Aircraft Carriers III


Timmymagic

New Member
Registered Member
There has to be jets on land for training and spares/under maintenance. If you move all the F35s to the carriers none will be left for training pilots.

Also they issued statements indicating interest to deploy a carrier on a long term basis in Middle East or Indo Pac. Whether that materializes is another question
Thats true, you'll never deploy your full force except in an emergency. The UK gave up some of its earlier production slots so that the USMC could have them....so its quid pro quo.

There have been no statements about deploying a carrier on a long term basis in the ME or Pacific. There have been statements about increased presence, but that doesn't mean a carrier....it will be an occasional visitor, nothing more.
 

Crang

Senior Member
Registered Member
Thats true, you'll never deploy your full force except in an emergency. The UK gave up some of its earlier production slots so that the USMC could have them....so its quid pro quo.

There have been no statements about deploying a carrier on a long term basis in the ME or Pacific. There have been statements about increased presence, but that doesn't mean a carrier....it will be an occasional visitor, nothing more.
I've read multiple articles indicating so. Here is one

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This significant deployment is also expected to foreshadow a permanent return by the UK to the Indo-Pacific, with long-term plans to permanently base one of the two Queen Elizabeth Class carriers in the region – this also opens the path for greater capability aggregation with the allies like Australia, Canada, Japan and the US expected to be invited to contribute to the escort and airpower capabilities.
 

Timmymagic

New Member
Registered Member
I've read multiple articles indicating so. Here is one

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This significant deployment is also expected to foreshadow a permanent return by the UK to the Indo-Pacific, with long-term plans to permanently base one of the two Queen Elizabeth Class carriers in the region – this also opens the path for greater capability aggregation with the allies like Australia, Canada, Japan and the US expected to be invited to contribute to the escort and airpower capabilities.
Yes those stories are complete nonsense...
 

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
Deploying only 1 of 2 carriers on a permanent basis to a remote region is a joke. The UK is already cutting funds to the military across the board, how are they going to afford to forward deploy a carrier and required escorts?

Not to mention their frigate fleet is a design 30 years old with only 13 of them.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
Deploying only 1 of 2 carriers on a permanent basis to a remote region is a joke.
I think it would help if you read all of the comments directly above you instead of jumping on one post. As Timmymagic pointed out, there is no plan to permanently deploy a carrier overseas to a "remote region" as you put it.

Crang is simply wrong. A few defence commentators have speculated that a carrier could be permanently based overseas, but there has been no official announcement that this is being planned or that the RN is "interested" in doing so. Lots of options are considered in the process of deciding what to do, but that's what any sensible organisation does.

Indeed most articles have pointed out it wouldn't be practical to permanently base a carrier overseas, at least in the Indo-Pacific, due to refit requirements.

What is possible is:

1. Having individual frigates and/or OPVs forward-deployed, as HMS Montrose has been in Bahrain; and
2. Having a carrier temporarily deploy overseas, whether every year or less frequently.

It looks like the first is being looked into, but the second is still speculation.

The UK is already cutting funds to the military across the board

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I accept sometimes people will miss the odd announcement, but given there were quite a few articles about the spending increase announced last year, I'm struggling to figure out how you missed this one.

This is a confirmed spending increase by the way, not just a vague promise.
Not to mention their frigate fleet is a design 30 years old with only 13 of them.
Again, do try to keep up to speed.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The size of the escort fleet will increase. Even putting aside the new Type 26, Type 31 and Type 32 frigates, the current Type 23 has been upgraded a number of times, not just with Sea Ceptor but also the Type 997 Artisan radar.

A ship's capabilities cannot be defined just by the shape of the hull.
 
Last edited:

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
I think it would help if you read all of the comments directly above you instead of jumping on one post. As Timmymagic pointed out, there is no plan to permanently deploy a carrier overseas to a "remote region" as you put it.

Crang is simply wrong. A few defence commentators have speculated that a carrier could be permanently based overseas, but there has been no official announcement that this is being planned or that the RN is "interested" in doing so. Lots of options are considered in the process of deciding what to do, but that's what any sensible organisation does.

Indeed most articles have pointed out it wouldn't be practical to permanently base a carrier overseas, at least in the Indo-Pacific, due to refit requirements.

What is possible is:

1. Having individual frigates and/or OPVs forward-deployed, as HMS Montrose has been in Bahrain; and
2. Having a carrier temporarily deploy overseas, whether every year or less frequently.

It looks like the first is being looked into, but the second is still speculation.



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I accept sometimes people will miss the odd announcement, but given there were quite a few articles about the spending increase announced last year, I'm struggling to figure out how you missed this one.

This is a confirmed spending increase by the way, not just a vague promise.

Again, do try to keep up to speed.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The size of the escort fleet will increase. Even putting aside the new Type 26, Type 31 and Type 32 frigates, the current Type 23 has been upgraded a number of times, not just with Sea Ceptor but also the Type 997 Artisan radar.

A ship's capabilities cannot be defined just by the shape of the hull.
Are you trolling or just stupid? We're talking about the current fleet, not some theoretical force deployment 10 years from now.

Maybe take a look at the source document where in between rosy plans for the future they announce cuts to current capabilites throughout the forces to make ends meet:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Mr T

Senior Member
Are you trolling or just stupid? We're talking about the current fleet, not some theoretical force deployment 10 years from now.
No, I think it's you that's trolling. You talked about budget cuts when last year there was a verified and significant increase announced.

You also completely ignored the points I made that there is no plan for a forward-deployed carrier, as well as the fact the current escort fleet has had some significant upgrades.

A theoretical force deployment in the future is the only thing we can be talking about, because there's no reason to believe it's coming soon.

they announce cuts to current capabilites throughout the forces to make ends meet

Oh no, I'm not letting you off that easily. You said:

"The UK is already cutting funds to the military across the board"

If you'd said cuts to capabilities in some areas, I might have agreed with you. But you specifically referred to funds "across the board", which is also referred to as the budget.

More importantly the Royal Navy - and it is the RN we're talking about - has largely got off scott free from the cuts in existing material. The oldest two Type 23s are being retired, but one of them was already effectively out of service. So there will be little change in available ships until the newest ones are launched.

The real concern was that ships with life left in them would be sold to another navy. This hasn't happened.
 

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
No, I think it's you that's trolling. You talked about budget cuts when last year there was a verified and significant increase announced.

You also completely ignored the points I made that there is no plan for a forward-deployed carrier, as well as the fact the current escort fleet has had some significant upgrades.

A theoretical force deployment in the future is the only thing we can be talking about, because there's no reason to believe it's coming soon.



Oh no, I'm not letting you off that easily. You said:

"The UK is already cutting funds to the military across the board"

If you'd said cuts to capabilities in some areas, I might have agreed with you. But you specifically referred to funds "across the board", which is also referred to as the budget.

More importantly the Royal Navy - and it is the RN we're talking about - has largely got off scott free from the cuts in existing material. The oldest two Type 23s are being retired, but one of them was already effectively out of service. So there will be little change in available ships until the newest ones are launched.

The real concern was that ships with life left in them would be sold to another navy. This hasn't happened.
Alright, funds going to operating forces instead of R&D and procurement are being cut. Doesn't change the fact that the Navy frigates are going to remain old and few for until new frigates begin entering service in the 2030s.

You want to talk about a theoretical deployment of theoretical ships 10 years in the future, fine. I want to talk about what a CV deployment would look like now, and the reasons why it probably won't happen.
 

Top