Thread: Reuters: UK May Axe Carriers, Trident Safe - Defence Source

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE67I1I120100819

Now I know sweet feck all about budgets etc.

But why on earth would you scrap something that's currently being built !? 8o

Metal is cheap but its more of a fluff article that doesn't really repeat anything new. Massive thread on ARRSE about the cuts and all kinds of discussion really - some interesting stuff in there.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affai...y-defence.html

"We could have one, two or no new aircraft carriers ... All options are on the table. That does not mean we are leaning towards one particular option, but none should be considered as too radical," the MoD source said.

Well that's cleared that up then

Yet another non-story unfortunately. They all seem to be based around a 'source' saying they're looking at all the options. How many more ways can they rehash this before the SDSR?

THE PLANNED 'BIG DECK' AIRCRAFT CARRIERS ARE SO BADLY DESIGNED- DUE TO PREVIOUS LABOUR GOVT INTERFERENCE- WHO BUT MOST INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST & WILLFULY BLIND-TO-RISKS WOULD ENDORSE THEIR COMPLETION

Britain needs a COMPETENTLY EQUIPPED NAVY!!

Why don't the RN's and the RFA'a vessels that have been commissioned between 1998-2010 have any missile-based anti airborne threat defensive systems?

HMS Ocean, Bulwark, Albion, the 4 RFA Bay class LSD's, and others were built & commissioned without missile-based anti airborne threat defence systems, and without vitally important inter-ship & inter-squadron communications and sensor systems...

In order to save money, the UK's new Type-45 Destroyers and the planned 'big deck' aircraft carriers' are being built & commissioned into service without 80% of the basic, industry-standard weapons, defensive systems & sensors that their designers' originally intended- and that in other 1st world countries' navy's are mandatorily fitted to new Destroyers, aircraft carriers and similar surface combatants.....

Not only are there far too few Type-45 Destroyers being built for the Royal Navy- (6) instead of the urgently needed (14)- these warships' anti airborne threat missile system does not work:

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jm...0104_1_n.shtml

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome...sea.5889279.jp

In the late 1990's, the RN's (then) 3 aircraft carriers had their obsolescent 'Sea Dart' missile-based anti airborne threat missile systems removed- AND NOT REPLACED- in order to save money...

Despite many technologically proficient missile-based anti airborne threat defensive systems existing 1998-2010, the RN's (now only) 2 aircraft carriers have not had their removed-in-the-late-1990's Sea Dart anti airborne threat missile systems replaced: does this say 'responsible govt policy'??
-------------

Other countries with aircraft carriers such as the US, France, Italy, Japan and even Brazil fit their aircraft carriers and similar classes of vessels with up-to-date missile-based anti airborne threat defensive systems...

In most cases these countries also fit their aircraft carriers and similar classes of vessels with armour, armoured bulkheads and other damage control type systems...

Why doesn't the UK do this??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...-warships.html :

"... Money has also been saved in side armour protection, though Knight insists this was a strategic rather than a budgetary issue. The CVF's first line of defence is the frigates and the new Type 45 destroyers around us,' he adds. 'Our only self-defence is close-in weapons systems and small guns.

"Instead, what you have on the ship is 36 of the most lethal aircraft*** ever made.'..."

*** aircraft whose designed-capabilities DO NOT include protecting warships from incoming anti-ship missiles...

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/ :

".... A number of protective measures such as side armour and armoured bulkheads proposed by industrial bid teams have been deleted from the design in order to comply with cost limitations...."

Roderick V Louis from Vancouver,

Please do not cut&paste the usual drivel that you crayon all over websites. You are ballistically dull.

PART 2:

"MBDA'S SAAM-FR NAVAL AIR DEFENCE SYSTEM SUCCESSFULLY CARRIES OUT FIRST SALVO FIRING", 30_05-2005:

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/sit...IT&news_id=138

note:
(a) the above Aster-15 missile test firing was from France's Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier; AND
(b) the UK's presently in-service aircraft carriers were stripped of their obsolescent 'Sea Dart' anti airborne threat (AAW) missile systems in the late 1990's; AND
(c) the UK Labour govt refused to fund a replacement AAW system to be fitted 1998-2010; AND
(d) in order to save money, the planned aircraft carriers won't have any anti airborne threat missile systems whatsoever...

The US, Italy, France, Japan and even Brazil fit and are retrofitting their carriers with technologically up-to-date anti ASCM/anti-airborne threat (AAW) weapons: for the UK to not be doing the same for its existing and planned carriers is gross negligence....

Even Brazil makes sure that its nearly 50-year old Aircraft Carrier is fitted with up-to-date, missile-based anti airborne threat defence systems:

08_01-2010 Janes article- "Refitted Sao Paulo returns to sea":

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/na...0108_1_n.shtml -

..."(As a result of the refit, the Sao Paulo has) three new twin-Mistral surface-to-air missile launchers "...

For the previous UK Labour govt to have not funded the same for the Royal Navy's 3 aircraft carriers that were in-service in 1998; the 2 that remain in-service today AND the now-planned 2 'big-deck' aircraft carriers is overt evidence of a political party that is either pathologically incapable or unwilling to make hard choices in terms of priorizing allocations of public monies....

http://www.military-today.com/navy/i...mitz_class.htm :

"... These (US Navy Nimitz class supercarriers) were completed with Kevlar armour over their vital areas and have improved hull protection arrangements...

"The Kevlar armour has been retrofitted to the earlier carriers, as have many of the advanced systems built into the newer ships..."

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...verhaul-02810/ http://www.news.navy.mil/navydata/fa...0&tid=400&ct=4

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...navy/lhd-8.htm

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/

http://www.naval-technology.com/proj...1/cvn-213.html

http://www.naval-technology.com/proj...1/cvn-214.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...n-78-specs.htm

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003686.html :

"... The Hyuga... will carry an Aegis-type air defense system, with the U.S.-developed AN/SPY-1 multi-function radar; her principal "weapons" armament will be 64 advanced ESSM-type missiles... "

"... She will also be fitted with two 20-mm Phalanx (radar guided) "Gatling" guns for close-in defense against anti-ship missiles, and she will have six tubes for anti-submarine torpedoes...."

http://defense-update.com/products/h/hyuga_250409.html -

"... Hyuga is equipped with 16 Mk41 VLS (Vertical Launch System) cells (each cell carries and can launch 4 ESSM-type missiles- rvl) for anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles and accommodates two 20mm Phalanx (radar guided) anti-missile cannon and two triple 12.75-inch torpedo mounts for self defense...."
-----------------------
-----------------------

1a) "why do ALL of the US Navy's in-service 'big deck' Nimitz and Improved Nimitz class aircraft carriers as well as the LHA and LHD classes of ‘medium sized aircraft carriers’ have armour and armoured bulkheads?" and

1b) WHY ARE THESE VESSELS FITTED COMPREHENSIVELY WITH ANTI AIRBORNE THREAT MISSILE SYSTEMS & THE ADVANCED RADARS + COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS REQUIRED TO OPERATE THEM?"

- http://www.military-today.com/navy/i...mitz_class.htm -

2) "why are the US's newest 'big deck' carriers- such as the recently commissioned G Bush and the undergoing-design "Gerald Ford” class- built with extensive amounts of armour and fitted with armoured bulkheads and/or being designed to be fitted extensively with armour and with armoured bulkheads?"

3) "why are the US's newest 'big deck' carriers- such as the recently commissioned G Bush and the undergoing design Gerald Ford class built with and/or designed to be fitted with anti airborne threat missile systems and the advanced radars required to operate these systems?"

4) The same questions could be put to persons serving on, overseeing and/or involved in the design of the US Navy's 10 'medium sized' (LHA and LHD class) aircraft carriers... (each about twice as big as the UK's Invincible class carriers (HMS Illustrious & HMS Ark Royal)) such as the USS Makin Island:

http://www.navy.mil/local/lhd8/ -

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_di...0&ct=4&tid=400 -

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/.../lhd1Wasp.html -

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/...ha1tarawa.html -

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...s/ship/lhx.htm

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...verhaul-02810/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...n-78-specs.htm -

... and the above questions could be put to designers of the US Navy's Makin Island successor class of 'medium sized aircraft carriers', due to enter service in 2014 or thereabouts...
----------------

Why are the UK's planned 'big deck' aircraft carriers designed- and being built- without anti airborne threat missile systems and the advanced-technology radars required to operate these weapons????

Considering that anti airborne threat missile systems are integral to aircraft carriers belonging to ALL other countries' navies world-wide, why isn't the UK govt enabling the UK's planned new carriers to be fitted with these weapons and the radars required to operate them?

Why are the UK's planned 'big deck' aircraft carriers designed and being built without aircraft-launch catapults??

Catapults are necessary for aircraft carriers to be able to embark, launch & recover a variety of the most versatile & capable types of fixed-wing aircraft, such as Airborne Early Warning & Control (AWACS) types:

E-2D Hawkeye: The (U.S.) Navy's New AWACS-

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...w-awacs-03443/

The RN's new carriers will be restricted to Harrier type (short/vertical take off & land) fixed-wing aircraft & helicopters- that can not duplicate even remotely the capabilities of modern, fixed-wing AWACS...

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/sy...1020_1_n.shtml
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/id...0611_1_n.shtml :

"... In 1982 the Falklands conflict provided a stark reminder of the vulnerability of surface forces operating in a hostile air environment without (AWACS) AEW support..."

"... The absence of such a capability in the face of sustained air attack gave the UK Royal Navy (RN) insufficient warning to counter threats at long range, & directly contributed to the loss of several ships...."

PART 3:

If the egregious threat presented to surface vessels by supersonic sea skimming anti ship cruise missiles (ASCM's)- such as the Russian SS-N-27 'sizzler'- ought to be ignored then why would the U.S. be devoting so much of its resources to beef up its Navy's surface combatants' defences??

"China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities", 19_11-2008:

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33153_20081119.pdf -

Page CRS-92:

"Surface Ship (Anti-Air Warfare) AAW Upgrades...

"Are current (US) Navy plans for upgrading surface ship anti-air warfare (AAW) capabilities adequate?

"The PLA's (China's Navy's) acquisition of advanced and highly capable ASCMs such as the SS-N-27 Sizzler and the SS-N-22 Sunburn raises the question of whether current plans for modernizing (US) Navy surface ship AAW capabilities are adequate..."

Russia, Iran & China are known to have been marketing clones of and marketing similar missiles to the SS-N-27 world-wide for over a decade...
============

The U.S. Dept of Defense recently released it's annual report to Congress on the People's Republic of China's: Military & Security Developments 2010:

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/2010_CMPR_Final.pdf

One of the most commented upon topics is the extensive proliferation worldwide of advanced 'Anti-ship Cruise Missiles' (ASCMs)- in this case Russia's & Chinese clones... & how this class of weapons pose extreme risks to the U.S. & allies' naval forces.

Since the mid 1990s the US. Defense Dept, Congress & its 'Govt Accountability Office' (GAO) have been FORMALLY evaluating- ON A SCHEDULED BASIS- the US Navy's INDIVIDUAL ships' abilities to conduct 'Ship Self Defense' (SDS) against Anti-ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs) & appropriating BILLIONS of dollars to upgrade (almost ALL) existing & fit ALL new US Navy surface vessels* with technologically advanced, capable anti airborne threat/ anti-ship cruise missile defensive systems...

* such as Destroyers, Frigates, Amphibious Assault ships, LHA's, LHD's, AIRCRAFT CARRIERS & the like...

The United Kingdom on the other hand has, during the late 1990s up to 2010, systematically disarmed its front-line surface combatants** IE removed these vessels' obsolescent anti airborne threat 'Sea Dart' systems... leaving these ships defenceless to anti-ship cruise missiles...

** such as Type-42 Destroyers & Invincible class Aircraft Carriers...

Other RN surface vessels have not fared much better:

due to the age &/or inadequate-technology of their anti-airborne threat weapons systems- especially their combat management system (CMS), types of AAW missiles & radars- ('Sea Wolf' & similar AAW weapons fitted to Type-22 & Type-23 Frigates) they're no better able to cope with ASCMs than the disarmed Type-42s & Invincible class carriers...

During the last 12-years nearly a dozen new RN*** & RFA**** ships/combatants have been built & commissioned into service with, in most cases, ZERO anti-airborne threat weapons systems:

*** other than the scandalously abbreviated Type-45 Destroyer programme & its resulting 6 devoid-of-industry-standard weapons-&-sensor systems ships: no capabilities against subsurface, surface and land-based threats...

**** such as the 'Bay class' Landing Ship Dock (LSD) vessels...

In other cases, vitally important, central to fleet-function & UK 'power projection' roles ships have been built & commissioned into service 'with' anti airborne threat weapons systems- BUT with incompetent systems that have negligible capabilities against even 1990's-technology ASCMS... (HMS Ocean & the Landing Platform Dock (LPD) vessels)...

The UK's planned new 'big deck' aircraft carriers have been designed- due to previous Labour govt interference- WITHOUT 'missile-based' ASCM/airborne threat defences & without the high-technology weapons-targeting radars that would be required by missile-based ASCM defensive systems....

Below are links to reference documents showing that, since the mid 1990's the U.S. has been making planned, scheduled efforts to afford ALL of its Navy's surface vessels with 'Ship Self Defense' (SDS) capabilities against ASCMs & other types of airborne threats that are known to exist today & expected in the near, mid & far term future:

1) 02-2010 U.S. APPROPRIATION/BUDGET ACTIVITY RECORDS FOR NAVY 'SHIP SELF DEFENSE SYSTEMS' (SSDS) PROJECTS:

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y...5N_PB_2011.pdf

PAGE 1:

"This program consolidates... efforts related to Detect & Control aspects of Ship Self Defense (SSD)...

"Analysis & demonstration have established that surface SSD based on single-sensor detection point-to-point control architecture performs marginally against current & projected Anti-Ship Cruise Missile (ASCM) threats.

"The supersonic seaskimming ASCM reduces the effective battle space to the horizon & the available reaction time-line to less than 30 seconds from first opportunity to detect until the ASCM impacts its target ship.

"Against such a threat, multi-sensor integration is required for effective detection, & parallel processing is essential to reduce reaction time to acceptable levels & to provide vital coordination/integration of hardkill & softkill assets...

"These SSD projects address & coordinate the detect & control functions necessary to meet the rigorous SSD requirements within a development structure dedicated to systems engineering.."

PAGE 11:

"(Ship Self Defense System) SSDS MK2 facilitates... implementation of modifications...

"SSDS MK2 is in development & integrates other ship self defense elements, such as AN/SPQ-9B radar, Sea-sparrow (missile) system, (Cooperative Engagement Capability) CEC & Tactical Data Links for joint (vessel/aircraft platform) interoperability.

"SSDS MK2 provides enhanced capabilities for (individual ship) Self Defense against air & surface threats using both ownship & remote data to address AAW Capstone requirements. SSDS MK2 becomes the integrated, coherent real time Command & Control System for Aircraft Carriers & Amphibious ships."

2) 07-2000 U.S. Govt Accountability Office special Defence Acquisitions Report: Comprehensive Strategy Needed to Improve Ship Cruise Missile Defense:

http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/ns00149.pdf :

PAGE 3:

"Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. Navy has shifted its focus from preparing for warfare... However, the proliferation of increasingly sophisticated anti-ship cruise missiles threatens the ability of Navy ships to operate & survive...

"In response to this threat, the Chief of Naval Operations directed a comprehensive review of ship selfdefense requirements...

"Completed in fiscal year 1996, this study formally identified the capabilities needed by each ship class to defend against cruise missile threats in the near, mid-, & far term.

"Since then, the Navy has spent $3.8 billion to improve its ship self-defense capabilities against cruise missile attacks, & it plans to spend another $5.1 billion over the next 6 years...

"This report responds to your request that we (1) assess the Navy’s progress since 1996 in improving the self-defense capability of surface ships against cruise missiles & (2) evaluate Navy plans for meeting future anti-cruise missile self-defense requirements..."

3) 03-2004 GAO report on Cruise Missile & Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Technology proliferation:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04493t.pdf :

PAGE 2:

"Conventional anti-ship cruise missiles pose an immediate threat to U.S. naval vessels because of the widespread availability of these weapons worldwide. At least 70 nations currently possess some type of anti-ship missiles armed with conventional, high explosive warheads, & at least 32 nations are developing or manufacturing more than 250 models of UAVs.."

PAGE 5:

" ... anti-ship cruise missiles threaten U.S. naval forces deployed globally.

"We reported in 2000 that the next generation of anti-ship cruise missiles- most of which are now expected to be fielded by 2007- will be equipped with advanced target seekers & stealthy design.

"These features will make them more difficult to detect & defeat.

"At least 70 nations possess some type of cruise missile, mostly short-range, anti-ship missiles armed with conventional, high-explosive warheads, according to a U.S. government study.

"Countries that export cruise missiles currently include China, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Norway, Russia, Sweden, United Kingdom, & the United States. China & Russia have sold cruise missiles to Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, & Syria.

"Nations that manufacture but do not yet export cruise missiles currently include Brazil, India, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, South Africa, & Taiwan. None of these nonexporting manufacturing countries is a member of the Wassenaar Arrangement, & only Brazil & South Africa are in the MTCR... "

4) 03-2007 GAO Annual Report on selected U.S. Weapons Systems' progress & funding:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07406sp.pdf

"LHA 6 (50,000 tonne 'Aircraft Carrier') Program

"Technology Maturity

"The... Ship Self Defense System (SSDS); Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC); Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM); & Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) are all mature technologies used on numerous Navy ships... further development will not be required for ship integration..."

5) "Cooperative Engagement Capability" (CEC) sensors, computer, communications & related hardware:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...updated-03120/

6) http://www.janes.com/news/defence/sy...1020_1_n.shtml

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jd...1201_1_n.shtml :

"... The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) will decide in 2010 whether to acquire the US Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) for integration into selected Royal Navy (RN) surface ships after concluding a third tranche of Assessment Phase (AP3) studies.

"This comes five years after initial plans to integrate the UK CEC system into Type 23 frigates & Type 45 destroyers were brought to a sudden halt as a result of budget pressure...."

7) http://www.janes.com/news/defence/na...0611_1_n.shtml :

"In 1982 the Falklands (Malvinas) conflict provided a stark reminder of the vulnerability of surface forces operating in a hostile air environment without AEW support.

"The absence of such a capability in the face of sustained air attack gave the UK Royal Navy (RN) insufficient warning to counter threats at long range, and directly contributed to the loss of several ships... "

"Soviet/Russian Cruise Missiles"

SS-N-27 'sizzler': http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Cruise-Missiles.html

I'm really not into all this number crunching but I have to ask,
When we do pull out of Afghanistan,no PM in his right mind would involve us in another Mid East or African conflict.
We would have a leaner Army with better equipment I agree but not a tactical attack Force in large numbers.
Iran,Korea etc are beyond our scope.To lose more servicemen overseas would guarantee a public uproar.
I expect the EU to take control of a EU Army and with the Germans,French,Belgians etc in the control Ops,we will never fight another conflict.
ERGO! We need a powerful RN with Trident and two carriers.
The RAF can have the Eurofighter and lots of drones plus refuelling and AWAC's [bought from the Yanks.}
Makes sense to me.
We will have no more heavy Theatre involvement as no PM would want to be tarred with the Blair brush.