Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier

[emzie]

A better question would be what the US needs 11 carriers for, but hey...

I am cool with that - keep securing the sea lanes, build another hundred carriers if you wish, as long as you're the ones paying for it. It's just that what you described could easily be accomplished with about half the number of carriers you currently have.

Let's not pretend that carriers are about anything other than power projection. The US has 11 because they want to be in a lot of places. As such, I'm not sure how much you could cut without losing both the ability to rapidly deploy and rapidly deploy in force.

Consider the logistics that go into maintaining a ship like a super carrier. I'd be surprised if 2 weren't in dry dock at any given time: one ship per coast. If that's the case, then 4 ships are active in the Atlantic and 5 in the Pacific at any given point (the strike groups are split evenly between coasts with another being stationed in Japan). If you want to be able to deploy 2 to a troubled area, you need to have 3 carriers per coast (one is always under going maintenance). Of course now, if you only have 3 per coast, you have nothing in reserve -- see, US military doctrine requires the ability to wage two major wars at once, so you can't just borrow your Pacific fleet to deal with Libya.

Perhaps if the two-war doctrine were scrapped, and you could find a few countries like Japan willing to host a forward deployment of a nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed strike group, you could reduce the size of the USN's carrier fleet to 8. Or if you stopped with the power projection doctrine and went with a defence doctrine you could drop the number further.

As for countries of the size and power of France and Britain, 2 carriers are perfectly enough.

2 is a good number, yes. It allows for one to be operational at any given time and 2 to be operational quickly in case of war. Considering the down time a machine like a carrier undergoes, I don't see a point in having less than two.

 

[aelf]

There's a £15 billion surplus in the annual welfare budget I believe which would fund a decent number of new carriers. Even without that, 3 or 4 could be afforded given a modest budget increase but the political will isn't there for that.

What budget is that and why does austerity not need apply to it?

 

[imperialman]

What for? European militaries need to focus on being able to send more than a token ground force overseas. Naval build up is unnecessary at this point.

It's wise to remember that for an island country, naval forces are a large part of actually sending a force overseas. Carriers, LHD's, LPD's etc are what makes power projection possible. Most European countries would be unable to act militarily outside of Europe if it were not for the US, UK or France and their navies/air force.

I think Britain has its ground force structure correct, it remains one of only a handful of countries with the military, technological and logistical means to deploy serious military force around the world. Indeed, it is still one of the few countries able to deploy a fully-equipped Brigade-sized force anywhere in the world.

This article gives good insight imo (I know the source is Fox news but the numbers do add up); http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119541,00.html

"If you separate Britain and France, there are very small numbers of combat troops available," said Gardiner. "I don’t believe that European nations really have the quality of troops required for combat situations in Iraq apart from major players like Britain and France."

Britain, which many analysts say it is in a league of its own in Europe, has long had a professional army. Gardiner estimated that the British could deploy 40,000 to 50,000 troops in a combat theater if needed.

France, though unrelenting in its opposition to the war in Iraq, has been a leader in modernizing its military and boosting its budget. It ended conscription in 2001."

What budget is that and why does austerity not need apply to it?

I'm not arguing that the surplus funds should be applied to the defence budget, simply that the money exists and has been/still is wastefully allocated to the DWP. I believe it's the annual figure of unclaimed benefits and various other welfare paraphernalia.

 

[imperialman]

double post, sorry

 

[Dachs]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall reading that the USN is being forced to retire one/some carriers due to budget cuts?

That's, um, an interesting non sequitur. What does the USN carrier force have to do with Britain's inability to pay for its own carriers?

Also, I'm unaware of any carrier RIFs. Enterprise has one more deployment before decommissioning, but is scheduled to be replaced by the Ford. Nimitz and Carl Vinson are next to be decommissioned, but the other two Ford-class carriers on the slate are supposed to replace them.

 

[Flying Pig]

It's wise to remember that for an island country, naval forces are a large part of actually sending a force overseas. Carriers, LHD's, LPD's etc are what makes power projection possible. Most European countries would be unable to act militarily outside of Europe if it were not for the US, UK or France and their navies/air force.

I think Britain has its ground force structure correct, it remains one of only a handful of countries with the military, technological and logistical means to deploy serious military force around the world. Indeed, it is still one of the few countries able to deploy a fully-equipped Brigade-sized force anywhere in the world.

This article gives good insight imo (I know the source is Fox news but the numbers do add up); http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119541,00.html

"If you separate Britain and France, there are very small numbers of combat troops available," said Gardiner. "I don’t believe that European nations really have the quality of troops required for combat situations in Iraq apart from major players like Britain and France."

Britain, which many analysts say it is in a league of its own in Europe, has long had a professional army. Gardiner estimated that the British could deploy 40,000 to 50,000 troops in a combat theater if needed.

Good post. Note that the brigade-sized force is actually something of an understatement; we have 3 Commando Brigade and 16 Air Assault Brigade (mostly paratroopers and marines, together the size of a normal Division) on permenant readiness to deploy with very short notice, the 1st Armoured Division ready to act with fairly little warning, and if required the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps would be reconstituted into its former status of the British 1st Corps and sent to a major war. If the entire army were to be deployed, we would be able to group it into about 3 Corps-sized formations.

Frankly, I would prefer railgun dreadnoughts to carriers - cheaper (since the costs of developing the relevant technologies are sunk anyway), roughly equal capacity for power projection, and a far lower risk of losing naval airmen to hostile fire (because there wouldn't be any).

Except that a battleship can't project power in anything like the same way, because it doesn't support ground operations. Most of the value of the carrier is in the fact that it can either bring down firey death onto the enemy or keep said firey death away fround our own boys fighting on the land, while a battleship is only good for fighting other ships and engaging targets close to the shore.

 

[emzie]

The first rule of austerity measures in the US: leave the military alone, even if cuts would be supported by the public.

 

[Dachs]

Except that a battleship can't project power in anything like the same way, because it doesn't support ground operations. Most of the value of the carrier is in the fact that it can either bring down firey death onto the enemy or keep said firey death away fround our own boys fighting on the land, while a battleship is only good for fighting other ships and engaging targets close to the shore.

The point of inserting "railgun" in there was to obviate the reason for this particular criticism. You know, because a dreadnought-mounted railgun can support ground operations at that range and can do so with better reaction time.

Thanks for reading.

 

[Flying Pig]

The point of inserting "railgun" in there was to obviate the reason for this particular criticism. You know, because a dreadnought-mounted railgun can support ground operations at that range and can do so with better reaction time.

Thanks for reading.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but since when do railguns give you an eye in the sky? Big, long-range guns are all very well, but just destroying things wouldn't make a carrier worth as much as it is. Incidentally, could this gun be both fast enough to engage aircraft and big enough to take on dug-in positions? Naval gunfire's very useful even today, of course, so I'm not belittling the value of the things.

 

[imperialman]

The point of inserting "railgun" in there was to obviate the reason for this particular criticism. You know, because a dreadnought-mounted railgun can support ground operations at that range and can do so with better reaction time.

Thanks for reading.

I still think the concept of having aircraft available is a much better idea, I'd even take loitering munitions over a rail gun. Plus, I think the problem with the gun would be precision and target identification. Having a range of 300 miles also may be a problem.

Simply put, aircraft that can loiter, provide recce facilities and can respond to changes in target etc are much more effective than a mach 7 projectile that relies on kinetic energy to cause damage when compared with the options a carrier gives.

 

[emzie]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but since when do railguns give you an eye in the sky? Big, long-range guns are all very well, but just destroying things wouldn't make a carrier worth as much as it is. Incidentally, could this gun be both fast enough to engage aircraft and big enough to take on dug-in positions? Naval gunfire's very useful even today, of course, so I'm not belittling the value of the things.

A drone can be a fine eye-in-the-sky. It'd take a lot of effort to make a rail gun capable of taking out a well-fortified bunker... but then again, that's not the type of target a carrier strike force is going to hit anyway.

Using a rail gun as AA would be... a challenge. At 30km out, a rail gun projectile is going to take 5-10 seconds to reach the plane. And it's not as if a rail gun firing is very subtle.

I still think the concept of having aircraft available is a much better idea, I'd even take loitering munitions over a rail gun. Plus, I think the problem with the gun would be precision and target identification. Having a range of 300 miles also may be a problem.

I would be very skeptical of any claim that a rail gun could fire 500km and hit a target but not the neighbouring hospital.

 

[imperialman]

Also, I'm curious as to how a rail gun would protect a fleet from air attack.

 

[emzie]

Also, I'm curious as to how a rail gun would protect a fleet from air attack.

Well, it's not as if anyone suggested getting rid of all other armaments. A rail gun could be used as a very effective replacement for some tasks, but defending from an air attack or a precision strike well-over-the-horizon are not one of them.

 

[Flying Pig]

Also, I'm curious as to how a rail gun would protect a fleet from air attack.

It's actually the role of the Frigates to do that, normally, with their missiles. We don't generally engage the enemy aircraft with our own because that carries the risk of losing - although Pat if he's sniffing around here may well correct me on that one.

 

[Winner]

Also, I'm curious as to how a rail gun would protect a fleet from air attack.

Well, if such a gun existed (outside the realm of science fiction I mean) and the projectile velocity was high enough, it could potentially be absolutely lethal to any large flying object trying to close on the fleet. The same goes to high-energy lasers and other sci-fi stuff.

But we'll have to wait for that a long, long, LONG time (and no, the systems working with these principles that are under development aren't anywhere close).

 

[imperialman]

Well, it's not as if anyone suggested getting rid of all other armaments. A rail gun could be used as a very effective replacement for some tasks, but defending from an air attack or a precision strike well-over-the-horizon are not one of them.

But I believe Dachs did say that he would prefer a rail gun armed ship to a carrier. That seems to imply a choice of one or the other, I was simply trying to highlight the value of a carrier would far exceed that of a rail gun dreadnought.

 

[emzie]

Well, if such a gun existed (outside the realm of science fiction I mean) and the projectile velocity was high enough, it could potentially be absolutely lethal to any large flying object trying to close on the fleet. The same goes to high-energy lasers and other sci-fi stuff.

But we'll have to wait for that a long, long, LONG time (and no, the systems working with these principles that are under development aren't anywhere close).

Such guns do exist on a scale that can be carried in a ship, they're just not at the stage where they're ready for use. And a 1kg projectile fired from a rail gun would be more than lethal to a jet... it would obliterate it. The problem is, if the enemy jet is close enough to engage with a rail gun, your ship is already in trouble. Trying to hit a jet at 30km with a 3-5km/s "dumb" projectile -- one that is not subtle (the firing of it will be detectable by the jet) -- is pretty hard. The jet makes a change of a few metres up and the projectile is going to miss.

 

[aelf]

I'm not arguing that the surplus funds should be applied to the defence budget, simply that the money exists and has been/still is wastefully allocated to the DWP. I believe it's the annual figure of unclaimed benefits and various other welfare paraphernalia.

So why is there a need for austerity if, as you say, there's actually a surplus in the welfare budget?

The first rule of austerity measures in the US: leave the military alone, even if cuts would be supported by the public.

Same as in the UK, it seems.

 

[Flying Pig]

So how come there is a need for austerity when there's actually surplus in the welfare budget?

All of the money is spent; exactly how much of that constitutes waste depends on who you ask. For example, if you said that only 90% of people claim their benefits so we'll only keep around enough money for 92% of the benefits, what happens when suddenly 95% of claimants start looking for their money?

 

[imperialman]

So why is there a need for austerity if, as you say, there's actually a surplus in the welfare budget?

It's unclaimed benefits, I don't imagine it would be easy or wise to reallocate that, especially if there was a jump in claims. I'll try and find a better source of information on this than me.

Found two sources;

More recent source http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_office201022
Slightly older source (value of surplus is lower as a result) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8118478.stm