What's more effective? 2 x 65k ships with 36 jets each or 3 or 4 x 40k ships with 20 jets aboard? The larger number of smaller ships at least allows there to be 1 available at all times. In my opinion 4 Canberra class or 3 America class ships would have ultimately served Britain better than just 2 QEs if money and manpower could be found.
Hawker Harrier?
- Thread starter plenka
- Start date
The Canberra Class can carry a grand total of 18 helicopters (the Juan Carlos it is based on carries 11x AV-8b and 12x NH-90).
The America Class can carry 20x F-35 and 2x helicopters.
So neither is anywhere near the QE for aircraft capacity and will certainly be nowhere near our carriers for sortie generation. You can knock at least three or four F-35s off the America Class too - you need at least six helicopters (4x AEW Merlin, 2x Plane Guard) so at the very most you're probably looking at 12x F-35 on one of them in RN service.
USS America has a unit cost of $3.4bn (so costs pretty much the same as a QE for a massively degraded capability)...
Don't assume $1=£1
The Americas are cheaper than a QE but not by enough that you can get 3 for the price of 2 which is where you need to be for it to make sense.
First, i said initially that i don't have much else to add, but thinking of this Harrier FA3, it does still bring something to the table, being much cheaper, and able to be used from smaller ships compared to F-35B. Not everyone can afford, wants or will be allowed to buy F-35B, so a Harrier FA3 would have been an attractive option for smaller navies. Fitted with modern AESA radar, electronics, Meteor missiles etc. it would have been very capable within it's limits.
As to QE and comparison to other designs, as i am sure you are aware, they are planning to fly just 12 F-35B of it in "peacetime" despite being able to carry as many as 36, with a surge of 24, and this at some undetermined time in the future when the F-35B is actually useable and are delivered, if ever. So this is yet another example of waste right here, if you only want to fly only 12 to 24 planes of it anyway, why the hell not build the thing to the required size for that? The only sane moment in all this was the initial plan for a 30-40,000 ton ship back in the nineties- i am well aware that it was the americans who told the british what kind of ship THEY want and this is what the UK is building (as opposed to what is best and affordable for the country). Oh and to cost, as you are aware it kept creeping up continuously, the ships are not even finished yet, i bet they will end up at least 5 billion a pop, even more.
So yeah, Harrier FA3 and 40k ton QE looks like an increasingly logical and far cheaper solution.
As to QE and comparison to other designs, as i am sure you are aware, they are planning to fly just 12 F-35B of it in "peacetime" despite being able to carry as many as 36, with a surge of 24, and this at some undetermined time in the future when the F-35B is actually useable and are delivered, if ever. So this is yet another example of waste right here, if you only want to fly only 12 to 24 planes of it anyway, why the hell not build the thing to the required size for that? The only sane moment in all this was the initial plan for a 30-40,000 ton ship back in the nineties- i am well aware that it was the americans who told the british what kind of ship THEY want and this is what the UK is building (as opposed to what is best and affordable for the country). Oh and to cost, as you are aware it kept creeping up continuously, the ships are not even finished yet, i bet they will end up at least 5 billion a pop, even more.
So yeah, Harrier FA3 and 40k ton QE looks like an increasingly logical and far cheaper solution.
First question, what's the price tag for these "FA3's" and who would buy them (and what use are they?), second in regards to the numbers that are going to be deployed on the QE's that's more of a result of a the cost of the F 35's and b) the willingness of the UK to pay for them I thought more than any restriction. Third, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the QE's are going to be in service for what 35-50 years? Looking at what it's going to start with and declaring this is the sum of it's utility is just being silly. Fourth the idea that the US "told the UK" what to build? The UK/MOD/RN went through whole reams of what they wanted from a "cut and shut" on the I class (from memory), to your suggested size to what the QE's have ended up being, perhaps you might consider that it's been one of the most studied options since the 90's long before the QE's were built. As for cost for example you seem to ignoring one driver, which was the UK Government kept pushing out the construction schedule in order to move the costs on the Budget further to the right (ie better economic conditions and or a different Government having to find the money) not something that was a result of the QE's.
It's just like how the MOD is trying to dodge the costs of the 26's so ended up having to buy OPV's to make up the difference.
At a basic level VSTOL fighter and attack jets simply don't work.
Not for any useful purpose in a well funded military. I know this seems like a pretty blanket statement but hear me out. Originally the harrier was a designed as a light attack jet with the VSTOL capability allowing it to to operate far closer to the front line than traditional jets allowing a higher sortie rate. That was the theory.
In practice it never worked out like that. The promised sortie rates never materalised, not least becasue rough field capability was on the pipe-dream end of the scale of practicality during sustained operations. This left the Harrier as an aircraft without much of a role, but a lot of money had been spent on it and so it couldn't be scrapped. It ended up being used in much the same way as the far cheaper and more efficient Jaguar.
Had that been the end of it, VSTOL would probably have died in the 80s. However the Harrier found a new role in the Royal Navy's desperation. Deprived of actual carriers, and with no organic air defence for their new anti-submarine warfare 'though deck cruisers'. Harrier was an aircraft that though mostly inferior to conventional types could at least achieve comparable performance, and at the same time operate off of the Invincible class's tiny decks. Which would be more than enough to fight slow moving Bears over the North Sea.
Had the RN possessed proper carriers this role would have been unesscerry.. Having proved the concept it was then adopted by a series of minor navies who desired carrier capability on a budget. Not becasue they needed it, but mostly as a prestige project. The Soviets independently developed a similar arrangement for their Kiev class, again mostly out of cost considerations, and unlike the Harrier they never got it to work quite right. The downside was of course that the aircraft these carrier carried were outclassed agsint pretty much everything, and of limited utility in many roles.
Again had this been the end of it VSTOL might have died at the end of the cold war when the need for budget carriers ended, and the prestige projects wore out.
Two things changed that, the Falklands War, and the United States Marine Corps.
During the Falklands war, harriers engaged conventional multirole aircraft in a set of almost unique conditions that conspired to give them even footing or even an advantage agsint their adversaries. Their performance in this conflict made people believe that VSTOL was a viable concept, ignoring the circumstances under which that performance occurred. (Sadly this is not a new phenomenon, see armoured cruisers at Tsushima).
The USMC are perhaps the greatest driving force behind the VSTOL movement. And ironically they pursued it for much the same reason as the Spanish, Italian and Thai navies. Prestige. The corps had long desired its, own carriers, so that it could be further untethered from requiring the support of the United States Navy. Knowing that realistically they would never be able to swing a full super carrier, or even a medium one operating conventional jets. The plucky little harrier operating from the tiny euro carriers seemed to the perfect solution. One they could easily operate from their massive new helicopter landing platforms.
Armoured in success, and powered by the funding that only a part of the United States military could muster, VSTOL was now here to stay. Despite having no real role that other aircraft and platforms could not fulfill better, and more effectively.
The reason Harrier was not further upgraded, and instead replaced with F-35, was because this was always the plan. As far back as the late 80s, in the era of big joint multinational defence procurement programs. the British and Americans decided to co-operate on a joint replacement for Harrier. At around the same time another much larger joint program was launched to produce the next generation NATO light fighter to supersede the F-16. This might have gone well if not for the USMC's greed.
They were not content with merely replacing the Harrier with an aircraft that was incrementally better. They wanted conventional performance on a VSTOL platform, so that the Gator navy could have true carriers. But that would have been tremendously expensive, and so they had to find someway to get the funds. They did it by fusing their VSTOL attack aircraft with the Light fighter replacement, with the a big dollop of the new hotness, stealth.
And thus the JSF was born.
Upon which a great majority of the Western world's future air power was invested. By the time people began to realize that this wasn't going to be cheap or effective it was far too late. Harrier production had long been abandoned, and there was no alternative.
One day someone will write a book on all this. And it will be titled "How the USMC destroyed Western Airpower".
Not for any useful purpose in a well funded military. I know this seems like a pretty blanket statement but hear me out. Originally the harrier was a designed as a light attack jet with the VSTOL capability allowing it to to operate far closer to the front line than traditional jets allowing a higher sortie rate. That was the theory.
In practice it never worked out like that. The promised sortie rates never materalised, not least becasue rough field capability was on the pipe-dream end of the scale of practicality during sustained operations. This left the Harrier as an aircraft without much of a role, but a lot of money had been spent on it and so it couldn't be scrapped. It ended up being used in much the same way as the far cheaper and more efficient Jaguar.
Had that been the end of it, VSTOL would probably have died in the 80s. However the Harrier found a new role in the Royal Navy's desperation. Deprived of actual carriers, and with no organic air defence for their new anti-submarine warfare 'though deck cruisers'. Harrier was an aircraft that though mostly inferior to conventional types could at least achieve comparable performance, and at the same time operate off of the Invincible class's tiny decks. Which would be more than enough to fight slow moving Bears over the North Sea.
Had the RN possessed proper carriers this role would have been unesscerry.. Having proved the concept it was then adopted by a series of minor navies who desired carrier capability on a budget. Not becasue they needed it, but mostly as a prestige project. The Soviets independently developed a similar arrangement for their Kiev class, again mostly out of cost considerations, and unlike the Harrier they never got it to work quite right. The downside was of course that the aircraft these carrier carried were outclassed agsint pretty much everything, and of limited utility in many roles.
Again had this been the end of it VSTOL might have died at the end of the cold war when the need for budget carriers ended, and the prestige projects wore out.
Two things changed that, the Falklands War, and the United States Marine Corps.
During the Falklands war, harriers engaged conventional multirole aircraft in a set of almost unique conditions that conspired to give them even footing or even an advantage agsint their adversaries. Their performance in this conflict made people believe that VSTOL was a viable concept, ignoring the circumstances under which that performance occurred. (Sadly this is not a new phenomenon, see armoured cruisers at Tsushima).
The USMC are perhaps the greatest driving force behind the VSTOL movement. And ironically they pursued it for much the same reason as the Spanish, Italian and Thai navies. Prestige. The corps had long desired its, own carriers, so that it could be further untethered from requiring the support of the United States Navy. Knowing that realistically they would never be able to swing a full super carrier, or even a medium one operating conventional jets. The plucky little harrier operating from the tiny euro carriers seemed to the perfect solution. One they could easily operate from their massive new helicopter landing platforms.
Armoured in success, and powered by the funding that only a part of the United States military could muster, VSTOL was now here to stay. Despite having no real role that other aircraft and platforms could not fulfill better, and more effectively.
The reason Harrier was not further upgraded, and instead replaced with F-35, was because this was always the plan. As far back as the late 80s, in the era of big joint multinational defence procurement programs. the British and Americans decided to co-operate on a joint replacement for Harrier. At around the same time another much larger joint program was launched to produce the next generation NATO light fighter to supersede the F-16. This might have gone well if not for the USMC's greed.
They were not content with merely replacing the Harrier with an aircraft that was incrementally better. They wanted conventional performance on a VSTOL platform, so that the Gator navy could have true carriers. But that would have been tremendously expensive, and so they had to find someway to get the funds. They did it by fusing their VSTOL attack aircraft with the Light fighter replacement, with the a big dollop of the new hotness, stealth.
And thus the JSF was born.
Upon which a great majority of the Western world's future air power was invested. By the time people began to realize that this wasn't going to be cheap or effective it was far too late. Harrier production had long been abandoned, and there was no alternative.
One day someone will write a book on all this. And it will be titled "How the USMC destroyed Western Airpower".
Riain
Banned
The best that the British could hope for, assuming the early adoption of the 23,800lb thrust pegasus for the FA2 and GR5/7 in the 80s, is to match the other operators by having their FA2/GR fleets viable until 2020 rather than facing the choice of either spending massive money or retirement in 2006 and 2010. There is no way any Harrier development is an alternative to the F35 for a first rate military.
Just as a matter of interest the F35 has reached IOC and is rumoured to have been used in action by Israel. The RN has continually had over a dozen pilots on exchange with the USN since the Harriers were retired so could stand up a squadron rapidly if required.
Just as a matter of interest the F35 has reached IOC and is rumoured to have been used in action by Israel. The RN has continually had over a dozen pilots on exchange with the USN since the Harriers were retired so could stand up a squadron rapidly if required.
It economical but its a false economy
If the Uk had had a single CATOBAR flat top running Phantom, Buccaneer and an AEW platform in 1982 then most British people today would not have a clue where the Falkland islands can be found as the Argentine Junta 'through the looking glass crazy' they might have been are not taking on a carrier full of Phantoms.
If the RN learnt sorry re-learned something in 1982 its that Pocket CVs might be 'cheap' and good for providing ASW and local defence for a convoy but they are woeful at trying to be a proper carrier - ultimately what it learned over the last 60 years is that the carrier game is expensive but not having them when you need them is worse.
Also regarding your comment "i am well aware that it was the americans who told the british what kind of ship THEY want and this is what the UK is building (as opposed to what is best and affordable for the country)" - looks like something you might have read on a conspiracy website
Conspiracy website? Didn't thought wikipedia qualified as a conspiracy website, but there we are...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier
Can you point out the bit that supports your assertion that the 'Americans' are telling the 'British' what carriers to build because nothing you have presented says that - only that Admiral Sir Alan West's 'oppo' in the US agreed that the RN having them was a good idea.
The then First Sea Lord (Sir Alan West) as the last Captain of HMS Ardent - knows first hand the cost of relying on 'Pocket Carriers' and substandard air cover in a conflict vs Land Based Air (sounds familiar doesn't?) - so he definitely thinks its a really good idea to have 2 proper carriers.
Disagree. The Argentinians invaded the Falklands because they thought the British wouldn't fight for them, not because they thought they could beat the RN and FAA. For that reason it doesn't matter what hardware the RN has, if the Argentinians believe the political will to use it isn't there they'll come to the same conclusion.
Archibald
Banned
The fact is that the British carriers just never made a lot of sense to me. Buil a ship that big (as a freakkin' Forrestall) and don't put catapults on it, plus CATOBAR aircrafts ? only helicopters, F-35B and Ospreys ? really ? Worse part is that the ship once had catapults, and then they were removed, with the insurance "Oh well, we can get them back if needed."
Don't you dare mocking the Charles de Gaulle after that.
Had the French Navy bought a PA2 there would have been no such hesitations. Catapults, Rafale, Hawkeyes, and SEM from day one. Not only because of Rafale or Charles de Gaulle, but because in French Navy opinion, a valuable carrier must have catapults and CATOBAR non-compromised aircrafts.
Don't you dare mocking the Charles de Gaulle after that.
Had the French Navy bought a PA2 there would have been no such hesitations. Catapults, Rafale, Hawkeyes, and SEM from day one. Not only because of Rafale or Charles de Gaulle, but because in French Navy opinion, a valuable carrier must have catapults and CATOBAR non-compromised aircrafts.
Riain
Banned
A conclusion the British had already reached back in 1981 when they started adding an aircraft to the 5 plane Sea Harrier squadrons, and certainly cemented it when they removed the Sea Dart from the Invincibles and made its magazine into a bomb magazine and increased deck park to have up to 17 Harriers. These calculations are easy to make and the US agreed with the conclusions the RN was coming to and offered a scenario for their use in a coalition situation which had been used all the way back in Korea; the whole 'The US made them do it' is an overblown trope.
The fact is that the British carriers just never made a lot of sense to me. Buil a ship that big (as a freakkin' Forrestall) and don't put catapults on it, plus CATOBAR aircrafts ? only helicopters, F-35B and Ospreys ? really ? Worse part is that the ship once had catapults, and then they were removed, with the insurance "Oh well, we can get them back if needed."
Don't you dare mocking the Charles de Gaulle after that.
Had the French Navy bought a PA2 there would have been no such hesitations. Catapults, Rafale, Hawkeyes, and SEM from day one. Not only because of Rafale or Charles de Gaulle, but because in French Navy opinion, a valuable carrier must have catapults and CATOBAR non-compromised aircrafts.
That's true enough if purely military factors were even close to being the most important thing in deciding what gear is built/bought, if they were most militaries would be equipped with sticks with a nail in the end because of factors like cost/budgeting, competing calls on political efforts and the like. I've seen the same thing with stuff like roads and railway projects, they get built to a lower standard than is required because to go the gold-plated solution means they won't get built at all.
Admiral Beez
Banned
Well said, the RN's size and capability should have been a sufficient deterent, had the will to use it been discerned by Argentina.
In addition to SHAR, Britain had two active carriers (Hermes, Invincible), two building (Illustrious, Ark Royal) and one in reserve (Bulwark) and sizable amphibious warfare assets, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Royal_Navy_Vessels_in_1982
This is not some rotting, neglected navy that would have been ignored.
Last edited:
Absolutely - but why did they think that the British would not fight?
One of the Big signals (among several) that Britain unwittingly sent at the time was the Scrapping of HMS Ark Royal without replacement - the planned removal of HMS Endurance (penny pinching taken to the ffing extreme) and the planned sale of HMS Invincible to Australia along with the Mandarins of whitehall (particulalrly the FO) knowing what's best and constantly trying to rid themselves of the Falklands by trying to make deals with the Argentine Government effectively behind the elected government of the days backs.
Thats why they thought that Britain would not fight for the islands lots of 'signals' - another reason according to the Argentine Junta (based on the then US Secretary of State memoirs?? I think it was who tried to act as an intermediary) was Britain having a 'feeble woman' in charge (face palm) - and that Britian had not fought a war since WW2 (another face palm).
Britain maintaining a proper CV or 2 with Phantoms and Buccs send's a different sort of signal and its my belief that had Britain had such a carrier in 1982 then Argentina would not have invaded - because Britain having a carrier with a squadron of aircraft that can totally dominate their air force is political will writ large in its own right.
The fact is that the British carriers just never made a lot of sense to me. Buil a ship that big (as a freakkin' Forrestall) and don't put catapults on it, plus CATOBAR aircrafts ? only helicopters, F-35B and Ospreys ? really ? Worse part is that the ship once had catapults, and then they were removed, with the insurance "Oh well, we can get them back if needed."
Don't you dare mocking the Charles de Gaulle after that.
Had the French Navy bought a PA2 there would have been no such hesitations. Catapults, Rafale, Hawkeyes, and SEM from day one. Not only because of Rafale or Charles de Gaulle, but because in French Navy opinion, a valuable carrier must have catapults and CATOBAR non-compromised aircrafts.
I unreservedly reserve the right to Mock the CdG - probably after HMS QE is commissioned - but not before......
Admiral Beez
Banned
Hermes and Invincible were proper carriers, equal or greater in capability to Argentina's catobar ship (granted had they figured out how to operate Super Etendards from their carrier it would have been a close match) . SHAR scored 20 kills for zero losses, what more do we want?
https://theaviationist.com/2012/05/...in-the-falklands-to-be-replaced-by-the-f-35b/
Argentinas CATOBAR ship was a modernized WW2 light carrier the Invincibles were commissioned in 1980. A better comparison would be the Invincible versus a French Clemenceau class which I would put my money on the French.
Riain
Banned
I want close to the maximum capabilities that the money spent on RN carrier aircraft and aircraft carriers between 1966 and 1982 can buy. Anything less is a failure on multiple levels.
In particular I want the money spent on the Ark royal rebuild, invincible and illustrious to be spent on CVA 01 & 02. The money spent on developing the sea harrier and building 28 and developing the aew2 sea sea king and converting 11 to the spent on the Phantom, buccaneer and Gannett aew fleets.