Well what do ye know :p Cheers for setting me straight on that.

I know that our CVS (can't remember which one - Lusty?) was used as a de facto LPH in 2003, so thought these sort of Harrier carriers were far more use as assault ships using helos than as actual carriers for sea control and the like. My bad!

Originally Posted by Voltiguer

If we are playing 'fantasy fleet' then I want a go :p

2x carrier groups each consisting of something like

1 CVF (able to rerole to amphib role using helos as the CVSs have been)
1 Cruiser (yes I know it'll never happen but we really should have a formidable close in escort laden with armament and helos for something as important to the nation as a CVF, look at how the USN uses their Ticonderogas)3 Destroyers (T45)
3 Frigates (Type 23 til the replacement rocks up, is Future Surface Combatant still on the cards?)
1 RFA
1 SSN (best ASW asset out there and good on the anti-shipping, int, TLAM and SBS side of life too

Up until not too long ago, the Carrier BG could have had one of these beauts lurking....



Complete with 16in guns x9 capable of throwing a shell the same weight as a mini (x9 at a time).

Not to mention new stuff like helis, tomahawks, etc. And STILL fitted with between 1 to 2 ft worth of armour depending on location.

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

Up until not too long ago, the Carrier BG could have had one of these beauts lurking....



Complete with 16in guns x9 capable of throwing a shell the same weight as a mini (x9 at a time).

Not to mention new stuff like helis, tomahawks, etc. And STILL fitted with between 1 to 2 ft worth of armour depending on location.

A salvo of Silkworms would turn it into a very nice reef…

Rattler, humanitarian missions are optional extras - defence of the country is not. A lot of this debate has been along the lines of what ops we might choose to have. We have to prepare for wars that may be thrust upon us. Also, warships are very long lead items and we have to plan ahead on a fifty-year timescale; it's too late to try and rustle up a navy just when the threat appears. Look at the incredible unwisdom of the between-the-wars ten-year rule, which even cost us several ships that we did have because their refits had been skimped.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Nice picture of a battleship...

Is the carrier following the same road as the battleship.

The 'enemy' are devoting incresing resources to defeat carriers, everything from almost impossible to detect conventional submarines, advanced mines, anti ship missiles and even anti ship ballistic missiles. All these combine to push the carrier further out to see in order to have the space and reaction time to defend themselves, this means the embarked air group becomes less and less useful and the resources to defend them become so intensive that the whole concept becomes self defeating.

People keep banging on about them being a 50 year investment because you never know what might be around the corner but what military technology do we have now that we didnt have even 20 years ago, let alone 50.

The enemy, whomever that might, isnt going to be standing still either.

Personally I think we need to face up to the realities of asymettric threats at sea and in the littoral and realise the carrier is going the way of the battleship. therefore a waste of money

Originally Posted by seaweed

Rattler, humanitarian missions are optional extras - defence of the country is not. A lot of this debate has been along the lines of what ops we might choose to have. We have to prepare for wars that may be thrust upon us. Also, warships are very long lead items and we have to plan ahead on a fifty-year timescale; it's too late to try and rustle up a navy just when the threat appears. Look at the incredible unwisdom of the between-the-wars ten-year rule, which even cost us several ships that we did have because their refits had been skimped.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

I truly agree with what you have said, I take the Falkland’s conflict as an example of the govbermint been a wee bit too thrifty in the Defence purse strings dept. When the situation all kicked off and something is needed rather quickly, they did manage to arrange a fleet of vessels (in all varieties) which under the direst circumstance did a sterling effort because of the type people who ran them. (I don’t forgot also the boots on the ground) and our brave airman, who all collectively brought the Islands back under British Administration, but the point is without the boats or battle groups we cannot do much, unless we just accept defeat (which i dont think we want as a whole)

Originally Posted by meridian

Personally I think we need to face up to the realities of asymettric threats at sea and in the littoral and realise the carrier is going the way of the battleship. therefore a waste of money

Nope, a carrier can send off it's planes a thousand miles or more and sink your asymetric threats and littoral ships.

Originally Posted by meridian

The 'enemy' are devoting increasing resources to defeat carriers, everything from almost impossible to detect conventional submarines, advanced mines, anti ship missiles and even anti ship ballistic missiles. All these combine to push the carrier further out to sea...

Try a google on the following terms: "Granit", "Oscar" and "SSGN".

The Russians were trying out an integrated (rather than a single-system) approach to the USN's CVBG threat in the 1980s, IIRC; hence RORSAT to spot the very large reflector, submarine to get close enough to launch the damn great missile, big antennae on the SSGN fin for the datalink to get timely targetting information (and to integrate the strike with Naval Aviation), and a hugely fast missile which both reaches the target before it moves (the doom of anti-ship Tomahawk) and gets inside the closed-loop targetting of the then USN VSHORAD systems... fast enough from horizon to target that your chances of stopping it are, errrr, not much.

As for the cute pictures of IOWA, please gawd no. Battleships have been outdated since FRITZ-X took out ROMA and Warspite in the 1940s. They're only any good at killing other battleships - that's what their guns are for; firing a 2000lb penetrator round (albeit with a 50lb bursting charge) to break through feet of armour plate. Those 16" guns are absolutely pish at supporting artillery fire, as demonstrated repeatedly in WW2, and more recently in Lebanon and GRANBY. They are near enough direct-fire weapons, which trade off power against the ability to hit something in plain sight and a quarter-mile long; and if you look at how long it took to sink the Bismarck, their pH is appalling. They couldn't hit a cow in the arrse with a banjo, and if you don't believe me, read the US Army's own artillery manuals on the subject.

Meridian

The 'enemy' are devoting incresing resources to defeat carriers, everything from almost impossible to detect conventional submarines, advanced mines, anti ship missiles and even anti ship ballistic missiles. All these combine to push the carrier further out to see in order to have the space and reaction time to defend themselves, this means the embarked air group becomes less and less useful and the resources to defend them become so intensive that the whole concept becomes self defeating.

This view (clearly not shared by the World's major Navies) ignores the fact that diesel electric and air independent submarines (can we just call them SSKs from now on), advanced mines and anti ship missiles are threats to all naval vessels. Mines are unlikely to be used against surface vessels in deepwater. The quiet non nuclear submarines are more suited to the littoral than the deep ocean. Cariers are unlikely to be within range of land based missiles. As for ballistic missiles, well I guess it is good that system like SM3 and Aster/Sea Viper have an ABM capability.

Personally I think we need to face up to the realities of asymettric threats at sea and in the littoral and realise the carrier is going the way of the battleship. therefore a waste of money

Hmmm. However, many would say in the littoral you may need air support - as it may involve operating near enemy air bases where enemy aircraft are based, with the weapons you describe, and all those pesky SSKs are perhaps most effectively defended against (ignoring our own boats) by helicopters. You could do with a vessel that can carry quite a few...

Maybe a few sorties could be launched against the enemy bases? What better platform for all this than a carrier?

As Gravelbelly points out, the USN carriers ware a major part of the NATO response to the Soviet threat to NATO sea lines of communication - as mentioned here.

One last thing: Battleships were armed with big guns (ignoring the reactivated Iowa class in the 80s). That meant they lacked the ability to deal with air and submarines threats. A carrier has the virtue of flexibility - her sensors and weapons are her air group and can deal with air, surface and sub sirface threats, not just in defence of herself but also the rest of a task group, whilst projecting power ashore. No ship based missile or other sysem has the same range and flexibility.

In any case, the argument about carriers needing a small armada (sic) is a red herring. In a crisis, naval forces get deployed to wherever needed. We sent a number of frigates and destroyers to the Gulf in 1991, although we had no carrier there. These ships are busy day to day in other roles, and the argument that they are simply there to support the carrier ignores the various roles of naval forces. The level of escort a carrier would need would depend on the threat, and may well be just a single frigate. Even in a situation like the Falklands where a carrier is the centre of a task group, ships within it can be detached for other tasks, be it submarine hunting, bombarding targets ashore, supporting special operations or whatever.

Anyone noticed how much sideways the battleship is seen to move whilst firing that broadside? Sorry, just an observation!