to off-set the population imbalance. The US army, particularly once it was committed in Northern Europe, was perennially short of infantry (some of the blame for this lies with US policy-makers, who concluded from 1940 that a profusion of tanks was all important, failing to recognise that infantry were still essential). Britain in the First World War increasingly used superior industrial resources to win the materielschlacht and in order to conserve manpower. So I feel that an argument equating Great Power status with a plentiful supply of manpower to be a severe simplification and a non sequitur in terms of what is actually at issue.
A J P Taylor defined a great power as being able to fight a great war, and Britain managed to prosecute a great war through until September 1945. The strain was enormous, but Britain lasted. By that measure, I think its fair to peg Britain as a Great Power until the war ended, at least.
rham wrote:Want any more? I am not trying to sarcastic, but the warhead is not the issue it is the speed. Energy is 1/2mv2. At mach 8, the energy of impact will destroy any ship. You can see U-tube of the Australian navy hitting a ship with with an antiship missile with almost no explosive, it is the impact at high speed that does it.
rham wrote:If rationalizing the ship yards was the priority why not build something we need. I would agree the skill set for subs or frigates may need to preserved (one can see their use into the far future). These can serve as defensive weapons, the carriers are offensive weapons but with very limited use. It easy for you to say we could lose one, but we only have one. Capable the new frigates are but they can't be everywhere at once. This makes them vulnerable to a swarming attack.
If you want to rationalise the ship yards, get them to build things people want (tankers, ferries, etc). Better yet, invest in education. These carriers are a waste of money, bankers not withstanding.
Super well trained and in comparison well equipped, UK soldiers were too few in number to fight in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Numbers matter in war. If we could afford two carriers with catapults, a full complement of planes, NIMROD sub spotters, additional frigates and hunter killers subs, then like the US navy the carriers could full fill their function (forceful entry to theatre, control of battle space). However, my point is we chose not to and building carrier without this support is a waste of money.
rham wrote:The History of warfare shows that when you have one irreplaceable "super" weapon it is not risked (Tirpitz, The Home fleet).
You don't say how building one carrier which WILL NEVER fly jets because it lacks a catapult (this cannot be retrofitted) is an investment.
Finally you don't say who we would use the carrier against? (Not France any more signed a 50 year treaty). Lets remember they can't be used for 10 years.
rham wrote:I pointed out against military peers (China, Russia) advanced missile attack may (and I only need to say may) will rule out their use. Missiles are a whole lot cheaper and easier to develop than a carrier. Missile technology being computer controlled is going to develop faster than a carrier. Since once can build a 100's of missiles per carrier, if you wished to defend your shore against carriers how would you invest your money? Counter measures evolve after missiles, as I said only lasers present as yet a possible solution to the new hypersonic missile. Even without the postulated missile, the conventional forces of these nations would overwhelm our defences and sink the carrier. Our carrier could only be used as part of a US task force against such countries (if the missiles are in use, as the US itself will not use carriers).
I said against lower but credible military powers (Argentina, North Korea, Iran, Turkey, Greece etc, they all spend MUCH less than us) they simply need to present a realistic threat they could sink the ONE carrier (either by sub, aircraft with conventional missiles or torpedoes). The small force of protection we have bought and the limited number of fighters embarked by the carrier, mean such countries could expect a chance of sinking. Thus we would only risk such a loss in a matter of national survival. I don't see the any likely conflict where carriers would be used (outside Europe) falling into that category. In a war of choice, we would not risk our such a prize asset. (In home waters around the UK the carrier is redundant). Thus we get to carriers only being useful against Somali pirates or Afghanistan or a disarmed Iraq. The role they provide in these conflicts can be provided by smaller ships using unmanned drones and helicopters.
rham wrote:Would it be nice to see someone change their mind by reading?
As mentioned previously there is no indication that the cats cannot be retrofitted and your statement is incorrect. The cats will add cost but they're not impossible to fit. It adds about 500 million quid overall taking into account other delays. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11648429) As you said only one will be outfitted but the other can be too if and when required allowing planes to be flown. Not quite a useless hunk of metal. A good quote from the bbc article:
As mentioned previously there is no indication that the cats cannot be retrofitted and your statement is incorrect. The cats will add cost but they're not impossible to fit. It adds about 500 million quid overall taking into account other delays. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11648429) As you said only one will be outfitted but the other can be too if and when required allowing planes to be flown. Not quite a useless hunk of metal. A good quote from the bbc article:
rham wrote:I enjoy the banter too, no hard feelings here. At least the level of debate is better than in politics.
The problem is in the next 30 years who knows?
We could justify any weapon system on this basis. All weapons can have a theoretical justification. Just in case, we should have standing army of 200 000, equipped with tanks, transports, helicopters etc. Just in case we should satellite based weapons. Just in case we should design missile defences etc etc. Just in case, we need more drones, body armour, spying, cyber defence. The USA spends more than everyone else combined but remains fearful because of the need to fight all possible wars in the next 30 years. I would not choose carriers.
rham wrote:The links I posted on these missiles are 2010. I do not think it is unreasonable stretch that these missiles will be in operation by 2020. (The Russian Sunburn missile already exists). The drive in China to develop more capable missiles to deny the USN entrance to the Taiwan straight is very strong. (As you say its in China's interest to hype up the missile)
The swarming attack is the one the USN games in the gulf, it is a mass attack by planes and missiles to overwhelm defences (the Aegis class is designed to cope but no one knows). Disabling a carrier is worth a whole lot of missiles and quite a few planes.
rham wrote:As you say, no one knows what will happen in a real war. Unless the chinese fight a war using these missiles, then the only time we will have real insight into their capability (unless we steal one) is when it hurtles down at us at mach 8. It might not work, but would you risk the lives of all on board, your blue water fleet? I suspect for national survival yes (and in the case of the Falklands for national prestige / territory). For much else, I think no.
For example the much quoted Falklands, had Argentina had more working exocets, they could have sunk a carrier, they did not and this is speculation. The point is we underestimated the power of missiles before (so did almost all navies) and in a real shooting war there are chance events. At the time of the Falklands, the UK was the third naval power in the world and Argentina was a military midget. Yet those exocets made it a close run thing, our defensive measures turned out to be ineffective in a real war, whereas exocets turned out to be better than expected (although they had problems too). The whole point about defending against a single large offensive weapon like the carrier is you just need to knock it out to win. The defenders strategic drive to negate the carrier advantage in a war of national survival / prestige (invasion of Iran or in China's case Taiwan) is very strong. If they do not care about invading your territory they can focus their energy on defence and if they are willing to risk significant casualties to keep their regime / island possession, then they have a much easier job.
rham wrote:Argentina could never have occupied the Isle of White or the Scilly isles, they did not have the capability to operate beyond the fighter range of mainland. Nor on land were their soldiers a match for UK forces. The Falklands lesson to me is that defending your shore or near shore (Falklands was within fighter cover of the Argentinian mainland) is a whole lost easier than attacking someone else's. Further weak countries can defend against stronger ones by use of cheap missiles. The attacker as with the USN, needs to have very significant strength in depth, particularly against surface skimming anti ship missiles. The more advanced the foe the harder this becomes then either you change your doctrine or you build a more robust fleet. (The USN is now contemplating this)
rham wrote:Carriers came into their own in WW2. Before that we had battleships, we only realised they were doomed after Repulse and PoW were sunk as well at Pearl Harbour. The tank was once seen the dominant weapon, yet now the helicopter is probably supreme on land. History suggest that no weapon remains strategic for very long. It become tactical and therefore subject to tactical counter measures. I don't know if the Chinese missile will work, but given that we know cruise missiles have targeting good enough to fly through streets then by 2020 being able to hit a slow moving mass of metal is not impossible a priori. If carriers have had their day and the future is smaller expendable stealthy ships, fat lot of good a rationalised ship yard aimed at building last years behemoth is.
rham wrote: The 500M + (and given the history of cost overruns want to bet it stays at this level) is for the one ship that is in early stages of construction, presumably easier to change. The cost of altering the completely build carrier is not known but can be safely assumed to be much much higher. Retrofitting catapults has never even been discussed nor if you read Liam Fox is it anywhere contemplated for the first carrier. The clue is design changes necessary to put it in the second, my understanding (but I don't know for sure) is that the actual deck needs to be lengthened which means the hull has to be altered, also the lift for the planes needs adjusted. These are not trivial retrofits to do to an existing carrier. My case stands, carrier one is a waste of metal.
rham wrote:If I was worried about fighting a long way from home, how would I do it? Use submarines with cruise missiles to cripple air defences, command and control, missile and air defence frigates to cover landing area and for force protection. (However, we could never invade China in essence we would be fighting to save Taiwan or for access to a third countries resources, neither case is likely to pass the existential threat to the nation test). Using large numbers of such ships, so that losses can be absorbed. It might not be work but the ability to devastate command and control from submarines and destroyers beyond fighter range (and these small fast targets are harder to hit with missiles) might act as a powerful deterrent.
rham wrote:However, I more focus my energy on education of our population, decreasing invasive government, increasing prosperity, decreasing pollution and defending the home island against threats to our way of life. Its my opinion that much of woe has come from neglecting our own people because of dreams of being a first rate important power. Even saying all that I strongly believe the carriers even on their own pretext are a waste of money. Whats more I believe in time this will be admitted by authority (Cameron came pretty close), the only reason they were built is, it would have costed as much to cancel. Politically, spending the money with absolutely nothing to show was judged worse than building something and trying to pretend it might be useful and distracting people with flag waving. Military judgement did not come into it.
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests