Articles

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

The new aircraft carriers - blessing or curse?

In July 2007 it was announced that the government had started ordering equipment needed for the 2 massive aircraft carriers for the RN. (work on the actual ships should start in 2009) At about 65,000 tons, they will be the largest ships ever built for the RN and their size means they will be built in pieces (or 'super blocks') at various locations and assembled (adjacent to Gordon Brown's constituency) in Rosyth.

Why we must have them They are very flexible instruments of power and if used wisely can be a huge force for good. They will be a little piece of British sovereign territory that can deploy to anywhere on 2 thirds of the surface of the globe. They can be used to influence events from over the horizon by their very presence without firing a shot. They will be a symbol of Britain's strength but be able to mount humanitarian missions on a large scale.

Recent ill-informed reactions in the media have included; "Carriers are relics of British imperialism" While they can, and will be used to project power abroad, they are no more relics of imperialism than any other type of armed forces. (one man's ˜imperialism' is another man's 'preserving peace and stability') They are the cornerstone of naval fleet operations (centered around the carrier battle group). They form a vital protective air umbrella for any operations from full-scale war to peace-keeping. Without carriers British sailors lives are in danger. History shows carrier aircraft are by far the best defence for ships against other aircraft. Operations such as the recovery of the Falklands would not have been possible without carriers. In fact had the RN possessed the large CVA-01 carriers cancelled by the Labour Govt of 1966, it could be argued the Falklands conflict might never have happened as they would have been such a powerful deterrent to invasion.

"We should go for cheaper small carriers with unmanned drone aircraft" While new technologies should be considered, there is no substitute for humans in control. However good robot technology becomes, it will never be as flexible or intelligent as humans decision-making. Unmanned Ariel Vehicles (UAVs) are likely to be a useful tools in future in support of manned aircraft rather than a replacement for them. Clearly the conventional manned fighter/bomber has a solid future and many nations are investing in new 'conventional' carriers including the US, China, Russia, France, and others.

"We can't afford them lets just spend the money on the NHS, tax cuts, pretty flowers etc" (See article) Yes they are expensive but they will be a powerful and flexible asset, and should have a long service life (It is not uncommon for carriers to serve for 40 years with upgrades). Their construction and maintenance will provide thousands of jobs across the UK and help maintain the industrial and shipbuilding base the RN needs. Their combined cost of about 4 billion pounds is actually great value for money compared to the 19 Billion pound cost of the RAF Typhoon programme.

"Carriers are no use against terrorists and suicide bombers" In a narrow sense this is true, but while we are currently facing immediate threats from terrorism it does not mean there will not be 'conventional' conflicts in the future and we must retain the capability to fight effectively. Building carriers is taking the wise long-term view that we can't predict events. We can't base our defence procurement on the short-term needs of today but try to invest in flexible systems such as carriers that give us lots of options in the future. However naval power, even today, is far from irrelevant to terrorism. Carrier based aircraft have already been used for intelligence gathering and strikes against terrorist bases. Carriers also can be used to exert a strong deterrent to nations that maybe sponsoring or harbouring terrorists.

The challenges to face before delivery.

Although in the long-run building very big carriers makes sense as it allows flexibility in upgrading and operating different aircraft, the sheer size and scale will throw up complex engineering problems which will have to be overcome. UK has not built a carrier since Ark Royal (5) completed in 1985 and not built a large carrier since HMS Ark Royal (4) was launched in 1950. There are also no suitable dry docks in the primary naval bases of Portsmouth (where they will be based) or at Devonport.
It would not take great foresight to say costs will probably rise. The government has forced industry to form the 'Carrier Alliance' so that different companies will be responsible for different bits of the project at locations throughout the country. This sounds like a recipe for complications. Lets hope that this project is better managed than previous big projects such as the Astute submarines or the RAF typhoon!
Having ordered expensive carriers the government now has a great excuse to ignore RN calls to order the other ships and submarines vital for a balanced fleet. Without sufficient escorts and support ships the carriers will be of very limited use, even a liability. It is the express purpose of this website to campaign for those vessels to be ordered.
An expensive program such as this will be a tempting target for cancellation by future governments who may want to release some quick cash, should they need to bribe the electorate with spending on more popular services.
The aircraft (or main armament) that will fly from the carrier do not yet exist in a proven form. There have been complex political negotiations with the US about the development or the JSF (F-35). It has been decided the main aircraft will be the Short Vertical Take Off (STVOL) F35B which should fly by 2012. Complex international projects like this do not have a good track record of delivering on time and on budget.
Enough experienced manpower (and pilots in particular) may be hard to come by if the RN manpower continues to shrink at the current rate.
By going for a less controversial gas turbine/electric propulsion instead of nuclear power, their fuel bill will be very high. (Not to mention their carbon footprint). How much oil will be available and what will it cost in 40 years time? Electric propulsion systems on this scale are still very much at the leading edge of marine engineering and will present big challenges.
To be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, the choice of names is potentially problematic. Apart from being long and unwieldy mouthfulls, In a couple of decades time, given today's hostile media, who knows how the royal family will be perceived by the public? Do we want the ships so closely linked to an institution who's long-term future is so uncertain. Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales is not a particularly popular figure and the QE2 is also a name more closely associated with a luxury cruise liner in the public mind. Why not chose simple, punchy and uncontroversial names such as HMS Lion & HMS Tiger?

7:30 AM

17 Comments:

perfectgeneral said...: Why not chose simple, punchy and uncontroversial names such as HMS Lion & HMS Tiger?

Maybe if the carriers had cats...

The names aren't in honour of the current royal family, they are named after previous ships. HMS QE, not QE2. Named after a ship named after the first Queen Elizabeth. The Tudor one.; December 23, 2007 9:43 PM
EdLaw said...: Actually, it is named after the current monarch. The naming tradition has always been to name the first Capital Ship launched during a monarch's reign after that monarch. As such, the new carriers are to be considered capital ships, and the first launched during the Queen's reign. The Invincible class, on the other hand, were considered cruisers, and thus not actually Capital Ships.

A great pity, however, because there are so many better names, such as Eagle, Reprisal, Victorious or even Hermes!; January 31, 2008 10:23 AM
John Howard Oxley said...: Actually, both QE and PoW are good names: the first celebrates not only the monarch [God Bless Her!] but also one of the most successful capital ship classes ever built. And the second makes some restitution to the spirit of the previous PoW, so grievously misused in WWII. The names have great traditional roots, and are very evocative of 20th-Century RN history.

Of course some of the wonderful names like Superb, Courageous, Glorious, Magnificent, and Warrior would also be most fitting, and many of these would have direct aircraft carrier roots as well.; April 3, 2008 4:56 PM
Anonymous said...: If it's traditional to name the first capital ship launched after the start of a monarch's reign after him/her, why wasn't the first of the RN SSNs or SSBNs so named?; May 27, 2008 12:10 PM
Gregory said...: Good news. Now we just need two assault carriers , 4 cruisers and 20 more destroyers.

How to pay for this? Simple scrap the redundant RAF and give UK Air Defence and fast jets to the RN and Helicopters and Transports to the Army.

The RAF has proven itself incompetent, unable to provide for the strategic needs of the nation being too focused on the glory days of fighter pilots rather than the acquisition of aircraft suitable for support of expeditionary warfare.

With out the cost associated with the RAF a revived RNAS and RFC will buy and operate aircraft useful to the nation and not the stupid Euro fighter. Where are our transports, helicopters, AWACS and recon assets - Oh I forgot they don't go Mach 2 so are no fun to fly and therefore not worth having since the fighter pilot types run the RAF.; July 7, 2008 11:29 AM
Alex said...: these carriers will be a large boost in the power of the RN.. few disappointments about them though, STOVL.. basically to save costs, 2 65k ton carriers chances of having both active at any 1 time will be slim 3 carriers in the region of 48k tonnes (around 260m with airwing of ~26 F35c + rotary wing) and 2 LPH at around 32k-36k tonnes (and around 240m length) with strengthened deck's fitted for but not with ski-jumps giving capability of operating a small number of F35b in the CAS role.

although it is blatantly obvious that the above wouldn't happen unless defence spending is about 45bn (about 11-12bn on current figures) and in which case we could be looking at a fleet like this:

~14 t45's, ~10 astutes (and longer life for the trafalgars), sister ship for albion and bulwark, class of ~16 T23 replacements (true multirole frigates[imagine a Brit ship similar to Fridtjof Nansen, with Brit weapon systems and CODLAG]) class of 8 T22 replacements long slim ASW ships with more than adequate AA capabilities (not as state of the art as T45 but formidable all the same) in the region of 8k tonnes 180m in length with hangar capable of holding 2 EH101's technically cruisers more than capable escorts leaving T45's to general fleet protection

I've droned on for abit now, can't help myself when I'm on the subject

- Alex.; September 17, 2008 2:06 PM
Mark Lynch said...: Would the safest and cheapest route to building these two large carriers not be to simply order them from a shipyard in the United States who have the necessary skill and experience in this area. It is perfectly obvious that the present plan will end up as another great MOD procurement disaster massively over budget and years late. Each of the contractors involved will pass the back regarding who's responsible for the inevitable disaster that’s coming. After all Cunard took one look at UK shipbuilding (what’s left of it) and promptly walked away when ordering the magnificent Queen Mary 2. There has also been massive penny pinching on the design with no nuclear power and the ships not being built to the correct naval standards of strength and armour. We will end up with bulk cargo ships fitted with a flight deck and painted grey delivered over budget and years late. They will look the part but will be paper tigers that will burn and sink from a single missile strike (just like Beatty's battle-cruisers at Jutland).
What’s happened to the Royal Navy in recent years has truly been a tragedy, the comical farce of the Iran debacle and self confessed cry-baby iPod sailor Arthur Batchelor has destroyed its hard won Falklands reputation. The present Royal Navy management has not had the courage to make public its inept mistakes leading up to this self inflicted humiliation hiding behind operational secrecy as an excuse. It truly made itself the laughing stock of the world. It’s clear that standards generally have declined in line with ship numbers. In short an organisation badly decaying.; November 6, 2008 7:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Maybe we should build 2 new smaller 38,000 ton carriers similar to the French Charles De Gaulle and refit the current Invincible Class Carriers and then design a surface unit similar to the Russian Kirov class Battlecruiser. In this day and age , and after long analysis of military operations it seems to me that the USA have the right idea with their new DD(X) program. Although I appreciate that aircraft carriers are the most important ships in a fleet, it seems to me that precision gunfire support is actually a very valuable commodity. Building a set of cruisers /battlecruisers maybe similar in size to the King George the V class battleships of the Second World War, I envisage such vessels maybe having a enlarged Type 45 destroyer hull design and maybe sporting a gun system such as the newly designed American advanced gun system

However, there would be space to elaborate on this; for example, you could mount 6 of the 6.1 inch guns with limited ammunition in three gun turrets, almost returning to capital ship design of the pre World War Two capital ship design. (Obviously the turrets would look like the modern gun turrets mounted on destroyers or of course, and more suitably a Design based on the AVG system ) The ship’s gun system would have a range of perhaps 150 miles, keeping her offshore and away from the immediate risk of enemy fire. They would also be armed with a variety of anti aircraft missiles so they could protect naval task groups when on deployment in hostile areas , where the enemy does have a standing air force , capable of adopting an anti ship role. The capability of such a warship to carry, or at least have the potential of carrying a nuclear deterrent is obvious and unavoidable, it would mean it could provide a menacing presence in areas of political unease. Also I see the design carrying standard anti ship missiles as the Gun systems on the ship would be used for fire support of land based forces, not, or preferably not, ship to ship engagements (I suppose the system could be used to fire on approaching enemy vessels in situations where the use of Anti Ship Missiles is unavailable).

Aircraft that theses “Battlecruisers” would carry is also another area that would have to be considered carefully. The ships could carry the standard Westland Lynx or the AgustaWestland helicopters. Or perhaps the Navy could take a more combat based helicopter on, perhaps it could carry a couple of AH-64 Apache along side the standard units which would give it the ability for its ships to make minor strikes far inland. Also the ships should have enough room to carry about 150 – 250 marines so that it can make amphibious strikes.

The ship should be able to operate in any conditions , from the Southern Ocean to the Pacific and Mediterranean and be able to serve as a command center for ground forces like the Fearless Class Amphibious landing docks once did. All in all I feel that such a vessel could support the requirements of the modern Navy very well , but that’s ony my opinion !!!!!!; December 13, 2008 1:28 PM
Anonymous said...: All very good comments but until this country gets out of the EU and stops voting for the europeans like the Lib Lab Con SNP party none of it will happen!; April 7, 2009 2:53 PM
Norman Corner said...: Chaps,

I served for 7 years in the RN but fully support the cut backs made across our whole military and the carriers are the height of folly.

We should build and maintain a fleet and military that is commesurate with the size of our nation and our ability to pay for it and I still believe our standing forces are too large.

Lets be frank. We are not a world power. The enormous influence we seem to have on world affairs, compared to our size, is a hangover from our position 60/70 years ago.; April 15, 2009 5:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Corner,
You couldn't be more misinformed. Britain, despite her size, wields enormous influence world wide. In fact, your nation's influence is so great that it has transcended conventional notions of nationhood and even imperialism. Much of the world owes it's very identity to Great Britain and as such, hugely respects the voice of both the crown and the people of your great nation.
You need your Navy. Your Navy is not only a necessity in protecting trade routes and fisheries and providing a powerful deterent to nuclear aggression; it is the very essence of everything that is Great Britain.
As an American Naval Officer, I cannot imagine a world in which the Union Jack doesn't fly alongside the Stars and Stripes in the defense of the oceans and the maritime links that unite us and many others. Yes, you need the Royal Navy -- it is at the very core of your nation's soul. Mr. Corner, contrary to your opinion and smallness of thought, the Royal Navy of today is not nearly as large as it should be considering the true value of Great Britain's influence and commensurate responsibility on the world stage.
William Charles; June 2, 2009 8:26 AM
Anonymous said...: RAF must give up its fighters but the RN can't part with her supercarriers? We want to save the RN but how can we do this by scrapping still useful destroyers and frigates to pay for supercarriers. In the Falklands, the British showed the world how light carriers were still relevent and a fleet geared toward nonconventional anti-submarine warfare could fight conventional fleet battles in an emergency.

Placing all the RN's hopes on a couple giant ships only to see them sunk by a Third World submarine or suicide boat is no strategy.; June 26, 2009 3:17 AM
Gregory said...: WRT To escorting the carriers.

Light conventional escorts no longer fulfil a useful naval role. They are too small and inadequately armed for the detached duties expected of them. In order to maintain a significant escort fleet would be costly and inappropriate for the projection of expeditionary warfare.

Naval Sea control will be established through a reinvigorated submarine service using variants upon the astute class submarine.

Close in Air defence of the fleet on operations will be provided for by the Type 45 Air Defence Destroyer.

Air Power will be projected globally by the Carrier force operating a mix of Type 35Bs and Drones

Now patrol ships for the Caribbean, Middle East , Falklands and other stations would best be served by large Cruisers in the 20K ton range. these cruisers could be equipped with large water makers and hospital facilities plus containers of emergency rations and tents etc... for emergency and humanitarian relief operations whilst also being able to deploy a company of Royal Marines and Special Forces supported by V22 Multi-role VSTOL Aircraft. and Cobra attack Helicopters.

By reducing the number of conventional but limited capability surface combatants and replacing them with Several Large Cruisers (upto six) and enhancing the submarine service the Royal Navy will be able to project much more power globally whilst at the same time reducing manning, and other operational costs.

Large Cruisers with the ability to intervene on land air and sea plus the expeditionary fleet will also enhance the Diplomatic impact of the Service and remind potential allies and foes that Britain is capable of intervening globally in support of our interests independently of American, NATO or EU without either assistance or approval.

To Reiterate The Navy's Future Role and Capabilities should align with the following Strategic Aims.

Maintenance of the Sea Way and freedom of Navigation - Astute class Subs

Nuclear Deterrent Existing Trident 2 in modified Astute class SSNs that also retain their attack capabilities. Plus additional nuclear cruise missiles dispersed fleet wide.

Support of Expeditionary Warfare and Global Power Projection. Carriers combined with assault ships and the transport fleet. Perhaps we should consider buying some new American Assault Carriers as used by the US Marine Corps at some point. Escorted by Type 45 Anti - Air escorts and Astute SSN in the Anti Sub Role.

Maintenance of Patrol Activities and overseas Stations The Large Multi Role Cruisers.

Consideration should also be given to going Nuclear to reduce running costs of the ships.

N.B. One reason for reducing conventional escorts is the cost of the sensor suites which are the most costly aspect of a warship. Also the larger Cruisers will be able to mount a more formidable missile battery and better Sensors and Command and Control capabilities than smaller warships.; June 26, 2009 4:20 AM
Anonymous said...: First, props to Mr. Charles for an outstanding post - and thanks for your service.

Perhaps Britain could consider purchasing the US Navy LHA-6 class of vessels as aircraft carriers for the RN? They are termed as amphibious assault ships but will effectively be Marine aircraft carriers.

In "Marine mode" they will be equipped with several different aircraft. However, if you broke it down to just F-35Bs and anti-sub helicopters, I've read they could carry/support 30 fighters.

True, that comes in under what the HMS Q.E. and HMS Pr. of Wales (65 each) can carry. But at a price tag of $1.5 billion-"ish" U.S., it affords you the opportunity to purchase more copies for the same money or to purchase fewer copies yet have more pounds left over to refurbish/purchase add'l support vessels, thus expanding the Royal Navy while maximizing monetary resources.

The world needs...the U.S. especially needs...there to be an effective, fearsome Royal Navy to help shoulder the load a dangerous world presents.

Steve; June 27, 2009 8:54 AM
Steve Coltman said...: The Italian Navy has just commissioned a 27,000-tonne light carrier Cavour, similar in concept to Invincibles but bigger and better, similar in size to the Hermes, 20 aircraft (F35B/merlin), 1.4 bn Euros (that is not an estimate, this is what it actually cost). Three of these would be much more sensible than 3 QE2 class. Much less financial risk, two could be kept in commission at any time, obviously less powerful that big carriers but we have done without big carriers for 30 years and the world has not stopped spinning. QE2 and POW will be awful white elephants, RN may not be able to afford to run them even if they can afford to buy them.; July 10, 2009 8:21 AM
James said...: One wonders if a Royal Navy Sub were sent after say an American Carrier battle Group, what would be the probable outcome? Talks with those who have done this in exercise format would indicate one fewer Carrier battle Group.So, how the heck does the RN Admiral with a far weaker and slower Carrier battle group (based on QE or PoW) propose to keep it afloat against Chinese, Russian or other sub fleets?

If I were an Admiral in the RN and wanted to have war fighting and deterrence capability rather than a shiny and large toy, I would be far more interested in say 6 added 45's a total of 12 SSN, maybe a few SSK and 60 or so well armed frigate and patrol boats for the same money. Do you want to be the target or the sniper?

Also, the whole Euro Fighter versus Carrier argument is stupid. Euro fighters exist, and are paid for and the 19 billion is for the full life cycle cost of the fleet for 30 years. Two carriers cost more like 6 Billion to build, another 12+ to equip with aircraft (which are not as day to day useful or as multi-role as Euro Fighter) and who knows how much to support for 30 years. Added to which they can not go anywhere with another 10billion is support fleet (type 45's, 23's, Astute etc.)Nice shiny targets!; September 24, 2009 12:22 PM
Anonymous said...: I've only just found this site and am impressed by the cause of saving the Royal Navy. What disappoints me is the type of argument that seems to rage. Should we have the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers? Of course we should. America's CNO says so. Only disappointments are that there will only be two and will be equipped with the F-35B. For me, there would have been four equipped with navalised Typhoons. And the carriers WOULD have been nuclear-powered. Just imagine the situation - the fan is spinning and the RN calls up and says "Terribly sorry, we have to pop off and refuel". And I fail to see the point of a dedicated helicopter area in preference to an angled deck.
I am not a military expert or aficionado so I cannot compare vessel capabilities or weapons systems, except to the extent of reckoning that more and bigger is better. Please excuse my inexpert view.
I see that an American carrier strike group consists of 6 warships in addition to the carrier. Seems reasonable. Eight guided missile cruisers, eight anti-aircraft warships and eight anti-submarine destroyers or frigates for us. Remember that we are on the shores of a large puddle of "blue water". So there, 26 main warships.
But will they always be where we want them? How long did it take us to equip the Falklands task force and for it to arrive? So we NEED the forces around the world. Properly equipped, we can do it. We should remember that, in respect of the Falklands, the US Navy considered that military re-invasion was impossible. But we did it anyway.
Let's say a further six strike groups based around helicopter carriers with the capability to support STOVL aircraft. Harriers. After all, if they are good enough for the US Marines, they should be good enough for us. We can always continue development. So, another 42 warships. Obviously going to need Landing Ships, Landing Craft, patrol vessels and so forth.
But let us not get things out of proportion. We still need the Army and the Royal Air Force (I count the Royal Marines as part of the Navy). In the long past, Admiral Lord St. Vincent told the House of Lords, "I do not say that (they) cannot come, only that they cannot come by sea". Unfortunately, (they) could now come by sea or air. And neither the RAF nor the RN will ever be capable of that most essential ability, to stand on ground contested by the enemy and take it away from him. So never let us deny resources to one branch of our armed forces in favour of another.
Far better to deny resources to the work-shy, consultants or the unproductive immigrants. Indeed, let us divest ourselves of those immigrants who have come here with objectives other than to be British. Might eliminate, or at least reduce, a potential fifth column. If they don't like our ideals, principles or way of life, let them go to Iran or Pakistan or Afghanistan. Or, if they prefer, they could be hanged.
As a final comment, I would direct your attention to the words posted on June 2, 2009 by William Charles, a serving American Naval Officer. I am more than a little heartened by these words from one of our greatest allies. If, even in our present parlous state, we are respected by the US Navy, what better accolade do we need?
Let us resume our great heritage and join again with our American cousins and even, perhaps, with our Australian, New Zealand and South African brothers.
Let us once again be GREAT BRITAIN.
And God bless the men and women of the Army, the Royal Air Force, the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy.; January 25, 2010 11:33 AM