Psssst! Wanna buy a -

[MooUK]

Carriers are important. They allow you to deploy air and land forces anywhere in the world, to occupy or selectively target as required. They are also exceptional value for money.

 

A regularly navy, in the form of frigates and destroyers, is completely and utterly useless. They do nothing at all. The standard argument is that they are needed to protect a carrier, but there is *nothing* they can do that a carrier cannot do better. Air defence? Carrier wins (combat aircraft and AWACS). Missile defence? Carrier wins (AWACS, combat aircraft, plus the same defences you can put on any ship can go on the carrier). Naval defence? Carrier wins. Anti-submarine? Carrier wins (sonar aircraft and choppers, and airborne torpedoes).

 

Carriers, missile submarines, and perhaps attack submarines (though they're fairly well combined these days), plus transports and light patrol craft (torpedo boats with effective marine forces for antipiracy, for example) are what our navy needs, not larger frigates and basically-unarmed destroyers.

[Brinkly]

Carriers are important. They allow you to deploy air and land forces anywhere in the world, to occupy or selectively target as required. They are also exceptional value for money.

 

A regularly navy, in the form of frigates and destroyers, is completely and utterly useless. They do nothing at all. The standard argument is that they are needed to protect a carrier, but there is *nothing* they can do that a carrier cannot do better. Air defence? Carrier wins (combat aircraft and AWACS). Missile defence? Carrier wins (AWACS, combat aircraft, plus the same defences you can put on any ship can go on the carrier). Naval defence? Carrier wins. Anti-submarine? Carrier wins (sonar aircraft and choppers, and airborne torpedoes).

 

Carriers, missile submarines, and perhaps attack submarines (though they're fairly well combined these days), plus transports and light patrol craft (torpedo boats with effective marine forces for antipiracy, for example) are what our navy needs, not larger frigates and basically-unarmed destroyers.

 

I wouldn't agree with that statement completely. The Soviet Navy really didn't like carriers simply because they are venerable to submarine attacks and lets face it a 60,000 ton warship sticks out like a soar thumb on the waterline! However I do agree with you that a Carrier is perhaps the most useful vessel within a Navy, being able to have a portable runway in the middle of the sea is a wonderful advantage, although the frigates and destroyers are required to protect the carriers as it was during the Falklands. Granted we did loose four ships, but that was mainly due to the frigates and destroyers being geared up to submarine warfare, rather than air attacks. The old type 42 destroyers could only handle 2 targets at once, whereas the new Type 45s are able to engage 30 targets at once, so are a much more useful in air warfare.

For anyone who is interested in the Type 45 warship channel 4 produced a really good program about their development Building Britains Ultimate Warship.

 

A friend of mine who is currently an officer in the Navy said to me in the pub that the weapons systems on the Type 23 frigates and Type 42 destroyers is now very outdated and frankly isn't fit for purpose, but as he said you wouldn't dream of trying and launch an invasion without providing an escort for the carriers in the form of frigates and destroyers. There is quite an interesting page about the proposed Type 26 Frigates which will start to come into service from 2021.

 

Regards,

 

Nick.

[MooUK]

Back at that time, sure - airborne submarine detection has improved. There is absolutely nothing a frigate or destroyer can do that a carrier's air group cannot do better today.

 

The new destroyers don't even have their primary weapon system installed yet, last I heard. They have one small cannon and that's about it. Their entire purpose is air defence,

 

Naval officers have a vested interest in keeping lots of surface warships - how do they get promoted if there's no new vessels to command? Not accusing your friend of anything, but I am accusing those at the top. I don't disagree that the older surface warships are outdated, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be replaced like for like.

 

The carriers in the Falklands were not all singing, all dancing modern fleet carriers. They were light escort carriers, and technology has advanced since then.

[Brinkly]

Well I still feel that Frigates and Destroyers are needed as patrol and escort vessels, for starters you can't have carrier in two places at once!

[Adrian Wintle]

A regularly navy, in the form of frigates and destroyers, is completely and utterly useless. They do nothing at all. The standard argument is that they are needed to protect a carrier, but there is *nothing* they can do that a carrier cannot do better. Air defence? Carrier wins (combat aircraft and AWACS). Missile defence? Carrier wins (AWACS, combat aircraft, plus the same defences you can put on any ship can go on the carrier). Naval defence? Carrier wins. Anti-submarine? Carrier wins (sonar aircraft and choppers, and airborne torpedoes).

 

Outside of the concept of using appropriate equipment for the task (which I will get to later), this is so wrong on so many levels.

 

Air defense by a carrier is limited to the local area of the carrier, and is limited by the air defense assets carried by the carrier. Carrying a large quantity of aircraft dedicated to the air defense of the carrier compromises its primary mission*.

 

Missile defense by a carrier is limited to a small number of missiles by the aircraft (until the aircraft in the sky run out of their own missiles, assuming that the weather conditions are conducive to flying and your aircraft aren't busy on some other mission), and an even smaller number of missiles by the point defense systems on the carrier. Carriers can't carry serious levels of anti-missile defense without compromising their primary mission*.

 

Naval defense is typically not necessary. If you get within gun range a carrier is in deep..., and has already compromised its primary mission*.

 

Anti-submarine defense is limited to the local area, the ability to effectively use some detection technology (e.g. long towed-array sonars) is compromised by the operational needs of the carrier, and carrying a sufficiency of anti-submarine assets compromises its primary mission*.

 

*the primary mission of a carrier is to provide a secure, mobile base for power projection.

 

You use frigates (ASW, naval defense), destroyers (air/missile/naval defense), submarines (ASW, naval defense, power projection) as a balanced task force/fleet with a carrier because it allows the carrier to concentrate on its task while these other assets concentrate on allowing it to do so. Having a flexible and balanced collection of assets allows you to effectively perform the various other day-to-day naval tasks (like hunting down pirates/illegal trawlers/drug smugglers/people smugglers, enforcing a blockade, SAR, etc.)

 

Carriers, missile submarines, and perhaps attack submarines (though they're fairly well combined these days), plus transports and light patrol craft (torpedo boats with effective marine forces for antipiracy, for example) are what our navy needs, not larger frigates and basically-unarmed destroyers.

 

You are falling into the 'coast defense navy' mindset - your carrier(s) would never be available for their primary task becaus you couldn't risk letting them beyond the reach of the short-range assets you are suggesting. It is really hard to chase down and board a suspected pirate vessel off Somalia with a submarine or an aircraft carrier, and you can't keep a torpedo boat on station for an extended period of time (even if it could get to the station).

 

The carriers in the Falklands were not all singing, all dancing modern fleet carriers. They were light escort carriers, and technology has advanced since then.

 

The US Navy still feels that the ancilliary and defense tasks are better performed by non-carrier assets, and they have bigger and more capable carriers than anybody.

 

Adrian

[Foulounoux]

Complete rubbish.

It isn't as easy as people with only 6 months experience think either.

Well glad to see we had a reasonable conversation!

 

And whilst I may only have 6 months in the MOD my views were similar to these with 30-40 yrs experience the 2 new carriers are white elephants.

Obviously we differ in opinions.

[skipepsi]

Within the RN there will be at least two strands of thought, submariners thinking one way and surface sailors another. The army and airforce will see the cost of the carriers as a drain on their budget and do their best to make sure they are never fully equipped . I may be wrong but I think the Nimitz class could embark as many planes as are left in the RAF. The carriers could easily be described as white elephants because they have no aircraft aboard until years after they are comissioed.

[Ohmisterporter]

Within the RN there will be at least two strands of thought, submariners thinking one way and surface sailors another.

 

Submariners think there are only two types of ship. Submarines and targets.

 

Geoff.