Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[arfah]

..................

[Tiny Toy]

It always pains me to think that if the UK could have a truly first class set of armed forces if we invested a similar portion of our national budget in defence as the other Great Powers. But we don't, because for some godforsaken reason the country with the 5th largest economy in the world and a host of inbuilt systematic advantages doesn't really think it's a great power, so it doesn't behave like one. We need to cut out the bollocks about "punching above our weight" and actually punch at our weight. The UK is a very wealthy, powerful, country that behaves and thinks like it's a peripheral regional power. France, in many ways less "powerful" than the UK, at least acts like it's a great power.

France spends a smaller proportion of its GDP on defence than the UK. In fact everyone in NATO with the exception of the US spends a quite significantly smaller proportion of its GDP on defence than the UK. So I have no idea where you're getting this idea. If defence spending as a proportion of the national budget were what made countries Great Powers, then the top 3 world powers would be Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Israel. Clearly that's not the case.

[Engaging Strategy]

France spends a smaller proportion of its GDP on defence than the UK. In fact everyone in NATO with the exception of the US spends a quite significantly smaller proportion of its GDP on defence than the UK.

Everyone in NATO bar the US, UK and France have chronically under invested in their armed forces for years. Just look at the proportion of most European defence budgets spent on manpower compared with R&D and equipment.

So I have no idea where you're getting this idea. If defence spending as a proportion of the national budget were what made countries Great Powers, then the top 3 world powers would be Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Israel. Clearly that's not the case.

I didn't state that spending a particular % of GDP is what matters here. What matters is that we resource our armed forces adequately for the jobs we want them to do, and at present we don't. The UK is a wealthy country and can afford to spend enough on defence to deal with the problems we currently face.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Just look at the proportion of most European defence budgets spent on manpower compared with R&D and equipment.

What is the right answer (I don't mean what we could see it by looking at the stats)?

My Goldilocks is something like 1/3 for building (kit), one third for manning and one third for operating, incl. properly sized exercises so that readiness is not just in print.

We are actually going to hit 48% for kit, as to protect equipment prgrms in train, a lot has been cut. Having said that, it is difficult to read DE&S figures as support and maintenance are there, whiich - up to doing upgrades - belong to "operating".

[Engaging Strategy]

Just look at the proportion of most European defence budgets spent on manpower compared with R&D and equipment.

What is the right answer (I don't mean what we could see it by looking at the stats)?

My Goldilocks is something like 1/3 for building (kit), one third for manning and one third for operating, incl. properly sized exercises so that readiness is not just in print.

We are actually going to hit 48% for kit, as to protect equipment programs in train, a lot has been cut. Having said that, it is difficult to read DE&S figures as support and maintenance are there, which - up to doing upgrades - belong to "operating".

I agree, something like 1/3rd on new kit, 1/3rd on manpower and 1/3rd on infrastructure, training and R&D would be a good balance. Now look at the balance of most EU countries according to the CSIS 2012 report:



Most European NATO countries are spending more than half their budget on manpower alone. The long term effects of starving their equipment and training budgets to such a serious degree won't be good, that's for sure. At least with the UK's way of doing things, prioritise equipment and provide the manpower later, you sustain the defence industrial base. Ultimately more armed forces personnel can be trained up relatively quickly in the grand scheme of things, you can't do that with military equipment programmes that often take decades to come to fruition.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Good multi-dimensional presentation.

The per soldier view is interesting: UK, Norway and Lux come on top
- UK: expeditionary orientation, lots of specialist (and expensive kit)
- Norway: an optical illusion because half of their defence consists of Home Guard (costs 5% of the total spending), which I doubt has been included in the headcount. The standing forces are predominantly air force and navy... expensive, per head
- Lux? Didn't they do away with their sole inf. bn and contribute an A400M instead... super-expensive, that one

[SKB]

Err, you're drifting way off topic here. This is a Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier thread....

[Engaging Strategy]

Err, you're drifting way off topic here. This is a Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier thread....

True that! It's just so easy to find yourself drifting

[ArmChairCivvy]

Yes, sorry!
- would it be worthwhile to have a thread for "in numbers" like the one for the UK?
- titled for NATO or international. more generally
- if so, these entries should be moved

[The Armchair Soldier]

An aerial shot of the two carriers in Rosyth:

[cockneyjock1974]

Been watching 1SL's interviews over the holidays, I think it's fair to say that retrofitting any of the QE's to CATOBAR in the future is a non starter.

My point is this, we should plan and invest in non assisted vehicles to support and augment the current aircraft regime. I think the tilt rotation model is the way forward but not the Osprey. The Augusta/Westland yes and the S97 Raider is also attractive.

[shark bait]

Rightly so, retrofitting with CATOBAR would be a truly wasteful exercise.

I think for the time being, as we are regenerating the carrier capabilities Merlin will be fully adequate in its roles. However as we build the capability I think the range of the Merlin and the Dave B will start to become the limiting factor for our carrier operations. At this stage it will be highly reasonably to invest in tilt rotors to further extend the utility of the platform further.

I don't expect that to happen within a decade of operations, but I fully expect a plan for them to be on the long range white board. It is necessary to make the most out of our very expensive assets, and our mode of operations almost dictate we need a tilt rotor.

Hopefully leadership will get the UK involved in a next gen (after V22) design, to carry the carriers capability forward .

[SDL]

[SKB]

Looks as if they've started taking down the marquee tent on QE's portside too.

[SKB]

PoW Assembly Diagram Update! (Friday 8th January 2016)
Aft Island (UB14) is lifted and fitted into position on PoW's flightdeck.

PoW Assembly Diagram 08Jan2016 UB14 Aft Island.PNG

[SKB]

Portsmouth aircraft carriers will house more assault troops than HMS Ocean
More: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defenc ... z3wfhnTCor

[WhiteWhale]

That's a very bad thing for the future capabilities of the RN, why bother spending money on a proper troop ship when a current one can kind of do a similar job? -Government thinking.

[Pseudo]

Yes, I'm starting to worry that we might not see Albion replacements at all, with the RN making down with QEC and Bay replacements.

[Gabriele]

That's a very bad thing for the future capabilities of the RN, why bother spending money on a proper troop ship when a current one can kind of do a similar job? -Government thinking.

Irrelevant, really. LPH(R) has been dead since at least 2006, and that's not going to change anytime soon unless the Royal Navy can mount and win a case to replace Albion and Bulwark early.

[Little J]

Been watching 1SL's interviews over the holidays, I think it's fair to say that retrofitting any of the QE's to CATOBAR in the future is a non starter.

My point is this, we should plan and invest in non assisted vehicles to support and augment the current aircraft regime. I think the tilt rotation model is the way forward but not the Osprey. The Augusta/Westland yes and the S97 Raider is also attractive.

If the Dave's stay in-service as long as the Tonka's, I think we won't need to change to cats n' traps (or anything similar) before the carriers themselves need replacing.

I agree with the rotary wing assessment - IMO the SB>1 Defiant looks better than the Bell V-280 - at least to my civvies' eyes

[Engaging Strategy]

Yes, I'm starting to worry that we might not see Albion replacements at all, with the RN making down with QEC and Bay replacements.

Honestly the Albions are still pretty new ships, won't be due a replacement until the mid- 2030s I'd say. So long as the economy doesn't go completely tits up between then and now I'm confident that the RN will get a replacement. Those ships are the backbone of a capability that sets the UK apart from the crowd. My opinion is that the Royal Marines and UK amphibious capability present the cornerstone of a credible future British intervention force. The need to to go in and get out quickly, with no enduring footprint (and then poise offshore in case the crisis flares up again) will be critical. With such a strong "no more Afghanistans" imperative over our heads it's hard to see other ways of doing things.

[Repulse]

Yes, I'm starting to worry that we might not see Albion replacements at all, with the RN making down with QEC and Bay replacements.

Keeping Amphibious lift to the RFA and operating initially OTH is the right approach IMO given the broader capabilities, size of the RN and threats. Now all we need is to replace the Albions with a third CVF

[Geoff_B]

HMS Prince of Wales is certainly coming along as not only is the Aft Island being fitted, but the also rolled out SP12 which implies the fit of the aft CB blocks can't be far off. It does look like the main structure of the ship will assembled by Easter, which shows just how much the ACA have fine tuned the programme after QNLZ.

I wouldn't read too much into long term requirements, the main focus ie bring the ships into service with their tailored air groups by 2025. At that point they will review the programme, capabilities, threats and take it from there what required going forward.

[Biggles]

the real test will be SDSR 2020 when the government looks at Future Force 2030. The ideal situation here will be a further acceleration of the F35 programme to deliver full capability to both carriers, plus the follow on ASAC capability.

[Digger22]

Can't see F35 lasting as long as Tonka, Attrition rate 'could' be horrendous. I would not be surprised to see a STOBAR conversion of one ship, well before midlife, with the other unconverted to soldier on with what few F35's we have left by then, looking more like a Commando Carrier as time goes by.