British military officials have developed a case of carrier envy, in the wake of France’s aircraft carrier Charles De Gaul taking a starring role in the operations to unseat Libya. As to be expected, the chief of the Royal Navy, First Sea Lord Adm. Sir Mark Stanhope, told British lawmakers how much the Royal Navy misses having an aircraft carrier:
From Defense News:
First Sea Lord Adm. Sir Mark Stanhope told the parliamentary defense committee that if Britain still had a carrier available, it would be deployed off the coast of Libya helping to enforce U.N. Resolution 1973.
Giving evidence alongside the heads of the Army and Air Force on the impact of last year’s defense review, Stanhope said that retaining HMS Ark Royal and its fleet of Harrier strike aircraft would have been his top priority if the government’s strategic defense review and associated four-year defense spending plan could be revisited.
As Stanhope went on to say, the Royal Navy is now faced with the task of rebuilding a fixed wing carrier strike force using the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter, a plane Britain isn’t expected to receive in serious numbers until the latter half of the decade. Those planes are slated to fly off the Queen Elizabeth class supercarriers that are slated to enter service around 2020.
The Royal Navy will then have to relearn catapult and arrestor gear carrier ops for the first time in nearly half a century (it used STOVL carriers from 1970s to 2011). Have fun with that. Yes, British JSF pilots will train on F-35Cs here in the states but still, rebuilding the ability to operate a jet-capable carrier air wing is going to take a little while.
Britain retired, HMS Ark Royal, its last remaining carrier to carrier fighters earlier this year in an effort to seriously trim defense spending. This has left the RN without a ship-borne strike fighter force for the first time since before World War II.
Click here if you’d like to buy Britain’s recently retired Ark Royal.
{ 58 comments… read them below or add one }
It's time these Navy chiefs (both past and present) started taking responsibility for their own mismanagement of these new aircraft carriers.
I've had enough of Lord West and his cronies taking chunks out of the present government for our shameful lack of carriers, when it was under their watch that it took 12 years just to start building them and then didn't build the right design.
Now we have missed, by mere months, the first opportunity in years to actually use these multi-billion pound machines making us look even more stupid.
Trust the navy to screw things up… great on nice, shiny decks. Crap at anything else.
Say, what is Argentina up to lately?
I was thinking the same thing.
Well, the female president has been making a lot of noises, similar to what the Argentine President/General Gaultieri did. And in both time periods, Argentina was in the economic doldrums. This time around, Argentina is likely to get more political, if not military support from Brazil. My guess is that the UK would just stick out that stiff upper lip this time around.
Give them one of our old carriers and let the get up to speed on catapult and arresting gear ops and their pilots would also have somewhere to train w/the F35c.
How about the Independence if she's still around? That would be quite ironic, I should say, yes, yes hip, hip cheerio and all that, guvna!
We are retiringt the USS Enterprise withing the next year or so. Let's give them a deal on that!
While the British have a long history with the name Enterprise–I don't think they would shell out the 2 plus billion dollars to overhaul and refuel Her.I think that if it was based on the name alone-which has a long and storied history-they would love to have Her.
After doing a quick Wikipiedia search (maybe not accurate) but CV-67 USS John F Kennedy is on "Donation Hold" according to the website, Was decommissioned in 2007 (4 years in the Ghost fleet).
How about Lend/ Lease or a prolonged rental agreement with the Britihs with this fine beauty? Hell, it's costing US taxpayers money to sit in storage while it starts it's rusting program…Rent it to the British for the cost of Storage? They have to bring it up to speed, but for that cost it would be a bargin. Nice big Flight deck with catapult and arrestor gear already in place…get a few more nautical miles under her belt before she does end up either as a Museum or the cutters torch…if anything, it would be off the US Taxpayers backs for storage… just a thought.
I hate mispellings that show up when you hit "Send"
British…not Britihs..
My bad!
Or the Kitty Hawk which went into the reserve fleet in 2009
I don't think they can afford to opperate, not that I don't want them to. If they can't afford to fuel the challenger 2, how are thy going to fuel and feed the 5000 man crew of the kitty hawk? Do they have enough personal to crew either of these american ships? What was the reasoning behind decommissioning them in the first place? I read somewhere today that get this 3 British pilots are in the US training on f-18 and they plan to add a 4th. They don't seem to have many pilots.
I'm just saying.
I could not agree with you more. The problem is your solution is it makes to much
since for Washington to act on it.
JFK was retired early because her material condition deteriorated to the point where it would cost more than she was worth to repair and return her to flight operation condition. She was run too hard and with not enough even basic maintenance.
From Dave. I have to agree with the person who mentioned the USS John F. Kennedy, or the old USS Kittyhawk. The RN is the second largest Navy in the free world. Therefore they need at least three carriers.I still remember the big three RN carriers. The HMS Ark Royal(RO-9), the HMS Eagle, and the HMS Victorious. Had the British Government taken the time and money to renovate these carriers the RN would not be in the fix it is in right now, and it would have cost less to do so rather the build the newer ski jump carriers. Now don,t get me wrong. The harrier is a very good plane, but you need something more than just the harriers. We should either sell or lease the JFK and the Kittyhawk, and another old US carrier (if in service) to the RN. It would not take long to train the RN pilots to land and take off from these steam catapult carriers. And besides the carriers are a very very vital part of a large Navy, and we need to work together protecting the free world. That is not an easy task with no aircraft carriers.
the irony is of course heightened by the fact that the modern flat-top carrier was basically an all british invention in the first place; but then we do have a fine tradition of inventing really useful things and then giving up on them before we've really reaped the benefits.
You cant say that about tanks though. The Challenger 2 is one of the best tanks in the world.
Havent you read the recent effects of the SDSR? There will be fewer than 150 Challenger 2 tanks left in the British Army soon.
The British Royal Navy can try modifying their existing carrier for catapult launch before doing what the US Navy has been doing and simply buy FA-18E/F Super Hornets until the F-35C become available.
I'm assuming it would take a couple of yrs. for a ship like the Ranger to be brought back to active duty status and by then the F35s will start to be delivered.Then the Brits will have 4-6 yrs with a full size carrier till the new Queen Elisabeth class carriers enter duty
the royal navy now has NO carriers; they've both been decomissioned, and one's already at the scrap yard.
Also, the invincible class carriers were too small to be converted to "cat & trap" operations
It's amazing how fast the Brits are able to send off their gear to get scrapped (before anyone can change their mind) yet it takes decades upon decades to acquire new stuff.
ah, but we british has some of the finest politicians in the world when it comes to bad decision making.
Just look at the TSR.2,the buccaneer and the lightning
hi guys – as i understood it we still have hms illustrius in service, but it has been 're-tasked' for helicopter only operations, in effect covering for hms ocean whilst it is in refit … as such, how difficult is it to convert back to a 'proper' harrier carrier? we still have the harriers in a warehouse somewhere i would hope, getting them back in service for a few years and halving the tornados makes more sense to me, and yes having harriers on the first QE class until the whole cats + jsf are ready (if ever!) …
The Kennedy is NOT a good idea. It would give us a bad name. The Kennedy was one of those ships that just always had accidents. New ideas and other things not tried on other ships we decided to try and didnt get right or other things.
Thats from people who lived on and operated her.
A good ship but not what they need. As was suggested the kitty hawk would be better.
Of course i've always wanted the Japanese to pitch in with the new Carrier classes we are building. The Japs NEED carriers. Screw the Chains put on em by that dick.
Borrow one of our carriers like Bill D says Kitty Hawk or some French carrier as Temp carrier?? or from Italy??? IE in surplus Reserve mode.
the french and italian navies only have 1 carrier each i believe, with europe in total having 3 for now following the decommission / retasking of illustrious – its a shambles really, we should be able to field at least 6 decent sized carriers between us.
If the British government wasn't so tight fisted about their military budget i would say that it would be fesible for them to get their hands on an retired American Aircraft Carrier. Only problem is, their expensive as heck to up keep. If I'm not mistaken, they wouldn't even have aircraft to use it. Kitty Hawk or JFK have a significate manning requirement, it would take years to build up a actual crew for one these ships.
I doubt British Lords could provail on the Parliment to spend that kind money on one those retired ships. They would likely face decisions; Buy a used 50 year old import who's cost may exceed their budget, Get the old ship, have enough money budgeted to build one of their new ones .
As painful as it is they may have to live with land base fighters. If their budget problems continue, they may have to give up dream of having two carriers.
Isn't one of them not going be able to mount catapult due to advance design/planning?
Robert,
1) Britain is broke, we have a defecit of over £3 Trillion, both government & personal, or in dollar terms $6 Trillion. We are cutting massive amounts of money out of all sectors of government spending. So we can't afford to operate big ships at the moment, in 5 years, yes, but only one at time.
2) The QE2 carriers were originally designed to carry the badly designed V/STOL version of the JSF, but it was decided to switch to F-35C which is marginally cheaper and better than the Bunter, but even so I still feel that Britain ought to cancel the F-35C & buy the French Rafele, which is both cheaper to buy and operate than all variants of the F-35 as well as a better all round fighter. If we had built the QE2 carrriers as CATOBAR's from day one, they would be come into service next year, as the carrier replacement programme was delayed for two years due to the delays in the F-35 programmen and cost an extra £600 million.
3) There are two types of catapults we can fit, Steam or Electromagnetic, it would better to buy the electromagentic system, but they are at least 3-5 years away from maturity, again delaying the programme.
Considering how rarely they operate independently of the United States, are we open to co-hosting an British strike contingent aboard an American carrier? Or an old LSD/LHD. Considering how often we will be doing coalition operations with the UK in the distant future, might as well make it a daily operating reality.
Great idea especially with them buying the F35s and needing to train on cats and traps–but I still think the better idea is get the Brits and maybe the Aussies to co-crew a American Carrier like the Kitty Hawk.The RAAF is flying Super Hornets–maybe between them they could crew a supercarrier and share the costs while sharing the responsibilities of patrolling the hot spots of the world with other Nato countries.Not saying they aren't doing their share–just saying they could get the experience they need and help with contentious areas.When the Brit Carriers finally enter active duty it should be a cake walk to transition to the new ship.Also maybe the American carrier will be needed and kept after it's all said and done.
This is a good idea, thinking outside the box as it were, and considering most future hot-spots will be in the near and far east, it makes sense. However I believe the Aussies would be on board with this idea long before the British, just can't see the UK even coming up with a half-contingent of a few thousand sailors that would be needed, even though this would give them useful training for once the Queen Elizabeth is commissioned. For the Aussies it is a prestige thing as well, and it would bolster the balance of power in the Pacific and beyond.
I suspect the real barrier to entry is the cost of operating a flat-top, and finding the sailors to man it; problems that Australia and the United Kingdom face seperately, and still might face together even if they joined forces.
The United States, OTOH, doesn't seem to have these issues, but it does mean you are pretty much going where America wants you to. Or at least it preserves institutional knowledge until the United Kingdom regains its own carriers.
Interesting thought there. The USN about 6 weeks ago laid up NASSAU (LHA 4) in a condition that would allow reactivation fairly quickly and I know from personal experience she is capable of handling 20+ Harriers plus a fair number of large helos. Being an LHA she could also land 1800 Marines with no problem. She doesn't have a "ski jump" ramp, but that doesn't stop us from operating AV-8s from LHA/LHDs routinely. Maybe the RN would be interested in leasing her until their first QE is ready.
Oh, and that rattle you hear are Nelson, Hood and Drake getting ready to heave themselves out of the ground.
I'm sure they're going to spin several times before they get out—lol
+ an Italian carrier on Libyan ops
I foresee the British doing what the French have been doing for years, do all their training for catapult launch and arrested recovery in the United States. The pilots will transition from the T-45 to the F-35C, going to the same schools as the US pilots, at least initially. Enlisted and Officer deck personnel will initially train in the US and then embark on US Carriers to gather experience. A couple hundred personnel is all we are talking about after all. Since the Queen Elizebeth calss will most probably be using the same launch and recovery gear as on the FORD, not seeing a real problem for them picking up the technique again. A bigger problem will be that the Fleet Air Arm will not have fixed wing aircraft for numerous years so will lose a lot of the experienced people who will be COs, XOx, and DHs when the F-35Cs arrive. maybe they plan to have some pilots fly with the RAF until they get their F-35s.
Actually, an Anglo-French Consortium is developing a rival system, which is both simpler and cheaper.
You forgot to add "claimed to be" before simpler & cheaper.
Wut wut? ;)
a few points:
- I agree that the RN shares some of the blame by chosing these really big carriers
- the West, and specifically the EU should stop thinking in terms of "our own carriers". they share air bases, why not carriers? training and even operations should be very easy, especially when the UK/Spain/Italy shared the Harrier, and France and the UK will share US training
- this will get worse with UCAVs making an intro: the X-47b is set to fly off a carrier at about the same time as the F-35c, and be available at about the same time, but with a lower cost, better range and equal or better stealth
with the F-35 problems, dropping order numbers and the USN leaking embarasing information, I'm hardly convinced the F-35c will actually come into existence
I imagine the US would be happy to sell the X-47b to major allies UK and France, both of whose carriers will have EML. no need for pilot training, and the same aircraft will be able to land, launch and be maintained on any of their carriers
or perhaps the UK and France will build a carrier capable UCAV, but that would take a long time
Sorry, call me a Luddite, but there is no way I would want a carrier based strike force of all UAV's. Ten plus years down the road once potential adversaries have become more net-centric minded in warfare, I believe UAV's will likely become a liability. We should never get rid of manned aircraft, supplement with UAV's, sure, but never take the pilot completely out of the loop.
The problem with sharing carriers is what happens when you want to use a carrier for an op that the nation you're sharing the carrier with doesn't? What then? Or what about if you need it for an urgent op but it's not your turn and it's currently being used elsewhere for something your carrier-mate feels is equally important to them?
I agree that F-35C will be cancelled, if the DOD/Congree wants to both reduce the cost of the F-35 progamme and Defence Overspend in general, it makes sense to cancel both the Carrier and the V/STOL variants and concentrate on getting the F-35A working.
Longer term, it will be wiser to get Boeing to speed up the development of the F/A-X in order to replace the F-18E/F/G & F-15C/E in service by 2025-30.
I do see a new carrier capable UCAV being brought into service to carry out the very limited F-35C role, it does make sense but not to replace the Super Hornet which is a far more capable aircraft.
As for Europe getting it's act together on ship building, don't hold your breath, there is far too much politcal correctness in the way. Just think, Britain, France, Italy and Spain have either designed or built new carriers in the last decade, all of them different designs, and yet we all have the same requirements.
"Charles de Gaulle (R 91)"
If you not familiar with french history,
what about checking on wiki before posting??
RIP Royal Navy, it is a sad fate that has befallen a once proud institution. Nothing against our NATO allies here, and lord knows the US needs to stop getting involved in non-stop military operations, but we are broke here as well, when will Europe step up and start contributing significantly to its own defense? Both the UK and Germany have slashed their forces to the bone (Anyone want Leo II's on the cheap?), and the other states are not in any better shape.
Now with the Royal Navy limited to area AAW (Daring), ASW and limited land strike role (Tomahawk), unless we are facing off against another surface or sub-surface force, the NATO allies (minus finicky France) really bring little to the table.
I like the idea of giving the JFK or KH to the UK, however Parliament is too tight arsed paying for their social programs to ever take defense seriously, which means no chance on hell on JFK or KH, and I even have my doubts that Queen Elizabeth and the F-35C's with ever make it into service (so long as the US is shouldering the load, Parliament will keep cutting defense to the bone).
The Royal Navy itself is partly to blame for this situation. They are obsessed with returning to big carrier operations when, if the truth be told, they aren't really needed for most of the operations which the UK is likely to carry out. The top brass have allowed the rest of the fleet to be decimated on the promise of "jam tomorrow". CVF should never have been approved and we should have gone for 3 x 30,000 ton LHD/CVH-type ships (similar to Juan Carlos/Canberra class), which would have been a much more realistic option. The UK has the 3rd largest global defence budget but makes very poor use of it.
Meister, I partially agree you, what we should have done is to have built 2 Mistral type ships instead of buying HMS Ocean, Albion and Bulwark back in the 1990's, and then built new Charles de Gaule class Strike Carriers, max tonnage of about 45,000 tonnes.
The French got it right, we got it wrong. Which is why we are now cooperating with them.
Albion and Bulwark were definitely a missed opportunity. I seem to remember that at one stage there was a proposal to build a "through deck" version, but the RN was lukewarm about this as they thought it would lead to the Invincible class not being replaced. A sister ship for HMS Ocean is another long- standing requirement that has never been fulfilled.
I personally don't think we need strike carriers at all. The Charles de Gaulle is regarded in France as a failure, and it has been openly stated that building her was actually a costly mistake. I think that it would be better for the UK to have an enlarged surface and submarine fleet based around the three LHD/CVH ships I mentioned earlier. These are (arguably, of course!) more relevant to UK security and more use in the majority of likely scenarios.
My understanding of the SDSR was that the "Queen Elizabeth" class will not be F-35C capable, only the Queen Elizabeth herself will be fitted with all of the necessary equipment, the Prince of Wales (the other ship of the class) will be completed with no plans for it to ever enter operational service. (When the SDSR was first released it was reported that the Prince of Wales was to be completed with full equipment with the QE not receiving it, but that was changed/clarified in later months).
There has been a Name change. POW will instead become a new HMS Ark Royal.
I think it is important to mention that Charles de Gaule is not the only aircraft carrier operating in support of Operation "Unified Protector". Italy deployed its Garibaldi carrier and is regularly flying its Harriers to support the bombing campaing.
"…rebuilding the ability to operate a jet-capable carrier air wing is going to take a little while."
I read such comments often, but I think they vastly overstate the case.
These skills were learnt within a few months by carrier crews during World War Two.
We are not talking months. WE are talking rebuilding the FAA from scratch.
I had to go back to previous statements, but I’m confused why Americans are for one, so concerned as to Britains ability to get trained pilots and use of the CATOBAR etc… For two, talking like you actually have some sort of political hold or power as to suggestions regarding any such activities. When looking at these matters and in particular comparisons between the US and UK,there is this complete inability by most to see that the economy of Britain is not only buggered as we all should know, but is no comparison to the US economy. Its stupid. USA is an economic and military powerhouse, its like making comparisons between the UK and Ukraine…. Pointless. Britain has had immense power and influence in the world, our culture and herit
age are second to non. Anyway… Before I loose myself, US is a huge power with a massive economy and a military to mirror this. For the uk to have 2 carriers like QE or. PW is quite something. Britain has always punched well above her weight and will continue to do so. What I’m getting at is, we’ve been around for 2,000 years without americans spouting the intricacies of CATOBAR workings…. I don’t want to come across arrogant or even rude, but all this talk about America being the be all and end all of carriers and catapult and arrestor systems is just nonsense. I wonder what the world did for the 10,000 years of recorded history before Britains biggest accident and spoilt child broke off to form the biggest spoilt teenager of a nation with a huge superiority complex and itchy trigger finger, to then go marching over the world, procuring every possible natural resource quietly, and then have the bollocks not to call it an empire so they don’t seem like the bad guy. Damn… There I go again. Sorry americans, but your ancestors were power hungry, money grabbing mutineering British people who were rejected by the mother land so went running because nobody loved them and founded the united states of freedom…. U call that freedom? Ok, I’ve finished. Wasn’t this thread about air craft carriers or something?? Much love x x
So yeah, back to carriers…. These two big boys are set to be awesome vessels, witha joint capacity of around 80 aircraft and an expected range of 10,000 nautical miles and a serious ability to project the power of the tiny British Isles I don’t see an awful lot to be ****** off about really. There are indeed some economic and political issues surrounding this, but in time money will return to the treasury thus enabling the two carriers and her extremely powerful and technologically advanced escorts to be a force not to be reckoned with. The T-45 destroyer and her much less useful, yet necessary friend the T-26 frigate, coupled with the carriers and the new astute class submarines will do some serious *** kicking. 10 years is not long to wait, and once that wait is over the UK will have a true, blue water navy with the ability, technology and trained crew to project our national and international interests. Let’s stop complaining about money, aircraft, current abilities… Hold your tongs and wait. For another country to see what 2020 RN will have and be capable of with only generate respect from our counterparts and strike fear upon our foes…. End of.
So yeah, back to carriers…. These two big boys are set to be awesome vessels, witha joint capacity of around 80 aircraft and an expected range of 10,000 nautical miles and a serious ability to project the power of the tiny British Isles I don’t see an awful lot to be ****** off about really. There are indeed some economic and political issues surrounding this, but in time money will return to the treasury thus enabling the two carriers and her extremely powerful and technologically advanced escorts to be a force not to be reckoned with. The T-45 destroyer and her much less useful, yet necessary friend the T-26 frigate, coupled with the carriers and the new astute class submarines will do some serious *** kicking. 10 years is not long to wait, and once that wait is over the UK will have a true, blue water navy with the ability, technology and trained crew to project our national and international interests. Let’s stop complaining about money, aircraft, current abilities… Hold your tongs and wait. For another country to see what 2020 RN will have and be capable of with only generate respect from our counterparts and strike fear upon our foes…. End of.
It's worth noting that Ark Royal was due to be retired in 2012 anyway, the real stupid decision was axing the Harriers, which could have still flown from HMS Illustrious.
Lusty has now been refitted as a helo carrier.
There is no point the UK buying or leasing a USN carrier, as HMS Queen Elizabeth will be finished in summer 2013, though not completely fitted out, then in the water by summer 2014.
Prince of Wales will be finished by 2014 and floated by 2016.
The intention is that QE will operate as an assault carrier initially, then be retro fitted with EMALS after Prince of Wales enter service.
Even before the RN gets it's new carriers it still has T45s, ASW Frigates, 7 TLAM armed SSNs & a strong MCM force, also it has the largest amphibious capability after the USN.
2 Helo carriers – Ocean & Illustrious with Apaches, Sea Kings & Lynx
2 LPDs – Bulwark & Albion
3 Auxiliary LPDs
6 Point class Ro Ro ships
Which can deploy 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines anywhere in the world.
Only the US can better that, and perhaps France match it.
So to say Britain brings nothing to the table as an ally is nonsense.