Video of new Royal Navy carrier under construction

[besilarius]

Cue the milkman, Tevye:  "Tradition.  Tradition?"

[bob48]

I have to admit, I don't see the need for the RN to operate full-sized carriers anymore either. With virtually all of the overseas possessions gone, the UK doesn't need that kind of power projection these days. The Falklands really aren't under threat the way they were in 82. The Argentines have declined even further than the Brits. With the enlarged garrison and Typhoons operating out of RAF Mount Pleasant, there's little risk of another Falklands invasion.

My point exactly. As much use as a chocolate tea-pot. Its not what the RN needs in the present day, and in a real war, against anyone capable of engaging such a target, its chances of surviving for any length of time is minimal.

The US are the carrier kings, and have more experience with carrier ops - on a large scale - that anyone else in the world. Leave it to the experts and concentrate on other stuff would be the way to go in my book.

I'm not saying the RN are not capable of operating to a high standard, I just don't think that one, or ever two carriers are what the UK need.

[mirth]

I agree Bob about the full-size carriers. I think the RN could still use some ability to operate fixed-wing aircraft, but a new version of the Invincible class could do that just fine. Maybe build a modified Ocean class that could operate a squadron of F-35s.

I somewhat disagree about the RN's ability to protect a CV in a shooting war. They did it well enough in the Falklands with limited fighter strength, against a very determined and aggressive opponent. Also, the new Type 45s are very capable and certainly will escort any new carrier.

[bob48]

I do take your point, and as you say, the Type 45's are pretty potent, but we would need to commit a substantial number, if not all, of those available to make up a carrier group.

Again, I fully agree about the Falklands, and the 2 Harrier squadrons did an amazing job, and deserve a lot of credit (did you ever read the 'Sharkey' Ward book?). But it has to be taken into consideration that the Argie pilots had very little time-over-target, and had to take more-or-less predictable flight-paths which made them quite vulnerable.

But yes, Some ability to launch fixed winged aircraft is desirable, I'm just not convinced that we should place all our eggs in one (or possibly two) very large baskets, or that the F35 is the ideal aircraft.


"Sea Harrier Over The Falklands: A Maverick At War".  Its a good read.

[mirth]

I haven't read the Sharkey Ward book. I'll check it out. I did read the Max Hastings, Simon Jenkins book on the Falklands War. Though not specifically about the air war, it did give me a great appreciation for what the handful of Harrier pilots accomplished in defending the fleet. I take your point about the difficulties the Argentine pilots faced, but the shortcomings on both sides more or less canceled each other out. It was a very even match and a close run thing for the RN. I'm not sure any other navy could have accomplished that mission with that force. Most wouldn't have even tried.

I don't think the F35 is the ideal aircraft either and since the RN is pushing forward with the full-size carrier, your point about using Typhoons instead is excellent.

[bob48]

Aye, well, we'll just have to wait and see what comes of it all, 4 years down the line.

I really recomend the Sharkey Ward book, its well worth getting your hands on a copy. The guy also flew F4's off carriers as well, and was the top night-pilot on Harriers.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

BBC says Russia has sent 72 of these to Syria.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSmcM0jBUfg

180 mile range.

So what exactly is the future of large ships? The cost of ship killer missiles is a tiny fraction of the cost of the ships. Anyone entering that duel will lose over time.

[GDS_Starfury]

large ships and carriers are not that easy to sink.  our current carriers were designed with the idea that they might have to take a near miss from a nuke.  both WW2 and nuclear testing confirmed that a carrier can remain afloat after sever damage.  you also have to ask just who the hell has the ability to get inside a carrier groups air and surface screening elements.

[LongBlade]

large ships and carriers are not that easy to sink.  our current carriers were designed with the idea that they might have to take a near miss from a nuke.  both WW2 and nuclear testing confirmed that a carrier can remain afloat after sever damage.  you also have to ask just who the hell has the ability to get inside a carrier groups air and surface screening elements.

+1

The Phalanx system is pretty impressive. It is essentially a Gatling gun on steroids that tracks an incoming missile and puts out a wall of bullets. They're going to need 72 of them sent in one big spam if they're going to have a hope of getting through. Even then I have my doubts. And that's before you get into ECM and other kinetic defensive systems.

Even if they did inflict some damage, what would they accomplish? We'd simply fly over the country and proceed to bomb everything that managed to associate itself with the responsible party.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

The US military is in a different league from others. The annual budget is the sum of most of the rest of the world for some reason.

The UK carrier is more likely to confront Argentina, Iran, Syria, other tin pot dictator types.

[GDS_Starfury]

the UK CWIS is known as Goalkeeper and if anything its actuallty better then Phalanx and uses 30mm shells instead of 20mm.  both the US and RN are also using RAM missile packs for close defence.

RAM:


Goalkeeper:


and those go into use after someones planes and missiles get past AGEIS ships.  good luck with that Argentina.