The new carriers and JSF

[Pielstick]

Did anyone see the article by Jon Lake in AFM a couple of months ago?

For anyone who didn't see it he basically argued that the carriers and JSF represent only a limited capability with only 2 carriers that have around 30 aircraft each, and the F-35B being the most expensive and worst performing model of the JSF. The carriers will need a lot of support from other vessels when they are deployed (vessels that we don't have!). He reckons the carriers are a capability that is "nice to have" but not absolutely necessary. He argues that the money for the carriers and JSF can be better spent ensuring the RAF gets its full batch of Tranche 3 Typhoons, all three services get a lot more helicopters, and the Gripen NG be purchased to make up the numbers of fast jets for the RAF.

I have to admit it is a pretty compelling argument, and I'm inclined to agree.

What do you all think?

[xffw45343tg]

Does the old Harrier answer "you can't land a Typhoon when someone's bombed your runway" argument still apply?

[JohnT]

Does the old Harrier answer "you can't land a Typhoon when someone's bombed your runway" argument still apply?

Very true and Hear hear

One wee point though

What about Sandy Woodford's argument that you can't land your Harrier when someone has torpedoed/ exoceted your carrier to Davy Jones?

I posted a comment on another site having this discussion to the effect that, if we are being serious about naval aviation are 2 carriers enough? The Falklands campaign was conducted one hand behind back in case we lost one carrier out of two. Woodward makes it clear it would have been all over then as one deck is not enough to carry out operations. And if he is/was correct what happens when one goes for re-fit?

Are we buying all the vessels needed for carrier support groups? Or just making do with a 1 destroyer escort? And what is the foreign policy going to be that requires the projection of such naval and aviation power?

Personally I'd have them but I am not sure that the arguments have been fully made for them.

Would love to hear comments.

John

[crobinsonh]

It is interesting to note that I believe that the only aircraft shot down since the Korean war have all been by the FAA (e.g. the RAF have zero kills since Korea). I read the article as well and at the time thought it was a well reasoned argument - the problems is that every 20 years or so something comes out of left field where we do not have the support of NATO or the US and do end up going on our own. Whether this be Belize the Falklands or whereever next. At those points in time the RAF is too far from any base to provide any coverage. This is part the problem of our foreign policy (dont mention Iraq and Afghanistan) and partly due to our imperial heritage. I am not saying I agree with this foreign policy but it is just the way it keeps playing out.

Personally I would buy the carriers and buy French Rafales - they work and as all the arguments point out are higher performance than JSF and no less stealthy if you have any payload over 4000Lbs - eg you are using hard points. They will also be signifantly cheaper as long as we do not build them in the UK and re-engine with RR engines!

Regards

Edited July 28, 2009 by crobinsonh

[Fmk.6john]

It is interesting to note that I believe that the only aircraft shot down since the Korean war have all been by the FAA.

Regards

John Nichols Tornado ZD791???????????

JB.

[Mentalguru]

Without chesive force multiplication and threat targeting I see little point in two f*** off huge carriers with poo-poo planes on board.

The USN have something like 20 carriers that ROTATE, and are postiioned around the globe as and when needed to project either a visible deterrent- or "clear and present force" (or whatever the correct phrase is.)

Two U.K. carriers will be one carrier when the other is in port because the US or China won't supply the correct activation codes to operate the hand driers in the women's toilets - and who are we going to have more jurisdiction over than the U.S.A. I suppose we could position one a few mils off the mouth of Belfast Harbour, or maybe off the Falklands... FFS

And- if HE survives, one will be called the HMS BROWN!!!! NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Edited July 28, 2009 by Mentalguru

[Pielstick]

The carriers will need at least one Type 45 for air defence, as well as a number of Type 23s for missile fodder. In addition to that the group will also need at least one attack submarine, and at least two RFAs. That's a hell of a lot of ships just to support 30 aircraft. All those ships, the carrier included are vulnerable to attack, be it from missiles or submarines. The short range of the F-35B means the carrier will have to get quite close to the enemy coast, which in turn brings the carriers right into the hunting grounds of modern diesel-electric submarines, which the Russians have been knocking out for years now. A modern Kilo Class running on batteries would present a very real and grave threat to the new carriers.

So then, in order to keep the carriers away from the enemy coast we need tankers, which need a land base. If we can get a land base for tankers then we can also use that base for strike aircraft, negating the need for the carrier!

Look at the F-35B itself, it's still a long way from being ready for service, and the costs are escalating. It's gone from being a cheap multi-role F-16 replacement to being a very expensive stealth design in the last few years. The STOVL F-35B operating in "stealth configuration" i.e. with no external stores will have less range than the Harrier, and will only be able to carry 2,000LB of ordnance. In an air-air role it will clearly be inferior to the likes of Typhoon and F-22.

The Falklands argument keeps popping up when the carriers are mentioned. First of all anyone who things the UK can mount another independant military expidition in a similar vein to Operation Corporate is kidding themselves. We don't have that capability any more, we haven't had it for years! Likewise anyone who thinks that the UK will be able to take unilateral military action in the modern world is also kidding themselves. It would be political and diplomatic suicide. In the event we didn't have host nation support (i.e. land bases available) then it becomes even more unlikely that we (or even the Americans) would or even could go to war without local support.

We have a limited defence budget, and I don't think we can afford to waste a very large portion of it on a couple of new carriers so the RN can willy wave at everyone, and a bunch of expensive fighters with clearly inferior performance.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Pielstick

[Van]

John Nichols Tornado ZD791???????????

JB.

er I think it means ENEMY aircraft UK forces have shot down....have been BY the FAA

Van

[Fmk.6john]

Whoops!!, wrong glasses on!

JB.

[Orange Poodle]

Didn't read the article, but from what is here I agree - STOVL JSF has limited capabilities - too many compromises through having to lug the second motor round all the time, and is not ideal for fleet defence which has to be the first priority for a carrier airwing. Real AEW and tanking capabilities will not be available to the force unless land based assets are used in support, in which case Thyphoons would be available also.

Not against the carriers but they should be bigger with conventional aircraft, and yes, they do need more escorts than are likely to be available.

Half-#rsed effort ..........

OP

[Mentalguru]

The carriers will need at least one Type 45 for air defence, as well as a number of Type 23s for missile fodder. In addition to that the group will also need at least one attack submarine, and at least two RFAs. That's a hell of a lot of ships just to support 30 aircraft. All those ships, the carrier included are vulnerable to attack, be it from missiles or submarines. The short range of the F-35B means the carrier will have to get quite close to the enemy coast, which in turn brings the carriers right into the hunting grounds of modern diesel-electric submarines, which the Russians have been knocking out for years now. A modern Kilo Class running on batteries would present a very real and grave threat to the new carriers.

So then, in order to keep the carriers away from the enemy coast we need tankers, which need a land base. If we can get a land base for tankers then we can also use that base for strike aircraft, negating the need for the carrier!

Look at the F-35B itself, it's still a long way from being ready for service, and the costs are escalating. It's gone from being a cheap multi-role F-16 replacement to being a very expensive stealth design in the last few years. The STOVL F-35B operating in "stealth configuration" i.e. with no external stores will have less range than the Harrier, and will only be able to carry 2,000LB of ordnance. In an air-air role it will clearly be inferior to the likes of Typhoon and F-22.

The Falklands argument keeps popping up when the carriers are mentioned. First of all anyone who things the UK can mount another independant military expidition in a similar vein to Operation Corporate is kidding themselves. We don't have that capability any more, we haven't had it for years! Likewise anyone who thinks that the UK will be able to take unilateral military action in the modern world is also kidding themselves. It would be political and diplomatic suicide. In the event we didn't have host nation support (i.e. land bases available) then it becomes even more unlikely that we (or even the Americans) would or even could go to war without local support.

We have a limited defence budget, and I don't think we can afford to waste a very large portion of it on a couple of new carriers so the RN can willy wave at everyone, and a bunch of expensive fighters with clearly inferior performance.

Agree 101%

We would have been far better off to buy a round 5-6 used Nimitz class carriers, or the one after, and filled 'em up with Harrier II's and Sea Typhoons- with the ability to fire nuclear cruise missiles and all that stuff

[Geoff_B]

The article supposed to be written as a ballanced argument yet was completely RAF biased and thus dross.

Jon Lake despite being a defence writer, somehow managed to by-pass the very reason the carriers were ordered - Following 2003 when the UK decided to join the US and invade Iraq, they suddenly found friendly airspace in short supply, NATO allies refused overflights, Turkey and Saudi refused basing rights, leaving the RAF sat on its bottom after a very long flight to cyprus wonder how the hell it was supposed to get to the bases it had managed to get permission to use in Kuwait and Bahrain !!. (Note at this point it all goes quiet somehow after alot of behind close door talks the aircraft suddenly arrive quietly in theatre a few days later).

Following this and the fact that the RAF were unable to provide direct aircover to the UK land forces in Afghanistan the Government then committed to the new carriers of suitable size. They realised finally that the mobile air base is the only answer when you dont have enough bases globally to support forward deployments nore have enough influence and friends to gaurantee overflight access or the use of friendly airbases in close proximity to the area of conflict.

Considering its taken till now for the RAF to get its mainstream strike aircraft into Afghanistan, i somehow doubt the rest of the armed forces are willing to trust RAF boasts of being able to protect our forces at sea or on the ground around the world.

Yes the carrier program is expensive, 10 billion was originally assigned for ships and aircraft, and the ships are now delayed and costs have risen (However it should be noted that the govt kept the program on hold for 18mths whilst it tried to share it with the French, so the cost and timetable originally agreed at maingate was always going to be re-adjusted at some point as it wasnt possible to make up that much lost time nore the price hikes from the economy heading south last year

The Carrier program is the lynchpin of the future naval strategy, the Navy has sacrificed numerous frigates and destroyers to continue procurement, should they be cancelled then the shipyard go bust as there are no current orders for any other warships or any designs ready bar the carriers for the next 10 years!!! The heavy ampib capability we have built up with Ocean, the Albions, the Bays and the point class are they relegated to the scrap heap as no aircover bar what we can beg and borrow from our allies, as the RAF certainly wont have the capability or the desire.

Might be worth pointing out that the following issue had a string of complaints about the Jon Lake article and the month after the Defence procurement minister reminded people of the offical stance and justification for the carriers and JSF. Think you will find the "argument" was just clever spin by a RAF fan trying to ensure they get their Typhoons at the expense of everything else. - Now if they were carrier capable Typhoons and assigned to the Fleet Air Arm then it would be different story.

[Max Headroom]

Yes I read the article and the follow up the next month. To be honest I haven't got a clue as an 'expert'.

However, the first question the Secretary of State for the Fence should ask is "What is the UK's foreign policy if things look to go bang bang?"

If they decide it's floating airfields to go to a place Far Far Away, then they need to ask "What do we do when we get there?"

If it's "drop bombs and stuff", then what you need is a bomb truck. So bangs per buck come into the equation. VTOL F-35's are not the answer - at least not by themselves. You need the CTOL version to deliver as much ordnance as possible. By all means have the VTOL version to keep things quiet once the SAM's are creamed into the landscape but if you intend to go hot in a situation you need to prove that yu are serious.

To do all this you need AEW. Realistically this means the E2 in whatever version is current. For this you need a catapult. I believe that the design incorporates the ability the retrofit this capability. This should be there from day one IMHO.

I have no idea about the other floaty things that are required to nursemaid the two carriers, but it seems that the new destroyer order is slashed anyway, meaning that all of our assets would be protecting the carriers?

I agree, it's muddled and being done on the cheap.

Wotabout a NATO pooled asset?

What do I know anyway?

[Pielstick]

Half-#rsed effort ..........

My sentiments exactly.

Two carriers with a limited number of an inferior aircraft, part of a navy that doesn't have enough assets to properly support them.

It's all about the Admirals' willy waving unfortunately, and not about how best we can spend our limited defence budget.

[Tony C]

Personally I would buy the carriers and buy French Rafales

Good idea and could the Gripen be suitable for UK forces as well?

And- if HE survives, one will be called the HMS BROWN!!!! NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Thats so scary its hilarious

Yes the carrier program is expensive, 10 billion was originally assigned for ships and aircraft

Not that 'expensive' when one considers that the motorist coughs up £31 billion per year and IIRC, didn't that figure originally also include a future upgrade?

I'm no expert in 'Hair Dryers' but feel that the F-35 is being forced on us and being neither a dedicated Air Force or Naval airframe will prove to be half way house for both Services!

[JohnT]

All good points guys

Isn't the essence of the problem summed up as "too little, too late"? Now where have I heard that before?

In an ideal world the answer should be yes - to 3 carriers with proper air assets and naval support groups to act in areas where the RAF can't provide air support.

But as we are seemingly unwilling to spend the cash then frankly I think to go half way is a recipe for disaster should the carriers ever be called to act inshore against someone other than the Taliban.

John

[moaning dolphin]

One thing that has to be remembered is that the Navy has lost ALL experience in running large carriers, which makes a big difference. The aircraft are unproven and expensive. There isn't the manpower to support all that aviation and to be honest it will be, as already quoted, a half ~rsed approach. I'm WAFU through and through but i think the best thing would be to turn all that steel into assault ships and invest the rest in helicopters. They will (if they ever do get built!) be great white elephants to sit alongside the Typhoon. Hate to be pessimistic but the future doesn't look bright.

Cheers Now

Bob

[AnonymousER99]

Gents

This one is tip toeing through the no no politics arena.

We will let it be as long as it stays balanced and objective. Please don't make me or the other mods get out the lock and key.

Cheers

Mike

[Troffa]

Let the Royal Navy have the carriers, they will be fine flagships for a once proud service and might go some way to restoring the UK's image as a great seafaring nation.

Lets not pretend however that they will be some kind of magic bullet to meet all challenges of future conflicts- They will be very tempting targets in any conflict and will probably have to operate at the extreme ranges of its aircraft to avoid enemy action-thus limiting the effective combat load of any aircraft deployed thereon. A friend of mine who was on the Fort Austin during the Falklands war joked that the carrier crews qualified for the South Africa Star as they were so far east of the Islands to avoid detection and attack by the Argentines, and I dont think that things will have changed that much if and when the new carriers come into service.

Factor in that the required levels of air defence provided by the Type 45's is already under threat due to budget cuts to support the building of carriers we may end up with the usual British "Half arrsed" approach with a state of the art weapon system having its capabilities reduced by political and economic forces, with the RN forced to make do with what could have been a great piece of kit. (see The sad story of the Tornado F3, AMRAAM and "we dont need no stinking mid course update" for an example)

The choice of aircraft also poses an issue- the STOVL F-35B (or Dave B as the wags on pprune refer to it) has a lot of question marks over it, the program already having had a major weight saving exercise applied to it after the prototype came in a bit overweight and the continous bunfights about just what Tier 1 partnership means when it comes to access to software and other technical data.

I still recall stories of the Harriers having to jettison perfectly serviceable stores into the adriatic in order to get under the maximum safe landing weight for getting back on board during the deny flight operations in the mid nineties, one would hope that the F35 has a somewhat improved performance.

In the end however, if it means jobs in UK dockyards and all of the supply chain involved I am all for it- if the RN get a couple of half decent ships at the end of it- thats a bonus!

[Pielstick]

Note at this point it all goes quiet somehow after alot of behind close door talks the aircraft suddenly arrive quietly in theatre a few days later

Which in turn kind of negates the need for the fast jets flying from a carrier. As I said earlier, any expeditionary warfare without host nation support is a non-starter in this day and age.. with or without carriers!

Following this and the fact that the RAF were unable to provide direct aircover to the UK land forces in Afghanistan the Government then committed to the new carriers of suitable size. They realised finally that the mobile air base is the only answer when you dont have enough bases globally to support forward deployments nore have enough influence and friends to gaurantee overflight access or the use of friendly airbases in close proximity to the area of conflict.

So the carrier based aircraft will need to take on fuel from a tanker en-route to Afghanistan. Where are those tankers going to be based? If we can get a base for tankers then why can't we also use it for strike aircraft? Thus negating the need for a carrier.

Considering its taken till now for the RAF to get its mainstream strike aircraft into Afghanistan

The Tornado was designed to penetrate the Iron Curtain at low altitude and to hit fixed targets in any weather - it wasn't designed to fly CAS during counter-insurgency operations. The reason the Tornado is being sent to Afghanistan is to relieve the pressure on the Harriers. It's a case of not enough suitable jets - ironically more of an argument for more RAF fast jets.

the Navy has sacrificed numerous frigates and destroyers to continue procurement

To the point where they probably don't have enough assets to protect and supply the carriers when they are deployed.

The heavy ampib capability we have built up with Ocean, the Albions, the Bays and the point class are they relegated to the scrap heap

It's already started! Two of the Bay Class are going next year. Fort Austin has just been taken out of service and is currently undergoing a deep preservation process - and this is EXACTLY the sort of ship that we will need to supply the carriers and their task group!

clever spin by a RAF fan trying to ensure they get their Typhoons at the expense of everything else

I would argue the opposite - the RN are sacrificing core capabilities to get the carriers at any cost. It comes down to empire-building and willy waving - they may get their shiny new carriers, but they won't have the ability to protect and support them, and the aircraft they operate will be limited in performance and capabilities.

I just feel that in the modern day and age the RAF can provide this capability more effectively and efficiently, and the money could be spent more effectively elsewhere - both within the RN and across the other two services.

[Mr_Sworld]

We have a limited defence budget, and I don't think we can afford to waste a very large portion of it on a couple of new carriers so the RN can willy wave at everyone, and a bunch of expensive fighters with clearly inferior performance

With that in mind and in no way trying to start a flame war or mean this as a personal attack can I ask this?

What are your feelings then on replacing Trident? Surely in these days a hidden nuclear deterrent is unnecessary? The days of MAD are over after all. Why not spend money on surface fleets, helicopters, better transport, boots, etc than very expensive delivery systems that only worked against counties rather than terrorists or mad dictators?

Discuss.......

[Armadillos]

What a question to ask ok then here goes (deep breathe).

The new carriers are i believe an excellent idea and it`ll be excellent to have so "really" carriers in our ever shrinking armed forces ranks and i think will prove to be a wise choice of expediture. However the JSF is i believe a complete waste of cash. The lift motor mechanism will most likely make her a complete nightmare to maintain and her load carrying capability i feel is extremely flawed. My reason for this is that at present her weapons bay is X dimension and thats fine at the moment but what if a new stonking ground attack weapon is produce which has Y dimension, then your stupidly expensive jet can`t carry or use it! Then you`ve got the issue of spending huge amounts of cash on something that can`t be life extended! Also to maintain its stealth capability panels which are removed have to be replace so precisely and surely to such a detailed tolerance so as not to ruin the jets radar signature, now how easy will that be to do in the hangar deck during heavy seas?

[Oliver]

Just a note on the E-2C for AEW. I read that it is actually able to take off from a ski ramp unassisted, so all it would need would be arresting wires for landing under the current carrier design.

Also don't forget the US Navy as well as using big tanker assets also has its own air tanking assets, given that we will most likely base our future carrier operations on current US procedure, I don't see why the FAA wouldn't be able to aquire some of its own carrier borne tanking assets.

My personal feelings on the carrier are like several others, in that they are a half arsed attempt, as well as only having two. If you are going to have a big carrier, go the whole way and have a proper conventional carrier with catapults and all. This would then enable one to get the more capable version of the F-35, or a Navalised Typhoon for comonality with the RAF. And at we should have three not two, so that one is always ready for training/refit, while the other can provide an adequate air projection.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Oliver

[Julien]

I do think the carriers are needed but we need to fund the assets to go alongside of them.

Also I believe that the choice of aorcraft is wrong. We should not be pinning all of our hopes on the unproven F-35. I do not see why we along with the French could not build & equip suitable carriers between our selves operating rafels and the like. This would keep costs down, give us what we need and give a little boost to Anglo French releations which after all have provided many great weapons systems before.

I really believe the F-35B will turn out to be a massive white elephant.

Julien

[smuts]

Hi guys, I agree with Julien about the JSF both USN & USMC don't really want it as its capabilities are way below expectations & its is no dogfighter this was mentioned on ARC if it comes up against a new generation Flanker its dead. The fleet dose need its carriers but put catapults on them & equip them with a navalised Typhoon, BAE are already working on that conversion in case or the F18E/F with Rafael being third choice another bonus for the rhino being used is they are already being used as a tanking platform & the growler is being put in to service now with E2's as the AEW platform. One US admiral

was heard to say the JSF is the biggest F##k up since the F111 was proposed as the fleet fighter, it cant carry enough ordnance for CAS & it cant mix it with other fighters.