Articles

Monday, October 12, 2009

Air power from the sea - the case for aircraft carriers

The Issue

Current air operations in Afghanistan, emphasising the under-resourcing of helicopters, obscures the continuing dependency of the UK on the sea and sea-based air power. The historic and future dependence of the UK's economy on the maritime environment drives the long-term requirement for the UK to have a flexible and proportionate global reach. This is not currently receiving the attention it deserves. The ability to deploy, poise and operate aircraft, including fixed wing combat air, at a place of the government's choosing, is essential if the UK is to remain a major league player with the US, European partners and emerging world powers such as China and India. Aircraft carriers are at the heart of this capability. The Royal Navy alone retains the whole suite of skills required to operate them. Without sea-based air power, freedom of operation is constrained by the need for complex and protracted international negotiations, agreements and treaties for the basing of aircraft on foreign soil. These agreements will, in a volatile world, be increasingly difficult to reach. Aircraft carriers and their aircraft are expensive and complex, and as such are amongst the first targets for savings in adverse economic conditions. However, once a nation has ownership and the skills, as we already do, they repay the investment handsomely. In particular, carrier-capable fast-jet combat aircraft can match their land-based equivalents but with more reach. There will always be the need for land-based support aircraft to augment combat air. However, current UK combat aircraft acquisition still envisages a mix of land-only (Typhoon) and land-and-sea capable fast jet (Joint Strike Fighter) aircraft. This mix is expensive, militarily unnecessary and, moreover, almost certainly unaffordable. As we need aircraft carriers and the people to operate them, we should refocus procurement and operations and rid ourselves of traditional land-centric thinking. The US Navy provides the model. The current MOD plans for fast-jet air and aircraft carriers are underfunded: therefore they are fatally flawed and they must change.

Background

The British Government's Future Maritime Operational Concept 2007 (FMOC 2007) explains the threats facing the UK, its dependent territories and its interests worldwide. The prospects for conflict at sea are increasing and less predictable. The UK continues to import 92% of food and goods by sea. By 2011 50% of our gas supplies will be delivered to UK by sea. We are already net importers of oil via sea lanes that are vulnerable to hostile acts. New ways to exploit the sea and competition for maritime resources increase. These threats are a consistent theme throughout UK history and are unchanging. What has changed is the sudden reversal in Britain's economic position, the imminence of a general election and the current narrow focus on the conflict in Afghanistan. We must not be blinded by these events into ignoring the future need for flexible and capable maritime forces. Media and political speculation about cost savings, strategic defence reviews and the adequacy of frontline equipment in Afghanistan have led to unprecedented public statements by chiefs of staff and former defence secretaries. Relationships between the services in the MoD are at breaking strain as they vie for position within a shrinking budget. High on the list of potential savings are the current big ticket procurement projects like aircraft carriers and Joint Strike Fighter. They are at risk precisely because they represent large single blocks of uncommitted public money on the current books, rather than any consideration of their vital need or unique utility. This article outlines why aviation from the sea should not be the target of savings measures, and how sea-based air represents the best long-term utility and value for money within the government's strategic defence aims. The components of this capability to be considered are:

Aircraft carriers;
Carrier-capable aircraft;
People with the right skillsets;

Aircraft Carriers

Carriers are flexible platforms which can embark a varied mix of fixed and rotary wing aircraft, tailored for specific operations. During the Bosnian crisis UK Harriers completed 3 years of uninterrupted operations, only 8 minutes flying time from Gorazde, able to operate in weather conditions that sometimes precluded operations from shore bases. At sea, they were always able to choose where to be to achieve the right effect. Refuelling and rearming from a carrier close to the operating area cuts out the need for expensive tankers and gets more sorties, more often from fewer aircraft. Carriers can operate aircraft without the need for host nation support, especially important in the early stages of an escalating situation. The ability to deploy a mobile sovereign airbase almost anywhere on the planet gives the government political and military choices. This is not lost on Russia, India and China, which are all growing naval air powers. Even Brazil and Thailand each have an operational aircraft carrier. Carriers can be stationed and integrated into the forward area for UK Air Defence. Carriers support foreign policy in a flexible way. Positioning and remaining close to areas of interest for long periods, independent of the need for permission as they are in international waters, only a few miles from foreign shores, they provide an escalating range of options for diplomatic coercion and, if necessary, conventional deterrence to aggression. They can be poised to intervene militarily in the last resort, swiftly and decisively, with the minimum use of force. The mobility of the carrier makes it less vulnerable than a conventional airfield and allows it to find better weather for flying operations. The United States already believes that its European allies do not contribute their fair share to NATO and coalition tasks. That includes carriers. With no British carriers the European contribution would consist of one French nuclear powered conventional carrier available for 50% of the time and up to three smaller Harrier operating carriers provided by Spain and Italy. Experience since 1945 suggests that unpredictability is the norm where Britain's military involvement is concerned. Almost all of the conflicts involved naval air power. Aircraft carriers deter aggression and exercise soft power. But their success and value for money are hard to prove when the measure of success is absence of conflict.

Flying from a HMS Ark Royal in the Atlantic, the ability of RN Buccaneer bombers to show a presence over Belize in 1972 undoubtedly stopped Guatemala from invading British Honduras. Photo: Navy Photos

Denis Healey had already cancelled the conventional carrier replacement programme in 1966. In 1982 the Conservative government announced the sale of the Harrier Carriers and General Galtieri believed he could invade the Falklands with impunity. Those same Harrier carriers were to prove him wrong but the possession and deployment of a conventional aircraft carrier would have deterred him altogether. Many lives would have been saved. The Carrier provides the widest flexibility for missions ranging from high intensity warfare to defence diplomacy and can rapidly change operational tempo between the two extremes. It is a powerful weapon of coercion or intervention. When the unexpected situation happens, carriers give the government of the day military, diplomatic and political choices. The deployment of carriers with either aircraft or embarked troops gives a government the potential to act without serious risk of escalation, then later withdraw without penalty. Deploying armies and aircraft to land bases is an inevitable act of escalation which politicians may not wish to take immediately. Without Carriers, the weakness of the Royal Navy would make Britain more vulnerable and unable to fulfil a political role in Europe or the world, commensurate with its economic power.

HMS Queen Elizabeth vital to the future of the Royal Navy - currently in the early stages of construction but the programme is still vulnerable to cancellation

Carriers have application now and into the future for the widest range of possible threats to the UK and our interests worldwide. Over recent years the RN has taken a heavy burden of cost savings measures compared with the other Services, on the understanding that the carriers would come into service. Loss of the carriers now would mean that the remaining hollowed-out navy would not be a cohesive or effective force. The loss of the Carriers to UK Defence Industry, the consequent loss of industrial capacity and technological expertise and the rise in unemployment would inevitably delay the economic recovery of the UK, contribute to further industrial decline, whilst providing an increased burden on the exchequer.

Carrier-Capable Aircraft

The preferred solution to the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA) is the Joint Strike Fighter. It is "fifth generation", stealthy and likely to remain at the forefront of capability and airframe life for several decades. European sales will mean it has the potential for interoperability with most of our allies and their carriers. Projected worldwide sales of several thousands will ensure economy of scale.

The prototype F35 Joint Strike Fighter on a test flight in the USA. The RN plans to purchase the vertical take off F35-B variant

The UK can only afford so many military fast jets. We should invest in aircraft that are designed with the strength and capability to operate from ships but which can also operate ashore, rather than the other way round. F18s have the strength but are not fifth generation and are already halfway through their technological lives. Bought second hand, they will be more than half way through their airframe lives. Typhoon was not designed to operate from ships nor to carry out ground attack missions and is unlikely to be anything other than a second rate compromise. It is neither stealthy, nor fifth generation: nor is it easily converted for carrier operations.

People with the right skill sets

There has been much acrimonious debate between the RAF and the RN over which service should operate all fixed wing and many of the helicopters at sea. The Fleet Air Arm has enormous experience of operating aircraft from ships of all types and in all climatic and weather conditions, day and night without alternate or diversion airfields. The Royal Navy leads the world as an innovator in fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft operations at sea. Naval aircrew operating specifically designed naval aircraft have the innate ability to spend long periods at sea with the specialist background and capability to fight from the sea. Naval air squadrons and flights are capable of producing more serviceable aircraft for longer periods with minimal resources and fewer people than their RAF equivalents. RN ships are lean manned and everyone embarked must integrate and contribute. It is part of the naval air squadron's ethos to deploy to sea and their people integrate fully into the routines, maintenance and the combat survival of the ships in which they are embarked. They are organised with only three trades rather than 5 in the RAF, so training and operation requires fewer people and is cheaper. RAF personnel do not join to go to sea for long periods and are not trained to do so. Many are simply not prepared for the lifestyle and inevitable separation from family and home. They do not integrate well into ships and cannot contribute to the routines, maintenance and combat survival of the ship. Naval air squadrons, on the other hand, can easily adjust to operating from land bases. RAF terms and conditions of service are incompatible with prolonged periods at sea and recent short embarkations of RAF squadrons to sea are only successful because they have been for short periods of about three weeks and in benign conditions. Aircraft carriers cannot be operated at full capability using RAF procedures. This is not understood by the RAF, none of whose senior airmen have any relevant experience of sea-based flying. Naval operations in peace and war require the appropriate application of air power at sea and over land. In order to achieve the best advantage, naval commanders and staff officers must have a deep knowledge of both naval and air operations. The best way to ensure this knowledge is to maintain a steady stream of career naval officers trained to fly and fight from ships.

Savings Options

Clearly the current operations in Afghanistan require that the operational requirements for equipment and manpower are met and sustainable. At the same time there is a need to trim the defence budget wherever possible as a contribution to the economic recovery of the country. It is all too easy to focus on unfinished big ticket items like carriers and JSF to find savings. However there are alternatives, some of them radical. The RAF has for the last few years advocated an all-RAF fast jet community, with no RN pilots. This would neither achieve the sought-for 10% savings, nor would it provide a robust sea-based capability. No other country in the World has proposed or implemented a carrier force of naval ship-operators with RAF aircrew and engineers providing the air element. It doesn't work. On the other hand the USN, the RN until recently and all other carrier –operating nations can conduct the full range of fast-jet combat air operations from the sea using their own personnel and aircraft. Supporting land-based air is still necessary for theatre airlift, ISTAR and occasionally for tanking support at extreme operating ranges. This is where the RAF continues to add value. With a much reduced UK air defence role and no strategic function, the remaining RAF units, whose roles are already in support of maritime or military operations, should be fully integrated into the Army and the Royal Navy command systems. Savings will be made in acquisition, structure and manpower overheads and further reductions in the defence estate. The efficiency of air operations would rise, not least because another unnecessary layer of command and control would be removed. Reductions in manpower of 20,000 can be anticipated. This would not be as great an organisational shift as it might appear. Much of military aviation and training is already joint service or on civilian contract. Much could be further civilianised, particularly non tactical transport and land based search and rescue. The UK does not need a land based air superiority fighter designed for cold war operations, such as Typhoon. The Joint Strike Fighter is more capable than Typhoon in this role and has much broader utility in its primary offensive support roles. Commitment to the final tranche of Typhoon may be inevitable for contractual reasons but they should immediately be placed on the transfer list. As JSF comes into service the remainder of the Typhoons can be progressively sold off and removed from service.

Endnote

The United States currently maintains 11 carrier battle groups but this may reduce in future. We cannot expect the US to devote so much of their time and treasure to the defence of European allies, major economic competitors. Whilst the UK debates the future of carriers, the French are seeking a second, Russia, China, Brazil and Thailand have acquired the capability and India is building its own fleet of four carriers. Clearly their view of the world is that projection of power using carriers is essential for protecting their interests. In the rest of Europe the Spanish and Italians operate 3 small Harrier carriers between them. If Europe is to satisfy the long stated demand by the US to make a more proportionate contribution to global stability and European defence, then between them, European members of NATO ought to be generating 5 or 6 carrier battle groups. If you imagine a future Britain with no carriers, pared down conventional arms but a nuclear deterrent, politicians might be left with few options other than Armageddon or capitulation if a serious threat arose. A Britain with a viable carrier force as part of the overall defence package would give the government of the day a conventional deterrent and a range of choices for dealing with a threat to the UK, our trade, energy supplies and our continuing overseas responsibilities.

Cdr Ed Featherstone RN Rtd, October 2009

12:43 AM

30 Comments:

Mike Burleson said...: Cdr, thank you for your service. I expect you are sincere in your advocacy of these very large decks, but I can't help imagine after over a decade of procurement, many billions of pounds, also stretched funds spent on finding a proper naval aircraft, and desperatly needed escort ship replacements put off (plus desperatly needed equipment for the troops in harms way neglected), one torpedo fired from an rogue submarine and its all over.

I expect the increasingly capable missile ships and our own stealthy missile firing subs can do many of the things you suggest only fixed wing naval air can perform. As for supporting the land battles, isn't this the domain of the Army and Air Force, with the Navy supposed to guard the sealanes? Less small general purpose escorts lost to pay for a handful of carriers mean drastically less coverage. Meanwhile, HMS Duke and her aging sisters soldier on in their thankless but essential tasks with no replacements in sight.; October 12, 2009 12:50 PM
dalyhistory said...: I understand perfectly the argument on behalf of the principle of air power. Of course we need some naval air capability, the arguments have taken plave over almost the past century and time and again its been proven that you always need carrier borne air cover in some form. But this still doesnt address the issue of whether 60,000 tons is just extravagantly big and whether 2 hulls will not enough.; October 17, 2009 1:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr Burleson you need to spend a little time studying the limitations of land based air power. Take the example in the text. If Honduras had invaded Belize where would the RAF have launched from? Where were the RAF land based aircraft in the Falklands?

You can't guarantee a useful airfield always being available. And when you can you may have to succumb to political pressures from your hosts?; October 19, 2009 2:18 PM
Roderick said...: "US NAVY's CAPABILITIES UNDER-REPORTED"

The above article states: "... The United States currently maintains 11 (aircraft) carrier battle groups... "

This is true in so far as it refers to the US Navy's 'supercarriers' of which there are 11 of these 102,000 tonne vessels in-service*... but neglects to factor in the US Navy's additional 10 in-service 'medium sized' aircraft carriers** and their 10 "expeditionary strike groups":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expeditionary_Strike_Group

A US Navy 'medium sized' aircraft carrier's expeditionary strike group could reasonably be said to be analogous to a supercarrier's 'battle group'...

(* there are a further 4 more supercarriers presently undergoing construction/sea-trials: 1 'transitional Nimitz' class (the GHW Bush) and 3 'G Ford' (next generation) class supercarriers... )

** 40,000-45,000 tonnes each on average, embarking Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) fixed-wing aircraft- Harriers today and 'JSF' F-35b type aircraft after 2011- and mainly helicopters:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lhx.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lhd-8.htm

Unlike the Royal Navy's currently in-service, 20,000 tonnes each ("pocket")aircraft carriers - HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal- which do not have outer layer airborne threat defences (and their inner layer airborne threat defences are outmoded) ALL of the US Navy's aircraft carriers (supercarriers and 'medium sized' aircraft carriers) are fitted with BOTH cutting edge inner layer AND technologically current outer layer anti airborne threat defences...

This, despite the US Navy's aircraft carriers being escorted at all times when on patrol by some of the world's most potent and capable anti-airborne threat Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates..

No funding should be approved for the construction of replacements for Lusty and Ark Royal- unless plans for the new carriers unequivocally state that the new vessels are to be fitted out at commissioning with BOTH up-to-date inner and outer layer airborne threat defences...

Today, the RN needs- at the minimum- either:

1) its 2 operational aircraft carriers' weapons and defensive systems updated to 21st century standards- starting immediately!!;

or

2) the immediate lend-lease of 2 or 3 up-to-date, fully equipped-with aircraft/weaponry/etc replacement carriers from the US...

http://www.news.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4

These ships' serving in the RN at least until the UK commissions- with a full compliment of fixed-wing and other aircraft- UK-built aircraft carriers*...

(* designed with 21st century military-capabilities as a first priority, instead of cost effectiveness and 'make-work-project' political objectives dominating design decisions... )

__________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 20, 2009 11:53 PM
Roderick said...: DURING 2002-2009 THE ROYAL NAVY HAD ITS FRIGATES STRIPPED OF VITAL DEFENCES AND ITS AIR ARM DESTROYED TO 'FEED' THE NEEDS OF THE BRITISH ARMY!!

During 2004-2005, the Royal Navy's 2 aircraft carriers- HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal- had their obsolescent 'outer layer' 'Sea Dart' anti airborne threat system removed.

Contradicting standard protocols, no replacement for Sea Dart was fitted to these two most-integral-to-the-RN's-capabilities-and roles-throughout-the-world warships... Warships that then had and still have today a highly inadequate, aged 'inner layer' anti airborne threat system- 'Goalkeeper'- that, by itself, is not known to be effective at countering modern airborne anti-ship threats such as the supersonic sea skimming (Russian) SS-N-27 'Sizzler' anti-ship missile and its clones...

Despite the resulting severe risks to Illustrious and Ark Royal and their service personnel, removing Sea Dart- and the weapons officers/technicians responsible for its operation- from Illustrious and Ark Royal doubtless saved the MoD considerable funds... which could reasonably be assumed went directly or indirectly towards the Afghanistan conflict...

Between 2002-2008, RN Frigates- that did not have 'outer layer' anti airborne threat defence systems- had their 'Phalanx' 'inner layer' anti airborne threat defence systems removed and sent to Basra, southern Iraq to provide protection against home-made rockets, artillery and mortars for British troops deployed there....

This left front line Frigates that were already egregiously vulnerable- due to their not having outer layer defences- effectively defenceless to up-to-date airborne threats...

Adding to the damage caused by this 'rob peter to pay paul' armed forces funding policy, during this period, Royal Navy ship-board personnel were sent to Iraq to support the Army in operating these 'land based' Phalanx systems...

This, instead of the Labour govt approving funding to buy new 'land-based' Phalanx systems for use in Iraq, and training Army personnel to operate them:

http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/dsei2009/sections/daily/day3/phalanx-defender-of-the-r.shtml

For the better part of 1/2 a decade: 2003-2009, the Royal Navy's 2 operational aircraft carriers- HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal- had their entire supply of fixed-wing aircraft (Harriers) plus their pilots and maintenance personnel 'hijacked' and sent to British bases in Landlocked Afghanistan...

This has so severely damaged the Royal Navy, that it has lost the ability to operate an Air Arm:

"Back on board: regenerating UK carrier strike capability", 04 September-2009:

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw090904_1_n.shtml

"... there is no disguising that the extended commitment of (Royal Navy Harriers) to the Afghanistan theatre has over the same period significantly curtailed the availability of the UK's ground attack Harrier force - particularly its maritime-oriented Naval Strike Wing (NSW) - to exercise in the carrier-borne strike role...."

"... As a result, HMS Illustrious, currently the UK's high readiness strike carrier (CVS), has frequently found its hangar and flight deck empty of fixed-wing aircraft over the past three years...."

"... This is not good news at a time when the RN is attempting to practice and hone the strike potential of its existing carriers in the run up to the introduction of the two new 65,000-ton Queen Elizabeth class vessels from the middle of the next decade...."

"... The impact of this lack of sea time has been keenly felt in (Royal Navy air wings) and on board Illustrious."

CONTINUED

Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, Canada; October 21, 2009 12:32 AM
Roderick said...: DURING 2002-2009 THE ROYAL NAVY HAD ITS FRIGATES STRIPPED OF VITAL DEFENCES AND ITS AIR ARM DESTROYED TO 'FEED' THE NEEDS OF THE BRITISH ARMY!!

PART 2:

"Back on board: regenerating UK carrier strike capability", 04 September-2009:

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw090904_1_n.shtml

"... Pilots have not been able to maintain (skills) in the art of operating from the cramped and moving flight deck of (an aircraft carrier)..."

"...Meanwhile, the lack of fixed-wing aircraft on board Illustrious has led to a skill fade in both flight deck crews and the ship's air management organization..."

"... Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff (Carrier Strike), Navy Command Headquarters, Captain Jock Alexander: '... it is a fact that given the tempo of operations in Afghanistan, a lot of Harrier pilots have seen little or nothing of a carrier in four years.

"'... The same goes for the air engineers...'"

"... '(today) there is a need for the (Harrier pilots/support personnel/engineers) to understand and appreciate how the ship works...'"...

Whatever party forms govt next and whoever is Minister of Defence or responsible for armed services funding and strategies/policies- they will be faced with a stark choice of:

1) allowing the continued severe degradation of the UK's military capabilities- in particular the Royal Navy; or

2) fixing today's disastrous, highly dangerous situation by reversing Labour's willfully-blind-to-consequences defence-expenditure policies 1998-2009...

_________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 21, 2009 12:41 AM
Roderick said...: FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY, THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER PROJECT- AHEAD OF ALL OTHERS COMMITTED TO AND PROPOSED- NEEDS TO BE FROZEN!!!

LABOUR GOVT TREASONOUS-INCOMPETENCE OR ANOTHER FRENCH DOUBLE-CROSS OF THE UK??:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/porte-avoins2/ :

"…It was initially planned to develop the PA2 (aircraft carrier) based on the design of UK Royal Navy future aircraft carriers (CVF). The memorandum of understanding on the Anglo-French future aircraft carrier was signed on 6 March 2006.

"…However, in June 2008, French President Nicolas Sarkozy suspended cooperation with Britain in this regard. The decision to equip the French Navy with new aircraft carriers will be taken between 2011 and 2012.

"Design:

"…PA2 is a 75,000t, 283m-long variant of the CVF. The French version's deck carries a CATOBAR (catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery) design.

"The carrier was designed to carry the Dassault Rafale, the E-2C Hawkeye (Airborne Early Warning And Control (AWACS)- rvl) and the NH-90 (helicopter- rvl).

"The initial design carried a conventional propulsion system, but the option of nuclear propulsion and Azimuth thrusters are also being considered.

"The French Government issued orders to conduct studies on new architecture and design in February 2009.

Propulsion:

"Initially, it was announced that the PA2 would be powered by a conventional propulsion system. The conventional electric propulsion system was based on two Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines and pods.

"In September 2006, the French Navy decided to choose different machinery and propulsion system to increase the PA2's speed from 26kt to the originally required 29kt.

"Aker Yards, DCN Propulsion and Alstom in association with General Electric have developed a new design, in which the propulsion is based on four LM2500+G4 gas turbines. The engine will power a centre shaft and two propulsion pods…."
________________________
________________________

The Labour-handicapped design-decisions regarding the planned new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy are- if the project proceeds- going to result in 2 warships that would barely be suitable to fight a mid-twentieth century type conflict, and certainly not 21st century ones...

The UK's aircraft carrier project is accurately described a 'two-nation project'- involving for over 7-years the UK & France...

Unlike France's plans for its 'French version' (PA2) of these warships- which are being designed and were to-be-constructed simultaneously- the UK's new aircraft carriers:

- won't be built with catapults;

- won't be nuclear powered; and

- won't be capable of carrying or deploying tactical nuclear weapons, such as depth charges, anti-surface-target, anti-ship ordinance, etc:

Why does this matter??

- Lack of fixed-wing aircraft launch catapults:

Catapults are necessary for Aircraft Carriers to be able to embark, launch & recover a variety of the most versatile & capable types of fixed-wing aircraft, such as Airborne Early Warning & Control (AWACS) types:

E-2D Hawkeye: The (U.S.) Navy’s New AWACS-

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/e-2d-hawkeye-the-navys-new-awacs-03443/

The RN's new carriers will be restricted to Harrier type (short/vertical take off & land ) fixed-wing aircraft & helicopters- that can not duplicate even remotely the function of modern, fixed-wing AWACS...

Without AWACS planes flying high above the respective carrier & its battle group- scanning OVER THE HORIZON for potential threats & theatre data- carriers & their support/escort ships are enormously vulnerable to low-flying (sea-skimming) incoming airborne threats such as supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles & aircraft...

CONTINUED

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 21, 2009 1:15 AM
Roderick said...: FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY, THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER PROJECT- AHEAD OF ALL OTHERS COMMITTED TO AND PROPOSED- NEEDS TO BE FROZEN!!!

PART 2:

- The UK’s new aircraft carriers won’t be nuclear powered:

meaning these ships- if built- will be unable to generate sufficient power for fitting them with coming on stream/under-development 21st century armaments such as Directed Energy Weapons (DEWS) & will be significantly range/endurance-limited due to their fossil-fuel engines- & their aircraft- requiring constant refills of fuel from supply ships- particularly problematic if, during a conflict, the carrier's supply ships get sunk....

Until they make a decision when to initialize construction of their version(s) of the UK/France aircraft carrier project, France benefits greatly from the design work that the UK is putting into its 'half' of the project... (even with the UK Labour govt's counterproductive cost-cutting design interference)...

- UK Royal Navy’s future abilities to deploy tactical/other types of nuclear weapons at risk:

Due to their 'on-the-cheap' design, the RN's planned new aircraft carriers- unlike France’s version(s) of these warships, won't be able to stock & use tactical nuclear weapons...

Thereby eliminating these ships' usefulness in a legitimate hot-war- a situation that only the very most willfully ignorant/tunnel visioned would say can be ruled out during the projected 30- 50 year operational life of these "central to the RN's function" warships...

- Current plans for the UK's new aircraft carriers put them, once built, at about 65,000 tonnes vs a projected 75,000 tonnes for the French version(s):

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/design-preparations-continue-for-britains-new-cvf-future-carrier-updated-01630/

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/france-steaming-ahead-on-pa2cvf-carrier-project-01621/

The United States is in the middle of designing and beginning production of replacements for its 'Nimitz' class nuclear powered 'supercarriers'...

The G Ford class supercarriers- when built- will be everything that the UK's Labour-interfered-with planned new carriers will not:

- nuclear powered (next generation type at that!);

- equipped with catapults and a broad variety of fixed-wing aircraft;

- fitted to accommodate and use tactical nuclear weapons;

- possessing ultra-low (for their type-of-ship) radar signature superstructures;

- having multiple anti-airborne threat defenses... such as

a) 'outer layer' anti-airborne threat missile batteries;

b) technologically up-to-date, 'inner layer' anti-airborne threat 'Close In Weapons Systems' (CIWS's) for use when the 'outer layer' defensive system's missiles miss their targets- or the ship runs out of these missiles...;

- having 'Co-operative Engagement Capability' (CEC): CEC is a sensor data distribution and plot fusion system that provides a huge enhancement to the situational awareness of naval forces/squadrons and their ability to protect themselves against the 'widely acknowledged within the MoD' significant threats posed by technologically current military aircraft and ant-ship missiles....

Without CEC, the UK's proposed new aircraft carriers will- similar to the undergoing construction and sea-trials Type-45 Destroyers which also won't be fitted with CEC- be severely handicapped when faced with any sort of conflict (one off or ongoing) situation involving adversaries with even moderately up-to-date weaponry...

CONTINUED

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 21, 2009 1:31 AM
Roderick said...: FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY, THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER PROJECT- AHEAD OF ALL OTHERS COMMITTED TO AND PROPOSED- NEEDS TO BE FROZEN!!!

PART 3:

Foreign countries' (politicians/bureaucrats/corporate executives/corporations) that are potential military hardware customers of the UK)) witnessing the crass and irresponsible sacrifice of UK future national foreign-policy interests to 'make-work-project re-election objectives' of a small few Labour Scottish politicians can be expected to not even consider the UK and instead go to France, Spain and Germany for future naval military hardware/warships/submarines/support/training/etc...

In summary:

The UK's half-baked Aircraft Carrier project ought to be put on hold until the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) is at least finished its first stage...

As part of the SDR the carrier project ought to be examined in-depth to at the least determine:

- What country(s) is the most industrially appropriate and most likely to be constructive in terms of the resulting warships' capabilities, quality and functionality- for the UK in the design and building of its new aircraft carriers- a country with no internationally recognized expertise or world-leadership in building aircraft carriers- like France- or a country like the United States with its nearly half a century of peerless aircraft carrier capabilities leadership and world-leading aircraft carrier technologies' development...??

- should the UK be designing and building its new aircraft carriers in partnership with the US??

- what is the optimal propulsion method for these warships, and which method of propulsion will- during their 40-50 year operational lives- best serve to enable mission-competence for these warships, their accompanying escorts, and the Royal Navy generally? (nuclear vs conventional?);

- considering the unpredictability's of international relationships/world events- and looking 40-50 years ahead: should the UK's new carriers be built so that they can accommodate and deploy tactical/other types of nuclear weapons?

- should the UK's new carriers be constructed with catapult-launch-of-fixed-wing-aircraft capabilities? AND if no- WHY ??

- should the new carriers be constructed with the sensors, radars and communication suites required for 'Co-operative Engagement Capability' (CEC)??

- should the new carriers be constructed with outer layer anti-airborne threat ship self-defense system(s)?

- should the new carriers be constructed with "NEW", technologically up-to-date, inner layer Close In Weapons Systems (CIWS's), rather than being fitted with recycled 25-year old CIWS’s from scrapped Type-42 Destroyers (as is currently being directed by Labour)??

Why should the UK operate aircraft carriers- or any warships other than tiny coastal patrol boats- and especially, why task these vessels with 'world role' missions- if the UK is not going to ensure that they are kept sufficiently up to date, weapons and defensive systems wise, to perform capably against known-to-exist types of threats??

Immediate govt actions to upgrade the Royal Navy's grievously degenerated, dangerously inadaquate capabilities are needed... not more false-logic avoidance of reality...

__________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 21, 2009 1:37 AM
Roderick said...: An addition that I'd meant to include in the above comment-

... As part of the UK's Strategic Defence Review (SDR) the aircraft carrier project ought to be examined in-depth to ALSO determine:

- "should any new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy have to be fitted with armour?"

This is highly relevant to the UK govt's planned aircraft carriers, as ALL first world countries- other than the UK- that have recently built or are planning to build 'pocket sized', medium sized & 'big deck' (supercarrier) aircraft carriers have made sure that their carriers are extensively fitted with armour...

The United States has made an extra effort in this regard in the construction of its undergoing sea-trials 'Nimitz transitional' class supercarrier- the GHW Bush- & in the design work for the next-generation 'G Ford' class supercarriers...

Similarly, the US government has ensured that the US Navy's existing Nimitz class and 'improved Nimitz class' supercarriers were either fitted out at commissioning or retrofitted with extensive, cutting-edge technology armour:

http://www.military-today.com/navy/improved_nimitz_class.htm :

"... These (US Navy Nimitz class supercarriers) were completed with Kevlar armour over their vital areas and have improved hull protection arrangements..."

"The Kevlar armour has been retrofitted to the earlier carriers, as have many of the advanced systems built into the newer ships..."

Meanwhile the UK Labour govt has engineered the full deletion of armour from the design of the planned new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy- to save money!!!!

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/ :

".... A number of protective measures such as side armour and armoured bulkheads proposed by industrial bid teams have been deleted from the design in order to comply with cost limitations...."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1100714/The-4billion-Airfix-Kit-Behind-scenes-Britains-biggest-warships.html :

"... Money has also been saved in side armour protection, though (Simon Knight, the project's Platform Design Director) insists this was a strategic* rather than a budgetary issue...

(*what kind of responsible 'strategy' would support building warships without armour??)

(Simon Knight stated) "'The CVF’s first line of defence is the frigates and the new Type 45 destroyers around us,' he adds.

"'Our only self-defence is close-in weapons systems and small guns...

"'Instead, what you have on the ship is 36 of the most lethal aircraft ever made.'..."

(... aircraft whose designed-role does not include protecting the ship from anti-ship missiles...)

How much is a sunk aircraft carrier or 2 worth in pounds, lives-lost and national stature on the world stage???

If warship armor and inner layer as well as outer layer airborne threat defences weren't important or necessary for modern aircraft carriers to have, again, why would the world's other first world countries' navies- such as the US, Japan, S. Korea, France, and even Italy- be investing many, many millions of pounds in armor and airborne threat defences for their aircraft carriers??

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-213.html

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-214.html :

"... (The G Ford class supercarrier) CVN 21 will be armed with the Raytheon Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), which defends against high-speed, highly manoeuvrable anti-ship missiles...."; October 21, 2009 2:49 PM
Roderick said...: Is the above responsible or evidence of competent national government??

Is the above evidence of Parliamentary oversight committees and MP's doing their jobs??

__________________
Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 21, 2009 2:51 PM
Roderick said...: "THOROUGH, OBJECTIVE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT OF PLANNED AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, TYPE-45 DESTROYERS & ASTUTE SUBs NEEDED!!"

The most productive objective for concerned persons to pursue regarding the UK's disastrous, botched warship construction programmes is an impartial capability assessment of:

1) the planned aircraft carriers- as they are intended to be when commissioned; and

2)the Type-45 Destroyers as they are intended to be when commissioned; and

3)the Astute attack subs as they are intended to be when commissioned...

The criteria to set any 'RN warships' capabilities' assessment' against should be exactly the same threats and potential threat mission-scenarios as US Navy warships are fitted out to be able to counter and succeed at...

As to who or what organization could objectively, competently and reliably carry out a capabilities assessment of RN warships??..
Why not look overseas to the US's Newport News (part of Northrop-Grumman) or to someone like Mr. Ronald O'Rourke, specialist in (US) Naval Affairs, (US) Congressional Research Service??

For over 1.5 decades Mr. O'Rourke has regularly carried out similar tasks for the United States' military...

A couple of O'Rourke's recent submissions to US Congressional bodies focus on the US's Burke class Destroyer and perceived needs to upgrade this warship's already considerable capabilities further:

1) "HEARING ON SURFACE COMBATANT WARFIGHTING REQUIREMENTS AND ACQUISITION STRATEGY", JULY 31-2008:

http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/SPEF073108/ORourke_Testimony073108.pdf

2) "(US) Navy (Burke class) DDG-51 and (next-generation) DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress", September 17-2009:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf

Another couple have to do with the rise of China's military capabilities and responses warranted in terms of US Navy/warship capabilities-

3) "China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress", July 17-2009:>

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf

4) "China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities— Background and Issues for Congress", May 29-2007:

https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/2628/RL33153_20070529.pdf :

From page # 65 (page heading- CRS-60):

"Anti-Air Warfare (AAW)-

"(US Navy) Surface Ship AAW Upgrades.

"Are current Navy plans for upgrading surface ship anti-air warfare (AAW) capabilities adequate?...

"...The PLA's (China's Navy) acquisition of advanced and highly capable (Anti Ship Cruise Missiles) ASCMs such as the SS-N-27 Sizzler and the SS-N-22 Sunburn raises the question of whether current plans for modernizing Navy surface ship AAW capabilities are adequate....

"The (US) Government Accountability Office (GAO) in previous years has expressed concerns regarding the Navy’s ability to counter ASCMs...

"Potential areas for modernization include, among other things, the following:

- "ship radars, such as the SPY-1 radar on Aegis ships or the radars now planned for the (Burke successor class) DDG-1000 destroyer and CG(X) cruiser;

- "(Anti Air Warfare) AAW-related computer networking capabilities, such as the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) system;

- "air defense missiles such as the Standard Missile, the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), and the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM);

CONTINUED:

________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver; October 24, 2009 11:08 AM
Roderick said...: "THOROUGH, OBJECTIVE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT OF PLANNED AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, TYPE-45 DESTROYERS & ASTUTE SUBs NEEDED!!"

PART 2:

- "close-in weapon systems, such as the Phalanx radar-directed (machine) gun;

- "potential directed-energy weapons, such as solid state or free-electron lasers;

- "decoys, such as the U.S.-Australian Nulka active electronic decoy; and

- "aerial targets for AAW (Anti Air Warfare) tests and exercises, particularly targets for emulating supersonic ASCMs...."

Mr. O'Rourke is said to have a good grip of what the existing and prudently to-be-expected future threats are for the US and allied nations' navies...

And Mr O'Rourke is often reported to have a competent understanding of naval architecture, weapons systems and emerging technologies...

Types of skills that would be indispensable:

1) evaluating the UK's current disastrous surface-warship build programmes; and

2) perhaps also identifying optimal Royal Navy capabilities standards measured against known and to-be-expected types of threats and duties going forward 15-20 years generally; and

3) delineating, publicly, what types of hardware and warship acquisitions are required to meet such RN capabilities standards....

Functions the UK's 'National Audit Office' (NAO) and Parliamentary committees appear unwilling to or incapable of carrying out...

Terms of reference for any impartial-person or company charged with carrying out a capabilities assessment of the RN/its Type-45 Destroyers; Aircraft Carriers and the Astute SSN's should include at the minimum:

1) how should these warships/submarines be fitted out to enable them to meet and beat known and to-be-expected types of threats during their 30-year + service lives??? and

2) what corollary UK Armed Forces services and support systems are needed to enable these warships/submarines to function as effectively as possible??

The above linked-to documents are somewhat long- but any MP and prospective MP purporting to have the nation's best interests as number one priority if elected ought to be familiar with them....

This, rather than relying on drivel such as the UK's National Audit Office warship programme evaluation reports:

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809/the_type_45_destroyer.aspx

The NAO's recent slavishly incompetent 'evaluation' of the Type-45 Destroyer programme' is breathtaking in its incompleteness and 'promotional-advertisement format': structured almost as if to whitewash the Type-45's many, enormous and highly dangerous build deficiencies and flaws:

http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docId=7bd5fcf1-c728-456f-8923-10d07ef2d170&version=-1

The report's writers' apparent almost total ignorance- or deliberate ignoring- of naval warfighting realities and the capability needs of developed world countries' surface combatants today is brought into stark contrast when one compares this report with one of Mr O'Rourkes to do with:

- the US Navy's future needs and capabilities; or

- the Burke class Destroyer and its potential successor, the DDX-1000 and these two extremely capable warships' capabilities/shortfalls...

Type-45's are, in effect 'virtually empty of weapons and defensive systems' warships upon commissioning- due to Labour's absurdly short-sighted cost-cutting and apparent design-interference during the Type-45's build processes...

But this seems not important enough to mention in the NAO report...

As do the huge vulnerabilities posed to the RN's planned new aircraft carriers by Type-45's (among other things):

1) being fitted with a tenth rate sonar;

CONTINUED

_________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 24, 2009 11:13 AM
Roderick said...: "THOROUGH, OBJECTIVE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT OF PLANNED AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, TYPE-45 DESTROYERS & ASTUTE SUBs NEEDED!!"

PART 3:

2) inability to stock and launch torpedoes from-ship;

3) inability to stock and launch land-attack munitions, such as 'Tomahawk' and/or Storm Shadow cruise missiles' from-ship;

4) not being fitted with any 'inner layer' airborne threat defensive weapons upon commissioning, and instead, maybe, being fitted somewhere in the future with 25-year old 'inner layer' defensive weapons that have been cannibalized from retired RN warships- as they become available...;

5)not being fitted with a safely sufficient capacity to stock 'outer layer' airborne threat defensive missiles-

Type-45's maximum capacity is only 48 missiles compared to more than 360 for comparable class Destroyers of other developed world countries' navies (US, Japan, S.Korea)

6)not being fitted with any sub-surface threat defensive weapons;

7) not being fitted with appropriate amounts of technologically current* hull and deck armour (some reports say armour for the Type-45's was deleted from the build procesess entirely)

(* upwards of 1/3 of a metre of Kevlar and similar products);

8) not being fitted with hardware and electronics required for embarking the designers' intended EH-101 'large' multi-mission helicopter;

9) not being fitted with the hardware, communications suites and electronics required for night helicopter launches/landings;

10) not being fitted with the Type-45's designers' intended 'Extended Range Guided Munition' type Deck Gun, and instead fitted with an obsolescent model cast-off, cannibalized from retired RN warships; and

11) not being fitted with the sensors and equipment required for 'Cooperative engagement Capability' (CEC)thereby eliminating Type-45's designers' intended capability to jointly- with other Royal Navy/allied countries' warships, aircraft, land-based and other assets- engage threats/targets:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cec-coooperative-enagagement-for-fleet-defense-updated-03120/

CEC is a sensor data distribution and plot fusion system that provides a huge enhancement to the situational awareness of naval forces/squadrons and their ability to protect themselves against the 'widely acknowledged within the MoD' significant threats posed by technologically current military aircraft and anti-ship missiles... such as the SS-N-27 "sizzler" and its clones....

Without CEC, the UK's Type-45 Destroyers will- similar to the planned new aircraft carriers- which also won't be fitted with CEC upon commissioning- be severely handicapped when faced with any sort of conflict (one off or ongoing) situation involving adversaries with even moderately up-to-date weaponry...

The fact that only 6 Type-45's are planned to be built- as opposed to the 12 identified 7-years ago as urgently needed for service in the first 3-decades of this century- is glossed over in the NAO Type-45 report with inexcuseable vagaries referring to a successor vessel with anti-air capabilitiesdue 'sometime in the late part of next decade'....

Nowhere in the NAO's report is the existent and highly severe threat to ALL RN surface vessels posed by modern anti-ship cruise missiles such as the Russian SS-N-27 "sizzler" mentioned...

O'Rourke's reports go to great lengths to speak to the SS-N-27 problem (also known as 'threat D') and similar issues in addition to recommending possible remedial steps that could be/ought to be taken and at what cost financially...

CONTINUED

___________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 24, 2009 11:17 AM
Roderick said...: "THOROUGH, OBJECTIVE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT OF PLANNED AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, TYPE-45 DESTROYERS & ASTUTE SUBs NEEDED!!"

PART 4:

The UK's 'disaster waiting to happen' warship build-programmes urgently need to be objectively and thoroughly evaluated in terms of the capabilities of the resulting warships in all three main warfare spheres:
IE- sub-surface, surface and airborne....

Similarly, the Royal Navy's existing and future needed capabilities- over the coming 2-decades- also need to be subjected to a comprehensive, objective evaluation process...

These evaluation processes- or at least their resulting report(s)- ought to be as open and publicly accessible as reasonably feasible... and preferably ought to be expeditedly carried out BEFORE THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION!!!

This, so as to prompt commitments- or expose lack of them- from prospective and running for re-election MP's...

_________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 24, 2009 11:20 AM
Roderick said...: CORRECTION:

The first 4 paragraphs of 'part 1' of the comment above, titled- "DURING 2002-2009 THE ROYAL NAVY HAD ITS FRIGATES STRIPPED OF VITAL DEFENCES AND ITS AIR ARM DESTROYED TO 'FEED' THE NEEDS OF THE BRITISH ARMY!!" ought to have read:

... During the late 1990's- whilst the RN was under Labour govt fiscal oversight- the Royal Navy's 2 aircraft carriers- HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal- had their obsolescent 'outer layer' 'Sea Dart' anti airborne threat weapons removed.

Contradicting standard military protocols practised by developed-countries worldwide- no replacement for Sea Dart was fitted to these two most-integral-to-the-RN's-capabilities-and-roles internationally
warships...

Warships that then had and still have today highly inadequate, technologically out-of-date 'inner layer' anti airborne threat defensive weapons- 'Goalkeeper'(Illustrious) and 'Phalanx' (Ark Royal)....

These two 'machine-gun based' systems, by themselves, are not known to be effective at countering modern airborne anti-ship threats such as the supersonic sea skimming (Russian) SS-N-27 'Sizzler' anti-ship missile and its clones...

Despite the resulting severe risks to Illustrious and Ark Royal and their service personnel, removing Sea Dart- and the weapons officers/technicians responsible for its operation- from Illustrious and Ark Royal doubtless saved the MoD considerable funds... which could reasonably be assumed went directly or indirectly towards armed services branches other than the RN in the subsequent Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts...

(END OF CORRECTION)
-----------------------------

Other developed-economy countries are making sure that their aircraft carriers are fitted with multiple layers of up-to-date airborne threat defensive weapons-

Both the US Navy's Nimitz class supercarriers & their medium sized carriers and France's aircraft carriers have been fitted-at-build AND retro-fitted with BOTH inner layer, Goalkeeper-like (machine-gun based) defensive weapons AS WELL AS MISSILE-BASED OUTER LAYER DEFENSIVE WEAPONS: PAAMS/ASTER or AEGIS/ESSM/STANDARD MISSILE .... not because these countries' govt's like to waste money on unnecessarily redundant armament systems for their warships, but because they recognize the enormous threats represented to their navy's and their country's national interests by current, widely marketed anti-ship threats like the SS-N-27:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-213.html

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-214.html :

"... (The G Ford class supercarrier) CVN 21 will be armed with the Raytheon Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), which defends against high-speed, highly manoeuvrable anti-ship missiles....

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uss-theodore-roosevelt-headed-into-midlife-overhaul-02810/ :

"... Dec 12/08: Weapons upgrade... the USS Theodore Roosevelt will receive 2 MK29 MOD 4 ESSM ORDALT Kits, and 4 Solid State Transmitter (SSTX) MK73 MOD 3 ORDALT Kits. ORDnance ALTeration kits allow ships to swap out their older RIM-7 Sea Sparrow air defense missile systems for the RIM-162 ESSM, which is designed to deal with modern anti-ship missiles...."

The US Navy's 'medium-sized', 45,000-50,000 tonne aircraft carriers-

http://www.news.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4:

"... Armament: Two RAM launchers; two NATO Sea Sparrow launchers (with Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM); two 20mm Phalanx CIWS mounts; seven twin .50 cal. machine guns."

CONTINUED

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 25, 2009 2:05 PM
Roderick said...: This post has been removed by the author.; October 25, 2009 2:32 PM
Roderick said...: This post has been removed by the author.; October 25, 2009 2:47 PM
Roderick said...: CONTINUED:

Considering that SS-N-27's and similar anti-ship missiles won't be detectable by individual RN warships at the earliest until they are about 20 miles out, and considering that these missiles typically travel in 'terminal mode' at between 2/3 and 1 mile per second- obviously hitting an SS-N-27 as far out as possible would be preferable...

Goalkeeper's/Phalanx's useful range is several hundred yards out to, in a stretch, 1 and 1/2 miles... (1/7th of a second to at most 2 seconds out)....

PAAMS/ASTER's useful range varies from at a minimum about 12 miles out to about 50... (12 seconds to more than 1 minute out)

Should a Flagship or any RN warship wait untill the very last second before trying to hit an incoming supersonic, maneuvering threat, IE relying only on a Goalkeeper/Phalanx-like machine gun-based system- or should the incoming threat be engaged as far out as possible- allowing for a second try if the first misses??

Accepted Naval warfare doctrine demands that assets as valuable and as integral to modern navies as aircraft carriers- even old ones- ought to be able to competently defend themselves against known and likely to be confronted in-their-service-lives types of threats...

This dictum is especially applicable to countries with 'blue water' navies and very large roles on the world's most powerful and influential military, econonmic and political stages- such as the UK...

The Labour govt not enabling the RN's present aircraft carriers to be capable of airborne-threat self-defence, and directing that its new, under design/construction carriers won't either- is comparable to an intellectually dishonest corporate-accountant's tactic...

Only the most ill-suited for government/elected office would take the position that the comparatively minute funds saved by these false-logic tactics out-weigh the severe potential of hugely damaging consequences AND ENORMOUS RELATED COSTS in the future...

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
October 25, 2009 2:32 PM; October 25, 2009 2:52 PM
Roderick said...: This post has been removed by the author.; October 26, 2009 2:03 PM
Roderick said...: ADDITIONAL LINKS SHOWING THAT EVEN JAPAN's AIRCRAFT CARRIERS- CONSTRUCTED AS A RESULT OF THEIR PRESENTLY UNDERWAY BUILD-PROGRAMME- ARE BEING FITTED WITH COMPREHENSIVE ANTI-AIRBORNE THREAT DEFENSIVE WEAPONS...

- WHY ISN'T THE UK DOING THE SAME FOR ITS EXISTING AND PLANNED NEW CARRIERS??

"Japan Launches (Aircraft) Carrier...Sorta":

href="http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003686.html -

"... The Hyuga... will carry an Aegis-type air defense system, with the U.S.-developed AN/SPY-1 multi-function radar; her principal "weapons" armament will be 64 advanced ESSM-type Sparrow missiles... "

"... She will also be fitted with two 20-mm Phalanx "Gatling" guns for close-in defense against anti-ship missiles, and she will have six tubes for anti-submarine torpedoes...."

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jni/jni090424_1_n.shtml"

http://defense-update.com/products/h/hyuga_250409.html -

"... Hyuga is equipped with 16 Mk41 VLS (Vertical Launch System) cells for anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles and accommodates two 20mm Phalanx anti-missile cannon and two triple 12.75-inch torpedo mounts for self defense...."

http://ukdf.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html -

"... Arguably the strongest indication that the JMSDF is seeking to increase blue-water capabilities is the Hyuga programme...

"... In 2001 the JMSDF was allocated US $223.6 billion for the development of up to four helicopter-destroyers.

"... Yet the launch of the Hyuga in 2007 was nevertheless intriguing.

"... The JMSDF now has a 13,500 tonnes helicopter-carrying destroyer increasing to 20,000 tonnes when equipped with resources and weapons.

"... This means the Hyuga has a displacement twice the size of normal destroyers. Furthermore, the Hyuga also consists of forward and aft pads and a central hangar for eleven helicopters....

"... The JMSDF is, therefore, now in possession of vessel which facilitates greater force projections...."

".... According to John Hemmings of RUSI the Hyuga allows Japan to address humanitarian disasters in a manner similar to the USS Lincoln following the 2005 Tsunami..."

"... Yet even more telling are the Hyuga's original design plans. These show a vessel with a bridge on the starboard thereby creating a through deck.

"... Unofficial artwork also show a F-35B VSTOL strike fighter on-board...

"... Despite Article 9 forbidding armaments that exceed the limits of self-defence, in the Hyuga the JMSDF have a vessel that resembles an aircraft carrier..."

The UK's half-baked Aircraft Carrier project should, at the minimum be put on hold until the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) is finished its first stage...

As part of the SDR, the carrier project ought to be examined in-depth to at the least determine whether there is a functional
need for a re-design!!!!

_________________
Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada; October 26, 2009 2:09 PM
Roderick said...: This post has been removed by the author.; October 28, 2009 1:17 AM
Roderick said...: "LABOUR's 1/2 baked, PLANNED NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS TO BE DOWN-GRADED IN CAPABILITIES AGAIN!!!!":

In addition to not being nuclear powered, having no aircraft launch catapults, no armour and not being fitted with airborne threat ship self-defense weapons needed to deal with modern, widely marketed Anti Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCM's), such as the Russian "sizzler" SS-N-27... it's been reported recently that 1 of the 2 planned 'mega-carriers' planned for delivery to the RN will not be able to be utilized for any aircraft types except for helicopters:

Joint strike fighter cuts 'save £7bn':

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=11012

Latest Defence Fiasco: I See No (Warships):

http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/5473496/latest-defence-fiasco-i-see-no-ships.thtml

"Royal Navy to get two carriers - but only one air group?":

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/26/carriers_but_no_aircraft_plan/

Royal Navy could be forced to build aircraft carrier which doesn't carry planes:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222879/Royal-Navy-forced-build-aircraft-carrier-doesnt-carry-planes.html

Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6888962.ece

A 65,000 tonne 'Helicopter Carrier' planned for the Royal Navy, that, if one compares its atrociously deficient weapons and damage-control-systems and consequential impotent capabilities with that of a properly designed and built 'helicopter carrier' 1/4 of its size- Japan's recently commissioned 14,000 tonne "Hyuga":

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003686.html

http://defense-update.com/products/h/hyuga_250409.html

.... and then asks "which of these two warships would win in a one on one battle?"... it becomes obvious that Labour is again selling out the country and its future for a few votes in Scottish Ministers' constituency seats...

Considering that for over 12-years, the UK Labour govt has refused to authorize funding for the maintenance and necessary weapons upgrades of the Royal Navy's front line warships and has not directed that sufficient resources be provided for the RN- and in particular, its Air Arm- to continue conducting basic operations...

... and considering the RN's substantial capabilities' degradation over the last 12-years- is it sensible for the Labour govt to be attempting to replace the RN's 'pocket carriers'- HMS Ark Royal and HMS Illustrious- with comparatively enormous mega-carriers- that are, due to cost-cutting strategies- intended to be bereft of ship self-defense weapons and armour and that won't have fixed-wing fighters to embark???

MP's supporting/facilitating the construction of functionally incapable warships to obtain shipyard workers' and associated persons' votes is further blatant evidence of their inappropriateness and unsuitability for elected office...

___________________
Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada,; October 28, 2009 1:22 AM
Roderick said...: AIR POWER FROM THE SEA- THE CASE FOR SUBMARINES

(8500 character version:

The Vanguard submarine successor/Trident nuclear ballistic missile successor programme provides a cogent example of a UK defence spending issue that, if done right, would provide the UK with a hugely increased capability to prosecute conventional weapons based actions and project power via 'airpower from the sea'...

Submarine-launched ballistic missiles are the only method available to the UK for delivering nuclear weapons as during the last 11-years or so the UK's land-based ballistic missile systems have been decommissioned along with its bombers...

And, after reducing its stockpile by over 80% during 1998-2009, the UK doesn't really have many nuclear warheads anymore- 160- which is by far the lowest of the UN's 'permanent-5' security council members (USA, Russia, China, France, UK)...

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AC00DD79-76D6-4FE3-91A1-6A56B03C092F/0/DefenceWhitePaper2006_Cm6994.pdf
-----------------------------

Even if it was appropriate policy, achieving a substantial 'reduction in the UK's (Trident or Trident successor) nuclear ballistic missile launch capabilities' doesn't require building only 3 Vanguard successor subs to 'replace' today's 4 Vanguards since the new subs- at least today- are intended by the Labour govt to each have 25% less Trident successor nuclear ballistic missile-tubes than today's Vanguards (12 versus 16):

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jmr/jmr090420_1_n.shtml

If 4 Vanguard successor subs are built (rather than 3) their total number of missile tubes will be only 48 (4 X 12) which equals the total number of missile tubes of 3 of today's Vanguards: 3 X 16= 48...

But why build only 4 Vanguard successors?

After 12-years of Labour's gross negligence- the numbers of Royal Navy surface and sub-surface combatant vessels has been reduced by nearly 40%...

ALL OF THE FEW SURFACE WARSHIPS THAT REMAIN HAVE NOT HAD THEIR WEAPONS & DEFENSIVE SYSTEMS' KEPT UP-TO-DATE... AND AS A CONSEQUENCE ARE SITTING DUCKS TO MODERN ANTI-SHIP WEAPONS

The result dangerously impacting the UK's capabilities to defend itself and nullifying its abilities to project a 'don't even think about messing with us' message to adversaries and potential aggressors...

At least 8 Vanguard successor subs are needed by the UK...

And these new subs are needed to be 'full-sized', IE: 24-missile-tube vessels (similar to the US's Ohio class and Ohio class successor subs), instead of the strategically-foolish 12-missile-tube models relatively recently 'decreed' by Labour...

4 Vanguard successor subs could be tasked with a (Trident successor) nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) role with the other 4 fitted as conventional-warhead Tomahawk guided cruise missile subs (SSGN's)...

Experiences of the US have shown that 'dual tasking' of this type of submarine can be very productively facilitated:

CONTINUED

------------------
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; December 9, 2009 4:12 AM
Roderick said...: AIR POWER FROM THE SEA- THE CASE FOR SUBMARINES

PART 2:

Between 2003-2008, 4 of the US Navy's 18 Ohio class Trident nuclear ballistic missile subs (SSBN's) were refitted, converting these subs into SSGN's...

22 of each Ohio sub's 24 Trident nuclear ballistic missile tubes were each fitted to accomodate and fire 7 Tomahawk conventional warhead cruise missiles, instead of their previous configuration allowing for 'only' one Trident II nuclear ballistic missile to be accomodated per tube...

As a result, each refitted SSGN Ohio can be armed with up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles (each one carrying a 1000 pound warhead) as compared to the barely 1/2 a dozen maximum number of Tomahawks that current Vanguards and entering-service/undergoing construction Astute SSN's can be armed with...

The other 2 missile tubes on each refitted Ohio sub were converted to serve as lockout chambers for Special Forces personnel. Each of these two missile tube chambers has been equipped to connect to an Advanced US Navy SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) or Dry Deck Shelter (DDS).

Other spaces on each sub have been converted to berth and support 66 Special Forces personnel.

As a result of their retrofits, for over 2-years the 4 refitted Ohio's have been usefully deployed as conventional warhead Tomahawk cruise missile-armed/special forces' units-carrying (SSGN) subs:

"The (US) Navy's Premiere Counterterrorism Tool":

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/10/navys-premiere-counterterrorism-tool.html

"Navy Trident Submarine Conversion (SSGN) Program: Background and Issues for Congress", October 02-2008:

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RS21007_20081002.pdf

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ssgn-tactical-trident-subs-special-forces-and-super-strike-01764/

8 Vanguard successors coupled with the 7 Astute attack subs (SSN's) very belatedly being built/undergoing sea trials for the Royal Navy would provide the country with force-projection capabilities that would legitimately give serious pause to known and potential aggressors in the future and would at least partially make up for the egregious damages done to the RN's surface combatant strength and capabilities over the last 12-years...

Damages that won't in the least be rectified by the 6 Type-45 Destroyers and 2 aircraft carriers that Labour has begrudgingly committed highly inadaquate funding for the construction of: these urgently needed warships are being built without basic, industry-standard weapons, sensors, communications, ship self-defence and damage control systems- due to Labour govt design-interference and in order to save money...

CONTINUED:

------------------
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; December 9, 2009 4:16 AM
Roderick said...: AIR POWER FROM THE SEA- THE CASE FOR SUBMARINES

PART 3:

Members of the US Congress have indicated in a recent report that they want the design of the Common Missile Compartment- intended for use in both the UK's Vanguard SSBN successors and the US Navy's Ohio class SSBN/SSGN successors- to be such so as to enable CMC's to cheaply, efficiently and relatively easily switch between the SSBN and SSGN mission profiles:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr166&dbname=111&

- "Navy Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress", October 21-2009:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32418.pdf -

Page 14-

"...The committee believes that it is in the national interest to maintain the submarine design industrial capacity to begin development efforts for a new class of submarines which could either continue the mission of the current Ohio-class strategic submarines (SSBN) or serve as the next generation of tactical guided missile submarines (SSGN).

"The committee is also aware that the United States has agreements with the United Kingdom to jointly design and develop a common missile compartment (CMC) module which would be used by both countries for construction of next generation submarines.

"The committee supports both the development of the CMC and the cooperative manner in which research and design costs are being shared by the United States and the United Kingdom. However, the committee is aware of the combatant commanders’ desire for increased presence of the recently converted SSBN to SSGN submarines due to the significant tactical strike and special operations capability those platforms can deliver.

"Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the design of the CMC module account for a non-strategic use with minimal back-fitting...."
---------------------------------

- "China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress", October 21-2009:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf

- "Navy Irregular Warfare and Counterterrorism Operations: Background and Issues for Congress", October 08-2009:

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RS22373_20091008.pdf
---------------------------

Strategies for maintaining the UK's submarine- & other military vessel types & related technologies- innovation, design & construction capabilities several decades into the future should prominently factor into decisions made regarding the Trident/Vanguard successor issues...

Similarly, decision-making processes regarding Trident/Vanguard successor design issues should be considering the UK's global 'industrial, technological and military competence and capabilities' profiles and how whatever decisions are made will effect these profiles...

It's clear that these decision-making-principles haven't been being applied to date...

-----------------
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada; December 9, 2009 4:19 AM
mark said...: A key discipline in long term defence capability planning and acquisition is the ability to identify and maintain decision discipline. This can seem at odds with pragmatism, especially during long construction periods when contemporary military experience may at times indicate that what is being built is not really required.
But look at the uses of aircraft carriers and you will see that their application is to the long term. Similarly, the justification logic is also long term.
Post construction cancellation proponents need to state their arguments based on long term issues if their arguments are to be applicable.
And doesn't the UK already have enough history on aircraft carriers to justify inclusion in full in such debates?; January 13, 2010 1:22 AM
Anonymous said...: [url=http://yljeavag.100webspace.net]Порно видео! / Free porn video![/url]; February 2, 2010 9:34 AM
Anonymous said...: [url=http://tinyurl.com/y9qxher][img]http://i069.radikal.ru/1001/35/75e72b218708.jpg[/img][/url]

Related keywords:
Tramadol and nausea
c o d shipping for Tramadol
cheap Tramadol online no rx saturday delivery
Tramadol experience
Tramadol hydrochloride dosing
Tramadol cod saturday delivery
cheap Tramadol delivery fedex
Tramadol tablet tab 50 mg
[url=http://www.zazzle.com/AlexanderBlack]discovery channelcom rchive name index Tramadol [/url]
[url=http://seobraincenter.ru]http://seobraincenter.ru[/url]
Tramadol tablet tab 50 mg
medicine Tramadol
cheap Tramadol 300ct 50mg
order Tramadol no prescription
cheapest Tramadol free delivery
Tramadol overnight delivery fed ex
buy Tramadol cheap; February 2, 2010 10:55 PM
Anonymous said...: It's so easy to choose high quality [url=http://www.euroreplicawatches.com/]replica watches[/url] online: [url=http://www.euroreplicawatches.com/mens-swiss-watches-rolex/]Rolex replica[/url], [url=http://www.euroreplicawatches.com/mens-swiss-watches-breitling/]Breitling replica[/url], Chanel replica or any other watch from the widest variety of models and brands.; February 16, 2010 3:42 AM