"Invincible" class Through-Deck Cruisers/Carriers

[Barn]

we wont - Our carrier group will generally be, depending on the threat:

• one/two type 23 (or type 26 in due course) frigate,
• one/two type 45 destroyer,
• one RFA tanker
• one (maybe - if we have any spare) SSN hanging about somewhere
• a couple of minesweepers if needed.

(AKA the entire Royal Navy )

A bigger, more multi national, fleet would be created for more intense combat operations.

If both carriers are at sea, and assuming normal levels of ships being alongside / undergoing refit etc, then that pretty much is the whole Royal Navy. Unsettling.

 

[Spamcan81]

Yes, but that's isn't the point: they didn't need a ski-jump or a flight deck either - they could "simply" take off and land vertically.

But that used an awful lot of fuel, and limited their payload. Hence they used the short flight deck and the ski-jump. AND, if they could use it, they would have used a catapult, for the same reasons.

I do agree that it looks like they didn't, however. Spamcan81 seems 100% confident.

IIRC Sea Harriers were not designed to be catapult launched so to have added that capability after entering service would have required a lot of modification. Modification that wasn't necessary as they were quite capable of working in the V/STOL, even more so after the ski jump was invented.
Wouldn't say I'm 100% confident but in all the books I've read on the subject and talking to friends who were involved with the Harrier Force, I've never once heard catapult operations mentioned. Cue someone providing a link to prove me wrong.

 

[Spamcan81]

But its not all that great at air defence, or early warning, or providing close air support.

Back to the Falkands being the big example of this. Would Sheffield have been sunk if Ark Royal instead of Hermes was the Falkland flag ship flying supersonic FAA Phantoms shooting down the Super Etendards long before they got in Exocet range? Same with the bomb attacks on San Carlos, could they have ben detected if the FAA Gannets were about? Buccs flying under the radar at Port Stanley and hitting the garrison.

Before the Falklands the RN was going to be loose its capabilities as a blue water navy and become not much more than a force to patrol the GIUK gap.

The F-4 was an awesome bit of kit but the fact remains that the Harrier Force could launch and recover in heavier seas than could a conventional fixed wing aircraft. So as long as the weather played ball, your scenario would probably work but if the seas were a bit too rough then the F-4s couldn't have launched.

 

[najaB]

If both carriers are at sea, and assuming normal levels of ships being alongside / undergoing refit etc, then that pretty much is the whole Royal Navy. Unsettling.

In normal circumstances I wouldn't expect both carriers to be at sea - at least not both on on blue water assignments. I would expect one to be in port or home waters at any given time.

 

[DarloRich]

If both carriers are at sea, and assuming normal levels of ships being alongside / undergoing refit etc, then that pretty much is the whole Royal Navy. Unsettling.

I don't think both can be at sea at the same time due to refit cycles

 

[TheEdge]

If both carriers are at sea, and assuming normal levels of ships being alongside / undergoing refit etc, then that pretty much is the whole Royal Navy. Unsettling.

It sounds unsettling till you really think about what the real power of the Royal Navy is. Its not surface ships, its not HMS Queen Elizabeth or HMS Prince of Wales (seems like rumours that was to be renamed Ark Royal are dead :cry: ), its HMS Vanguard, Victorious, Valiant and Vengeance. Between them those four subs have more fleet power than any surface fleet the RN has ever had.

 

[DarloRich]

It sounds unsettling till you really think about what the real power of the Royal Navy is. Its not surface ships, its not HMS Queen Elizabeth or HMS Prince of Wales (seems like rumours that was to be renamed Ark Royal are dead :cry: ), its HMS Vanguard, Victorious, Valiant and Vengeance. Between them those four subs have more fleet power than any surface fleet the RN has ever had.

And are arguably less vulnerable

 

[Ploughman]

Unless somebody forgets to check how deep the water is.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-11605365

 

[fowler9]

Hi, I hope it's ok to ask a technical qn here on HM warships? (I have looked for a suitable military forum, but they all seem pretty dead.)

In the 1970-80s, Britain built three ships designed to take what became Sea Harriers. they were originally designated "through-deck cruisers' 'cos the Labour govt had deigned that aircraft carriers were non-u. By the time of Thatcher, and the Falklands conflict, it was politically safe to call them carriers

Qn: did these ships have steam catapults to assist Harriers to take off (as per previous 'classical' aircraft carriers) or did they merely rely on the Harrier jet engine thrust, plus the so-called 'ski-jump' developed as an after-thought, to get airborne?

I'm sure some in here know this for sure. TIA

Apologies as I have not read the rest of the thread. HMS Ark Royal (The one decommissioned in 1979 was the last Navy carrier with cats and traps). The catapult launch system, unless I am much mistaken, used bridles hooked on to the wing roots rather than a bar on the nose wheel.

 

[fowler9]

Yes, but that's isn't the point: they didn't need a ski-jump or a flight deck either - they could "simply" take off and land vertically.

But that used an awful lot of fuel, and limited their payload. Hence they used the short flight deck and the ski-jump. AND, if they could use it, they would have used a catapult, for the same reasons.

I do agree that it looks like they didn't, however. Spamcan81 seems 100% confident.

The Harriers couldn't take off vertically with any useful weapon or fuel load without the ski jump.

 

[fowler9]

I meant more in the "can we fit that to our carriers" sort of way

We could but it would cost a fortune to fit and then buy aircraft that would use it.

 

[fowler9]

perhaps not close air support or air defense but early warning ( of sorts) is one of the tasks the SSN undertakes. It was pioneered in the Falklands and consists of observance and/ or interception of ELINT and immediate transmission to the fleet of air raid warnings and numbers of aircraft involved.




Would that the RN were allowed to sink the Veinticinco de Mayo when one of the SSN's was on its trail and was in position to fire. The loss of the air wing would have had serious repercussions for the Argentine ability to fire its Exocet. Unless I am massively mistaken not one bomb dropped on the British task force came from a Skyhawk off their aircraft carrier. In fact we were really lucky that their Navy never really bothered coming out of port during the whole conflict.



But that is where the battle would have been.

The US/UK SNN (and SSK) fleet would have attacked and thinned out Russian numbers closer to Russia (and would have taken losses doing so) but any Russian attack submarines that got away ( and some would have due to numbers) were to be identified by SOSUS/Nimrod and attacked by ASW ships in the GIUK gap in the hope the sea route from the USA could be held open to reinforce Europe and stop a soviet attack.

that or we used the other type of submarine............

( tactics did change later on when the US decided that getting their carriers up to the north of Norway would allow them to take on the Russian maritime attack aircraft ( and submarines) closer to home and hopefully knock them out of the war early. Was any of this actually sensible?)

Sorry mate but that is incorrect about the Veinticinco De Mayo. They tried to launch one load of A-4 Skyhawks off it but the weather was too bad and they couldn't get off. The ship spent the rest of the Falklands conflict in port. The Super Etendards that the Exocets where launched from all came from land bases as did all the other aircraft dropping dumb bombs.

 

[fowler9]

And are arguably less vulnerable

And arguably useless unless you want to bring about the end of the world.

 

[najaB]

And arguably useless unless you want to bring about the end of the world.

Are they not equipped with VLS equipment to allow the use of cruise missiles?

Edit: Did some Googling and it seems not. We should get some for the normally empty launch tubes.

 

[ainsworth74]

Are they not equipped with VLS equipment to allow the use of cruise missiles?

Edit: Did some Googling and it seems not. We should get some for the normally empty launch tubes.

Why on earth would you want to do that?! The whole point of an SSBN is to vanish into the deep blue not give anyone an idea of its location by shooting off a barrage of cruise missiles! Let alone wandering around the Mediterranean Sea or Indian Ocean! The US Navy gets away with it because they converted four of their eighteen Ohio class SSBNs but still left themselves with fourteen pure SSBNs. Not even the Russians mix SSBN/SSGN roles and they love sticking missiles on anything that moves.

 

[najaB]

Why on earth would you want to do that?! The whole point of an SSBN is to vanish into the deep blue not give anyone an idea of its location by shooting off a barrage of cruise missiles!

By the time anyone has a chance to figure out where the missiles came from you won't be there any more. Though I accept your point that it's probably better to not mix roles.

 

[fowler9]

Are they not equipped with VLS equipment to allow the use of cruise missiles?

Edit: Did some Googling and it seems not. We should get some for the normally empty launch tubes.

No they aren't. They are completely useless unless you want to end the world.

If you are carrying Submarine Launched Balistic Missiles why are you going to give your position away by launching a load of cruise missiles. They really are a totally pointless doomsday weapon. If you are using them you are screwed.

 

[TheEdge]

If you are carrying Submarine Launched Balistic Missiles why are you going to give your position away by launching a load of cruise missiles. They really are a totally pointless doomsday weapon. If you are using them you are screwed.

Which is the paradoxical point of a deterrent. If you ever use it its all gone wrong, but they work as that deterrent.

 

[DarloRich]

Sorry mate but that is incorrect about the Veinticinco De Mayo. They tried to launch one load of A-4 Skyhawks off it but the weather was too bad and they couldn't get off. The ship spent the rest of the Falklands conflict in port. The Super Etendards that the Exocets where launched from all came from land bases as did all the other aircraft dropping dumb bombs.

Apologies - you are quite correct. I got my aircraft mixed up. That bad weather may well have saved the aircraft carrier.

BTW there is some interesting information in Peter Hennsesy & James Jinks excellent history of the RN submarine service which indicates that the RN were in a position to sink the Veinticinco De Mayo but were denied permission to do so as the cabinet refused to change the rules of engagement on the advice of the attorney general and foreign secretary.

And arguably useless unless you want to bring about the end of the world.

but that's the point. They are so terrible that the existence of such weapons prevents their use. We probably wont ever fire them but it isnt certain that we wont and that small doubt creates the pause and a sober examination of the odds at times of crisis.

Are they not equipped with VLS equipment to allow the use of cruise missiles?

Edit: Did some Googling and it seems not. We should get some for the normally empty launch tubes.

By the time anyone has a chance to figure out where the missiles came from you won't be there any more. Though I accept your point that it's probably better to not mix roles.

but why? A Vangaurd class SSBN is designed to cruise about very slowly and quietly and remain hidden. There isnt much point asking it to do that and then ask it to fire of loads of conventional missiles making lots of noise and allowing the enemy to locate and monitor what should be a super secret vessel.

And you will still be in the vicinity because it wont take long to work out the rough launch area and then vastly narrow down the search area from the entire ocean to a very small ( comparatively speaking ) area in which to search

 

[najaB]

but why?

The (barely) thinking was that it's unlikely that the world political situation will go from zero to all out thermonuclear war in the space of a single cruise.

We've got four of them, three active at any point in time and any one is enough to end the world as we know it. So for 99.7% of the time (made up percentage) the silent and deep capability of two thirds of the fleet is going to waste.

 

[DarloRich]

The (barely) thinking was that it's unlikely that the world political situation will go from zero to all out thermonuclear war in the space of a single cruise.

We've got four of them, three active at any point in time and any one is enough to end the world as we know it. So for 99.7% of the time (made up percentage) the silent and deep capability of two thirds of the fleet is going to waste.

There is a continuous at sea deterrence patrol but even with 4 submarines that is hard to maintain.

Obviously one is always at sea, one is always in overhaul, one working up to replace the at sea vessel and one under going training after overhaul. There is no slack in the fleet and 5 submarines would be better but wont get signed off.

Perhaps the reason it's unlikely that the world political situation will go from zero to all out thermonuclear war in the space of a single cruise is so unlikely is because there is a continuous ( and hidden) at sea deterrent patrol.

 

[ainsworth74]

We've got four of them, three active at any point in time and any one is enough to end the world as we know it. So for 99.7% of the time (made up percentage) the silent and deep capability of two thirds of the fleet is going to waste.

But the whole point of having the 'spare' is to ensure that there is always one available on deterrent patrol. You can, just about, do it with three but to ensure 100% availability 100% of the time you need four. Taking one of the three active (and don't forget that these 'active' submarines may not be all that active i.e. preparing for a deployment rather than actually deployment ready) and using them on another mission detracts from the primary objective of the Vanguard submarines.

The US Navy had the capacity within their fleet of SSBNs to convert four of them to SSGNs but even they don't swing role the rest of their fleet (and neither does anyone else).

 

[fowler9]

The thing is our fantastic deterrent has not stopped Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Russia invading Crimea. None of those things that could rapidly escalate in to a proper sh*t storm have been prevented by our nuclear deterrent.

 

[ainsworth74]

Are you sure? Why do you think that Russia has fought a costly and lengthy shadow war in Ukraine rather than just outright invading and annexing eastern Ukraine (and more besides)? Could it be, in part, that to do so would make it very hard for the nuclear armed West to ignore?

Plus what do you think our deterrent is deterring? It isn't supposed to deter aggression by any old state against any other old state (nor is it supposed to deter non-state actors). It's supposed to deter another state from using nuclear weapons to coerce the UK and to deter another state from threatening the existence of the UK (either with nuclear weapons or via conventional invasion). Now, unless I've missed a trick, it's done a very good job of meeting those two requirements.

Going back to Ukraine and the Crimea do you think Russia would have de facto invaded eastern Ukraine and annexed Crimea if Ukraine had still had the nuclear weapons that it had after the break up of the USSR? I doubt it personally.

Looking at your other examples, Afghanistan didn't attack anyone last time I checked they were invaded by the West to root out Al-Qaeda and to depose the Taliban (and bring 'Freedom' and 'Democracy' to the people of Afghanistan). Rather than a failure of the deterrent that looks like a failure of politics.

Iraq: Effectively see above but swap Taliban for Ba'athists(plus it was unfinished business from round one of course).

Libya: Again who did they attack? No-one that I can recall. The West got itself into that one all on it's own and left a fine mess after it did so. Looks like another political failure to me.

Syria: See above just swap the names of the players around.

North Korea: Last I checked North Korea is bloviating and posturing but hasn't invaded or attacked anyone. Considering they have two nuclear armed states to their north and South Korea can be considered to be under the United States nuclear umbrella it seems to me that they're being deterred from taking precipitate action quite nicely.

I'm not sure how you can beat on the deterrent for failings that aren't actually anything to do with the deterrent?

 

[fowler9]

Are you sure? Why do you think that Russia has fought a costly and lengthy shadow war in Ukraine rather than just outright invading and annexing eastern Ukraine (and more besides)? Could it be, in part, that to do so would make it very hard for the nuclear armed West to ignore?

Plus what do you think our deterrent is deterring? It isn't supposed to deter aggression by any old state against any other old state (nor is it supposed to deter non-state actors). It's supposed to deter another state from using nuclear weapons to coerce the UK and to deter another state from threatening the existence of the UK (either with nuclear weapons or via conventional invasion). Now, unless I've missed a trick, it's done a very good job of meeting those two requirements.

Going back to Ukraine and the Crimea do you think Russia would have de facto invaded eastern Ukraine and annexed Crimea if Ukraine had still had the nuclear weapons that it had after the break up of the USSR? I doubt it personally.

Looking at your other examples, Afghanistan didn't attack anyone last time I checked they were invaded by the West to root out Al-Qaeda and to depose the Taliban (and bring 'Freedom' and 'Democracy' to the people of Afghanistan). Rather than a failure of the deterrent that looks like a failure of politics.

Iraq: Effectively see above but swap Taliban for Ba'athists(plus it was unfinished business from round one of course).

Libya: Again who did they attack? No-one that I can recall. The West got itself into that one all on it's own and left a fine mess after it did so. Looks like another political failure to me.

Syria: See above just swap the names of the players around.

North Korea: Last I checked North Korea is bloviating and posturing but hasn't invaded or attacked anyone. Considering they have two nuclear armed states to their north and South Korea can be considered to be under the United States nuclear umbrella it seems to me that they're being deterred from taking precipitate action quite nicely.

I'm not sure how you can beat on the deterrent for failings that aren't actually anything to do with the deterrent?

I take on board everything you have said but you can not prove that our nuclear weapons have prevented anything from happening. If the UK had no Nuclear weapons what do you think would have been different?

 

[ainsworth74]

I take on board everything you have said but you can not prove that our nuclear weapons have prevented anything from happening. If the UK had no Nuclear weapons what do you think would have been different?

Well I think there are two different strands here 1) Have nuclear weapons prevented anything? And 2) Would the UK not possessing them have changed anything.

For 1) I think the answer is unarguably yes they prevented World War Three during the Cold War. I think if we lived in some alternate timeline where, for whatever reason, nuclear weapons were not a thing then I have very little doubt that at some point NATO and the Warsaw Pact would have gone to war.

For 2), however, would anything have been different? Probably not. We are in the privileged position, by being in NATO, of enjoying not only our own nuclear deterrent but also the protection of the United States' nuclear deterrent.

 

[fowler9]

Well I think there are two different strands here 1) Have nuclear weapons prevented anything? And 2) Would the UK not possessing them have changed anything.

For 1) I think the answer is unarguably yes they prevented World War Three during the Cold War. I think if we lived in some alternate timeline where, for whatever reason, nuclear weapons were not a thing then I have very little doubt that at some point NATO and the Warsaw Pact would have gone to war.

For 2), however, would anything have been different? Probably not. We are in the privileged position, by being in NATO, of enjoying not only our own nuclear deterrent but also the protection of the United States' nuclear deterrent.

And yet despite having nuclear weapons we are currently sending troops to the Baltic states and sending Rivet Joint planes over Kaliningrad to monitor Russian responses.

 

[ainsworth74]

And yet despite having nuclear weapons we are currently sending troops to the Baltic states and sending Rivet Joint planes over Kaliningrad to monitor Russian responses.

And yet despite having nuclear weapons we maintained three divisions in West Germany. I'm not clear on your point? Unless you think that our only option in any crisis should be either to surrender or launch a nuclear attack?

 

[DarloRich]

I take on board everything you have said but you can not prove that our nuclear weapons have prevented anything from happening. If the UK had no Nuclear weapons what do you think would have been different?

but by the same token you can not say that having insurance for your house has stopped it burning down. I see the deterrent as exactly that: Insurance

In a world with only conventional weapons available (and I remove the B & C out of the NBC triumvirate) I feel war in Europe between NATO & Soviet forces would have occurred at some point during the period of the cold war.

 

[najaB]

but by the same token you can not say that having insurance for your house has stopped it burning down. I see the deterrent as exactly that: Insurance

It's more like sprinklers - they might not stop a fire but having them means that any fire is small and goes out quickly before it can do much damage.