Brits Dump F-35B STOVL for Naval F-35C

tail end charlie said:

One suicide bomber in a midget sub could sink or disable a carrier.

Force projection is a political theory that seems to forget disasters like Suez, Germany gets on just fine without projecting force anywhere.

Click to expand...

Walking into a crowded market with explosives strapped to your torso under a raincoat is one thing, getting close to a carrier in a submersible is quite another; no unscheduled blip on a sonar is going to be waved off as nothing out of the ordinary.

Force projection is a military reality, some prosecute it better than others. I'm not sure what your point is about Germany - so does Belgium.

They're not our allies, they're very naughty boys

We can fly our fighters from Britain's carriers, say French

The Daily Telegraph 29 October 2010

By James Kirkup
in Brussels

French warplanes could be stationed on Britain's new aircraft carriers as the two nations' navies become interdependent, France's defence minister said yesterday.

Herve Morin told a European defence industry conference in Paris that French Rafale jets could fly from Britain's new Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. The prospect of French planes flying from British carriers is likely to increase the Royal Navy's anger over David Cameron's decision to scrap Harrier jump jets.

Plans for extensive Anglo-French military cooperation will be discussed by the Prime Minister and Nicolas Sarkozy next week in London. The government's SDR last week made cuts that will leave Britain without a fully functioning aircraft carrier until 2020.

The review also said that, in future, Britain would normally only fight wars alongside allies like France and the US. Britain's first QE-class carrier will enter service in 2016. Scrapping the Harriers means there will be no British combat jets able to fly from its deck until 2020, when the JSF is due delivery.

Trying to bridge that capability gap, ministers have said the new carriers would be redesigned to have catapults to launch aircraft which would allow them to carry planes like the Rafale. Mr Morin told the Euronaval conference "I've asked our military command to consider the feasibility of stationing British aircraft on our aircraft carrier and vice versa".

He added "The idea is an exchange of capacity and an interdependence. It's a new approach". The plan would give France a permanent presence at sea even when its single aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, was in dock for maintenance, he said.

The SDR cut Britain's surface fleet to only 19 ships and some analysts have questioned whether the RN will have enough vessels to support the new carriers. Mr Morin suggested that Britain and France could agree to deploy frigates to escort each other's aircraft carrier, effectively making up an Anglo-French naval unit.

Mr Cameron is painfully aware of the potential for political controversy over his defence plans. The Anglo-French summit was originally to be held in Portsmouth, home of the RN but then shifted to London after the SDR. Other cooperation plans to be discussed next week could include French spy planes flying over Britain and scanning the North Sea for Russian submarines.

France made the offer after the SDR announced the scrapping of the new Nimrod MRA4 for the RAF.

The two countries could also share refuelling aircraft while the British and French armies will hold a joint exercise in Flanders this year. The MoD said "The UK and France are facing the realities of the tough financial climate and it is in our best interests to work together to deliver the capabilities that both our nations need".

A Rafale fighter taking off from the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier. The French jets could operate from the UK's new Queen Elizabeth-class carrier.

Oh dear, the Mail will be fulminating over that for decades. Don't you know that we only finished fighting the Frogs 195 years ago? Never mind we have been allied to them more times than we fought against them! They are The Enemy!

Seriously though, why don't we buy Rafales if the new carrier is capable of flying them? Or would that be like admitting that they were right to pull out of Eurofighter? I personally think that French planes on British carriers is a better deal than American planes controlled by American commanders on British carriers, which was suggested as part of the F-35 deal, or American nukes under American control on British subs, which is what we have with Trident. So I'm all for it if it means we can actually use the carriers we've blown £5bn on...

Colin1 said:

Walking into a crowded market with explosives strapped to your torso under a raincoat is one thing, getting close to a carrier in a submersible is quite another; no unscheduled blip on a sonar is going to be waved off as nothing out of the ordinary.

Force projection is a military reality, some prosecute it better than others. I'm not sure what your point is about Germany - so does Belgium.

Click to expand...

Colin

Iran for example has acquired some very high speed boats. There have been successful attcks on battleships in the past using midget subs human torpedos, I doubt whether a small submarine or diver would make any sonar trace if it is near the sea bed.

My point about Germany could apply equally to Japan and many other countries. Belgium has always been neutral since it was founded basically as a buffer state, you dont have to "project" to get on with life.

BombTaxi said:

I personally think that French planes on British carriers is a better deal than American planes controlled by American commanders on British carriers, which was suggested as part of the F-35 deal, or American nukes under American control on British subs, which is what we have with Trident. So I'm all for it if it means we can actually use the carriers we've blown £5bn on...

Click to expand...

That's fact? I didn't know that. Or are you being facetious?

Matt308 said:

That's fact? I didn't know that. Or are you being facetious?

Click to expand...

Fact
We can't fire them without US permission. Outside of the vastly different threat profile it's now facing to the one it was designed for, it's largely why I don't think we need them, we might as well give them back to the people who CAN fire them.

'Tis true. We lease the weapons from the US and the US would have a definitive say on firing them. It was widely reported in certain parts of the UK press during the debate over Trident replacement.

Great minds think alike Colin...







And so do we

From BBC

BBC News - Q&A: Trident replacement

Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has stressed Trident's independence, saying its firing does not require the permission, the satellites or the codes of any other country (ie the United States).

However, critics argue that Britain is technically so dependent on the US that in effect Trident is not an independent system. For example, the British Trident missiles are serviced at a port in the state of Georgia and warhead components are also made in the US.

BombTaxi said:

Oh dear, the Mail will be fulminating over that for decades. Don't you know that we only finished fighting the Frogs 195 years ago? Never mind we have been allied to them more times than we fought against them! They are The Enemy!

Seriously though, why don't we buy Rafales if the new carrier is capable of flying them? Or would that be like admitting that they were right to pull out of Eurofighter? I personally think that French planes on British carriers is a better deal than American planes controlled by American commanders on British carriers, which was suggested as part of the F-35 deal, or American nukes under American control on British subs, which is what we have with Trident. So I'm all for it if it means we can actually use the carriers we've blown £5bn on...

Click to expand...

I agree, the design for the carriers was kicked off by Thales which is a French company, so what is the problem with french planes? At least, in the limit, france is in the same part of the world . If these things are to be used against pirates which are just people with sub machine guns in speed boats we are using the most expensive plane in history to counter a " weapons system" that can be bought for 2 thousand pounds/dollars.

Matt308 said:

From BBC

BBC News - Q&A: Trident replacement

Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has stressed Trident's independence, saying its firing does not require the permission, the satellites or the codes of any other country (ie the United States).

Click to expand...

This must be fantasy, the idea that anyone could fire a US designed nuclear weapon without them having a say is unrealistic. For those who remember French exocets being fired on the RN in the Falklands imagine a nuke being used.

Gordon Brown still believes he saved the world from a financial meltdown and that he brought an end to boom and bust


nuff politics

Shifting the debate slightly, Ive also read recently that the Poms are scrapping their Nimrod MR1 fleet, ahead of schedule, notwithstanding the bad delays being experienced with the MR2 replacement. In the meantime the Brits will make do Hercs and "merlin" choppers (what is a merlin chopper anyway?) in the ASW role. huh? Hercs in the ASW role?

parsifal said:

(what is a merlin chopper anyway?)

Click to expand...

Agusta-Westland Merlin
Probably lowers a sonobuoy in the water or something

Yeah they are going to use the existing Nimrods until Afghanistan violence ceases. That should make the Nimrod the longest serving aircraft in the history of mankind.

Ultimately they are purchasing RC-135 Rivet Joints as replacement.

Colin1 said:

Agusta-Westland Merlin
Probably lowers a sonobuoy in the water or something

Click to expand...

Thanks for the image....looks like a jazzed up Sea King. A very handsome looking chooper I guess, but hardly a replacement for the Nimrod

A bit unsure why the RN is choosing an aircraft in the first place, as this article states the carriers will not only not carry aircraft, but will be sold after only a few years.

Navy aircraft carrier will be sold after three years - and never carry jets - Telegraph

The co-operation between the RN and French navy reflects the dire economic realities of the present day, and two countries will have no other choice but to consider such a program. All of the major powers are facing huge military cutbacks, there is no denying it.

The real question then should be: given their harsh budgetary contraints, should countries simply mothball/deactivate large swaths of their respective militaries? Or should they find a way to downsize and yet still maintain a force powerful enough to ensure effective projection towards conflicts in the world and defend their mutual interests via co-operation? I don't think the present budget situation gives much room for anything else other than military co-operation of this order.

In other news, the CdG, after some sea trials to work out the kinks from recent repairs, is to be headed to the Suez canal in the next week. It will be accompanied by frigates Forbin (Horizon-class) and the olderTourville )Tourville-class), an un-named nuclear attack sub, and supply ship Meuse (Durance-class). They are destined for the Persian Gulf.

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=114408

Arsenal, the UK should question on why it needs a carrier at all. The times are a changing. Put your resources into frigates and destroyers that will be needed to help the USN.

syscom3 said:

Arsenal, the UK should question on why it needs a carrier at all. The times are a changing. Put your resources into frigates and destroyers that will be needed to help the USN.

Click to expand...

That is political dynamite, no comment.

Especially the "follow us" comment. Not sure that I as a free and proud country would advertise following anybody. Doing it via treaties and secret agreements is one thing, but the impression should be of independence to your enemies as well as your allies.

syscom3 said:

Arsenal, the UK should question on why it needs a carrier at all. The times are a changing. Put your resources into frigates and destroyers that will be needed to help the USN.

Click to expand...

Short answer - because there is little chance of quid pro quo. While the destroyers and frigates would be of use to the USN (interoperability and command/control issues aside), I don't see any chance of the USN providing one of its huge carriers to support the UK or France national agendas.