CVF and Carrier Strike thread

Just like ourselves the USA have a veto for Magic self tan man, FMS have to be approved.

Myself and I would not sell India a toilet never mind anything else.

Top 3 Threats to U.K. Sov.

China

Russia

India

With a side note for France as he is balls deep in Piron.
 
Just like ourselves the USA have a veto for Magic self tan man, FMS have to be approved.

Myself and I would not sell India a toilet never mind anything else.

Top 3 Threats to U.K. Sov.

China

Russia

India

With a side note for France as he is balls deep in Piron.
I personally doubt - could be wrong - but if I had to wage a bet, India wouldn't even be on the scope as a threat to the UK - they have a lot going on with the UK and history, apart from some dodgy curries. I think they have far more bigger problems to worry about on both sides of the border.
 
So let me get this right: Trump won’t allow a NATO nation which has procured a single Russian strategic SAM system to buy F-35. However, he will consider selling F-35 to India, who’s entire AD system relies heavily on Russian SAMs, sensors and technology, and military operates MiG-21 BISONs, MiG-29s, Su-30s, A-50Is, Il-38s and KAF-31.

I really hope that’s just poor journalistic license and Trump is not seriously considering this. (...)
The story posted by Redshift about the US selling F-35s to India was cribbed from another source. Here's the original.
US may offer F-35 fighter if India scraps S-400 deal

Long story short, the US is apparently twisting India's arm to not buy the S400 from Russia. This is apparently about geo-politics as the Americans don't want to see the sale of this system spread widely.
The US has been increasing pressure on India over the S-400 deal that was signed in October last year, with senior Washington officials saying it would have a direct impact on any high technology cooperation in the future.
The story goes on to note that US pressure on India is ramping up at the same time as India is deciding on their acquisition of 110 fighters for their air force, as well as putting requirements together for another 57 for their navy.
ET has learnt that senior industry leaders as well as officials from the US are visiting India, even as the deadline for action against Turkey is closing in. The defence ministry, meanwhile, is expected to shortly move ahead on the acquisition of 110 fighter jets for the air force under a strategic partnership programme. The navy is also preparing technical requirements for its upcoming purchase of 57 combat aircraft.
The story then states that India has not requested to buy F35s from the US, nor has the US offered to sell it. However, the story speculates that it is possible that a deal could be made which would kill two birds with one stone by offering to sell the F35 in return for India cancelling their purchase of the S-400.
While no official request has been received from India and the F-35 has not been formally put on offer by the US, the aircraft could be pitched as the only air platform that will be equipped and upgraded to beat the S-400 air defence systems that have also been acquired by China.
In other words, it was clearly written as speculation of what could possibly happen, not as news about either what is happening or about what anyone has planned.

The US has apparently made offers to sell NASAMS II and THAAD air defence systems to India, but given how similar US sales offers to Turkey don't seem to have gone anywhere, I wouldn't take such offers as necessarily being genuine or serious. The US is capable of attaching so many political strings to such a deal as to make it completely unpalatable to the Indians, as well as dangling the sale out and then snatching it away when they've got what they wanted.
In an effort to wean India away from the S-400, the US has already offered its NASAMS II (National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System) for protection of the national capital region against ballistic missiles. In addition, the US has also been in talks for its advanced Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Patriot Advance Capability (PAC-3) defence systems with India, though these would come at a significantly steeper cost than the S-400 system.
So according to the original source for this story there has been no offer by the US to sell F35s to India nor any expression of interest by the Indians in buying any. This is simply speculation that the US might possibly make such an offer as a diplomatic negotiating tactic.

India want to build up an independent arms industry for items they see as being key to their defence, and I don't see as likely the possibility that the US would offer a good enough deal in that respect to interest the Indians.

As the story notes above though, the US is saying that the sale of any advanced weapons technology to India, not just F-35s, could be affected if India go ahead with buying the S-400. It's all about stopping sales of S-400s to anyone, not just having S400s in proximity to F-35s.

The Americans are trying to flog F-16s to India, and as I seem to recall General Dynamics have offered to move F-16 production as well as world wide parts and service to India if India were to place a big enough order for them.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
Well, that's the stupidest thing I've read all week. Comparing the cost of Britain's carrier fleet to the cost of one of the US' eleven carriers.
Well offer a better metric! If the %’s quoted are true then we have spent a huge proportion of our diminishing budget on a fleet we are struggling to man!
It’s a good job the army can get to war with its tanks without the navy! Oh wait what tanks?
We are skint as a nation until we stop giving money away we will struggle to fund our own defence!
As alluded to in other posts much of the RN commitments class as foreign aid and soft diplomacy which frankly should be funded from the aid budget!
 
The primary mission of the Russian Navy is sea denial - to stop routine use of the sea for logistics purposes and to interdict crisis response shipping. The primary NATO naval mission is sea control. Whilst the two overlap to some extent they do lead to different force structures. Submarines and long range aircraft versus a more balanced force.

Likewise the likes of Iran have concentrated on small craft, mines, and small submarines to threaten oil shipping, and naval forces and crisis response shipping during a crisis. Not forgetting all sorts of aircraft.

Submarines and aircraft are likely to be encountered anywhere our forces need to go.
I'm not actually convinced carriers are that useful for ASW operations, being a) as very large a target hat needs a lot of protection from hostile forces by ships that coould otherwise be actively hunting the enemy b) a single point of launch for ASW helicopters where a number of smaller ships can spread out and launch allowing cover over a greater area.
 
It must have missed your attention all the upgrades the RU SSN and SSBN force are getting and all of the new weapons to go into those platforms. And thats not to mention the huge upgrades in their surface platform and again lots of new weapons, such as their SLCM, which they made a great show of in Syria.
None of this has missed my attention, my statement stands; if the tanks reach the channel every Russian naval ship can have been sunk and Russia will have won. If the tanks get stopped on the Belorussian border Russia will have lost. The naval campaign is a peripheral effort and if we have limited resources we cannot afford to put them into peripheral efforts. The term is Concentration of Force it's military principles 101.
 
If you disagree provide your view,
Well lets consider one simple principle, how hard it is to track and hit something of 60,000 tons and over 600 feet long doing 16 m/s against how hard it is to track and hit something weighing 1 ton and a few feet across doing 7000 m/s.
 
Well offer a better metric! If the %’s quoted are true then we have spent a huge proportion of our diminishing budget on a fleet we are struggling to man!
It’s a good job the army can get to war with its tanks without the navy! Oh wait what tanks?
We are skint as a nation until we stop giving money away we will struggle to fund our own defence!
As alluded to in other posts much of the RN commitments class as foreign aid and soft diplomacy which frankly should be funded from the aid budget!
The story by Max Hastings on carriers was framed as:
  • The UK spent 'x' percentage of its annual defence budget to purchase its entire carrier fleet.
  • The US spent 'y' percentage of its annual defence to purchase one carrier.
There are several problems with this analysis. One is that he is comparing the cost of 100% of the UK carrier fleet to the cost of 9% of the US carrier fleet. If you put his numbers on a comparable basis then the US costs would be 22% of the US budget, which by my reckoning is somewhat greater than the 15% cost for the UK. So by this argument it's the US which can't afford carriers, not the UK.

The second problem is that the UK isn't buying two new carriers every year. Given that, it's pretty hard to see what just what those numbers mean. If you amortized that 15% over 40 years, then it's 0.4% of the UK budget, which sounds like a pretty small number.

Neither of these methods by the way are a useful metric of how much it actually costs the UK to buy and maintain the carriers. It does show though that Hastings is cooking the books in order to try to support a pre-determined argument, and he seems to be a pretty bad cook.
 
Last edited:

ugly

LE
Moderator
Neither of these methods by the way are a useful metric of how much it actually costs the UK to buy and maintain the carriers. It does show though that Hastings is cooking the books in order to try to support a pre-determined argument, and he seems to be a pretty bad cook.
We all know Hastings but the %’s are there
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
Well lets consider one simple principle, how hard it is to track and hit something of 60,000 tons and over 600 feet long doing 16 m/s against how hard it is to track and hit something weighing 1 ton and a few feet across doing 7000 m/s.
Oh dear, so you can't provide any provenance or any sensible discussion at all then! Have another go, look at what I wrote and the facile, nay puerile, comment you responded with and provide something tangible.

What you've asked above is absolutely devoid of context and hence is utterly meaningless, it's comparing apples and ducks.

When a carrier and it's group are out in the high seas they'll adopt a raft of measures to maintain tactical posture, that will be anything from manoeuvring to more technical means. It will also be most likely operating at a vast distance from any adversary launch platforms and hence it will need to understand what the adversary will use for targeting and it will tailor its operating profile to defeat/degrade those measures with support from a whole host of other elements.

Tracking a one ton fast mover - could be from launch, OPIR detection and alert through IBS, or OTH radar and similar alert, or it could be in the targeting/terminal phase when a mix of CESM/RESM/RADAR could employed.

Wholly different.
 
We all know Hastings but the %’s are there
If you take the entire cost of a 50 year programme and put it in one year.
 

Yokel

LE
I'm not actually convinced carriers are that useful for ASW operations, being a) as very large a target hat needs a lot of protection from hostile forces by ships that coould otherwise be actively hunting the enemy b) a single point of launch for ASW helicopters where a number of smaller ships can spread out and launch allowing cover over a greater area.
I believe that on this very thread there was a little bit of a bunfight between @alfred_the_great and @PhotEx (previously known as @meerkatz) over the issue of whether the carrier disperses the ASW helicopters to other ships or retains control of them herself, and centralises things such as maintenance, logistics, communications....

Since a frigate can only carry one Merlin (and may have one herself - or a Wildcat) that would mean needing extra frigates.

The fixed wing aircraft aboard the carrier can also protect the ASW aircraft from hostile aircraft (in the Cold War days the US Navy had ASW carriers which carried a few jets to protect the ASW aircraft) as noted by @Not a Boffin, and deal with MPA/ISTAR providing things such as reconnaissance or targeting for long range missiles.

The carrier is not the only high value asset - what about an LPD full of Bootnecks or a merchant vessel full of MBTs and support equipment?

None of this has missed my attention, my statement stands; if the tanks reach the channel every Russian naval ship can have been sunk and Russia will have won. If the tanks get stopped on the Belorussian border Russia will have lost. The naval campaign is a peripheral effort and if we have limited resources we cannot afford to put them into peripheral efforts. The term is Concentration of Force it's military principles 101.
The NATO naval mission to secure the trans Atlantic reinforcement and resupply routes should make NATO's land forces able to get up to strength. How do you think a transatlantic alliance achieves concentration of force?

Oh dear, so you can't provide any provenance or any sensible discussion at all then! Have another go, look at what I wrote and the facile, nay puerile, comment you responded with and provide something tangible.

What you've asked above is absolutely devoid of context and hence is utterly meaningless, it's comparing apples and ducks.

When a carrier and it's group are out in the high seas they'll adopt a raft of measures to maintain tactical posture, that will be anything from manoeuvring to more technical means. It will also be most likely operating at a vast distance from any adversary launch platforms and hence it will need to understand what the adversary will use for targeting and it will tailor its operating profile to defeat/degrade those measures with support from a whole host of other elements.

Tracking a one ton fast mover - could be from launch, OPIR detection and alert through IBS, or OTH radar and similar alert, or it could be in the targeting/terminal phase when a mix of CESM/RESM/RADAR could employed.

Wholly different.
Careful - or a person who includes 'Prof' in this username (implying expert knowledge of something) will denounce you as an expert!

If you take the entire cost of a 50 year programme and put it in one year.
Is that what he did? Decided the whole life costs were part of one year's budget? FFS! That is the same trick the anti Trident lot do!
 
Last edited:
If you take the entire cost of a 50 year programme and put it in one year.
What’s the through life cost for an Armoured Brigade? lets say 40 years just to give Land a chance?!
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
None of this has missed my attention, my statement stands; if the tanks reach the channel every Russian naval ship can have been sunk and Russia will have won. If the tanks get stopped on the Belorussian border Russia will have lost. The naval campaign is a peripheral effort and if we have limited resources we cannot afford to put them into peripheral efforts. The term is Concentration of Force it's military principles 101.
You're changing and splitting your argument. You said
The Russian navy is a nice to have, which is why so much of it is not really in a very good state, while they're upgrading the army and airforce.
the debate was about the value of the Russian Fleet, you think the Naval Campaign is a peripheral al effort which WE (NATO/UK) cannot afford to invest in. Which is an asinine position given your concern that RU armour would roll across Europe. Of course whilst we waited for tanks we'd have to contend with RU aircraft making supersonic air raids into Western Europe and the UK, trying to launch ALCM (at the best) - so wouldn't positioning Naval assets up threat be a grand idea?

So, if that was the concern where would the reinforcements come from? How much heavy armour could we fly in from outside Western Europe quickly, given our air superiority couldn't be guaranteed? Surely we would be quickly reverting to despatching reinforcement units via sea and in that position the Naval campaign would again be key to our survival, not to mention that should even RU stop in mid Europe our supply/logistics position in the UK relies to a staggering amount upon sea replenishment and hence a moderate blockade would cause untold hardship upon mainland UK very quickly without recourse to driving tanks through the Chunnel and into London.

Having looked at RUSI, CSIS and the Atlantic Forum they all seem to agree: Whilst Russia’s maritime development used to focus on support of land forces and protection of its coastal territory over the past two decades, the Russian Navy has transformed itself into a modern force capable of conducting operations beyond its territorial waters and flying the Russian flag in any part of the world. Its increasing capabilities include new vessels and weapons, as well as new concepts of operations.

The fleet is greatly reduced in size and will likely continue to decrease as older ships decommission. The fleet’s newest ships and submarines field significant offensive capability on smaller platforms. Russia’s poor economic situation and corruption throughout the Ministry of Defense and shipbuilding industry will hinder the construction and maintenance of ships (which I believe was a point I've made numerous times).

The big questions are how do these new platforms affect Russian capabilities, and what role does the Navy play in Russia’s larger strategic calculus. I don't think it is as simple as you portray.
 
Last edited:
I'm not actually convinced carriers are that useful for ASW operations, being a) as very large a target hat needs a lot of protection from hostile forces by ships that coould otherwise be actively hunting the enemy b) a single point of launch for ASW helicopters where a number of smaller ships can spread out and launch allowing cover over a greater area.
Isn't that the same argument that people use to claim that tanks are obsolete? That they are large and vulnerable targets that need a lot of protection from hostile forces and that in this day and age of ATGMs there is no longer a place on the battlefield for tanks and the future is light infantry?

You can't have it both ways. If aircraft carriers are obsolete then so are tanks.
 
None of this has missed my attention, my statement stands; if the tanks reach the channel every Russian naval ship can have been sunk and Russia will have won. If the tanks get stopped on the Belorussian border Russia will have lost. The naval campaign is a peripheral effort and if we have limited resources we cannot afford to put them into peripheral efforts. The term is Concentration of Force it's military principles 101.
Germany lost two world wars using this kind of thinking.
 
Careful - or a person who includes 'Prof' in this username (implying expert knowledge of something) will denounce you as an expert!
Sometimes the nickname you get given by your fellow troopers can be a nuisance but it's one I'll bear.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top