Defence Management Journal: "Navy Will Be Too Small For Two Carriers'

As I've mentioned on here before (link), that's what comes from cutting Naval Service manpower disproportionately more than the other, larger services. It reduces it below the critical mass needed to maintain such a wide wide range of skills, expertise and experience.

Leaving out the Royal Marines, the RN part of the Naval Service will only number around 23,000 after the forthcoming 5,000 redundancies have been actioned. It will reach the point where Drafty is forced to say:
"No, I don't have a Warrant Officer nuclear watchkeeper with 15 years' experience to fill the gapped billet in your SSBN but I do have a spare CPO Sea Wolf maintainer, a PO Aircrewman, a Leading Chef or an AB Missileman. They're all on ships working up or on post-deployment leave at the moment but will one of them do?"
Can't tell you the whole ship reason, but they have more ops room positions to man on the lusty than the ocean therefore require more man power. Ocean can't do long distance air tracking or APR(F) like the lusty an due to not having the radar or radar position to man as an example.

As for rest of the ship I dont know

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Someone explain to me why Illustrious has twice the manpower of Ocean but does exactly the same job.
LUST was designed as an aircraft carrier, OCEA as a helo landing platform.

LUST designed before we even knew what 'lean manning' was.

As Tommo says, LUST has a far wider warfare capability, fighter control etc. LUST has greater C2 capability and facilities for larger embarked staff (as opposed to EMF).

LUST has 4 Olympus gas turbines rather than a couple of commercial diesels and so can go faster.

LUST is being used as a stop gap, nowhere near to her full potential, as we got rid of her aeroplanes.
SEP86 your points are valid if Lusty was Ever going to be used other than an LPH, unfortunately now her primary weapon system is the EMF.
Last edited:


War Hero
Book Reviewer
1SL's little chat was interesting but many of his headings beg the response "Yes, that is a valuable job the RN is doing but are we equipped and manned to do enough of it?" in, for instance the spheres of anti-piracy and interdicting drug smuggling. Do we really make a big difference or are we just providing a bit of nuisance? so that we go on nibbling at it for ever without achieving any sort of complete result.


Lantern Swinger
A bigger problem surely is the Navy doesn`t have the other shipping to support a carrier, never mind two. These things can`t be used as single ships, they need they`re own personal armada, and the bigger the carrier the bigger the support group is needed. I thought we`d learnt this lesson in 1940.
Rocket, nail well and truly smacked on the head, the carrier program is one vanity project we cant afford nor afford to get rid of, thankyou Gordon Brown. Not only do we not have enough escorts to form a carrier battlegroup, without stripping our basic defence of UK PLC, we do not have enough subs or Nimrod to form a protective screen, whose to blame, I think some of that must be laid firmly at admiralty's door. We've got fragile 45s, which in the cold war days was not a problem, because the new classes of ship had time to bed in because the old classes were still there, i.e. T22 still had Leanders/T21s in its early days. Frankly thanks to mismanagement, poor representation, the RN cannot defend the UK, let alone do another Falklands.
Last edited:

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts