|
RapierFugue -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/20/2010 6:45:44 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DCWoody
On a similar note, in the US they made a big fuss about withdrawing from Iraq. There are still 50,000 american troops there, but they're just there on holidays apparently....
#We’re going where the sun is shining, we’re going where the sea is blue ...
quote:
ORIGINAL: DCWoody
A calmer response to OP:
"there isn't enough money to put any actual aircraft on the carriers. Apparently, the aircraft will be arriving a decade later, so not a complete waste, then"
The Carrier will be ready in 2020, with specially ordered planes for it arriving in 2020. The Carrier they're scrapping will be ready in 2016, and have aircraft on it in 2016. The 10 year gap story comes from the Harriers being scrapped. British army is (was) fairly proud of having the only VTOL planes, and the previous plan was to have a new type of VTOL plane arriving in 2019 for the carrier they're keeping. With Harriers being scrapped now, and the new planes (which aren't going to be VTOL afterall) arriving in 2020...that's a 10 year VTOL gap. Although it's not, because the new ones are going to be the 'giant elastic band' kind instead....but it's close enough for the papers to phrase things weirdly. There aren't going to be any empty aircraft carriers going around, and certainly won't remain empty for 10 years....because they won't be at all.
There are so many variables in this one it’s hard to know where to start ... I used to spend ages correcting gleefully incorrect folk on the internet, until one day I saw this:
http://xkcd.com/386/
... and I realised my life’s time could be better spent elsewhere. So, these days, if someone wants a polite debate, I'm more than happy to spend a while typing a response, whereas if they're a tad more ... well “stupid” is the word I think we’re aiming for here, then I just tend to post a “tool kit” of clues they can bung into google to find out themselves. Or just tell them they're being a silly sausage and move on. As I said to a chap a while back; “your ignorance is your problem – it doesn't keep me up at night”.
So, to carriers and Harriers; there are a few points, some more important than others. First off; what you’ve said is pretty much on the money, and where it isn't, isn't a problem, so let’s take that as 10/10, well done. (BTW the Brits aren't the only ones to run Harriers - the USMC also does, as do the Spanish, and the Italians ... the latter presumably because it’s one of the few aircraft that can fly in reverse [;)])
A few other points:
The role of carrier-launched CAP fighters has and will diminish as the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers come on line. Short version is: Type 42 utterly crap as an anti-aircraft countermeasure (maximum of 8 tracked targets, engaging only 2 or 3 on a good day, and a hit ratio so bad their main kill weapon was a computer-assisted Gatling gun. Only really of use as decoys in a modern conflict – c.f. the Falklands Conflict). The Type 45s coming into service now are a different breed, capable of tracking hundreds of targets, engaging tens of them, and killing most outright at first engagement. So a carrier without CAP fighters isn't the sitting duck is once would have been – and remember no carrier ever sets sail without a flotilla of supporting and defence ships around it.
The current Invincible-class “ski jump”, through deck ASW carriers are, basically, too small – they’re tricky to launch large numbers of Merlins from at one time, tricky to hit (land) on at night, for Harrier or Merlin, and have several internal compromises that limit their effectiveness – to put it simply, they were built down to a cost (i.e. too small), and the design reflects that. The rule with carriers seems to be “either build em big, or don't sodding bother”.
Now to contractual matters – because of the way the MOD does commissioning (in common with many government departments), the contracts for building the Queen Liz class carriers are so tightly drawn up that cancelling the carriers outright would have cost more than going ahead with their build. Sensibly, the deck operations design hasn’t been fixed, meaning they can operate as STOVL (Harrier-type) carriers, STOBAR (Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery – using “SeaPhoons” or suchlike), or conventional CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery, like current US carriers), or a combination of the 3. Clever. And it's likely that, once the current global economic situation sorts itself out, they'll simply re-commission the second carrier, if world conditions dictate.
Lastly; Harriers. While the RN loves its Harriers, it’s fair to say not many other folk do – they're aging, inaccurate on ground attack (bettered in ground attack combat by F-16s, FFS), and cost a small fortune to fly, being heavy on fuel, very heavy on maintenance, having a rather limp operational payload, and most importantly having a poor range when loaded with anything more dangerous than a BB gun. So the Harrier has to go anyway, and all they're doing is moving its demise forward a bit.
There’s certainly a good argument for the UK not having carriers – a carrier’s primary role is to provide a highly visible, long range, (fairly) easily maintained over longer engagements, strike capability, and you have to wonder at the sense in the UK convincing itself that it needs to be a world power in those terms. However, the Falklands Conflict left a lasting impression on the MoD, in terms of the fact it was the announcement of the decommissioning of carriers that encouraged the Argentineans to think war was a go-er of an idea, and it was the (then thought to be a luxury) Invincible-class through-deck cruisers (the RN doesn't refer to them as "carriers" because of the anti-carrier feeling in some quarters - I kid you not) that tipped the balance - without them we'd have been scuppered. As another example, the deployment of a single carrier (Ark Royal) in 1972 convinced Guatemala that having a pop at Honduras might be a rather poor idea, without a single shot being fired. There’s also the factor that the UK is an island nation, and without some degree of sea control to allow it to resupply from its allies it would be as isolated and vulnerable as in 1939, should world peace take a nosedive. Personally, I'm not convinced, but the assertion there will be carriers motoring around for a decade without serviceable aircraft on board is hogwash – the RN will no doubt play up this “fact” in order to secure funding, but that doesn't make it true.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DCWoody
I think that's all correct, though something tells me Rapier knows more accurately
Oh I'm just fascinated by military history, especially carrier operations – it’s such an utterly barking idea at heart, to fly aircraft off a boat.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DCWoody
....though he is missing the fact that right at the back of every Englishmans brain, under the abandoned flying car blueprints...is the idea that we might have to fight against the french, sometime or other.
[:D] ... more usually, the concept of fighting someone the French have failed to fight, old chap. But, being scrupulously and British-ly fair, the frogs do spend more on defence than we do (lord alone knows why, since they surrender at the first hint of trouble), and they do run "proper" carriers rather well. We could learn much from them. But they're French, so we don't talk to their sort [:D] (I should point out I'm something of a Francophile, loving both the place and the people, Paris and Parisians excepted).
quote:
ORIGINAL: DCWoody
tl;dr - Don't take newspapers without plenty of salt.
Lots of salt. In fact, Lot’s wife of salt.
|
|
|
|
