Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
deja vue? its 1966 all over again!
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
What do the contributers think?
vf -
Message 2
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
Hi,
Best declare an interest first - until I retired about 18 months ago I had a minor role in a large UK owned international defence company (whose name should be obvious from that description!).
That, of course, does not qualify me to challenge the opinions of such a distinguished commentator.
The only thing I would wish to throw into the argument is to point out that there is some interdependence between the carrier project and the JSF. ie., no carrier, no (RN) version of JSF. The extent of this interdependence is beyond my knowlege to assess although I guess the British order share for JSF is small - and the RN's smaller.
If the UK defence budget is in trouble then I'd abandon the Trident replacement before the carrier project. -
Message 3
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
Well the FT, august publication that it is, is a financially orientated paper, not a defence one.
Not 1966, since in 1966 the RN lost the case for the CVA-01 due to several factors;
The RAF were hugely against, fearing TSR-2 would be axed (!), Now, if they want a F-35 version, they'll be supportive, while the final numbers of Typhoons is (as always) in question, unlike TSR-2 in 1966, it is in production and service (and could well go to Afghanistan later this year).
The threat as they see it, is not the same to the latest aircraft of theirs.
In 1966, there was not the cash (even still with some US aid then), to carry on with an 'East Of Suez' role and also up their game in the NATO area, against the Soviet fleet.
NATO's 'Flexible response' strategy also meant more conventional forces.
Today there is no such conflict, all the services are committed to an 'out of area' posture.
The RN needed more ASW frigates and even more so, more nuclear subs, both attack and the Polaris boats.
(But any Trident upgrade will be 5-10 years behind CVF, not like Polaris in the 60's, clashing with it.
CVA-01 was a lemon of a design, with a poor flightdeck layout, costly and un-needed luxuries (such as 3D radar and the Sea Dart SAM system)-the positioning of which was a danger to flt ops and very poor for firing arcs.
The manpower requirements were a major issue, designed before advances in martime propulsion, the proposed very high pressure boilers would be problematic and need a lot of manpower.
(The 1st Sea Lord admitted the RN would struggle to maintain just one CVA without affecting others parts of the fleet).
This was due to attempting too much on too small a vessel, when cancelled, the CVA's chief designer called it 'the happiest day of my life'.
Today, CVF is designed for by any standards, lower manpower, VSTOL is simpler, safer too.
The two year extension to CVF design, was a smart move, this is a very major project, much refinement has been done, this did not happen with CVA in the 1960's.
I'm afraid the reporting on defence/aerospace in the British media is very poor, not just the tabloids either.
I've seen this enough in my own work.
For instance, a similar article in The Times, attacking the new carrier programme, showed incredible ignorance, modern reporting I'm afraid, 'it's about a story'-facts, context, comes second.
Even the Falklands was cited as an example of no need for carriers-so how did the army to 'win the battle on the ground' get to the islands then? Who did the logistics and defence-including air cover?
Did Scotty from Star Trek beam the troops 8000 miles?
It really is that bad I'm afraid.
Ignore the general media in this area. -
Message 4
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
Non sequitor of the week:
Recovering the Falklands would have been impossible without them. But the Βscenario where carriers are essential is still narrow.Β
(From the FT article link in the OP.)
I'm afraid, 'it's about a story'-facts, context, comes second.Β (from Sonic)
Agreed.
If giving up some butter will give us the carriers AND the Trident upgrade, I'm all for marge.
There's too much obesity anyhow. And there are some real threats over the horizon. -
Message 5
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
Problem is, as with all British contracts. It seems to be a case of think of a number, sign the contract then say "Did we say one billion? We meant two, but really mean three." (Or was it four) For what we have been quoted for two medium carriers, we could buy to U S carriers off the stocks, and get change. It is time a number of things happened. (1) A figure given is set in stone. (2) A date given is set in stone. (3) The Treasury is told to keep their noses out. They are the biggest problem (After the companies) The try and push back delivery to keep the costs down, but all that happens, is the price goes up.
-
Message 6
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
The RAF were hugely against, fearing TSR-2 would be axed (!),Β
Anyone interested in TSR2 might like to take a peek at this site:
-
Message 7
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
Saw her fly in the 60s. There is still one at Duxford.
-
Message 8
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
Another thing to consider, CVF is at a more advanced stage now, than CVA was at time of it's cancellation in 1966.
Including the ordering of the longer lead items.
Much of the work for CVF, will be in Scotland, guess whose constituancy will benefit directly?
There is no doubt that the RN is squeezed between more obvious and urgent priorities and having to carry the load for CVF.
But, CVF makes credible their whole modus operandi, indeed, one area where the RN has had a lot more capability added recently, is the amphibious warfare vessels.
That one day might need a carrier escort for an operation.
The RN should really get 8 not 6 Type 45 Destroyers, however, for context, both the French and Italian fleets are only getting two each of their equivalent.
(And the reason why the UK left the original Franco/Italian project for these ships is that the RN wanted much more capability in the AD role).
But the addition of large carriers into the RN, for this expeditionary role, will mean a structure not unlike the other European large carrier navy.
The French have always had a smaller number of 'escorts', but a large group of corvette type ships for general patrolling, of the type not needing a complex Frigate or Destroyer.
So the C3 plan for the RN, proposes a large group-up to 18, of a corvette type, for this sort of role and as a large minesweeper.
You'd be looking at the small Frigate/Corvette with a rapid fire light gun-Bofors 57mm or OTO 76mm, light cannon, provision for a basic AD system-like RAM, anti ship missiles, a hangar for the new Super Lynx and some UAVs, the Fire Scout being an obvious choice.
And provision for a group of Royal Marines.
The Minesweeper version would only have the cannon as a weapon system, plus the chopper.
These would do the important but mundane stuff, West Indies guardship, anti piracy, training, though also good inshore for supporting the Amphibious Group too.
Thus releasing Type 45's, Type 23 and it's eventual replacement in smaller numbers-the 8 planned C2's, for escorting the main carrier/amphibious groups.
They would be cheaper to build, operate and man. -
Message 9
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
There is also the return to cold war tactics by the Russians as they step up their bomber activities. Backfires and Badgers are again playing a dangerous game with the RAF over the North Sea, with Putin pulling the strings.
It may be just sabre rattling or nationalistic rhetoric but the Russians are again using cold war tactics so that they can pretend to be the big boys on this block.
Unlike in the cold war Britain should point out the facts of life to the Russians, we should explain that any Russian bomber entering our airspace will be shot down, exactly the same action that the Russians themselves would take if any foreign bomber entered their airspace. -
Message 10
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
CVA01, as a design, suffered from one of the problems that affected the Dreadnoughts, particularly the Battlecruisers, in WWI. They approaches to, and the facilities at, Guz & Pompey meant that she couldn't be built big enough to fit all the desired features in.
Given a choice, I reckon the carriers will be used many times for many things in their lifetime. Trident replacement - on the current timescale - is a waste of money. Anyway, mass murder isn't the Royal Navy's job. -
Message 11
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
An intersting thing showing Government waste. 40 years ago this month, H M S Victorious had just finished a multi million pound refit, and was about to rejoin the fleet. Instead she went straight to the scrap heap. I remember Swiftsure going the same way. A multi million pound refit, ans just months before it was finished, the Government decided to scrap her. On of the newer Duke class went the other year rather than refit her.
-
Message 12
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
HMS Victorious, hugely modernised after it's WW2 service, was clearly a much loved ship.
She was retired early, but not by that much, since she was too small to carry Phantoms.
HMS Ark Royal's 'Phantomisation' re-fit was cut back to a basic affair.
Compared to the one done to HMS Eagle, this had re-furbished machinary, an impressive radar fit, sonar, modernised defences.
So the Ark struggled on with clapped out engines, while HMS Eagle only needed a small re-fit to take F-4's.
Eagle also was in better condition generally, she could have served until the early 80's.
But the die was cast, the RN post 'East Of Suez', would be a largely Atlantic ASW force, with a role on the NATO flanks in amphibious warfare too.
Where the capitol ships were submarines.
I would argue that the RN's determination to get the F-4, great aircraft that it was, harmed the carrier force.
Since only Ark Royal and Eagle could (just) operate it, new carriers would have to be very large.
Now, if the swing wing BAC 583 had been picked, it would have been a different matter.
(Despite their size, the Buccaneers were designed from the start to operate from the smaller RN ships). -
Message 13
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
But, why spend millions on a refit, then scrap her??? Seemd as if its a case of left hand not telling the right. She must have been to small before refit. Didn't Centuar go the same way. Big refit, small fire. Oops scrap her.
-
Message 14
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 29th February 2008
Victorious would have made a reasonable running mate for Hermes (she was bigger than Hermes), one in service, one in reserve / refit, operating Vixens, or shortly thereafter Harriers, plus AS helos and Gannets. Do the same with Eagle (needed extra heat shielding & a longer bow cat) and Park Royal. Pair off Albion & Rusty B, Fearless and Intrepid so that you have 1 Fleet(ish) carrier, 1 Light carrier, 1 LPH and an LPD. There were suspicions at the time that
a) Ships were scrapped to prevent the decision to withdraw from East of Suez being reversed by a later government.
b) Devonport has 3 marginal seats around it. Park Royal would provide 2/3/4 years work for the maties, and people don't often vote for a party that has put them on the scrap heap.
c) The Crabs were fighting to keep their overseas bases. Taking over the air cover role from the carrieers strengthened their hand. Not relevant today, as the bases are more or less all gone now. -
Message 15
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 29th February 2008
Friend of mine, (Ex R N) served on both the Ark and Eagle. Tells me the U S navy opperated F14s the Ark, so the Navy could show it could be done, hoping to keep her.
-
Message 16
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Friday, 29th February 2008
looks like Deja Vu, all over again!
-
Message 17
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Saturday, 1st March 2008
After reading several different sources,its apparent that the RN on several occassions tried to refit older warships with more modern weapon systems,or adapt warships for roles that they had not been initially designed.Whilst I can appreciate the thinking behind this,it seems that in practice it turned out to be far more expensive that initially estimated and the actual capability gained not as proficient as hoped.
Take the "Tiger" class,an adapted design from the very outset(old design with new weapons fit),changed again towards the later part of their career to "helicopter"cruisers.It turned out to be far more expensive than estimated,and turned mediocre vessels into a hotchpotch one.
But why do it?In 1966 HMS Centaur was laid up,was only 14 years old and in reasonable nick.She could carry far more helicopters than the 2 finished cruisers(3 projected for conversion.HMS Lion's cancelled due to cost)and would be a more flexible unit.If they wanted to "upgrade" the "Tiger"class why not keep the guns but fit them with exocets and additional "seacats"?
Then you have HMS Victorious,for me one of the most beautiful RN vessels of the post war period.
But...surely it would have been better to construct a new carrier rather than take 7 years to refit an old one (and what a "pigs ear" they made of it,from an organisational point of view)
Lastly why on earth refit HMS Ark Royal,a ship which was in poor condition by the 70's when her "sister ship" HMS Eagle was in far better condition.
Ive got a feeling that in all cases the decisons were political,rather than allow funds for new construction the M.o.D tried to fob off the RN with refits and conversions.In the cases of the carriers,certainly in 1966,the word carrier had become a dirty word,which is why I suspect the "Tigers" were converted to carry helicopters rather than a recommissioned "Centaur".
The problem is though (for me) is that the RN could have had a more balanced fleet in the 70's and early 80's rather than a collection of of old crocks in poor material condition with mediocre capabilities.
Vf -
Message 18
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 1st March 2008
An interesting piece in this months Navy News. The R N have stated that the present gun fitted to all Destroyers/frigates is really to small for the duties required. Vickers are now looking at a navy version of the armies 155 mil. Which is slightly bigger than the old six inch in old money, carried by the last cruisers Tiger Blake, and indeed, Belfast.
-
Message 19
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Saturday, 1st March 2008
Indeed, BAE are doing a 155mm that can be adapted on to any vessel that now carries the current 4.5 incher.
Really, the sometimes odd decisions in the whole UK carrier saga in the 60's, were far from unique to the Navy or to the era.
Post war, it was always a conflict between a fast changing strategic environment, the long, hard recovery from WW2, inter service rows, trying to do too much with resources too thinly spread.
For the legacy carriers, save for Ark Royal and (almost) Eagle, running on the Sea Vixen was not an option.
A fine machine of the 1950's, but like too many others, it should have been in service some years before it actually was.
In those days, military aircraft service careers were rarely more than a decade, such was the pace of change.
But then the Vixen should also have been brought for the RAF back then, instead, diminishing resources were used on another design for the RAF, the inferior Javelin.
Result, they were still building subsonic Sea Vixens when the USN were getting F-4's.
(Same applies to launching what would become the TSR-2, great as it looked to be, when the Navy were ordering the Buccaneer).
The rationale for the big carriers was really the 'East Of Suez' presence, when that became economically and to a point politically untenable the RN failed to adapt fast enough.
Until they were forced to.
There was a rationale for some kind of fast jet, fixed wing naval force, even in the NATO orientated role, something new in the size range of HMS Hermes,
As it was, by subterfuge almost, the RN managed to shoehorn a minimum change Harrier version onto ships just designed for helicopters, the 'Invincible' class. -
Message 20
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Saturday, 1st March 2008
ooooo. ooooooo. big guns! please sir can we have one of those/
-
Message 21
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 3rd March 2008
The Vixen FAW2 - another botched update. There was a plan to fit the new version with a thinner wing, which would have taken it from "trans sonic" - i.e. could get supersonic in a shallow dive then ride the shockwave for a while - to at least Mach 1.3. The final decision - to fit the "pinion" tanks to increase the range. Cost the Vixen the ability to carry 1000 lb bombs (FAW 2 could carry 4 - 500 lbs, FAW 1 could carry that or 2 - 1000 lb). Plus the lack of a gun was a worry in the "confrontation" with Indonesia. Piston-engined aircraft are not good targets for heat-seeking moissilews, so they had to roll out the old 2" rocket packs. LOUSY AA system.
-
Message 22
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 3rd March 2008
B D. Please remember (As I keep telling my son) size is not everything.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.