Ranks of military powers

[Patroklos]

Actually Pat there's a fairly powerful argument against having so many eggs in such a big target, I mean basket.

So your solution was to just not have any eggs

And the Falklands bears out the fact that enormous air groups are not entirely necessary if you have better tech.

Well why don't you ask the sailors of your surface fleet and the marines/commandos on the ground if they thought complete air superiority resulting in zero losses do to air attack seems entirely necessary?

Patroklos, your argument as a bit like saying
- In the US we have bigger cars, so everyone should build big cars.
- In Europe, we don't need big cars, and they consume more.
- Yes, but the US car market is the biggest one, so if we make mostly big cars in the US, it's the standard, so everyone should make big cars, and it serves us well to have big cars to accomate fat americans, so everyone should have it, even if they don't need it.

Your points fail because 1.) sea warfare is sea warfare, it doesn't change until you get to the pack ice 2.) Britain proved in 1982 that Europe can find itself in situations where real carriers are useful and 3.) the US is the biggest market in cars, but it isn't the majority of the market in cars. In carriers, the US is both.

That is a helpful train of thought though. In Europe the standard is small cars, in the US it is bigger cars. However, worldwide taking into account all markets the standards is small cars. For the same reasons, worldwide (like in this ranking), the standard is US style/size carriers.

Just one question... When exactly did having 100,000 tons carriers instead of 50,000 tones carrier proved mandatory to the US?

Every operation where the US carriers provided overwhelming firepower while the Euro carriers sat around for the most part idol and useless (Desert Storm, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq Freedom). Even today, and I have served with LUST (as the Brits so lovingly abbreviate her) extensively she never launched her aircraft for anything but training the entire time, even while the Enterprise just a few miles away was sending a steady stream of F-18s into Afghanistan for CAS. The Harries simply were not up to the task of supporting the UKs own troops.

More importantly, what situations have the Americans NOT had to deal with because of its carriers? From the GIUK gap back in the day to China even up to now there are hundreds of possible flash points that probably would have flared if not for the simple fact that the US would have air superiority (not just presence like the UK in 1982) and overwhelming strike capacity in the area instantaneously or within a day or two.

Simple proof. If the UK had had a full sized carrier before the Falklands started would the Argentines have attacked in the first place? The very inadequate but still quantifiable performance of the Hermes proves this nicely. If the air wing had been twice the size of what was there, and was using not handicapped (relative) harriers but full blown carrier born aircraft it is doubtful an Argentine jet would have ever gotten close to those islands.

I've been checking up on this actually Steph. Basically at the end of WWII carriers were 20-40,000 tonnes. Since then everyone else has carried on building them at about the same size, while the USA started building it's 'supercarriers', starting with the 75,000 tonne Kitty Hawk.

Awesome post brennan. So which label to you prefer more, hopelessly tiny or hopelessly obsolete?

And you forgot the Forrestal class.

The idea that 100,000 tonnes is either necessary, or 'the new standard' appears to have escaped not just ourselves, but also the French, Russians, Indians, Spanish, Italians and even Thailand... in short everyone except the USA.

You assume that in all those cases they are building what they want, instead of actually building what they can.. There is no getting around the math, 21 carriers in the world (if we use the thread stated number earlier), 11 are what you so colloquially and provincially call "super carriers," which makes them the majority and normal. Where they come from is not relevant. Math is fun.

 

[dosed150]

Simple proof. If the UK had had a full sized carrier before the Falklands started would the Argentines have attacked in the first place? The very inadequate but still quantifiable performance of the Hermes proves this nicely. If the air wing had been twice the size of what was there, and was using not handicapped (relative) harriers but full blown carrier born aircraft it is doubtful an Argentine jet would have ever gotten close to those islands.

.

i think any noticeable military presence in the south atlantic would have put argentina off but thanks to the thatcher government we had withdrawn naval patrol vessels which made the argentines think we didnt care about the falklands, she may have come out of it a national heroine but really thatcher was partly to blame for the war actually happening

 

[brennan]

So your solution was to just not have any eggs

Was it not clear that I consider 1970's UK government policy 100% ******** in this regard?

Well why don't you ask the sailors of your surface fleet and the marines/commandos on the ground if they thought complete air superiority resulting in zero losses do to air attack seems entirely necessary?

Perhaps it would be more applicable if we could ask them if they thought they'd be better off without the limited air-cover they received? As this is what you've been implying.

Your points fail because 1.) sea warfare is sea warfare, it doesn't change until you get to the pack ice 2.) Britain proved in 1982 that Europe can find itself in situations where real carriers are useful and 3.) the US is the biggest market in cars, but it isn't the majority of the market in cars. In carriers, the US is both.

1) Pat The Falklands wasn't sea warfare. The Argentine navy spent most of the war in port, hiding from our subs. 2) yes 3) Stop trying to make this ridiculous 'Supercarriers are the standard' argument. Nobody else is going to make them that big for a variety of reasons. Nobody else has needed them for one thing.

That is a helpful train of thought though. In Europe the standard is small cars, in the US it is bigger cars. However, worldwide taking into account all markets the standards is small cars. For the same reasons, worldwide (like in this ranking), the standard is US style/size carriers.

This argument simply doesn't wash Pat. Just accept that your carriers are little more than a diplomatic penis enlargement that nobody else requires, wants, or needs.

Every operation where the US carriers provided overwhelming firepower while the Euro carriers sat around for the most part idol and useless (Desert Storm, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq Freedom). Even today, and I have served with LUST (as the Brits so lovingly abbreviate her) extensively she never launched her aircraft for anything but training the entire time, even while the Enterprise just a few miles away was sending a steady stream of F-18s into Afghanistan for CAS. The Harries simply were not up to the task of supporting the UKs own troops.

... either that or there was some kind of division of labour going on that gave your F18s that role. Harriers (and Tornados) are mostly used in a strike role when mixed NATO forces operate I believe.

More importantly, what situations have the Americans NOT had to deal with because of its carriers? From the GIUK gap back in the day to China even up to now there are hundreds of possible flash points that probably would have flared if not for the simple fact that the US would have air superiority (not just presence like the UK in 1982) and overwhelming strike capacity in the area instantaneously or within a day or two.

Since you are talking about the UK specifically, may I remind you that (as has been pointed out already) under the agreed organisation of NATO forces, the RN was to be dedicated to ASW. We had no reason to have carriers whatsoever, as that role was given to the USN - or at least that's what the government thought.

Simple proof. If the UK had had a full sized carrier before the Falklands started would the Argentines have attacked in the first place? The very inadequate but still quantifiable performance of the Hermes proves this nicely. If the air wing had been twice the size of what was there, and was using not handicapped (relative) harriers but full blown carrier born aircraft it is doubtful an Argentine jet would have ever gotten close to those islands.

I've already said this Pat. In fact it's arguable that the reason the Falklands were invaded was that our sole dedicated South Atlantic naval presence was withdrawn. Now the Endurance sure ain't a carrier is it?

Awesome post brennan. So which label to you prefer more, hopelessly tiny or hopelessly obsolete?

It's interesting that no government on Earth apart from yours believes it is sensible to build these things actually. How come the USSR never built one?

You assume that in all those cases they are building what they want, instead of actually building what they can.. There is no getting around the math, 21 carriers in the world (if we use the thread stated number earlier), 11 are what you so colloquially and provincially call "super carriers," which makes them the majority and normal. Where they come from is not relevant. Math is fun.

By this argument you should be equiping your marines the same way as the PLA equips it's conscripts, the idea is ludicrous.

The USS Forrestal displaced 60,000 tons standard, and 78,000 tons in deep load, when launched.[1], and is considered the first operational supercarrier, as dubbed by the American press.

So you can take that patronising little troll and...

 

[Patroklos]

So you can take that patronising little troll and...

If you had looked up the wiki on "supercarrier," which was helpfully hyperlinked for your convinience, you would have discovered this...

"Supercarrier is not an official designation."

Enjoy

 

[GinandTonic]

Shockingly, Pat said something I agree with. Wird for sure, but even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.

If the RN had got it's carriers in the 70's Argentina may well have stayed it's hand. Generally the idea of peace through superior firepower is often misapplied, but since the junta were desperately seeking a target of oppertunity to attack and paper over the nations cracks with militaristic jingoism looking more agressive/ powerful may well have sent 'em off against someone else.

However while the mere existance of bigger carriers would have achieved the end, they were by no means the only way to do so. A more agressive presence in the south atlantic would have achieved the same result.

 

[brennan]

If you had looked up the wiki on "supercarrier," which was helpfully hyperlinked for your convinience, you would have discovered this...

"Supercarrier is not an official designation."

Enjoy

You called my use of the term a 'provincial colloquialism' or some such. I pointed out it was coined by your press. Thus you can chew your condescension over with your countrymen and kindly stop directing it at me.

G&T: I said on the last page (I think) that if we'd had something like the Clemenceau the war would never have happened.

 

[GinandTonic]

G&T: I said on the last page (I think) that if we'd had something like the Clemenceau the war would never have happened.

Ah, I remember that now. Knew something was up when I agreed with Pat.

 

[Patroklos]

You called my use of the term a 'provincial colloquialism' or some such. I pointed out it was coined by your press.

1.) Nothing you have posted or linked to says this.

2.) So what if they did?

Thus you can chew your condescension over with your countrymen and kindly stop directing it at me.

1.) It is applicable to you because you use the term.

2.) By the very fact that it is not official it is by definition colloquial no matter who uses it, and since you are using the term out of ignorance and unequainted perspective provincial is more than appropriate when describing your instance on using the made up label.

G&T: I said on the last page (I think) that if we'd had something like the Clemenceau the war would never have happened.

Ah, I remember that now. Knew something was up when I agreed with Pat.

Aren't you guys full of yourself. Once you guys get over telling each other how great you are in your arrogant ignorance, you might take the time to notice I was answering a direct question from Steph.

You guys really stoped warranting serious responses a long time ago. I humor you because I enjoy the topic, but you have been throughly debunked in this thread.

 

[GinandTonic]

I humor you because I enjoy the topic, but you have been throughly debunked in this thread.

Makes me laugh. You've been debunked over and over in this thread, but more importantly your analsyis of the Harrier has been debunked by your very own DoD and the free market. The US placed a massive order for the Harrier on the back of their performance in the Falklands as did a number of other nations.

Supercarriers are better than through deck cruisers. Everyone knows this and no-one has disputed it. You keep saying it as if it were a statement worthy of debate. No-one is debating it.

The lessons everyone took from the Falklands was that ships were vulnerable to missiles. Everyone got on the case with CWIS. AEW was a massive force multiplier. Everyone got on the case with AEW. The Harrier was a far more capable plane than the nay-sayers believed. The US ordered a couple of hundred. The UK also learned that it still needed carriers and that since ships were upgraded over their lives it was vital to design them with some surpless tonage to allow upgrade systems to be installed without interfering with other systems.

You can take what lessons you will, frankly my dear I dont give a dam.

 

[ravensfire]

The lessons everyone took from the Falklands was that ships were vulnerable to missiles. Everyone got on the case with CWIS. AEW was a massive force multiplier. Everyone got on the case with AEW. The Harrier was a far more capable plane than the nay-sayers believed. The US ordered a couple of hundred. The UK also learned that it still needed carriers and that since ships were upgraded over their lives it was vital to design them with some surpless tonage to allow upgrade systems to be installed without interfering with other systems.

Pretty accurate summary.

I would add that in an open environment, the Harrier did not prove effective in a fleet air defense role. With limited range, speed and weapons, it's just not capable of defending a fleet against a decent air attack. Of course, it's not really supposed to be in that role. It's there to support ground troops, take out helicopters and other attack aircraft and assist in fleet defense. In those roles (particularly the first one), it's extremely effective aircraft, far more than any other aircraft the Navy has.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Patroklos]

Makes me laugh. You've been debunked over and over in this thread, but more importantly your analsyis of the Harrier has been debunked by your very own DoD and the free market. The US placed a massive order for the Harrier on the back of their performance in the Falklands as did a number of other nations.

We did in fact order them, but for entirely different reasons and ones more suited to their design. Please, pretty please, find one instance where US Harriers were used as the primary fleet air defense/interceptor/strijke/recon aircrat. In fact, find me one instance of Harriers even deploying on our carriers at all.

For the British the Harrier was nessecary evil due to their inadequate carriers. In the USN the harrier was an adequate solution to a completely different area of warfare.

Supercarriers are better than through deck cruisers. Everyone knows this and no-one has disputed it. You keep saying it as if it were a statement worthy of debate. No-one is debating it.

Yes, you have disputed this.

The lessons everyone took from the Falklands was that ships were vulnerable to missiles. Everyone got on the case with CWIS. AEW was a massive force multiplier. Everyone got on the case with AEW. The Harrier was a far more capable plane than the nay-sayers believed. The US ordered a couple of hundred. The UK also learned that it still needed carriers and that since ships were upgraded over their lives it was vital to design them with some surpless tonage to allow upgrade systems to be installed without interfering with other systems.

The above is mostly correct (the harrier was bought to fullfill a mission unrealted to what the British used them for), had you said that instead of what you did at first you could have been correct three pages ago. You do realize none of this is what brennan has maintained, correct?

I would add that in an open environment, the Harrier did not prove effective in a fleet air defense role. With limited range, speed and weapons, it's just not capable of defending a fleet against a decent air attack. Of course, it's not really supposed to be in that role. It's there to support ground troops, take out helicopters and other attack aircraft and assist in fleet defense. In those roles (particularly the first one), it's extremely effective aircraft, far more than any other aircraft the Navy has.

False, in the RN they were supposed to fill that role. In fact until recently they were still expected to fill that role.

 

[dosed150]

We did in fact order them, but for entirely different reasons and ones more suited to their design. Please, pretty please, find one instance where US Harriers were used as the primary fleet air defense/interceptor/strijke/recon aircrat. In fact, find me one instance of Harriers even deploying on our carriers at all.

For the British the Harrier was nessecary evil due to their inadequate carriers. In the USN the harrier was an adequate solution to a completely different area of warfare.



Yes, you have disputed this.



The above is mostly correct (the harrier was bought to fullfill a mission unrealted to what the British used them for), had you said that instead of what you did at first you could have been correct three pages ago. You do realize none of this is what brennan has maintained, correct?



False, in the RN they were supposed to fill that role. In fact until recently they were still expected to fill that role.

until recently? the raf and rn still keep a few around, so if we ne need them we can put them on Illustrious and ark royal and send them somewhere, but recently ark royal seems to have been acting as a helicopter carrier and illustrious has been doing joint exercises, flying the flag sort of stuff they were doing exercises with the estonians and then off to the usa to do the same sort of thing with the us marines, the invincible however is in reserve

 

[GinandTonic]

For the British the Harrier was nessecary evil due to their inadequate carriers. In the USN the harrier was an adequate solution to a completely different area of warfare.

I completely agree and I never suggested otherwise. The Harrier was a necessary evil because they could operate from through-deck cruisers. Pukka interceptors from a super-carrier would be better. No dispute.

Since only the US has this ability it is, as we have all repeated ad-nausem, irrelivant.

The US has the biggest carriers. We all agree.

-

Now I'm a little confused by this part of your post. I'll post the comments you are responding to to avoid any confusion.

The lessons everyone took from the Falklands was that ships were vulnerable to missiles. Everyone got on the case with CWIS. AEW was a massive force multiplier. Everyone got on the case with AEW. The Harrier was a far more capable plane than the nay-sayers believed. The US ordered a couple of hundred. The UK also learned that it still needed carriers and that since ships were upgraded over their lives it was vital to design them with some surpless tonage to allow upgrade systems to be installed without interfering with other systems.

And you respond

The above is mostly correct (the harrier was bought to fullfill a mission unrealted to what the British used them for), had you said that instead of what you did at first you could have been correct three pages ago.

By which I am forced to conclude that you mean that the harrier was bought to fullfill a mission unrealted to what the British used them for. Just imagine my astonishment at your next comment.

I would add that in an open environment, the Harrier did not prove effective in a fleet air defense role. With limited range, speed and weapons, it's just not capable of defending a fleet against a decent air attack. Of course, it's not really supposed to be in that role. It's there to support ground troops, take out helicopters and other attack aircraft and assist in fleet defense. In those roles (particularly the first one), it's extremely effective aircraft, far more than any other aircraft the Navy has.

And you responded that

False, in the RN they were supposed to fill that role. In fact until recently they were still expected to fill that role.

You contradict yourself old boy. These aren't two disperate comments, but right next to each other in te same post.

The RN didnt design them as fleet defence, they were a work-around that outperformed everyones expectations.

 

[Patroklos]

There is no contridiction. In the first statement Raven says the Harrier was not supposed to fullfill the air defense role in the RN. As I pointed out that is wrong, the aircraft was designed to be capable air combat, however inadequatly relative to conventional carrier aircraft, and as the only fixed wing carrier airframe the British had it is ridiculous to think fleet air defense was not one of their primary roles.

The US, knowing the Harrier has dubious air combat skills at best and having superior airframes for that roll anyway bought the harrier for marrine CAS operating off of our amphibs.

In other words the the British designed it to be a jack of all trades, master of none yet knowing this tried to use it as a master of all. The Marines rightly recognized that not only was it not master of all, but not even a jack of all trades, and confined its role to the trades it was decent at (it is not the superior airframe for ANY role).

 

[GinandTonic]

Pat, the aircraft was designed to mess with Russian invasions capabilities. The idea was that however much they mess with te airfields they will never be sure they have taken out the RAF. It was designed to close off tactical surities from the USSR.

The fleet gig was all gravy.

In such a context, jack-of-all-trades is just what you want. Like the idea of a fleet-in-being, only more of "however much you mess with us there may still be an airforce-in-being, and you will have to make dispostions accordingly". Harriers could have a pop at your airforce, or perhaps your tanks. Who knows. Better keep a whole vast bunch of your forces looking parinoidly at disused mines in Yorkshire.

 

[GinandTonic]

The US, knowing the Harrier has dubious air combat skills at best and having superior airframes for that roll anyway bought the harrier for marrine CAS operating off of our amphibs.

But, but, but I'm confused now??? You said that the Navy had releaved the Falklands despite the failure of the Fleet Air Arm to provide them with any support, and now you say that the close air support was so impressive that the US ordered a couple of hundred of Harriers?

How can both these facts be true? I... guess... they... can't...

 

[ravensfire]

There is no contridiction. In the first statement Raven says the Harrier was not supposed to fullfill the air defense role in the RN. As I pointed out that is wrong, the aircraft was designed to be capable air combat, however inadequatly relative to conventional carrier aircraft, and as the only fixed wing carrier airframe the British had it is ridiculous to think fleet air defense was not one of their primary roles.

You've GOT to be kidding me, Patroklos. Please - the Harrier is NOT designed, or intended, to be a fleet air defense aircraft. It simply doesn't have the tools! For air-to-air, it carries Sidewinders and ASRAAM's, plus the dual 30mm cannons. Against attacking jets armed with any medium range ASM (Exocet, Harpoon, etc), that's just not going to cut it.

Long term, fleet air defense for the Royal Navy will be from the Type 45 destroyers just starting to be commissioned (think Arleigh Burke), plus the F-35B's that will replace the Harrier.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Steph]

During the course of the air war, 23 Argentine aircraft were shot down in air to air engagements to 0 losses on the British side. 17 further Argentine aircraft were successfully destroyed by the British Task Groups missile and gun air defences.
So the carrier based Harrier proved more effective than the Land baised Argentinian aircrafts in this air war.

The HMS Sheffield was destroyed by an Exocet fired by Super Etendard. The MS Conveyor was destroyed by two Exocets.

Conclusion: do not be too quick to dimiss French aircrafts and missiles just because they are French, they can still sink ships

 

[brennan]

1.) Nothing you have posted or linked to says this.

...Except the quote at the bottom of post 183, i'll post it again for your edification:

"the first operational supercarrier, as dubbed by the American press."

The above is mostly correct (the harrier was bought to fullfill a mission unrealted to what the British used them for), had you said that instead of what you did at first you could have been correct three pages ago. You do realize none of this is what brennan has maintained, correct?

Frankly Pat, i'm a little confused as to what you think I am maintaining:

1) Our government stupidly thought we could do without carriers back in the '70s

2) The Navy managed to blag the Invincible class by not calling them carriers, and hey presto, the Harrier turned out to be the perfect aircraft for them.

3) The far-from spectacular Harrier/Invincible combo enabled us to launch combat operations to regain sovereignty over a patch of territory several thousand miles from home, whilst under attack from the Argentine Air Force.

4) Thus the value of even small carriers is shown. Plus all the stuff about missiles and CIWS.

5) Nobody else is prepared to risk the enormous investment required to build carriers as large as yours. Plus we don't really need them that big.

 

[Steph]

5) Nobody else is prepared to risk the enormous investment required to build carriers as large as yours. Plus we don't really need them that big.

Actually, I read that the latest American carrier costs $ 4.5 billions, while the French carrier based on the new design for the British will cost 3 billions €.

And tomorrow, with the evolution of the exchange rate, an American super carrier will cost 1/10 of a European carrier.